Michele Bachmann Slams HPV Vaccine Mandate at GOP Debate

She did fine in the debate: "Rick Perry's HPV mandate returns to haunt him."

It's the post-debate comments that weren't Bachmann's best moments. Ed Morrissey's got the main story, "Bachmann: Gardasil causes “mental retardation”." (Via Memeorandum.) And Los Angeles Times has a medical report, "GOP debates HPV vaccine, but medical community gives it OK."

I'll bet Bachmann recovers on this sooner than Perry. The mandate calls into question his bona fides as a small-government conservative. And the debate got heated today among right bloggers and on the Twittersphere.

AoSHQ has this: "Bachmann: I'm A-Goin' to Go Ahead and Push This Lunatic Vaccines=Autism Lie":

Michelle Bachmann is desperate. She's an ambitious, egotistical woman who started running for President just two short years after she first ran for Congress. In the past two months her support went from 13% and rising to 4% and falling.

So she needs something, doesn't she, and Rush Limbaugh warned her off her planned Social Security demagoguery.

So, instead, this bullshit.

And Dan Riehl's got this: "Perry Doesn't Look Ready to Lead America," and "So Much For NRO Being Conservative."

And Tabitha Hale on Twitter: "I think maybe I should abandon Twitter until primary season is over so I still have friends."

It's gonna get heavy like this on the right for a while. Folks are starting to really dig in behind their favorites.

Turning Conservative After September 11, 2001

I've mentioned it a few times in the past. It was actually the left's reaction to the Bush administration and the Iraq war that made me realize I was conservative. In fact, I realized it on the morning of March 19th, 2003, when I spoke at a campus panel on the war. I didn't feel at home. I was surrounded by bloodthirsty leftists, students and professors, who looked like they had vengeance in their eyes. I went home that night and had dinner with my family, and I remember President Bush coming on the air to announce that combat operations had begun in Iraq. My political beliefs have never been the same. I voted for Al Gore in 2000. I still thought the Democratic Party was the party of Truman and Kennedy. How naive I must have been. But my vision has become clearer every year since then.

The annual debate over the September 11th attacks always reminds me of my political transformation. By now it's safe to say that 9/11 and the Iraq war have merged in my consciousness, although it wasn't always so. It took me a couple of years to understand the partisan divide in America, that one side stands for old-time values, love of country, individualism and sacrifice. The other side stands for ideological intolerance, anti-Americanism, and appeasement toward the forces of evil in the world. It's a stark difference that took stark historical events to congeal for me personally.

I'm reminded of this by some of the comments at my post from yesterday, "Progressives Shame the Country on the 10th Anniversary of 9/11." I wrote at the conclusion there: "For many people like myself, that's why they became conservative." And my good friend Kenneth Davenport dropped by to comment, responding in particular to my conclusion:

I haven't thought about it in this way before, but I've certainly become more conservative in response to the painful nihilism that regularly comes from the left. I live in a different world than they do, and there really are no areas of common ground. That's the truth. They see America as a flawed nation which should apologize for itself at every turn and which deserved the attacks of 9/11. And I see America as the last best hope of earth, a place of unbounded fairness and generosity, forged in the belief that the individual -- and not government -- is sovereign. There is no reconciling these two different belief systems. So I don't try. Instead, I surround myself with good people who share my values and who give thanks every day that there are those who are willing to sacrifice everything for our survival as a nation.

That's so well-said, and reaffirming. And Ken's posted a photo-essay from yesterday as well, where he demonstrates his love of country and appreciation of sacrifice: "9/11 on the USS Midway."

Now remember that it was Paul Krugman who got me going yesterday, and it turns out Glenn Reynolds received a load of comments about that. See, "EVERYBODY’S ANGRY, to judge from my email, about Paul Krugman’s typo-burdened 9/11 screed":

Don’t be angry. Understand it for what it is, an admission of impotence from a sad and irrelevant little man. Things haven’t gone the way he wanted lately, his messiah has feet of clay — hell, forget the “feet” part, the clay goes at least waist-high — and it seems likely he’ll have even less reason to like the coming decade than the last, and he’ll certainly have even less influence than he’s had. Thus, he tries to piss all over the people he’s always hated and envied. No surprise there. But no importance, either. You’ll see more and worse from Krugman and his ilk as the left nationally undergoes the kind of crackup it’s already experiencing in Wisconsin. They thought Barack Obama was going to bring back the glory days of liberal hegemony in politics, but it turned out he was their Ghost Dance, their Bear Shirt, a mystically believed-in totem that lacked the power to reverse their onrushing decline, no matter what the shamans claimed.

I'm not angry, as much as continually shocked at the brazen progressive hatred. It forces me to look inward, to my values and beliefs, and to history and national purpose. But sticking with the theme here, recall the essay from Cinnamon Stillwell in 2005, "The Making of a 9/11 Republican":

I was raised in liberal Marin County, and my first name (which garners more comments than anything else) is a direct product of the hippie generation. Growing up, I bought into the prevailing liberal wisdom of my surroundings because I didn't know anything else. I wrote off all Republicans as ignorant, intolerant yahoos. It didn't matter that I knew none personally; it was simply de rigueur to look down on such people. The fact that I was being a bigot never occurred to me, because I was certain that I inhabited the moral high ground.

Having been indoctrinated in the postcolonialist, self-loathing school of multiculturalism, I thought America was the root of all evil in the world. Its democratic form of government and capitalist economic system was nothing more than a machine in which citizens were forced to be cogs. I put aside the nagging question of why so many people all over the world risk their lives to come to the United States. Freedom of speech, religious freedom, women's rights, gay rights (yes, even without same-sex marriage), social and economic mobility, relative racial harmony and democracy itself were all taken for granted in my narrow, insulated world view.

So, what happened to change all that? In a nutshell, 9/11. The terrorist attacks on this country were not only an act of war but also a crime against humanity. It seemed glaringly obvious to me at the time, and it still does today. But the reaction of my former comrades on the left bespoke a different perspective. The day after the attacks, I dragged myself into work, still in a state of shock, and the first thing I heard was one of my co-workers bellowing triumphantly, "Bush got his war!" There was little sympathy for the victims of this horrific attack, only an irrational hatred for their own country.

As I spent months grieving the losses, others around me wrapped themselves in the comfortable shell of cynicism and acted as if nothing had changed. I soon began to recognize in them an inability to view America or its people as victims, born of years of indoctrination in which we were always presented as the bad guys.

Never mind that every country in the world acts in its own self-interest, forms alliances with unsavory countries -- some of which change later -- and are forced to act militarily at times. America was singled out as the sole guilty party on the globe. I, on the other hand, for the first time in my life, had come to truly appreciate my country and all that it encompassed, as well as the bravery and sacrifices of those who fight to protect it.

Thoroughly disgusted by the behavior of those on the left, I began to look elsewhere for support. To my astonishment, I found that the only voices that seemed to me to be intellectually and morally honest were on the right. Suddenly, I was listening to conservative talk-show hosts on the radio and reading conservative columnists, and they were making sense. When I actually met conservatives, I discovered that they did not at all embody the stereotypes with which I'd been inculcated as a liberal.

PROTO CREDIT: "Faith, Freedom, and Memory: Report From Ground Zero, September 11, 2010."

9/11: Radical Islamists Burn U.S. Flag in London Protest (VIDEO)

From Telegraph UK:

And from London's Daily Mail, "100 protesters burn American flag outside U.S. embassy in London during minute's silence for 9/11."

RELATED: "Progressives Shame the Country on the 10th Anniversary of 9/11."

Progressives Shame the Country on the 10th Anniversary of 9/11

I long ago lost any respect I had for Paul Krugman. I read Krugman's scholarly work back in the mid-1990s. He was a reasonable voice for American economic competitiveness, and his work was at the leading edge of strategic trade theory. But upon becoming a New York Times columnist he found his calling as a celebrity mouthpiece for the most inane progressive ramblings in American politics. Beclowning himself in that role would be putting it mildly. He probably should have just taken the day off from blogging today, but he couldn't resist fouling himself, wrapping himself in progressive toxicity. Linkmaster Smith has the essay screencapped, and can't bring himself to even comment on the depravity: "I really can’t comment on this in any family-friendly way." Plus, more from Dana Pico: "And Paul Krugman truly does define The Conscience of a Liberal," and Lonely Conservative: "Paul Krugman is Deranged." And check Althouse, who slams Krugman for his cowardice at closing his post to comments.

There's a Memeorandum thread. And checking the progressive entries we see the left's shame piling up like a heap of dung.

Here's idiot progressive Blue Texan, at Firedoglake, "Krugman is Right: We Should Be Ashamed of What Happened after 9/11."

Is anyone proud, 10 years later, that we’re still losing lives in Afghanistan?

Of course, you dolt. People are proud of the sacrifice and valor that's helped to make this country safer. Shame on you.

And Susie Madrak at Suburban Guerrilla can't take a moment to even honor the dead:

I’m not watching any of this “commemorative” crap today (thank God for cable!) and I’m certainly not writing about it today.

Shame on you, Susie. The attacks of 9/11 killed indiscriminately, killing those of all creeds and colors. At least have the decency to honor the dead.

At read the comment thread at Washington Monthly, where for the rare wayward commenter, you've got steady serving of hate-filled progressive gruel:

Krugman sums up my feelings exactly.

They once again came to the surface for me while I watched GDumbya read a letter from President Lincoln during the ceremony in NYC this morning.

Although 9/11 was a tragic autrocity [sic], the real tragedy is that we allowed an incompetent, out-of-control administration lead us down a rat-hole in the Middle East and consequently lose our national soul, our treasure, countless lives, our reputation, our integrity and our influence in the world.

I often wonder how different our present circumstance would be if the Supreme Court had not appointed Bush as president in 2001.

(Recall Daniel Henninger nailed progressies on this, arguing that the left's desecration of goodness preceded 9/11, going back to the Florida recount and the GOP's victory in Bush v. Gore. See: "America's Broken Unity After 9/11.")

And then check Prairie Weather, "A growing consensus about post-9/11":

Maybe an important aspect of the great divide in America is the difference between those Americans who are able to feel shame and willing to make genuine apologies, and those who can't admit to shame and toss off self-justification as a cheap plastic substitute for remorse.

I'm confounded on the one hand and enraged on the other. What apologies are necessary here? I mean, seriously. Doesn't Prairie Weather sum up everything that conservatives have been combating here at home since the early days of the war on terror, such as the progressive war on Bush's domestic and foreign security policies? Since September 11th we've seen the left's long train of shame. Recall the radical left's rank political opportunism in opposing the Iraq war, demonically, of course, since the Democrat Party in Congress --- the party of defeat --- turned against our troops after authorizing their deployment, to excoriate the mission, and declare repeatedly that Iraq was lost and that we should turn tail in an ignominious cut-and-run. And we had years of Bush derangement syndrome, which then transmogrified into putrid Palin derangement syndrome, all combined into a program of partisan political destruction that's done nothing but weaken American security by successfully terminating programs such as wiretapping that were keeping Americans safe. A decade's shame of appeasement and partisan abomination is frothing to a head in the left's responses to the 10th anniversary of 9/11. For many people like myself, that's why they became conservative.

Erick Erickson: Dude Picks Fight With Sarah Palin Supporters, Loses Badly

Erick Erickson goes after Sarah Palin by attacking her supporters as "The Palin Fan Cult," and tops it off with a few juicy digs against the Governor herself. To bolster his case he cites Ann Coulter's comments with Laura Ingraham on Fox News.

The Fox hotties are not my concern, as they're supposed to be critiquing the candidates and pumping the ratings. Erick Erickson's purportedly about building a movement. And it seems to me the last person you'd want to bash in that regard is Sarah Palin. Has she held out too long? Probably. I wish she would've announced early this year so she could've been amassing a war chest to rival Barack Obama's expected $1 billion haul. And that's not counting the possibility that Palin could lose the nomination despite being the ultimate conservative rock star. Fact is, Palin's more in tune with the values of more conservatives than anyone else out there. Frankly, it doesn't matter when she announces, except as a matter of strategy. No doubt the waiting is hard, but it'd still be worth it if she came out in November or December with a major policy speech declaring her candidacy. I'd be behind her in a second. I've said all along that as much as I like and support Michele Bachmann, I throw my support to Palin without batting an eye. (Now, thinking about it, a Palin/Bachmann dream team would put me over the top.) But at this point we don't know, so faulting her for "teasing" only arms Palin's divisions of enemies on the progressive left. And Erick Erickson should know better, but then again, he's obviously not too bright.

In any case, see William Jacobson, "Erick Erickson: “moving on from Sarah Palin is like leaving Scientology”, and Linkmaster Smith, "Not Enough." And more commentary at Memeorandum.

Oh, and don't forget Dan Riehl, "Erick Erickson All Wee Weed Up Over Palin," and "For All The Brave Whiners On Palin."

The Myth of Conservative Purity

From Peter Berkowitz, at Wall Street Journal (and Google):

With the opening of the fall political season and tonight's Republican candidate debate, expect influential conservative voices to clamor for fellow conservatives to set aside half-measures, eschew conciliation, and adhere to conservative principle in its pristine purity. But what does fidelity to conservatism's core convictions mean?

Superstar radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh has, with characteristic bravado, championed a take-no-prisoners approach. In late July, as the debt-ceiling debate built to its climax, he understandably exhorted House Speaker John Boehner to stand strong and rightly praised the tea party for "putting country before party." But then Mr. Limbaugh went further. "Winners do not compromise," he declared on air. "Winners do not compromise with themselves. The winners who do compromise are winners who still don't believe in themselves as winners, who still think of themselves as losers."

We saw the results of such thinking in November 2010, when Christine O'Donnell was defeated by Chris Coons in Delaware in the race for Vice President Joe Biden's vacated Senate seat. In Nevada Sharron Angle was defeated by Harry Reid, who was returned to Washington to reclaim his position as Senate majority leader. In both cases, the Republican senatorial candidate was a tea party favorite who lost a very winnable election.

The notion of conservative purity is a myth. The great mission of American conservatism—securing the conditions under which liberty flourishes—has always depended on the weaving together of imperfectly compatible principles and applying them to an evolving and elusive political landscape.

William F. Buckley Jr.'s 1955 Mission Statement announcing the launch of National Review welcomed traditionalists, libertarians and anticommunists. His enterprise provides a model of a big-tent conservatism supported by multiple and competing principles: limited government, free markets, traditional morality and strong national defense.

That's a long time ago. I don't know if we've got big tentyness these days. Besides, I have a hunch Republicans will may well nominate Romney. Perry's giving Romney a run for his money, and I'm not discounting Bachmann. But I'd be surprised if a purity candidate got the nod. That said, maybe purity is what the voters want, or at least in California? We'll know in due time.

RELATED: At LAT, "The real Ronald Reagan may not meet today's GOP standards."

Sarah Palin: Don’t Be Taken In by Union Thugs Like James Hoffa

On Facebook, "Welcome, Union Brothers and Sisters":

In my speech on Saturday in Iowa, I said: “Between bailouts for Wall Street cronies and stimulus projects for union bosses’ security and ‘green energy’ giveaways, [Barack Obama] took care of his friends. And now they’re on course to raise a billion dollars for his re-election bid so that they can do it all over again.” This was shamefully on display yesterday at President Obama’s taxpayer-funded campaign rally in Detroit. In introducing the President, Teamsters President James Hoffa represented precisely what I was talking about as he declared war on concerned independent Americans and on the freshman members we sent to Congress last November by saying, “Let’s take these son-of-a-bitches out!”

What I say now, I say as a proud former union member and the wife, daughter, and sister of union members. So, as a former card-carrying IBEW sister married to a proud former Laborers, IBEW, and later USW member, please hear me out. What I have to say is for the hard working, patriotic, selfless union brothers and sisters in Michigan and throughout our country: Please don’t be taken in by union bosses’ thuggery like Jim Hoffa represented yesterday. Union bosses like this do not have your best interests at heart. What they care about is their own power and re-electing their friend Barack Obama so he will take care of them to the detriment of everyone else.

Read it all...

Chevy Runs Deep

Via Althouse, "How did Chevrolet manage to make such an effective commercial?"



You pull on the heartstrings. We've all felt like this, with or without a Chevy pickup:

Jane Jamison of Uncoverage.net Has Died

I like her blog. There are so many out there that sometimes a blog has to really make an impact before gaining attention, and Uncoverage.net is one of those. See Robert Stacy McCain for the details: "Jane Jamison, R.I.P." And John Hawkins has more: "Jane Jamison From Uncoverage Has Passed Away."



Please join me in a prayer for Jane, and for her friends and family.

Hugs and Thanks to Maggie Thornton

Maggie picked my piece on teaching the Gettysburg Address: "Donald Douglas: A Professor Teaching Real Political History."



And from the comments there:

In today’s American world, this professor is a gem!

Well, thank you!!



More at Maggie's Notebook.



Also, a warm appreciation goes to Gator Doug: "The DaleyGator supports our friend, Donald Douglas."



I get by with a little help from my friends.

VIDEO: Bill Whittle's Talk in Newport Beach

Okay, one one more entry to hold readers until tonight.



At the Correspondence Committee:

These videos are absolutely worth the time.

I ask Bill a question at about 15:30 minutes at the third video, Q & A:

PREVIOUSLY: "Bill Whittle in Newport Beach!"

Megyn Kelly Interviews Sarah Palin

Via NeoSexist:

It's great to see Megyn Kelly back. And Part II is especially good. Kelly asks Palin what she thinks of Gloria Steinem. It's good.

Robert Stacy McCain: Final Thoughts on Ames Straw Poll Politics

That was one hella journalistic trek. See: "Fear and Loathing in the Airport Lounge: The Final Wisdom of My Iowa Journey."

PJTV Trifecta: Conservative 2012 Showdown?

A great discussion, and Bill Whittle elaborates some of the themes from his talk last week:

Michele Bachmann: 'Ready For Prime Time'

An excellent essay at Althouse, comparing Michele Bachmann to Sarah Palin, "A Palin-Bachmann feud?":

By the way, Bachmann was great on "Meet the Press" today. She is excellent at not letting the interviewer control her. She interrupts appropriately and stands her ground. She has planned, neat responses to the stuff that they will use to try to mess her up — like her statements about gay people — and she resists pressure to restate or elaborate those responses. She is ready for prime time.

Tania Gail Interviewed on 'The Snark Factor'

With Fingers Malloy, "Snark Factor 103 with Tania Gail."



Scroll forward at the audio embed to about 7 minutes, seriously.

'Rich Man, Poor Man'

Afterburner, with Bill Whittle:

Whittle is speaking Thursday in Newport Beach, so look for a report.

Republican Voters Hold Out for Their Dream Candidate

I'm not holding out. I'm backing Bachmann. She's consistently opposed the White House on the budget, and her vote may be a huge asset for next week's Ames straw poll.

But see Los Angeles Times, "GOP voters holding out for dream candidate."

RELATED: Robert Stacy McCain's in Iowa, so check over there for first-hand reports.

Republicans Seeking Election Remain Unsure About Embracing Tea Party

Well, perhaps I would too if half the political establishment had branded me a terrorist.

At New York Times:

WASHINGTON — The success of Tea Party-backed lawmakers in defining the terms of the debt debate in Washington has further cemented the party’s identity as part of a conservative movement insistent on deep spending cuts, lower taxes and smaller government.

But as Republican candidates gear up for 2012, many are struggling with whether to embrace those passions. Opposing the debt ceiling increase and linking arms with the Tea Party may help candidates tap into a reservoir of energy in their party’s electorate. But it also threatens to alienate the candidates from independent voters who grimaced at the bickering in Washington this summer and preferred greater compromise on issues like tax increases.

“The process didn’t please anyone,” said Whit Ayres, a Republican pollster, “but it was very clear that the new congressmen elected in 2010 dramatically shifted the debate from how much more shall we spend to how much shall we cut.”

In the coming 2012 elections, the strategic calculation for Republican candidates weighing Tea Party ties “depends on the state, depends on the politician and it depends on the particular race,” Mr. Ayres said.

Sounds fair enough. And in states like California, 0bviously, a Republican's more likely to run as a moderate. And even then you can narrow it down to individual constituencies. At the national level, the piece discusses the presidential contenders, and quotes Michele Bachmann, who dissed the budget deal and asserts that President Obama has failed the test of leadership. Hey, sing it baby!

Jonah Goldberg: 'To Hell with You People'

The dude breaks loose with an epic piece, almost in the vein of my last post. But just almost, and that's the point. Progressives have gone FUBAR on the alleged "terrorist" demonization, and some folks are saying that is the hell enough. At National Review (via Memeorandum).