Not!

Not spam! Not! Not!

The Dog Ate It!

Redstate regular Dan McLaughlin takes the Obama campaign to task for failing to do its homework on the new Latin motto: Vero Possimus. Mr. McLaughlin quickly has to take it all back because he didn't...well, you can guess the rest, can't you?

Yes, that's a petard allright.

Redstate's resident misanthrope, Moe Lane, takes Barack Obama to task for fumbling a detail as he claims the Democratic nomination:

56. The fifty states, plus American Samoa, Democrats Abroad, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands. Unless you particularly felt like insulting Montana and South Dakota this evening? Or just didn't care? - well, at any rate it's precisely this keen attention to detail, regard for the feelings of others, and rigorous fact-checking that is going to make campaigning against you and yours such a joy for us, Senator.

In his speech, Mr. Obama referred to "fifty-four hard fought contests."

However, the error seems to belong to Mr. Lane. The primary campaign consisted of 54 "hard fought" contests and two that were uncontested by Mr. Obama. It would be an error to call the primaries in Florida and Michigan "hard fought," wouldn't it?

Mr. Lane, may I introduce you to your own petard?

You Don't Have to Get All Snippy About It...

RedState Erick surveys the carnage of the Nevada and South Carolina primaries, and his reaction is not pretty. In fact, his fit of pique is such that even the RedState faithful take him to task for his pessimism. He explains:

This is why I'm so damned frustrated with Thompson and Romney. *Neither* of the conservative candidates in the race has been able to close the deal. Romney has spent millions of his own money and Thompson had conservative support handed to him on a silver platter. Look at both of them -- 3rd and 4th in *the* state where conservatives should be controlling the board. Deal with it.

Apparently, with Mr. Thompson standing by to snatch his hat back out of the ring so he can return to napping, Erick has finally come to grips with the awful truth, as explained to him by one of his own commenters:

Romney is set up to be Anyone but McCain candidate. Thompson will drop out at some point this week, Huckabee just lost a state where the Evangelical vote was in the 55-59% range so he has no viability left. If you hate McCain why would you vote for Rudy. That leaves Romney. Also I imagine Romney will get a high profile buisness job if he does not get the nomination and I do think all of his sons are Ivy League grads so they are not banking on their Father's money.

Perhaps it's time to reconsider Mr. Keyes' prospects.

Say It Ain't So!

Tears of disbelief flow as the Directors learn that Frank Luntz' focus groups may not be on the square.

Will RedState head honcho Erick soon be reduced to pleading,"Say it ain't so, Frank!"

Waiting.

RedState's night shift manager, Pejman Yousefzadeh, attempts a takedown of Paul Krugman's reminiscences of Ronald Reagan's embrace of the southern strategy.

First of all, Krugman repeatedly brings up the issue of Reagan's 1980 speech in Mississippi to prove that the 40th President was a racist. As long as two years ago, Jon Henke called Krugman on this issue and corrected his many errors. The issue also got covered here. Google is a powerful tool and one would think that someone like Krugman would use it to see whether his arguments have stood up under the scrutiny of others. Evidently, on this issue, Krugman hasn't taken the past corrections of his charges into account. Indeed, he doesn't even acknowledge them except in the most oblique terms, thus ensuring that people won't know much about Krugman's critics and what their criticisms entail.

Oddly, Mr. Krugman isn't alone in failing to acknowledge the criticisms. Mr. Yousefzadeh forgets to tell us about the error that Mr. Krugman is running away from. What to do except click the link? Apparently, Jon Henke at the Q and O Blog wrote a couple of years ago:

Here's the thing: Reagan launched his 1980 campaign at the Neshoba County Fair. The Neshoba County Fair is not in Philadelphia, Mississippi. It's near it, certainly, but about 10-20 miles outside of Philadelphia. If you look at a map of the Neshoba County Fairgrounds, you'll see a highway running by it with the annotation: "Highway 21 TO Philadelphia".

Wow. Mr. Krugman must be really, really embarrassed to make such an error. The speech wasn't in Philadelphia, it was outside the city limits!!

I, along with Mr. Yousefzadeh, I'm sure, await Mr. Krugman's contrite retraction of the charge that Mr. Reagan actively sought the votes of white racists by kicking off his campaign in Mississippi with a speech endorsing "state's rights."

What? No Beacon?

RedState's regular contributor, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) alerts readers to an Outrage that Cannot Stand! or OTCS, for short. (However, the lighthouse keepers at RedState apparently haven't shown Rep. Cantor how to switch on the flashing red Outrage Beacon^TM that usually accompanies other OTCSs. It's missing without explanation from his post.)

What is it that prompts Rep. Cantor's outrage? Why, it's a certificate made out by the Architect of the Capitol for an Eagle Scout's grandfather...wait, don't go! It is an outrage, really it is! Here, let Rep. Cantor explain:

On September 11 2007, Andrew Larochelle requested a flag be flown over the United States Capitol – the flag was intended as a gift to his grandfather, to mark the occasion of Andrew's induction into the Eagle Scouts. They requested that the certificate read, "this flag flown in honor of Marcel Larochelle, my grandfather, for his dedication and love of God, country and family."

The bureaucrats at the Architect of the Capitol's office, which is controlled by Speaker Pelosi, removed the word God from the certificate. They have apparently, without the proper legislative authority, created new rules to prevent the word God from appearing on their certificates.

This, Rep. Cantor goes on to warn, is just the first step leading to the eventual eradication of the Diety from all government buildings, documents, and currency.

Really. I know it's hard to believe, but if you don't believe me, click the link and see for yourself.

Of course, Rep. Cantor is quick to lay the blame at Ms. Pelosi's Ferragamos. However, he fails to provide any links to news stories, Congressional web sites, or even any information about the office of Architect of the Capitol. (Who knew we still needed one? Not us. We have heard that contractors are sometimes lackadasical about deadlines, but this seems beyond tolerable.) So, we outcasts here at BFRedstate became curious about the mechanics of Ms. Pelosi's latest attack on God and country.

As it turns out, we don't actually have a real Architect of the Capitol right now. The most recent officeholder, Alan M. Hantman, resigned back in February. For the time being, an acting AotC--Stephen T. Ayers--is making sure the restrooms are clean, the light bill is paid, and the agenda of Godless secularism is advanced.

So who is this Ayers fellow? A beneficiary of Ms. Pelosi's patronage? A Soros mole? A holdover from the Clinton administration cleaning things up before Hillary's arrival?

No. This is Steven T. Ayers:

After attending Officers Training School at Lackland Air Base in San Antonio, Texas, Mr. Ayers was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the U.S. Air Force and assigned to Edwards Air Force Base in Edwards, California. While stationed at Edwards, he served as a Staff Architect with the 6510th Civil Engineering Squadron managing numerous design and construction projects. He was promoted to Design Team Chief and progressed to the rank of Captain. Mr. Ayers was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal for his military service and after five years of active duty, resigned his commission to pursue a civilian career.

After working in the architectural and engineering community in the Washington, D.C., area, Mr. Ayers joined the Voice of America in Washington, D.C., as a General Engineer in 1991. In 1992 he transferred to Rhodes, Greece, to lead construction efforts at several Voice of America sites in Greece and Germany. Mr. Ayers returned to the United States in 1997 and joined the Architect of the Capitol as an Assistant Superintendent for the Senate Office Buildings. In 1999, he was promoted to Deputy Superintendent. He was then promoted to Superintendent of the Library Buildings and Grounds in 2002.

In October 2005, Mr. Ayers was appointed as the Acting Deputy Architect/Chief Operating Officer (COO). In March 2006, following a rigorous interview process before a selection panel comprised of the Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives, the Comptroller General, Senate Sergeant at Arms, and senior AOC officials, Mr. Ayers was selected as the Deputy Architect/COO. In this role, he oversees approximately 2,200 employees and manages the day-to-day operations of the Agency.

Former Air Force captain. Former Voice of America employee. Appointed to his current position by a Republican Congress. He's the one striking the name of the Almighty from boy-scout-gift-to-grandad certificates until George Bush appoints a replacement for the position that has been open for the last eight months.

On the other hand, Mr. Ayers is only a temp, after all. Is he really to blame for all this?

No, he's not.

A memo issued by Mr. Hantman prior to his departure lays out the rules for all members of Congress who request flags and certificates on behalf of their constituents. It was apparently Mr. Hantman who banished Jehovah with a commandment of his own, rule number 8:

Personalized dedications are permitted, but limited to three hundred (300) characters. Please keep in mind, political and/or religious expressions are not permitted on the flag certificate.

A-ha! So Hantman is the no-good, athiestic, snake appointed by...appointed by...um...Bill Clinton??

Quick! Fire up the Beacon!!

Kerning!

The right-wing kerning machine whirrs into action! This time, RedState's lead debunker, Erick, notes that David Shuster was wrong! wrong! wrong! when he stumped Tennessee congresswoman Marsha Blackburn on MSNBC the other day.

Mr. Shuster, filling in for Tucker Carlson, listened briefly to Ms. Blackburn's complaints about the now-infamous MoveOn.org "General Betrayus" ad, then asked her to name the last soldier from her district killed in Iraq.

Ms. Blackburn couldn't offer a name.

Shuster told her the name was Jeremy Bohannon who was killed by a roadside bomb early in September.

Mr. Erick steps to the fore to denounce Mr. Shuster's denunciation of Ms. Blackburn's denunciation of MoveOn's denunciation of General Petraeus: It seems the 18-year-old Pvt. Bohannon was NOT from Ms. Blackburn's district! Shuster was lying! Or wrong!

So what's the right answer, Mr. Erick? I bet Ms. Blackburn could tell us today.

It Ain't Just a Bank.

RedState honcho Erick accuses Barack Obama of coming up with his own new, politically-too-correct designation for indigenous people:

In 2007, courtesy of Barack Obama, we now have a new designation for American Indians. They are . . . drum roll please . . . First Americans.

Apparently Mr. Erick believes First American is a financial institution. A quick check with Google returns...drum roll please...a half-million hits for "First Americans."

Wile E. Coyote Syndrome, Part 42

Just a short time back--only a week ago--RedState contributor blackhedd posted some prime we're-better-than-they-are snark:

"I hear that Democrats are striking their foreheads for not having thought of this sooner.

They're thinking of making it a misdemeanor to be a US Senator or Member of Congress.

Then all of the Republicans will be forced to resign. The Democrats, en masse, will announce that they deeply apologize, but that the offense has no bearing on their ability to continue doing the job the American people expect them to do.

Great plan, no?"

Now, in the best tradition of hapless lupine cartoon characters, Mr. blackhedd is hoist by his own petard. How does the plan work if the guilty Republicans keep resigning and unresigning?

'S'cuse Me?

RedState honcho "Erick" promotes a post by paulseale by remote control. Mr. paulseale apparently just mailed it in:

I've been thinking quite a bit about American resolve and the effects upon this nation if we take the United Kingdom's route and act as if there is no war on terror.

Pardon? The UK is acting as if there's no war on terror? Regrettably, neither Mr. Erick or Mr. paulseale bother to explain. Perhaps they are both on fabulous vacations away from the troubling burden of current events.

Follow the Queen

Pejman Yousefzadeh, RedState's three-card monte specialist pulls another stunning sleight-of-hand as he takes note of the Glasgow airport bombing:

I'd like to hear a little more talk about how the war on terror is supposedly a "bumper sticker slogan".

Mr. Yousefzadeh, of course, refers (and links) to John Edwards' recent comments that the "global war" on terror is a fraud:

"We need a post-Bush, post-9/11, post-Iraq military that is mission focused on protecting Americans from 21st century threats, not misused for discredited ideological purposes," Edwards said in remarks prepared for delivery. "By framing this as a war, we have walked right into the trap the terrorists have set--that we are engaged in some kind of clash of civilizations and a war on Islam."

If you look closely, you can see that Mr. Yousefzadeh has something up his sleeve: Edwards asserts that the Bush administration errs by framing the fight against terrorism as a "war." But Mr. Yousefzadeh deals from the bottom of the deck when he asks: "Can We Be Disabused Of Some Particularly Misguided Notions Now?" He slickly implies that Mr. Edwards, thinks there's no terrorism.

If it's correctly framed as a "war," Mr. Yousefzadeh, when do we send troops to Glasgow?

That Gnawing Feeling

The Redstate "directors" and their guard dog Mr. Lane have suddenly awakened to find that their rabid brand of conservativism, nativism, and militarism attracts some unsavory characters.

Wolf-trap ugly time, boys?

I Coulda Sworn There Were Some Goal Posts Right Over Here....

Redstate's regular weekend contributor, Pejman Yousefzadeh, is discouraged that the White House won't fight for the renomination of Gen. Peter Pace as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. OK, maybe "discouraged" understates it a bit. Mr. Yousefsadeh characterizes the decision as "Wrong. Totally, Completely, Terribly Wrong."

Mr. Yousefzadeh cites Breitbart.com linking to an AP wire story that quotes Defense Secretary Robert Gates' explanation:

"Gates said he had originally intended to seek another two-year term for Pace, but concluded that would have resulted in a divisive Senate confirmation focusing on the Iraq War."

Of course, examining the performance of an appointee before clearing him for another term would seem to be the very least one should expect from any gathering of beings possessed of a pulse and practicing respiration (and that includes most of the Senate). Gen. Pace has been a member of the joint chiefs for the entire duration of the Iraq war and the Chairman for a good portion of it. That a hearing on the prospect of extending the general's tenure would be "backwards looking" shouldn't be surprising. Savvy congress watchers expect it and maybe even applaud it.

Mr. Yousefzadeh acknowledges this, begrudgingly, and faults the White House for caving to Gen. Pace's critics without a fight. He discounts the possibility that even this White House might hold its appointees accountable for how well they do their jobs. It's no secret that progress in Iraq is running well behind schedule. To win another ride, Gen. Pace would have, quite rightly, some splainin to do.

The real shocker, however, is the shiny, new characterization of war critics Mr. Yousefzadeh unveils:

"By refusing to fight for Pace's confirmation due to the fear of "a backward looking and very contentious process," the Bush Administration has once again surrendered the rhetorical field to opponents of the reconstruction effort."

"Opponents of the reconstruction effort?"

No mistake. Mr. Yousefzadeh follows up with several riffs on this surprising theme:

"As things currently stand, the Administration is fighting to keep the reconstruction effort afloat against public opinion..."

"In order to succeed in the face of this opposition, the Administration must argue for its position and for the people who have worked loyally along with it on the reconstruction effort."

"...by all accounts [Gen. Pace] has done yeoman work in trying to get the reconstruction effort to succeed."

This new construction spins the "But we're painting the schools" argument off to a stunningly distant nadir. The "reconstruction" is no longer just the good news anti-war types choose to ignore. Now it's apparently the only game in town. Mr. Yousefzadeh elects to make the ongoing fighting disappear so he can fault war critics for actively opposing the painting of those modest schoolhouses. To make this improbable proposition work, Mr. Yousefzadeh would have us believe that war critics--the ones who inconveniently point out the ongoing failure of the occupying allies to provide consistent water and electricity--oppose rebuilding Iraq with the same fervor with which they opposed wrecking it in the first place.

Perhaps Mr. Yousefzadeh is at least partly right, but simply overstates. Maybe war critics are opposed to reconstruction efforts, especially the ones that take the lives of 100 or so of our young men and women each month.

UPDATE: Mr. Haystack joins in the fun, writing that the White House has failed to stand by the good Gen. Pace because liberals suck!

Goodbye. Hello. Goodbye.

Jeff Emanuel bans a commenter not just once, but twice in one day:

First, in comments to a post by Mr. Strieff, Mr. Emanuel grows exasperated by the refusal of a commenter called "Valley" to obey orders:

Are they terrorists? Do you by Valley

Are they terrorists? Do you have proof? Or is this another ghost train with the WMDs? Where are the weapons? Or is a WMD just like God? I just have to believe and they'll be there?

Reply To This — User Info — #23

All right, pal. by Jeff Emanuel

You're gone. Buh-bye

.
Reply To This — User Info — #24

A short while later, Mr. Emanuel dismisses "euni84", with the accusation that this is Valley under a new account name:

War is not the answer by euni84

While I do believe in a timeline for eventual withdrawal to bring some order to this war, I also think that it would be foolish to pull out of Iraq without thinking about the repercussions and alternatives for this war. I think that for Iraq to escape turmoil, insitutions and funding need to be in place to address and prevent further poverty.

If the original principle of why we are fighting this war is as important as Bush claims, the $340 billion already spent and the further $100+ billion to be spent should be redirected toward plans to fight poverty and develop the country to prevent another Afghanistan. According to the Borgen Project, just $19 billion annually can end starvation and $15 billion provides water and sanitation all over the world. If ending terror is the goal, programs such as the Millennium Development Goals to end poverty is the way to to go for our leaders. Poverty is at the root of many of the world's problmens today; ignoring it is a mistake.

Reply To This — User Info — #10

Welcome back, Valley by Jeff Emanuel

Go away and stay away this time.

-The Mgmt

You Agree With Me? I'm OUTRAGED!!

Jeff Emanuel fires up the Redstate Outrage Beacon (am I supposed to insert teh funny TM superscript here, guys?). What is it that has Mr. Emanuel's Fruit-of-the-Looms in a tangle?

Are you wondering what the heck I'm talking about? I mean, seriously - what in the world does the US have to do with this anyway, and why in the world would we owe reparations to a country for an action that we had no part of?

That's a question for House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and his eight compatriots, all of whom have co-sponsored a bill that would require that America pay reparations to the people of Guam for - get this - the actions of the Japanese in World War II.

It seems Mr. Emanuel is upset at Mr. Hoyer, et. al., over HR.1595, the "Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act. The Act provides monetary compensation for citizens of Guam who suffered at the hands of the Japanese military during WWII.

This, says Mr. Emanuel, is more evidence of Democratic perfidy:

Way to go, Democrats. Your "blame America first" (even for things we have nothing to do with), anti-US soldier attitudes, actions, and mindsets have just been taken to a new level.

Mr. Emanuel urges his readers to stop what they're doing to take part in democracy by pestering their elected officials about this. And, of course, he makes use of the flashing Outrage Beacon.

Mr. Emanuel doesn't tell the whole story, though.

• He mentions Mr. Hoyer and his eight co-sponsors. In fact, there are many more than eight, including those dastardly Democrats Mr. Sensenbrenner and Mr. Burton.


• He forgets to mention that the bill merely rubber stamps the recommendations of the Guam War Claims Review Commission, established by the Republican congress in 2002 and its members appointed by Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton.


• He neglects to mention that the people of Guam were imprisoned, tortured, and even beheaded for protecting U.S. soldiers during the war.

So the wicked Mr. Hoyer has apparently committed the grave sin of agreeing with the Republican leadership that put this plan in motion to begin with!

What's truly strange, though, is that Mr. Emanuel keeps referring to "the people of Guam" as if they are an undeserving foreign nation.

Dude, they're Americans!

UPDATE: Erick posts not once, but twice, urging the hounds to bay into the phones. Result? H.R. 1595 passes. It passes overwhelmingly with 66 Republicans voting in favor.

Good work, lads!

MORE!: Michelle Malkin joins the chase and quotes one of Erick's posts:

If the right side of the blogosphere cannot defeat the bill to give reparations to Guam, then we are toast. I've listed every casualty of war who fought to free Guam from Imperial Japan...
...These are the heros of Guam. The men of the United States military who rescued Guam from the Imperial Japanese. These men shed their blood that Guam might be free.

And yet, the House Majority Leader thinks this is not enough. Steny Hoyer thinks we should also have to pay Guam reparations for what Imperial Japan did to Guam.

You can stop this madness. You can call your Congressman and tell him to vote against this bill. Call right now and tell your Congressman to oppose H.R. 1595. Call 202-224-3121. Fight this resolution.

But gosh! When you click Malkin's link back to the original post, that thing about toast isn't there.

I wonder how that happened?

The Truth? You Can't Handle the Truth!!

Redstate frontpage regular Mark I faces a daunting dilemma in today's review of congressional hearings including testimony by former Army private and POW Jessica Lynch and members of ex-NFL star Pat Tillman's family.

Mr. I acknowledges the military lied. He also accepts that Mr. Waxman, the Democratic chair of the House Oversight Committee, is presenting an accurate version of these events.

This just won't do, will it? Mr. I must make Mr. Waxman the villain while praising the military and avoiding criticism of Ms. Lynch or the Tillmans.

It's a difficult challenge, and one that apparently overwhelms Mr. I. He's barely able to rouse himself to offer even the most strained and improbable explanation of the hearing. Right from the outset, Mr. I confesses that something has gone awry:

"For the purposes of this piece, I will stipulate to all of Waxman’s “facts.” I will agree that Lynch did not go down fighting, as was first reported in the Washington Post by Susan Schmidt and Vernon Loeb, and that that myth was not the creation of Schmidt and Loeb. I will submit that generals in high levels of command knew within days of his death that Tillman was the victim of friendly fire--fratricide in military speak--and that they conspired among themselves and even ordered subordinates to withhold that fact from his family."

(Why does Mr. I stipulate to sneer-quoted "facts" when he has just allowed that they are, indeed, facts? He explains that no congressional hearing is needed to unearth the truth. The military--diligently setting the record straight--has already 'fessed up to their earlier wayward statements.)

So if the facts (or "facts") are all on the table, why the hearing?

The clairvoyant Mr I sees all, tells all. He divines Mr. Waxman's real motives:

• use Lynch, Tillman, and their families to further erode the American people’s support for the war in Iraq


• pressure the Bush Administration into abandoning the noble work being done there


• convince the American public to question everything they hear from the Pentagon and from the Bush Administration

Not surprisingly, Mr. Waxman, stubbornly refuses to own up to any of this. In his opening statement, he insists on masking his sinister agenda:

"...I want to say to Private Lynch and her family: this Committee is going to do its best to find out the source of the fabrications that you have had to endure. We want to know whether they were the result of incompetence or a deliberate strategy to spin a compelling story at a critical time. And we will do our best to find out who should be held accountable."

But these are only Mr. Waxman's lesser depredations, Mr. I explains. By asking uncomfortable questions about who, exactly, hid the truth and invented tales about Ms. Lynch, Mr. Tillman, and others, Mr. Waxman actually seeks to:

"paint doubt with a broad brush onto the genuine stories of heroism from Iraq and Afghanistan."

Summary: Mr. Waxman is guilty of seeking the truth for reasons unacceptable to Mr. I.

Having bumbled this far, Mr. I goes for broke. To bolster his unsupported charges, he explains how Mr. Waxman's impertinent questions reveal rampant treachery:

"Does it make a difference in the end? It is hard to say. Perhaps in the deep, dank fever swamps of the rabidly anti-war left, soldiers like Lynch, Tillman, Smith, and Dunham are already viewed as murderers, torturers, and mindless killing machines."

Who? Wuzzat?!?

"Perhaps the majority of Americans will continue to trust the military to accurately report on the actions of our soldiers. But as a result of these hearings, and the resulting media coverage, many others will now view the action reports from the military with skepticism first. Still others will call into question the citations already awarded for bravery and valor in Iraq and Afghanistan up to and including the Medal of Honor recipients. To the extent that happens, all of the heroes of the Global War on Terror are diminished."

Shorter: It's not the lying that destroys credibility, it's asking who lied that does it.

****

Maybe Mr. I just fired off his post a little hastily. I'm sure he eventually got around to reading the highlights of Ms. Lynch's testimony before the committee. Quite elequently, she said:

"The bottom line is the American people are capable of determining their own ideals of heroes and they don't need to be told elaborate tales."

Fast Forward

Redstate's Jeff Emanuel notes--with a shriek of gleeful triumph--the discovery of a cache of nitric acid in Iraq.

Why?

Here, let Mr. Emanuel tell you:

So, the bad guys are making chemical weapons in Iraq...chemical weapons are classified by the UN as WMDs...so there are WMDs in Iraq...wait. That can't be right. The reality-based community said they weren't.

Mr. Emanuel is correct. Opponents of the invasion of Iraq--the "reality-based community"--did indeed say exactly that.

Four years ago.

Nowhere in Mr. Emanuel's post, nor in the article he links, does it say that the nitric acid is part of a Saddam-era arsenal.

Perhaps Mr. Emanuel would have better luck trying to pin the blame for the nitric acid on the Iranians. Or the Syrians.

Or even Harry Reid.

Help Wanted

Says Mr. "Streetwise" and seconded by Mr. Lane:

Churchill did not go after Baldwin with wild recriminations, but used his famous wit to leave no doubt how he felt...This is the path we should follow with Madame Speaker and her minions.

Watch for the "Help Wanted" sign to appear in the Redstate window shortly.

I'm Sorry, Mr. Vonnegut

Listen. Jeff Emanuel has come unstuck from reality.

Mr. Emanuel posts a review of Barack Obama's weekend campaign appearances in Selma and seems to see things we mere mortals can't.

Even as he's just warming up, Mr. Emanual conjures. Encapsulating the Obama campaign to date, he offers this:

Thus far, there have been roadblocks, insults, and other issues. The self-and-media-appointed leaders of black America have been slow to warm up to the Senator, fellow Senator (and fellow Presidential candidate) Joe Biden called Obama "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," it turns out that he is descended from slaveowners on his mother's side, and he has fallen victim (repeatedly) to the Hillary! smear machine.

Oddly, the link Mr. Emanuel provides is all about the David Geffen - Maureen Dowd flap. In that contretemps, Mr. Geffen--through Ms. Dowd's column in the New York Times--calls the Clintons every name in the book. Apparently Mr. Obama "fell victim" when the Clinton campaign responded by asking Mr. Obama to cut it out!

A bit later, Mr. Emanuel explains how the Obama campaign "did a good job cleaning up the Biden mess" as if it was Mr. Obama rather than Mr. Biden who needed to scrape the muck of racial stereotyping off his shoes.

For good measure, Mr. Emanuel notes that Mr. Obama's white ancestors were slave owners (but fails to explain whether this is a roadblock, an insult, or a smear orchestrated by the Clinton campaign). Perhaps it's none of the above and Mr. Emanuel simply can't pass up the opportunity to dish the newest dirt.

After meandering through these preliminaries, Mr. Emanuel finally comes to the point: he accuses Mr. Obama of talking down to his black, southern Selma audience:

I think that this question is a very valid one to ask: if the African American community is, as I believe, and as Obama and his defenders have claimed to believe, as normal, articulate, intelligent, etc. as anybody else (to the point that, as we have been fighting for years to achieve, race should no longer matter or be noticed), then why does the fact that he is speaking to an overwhelmingly southern black audience mean that he has to change his manner of speech altogether, from his usual measured, clear, enunciated oratory to THIS:

...and then provides a link to Mr. Obama's speech , here.

Mr. Emanuel concludes:

The question is, will anybody notice the message that Obama is sending regarding his opinion of his own race in the video above - and will anybody allow themselves to really think about what that message means?

At the very beginning of the segment, Mr. Obama slurs the word "going" in "Some women said 'we're going to walk'". The rest seems quite ordinary. Whatever it is that Mr. Emanuel sees, it's not readily apparent to the eyes of ordinary mortals.

The biggest question Mr. Emanuel leaves unanswered, though, is why he has become so interested in the speaking styles of politicians only now--eight long years after the Connecticut-born Ivy leaguer Mr. Bush arrived on the public stage speaking in his "West Texas" twang.
UPDATE: Mr. Emanuel says Hillary's doing it too! Maybe it's a trick to smear Obama!!