Sanford: eject, recoup

by Smitty
With around twenty tabs on Governor Sanford open in Firefox, it's time to add some value by offering something of a pan-blogosphereic roundup. Then, some general thoughts on Nitwits in Public Office.

Link	Note
HuffPo: Sex, Lies, and Argentina	"while I do not approve of how he handled himself as an elected public official or as a husband, I am empathetic to him and understanding of his frailty as fellow human being. I think we all should be and here is why: I have been there. And so have many of you."
HuffPo: Traveled There Before on Taxpayer Dime	"the Republican Governor has traveled to the South American country before, on the taxpayer dime."
HuffPo: Wife: Begone	"South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford's wife, Jenny, issued a statement in which she says that she told him to leave their home two weeks ago "to maintain my dignity, self-respect and my basic sense of right and wrong."
HuffPo: Harsh Critic of Clinton Affair	"The standard Sanford has set for other politicians over the years has been fairly high. A member of the House of Representatives during the heyday of the Clinton-Lewinsky affair, he was often a harsh critic of the president for his marital misconduct. This is "very damaging stuff," Sanford declared at one point, when details of Clinton's conduct became known. "I think it would be much better for the country and for him personally (to resign)... I come from the business side," he said. "If you had a chairman or president in the business world facing these allegations, he'd be gone.""
Nat Turner's Revenge: Impeach	"No. He's not hiking. He's having his ashes hauled. In Argentina. He's having an affair, this typical family values Republican. This son of the South. This hero in the face of Obamaism. In Argentina. Hope he got some good meat. Hope he brought his kids back some bolos. Hope he got tango lessons."
Liberal Land: Emails	"The newspaper promises that the full e-mail exchange will be published in tomorrow’s edition."
Liberal Land: Called for Clinton to Resign	"As it turns out the biggest threat to marriage is not gays; it’s heterosexual, cheating husbands."
WaPo: The Fix	"He said that he had met the woman, who he did not name, roughly eight years ago and that it had become romantic within the last year. He visited her three times during the past year, Sanford said, and noted that his wife, Jenny, had been aware of the affair for the past five months. "
Little Miss Attila: Only Monks	"I don’t see politicians’ private lives as fair game, any more than journalists’ should be. I’m with Dennis Prager: if someone is otherwise competent, but has had a problem or two in his marriage, he might well be a better candidate than another one whose private life is otherwise “pure.”"

LMA: how about some Funky Monks? "I'll be doing all I can, if I die an honest man."

HotMes: Sanford Admits	"What is it with politicians (of both parties) and affairs? It’s so idiotic. There’s so much to lose, and for what? Is it ever worth it? Especially for Republicans. Democrats can survive a sex scandal, and most other scandals for that matter. There’s a double-standard in politics. Republican affairs have a tendency to be a career-ender. Is that ever really worth it?"
Pink Elephant Pundit: Bye Bye, Sanford	"Can we not find anyone who will keep it together and not screw themselves and the entire party over? I never cared much about Sanford either way, but now the GOP has even more damage control to do. The spectacle he’s made out of it is not helping anything. Mysterious South American trips? Disappearing acts?"
Track-a-'Crat: Mental Breakdown Imminent	"Thank you, Mark Sanford, for distracting from the avalanche of Democratic sleaze and criminality that the media wasn’t reporting anyway, and instead giving them something juicy that they’ll really appreciate sinking their teeth into."
Hot Air: Video	"He could have been president, now he’s finished: Witness the power of the male libido."
Hot Air: Kerry on Sanford	"Don’t be too hard on Waffles. His humor’s always been laced with nastiness, which is why he periodically finds himself in clusterfarks over “botched jokes.”"
Pundit & Pundette: Sanford's Betrayal	"people like Gov. Sanford make it very, very difficult to convince our teens and young adults that all politicians aren't corrupt in one way or another. This is precisely the kind of thing that sours the idealistic young on politics and converts them into cynics. Sanford was correct when he said that, in addition to hurting his wife and children (the self-centered rat), he has hurt his state and his party. The conservative movement doesn't need perfection but it does need sincere people who live the values they promote."
AoSHQ: Vid: Sanford's Presser	"That doesn't make it noble or anything. But the media seems to be expecting him to say "and it's all over now, and a huge mistake," etc., etc., and he doesn't appear nearly willing to say that. The complaint seems to be that Sanford's not saying the typical, Oprah-approved contrition stuff, and they're holding it against him that he's deviating from accepted Contrition Tour form."
Paco Keep Mr. Happy on a Leash	"To quote Talleyrand, this is worse than a crime; it is a blunder. All we need right now, when we’re trying to mobilize against the Red hosts of Democrat nationalization, is to give the donks and the media an opportunity to distract the people from the health care and cap-and-trade disasters."
Fisherville Mike: B.A. Connection	"Thanks for Gov. Sanford, we'll be learning lots more about Buenos Aires in the next few days."
The Corner: Don't Stand By Your Man	"I was further impressed that, unlike the wives of Larry Craig, Elliot Spitzer and Jim McGreevey, she had the dignity to remain home when Sanford made his embarassing admission at today's press conference."

Having spared you all the trouble of that much surfing (tip jar), here is some analysis.
The questions concern the Sanford family, and public service as a whole.
The Sanford family is a private matter. They need time to heal. They need 100% of Mark to effect that healing. Sanford should resign.
Now, public service in general. The question of whoever is guiltless casting the first stone is a bugaboo. I don't know Mark, his family, or any of those details. I do know that lines have to be drawn. It's not about him personally, it's about the moral authority of the office. The same calculus Sanford applied to Clinton applies to Sanford. Let him resign, let him show repentance, and, if after evidence of repentance has been proffered, the citizens of South Carolina feel like trusting him again, let them say so at the ballot box. Sanford, it's not about you, a particular political party, your 2012 ambitions, or your non-command of your manhood. It's about trust placed in office holders. It's about demanding and receiving integrity. If you retain your position, you're cheapening the office for your successor, and making immoral behavior elsewhere easier to excuse. You've been been part of the problem, now join the cure.
Also, the links describe a lengthy relationship that recently became intimate. Men: cut that out. I'm not advocating sharia. Take heed, though: all men, husbands and fathers need to guard their virtue(!) vigorously. If you have some form of a relationship with a woman, ensure it's transparent to your wife. People are people. If hormonal tensions grow, do the right thing and ratchet the relationship down. I perceive (and could be wildly wrong) that The Cook the Thief His Wife & Her Lover is a movie, and that kind of no-words-just-grind relationship doesn't happen much. Boring monogamist that I am, it's unlikely (let us hope) that I'll explore this in detail.
So, Sanford, you've been dishonorable. Eject, recoup, and see if you can be rehabilitated.

Another shoe leather day

Once again, I'll be in D.C. today, the third day in the past week that I'm trying to get face-time with sources in Washington and keep pushing on IG-Gate.

This means light blogging once more, but it can't be helped. There's no substitute for shoe leather. There are limitations to what can be done via phone and e-mail.

My itinerary for the day includes a visit to the Reason Happy Hour. Yeah, roll your eyes, but you'd be amazed how important cocktail hour is to the work of a D.C. journalist. A big shindig like the Reason event brings together people from different spheres -- journalists, think-tankers, activists, Capitol Hill staffers -- so that you can make connections you wouldn't make otherwise.

Speaking of which, if anybody wants to get together Friday evening, we're planning an event in D.C. that's kind of a Smittypalooza. E-mail Smitty, if you're interested.

Here's the permalink for the Blog Talk Radio show I did last night with Rick Moran, Dan Riehl and Jimmie Bise.

I've loaded up the headlines on the right sidebar with IG-Gate related items, plus Christopher Badeaux's laugh-out-loud takedown on Dr. Andrew Sullivan, M.D., OB-GYN-ROTFLMAO.

Anyone who feels the urge to hit the tip jar, don't fight the feeling. Mrs. Other McCain is starting to worry about the expenses.

If you have to explain a joke . . .

Dear John . . .
You skunk-sucking bastard . . .
-- Hunter S. Thompson, letter to John Chancellor of NBC News, Sept. 11, 1972, reprinted in Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign Trail '72

The humorous intent of my post congratulating Peter Suderman on his new gig at Reason magazine apparently was not apparent to all readers, as indicated by one commenter who described it as "an angry, childish, personal attack."

One would think that the phrase "acromegalic inamorata" would have been what they call a "tell" in Vegas. Or maybe the extended riff on the old free-milk-and-a-cow adage.

Well, never mind all that, let's do it Joe Friday style. Peter Suderman is an extraordinarily witty writer. The last time I saw him and Megan at a party in D.C., they informed me that they were, as young folks now say, "in a relationship." Or as more old-fashioned folks might say, fornicating.

Shagging. Gettin' jiggy. Living in sin. Whatever.

I immediately inquired when the couple planned to wed. This is my customary expression of "family values" when speaking to young people in Washington, where knocking boots without benefit of clergy is so commonplace as to be unremarkable.

Indeed, such is the mentality of young Washingtonians -- a consequence of our sexualized popular culture -- that a middle-aged mentor cannot consult with an attractive female protege without provoking whispers that some sort of concupiscent motivation must be involved.

Ergo, one learns to take this as the joke it is, and to turn it into a self-parodic schtick. So I'm the D.C. mack daddy pimp in the same way I'm a neo-Confederate lesbian. (Being notorious is not the same thing as being famous, etc.)

As the token social conservative in an ocean of cultural libertarians, I find it convenient to treat matters of sex humorously. On the one hand, I'm sincere in my advocacy of traditional family values -- Peter and Megan should get married immediately and rapidly spawn at least half-a-dozen babies, so as to invoke the expression "Irish twins" -- but on the other hand, I'm aware that most young people don't take that stuff seriously.

So I sometimes do things like alluding to the first chapter of Romans (well worth reading, especially in the King James Version) in hope that maybe these kids come from a background where such a reference might ring a bell. As Pastor Lon Solomon says, just a suggestion, not a sermon.

Hunter Thompson and John Chancellor were friends, and so when Thompson called Chancellor a skunk-sucking bastard, he meant it in a good way. Likewise when I called Suderman a "rent boy" and a "charity case," and suggested that he'd soon be flashing around his newfound wealth in the manner of a first-round NBA draft pick.

However, it is quite true that McArdle has never once linked me, not even after I gallantly escorted her home through the mean streets of D.C. one night when she suffered a spell of vertigo at a party. (Rumors that I secretly dosed her with ruhypnol and then had my way with her should be taken with a grain of salt, absent videographic proof.)

I'm a big enough man not to resent the non-linkage too much, but I feel compelled at least to mention it occasionally -- in the same way I mention that I am The Blogger Whom Allah Hateth -- lest the snobs who snub me think I'm too stupid to notice I'm being snubbed.

Even a self-parody must have some pride, and the snobs cannot be allowed to believe that they really are as superior as they wish others to think.

Best new blog of the day

by Smitty

Stacy pointed me to the Left Coast Rebel, who's got a spot-on collection of right-of-center material.
Those looking for that Margaret Thatcher fix are directed to a post of simple genius.
Subscribe. Together, we can make the Google Reader explode.

Sanford had better produce some grist

by Smitty

All of the noise being made about something had better have a point in the next news cycle or two, or it's going to look like the Left is just firing for effect in order to distract from any of the half-dozen scandals, to paraphrase Douglas Adams, swirling in the air around the Obama administration the way bricks don't.

Hopeful letter changes nothing

by Smitty (h/t Rhetorican )

The Rhetorican points to an intriguing Washinton Times article. There was apparently some early May correspondence between the Obama Administration and Iran.

"The American president was quoted as saying that he expected the people of Iran to take to the streets," Ayatollah Khamenei misquoted Mr. Obama as saying, according to a translation by Mideastwire.com.
"On the one hand, they [the Obama administration] write a letter to us to express their respect for the Islamic Republic and for re-establishment of ties, and on the other hand they make these remarks. Which one of these remarks are we supposed to believe? Inside the country, their agents were activated. Vandalism started. Sabotaging and setting fires on the streets started. Some shops were looted. They wanted to create chaos. Public security was violated. The violators are not the public or the supporters of the candidates. They are the ill-wishers, mercenaries and agents of the Western intelligence services and the Zionists."

Wow. All that effort to peddle the hopium and changeeba in Cairo, then this annoyance. Kinda "stings", doesn't it? How about a couple of vaguely topical cuts from His Stingness, to sooth the mood?
Big Lie, Small World:

Mad About You:

Please stop the HR 2454 madness

by Smitty

Dear Representative Moran,
Please stop the HR 2454 madness.
Per the house.gov website, your oath reads, emphasis mine:

"I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

How does that oath square with this sort of news, sir?

House Democratic leaders late last night released a revamped, 1,201-page energy and global warming bill (pdf), clearing the way for floor debate Friday even though it remains uncertain if they will have the votes to pass it.
The House bill posted on the Rules Committee Web site has grown from the 946-page version adopted last month in the Energy and Commerce Committee. Sources on and off Capitol Hill said the bulk of the changes largely reflect requests from the eight other committees that also had jurisdiction over the bill, including the Ways and Means Committee and Science and Technology Committee.

To quote the Sunlight Foundation:

Here’s the timeline [for HR 2454]:

• Introduced - 5/15/09
• Reported with amendments out of Energy & Commerce - 6/5/09
• Discharged by Education & Labor and Foreign Affairs Committees - 6/5/09
• Discharged by Financial Services, Science & Technology, Transportation, Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Ways & Means Committees - 6/19/09
• Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 90 - 6/19/09 (This version is 946 pages)
• Submitted to House Rules Committee - 6/22/09, 4:22pm (This version is 1,201 pages)

So, where along the line does the bill suddenly expand by 300 pages? According to the New York Times, the various committee chairs held behind the scenes meetings and hashed out a compromise with no allowance for public input. (What lobbyists were involved in those meetings?) And now we are expecting a Friday vote on a bill that has had no public hearing in a committee with jurisdiction over it and that is not yet available in the main engine of public disclosure, THOMAS.
This raises serious questions about how we expect Congress to disclose their activities to the public. Is a bill posted to the House Rules Committee and not THOMAS truly publicly available? While the bill may be available for 72 hours prior to consideration, the public does not have reasonable access to it. Nor does the public know how the final details were reached.
And that isn’t even the worst part. This, apparently, isn’t even the final bill. The final bill will be a manager’s amendment that will be drafted later this week! From a posting on the House Rules Committee, we know that the deadline to submit amendments is Thursday at 9:30am. And there is talk that this will be voted on on Friday. Thus, the final version of this bill will likely only be available for less than 24 hours.
Sunlight has been advocating for all bills to be posted online for 72 hours prior to consideration. It doesn’t look like that is going to happen here. If you think that Congress should read the bills they vote on, you can tell your congressman to both support the Read the Bill resolution, H. Res. 554, and to give the public enough time to read the final version of the cap and trade bill, whenever that is made available.

At some point (speaking hypothetically and by no means advocating illegal activity), patriots may need to consider subverting staffers and having them insert self-destruct clauses into this kind of bill. Such trojans would be written to ensure that these hasty, illiberal, unanalyzed pieces of...legislation would expire within a couple of minutes of feeling the impact of the executive pen. The American people will cheer the demise of yet another disgusting insult to the concept of representative democracy.
On the other hand, your attention is drawn to HR 833 "The Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act". It is still possible to stave off the country's descent into becoming a third-world tyranny, sir.
Thank you,
C. Smith

Update:
Further WSJ coverage.

Blog Talk Radio: Live at 8 p.m. ET

Jimmie Bise of the Sundries Shack with join me on the Rick Moran Show at 8 p.m. ET on Blog Talk Radio. We'll be all about the inspectors general story, and you can call in at 718-664-9764.

Usually, we're joined by Stephen Green, but he may be feeling under the vodka weather.

UPDATE: We were unexpectedly -- at least, unexpected to me -- joined by Dan Riehl of Riehl World View. Dan's a very good researcher and doesn't get too excited by all the sturm und drang of the press corps. We also got a phone-in from a blogger named Lionheart, who got me talking about economics and, as Dan said, that would be a whole 'nother show.

IG-Gate: Asking the right questions

The unexplained resignation of AmTrak inspector general Fred Wiederhold raises an important question:

WHO IS ELEANOR ACHESON?

Exactly why that's an important question . . . well, maybe Fred Wiederhold could explain that, but nobody's heard a word from Fred since he resigned Thursday.

What we do know is that Wiederhold was asked to provide "specific examples of agency interference with OIG audits and/or investigations." Maybe if somebody looked closely at those specific examples, they'd find Ms. Acheson's fingerprints, but that's strictly a hypothetical, because Wiederhold resigned before he could produce those specific examples.

What we do know is that Amtrak is Joe Biden's favorite government boondoggle, that Ms. Acheson donated to Biden's presidential campaign, and that Amtrak is budgeted for $1.3 billion in stimulus money -- money that Wiederhold would have been watchdogging for "waste, fraud and abuse," if he hadn't resigned last week.

Another question that needs to be asked: When are Sen. Joe Lieberman and Sen. Susan Collins going to convene a hearing on the firing of AmeriCorps IG Gerald Walpin?

As Rick Moran notes at American Thinker, we're now up to three ex-IGs in less than two weeks and there seems to be a pattern developing. This is to say nothing of the situation with Neil Barofsky, special IG for the TARP bailout money, who is at odds with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

You spend a little shoe-leather on Capitol Hill, and next thing you know, somebody's explaining that the two questions for Timothy Geithner are "what did he know and when did he know it?"

Watch out for that bus, Mr. Geithner.

Thanks to Carol at No Sheeples Here for the artwork, which is merely hypothetical. Thanks to Jimmie Bise for paying close attention, and to Pundette for her praise of the old-fashioned shoe-leather method.

UPDATE: Jehuda the Rhetorican sees the plot thickening and, as predicted, Michelle Malkin likes the Ellie Acheson question.

The point is, it's the right question. After I posted about Acheson, I made a phone call: "Am I right?"

"Even more right than you were a couple of hours ago."

We'll call that source Deep Cleavage. Throw 'em so far off the scent, they'll need a map . . .

UPDATE II: More linky-love for the Amtrak IG story from Frugal Cafe and Fire Andrea Mitchell.

UPDATE III: Acheson was brought in as general counsel after Amtrak fired five top officials in December 2006. Thanks to Moe Lane for the tip.

OBAMAPHILIA: LIVE!

President Jonas Brothers meets the editors of his fan-club newsletter, and we're liveblogging the screaming orgasmic thrill of the White House press conference . . .

12: 31 p.m. ET: He wants to address three issues . . .

12:32 p.m.: "Threats and beatings" -- he's talking about the Teamsters?

12:33 p.m.: "This is about the people of Iran . . ." Oh.

12:34 p.m.: Wow. No Teleprompter today.

12:35 p.m.: Iran must govern through "respect, not coercion." But just wait until they pass Card Check.

12:36 p.m.: "Clean energy," the kind that lobbyists and campaign contributors endorse!

12:37 p.m.: Health care -- "We will not add to our deficits," as opposed to everything else Tim Geithner and Ben Bernanke have been doing for the past five months.

12:38 p.m.: "Reform is not an option, it's a necessity" -- hmmm. What happened to "respect, not coercion"?

12:39 p.m.: Iranian nukes. Softball.

12:40 p.m.: "An extraordinary debate now taking place in Iran . . . " Yeah, blood in the streets is "extraordinary debate." Except maybe in Chicago and Tehran.

12:41 p.m.: He calls on HuffPo!

12:42 p.m.: "We can't say definitively what happened" when Ahmadinejad stole the election.

12:44 p.m.: "What we can do is to say unequivocally" that we're not going to lift a finger to stop the brutal undemocratic crackdown in Tehran.

12:45 p.m.: "I'm not going to make news about Ben Bernanke . . ." because I understand that all these anonymous "administration officials" badmouthing Bernanke in the media are actually Tim Geithner trying to cover his skinny ass.

12:46 p.m.: "There's got to be somebody who's responsible . . . monitoring the systemic risks," unlike Neil Barofsky, who's getting stonewalled by Geithner.

12:47 p.m.: "Systemic risk. Yeah. Systemic risk. Rain man."

12:48 p.m.: He's talking AIG now.

12:49 p.m.: Major Garrett throws a 90 mph fastball at Obama's left ear: "What took you so long?" Obama name-checks "Major," just to signal to the MSNBC viewers that this is an evil necon question.

12:51 p.m.: More health care questions. Yawn. It's DOA, because Geithner tanked the economy, and now we can no more afford it than Suderman can afford to marry McArdle.

12:53 p.m.: "Tinkering around the edges . . ." No, by God, we're going to eviscerate the free-market!

12:54 p.m.: Notice that there's no concern about "systemic risk" in nationalizing 1/7th of the American economy. . . .

12:55 p.m.: "I get two, three letters a day." Right. You want to see my e-mail inbox, O?

12:56 p.m.: "Discipline health insurance companies" -- with a ball gag and nipple clips.

12:57 p.m.: "Quality care for a reasonable price" -- This is where Obama's resemblance to the Allstate ad guy comes in so handy.

12:58 p.m.: "Legitimate debates" about health care. Let's just hope it's not an "extraordinary debate."

12:59 p.m.: Another Iran question. Everybody laughs at Obama's joke.

1:00 p.m.: Smitty's on the phone! "Hey, I'm liveblogging . . ." Smitty says "Dude ain't packin' the gear."

1:04 p.m.: Obama makes an ear joke.

1:05 p.m.: More health care. The Allstate guy sees a "legitimate concern," but one he plans to ignore.

1:06 p.m.: "You can't preclude people from getting health insurance because of a pre-existing condition." Right. Like voting in Chicago, where death is not a "pre-existing condition" that disqualifies Democrats from casting a ballot.

1:07 p.m.: "Guarantee you . . . what's going to happen is . . ." The Prophet has spoken!

1:08 p.m.: Asked about his smoking habit! Cool. Or, uh, Kool.

1:10 p.m.: This is the one thing I like best about Obama. He's a nicotine fiend. Maybe after Geithner goes to prison, Obama can send him a carton of Newports every month . . .

1:12 p.m.: "The relationship that we have with Chile . . ." I did not have relations with that Latin American nation!

1:14 p.m.: I'm waiting for him to encourage "extraordinary debate" in Chile.

1:15 p.m.: A gay reporter asks about unemployment and the need for a second stimulus. . . . Obama talks about his inability to predict the future. As opposed to his ability to predict health care, "systemic risks," etc. Nothing worse than watching an Ivy League law-school graduate talking economics.

1:16 p.m.: "We know for a fact . . ." Whenever a Democrat starts a sentence that way, look for a lie.

1:18 p.m.: "The American people have the right to feel this is a tough time." Feelings, woh woh woh feelings . . .

1:19 p.m.: "I get letters every day . . ." And I'm in e-mail correspondence with the former oil minister of Nigeria.

1:21 p.m.: African-American unemployment question. Nothing worse than watching an Ivy League law-school graduate talking statistics.

1:22 p.m.: "We want to find tools . . ." Hey, the WH press corps is full of tools!

1:24 p.m.: Somebody tries to interrupt El Presidente!

1:25 p.m.: "We have to believe that ultimately justice will prevail." This is actually a coded message: Hey, Geithner, get ready for the orange jumpsuit!

Megan McArdle ends the recession

Well, not exactly. That credit goes to the Koch Foundation, which just awarded a fellowship to Peter Suderman, paramour of the World's Tallest Lady Blogger. Thus ends Suderman's lame excuse for avoiding matrimony with the lanky libertarian lass.

Some bloggers may express concern about the so-called "ethics" of Suderman working for Koch cash. Ethics be damned -- what about the sin?

"Oh, we can't afford to get married -- I'm unemployed," the shamelessly cohabiting Suderman said the last time I cornered him at a Reason Happy Hour and warned him of the fiery eternal tortures that await fornicators.

How convenient that the Hindenburg-at-Lakehurst implosion of Culture 11 gave Suderman an opportunity to test an old adage of market economics, enjoying the milk without the responsibility of purchasing the cow, pleading poverty as an excuse for failing to make her an honest cow.

Well, no more excuses now, eh, buddy? June is a traditional month for weddings, so Suderman's now got a full week to take his acromegalic inamorata to the courthouse and close the deal on this particular livestock transaction.

She took him under her roof when the alternative was for him to live under a freeway overpass and stand beside the on-ramp with a tin cup and a hand-lettered cardboard sign: "Unemployed Cultural Critic, Will Snark For Food."

Koch is a 501(c) non-profit -- "The mission of the Foundation is to advance social progress and well-being . . ." -- so Suderman's gone from being McArdle's rent boy to being Koch's charity case.

Koch is all about capitalism ("social progress," my butt) which means that this is an extremely lucrative fellowship for Suderman, even more lucrative than being McArdle's gigolo. So if Megan is abandoned at the altar, while Fishbowl DC is gossiping about reports that Suderman has been seen wheeling around Dupont Circle in a sporty new convertible full of scantily clad 22-year-old Cato Institute interns . . .

Well, don't say you weren't warned.

Libertarians in the hands of an angry God!

P.S.: If you want to congratulate the soon-to-be Mrs. Suderman on the good fortune of her fiance's Koch bailout, the wicked fornicators are expected to be in attendance at Wednesday's Reason Happy Hour.

P.P.S.: Megan McArdle has never once linked me. I get more linky-love from Sully. NTTAWWT.

Dude ain't packin' the gear

by Smitty

If you give a game-changing speech in Cairo that, well, doesn't change the game, you ain't packin' the gear.
If you're suddenly calling a press conference after a week of vicious bloodshed, concerning which you've been aloof, you ain't packin' the gear.
If you're even slightly worried about your name coming up in the same sentence as "Jimmy Carter", you ain't packin' the gear.
If it looks like your policy has any remote resemblance to that of Hugo Chavez, you ain't packin' the gear.
If your old cronies have to change their name because their suspect activities resemble those of Iran's regime, you ain't packin' the gear.
If you've blocked out major network coverage in a Cal Worthington-esque manner to sell your lousy medical coverage policy, you ain't packin' the gear.

More questions for Secretary Geithner

As predicted, some of the best reporting on the Barofsky/Geithner feud is coming from financial reporters:

The watchdog charged with investigating fraud in the government bailout programs is feuding with the Treasury Department about who he answers to.
The question revolves around whether Treasury should play any role supervising Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general overseeing the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program.
Since Barofsky took the job in December, he has launched at least 20 criminal investigations and six audits looking for wasted dollars. . . .
Barofsky said the question came up in early April when he sought to interview a Treasury attorney about the department's role in controversial bonus payments made to the unit of American International Group . . . responsible for that company's downfall. . . .

There's much more, so read the whole thing. The criminal investigations are important, because any interference in such investigations could be considered obstruction of justice. And the Treasury angle to the IG probe bears close watching, because Geithner's starting to look like an excellent candidate to become the next guy under Obama's bus.

Once upon a time...

by Smitty (h/t GatewayPundit)

...we had a POTUS who was packin' the gear...

Update: (h/t Dr. Sanity)

I think this is incomplete. My office mate was talking about this, and he mentioned that Senator McCain had said something akin to "Mr. President, it is no mistake that their protest signs are printed in English, not Farsi."

Your Man In Washington

"Oh, I remember you," said the receptionist. "You were here last week."

Indeed, I replied, adding that I'm likely to become a familiar face. When she asked my name, I handed her a business card, and she bid me to have a seat while the person whom I'd come to see was summoned.

Monday afternoon found me on Capitol Hill, once more asking questions about the Obama administration's campaign against inspectors general. As Smitty says, volume of fire has an accuracy all its own, and so I'll be making more trips like this in the near future.

Sitting in the lobby of this office, I inquired about directions to another office. The receptionist gestured this way and that -- "go down by the elevators and out that way . . . go left . . . past the Capitol and across . . ." -- in such a manner that even an old Boy Scout like me might never get there in time for his appointment 45 minutes later.

"Hmmm, sounds complicated . . . do you have some kind of map?" I asked. She walked over to hand me a tourist-type 7"x14" map bearing the motto "Getting Around Washington."

This map was of such a scale as to have the intersection of Florida and New York avenues in the northeast corner and Arlington Cemetery in the southwest corner. The type was in a nearly microscopic font -- 4-point Helvetica, I'd say, although I didn't have a pica gauge handy.

With its itty-bitty buildings, teeny-tiny streets and miniature lettering, this map was unlikely to be much assistance to a guy from out of town trying to make his way hurriedly from one office to another. Yet the map could still be useful to an experienced Washington journalist.

"Now, which building are we in?" I asked, holding the map in front of me. The receptionist leaned over and pointed as she explained the directions again.

"Yes, I see," I said with sincere appreciation.

Just then a door opened and the person I'd come to see entered the lobby, interrupting my cartographic inquiry. He and I spoke in a small conference room for about 15 minutes. There was someone else he wanted me to meet but, checking his Blackberry, he reported that this person did not seem to be returning his calls and text messages.

What is it with these young people in Washington nowadays? Must all communication be conducted by Blackberry and iPhone? Does it never occur to them that in certain circumstances the best method might be to do a little walking and knock on somebody's door?

"Listen, if you know where this guy's at, I say we go get him," I suggested, but he balked.

We talked some more -- I'll tell you about it in an upcoming story -- and then I mentioned my appointment in another building.

"What time do you get off work here? Maybe we could meet for beers and burgers later." Alas, no -- his girlfriend was returning from New York and they needed to catch up.

Drat. Well, another appointment awaited on the other side of the Capitol and who knew how long it would take to get there? The fellow walked me back into the lobby, and was prepared to take his leave, but I suggested he step out into the hallway with me.

"This Iran thing is sucking up all the media oxygen right now, but that won't last forever," I said, and explained what I intended to do. He agreed that more people ought to be doing it my way.

Was he just trying to humor me? Does he think I'm . . . OK, eccentric would be the polite way to say it, but "eccentric" is for rich folks. I'm just plain crazy.

No one could argue with that, but crazy works, if it's the right kind of crazy. Walking up First Street toward Constitution Avenue, then cutting across the Capitol grounds toward Independence Avenue as if I knew exactly where I was going, I called my next appointment to inform her of my ETA. Then I immediately called another source, who also knows Capitol Hill like the back of his hand, arranging to have coffee Wednesday morning before Grover's meeting.

The high temperature was 85 in D.C. Monday, and I was wearing a blue blazer, striped silk tie, button-down blue shirt, olive slacks and black leather shows. Crazy, but sharply dressed.

Considerations of honor require that a Georgian never complain about summer heat within earshot of a Yankee, and my next appointment was one such. So while going through the magnetometers -- damn those terrorists, for imposing all these bothersome security hassles on a patriotic American journalist -- I soaked up the air-conditioning and concentrated on becoming mentally cool. On the elevator up, I buttoned the blazer and wiped the sweat off my face.

Down the corridor, around the corner, into the office, poke my head in and ask to see the person with whom I had the appointment. She emerges wearing a T-shirt and shorts, since her next appointment is at the gym for an African dance class, to be followed by a jog around the Mall.

What is it with these young people in Washington nowadays? Exercise! I'd walked about seven blocks already since parking my car at Union Station, but that was mere transportation -- utilitarian pedestrianism -- whereas one can't exercise without donning shorts and paying a gym fee.

Exercise is a form of conspicuous consumption, an ostentation of leisure: Look, I'm exercising! To qualify as exercise, the activity must never take the form of anything useful, remunerative or commonplace -- pushing a lawnmower or moving furniture may have cardiovascular benefits, but are too plebian to be considered exercise. The roofer who totes shingles and swings a hammer for eight hours a day is not exercising, nor can the adult entertainer who does table dances between her stage routines on the stripper pole be said to exercise.

Well, never mind the sociological observations. I'm shown around the office and introduced. There's a water cooler, so I get a cup of that. Then I offer to walk the health-conscious staffer to her gym appointment -- another four blocks for me, but I'm not exercising, because it's about finding out how the staffer can help me get the story. (Useful and perhaps remunerative, if less commonplace than it once was.)

The staffer gets to her gym, and I non-exercise three blocks up to the Tune Inn on Pennsylvania for a burger, fries and beverage. CNN is reporting the Metro crash, but my eyes are on the stock market news -- the Dow's off 200 points. Call Jimmie and ask him to post the "Wall Street P.M." report at NTCNews.com. And, oh, yeah -- the Metro crash, too.

Am I indifferent to death and grievous injury in a train wreck? No. But the slumping market is relevant to my business on Capitol Hill, you see. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is the genius who's on the hook for the neo-Keynesian "bailout" that is manifestly failing to achieve its objectives as economic policy. (It Won't Work.)

Geithner also appears to be on the hook for the suspicious shenanigans with TARP Special Inspector General Neil Barofsky. Heh heh heh. How would you like the be a Treasury secretary presiding over a stock market sell-off while, at the same time, you've got people on Capitol Hill poking around a potential scandal with your fingerprints all over it?

There's plenty enough room under the Obama bus for Geithner, you see, and he's starting to look like an increasingly convenient fall guy. So even if my Capitol Hill trip Monday wasn't as fruitful as I'd hoped, the story continues developing, and I'm steadily accumulating more face-time with possible sources.

Maybe I wasn't exercising as I walked back to Union Station, but I was certainly smiling. Ain't no school like the Old School. And you'd be surprised what scandalous facts an experienced journalist can uncover.

All I need is a map.

Cynthia Yockey: Bravo!

by Smitty

It's time for a Cynthia Yockey roundup. Here efforts have vast tactical and strategic importance.
Tactically, there is the obvious matter of the tasteless jokes. That horse has been thoroughly beaten. However, do not underestimate the value to women in general, and Governor Palin in particular, of Cynthia's efforts. The Governor was flogged remorselessly in the press during the '08 campaign. Letterman's remarks are evidence that any previous defensive efforts were moot. This is not to sell any other efforts short, but there you have it.
Strategically, irrespective of Governor Palin and her family, Cynthia Yockey is holding a seminar in How Stuff Gets Done. Conservatives: in other than a handful of very narrow religious cases, I can recall scant evidence of "us" ever doing much to influence the culture. Lousier and lousier movies and shows come out, and there is some muttering, but little in the way of tangible feedback. Certainly, the world needs no more Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson "action figures" running around like solutions in search of problems. However, there is plenty of need for sincere, honest, positive leadership to alter the course of society back in the direction of simple courtesy.
In reverse chronological order, Cynthia has given us the following:

• David Letterman's engaging in mobbing, not humor
• He's a bully and hostage taker.
• Chiding Steven Crowder for possibly Letterman-esque attitude.
• Linked by AnnCoulter.
• Apology, Schmopology
• Bill Maher proves the point.
• It's working, people.
• Fire David Letterman kit part two.
• Cynthia sees him as fired.

Support this effort, and salt away skills that will be crucial for everyone's long term good.

Liberals try to spin the market

Since December, I've been warning that the massive deficit spending of the Democrats' neo-Keynesian "stimulus" agenda would lead to '70s-style stagflation. Three words: It Won't Work.

Financial markets are now proving it won't work. The lead item in today's "A.M. Market Update" at NTCNews.com is about how massive government deficits are pushing up mortage rates, and thus destroying the hope for recovery.

As I've also told you, however, liberals think that economics is a popularity contest, so now they're attempting to "spin" the market, as if the market were a political campaign. Liberal economist Alan Blinder takes to the op-ed pages of the New York Times to declare that fears of inflation are irrational. The "experts" at Treasury and the Fed have it all figured out, Blinder assures us. Trust the experts!

Speaking of experts, liberal economist Paul Krugman gets a needed spanking from Cato's Alan Reynolds:

In his June 15 column, "Stay the Course," Paul Krugman suggests it is simply foolish to worry that the government could possibly borrow too much, or that the Federal Reserve might buy ("monetize") too much of that debt.
In a closely related blog, claiming Art Laffer is "way off base" about future inflation, Krugman insisted "for the 1.6 trillionth time, we are in a liquidity trap." That makes 1.6 trillion times he's been wrong about that. . . .

You should read the whole thing. It's a classic: A major reason Krugman can't predict the future is because he gets his economic history all wrong.

What Krugman, Blinder and other liberals are trying to do is to deceive the financial markets. Investors are clearly worried about deficit-fueled inflation -- an utterly rational concern, given current policies. So Krugman and Blinder are using the world's most influential newspaper in a propaganda campaign to convince these investors that their common-sense concerns are unwarranted.

If this propaganda campaign succeeds -- which it won't, because it can't -- would have the politically benefit to Democrats of preventing the federal government from having to pay higher interest on those massive deficits.

There's an old saying that "money talks," and you know what the other half of that saying is. The economic bovine excrement peddled by Blinder and Krugman won't walk too far.

Ultimately, the market is immune to "spin." Over relatively short periods of time, the market may be irrational, but in the end, you get what you pay for. And what the Democrats have been buying -- with massive amounts of borrowed money -- is a perfect formula for stagflation.

The recession will get worse, not better, as a result of their policies. After a three-month "sucker rally," the markets are sobering up to the fact that the fundamentals suck. Hello, Weimar America.

Iran, briefly

What would Jeanne Kirkpatrick say about Barack Obama's response to the Iran crisis? Just ask Smitty, who has today's "300 Words Or Less" editorial at NTCNews.com.

Sorry if I haven't been doing much Iran-blogging the past few days. Ever since I saw Michelle Malkin's column Wednesday, I've been all IG-Gate scandal (almost) all the time. You can see the long Sunday thread at Hot Air and get the basics, and go to Memeorandum for anything Ed and Allah might have missed. I'll try to catch up Monday morning at NTCNews.com.

Exhaustion has consequences . . .

Hopium and Changeeba

by Smitty (h/t Lucianne)

The Herald Sun heralds much sunniness:

Investors in Australia and across the globe will scour the Fed's official statement following the policy meeting in Washington, to be released Thursday morning local time, for further evidence the worst of the crisis has passed.
The market is desperately trying to gauge whether the global economy will stage the much-hoped-for V-shaped recovery or a more protracted W-shaped one.
Although most economists expect Fed chairman Ben Bernanke to keep interest rates on hold, they are also tipping that the central bank will pull back on some of its stimulus measures in a sign that the US recession is finally ending.

I'm no economist, stuck as I am with a simplistic gazinta==gazoutta analysis of these matters. It strikes me that if the fundamentals of debt and deficit spending remain essentially unaddressed, then these Aussies are simply firing for effect.

Obama's no Daley, but . . .

Michael Barone in the Examiner:

His first political ambition was to be mayor of Chicago, the boss of all he surveyed; he has had to settle for the broader but less complete hegemony of the presidency. . . .
Chicago-style, he has kept the Republicans out of serious policy negotiations . . . Basking in the adulation of nearly the entire press corps, he whines about his coverage on Fox News. Those who stand in the way, like the Chrysler secured creditors, are told that their reputations will be destroyed; those who expose wrongdoing by political allies, like the AmeriCorps inspector general, are fired.

Speaking of Chicago, John Kass of the Chicago Tribune laughs to scorn the shocked! shocked! reaction over Obama's move against inspectors general:

The use of political muscle may be prohibited in the mythic transcendental fairyland where much of the Obama spin originates . . . But our president is from Chicago. . . . David Axelrod and chief of staff Rahm Emanuel come right from Chicago Democratic machine boss Mayor Richard Daley. They don't believe in fairies . . .
It's the Chicago Way. Now, formally, it's also the Chicago on the Potomac Way. . . .

You can read the rest, which is also discussed in today's "300 Words Or Less" editorial at NTCNews.com, and linked at Memeorandum. At this point, IG-Gate raises two basic questions:

1. Does all this suspicious smoke indicate a genuinely scandalous fire? That is to say, is there genuine crime or ethical misconduct involved, or are the inspectors generals just victims of political hardball which, while rudely thuggish in typical Chicago fashion, is not actually criminal?
2. If there is a real scandal, will the Obama-worshipping press ignore it?

After I filed my Friday report at Pajamas Media, I noticed a lot of comments along the lines of, "Oh, Obama will get away with this because the MSM is in the tank." This is a presumption -- indeed, perhaps, two or three presumptions -- too far.

Conservatives can be excused for thinking that rampant Obamaphilia in the press corps will protect The One from any possible consequences for malfeasance or error, if only because this has hitherto been the case. But . . .

Honeymoon kisses ain't news. An FBI investigation of an alleged cover-up is news. The snobs and sycophants in the White House press corps might be predisposed to ignore or dismiss this story but -- believe it or not -- there are still a handful of real old-fashioned reporters in America who get excited at the prospect of scoring an exclusive, and who don't give a damn what the political consequences are.

Not every reporter in America is part of the Washington press elite. But if some reporter at Sacramento Bee aspires to join that elite, what better way than to dig in on this Walpin/St. HOPE/Kevin Johnson/AmeriCorps story and try to turn it into an award-winning investigative series?

It doesn't matter what the political angle is. The hotshot California reporter who scores scoop after scoop on a story of national consquence can build a stack of clippings demonstrating his investigative chops, get some of his stories linked by Drudge and cited by other news organizations and, next thing you know, somebody's paying his round-trip plane fare to Washington or New York to interview for a big new job.

Upward mobility in a declining industry? Kinda cool.

There's another angle to think about, however. Beyond the Walpin/AmeriCorps story, TARP special IG Neil Barofsky has got himself in a tangle with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, and notice who's paying attention to that story. The Obama aura is powerful, but it offers very limited coverage to the ungainly Geithner.

The Geithner/Barofsky feud is going to be covered by lots of New York-based financial reporters who don't give a damn about the Beltway elite. The Wall Street Journal, Investors Business Daily, Bloomberg News -- reporters for outfits like that usually have an indifference to the attitudes of the politics crowd. Indeed, you'll occasionally find a financial reporter who thinks capitalism is OK. Just to cite one example, investigative journalist Matthew Vadum first came to D.C. as a financial reporter.

And there's still the factor of good old-fashioned competition in the press. The editors of the Washington Post aren't going to sit still and twiddle their thumbs if the Examiner, the Politico and the Washington Times start scoring a string of scoops on this story. And the same is true of the TV networks. Check out this Thursday exchange between ABC's Jake Tapper and WH press secretary Robert Gibbs:

TAPPER: Earlier this year the special inspector general for TARP Neil Barofsky tried to get documents relating to AIG. The Treasury Department rebuffed that request, and although ultimately I think they did turn over the documents, the Treasury Department sought a ruling from the Justice Department on just how independent Neil Barofsky's office is supposed to be. Please explain from the administration's perspective what exactly is going on here and why it appears as though the Treasury Department is pushing back against an independent inspector general.
GIBBS: Well, obviously, Jake, the president believes that inspectors general fulfill a unique and important role in ensuring that programs operate with efficiency. No attorney-client privilege on any of this stuff has been invoked. No documents sought have been or are being withheld. The DOJ review is not related to any particular investigation. It is sorting out legal issues relating to the creation of the office.
TAPPER: Right. But could you explain -- could you actually answer my question? I understand the talking points you've been given, but . . .

Read the rest of that, and think of how some other reporters in the White House press corps must have been high-fiving Tapper afterwards. (Honestly, not all of them are completely in the tank with Chris Matthews' leg-thrilling affection for O.)

As with the charmless Geithner, the media's love for Obama won't suffice to protect every member of his administration. Norm Eisen has no unicorns-and-rainbows mystique of Hope, and just wait until the D.C. press corps starts sniffing around the unexpected resignation of the AmTrak inspector general. (Gee, what gaffe-prone politician considers AmTrak his personal pet program?)

The fundamental problem the IG investigation presents to the Obama administration is the contradiction to its oft-declared commitment to transparency, as Jimmie Bise Jr. observes at the American Issues Project:

It could very well be that this small scandal becomes the lead domino that begins a chain reaction that could spell unmitigated disaster for the Obama administration. Regardless, the Inspector General firings and the Treasury Department's unwillingness to cooperate with IG Barofsky are another sign that when they administration claimed to be in favor of greater accountability, it was only blowing smoke.

Despite all the headlines to date, IG-Gate has yet to break through to the status of a major scandal, mostly because the potentially revolutionary developments in Iran have captivated public attention. Yet when the chaos in Iran subsides, the investigations of the IG firings will keep going and, as Jimmie says at Sundries Shack, it looks like this scandal is growing legs. More dominoes may be falling soon . . .

(Thanks to the Blogosphere's Photoshop Queen, Carol at No Sheeples Here, for the artwork.)

UPDATE: Transparency? We don't need no stinkin' transparency!

As a senator, Barack Obama denounced the Bush administration for holding "secret energy meetings" with oil executives at the White House. But last week public-interest groups were dismayed when his own administration rejected a Freedom of Information Act request for Secret Service logs showing the identities of coal executives who had visited the White House to discuss Obama's "clean coal" policies. One reason: the disclosure of such records might impinge on privileged "presidential communications." The refusal, approved by White House counsel Greg Craig's office, is the latest in a series of cases in which Obama officials have opted against public disclosure. . . .
After Obama's much-publicized Jan. 21 "transparency" memo, administration lawyers crafted a key directive implementing the new policy that contained a major loophole, according to FOIA experts. The directive, signed by Attorney General Eric Holder, instructed federal agencies to adopt a "presumption" of disclosure for FOIA requests. . . . But in a little-noticed passage, the Holder memo also said the new standard applies "if practicable" for cases involving "pending litigation." . . .

Read the whole thing. Obviously, Michael Isikoff's legs aren't tingling. BTW, one of the reasons I'm compiling this round-up is for the benefit of another one of my sources, who has a background in federal law enforcement and knows a thing or two about investigations.

UPDATE II: Little Miss Attila:

I think this is very simple: 1) on a national stage, one cannot fire whistle-blowers willy-nilly. Even lefties don’t like that, because everyone understands what that does to the system: when burglars are encouraged to feed poisoned dog food to the Dobermans that guard the shop, Bad Things are likely to happen.

So far, however, it's like looking for investigative reporting in the Jonas Brothers fan-club newsletter.

UPDATE III: Red State's Moe Lane:

I suggest that any journalist reading this and thinking about pursuing it further might want to start by examining this odd story from last year involving a supposedly fake letter coming from Amtrak Superintendent Joe Deely. Not to mention this OSHA release on a whistleblower . . . Not that Weiderhold is directly linked to either case, but these seem to be to be the most controversial cases recently involving internal problems requiring the attention of an Inspector General.

Read the rest.

UPDATE IV: The Washington Times:

On the very same day that the president fired Mr. Walpin, St. Hope's executive director, Rick Maya, left his job at St. Hope. He did not go quietly. His resignation letter charged Mr. Johnson and several St. Hope board members with numerous ethical violations. Most explosively, he charged that a board member improperly deleted e-mails of Mr. Johnson's that already were under a federal subpoena. . . .
On Wednesday, the Sacramento Bee reported that Mr. Maya's allegations have been deemed serious enough that the FBI is investigating potential obstruction of justice at St. Hope. In that light, the firing of Mr. Walpin, who properly blew the whistle on mismanagement and possible corruption, looks ill-considered. . . .

Read the rest. Strange -- the phrase "second-rate burglary" just came to mind, like a 1972 acid flashback . . .

UPDATE V: Ed Driscoll sees Obama doing a reverse-Clausewitz -- politics as warfare -- while Glenn Reynolds inexplicably links the Hartford Courant, but quotes a commentary by Salena Zito of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, making excuses for the fan-club-newsletter press corps:

The press could help keep things honest but has fewer resources and readers . . .

Whine, whine, whine. Look, lady: How hard could it be for reporters from the Tribune to ask Arlen Specter or Bart Sestak to comment on the IG firings? Hey, I've got an idea, Ms. Zito: How about you pick up the freaking phone call them for a comment?

Why is it nowadays, whenever editors hire somebody to write op-ed columns, it's never anybody who knows how to pick up a telephone? And then the lazy can't-use-a-phone op-ed idiots wonder why they have fewer readers . . .

UPDATE VI: Pundit & Pundette links with some thoughts on Obama's Chicago Way. Meanwhile, at 1:30 a.m. Monday, I've just made an executive decision to go down to Capitol Hill again today and talk to more sources.

There is no substitute for old-fashioned shoe leather. Just show up unannounced and buttonhole your source. It's an infallible method. Make a nuisance of yourself until they figure out that they need to start calling you, or else you'll be back again bugging them tomorrow.

PREVIOUSLY:

• 6/19: IG investigation: 'Dominoes Fall'
• 6/18: Targeting AIG bailout?
• 6/18: How's the weather in Sacramento?
• 6/18: Sen. Grassley wants more answers

Dan Collins is a genius

"He's just the latest in a raft of wannabe spokespeople for a new, anodyne conservatism, containing a small quantity of witch-hazel as a largely inactive active ingredient meant to soothe the hemorrhoids of the left."

Damn, that's good. Told you: The man is a genius.

(So Far Away)

by Smitty

Chris Muir's brilliance on display at Day by Day can't go unnoticed.
The comic strip's Sunday title is an allusion to the POTUS reaction on Iran, of course. But what you may not know is that it also functions as an allusion to the college days of Robert Gibbs, when, as the keyboardist of a metrosexual band, he had an encounter with a woman who'd escaped an explosion in a Mary Kay warehouse wearing a trash bag, and he experienced a Friedersdorfian freak-out.

Rule 5 Sunday

by Smitty

The situation in Iran is horrible. We should at least begin with a shout out to nobility and grace, and hope that's interpreted in a positive way. Heaven reign peace on that country.
Closer to home, we have a...situation, of sorts. Conor Friedersdorf has posed a scenario.
"...a blind date, the setting a D.C. coffee shop, where a 'whip smart, beautiful woman who loves talking politics' waits at a corner table."
Let's run with that. This week's Rule 5 Challenge is to pick a date for a fellow, who, while obviously not CF (I don't begin to know him well enough to offer public abuse):

• Went to school in the Northeast.
• Makes excessive use of SAT words.
• Hob-nobs with Important People.
• Thinks Paul Tillich was a right-wing reactionary theologian.
• Writes squishy articles and even squishier replies to people online. They, for some mean-spirited reason, continually heap abuse about his head and shoulders.
• Badly needs sun, fresh air, and a bit of sport.

We're working least-to-most recent in the Rule 5 folder/label in GMail.

• The Dailey Gator nominates Angela Basset. Certainly wonderful, but can she discuss William Blake with the appropriate effortlessness? DG's other suggestion was Vanesa Marcil. Certainly a dish, but how is her chess game?
• Deuce at the Skepticrates provides three possibilities, on the theme of lovely hair. But is all that hair good for the environment? Should not hair products, too, fall under the measured scrutiny of conservativism, for it to meet some nebulous definition of conservativism?
• What if, as Three Beers Later suggests, she wears a costume? Would Wonder Woman withstand weeping, whining weeks without end? He also contributes some Latina cheerleaders, but our protagonist, unfortunately knows nothing of sports, or any activity leading to perspiration, for that matter.
• The Classic Liberal points to Gabrielle Anwar. She's British, and an actress. Is that good, or bad? Can it be both and neither, at the same time? Hmm...our subject would require some time for abstraction about this. Wait, where is she going?
• The BlogProf recommends getting the Led out, and "Going to California with an achin'...in my heart." Probably safer than Megan Fox. His mum said no one more violent and stressful than an Archie comic book, you know. Bad for the complexion.
• Same goes for Donald Douglas's Sandra Bullock suggestion: way too many violent movies with her. He needs love, peace and hair grease.

(aside: the reggae version on the new 'Tap release is more brutal still)

• Douglas also put forth Stacy Ferguson, who, while admittedly an improvement over Stacy McCain, also has the cleft chin of Sandra Bullock. Is that a sign of inferior mental capacity? Does it bode well for children? Granted, we're only discussing a date here, but one must think strategy as well as tactics in these important matters.
• Dustbury's suggestion of Hayek certainly merits consideration. But our subject can't laugh at the "Surfdom" pun, because puns are so common, and surfing tends to involve water and sun. Our subject becomes incontinent when his foot no longer touches continent, and has a paranoid fear of melanoma, which took Uncle Bipperton in such an ugly fashion.
• Fisherville Mike's Bombshel posting was anything but. Whoever went to Macalester or Juilliard and then played country-western? Far too low-brow for the country club, that one.
• Oh, and the Pontani sisters appear far too ill-bred a lot to even consider. Motorcycles, water cannons, tattoos: oh, what disarray!
• The Pirate's Cove submitted some Hildebrandt, which, while nicely done, fails the pulse check. Even we have standards. Somewhere.
• Jeffords suggests aspiring writer Jennifer Love Hewitt, but we saw some sample chapters. She split an infinitive. How could she?
• Paco has come through in high style with screen sirens of the past. Unfortunately, our subject's recreational nostalgia never overcame the necrophobia. Again, the pulse check.
• Chris at the WyBlog, while not making a specific date suggestion, does offer a good location for some grooming before the big date.
• Robert at The Camp of the Saints suggests Julie London, who, sadly, is about a decade out of range, according to Wikipedia.
• The BlogProf has submitted samples of the Brady Bundchen and her predecessor. Our protagonist is not even sort of capable of competing with an NFL quarterback in anything heavier than combat origami, alas. Should we also consider MeMe Roth? For anything? Look, our client is half again as self-centered, and would "weigh in" at MeMeMe on the MeMe scale. It just wouldn't work. Not even in an absurd blog post.
• Carol at No Sheeples Here misses Susan Hayward. It's too bad she also fails the pulse check. Is it possible that Hollywood has jumped the shark of actual beauty? Discuss in the comments.
• Track-a-'Crat insists Megan Fox is "the perfect woman for Conor Friedersdorf". Unfortunately, Jon, we're not *ha* talking about *haha* Conor in this post--wouldn't that be rude? You have to understand that Megan, while lovely in the photo, is obviously sporting a counterfeit 12th Century B.C. Minoan napkin-dress clasp. As you might suspect, such a non-command of even basic archaeology places her in the discard bin.
• The cosmic winner is, of course, Deuce at Skepticrats. Because the key to success here is the ability to find a woman who ignores argumentation, from the lengthy, well-reasoned variety, all the way down to the hyper-minimalist "No". Deuce, you win three entire internets and a case of Rice-a-Roni.

Now, based upon the DoubleThink article, our hypothetical smart preppy dude has tastes that run to the traditional. Our subject could, however, seek advice on manliness from any of the following gentlemen:

• Fausta, still maintaining that "it's not about the chest hair", posted a Lee Fisher link.
• Carol's Closet featured Mark Steyn, brutally funny as he is, I daresay, handsome.
• Those needing a crooner fix are directed to Pat, down in Shreveport, who has a relaxing Bobby Darin clip on offer.
• The BlogProf offered a Shatner moment, which we'll include down here to buff up the ladies' section. He also had a thorough discussion on the Ninja POTUS swatting a fly, also with Kristen Powers reporting on Fox.

That's your Rule 5 Sunday. Mail tasteful cheesecake to Smitty. Gather with your local Tea Party to plot the "We the People" restoration. And hit the tip jar.

Update:
The Patriot Room sends an update of Iranian beauties that are inarguably more fortunate than Neda, may the Almighty grant rest to that lady.

IRAN NEO-CON PLOT EXPOSED:MOUSAVI'S ROVIAN RHETORIC!

By Andrew Schaeffer Friedersdorf
Daily Atlantic HuffPo Monthly Beast

No student of Oakeshott or Kirk will be deceived when Rovian neocons engage in Potemkin symbolism to make Joe the Plumber believe that Iranian "reform" candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi wrote this letter to the White House:

From the Office of Mr. Mir Hossein Mousavi
To the President of the USA, Mr. Barack Hussein Obama:
Dear Mr. President,
In the name of the Iranian people, we want you to know that when you recently made the statement "Achmadinejad or Mousavi? Two of a kind," we consider this as a grave and deep insult, not just to Mr. Mousavi but especially against the judgment of the Iranian people, against our moral conviction and intelligence, especially those of the young generation that comprises a population of 31 million.
It is a specially grave insult for those who are now fighting for democracy and freedom . . .

Ri-iiight. "Democracy and freedom" are well-known neocon code words for U.S. hegemonic imperialism (the Joooooz!) and "moral conviction" means back-alley abortions. We were repeatedly warned last year that only right-wing racists like Ann Coulter call Obama by his middle name. Mousavi soon will be airing video of Ahmadinejad dancing with Britney Spears (nudge, nudge).

This so-called "revolution" in Iran is clearly another Cheney/Halliburton war-for-oil conspiracy scripted by AIPAC. This alleged letter from Mousavi was actually written by Bill Kristol and sent to his buddy Michael Ledeen . . . well, you get the picture. Question the timing.

Of course, the Republican/Zionist-controlled lapdogs in the Corporate Media won't tell you about this. They want you to believe that Iranians can actually write e-mails.

As if Sarah Palin really gave birth to Trig.

As if fire could melt steel.

But We Know The TRUTH! And the Truth is that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is Karl Rove. The Truth is that the Ayatollah is a Neo-Con. The Truth is that the mullahs are Republican homophobic Christofascist godbags.

Chickenhawk Israel Lobby warmongers like Dan Riehl, Mark Levin and Glenn Reynolds will deny this, before predictably resorting to ad hominems. But as their neocon puppets repressively violate human rights and systematically disenfranchise gay marriage supporters in Iran -- a classic Fox News/Prop 8/Patriot Act move -- it becomes increasingly obvious that the Riehl/Levin/Reynolds axis has blood on its hands.

They have no credibility, which is why they continue ignoring my substantive arguments.

UPDATE: Memeorandum is impressed by the Truth of my substantive arguments.