FRIDAY 'ROUND-THE-HORN.

Fuck you, I'm old. (18 phone calls to Brazil!)
•  I mean come on:

The comparisons are absurdly weak. For example: "Both women were trailblazers in high-powered legal circles; one attended an Ivy league law school, one taught in an Ivy league law school." Lincoln had a secretary named Kennedy; Kennedy had a secretary named Lincoln. Also:

Clinton took a lot of grief about implausible claims of being “dead broke” when she left the White House or her Tuzla Dash; Warren gets a lot of grief about her implausible claims of Native American heritage.

Hey, how about that, two politicians accused of dishonesty. It's like they're twins! Eventually Geraghty gets to it:

For women who have risen to the top of national politics, they’ve faced criticism for being tone-deaf about how they’ve handled sensitive issues.

Both have friends and colleagues who insist they are warm and personable in private; both face accusations of being cold and stiff and inauthentic on the campaign trail. (Recall Warren’s beer chat on Instagram.) Both face the criticism that they’re not “likeable,” and both have allies insisting that criticism is sexist.

According to Edroso's Laws of Wingnut Discourse, when "sexism" appears in a National Review article, it will accompany either 1.) a whataboutist complaint that liberals have been mean to the latest Xerox copy of Sarah Palin, or 2.) Hella bald sexism, and sure enough:

Perhaps most significantly, Trump is likely to criticize Warren the way he criticized Clinton — as an elite who enjoyed the benefits of a rigged system. If Warren gets the nomination, we’ll hear a lot of “Pocahontas” jabs, but probably some version of the “Crooked Hillary,” “the queen of corruption,” “Lyin’ Hillary” attacks. Whether you think it’s sexist or not, Trump and his allies are likely to paint Warren as an insufferable know-it-all nag, an academic who thinks she knows how to best manage every detail of your life, condescending and badgering. For at least four years, that persona will be addressing you from the Oval Office, telling you how things are going to change and how it’s for your own good.

Mind you, it's just the Id Monster saying these things, not genial old Jim Geraghty. But bitches, amirite? Nag nag nag! Well, his target audience (assholes) will go for it, and may be comforted that conservatives haven't fucked up so badly that Americans might actually elect a qualified woman.

•  Sorry I ain't been on here much; work's been extra-strength bullshit and non-work ain't so hot either. (That's the breaks, that's the breaks!) But this week we had some unlocked newsletter entries (Roy Edroso Breaks It Down -- catch it!™) so please enjoy my DC Pride Weekend post and Jack Dorsey and the night visitors. And subscribe so you don't miss nothin'!

•  BTW I think this point needs making (Tscha, that's what they all say): You may have heard David Neiwert, one of America's top experts in alt-right and neo-fascist propaganda, had his Twitter acount suspended because his book cover, which serves as his Twitter avatar, has a bunch of Klan hoods standing for the stars of the U.S. flag, and Twitter thinks (or pretends to think) that's the sort of hate speech users want to be protected from. I've seen many complaints about this, and the liberals (because only liberals care, the freeze-peach right couldn't give a shit) who have done so either just rag on Twitter for its stupidity or talk about how this shows it's tough for social media to tell commentary from advocacy (which is bullshit, but that's a topic for another day). Whereas when Steven Crowder was not suspended (but his ads for "Socialism is for fags" shirts and other quality merch were blocked) for calling some guy a lispy queer, conservatives got all Patrick Henry for their right to yell slurs on other people's websites. I find it instructive that while liberals, who are supposed to be big-government snowflakes, roll rather calmly with the social media problem, apparently judging it a private commercial matter, the rugged individualists of the right bitch like a bunch of drama queens. Working the refs is in their blood, I guess.

FRIDAY 'ROUND-THE-HORN.

My buddy Bob -- fine fotog BTW -- sent me this.
I don't normally go for twee retrofittings but this is very well done.

•    Olde-tyme alicublog fans may remember that, back when Smallville was a Thing, I envisioned a goopy WB-style show called Riverdale ("'Are you proud of me now, Dad?' [Jughead] cries, forcing down another burger"). Later Point Blank Creative did a fake trailer for a similar imaginary program. And now I read in the trades: 

It’s fair to say that we here at ComicsAlliance are very excited for The CW’s upcoming Archie adaptation, Riverdale and its promises of a weirder, more adult version of our favorite characters including a hunky Archie, emo Jughead and adderall-addicted Betty.

Watching the world play out your fantasies is one of few advantages of old age. When they finally get around to that Lockhorns movie, I can finally let go of life!  Or maybe I should hold out for Dinesh D'Souza's Mallard Fillmore, done in the manner of Howard the Duck.

•   I'm kind of loving the hold-your-nose-and-vote-for-Cruz movement -- especially since, in contrast with other hold-your-nose movements, this one is actually headed by Cruz supporters. They love Cruz' religious-mania-infused hyper-conservatism, but recognize that nobody else likes anything about him -- indeed, many voters are willing to entertain the possibility that he's the Zodiac Killer -- and so go out hat in hand, explaining why their candidate's repulsiveness shouldn't matter. (Even National Review's official endorsement admits, "We are well aware that a lot of Republicans, and even some conservatives, dislike the senator and even find him unlikable.") From his email newsletter, Jim Geraghty:

Fairly or not, there are a lot of people who just don’t like Cruz. There’s a reason most Republican officials endorsed Cruz’s rivals and there’s a reason it’s taken so long for most of the Republican party to come around to Cruz. It’s not just that they’re all Georgetown cocktail-party elitists who see Cruz as too principled and a threat to their smug status. 

What’s fascinating is the number of people who completely or almost completely agree with Cruz on the issues who still openly talk about him like they can’t stand him. Ben Carson apparently is angry enough about the alleged Iowa rumor-mongering that he’s willing to endorse Trump, the man who compared him to a child molester...

In the end Geraghty tells readers that they should look past their feelings and face their patriotic duty: "Is Cruz really so unlikeable that everyone is willing to send the conservative movement, the GOP, and the country through the chaotic damage of a Trump nomination or presidency?" The problem with this is like the problem with Trumpism in general: These voters have been living on a thin gruel of Republican ressentiment for decades -- lots of hate, few results. Now someone's turned them on to the harder stuff. Why would they go back -- especially when the pitch involves a Call to Duty? When 9/11 went down, George W. Bush told them to go shopping; the promise that they wouldn't have to bestir themselves on behalf of other people (let alone a common purpose) was a big part of the sell. So why would they give up the best high of their lives for Ted Cruz?

FRIDAY 'ROUND-THE-HORN.

Hey Beyonce: How about this next year at the Super Bowl?

•   There was a GOP debate last night and, as you would expect, the whole National Review chicken coop is clucking its disapproval of Trump, though they've at least learned their complaints don't mean anything; Rich Lowry ends his Cruz blowjob, "This was Trump at his worst, although past debates have established that outrageousness doesn’t hurt him because for his supporters it’s part of his appeal." I would enjoy the betrayal of Lowry by his conservative "base" more if I thought it was actually hurting his feelings. But Lowry's a pro, and I suspect he's already drafting Strange New Respect stories about Il Douche for the coming war with Hitlery. Eventually he'll turn up at Mar-a-Lago, dancing and singing "the best campaign dinners are no campaign dinners" like Ed Begley Sr. in Wild in the Streets.

•   The real howler at this morning's National Review is Jim Geraghty, who has the tough job of explaining to his readers that while war crimes like torture are supported by his colleague Andrew McCarthy and are therefore no big deal, the war crimes Trump was proposing -- killing terrorists' families and so forth -- are Beyond the Pale. Give him credit: Geraghty came up with what, outside of a seance with Reagan, would seem the gambit most likely to sway a National Review reader:

If this argument feels familiar, it’s because we’ve seen this before. It was on 24, season two...

The sudden reveal that Jack Bauer wasn’t willing to kill an 11-year-old in order to extract information, was one of the most important moments of the show; to have the protagonist, who we’re supposed to root for, kill a child would be passing the moral event horizon. Jack Bauer might be the most relentless and ruthless fictional federal agent in history, a man willing to behead a murderous child pornographer who’s a federal witness – “I’m gonna need a hacksaw” – but he always has enough moral clarity to recognize that certain acts can never be morally justified. That’s not what the heroes do, that’s not what the good guys do. And, the show’s creators were telling us, that’s not what Americans do.

Sorry, Jim: They've already seen 24: The (CIA) Director's Cut, and if the sequel doesn't deliver even more blood and guts they'll be disappointed.

•   Well, with the Republicans melting down, surely it's time for yet another Libertarian Moment, eh? Doing his part: Daniel Payne at The Federalist:

Girl Scout Cookies Prove We Need To End Child Labor Laws

I could and probably should stop there, but I will add that Payne wishes to do away with Big Gummint's "baffling and ridiculous slate of prohibitions" on child labor. For instance, did you know the statists won't let your kid do "outside window washing" -- even though Francois Truffaut showed us in Small Change that babies can survive steep falls? Plus think how much the Makers would save if their roof-rigs and descent chairs only had to hold a child-size payload.

The end result of these laws is ultimately not child protection but prohibiting children from using their innate potential to earn their own money.

If it weren't for these cursed laws, Daniel Payne would have been able to start his career as a propagandist much earlier, and maybe gotten that Times column before Douthat. Now look at him! Life is unfair, especially to Galtian supermen.

MY FRONT-RUNNER IS YOUR FAULT.

Every time the flames from the Trump garbage fire rage another ten feet higher (just like that wall Il Douche keeps promising!), we get another round of "Trump is the Fault of Everyone Except the People Who Keep Voting For Him" stories. At the Wall Street Journal, Bret Stephens tells us "Trump is Obama Squared." Obama and Trump, he says, are "two epic narcissists who see themselves as singularly suited to redeem an America that is not only imperfect but fundamentally broken." Imagine, seeing America as fundamentally broken! By the way, earlier this month Stephens wrote a column called "The Return of the 1930s: Donald Trump’s demagoguery may be a foretaste of what’s to come." At the top of that column appeared a photo of Mussolini.

As for the narcissism, Stephens hauls out the whole "cult-of-personality" thing Republicans tried on Obama in 2008, which looks pretty played out after eight years unless you're a propaganda junkie confident that one more twist of the  rag will yield a fresh dose. Also, Obama doesn't want to be the world's policeman and neither does Trump. They're practically twins, or maybe triplets with Scott Walker.

Even worse is a thing at The Intercept called "THE CULTURE THAT CREATED DONALD TRUMP WAS LIBERAL, NOT CONSERVATIVE." The idea here seems to be that rich liberals run the liberal media and they put Trump on TV and in the papers, so they're responsible for him ("He was created by people who learned from Andy Warhol, not Jerry Falwell, who knew him from galas at the Met, not fundraisers at Karl Rove’s house, and his original audience was presented to him by Condé Nast, not Guns & Ammo"). I'm reminded of Reagan celebrity TV specials and all those Nancy Reagan magazine covers -- and, come to think of it, wasn't Ronnie himself in the movies? So maybe the liberal media is responsible for Reagan, too. Wheels within wheels!

But there's nothing that can't be made worse by National Review's Jim Geraghty, who nods energetically at the Liberal Trump shtick: "If he’s so self-evidently unsuited for the presidency… why has the national media spent a full year dissecting his every move?" he asks. Actually they've only been covering him obsessively for eight months, because for eight months Trump has been THE REPUBLICAN FRONT-RUNNER FOR PRESIDENT; also, their coverage has been, shall we say, less than kind. But believe it or don't, this isn't the dumbest thing in Geraghty's column. He notices that The Intercept listed Spy among the media outlets responsible for Trump, and responds, quite reasonably, that Spy was Trump's glossy-print nemesis. But then:

There was one glaring flaw in the magazine’s approach: the sarcastic cynicism of Spy more or less targeted everyone – including National Review and William F. Buckley at least once — meaning that there was no good in their perspective, few if any examples of people worth emulating. Rereading Spy today is fascinating, but after enough issues, it begins to feel like comedic nihilism – everybody’s terrible, everybody’s shameless and out for themselves, everybody’s the worst ever. And if everybody’s the worst ever, nobody stands out as particularly bad – and there’s no point in expecting anything better.

I should have expected that no National Review columnist would have the slightest idea what satire is, nor understand that it implies values every time it mocks that which contradicts them; but even after all this time it still amazes me how eager these guys are to volunteer their ignorance.

CONCERN TROLLS. I subscribe to the Goldberg File 'cause I just can't get enough, and today the boy genius does a major shirt-retuck of triumph over a topic of recent interest:

Well, so much for "epistemic closure." The supposed Right Wing Industrial Complex... marches and thinks in complete lockstep... Just when this argument was about to implode from its own idiocy, a Godzilla-sized foot called "immigration" came stomping down on the delicate dorm-room-philosophical Bambi. Conservatives are split on the issue... Karl Rove, alleged leader of the homunculi within the right-wing colossi, Marco Rubio, the golden boy of the tea-party movement, and Jeb Bush, heir to the Bush dynasty, are just a few of the dissenters from the right-wing mob of unindependent minds.

You'd think the coffeehouses of the Right were ablaze with impassioned discussion of this issue. Hardly. The demurrals of these two candidates for office and one Republican political operative have been extremely watery, and are obviously made not to extend debate, but to cover asses. Take Rubio's allegedly bold stand:

"From what I have read in news reports, I do have concerns about this legislation," Rubio said. "While I don't believe Arizona's policy was based on anything other than trying to get a handle on our broken borders, I think aspects of the law, especially that dealing with 'reasonable suspicion,' are going to put our law enforcement officers in an incredibly difficult position. It could also unreasonably single out people who are here legally, including many American citizens."

He has concerns! Well, that'll touch off a firestorm. More likely it'll keep the Cubans in his home state from thinking he's a total fink.

This state law gives everyone in America a chance to posture over it, and thus is is catnip to prevaricating politicians of every stripe. Rubio, Rove, and Jeb Bush can't do shit about changing it*, but if they purse their brows and talk concernedly about how they're concerned, etc., citizens might get the impression that they're actually human -- and, in the precious seconds this misapprehension lasts, consider voting for them.

National Review's Jim Geraghty took a tack similar to Goldberg's earlier this week, when he suggested that Republicans' "Kindler, Gentler Arguments Against Arizona’s New Law" were actually more useful that those of Democrats because they were nicer ("there’s no accusations of hateful motives, no demonization of the proponents..."). Geraghty is of course in favor of the law -- but, with becoming tact, he acts like he's sorry about it ("I wish the Arizona immigration law wasn’t necessary"). That way you know he's considered every side of the issue before coming down on the one nobody ever doubted that he would take.

I'll be happier to accept their claims of open-mindedness when they they stop driving actual free-thinkers out of their party. As for the claim that Democrats should argue their points as National Review writers prescribe, I think there are fewer of them willing to consider the friendly advice of their mortal enemies than once there were. But maybe Joe Lieberman's still listening!

*UPDATE: Oh shoot, I forgot to add this: It's like Megan McArdle voting for Obama.

FRIDAY 'ROUND-THE-HORN.

It was 1973 and they wanted Johnny Mathis to be Relevant, dig!

But he's still Johnny Mathis and he sounds great.

•   As a treat for non-subscribers to Roy Edroso Breaks It Down, I'm unlocking two recent items: One that shows where the recent aggressive Trump donor solicitation emails are headed, and another that shows the President visiting a sick friend. Enjoy, if mordantly!

•   You have probably seen at least a few of the literally hundreds of videos of police kettling, beating, and generally shitting on the rights of protestors this summer. And of course what kicked off the protests were videos of cops doing extrajudicial torture and murders of black people. But Megan McArdle says appearances can be deceiving -- remember that dress on Twitter, where people disagreed what color it was? And what about optical illusions, "which simultaneously expose our brain’s hidden subsystems and their mistakes"? And a perceptual study that showed viewers two versions of a video and found -- get this -- "it didn’t matter which video you saw as much as whether your politics agreed with the protesters"? Bet that never occurred to you before.

No, McArdle's not saying the bad stuff didn't happen to the black people and the protestors -- LOL why would you think that, God, people are so negative, this is just, you know, in general -- like hey did you see the one where the cop got hit? After smacking down a protestor, yes, but maybe you didn't get the whole picture:

I saw it via GQ’s Julia Ioffe, who tweeted, “This isn’t the police keeping the peace. This is them treating their fellow citizens as enemy combatants.” Many replies echoed the sentiment. Others saw, with equal conviction, police responding with restraint after being physically attacked. 

Neither was wrong about what was in the video: A police officer was attacked, American citizens were manhandled. But all anyone saw was the element that had commanded their attention — and that was whatever fit the story they were already telling about violent protests or police brutality.

Similarly, the video of a cop smacking 75-year-old Martin Gugino to the pavement and cracking his skull -- was that police overreach, or some commie bastard getting what he deserved? It all depends on your POV.

But because video contains so much rich visual information, we tend to feel as if we’re there instead of receiving a highly selective retelling. That makes video seem more authoritative than other mediums... we still need to remember that what we’re seeing is in some sense an illusion, stripped of vital context by the narrow funnel of a camera lens — and that there can be giant holes in how we integrate what we do see into the rest of what we know.

McArdle clearly hopes you think about that the next time you see a controversial protest video -- which is probably going to be protestors getting beaten up by cops rather than vice-versa. Maybe this will join all the other similar videos you've seen in your consciousness to override, as it has for many Americans, a lifetime of conditioning that once had you reflexively siding with the cops -- but if you remind yourself "It could be a optical illusion, there was a study," maybe you'll return to your original, pre-video feelings about law and order.

•   At National Review, Jim Geraghty has a big pitch:

It’s Time for Conservatives to Take the New Coronavirus Outbreak Seriously

Normally Gergahty's COVID-19 shtick is trying to prove protesters caused the outbreaks. He does a bit of that here, too, but mainly, now that Republican states are starting to experience significant infection and death rates, he wants to get a pro-mask message across to the people his fellow conservatives have been telling for months not to worry because it's all a fraud that a little hydroxychloroquine will fix right up.

Geraghty settles on that now-common refuge of a wingnut, "reader" "mail." In this case a "reader who is the director of medical research for a top-ten hospital" is delivering the social distancing sermon with a conservative spin:

“Conservatives, we need to talk,” he begins. “I know you’re tired of masks; tired of the restrictions on going to bars, going to the gym, going to church. We’re all tired of it. You’re worried about whether your business will survive more months of restrictions. And above all, you’re furious at the double standards exhibited by Democratic politicians and their media allies; when they invoke holy ‘Science!’ to take away your liberty and then turn around and say ‘nothing to worry about here’ when crowds of thousands gather in cities protesting and rioting.” 

This research director is also irritated with his fellow scientists, “especially the ones who are eager to curry the favor of TV producers and Sunday-show pundits, and of governors and mayors, and so will tailor their conclusions to meet the narrative and talking points of the day." 

But he sees what he characterizes as a growing number of people on the right, even “people associated with establishment organizations and otherwise thoughtful and sensible commentary” who are “reacting to the Left’s effort to turn the pandemic into a political weapon by swinging to the opposite extreme.”

I guess the idea is, if he sticks enough slurs on liberals in there, the dummies who've been saying it's all a liberal hoax and are meeting up maskless in nightclubs and bars will believe him. Well, Dr. Frankenstein didn't think his plan through, either.

ADVICE TO CONSERVATIVES (OFFERED NOT IN KINDNESS, BUT BECAUSE THEY'RE TOO STUPID TO TAKE IT).

Don't use "orphanage" in a headline. It reminds people of why they hate you. (See also "widows.")  Geraghty goes on:

We may help out these kids because we’re kind-hearted souls...

Sorry, had something caught in my windpipe.

...some will say it’s the Christian thing to do.

Sorry, same thing. Okay:

...But we’re not obligated to do this. This isn’t our responsibility and this isn’t our fault. The parents of those kids are the ones who should be taking care of them – feeding them, clothing them, sheltering them and educating them. And I don’t think it’s cold-hearted to ask whether our immediate effort to take care of these kids – because they so desperately need care – is setting us up to be their long-term caretaker.

Geraghty supported the idea that we should devote $2 trillion and thousands of lives to invading and occupying Iraq to bring them freedom. But that was different, of course: We got to kill a bunch of them, which made it butch. Also we didn't have to hang around with them. Huddled masses yearning to breathe free are the worst!

Sometimes I wonder what these people think America is all about, but it's becoming clearer every day that their vision resembles an endless loop of Three Stooges shorts with Sousa marches playing in the background.

I'M NOT NUTS, YOU'RE NUTS!

At National Review, Jim Geraghty laments that President Obama is making Republicans look bad. I know, but hear him out:

Mickey Kaus characterizes the approach as “gaslighting” – giving your opponent a legitimate reason to get angry, then turning around and pointing to their anger as evidence they’re unhinged, obsessed, incapable of governing responsibly, et cetera.... 

Free community college? Hey, it’s never going to become law, so why not propose it and make Republicans look mean for not enacting it? Goofing around with a selfie stick? Go right ahead. Chewing gum at an international summit? Hey, what are they going to do, impeach him? 

In this atmosphere, it’s no wonder Republicans are furious. A midterm election victory that was supposed to constrain President Obama’s ability to enact his agenda has only emboldened and liberated him.

So, to sum up: Obama does things within the power of his office that his political opponents don't like. (Geraghty hints at "blatant disregard for [Congress'] roles under the Constitution" but, surprise, provides no examples, probably because he feels he's been laughed at enough for one day.) Also, Obama seems to have fun doing it. Wingnuts are therefore furious.

Jim, have you ever seen a Bugs Bunny cartoon with Yosemite Sam? Which of those characters do you think the audience is siding with?

Say this for  Sam, though -- he never resorted to anything like this:

The insanely imbalanced media landscape ensures that almost any expression of Democratic anger is portrayed as justified (or ignored if it’s too obviously outrageous) while almost any Republican expression of anger is portrayed as irrational, deep-seated hatred.

Imagine YS turning on the camera and snarling, "Quit makin' me look like a eedjit, yuh gol-durned liberal media!"

This is as good a time and place as any to enjoy one of my fa-vo-rite Friz Freleng numbers:

UPDATE. Commenters are fun; Big_Bad_Bald_Bastard says, given what's really pissing these guys off, Kaus should have called it "blacklighting." 

FRIDAY 'ROUND-THE-HORN.

You never lose with Dr. John.

Rejoice, my non-paying customers, there are two free editions of Roy Edroso Breaks It Down for you this week. One is sort of an invitation to offer your own explanations for the ever-perplexing phenomenon of Cancelculture Crybabies. I can understand why rightwingers push this bullshit -- they want to portray themselves as attractive victims of Orwellian Woke Repression, even when the "victims" in question have their boot-in-the-ass coming or have actually "deplatformed" themselves. I can even understand why squishy liberal simps would push it -- it makes them feel like they're being "even-handed," which to them is more important than sticking up for what's right or even for themselves. But I'm confused by normal people who feel sorry for these obvious frauds -- though I did offer my own ideas. 

Also, slightly related: Here's a rundown of stories for a proposed New York Times magazine devoted to bothsiderism -- which would be a great way to isolate the virus from the rest of the paper. 

Long week and I'm tired, but I do want to mention an idea that's advanced this week by two old-fashioned conservative hacks, Rich Lowry ("Liberals Should Welcome Ron DeSantis’ Rise") and Jim Geraghty ("Whom Does the Mainstream Media Want the GOP to Nominate in 2024?"). The basic idea is: You liberals say Trump is extraordinarily bad because he tried to murder Congress and steal the election, so why don't you help Ron DeSantis beat Trump for the 2024 presidential nomination by saying nice things about him? Lowry:

The DeSantis-hating opponents of Trump are effectively saying, “Sure, Donald Trump led an insurrection and represents an ongoing threat to American democracy, but hey, that other guy refused to let schools impose mask mandates on kids — he’s much worse.”

Progressives have to decide two things. One is if they really want Trump gone, or if they want him as a foil for the duration.

If it is the former, they should welcome DeSantis as a potential vehicle for ending what they believe is the ongoing state of political emergency represented by Trump. If it is the latter, DeSantis could spoil everything.

I don't have to point out the disingenuousness here -- as I've said a thousand times, since Trump these guys have not had to even pretend to advance serious arguments, and neither they nor they audiences are even able to recognize anymore when they're not -- but I will note that "refused to let schools impose mask mandates on kids" is typical of Lowry's sunny interpretation of every element of DeSantis' government-by-rightwing-rampage. Even the governor's Don't Say Gay law and other LGBTQ persecutions  Lowry spiffs up as "prevent[ing] kids from being taught about sexual orientation and gender identity in public schools in grades K-3," as if he were protecting them from nude queer rubdowns instead of forcing both teachers and students to deny the very existence (and, by inference, right thereof) of gay people.  Plus DeSantis is "a sharp political player" and "a voracious consumer of information" -- no Trumpian boor, he! 

One might get the impression that Lowry and Geraghty were never-Trumpers instead of total Trump suck-ups. But face it; in the coming days, all actually prominent conservatives (I mean besides the public lunatics who grift money and attention on YouTube and TruthSocial) will be playing at never-Trumper (well, really, per my glossary, Just The Tip Trumper); they see Trump's flaws and know that DeSantis, though he apes the thuggish delivery of the Former Guy in order to sway the mouth-breathers, will support all the fascism modern American conservatism has come to stand for and, even better, (probably) avoid sabotaging his own/their cause out of petulance and stupidity. So their argument boils down to "Look, we both get something out of this -- DeSantis won't try to overturn the will of the people (unless he thinks he has a clear shot at it, and with the way our judges are working it he just might), which you should enjoy, and he definitely will make America more like Hungary but with more racism, which we'll enjoy. If you won't take that deal, you're the Real Obstructionists™!" Expect David French to lay a bouquet any day now.

THE ETERNAL VICTIM. Now that Palin's gotten on Ole Perfesser Instapundit's "blood libel" bandwagon, I wonder whether the Anti-Defamation League will step up. (Update: Foxman issues a watery statement.) Traditionally, see, this is blood libel:

The blood libel is a false accusation that Jews sacrifice Christian children either to use the blood for various "medicinal" purposes or to prepare Passover Matzoth (unleavened bread) or for vengeance and mock crucifixions. It is one of the central fables of Anti-Semitism of the older (middle ages) type.

I suppose every time a newspaper runs an editorial against her, it's Kristallnacht. And if Obama wins in 2012, that'll be the Holocaust. Jesus -- is there no limit to their persecution mania?

UPDATE. Ha, Dave Weigel: "First reporter to obtain Palin react quote from Mel Gibson gets a cookie."

UPDATE 2. The Perfesser's playing it close to the vest. Maybe he guessed that, once his noxious usage achieved wider dissemination through a celebrity spokesmodel, people would start making fun of it. Back to the bunker, fellas! (Update to update: The Perfesser has since added a lot of wounded gush about the "silliest hissyfit yet." And when he calls the New York Times Building the New Treblinka, betcha those silly liberals will pop off again! They're so predictable!)

UPDATE 3. Flop-sweat at National Review: Since Jonah Goldberg refused to take one for the team (I can imagine K-Lo trying to pull him out of the hall closet, his eyes streaming tears and his mouth streaming Cheetos), Jim Geraghty had to go out there and earn his bonus with a oh-yeah-liberals-do-it-too post.

The main difference is that Geraghty's examples refer to 1.) Claims that all gay people are pedophiles; 2.) Claims that all black people want to rape white women; 3.) A call for all Muslims to be profiled as terrorists; 4.) Claims that Al Gore tried to disenfranchise military voters ("almost a blood libel"). The last one's a little over the top; the others are less so, because they portray groups of people as guilty of horrible crimes simply because they belong to those groups.

The idea that wingnuts were blood-libeled because some people (including the victim) noticed the incendiary rhetoric used on Giffords before she was shot is worse that ridiculous.

UPDATE 4. Arizona District GOP Chair resigns because he's afraid the yahoos might kill him and his family:

In an e-mail sent a few hours after Saturday's massacre in Tucson that killed six and injured 13, including U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, [District Chairman Anthony] Miller told state Republican Party Chairman Randy Pullen he was quitting: "Today my wife of 20 yrs ask (sic) me do I think that my PCs (Precinct Committee members) will shoot at our home? So with this being said I am stepping down from LD20GOP Chairman...I will make a full statement on Monday"...

Miller said when he was a member of McCain's campaign staff last year has been criticized by the more conservative party members who supported Republican opponent J.D. Hayworth. The first and only African-American to hold the party's precinct chairmanship, Miller said he has been called "McCain's boy," and during the campaign saw a critic form his hand in the shape of a gun and point it at him.

"I wasn't going to resign but decided to quit after what happened Saturday," Miller said. "I love the Republican Party but I don't want to take a bullet for anyone."

Clearly he's blood-libeling Sarah Palin too! If he had any decency he'd put on a bullet-proof vest and get right back in there.

FRIDAY 'ROUND-THE-HORN.

Haven't heard it in decades. Built to last, this stuff.

• AlterNet describes this six-minute disinfomercial as "Insane Video Presented by Kim Davis' Law Group at Extremist Christian Campus." We hear that kind of language all the time, but this thing is literally insane, in an instructive way. "Kim Davis' Law Group" is Liberty Counsel, experts at nuisance suits (and just plain nuisances) intended to lay the groundwork for an American theocracy; "Extremist Christian Campus" is Liberty University, Jerry Falwell's outfit. The film is a non-narrative collage of stock art, music, and news clips -- sort of like the indoctrination scene in The Parallax View, except incompetent -- that strains for a concatenation effect that will ready the viewer to do battle for the Lord. Among the "bad" things in the beginning (you know they're bad because they're interspersed with images of suffering, ominous quotes, and transgender rights) is Barack Obama, suggesting in a 2006 speech that the Sermon on the Mount is a better guide to righteous living than the absurd prohibitions of Leviticus. If it seems weird to you that someone would portray this eminently reasonable and Christian POV as an example of evil, remember, first, that this is blackety-black Obama and, second, that this was exactly what conservative Christians were saying about the speech when it was uncovered for the 2008 election (e.g., "WATCH OBAMA MOCK BIBLE IN 2006" -- World Net Daily). Eight years of repudiation by the American public has not sweetened their temperaments, and the film ends by suggesting the earth with be bathed in a cleansing fire, from which true believers will be saved to listen to inspirational music forever. Don't forget, folks: This is what these people really believe.

• Happy Patriot Day. I used to note each anniversary, and track the increasing grumbliness of conservatives as they found they were losing, in the words of Dick Cheney in The Onion, "the satisfaction of telling people to do things and then them doing it -- not because they want to, but because they are afraid to do otherwise." Sure enough, at National Review, Jim Geraghty marks 9/11 XIV and worries, "Is This Date Starting to Become Too Normal a Day?"

I think I’m starting to understand how the Greatest Generation used to feel when December 7 would come and go on the calendar with barely a mention of the date’s significance. On the one hand, life has to go on. We can’t live in fear. Our foes want us paralyzed and overwhelmed by the horrific brutality of their actions. In 2011, the date fell on a Sunday, and the NFL played games.... 

By and large, those worse terrors haven’t arrived – although assorted malevolent forces like the anthrax mailer, the Boston Marathon bombers, and the Fort Hood shooter certainly tried. So have we, as a country, been spending the past f14 years waiting for another shoe to drop that never will? Or will it come some day, feeling even worse when it arrives because we let go of that late-2001 dread?

You can't see it at the website, but in the version of this appearing in Geraghty's email newsletter, he then dons the ghost sheet and warns us 9/11 heathens about all the jihadi stuff that's threatening to blow if we don't abandon our Obamaish ways, including Joshua Ryne Goldberg and "these shootings on Arizona’s highways." Seriously, can you prove these acts of vandalism aren't jihad? Maybe all those boys who used to drop rocks onto cars from overpasses were sleeper cells that are just now awakening. Ah-wooooo! Sigh. Even non-religious conservatives resemble a millenarian sect, in that they live in hope of a cataclysmic event (in their case, the resurrection of 9/11) that will restore them to power and glory.

• Jon Stewart's Moment of Zen may be over, but here's a Moment of WTF from (you probably guessed) The Federalist by Rich Cromwell, whose men-should-be-men-and-women-should-be-helpless riff climaxes thus:

For the continuation of the species, the Philips of the world have to be out there getting stupid and threatening to burn the place down. There may be a Bre next door, maybe even back living with mom and dad, but she’ll be waiting to offer a helping hand instead of encouraging him to burn the place down. Life and society may change, but every man remains a potential arsonist, every woman a potential firefighter.

You can read the whole thing if you're into context but I warn you, it won't help. I will tell you that the "arsonist" bit seems to refer to one of his Federalist bros accidentally burning Minute Rice. There's also a Chesterton quote, but I bet you knew that already. (I wish some hacker would break into all the  Catholic-cons' websites and replace the Chesterton and C.S. Lewis quotes with Erma Bombeck.)

THE LONG-AWAITED END OF #NEVERTRUMP.

So Il Douche went to Mexico, couldn't get them to pay for the wall, and slunk back home -- and changed from being a fearless advocate for America in the Trade Wars to an advocate for our "hemisphere."

Seems to me like just another olio in the Trump vaudeville -- but look at the heretofore Trump-skeptical conservatives who think it was fantastic:

I mean, sure, you expect auto-sellouts like Byron York, who got on the Trump train last year, to suck up ("Mexico Gamble a Huge Win"). Ditto Hindrocket from Power Line ("TRUMP'S TRIUMPHANT TRIP TO MEXICO"). But what about Legal Insurrection's Kimberley Kaye? Back in January she was trembling like Lucy in The Searchers over the Trump invasion:

Watching the rise of this new populism, one of my many concerns is whether the charlatans wearing the cape of Conservatism will damage its value, diminish its meaning, and in general, confuse those who know no difference. But then I see people like Sen. [Ben] Sasse and I’m somewhat relieved.

Today Kaye's a lot more fair-and-balanced ("WATCH LIVE: DONALD TRUMP'S IMMIGRATION SPEECH... Did they talk about the wall or didn’t they? THE MEDIA WANTS TO KNOW" -- haw haw, that stupid media!), and her commenters are even easier to read ("I can hear the Jacobin Rags head exploding now").

Let's visit Erick Erickson -- surely this #NeverTrump leader ("it is important to go on record now, while he can be stopped, that we will play no part in his rise") sees through this nonsense?

Two Things Donald Trump Got Absolutely Right

GTFO.

First, Donald Trump and Mike Pence went to Louisiana. In the midst of terrible devastation, while President Obama was on vacation and Hillary Clinton was fundraising, Team Trump went to Louisiana. They drew positive media exposure and looked Presidential.

The Play-Doh that Proved a Presidentiality!

Second, Trump went to Mexico and Hillary did not. I think the positives of the trip outweigh the negatives. The Mexican President’s refusal to contradict Trump on stage about whether they discussed the wall only made him look petty and meek afterwards.

Clearly in a Presidential runoff between Trump and Enrique Peña Nieto, Trump has the edge.

Trump’s speech this evening has, I think, done him no favors outside his base, but going to Mexico today worked.

To paraphrase Sam Houston, Erickson has all the qualities of a prostitute, except hard limits. But surely there's someone at erstwhile #NeverTrump HQ National Review who can at least face up to Trump's failure? Not so far! Jim Geraghty:

Part One of Donald Trump’s busy Wednesday is complete and the meeting with Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto went pretty well...

The headline is that Trump and Pena Nieto discussed border security and building a wall, but didn’t discuss Trump’s frequent pledge that Mexico would pay to build the wall. But the brief press conference between the two men was cordial, and no shoes or rotten fruit were thrown. Trump may have read aloud his prepared statement with all of the sincerity and comfort of a hostage tape, but all in all, it looked like any other meeting of an American leader at an international summit.

In other words, Trump didn't seem to know or care what he was saying, but we grade Republicans on the curve and that gets a "P" for Presidential! Also, why would Geraghty acknowledge that Pena Nieto called Trump a liar?  It's not like they're paying him for updates.

I know there are still a few poor minor-league souls out there acting like resistance is anything but futile, but let's face it: There is no #NeverTrump movement left to speak of. Not that you'll see any "I was wrong about Trump" essays from them -- at the moment they can afford, and would understandably prefer, to spare one another that embarrassment -- unless Trump gets elected, in which case they'll start accusing each other of apostasy and some will be forced into ritual confession.

And to think, just months ago we were talking about them as if they might have some principles! Well, you always want to be scrupulously fair to them, despite all experience. Otherwise you might as well be a Republican.

FRIDAY AROUND-THE-HORN.

(updated as my goddamn job permits)

• Always forward-looking, Reihan Salam gets out front among the "third-time's-the-charm" Iraq War fans with "We Should Never Have Left Iraq." Never mind that our contract signed by George W. Bush with fucking Iraq was that we'd leave by 2011 -- which Salam does his considerable best to obfuscate:

So why did the U.S. leave Iraq at the end of 2011? Part of it is that many within the Obama administration simply didn’t believe that U.S. forces would make much of a difference to Iraq’s political future. 

That loud noise was your bullshit detector exploding. It's not like he doesn't know the Status of Forces Agreement exists, because just last year he told Vice's Eddy Moretti:

REIHAN SALAM: I think that in my ideal world-- and I'm way,way out of the political mainstream on this issue. I personally think I would have wanted to have a larger American presence in Iraq even now. So one thing is that we didn't wind up negotiating a status of forces agreement that would have kept a substantial number of US military personnel in Iraq.  Now, this is a crazy view, right? Because everyone is like, we want to wash our hands of Iraq, period.

Yeah, that's what everyone was like, Reihan. Anyway, Salam's best argument is that Brent Scowcroft didn't want to go to war in Iraq, but once we did he wanted us to stay there and finish the job:

Though Scowcroft was confident that the U.S. could succeed in destroying Saddam’s regime, he was also confident that military action would be expensive and bloody, and that it “very likely would have to be followed by a large-scale, long-term military occupation.” As we all know, Scowcroft’s warning went unheeded by the Bush White House. 

Scowcroft offered another warning in America and the World, a widely ignored book published in 2008 that collected a series of exchanges between Scowcroft and his fellow foreign policy wise man Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Boy, how'd we all miss that gripping read?

Recognizing that Iraq remained riven by communal conflict, Scowcroft argued that the country would continue to need a U.S. military presence for at least a few more years.

Number 1: TEN YEARS. WE'VE BEEN THERE OVER TEN FUCKING YEARS. Number 2: He's Brent Scowcroft. What the fuck's he going to say? "Yeah, we fucked up, guess we're just going to have to leave those poor people to drown in suck." Scowcroft has to play the Wise Man (character requirements: Grey eminence, nice suits; must have both One Hand and The Other Hand) because that's what he's paid to play. Whereas those of us who told these idiots what a clusterfuck they were in for back in the day got called traitors by Andrew Sullivan.

Being right about these things has its quiet advantages but I gotta admit, I'd love to know what it's like to keep being wrong all the time and still get paid.

• Remember Michael Totten, one of the more passive-aggressive warbloggers of yore? Well, he ain't changed a bit:

Arab governments complain when we intervene and they complain when we don't intervene. Basically, they complain no matter what. So asking what they want is pointless. It takes a while to notice this trend over time, but there it is.

No one likes us/I don't know why/We may not be perfect/But heaven knows we try...

“We’ll kill you if you mess with us, but otherwise go die” is not even close to my preferred foreign policy, but it’s what President Barack Obama prefers (phrased much more nicely, of course) and it’s what the overwhelming majority of Americans prefer, including most liberals as well as conservatives.

Translation: The liberals are always to blame, especially for refusing to support, as I demanded they do, this occupation which I am belatedly rejecting.

Still, it’s only a matter of time before we get sucked in kicking and screaming one way or another. Because the Middle East isn’t Las Vegas. What happens there doesn’t stay there.

Prediction: Some months hence, Totten will demand we re-re-invade Iraq to clean up the mess Barack Obama made. And, shortly thereafter, protest babes!

• If you're looking for new and exciting ways to spin the third-time's-the-charm Iraq re-re-invasion strategy, National Review's Jim Geraghty would like to show you the thisclose maneuver. It's like a cross between the Ticking Time Bomb Scenario and the Butterfly Effect:

...what if the Iraqi government is just short of being capable of pushing back ISIS? Is it worth withholding our assistance to make the point that they need to be independent? How much can fear of future scapegoating limit our options in the here and now?

Just get them over the hump, then you can leave! Then some other exotically-named menace will threaten, then we go back; then we return, then some other exotically-named menace -- it's the military equivalent of shuttle diplomacy.

Bonus dick move from Geraghty:

If we really are going to adopt a philosophy of “we could help you, but we suspect you’ll grow dependent upon us and blame us for problems down the road,” could we please apply that to domestic spending programs as well?

Haw! Stupid libs want to feed paupers when there are Iraqi citizens to re-re-liberate! Doesn't the Constitution apply to them, too?

RALLY KILLER. This is by far my favorite blog post at National Review:

And yes, it's that "G. Reynolds."

Poor Matthew Shaffer. In this blog established "to track dramatic political events in North Africa and the greater Arab world," he put up ominous posts about the region for almost two months, including this one from February 10, 2011, in which he predicted, "Even if Mubarak does step down, unless some ingenious plan to hand all power to the military is concocted, he will be deferring to Vice President Omar Suleiman," and this one from February 23, 2011, about Obama's speech on Libya, in which Shaffer wrote, "NRO’s Jim Geraghty summed it up on twitter: 'Ya hear that, Gaddafi? You keep pulling these stunts, and we’ll continue to evaluate all options! So you better think twice!' and 'BOOYAH! Hillary Clinton to Geneva. Bet you didn’t see that coming, huh, Colonel.'"

I wonder what made them give Reynolds the keys so late in the game? Maybe he had a post from Pam Geller he thought needed wider distribution, but was distracted by a flock of nanobots.

I assume they still keep the thing up because Jesus told them to be ready for the Big One in Iran.

(Actually a close second-favorite NR blog post is this one from Bench Memos, in which Roger Clegg rages that all the Wealth Creators have betrayed him with diversity -- at least it is for the moment; as they say on Egypt Watch, the situation is fluid.)

AND THEY'LL KNOW WE ARE CHRISTIANS BY OUR WHINING.

I think most of my readers will agree that the murder by ISIS of Christians in Egypt is bad, right? Well, that's not enough for conservatives -- you have to agree with them that Christians here in the States are persecuted, too, or you suffer from "anti-Christian bias." Here's Rod Dreher's brain-teaser on the subject, from his evocatively-titled post "Lions & Christians in America":

The mass martyrdom last week of the 21 Egyptian Copts at the hands of ISIS is a sobering reminder of what real persecution looks like. Yet it is also the kind of thing that people in this country who fear and loathe Christians point to as an argument-ender when Christians complain about social injustice against themselves, e.g., “Get back to me when they’re chopping Christian heads off, then we’ll talk.” I would point out that ISIS is throwing gay men out of high windows to their deaths, and the crowds below are finishing off the job with stones. No secular liberal would — nor should — accept the argument that gays in the US have no right to complain against discrimination because they don’t have it as bad as gays in ISIS-held territory. So let’s put that cheap argument to bed.

Based on this, if some nut on the other side of the world is persecuting your affinity group, you're being persecuted here as well, or should at least be treated as if you were. I wonder if Dreher knows that ISIS is a champion killer of Muslims, and would agree that we should for that reason hold our domestic Muslims as a persecuted group as well, and tell their stateside critics like Pam Geller and Daniel Pipes to fuck off.

No chance of that -- you can read farther down Dreher's post about the media's "normalization of homosexuality," just a small number of paragraphs after Dreher was using gays as a point of comparison with Christians. At National Review, Jim Geraghty also thinks the newsies are unfair to American Christians; he heads toward the same affirmative-action argument we often get about conservatives in the press, but is smart enough to realize that most reporters are probably at least nominally Christian -- or else Jewish, and he can't complain about that; think what Bibi Netanyahu would say! -- so he takes an interesting tack:

Last night I argued that in most media newsrooms, the notion of Christians as victims doesn’t fit their usual narratives. Fournier argued that there are a lot of Christians in the Times newsroom, and that the Times has a lot of reporters in the Middle East, covering ISIS, at considerable risk to themselves. Both points are true but neither really refutes my argument. 

For starters, sure there are Christians in the Times newsroom, but not particularly representative ones. Here’s Nicholas Kristof, New York Times columnist, back in 2003: “Nearly all of us in the news business are completely out of touch with a group that includes 46 percent of Americans. That’s the proportion who described themselves in a Gallup poll in December as evangelical or born-again Christians.”

So it's not enough for reporters to go to some modern Church where anything goes -- one has to roll hard and roll holy! Picture the new breed of newsroom quota-Christians: Fear-God Gump and Barebone McGillicuddy, working on a Style section piece about a hip new way to handle snakes.

My own solution would be regular cats-for-Christ slideshows, which should give everybody what they want, or at least deserve.

UPDATE. Mmm, them's some good comments, e.g., Megalon:

[Dreher says,] "The mass martyrdom last week of the 21 Egyptian Copts at the hands of ISIS is a sobering reminder of what real persecution looks like." 

Yes it is. That's why you and your cohorts in this country trying to claim that having to accept a paying job to bake a gay wedding cake means you're being persecuted the same way is so offensive. Especially when it's coming from a man who often talks like he's about ten minutes away from converting and joining IS himself.

Also, Hob runs down Kristof's shady "a group that includes 46 percent of Americans" = fundies claim and finds it possibly lacking. I wouldn't be surprised, but then, the claim is 15 years old -- maybe since then millions of Americans have got born-again, moved to the haunts 'n' hollers, and stopped voting, which explains how Obama won twice.

UPDATE 2. If we ever get Cats for Christ (no not this one) off the ground, I think we have to use ADHDJ's topline: "I'm not purrfect, just furgiven."

FRIDAY 'ROUND-THE-HORN.

I had the great pleasure and privilege to see Harold Prince's

stripped-down version of Candide on Broadway in 1974 and still 

appreciate its crispness, but I just love the original version of this song.  

•   I think I made the right choice to skip the debate and go see Loudon Wainwright III last night. He opened with "Double Lifetime" and "Heaven," which set the tone -- death and jokes! Wainwright seems to have repurposed some of his material from his Surviving Twin thing about fathers and sons -- in fact he not only prefaced some of his songs with bits from his father's Life magazine columns, he even performed one of those columns as a  comic monologue. I wanted more songs but it made an interesting point of comparision: LWII's stuff is pretty good for magazine work; it's well-crafted and has the old-fashioned, better sort of middle-class attitude toward the big issues -- that is, a becoming gratitude for one's privilege, and respect for the mysteries of love and death and the inadequacy of privilege before them. It strikes me that his son picked up some of that, and though he likes to be more irreverent and playful that's still his grounding. Which may really be the reason he never got to be a big star -- not because of the "novelty-store garlic gum" bitter surprise lyrics I blamed when I wrote about him years ago, but because his truths are literally old home truths, a hard sell to a pop music audience (unless of course you lie about the truths).  Concert highlights: A song for his upcoming Alaskan family boondoggle called "Meet the Wainwrights" ("Rufus used to be a tit man/Now he checks out pecs at the gym"), and a really good "Be Careful, There's a Baby in the House," a song that sounds pretty mature considering it debuted in 1971.

•   Tell you why else I think I made the right call: I saw the video clip where Donald Trump excuses calling women "fat pigs" on the grounds that "this country" doesn't have time for "political correctness," and I have to say he exceeds even my satirical gifts. I also see that the mainstream National Review conservatives, who were pissed when Trump began hogging attention, are starting to love him for it.  A month ago Jonah Goldberg was calling Trump a fraud -- now he says, "[Trump] makes the debates entertaining and his competitors look more serious and responsible -- what’s so bad about that?" which suggests that they could have gotten the same effect with the Iron Sheik, who I understand has a higher Q rating. Jim Geraghty crows that Trump "killed with that 'Only Rosie O’Donnell' line" (in re women as fat pigs); he's slightly more protective of Megyn Kelly, which is perhaps just his way of showing that there's no principle of chivalry at stake, he just like fat jokes about lib chicks. I wonder what election this is meant to win? These guys already had date rapists and gamergaters locked up. On the plus side, Ben Carson mentioned Alinsky, thereby alerting whatever normal people may have been watching to this weird conservative secret handshake, which ought to help them decide how seriously to take the Republican Party as presently constituted.

UPDATE. Gack:

"[Megyn Kelly] gets out and she starts asking me all sorts of ridiculous questions," Trump said in a CNN interview. "You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever"...

How will the Trumpenproletariat react? Let's see what Breitbart.com commenters have to say about it:

The more toffee-nosed cons protest: National Review's Charles C.W. Cooke sputters, "Trump has no attractive qualities at all. He's not a conservative, he's not a good politician, he's not eloquent, he has no experience." Which seems a harsh thing to say about his party's front-runner.

WHEN ALL YOU HAVE IS A DEATH CULT, EVERY OBAMA LOOKS LIKE A HITLER.

The White House is having a "Youth Summit"...

...offering young people from around the country an opportunity to discuss the Affordable Care Act and other issues with senior White House officials. White House Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and Google+ followers ages 18-35 are eligible to apply to attend this White House event on December 4.

Interested in joining? Sign up for your chance to join other White House social media followers at the #WHYouth social.

This anodyne event has me halfway between "good for them" and "so what." But among my usual subjects, it's Hitler. No, really -- The Right Scoop:

White House youth. I think it has a certain ring to it…don’t you?

Jim Geraghty of National Review:

It's Springtime for Obama. #WHYouth

Bryan Preston of PJ Media:

We Have a ‘White House Youth’ Now?... It’s about the cult, not the country, with this administration.

(Preston also complains Obama's "hosting this 'summit'" -- Scare quotes! So-called! -- "not to talk about our nation’s history or anything that all Americans could get behind. It’s hosting this summit to transmit its talking points about Obamacare." To appease the right -- always a big concern with Democratic Administrations, alas -- I advise the President to say "Columbus sailed the ocean blue in fourteen hundred and ninety-two" before launching into his explanation of national policy/fascist propaganda.)

It's a sign of the times that, while normal people would be embarrassed to be associated with this nonsense, rightbloggers are actually reveling in this comparison of a bunch of kids visiting the White House to Nazi bund meetings. "The hashtag #WHYouth prompted all sorts of Hitler Youth-related mockery," giggles Breitbart.com. "The Photos ‘shop themselves and the tweets roll on," whoops Mary Katherine Ham at Hot Air. My favorite is RedState's Moe Lane:

Somebody in the Obama administration had an opportunity to say You know, fellows: perhaps we shouldn’t describe this upcoming young person summit thing in a way that could be heard as “White House Youth” – only he or she didn’t, and so here we go again.

It's not his fault -- they keep making him compare Obama to Hitler! Just like all those people on the internet who wouldn't be wasting their weekends Photoshopping a toothbrush mustache on Obama if he weren't always going around annexing the Sudetenland and gassing Jews.

I've been joking about this for years, but it's worth noting that Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism has had a powerful effect on modern conservatism -- mainly by lowering the brethren's reading levels, but also by convincing them that slapping a swastika on anything they don't like is analysis, and inspiring a million puke-streams like "Top 50 reasons people keep comparing Obama to Hitler" (and no, that cowboy's not kidding, nor taking his meds, apparently).

It's been going on long enough that I wouldn't surprised if it were damaging the conservative brand. Or maybe just clarifying what it stands for.

UPDATE. Meanwhile, for upmarket conservatives, James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal:

ObamaCare and the Totalitarian Mindset

That's how the toffs do it: Don't say Hitler, use abstractions. Less messy.

DEFINING JACKASSERY DOWN. "Giuliani is going to get whacked around a lot for his performance tonight... Although honest to God, if Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama had been given the same question on differences between Shia and Sunni, I'd bet either of them would have/could have fumbled as badly. Really unfair that he got hit with that one." -- Jim Geraghty

Tomorrow Saint Rudy will beat up Al Sharpton or something. The real losers in tonight's Republican Presidential debate: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama! Look up, Hannah, look up!

ANNALS OF THE AGE OF TRUMP.

The long sad march of rightwing writers through the Slough of Donald continues. At National Review Jim Geraghty takes offense at something Bill O'Reilly said:

Last night, Bill O’Reilly offered an odd defense of the GOP frontrunner: “The reason I think Trump won in Florida is because he comes across as more authoritarian. Not authoritative, authoritarian"... 

There is nothing less American than authoritarianism. This nation was not founded on blind submission to authority. If we wanted a “concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people” we would have remained a colony of the British crown.

The people do not get to elect an authoritarian who will ignore the Constitution. An authoritarian is never the right solution.

Somewhere in hell, Jeane Kirkpatrick is laughing her ass off.

Meanwhile at the Washington Post Alyssa Rosenberg interviews sad sack Matt K. Lewis. He has a whither-conservatism book out, and seems even under friendly prompting to grope blindly for a solution. Inevitably he comes to that last refuge of a scoundrel, The Culchah:

I think, as I wrote in the book, I would really encourage conservative donors to take the money they’re giving politicians and find a way to sponsor talented people who have a conservative worldview who want to engage in the arts. And maybe that’s sending them to college, maybe that’s sending them to art school, whatever.

You know, whatever those artsy types do -- put on a leotard, paint their faces white, go to the park and pretend to walk against the wind, whatever. Come on, Koch Brothers, pretend you have a thousand sons who don't want to go into the family business and own a '57 Strat they don't know how to play! Eventually Lewis has to come up with a more concrete idea of what these artsy conservatives would get into:

If you follow food blogging or the sports world, all of these sorts of niche audiences — I say niche, there are millions of people who are foodies, who follow it very closely. And they’re really dominated by liberals, like heavily so. And of course, thankfully, they don’t spend all their time on politics, but it has an impact.

Countering Commie sportswriters does not seem an urgent task -- National Review's "Right Field" went down swinging after four years, probably because no one could tell the difference between that and a thousand other sports blogs. But food bloggers, that's a different story -- they were the thin end of the wedge on immigration, weakening our resolve against Aztlan by addicting Americans to chipotle and chorizos, and if they get us on garmi and sardi, thus falls the Republic!

Finally, over at Commentary, Matthew Continetti has a new argument with which to woo wingnut readers away from Trump:

What would Donald Trump’s most devoted supporters do if they learned that ultra-rich liberals living in New York City are behind his campaign?

Continetti buried the lede -- what if they find out Trump's a rich New Yorker himself? Then the scales will really fall from their eyes.

...It’s a virtuous cycle for Trump and the press barons. Trump benefits from earned media. The networks benefit from high ratings, which allow them to charge more for advertising. And all of the campaign ads and Super PAC and issue-advocacy spots desperately trying to stop Trump guarantee additional revenue...

Here’s the good liberal [CBS chairman Les] Moonves boosting the candidacy of a man whose politics and character repulse him, even as he acknowledges that what he is doing is bad for the country. And why? Profit.

That's capitalism, comrade. Maybe you'd like to phonebank for Bernie?

ANNALS OF THE CULTURE WAR, PART NEGATIVE GAZILLION.

In his Morning Jolt email, Jim Geraghty engages A.O. Scott's thumbsucker on the lack of adulthood in sitcoms, and for a couple of seconds sounds non-crazy ("Not all popular culture needs to hold a mirror up to us" -- boy, where's that synapse been all these years?); but then, alas --

It's not that America doesn't have any grown-ups or non-loser dads left. We dads didn't go anywhere; it's just that television networks don't make as many shows about us, and when they do, the kind of people who review film and television for the New York Times aren't as interested...

Remember a moment ago when I described "communities dominated by underemployed urban quasi-professionals, unmarried, without kids, without mortgages, without a career path or plan"? How large a portion of the communities of our creative classes fits that description? Or perhaps more specifically, how many people in our creative classes percolated for years in that sort of extended-adolescence Bohemian urban environment? There's nothing inherently wrong with that environment -- for a while, at least — but it's light years away from being universal. Our national storytellers may be quite convinced that they're holding a mirror up to society — but they're only reflecting their own limited personal experience.

They're elitists, is what they are, these arty-farties who live in (spit) cities and don't know how to change a diaper. Not like the shirtsleeves, shot-and-a-beer kind of pundit-dads you see hand-lathing shelves at the National Review woodshop in Skunk Hollow, Ala.!

This sort of "You Hollywood types are too insular" complaint usually gets dismissed as whining when it comes from a conservative...

Come on little synapse!

...but maybe it sounds more valid coming from a Latino or Asian-American, when they note how few movies at the Cineplex or shows on the dial reflect the stories and experiences of their communities.

Is Linda Chavez still alive? Our nagging needs minority cover. Get her busy on a piece demanding the return of The George Lopez Show.

Believe it or don't, there's even worse at NR today: Kevin D. Williamson considers Hamlet and Sons of Anarchy together because, he says, they both address "maternal guilt" -- wait, don't run screaming yet, because here comes the sheet-enseaming shot:

“Hamlet and His Problems” was published in 1921. Seven years shy of a century later, Sons of Anarchy presents the question: Is the theme of maternal guilt still “an almost intolerable motive for drama” [as J.M. Robertson said]? 

The model of motherhood that prevails in 2014 is fundamentally different from the model of 1921, so different in fact as to be an almost entirely distinct moral and social phenomenon. This begins with the world-changing fact that the progress from conception to birth is today optional. The millions of acts of violence that have been committed in utero since January 1973 inevitably have shaped our views of motherhood...

I ain't even kidding. There follows a catalogue of post-Roe horrors -- "feminist doublespeak, which regards the developing person as morally indistinguishable from a tumor," "the 117-minute meditation on sundry pregnancy horrors that is Ridley Scott’s 1979 film Alien," etc. -- meant to convey that as compared to the delicate, Jainistic Elizabethan era, we moderns wade through cord-blood in a global charnel-house where

meditations upon maternal guilt are hardly intolerable; they are, rather, inevitable... we have a different sort of problem than Hamlet had: His drama had to do with the degradation of his mother; ours has to do with the degradation of motherhood categorically. Dragging that into the sunlight is an unpleasant business, and a necessary one.

I wonder what his readers think this means; probably "See, Sons of Anarchy is conservative, just like choc-o-mut ice creams and everything else I like."  Me, I want to be generous to Williamson, in return for all the laughs he's given me: Maybe his is a stealth mission to discredit modern liberal arts education by his example.