What are you smoking, Leon?

According to grammarian Leon H. Wolf, "Meghan McCain’s book [Dirty Sexy Politics] is an active attempt to split the Republican Party in two and thereby destroy its ability to win elections."

(By the way, I find it hilarious that the anal Wolf cannot allow the name of McCain's book to appear in his attack piece without a comma between "Dirty" and "Sexy.")

If the Republicans fail to win big this November, is that really McCain's fault? Or someone else's?

Holly Bailey of Yahoo! News writes:

With polls showing significant GOP momentum this fall, Republicans in recent weeks began to believe they had a real chance of retaking control of the Senate in November. But a major primary upset at the hands of a tea party insurgent on Tuesday may have put the Senate GOP's dreams of a majority at serious risk. 

In the biggest electoral surprise of the night, conservative activist Christine O'Donnell defeated longtime GOP Rep. Mike Castle in Delaware's Republican Senate primary. Castle, a moderate who once served as the state's governor, had been so favored to win in November that his decision to run had reportedly influenced Democrat Beau Biden, son of Vice President Joe Biden, to abandon plans to seek his father's old seat.

But with O'Donnell's come-from-nowhere win Tuesday night, top Republicans in Washington now see virtually no chance the GOP will be able to pick up the Delaware seat this fall. As a result, they admit their already slim chance of winning back Republican control of the Senate is likely dead. 

"It's hard to see a path for us," one senior Republican official, who declined to be named while discussing party strategy, told The Upshot. "Never say never, but it has become much harder for us after tonight." 

The burden of proof is on anyone who would deny this. Tea Party candidates are typically less moderate and therefore less electable in the general election. McCain is being raked over the coals precisely because she is urging the Republican Party to moderate itself and its positions. And McCain is the threat?

What are you smoking, Leon?

Leon Wolf's review of Meghan McCain's book is way over the top (updated)

Meghan McCain

Let me begin by saying that I have not read Meghan McCain's Dirty Sexy Politics and I doubt that I ever will—not because I don't respect McCain: I simply don't have the time. But I am going to review Leon H. Wolf's scathing review of the book anyway. And by the time I am finished, I'm sure you'll agree that no one needs to read McCain's book to see Wolf's review as the sociopathic partisan hack job it is.

Wolf is a RedState blogger. That alone tells you what you need to know about his review. His complaints about the book are as follows:

1. McCain violates what Wolf considers to be rules of proper grammar, punctuation, and word choice. 
2. McCain devotes too much space on descriptions of clothing, hair, and makeup. 
3. McCain's book includes factual inaccuracies. 
4. McCain does not agree with the political opinions of Leon H. Wolf. 

Wolf's review is roughly 5,500 words long. Roughly 1,100 of those words, or one fifth of the review, are devoted to (1). What terrible crimes against the English language has Wolf decided to bore the reader with? Wolf takes issue with the following passages, among others.

Our room was crowded with our stuff – a total mess, totally trashed with blog equipment, photo stuff, cameras, and all our makeup, clothes, our huge suitcases. We were like animals, like bears who have to litter and mess up their cave to feel it is theirs.

This, combined with the fact that I’m a nonstop extrovert, a people person who loves mingling and gabbing and getting out in the world, a blog that chronicled my days on the campaign – and showed the silliness and madness, as well as the seriousness – seemed like a perfect idea.

These days, the name Ronald Reagan – as well as his legacy – has become oversaturated, just white noise.

It was going to be a tough race. Not much disagreement about that.

Some of these sentences show that McCain's book could have used more editing. (An incomplete sentence here and there is not a big deal, Leon.) But do they show that McCain has "horrible communication skills"? Or that the book is "impossible to read"? Or that it reads like "the first draft of an essay written for a high school English class"? Obviously, no. McCain writes better than many college students. (I know, believe me.)

Not only is Wolf's lecture regarding grammar way over the top, it's insincere. Where is the conservative grammar police when people like George W. Bush or Sarah Palin open their mouths? Their political leaders can massacre the language as much as they want; if you're someone like McCain and you don't share the political views of the Republican Party establishment, however, you'd better not allow even one superfluous comma to find its way into print, because Wolf isn't fucking around. "The entire book is riddled with inappropriate comma use," writes the professorial Wolf. Hey, Leon, did McCain reject your advances at some cocktail party or what? Have a drink and chill the fuck out!

Let's take a look at (2). Here's my question: what is wrong with including descriptions of clothing, hair, and makeup in a book? Even if the book is about politics, what is the problem, exactly? Let's find out from the grammarian himself:

Meghan’s primary goal in writing Dirty, Sexy Politics appears to have been to show off her encyclopedic knowledge of who was wearing what clothes on what occasion. From all appearances, it is physically impossible for Meghan McCain to describe a given scene or occurrence without describing in detail what everyone in the room was wearing (and how their hair was done), most especially including herself. . . .

When not describing the outfits, hairstyles, and makeup of people you don’t care about (most notably the author herself), Meghan’s narrative usually actually descends from the merely tedious to the shockingly banal. 

What's going on here? Well, there are huge numbers of people in these United States who do not find such details to be "shockingly banal." But there is one sad blogger, Leon H. Wolf, who hopes to contribute to the narrative that McCain is some blonde brainless bimbo who cares only about stereotypically female concerns. How do I know? Why else would Wolf write the following?

Or consider the following excerpt on her fondness for the state of New Hampshire, which she certainly composed on post-it notes while giggling madly with her BFFs as they called one another “naughty” about all the bon-bons and tequila. 

How convenient this narrative is to those who wish to discredit McCain and retain their stranglehold on Republican thought, or what little is left of it. It is not up to Wolf to decide what details may be included in a book about politics and what details must be left out. Perhaps you are not part of the book's intended audience, Leon. Had that ever occurred to you? Wolf's second criticism therefore reduces to the complaint that McCain is interested in things that do not interest Leon H. Wolf. How dare her!

Let's move on to (3). This is perhaps the only worthwhile criticism of the book. Wolf notes that McCain includes the following disclaimer in the first chapter:

I checked dates and facts, and corroborated my accounts with friends and family, but my stories are decidedly impressionistic rather than reportorial.

Wolf's response to this is to assume, without argument, that publishing impressionistic non-fiction is strictly forbidden. If we grant Wolf's plausible assumption, a lack of fact-checking is a problem. But one wonders why the tightly wound Wolf would be such a stickler for correct grammar but sloppy in his critique otherwise. Wolf writes:

In other cases, Meghan’s made up facts are demonstrably and embarrassingly false. For instance, in one place, Meghan claims to be proud of her father because he got almost 48 million votes. About 20 seconds on Google will tell you that John McCain got over 59 million votes. If I could do this while fact-checking Meghan McCain’s book, why couldn’t she do this while writing it?

Wolf, of course, fails to mention that McCain's assertion is actually true: John McCain could not have gotten 59 million votes without getting at least 48 million. I think it is fair to expect from Wolf the same rigor and precision that he expects from his political targets. Consider Wolf's uncharitable interpretation of McCain's assertion that "Reagan was 'elected by moderates and Democrats, not the Far Right/Religious Right.'" Wolf writes,

This sentence is correct if you replace the word "not" with the word "and"; as written, it is completely fictional and false. Only a narcissistic fool with no grasp of history or politics would suggest that the Republican party could win nationally (or in almost any state) if they jettisoned Christian conservatives from the coalition, or summarily ignored their concerns.

Wolf's uncharitable reading is made possible by a certain ambiguity in McCain's writing. Obviously, McCain is saying that Reagan needed the support of moderates and Democrats to get elected (which is true); Wolf interprets McCain as saying that Reagan did not have the support of the far right and the religious right. Wolf interprets McCain in the least charitable way, but fails to mention the lack of grammatical precision that made his uncharitable interpretation possible. And it's obvious why. Wolf read McCain's book with the preexisting notion that McCain is an idiot; he did not arrive at that notion as a result of reading that book.

And now (4). Wolf writes,

Meghan’s real talent, however, is not in manufacturing facts, but rather in manufacturing enemies. Sizeable portions of Dirty, Sexy Politics are dedicated to defeating a shadowy conspiracy of Republicans who are attempting to railroad her out of the party. 

Wolf is apparently unaware of the irony of saying this in a review in which he excoriates McCain for her political views. If he wants to know who these Republicans are, he need only look at himself. Here's another. And they are certainly not the only ones.

If you want an example of the sort of political view Wolf trashes McCain for having, here's one. According to Wolf, McCain writes:

I have to wonder, if [Reagan] and Goldwater were alive today and could see where their party has gone in the last decade, what they would think. Somehow the walls closed in. The conservative movement seems hell-bent on constricting our freedoms rather than expanding them. The base has moved to the Far Right and, sadly, it seems to be dying there.

Wolf then asks, "Who’s closed in the walls? What walls? What freedoms is the conservative movement hell-bent on constricting?" Who exactly is the "narcissistic fool with no grasp of history or politics," Leon? Republicans have been fighting to restrict individual rights for decades. I'll give you a few examples. Republicans have been fighting to deny homosexuals the right to marry. Republicans have also been trying to find a way to revoke the citizenship and therefore the legal rights of so-called anchor babies. They have fought to restrict a woman's right to an abortion and therefore individuals' right to privacy. Republicans (and too many Democrats) supported the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which effectively nullified much of the Bill of Rights.

Wolf quotes McCain as saying the following:

Rather than the party of openness and individual freedom, it is now the party of limited message and less freedom. Along with an ideological narrowness, an important PR battle is being lost. Rather than leading us into the exhilarating fresh air of liberty, a chorus of voices on the radical right is taking us to a place of intolerance and anger. We hear them on the radio and TV. They love to spread fear because it keeps the money rolling in. You know who I’m talking about. The more afraid we are, the richer they get. . . .

Somehow, being a Republican isn’t a political decision anymore. It is a lifestyle choice. You have to look one way, think one way, and act one way. Wear the uniform! Embrace groupthink! And for goodness’ sake, no strangers allowed! 

Wolf feigns ignorance and asks, "Who the hell is saying these things, Meghan?" I'll name them for those of us who haven't been paying attention: Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich, among others, have been spreading irrational fear of Muslims for political gain; the responsibility-free talkers and bloggers on the right and those in charge of the Republican Party have been insisting on absolute ideological purity and groupthink. Wolf's savage attack on McCain for expressing unorthodox Republican views is itself evidence of such groupthink and what has also been called epistemic closure. None of Wolf's readers will notice this, of course.

How savage can Wolf be? This is a sampling of what he says about McCain in his review:

It is impossible to read Dirty, Sexy Politics and come away with the impression that you have read anything other than the completely unedited ramblings of an idiot.  

It is important to know that I was repeatedly tempted just to put the book down, eat the relatively small price I paid to download it to my Kindle, and silently curse Hyperion for publishing this book. After all, they are the ones taking advantage of this particular idiot’s fifteen minutes of fame by exposing her idiocy for the entire world to see. 

[M]ost of Meghan’s flaws – such as her unbearable narcissism, delusions of persecution, anti-religious bigotry, and mendacity – couldn’t be chalked up to her manifestly below-average intelligence.  These are blameworthy traits born of a malfunctioning moral compass. 

I get the vague impression (through the haze of her horrible writing) that Meghan McCain would like for Dirty, Sexy Politics to be taken seriously as a political book. McCain approaches this serious topic as a person who has accomplished absolutely nothing of note in her life.  

The sad truth is that Meghan McCain is never going to write a book that imparts a basic level of understanding about any topic until she reaches a basic level of understanding about herself.

Even if we grant Wolf's criticisms of the book, i.e., (1) through (4) above, does McCain really deserve this kind of abuse?

If Wolf wished to leave us with the impression that he is an asshole, I believe that he succeeded.

Wolf reveals his real motivation for writing this sociopathic attack in the final sentence of the review:

If you simply must have large doses of poorly-written fictional tripe written by a narcissistic person who hates conservatives and everything they stand for, read Mike Lupica instead. At least he’s smart enough to know which side he’s on.

Such is McCain's punishment for standing up to the powers that be and forgetting her place.

The savagery of the attacks against her indicates the importance of what McCain is doing. McCain is in a battle for the soul of the Republican Party. If Republicans know what is good for them, they will hope that her side wins.

Update. (1) For a valuable critique of Wolf's review from the perspective of an editor, visit Rumproast. (2) Someone posted a link to this post in a comment on Wolf's hatchet job. Predictably, cravenly, someone at The New Ledger removed it this morning. (3) Captain Napalm (see comments) has prompted me to point out that a second comment on Wolf's review containing a link to this post has not been taken down. Yes, more than one attempt has been made to link to this post in comments on Wolf's review. Believe it or not.

Wolf at RedState attempts to school Carson and Lewis on civil rights

Somewhat predictably, certain bloggers on the right are claiming that protesters in Washington actually did not hurl racial epithets at congressmen on Saturday.

RedState's Leon H. Wolf's evidence for this claim is the following video:



You can read his post and watch the video here.

"The specific accusation most often repeated," Wolf writes, "is that when Andre Carson (D-IN) and John Lewis (D-Ga) left the Cannon House Office Building yesterday, they were met with a crowd that chanted the 'n-word' at them repeatedly." According to Wolf, "It turns out, it’s not just that there’s a lack of evidence that this ever happened, there’s actually video evidence of the scene in question which absolutely proves that Carson and Lewis are full of crap."

What is the problem with Wolf's argument?

Wolf is obviously assuming that if Carson's and Lewis's story were true, the n-word would have been audible on the video. Now, is this assumption true? Carson and Lewis cover a lot of ground on the video. Are we really expected to believe that this single recording device would have captured anything of interest? How stupid does Wolf think we are?

Wolf infers from the video that Carson and Lewis are liars. And that's not all:

I don’t know if these two idiots are just unaware that protesters and activists tend to carry video cameras everywhere they go now in order to catch news as it happens, or if (more likely) they just figured that their completely fabricated story fit a pre-existing narrative the media would be happy to credulously pass on. The sad thing is that it appears to have worked. I won’t hold my breath for all the media who slandered the Tea Party protesters to retract and publicly these two out [sic] for the liars they are, though.

Really, it’s sad in a way. Racism still does exist in this country, but political crooks like Carson and Lewis have turned the owrd [sic] into a joke for the sake of their own political gain. Well done, fellas - way to serve the cause.

Carson and Lewis, according to Wolf, are idiots as well. In fact, Wolf's post is entitled, "Lying Bastards Lie." So, according to Wolf, Carson and Lewis are (1) liars, (2) idiots, and (3) bastards. Is it really a stretch to think that Wolf and others like him would use the n-word to refer to them as well? No.

What's more likely?

• No one in the crowd used a racial epithet, but Carson and Lewis claimed falsely that someone did, knowing that there were plenty of witnesses, some with video recording equipment, who would contradict them;
• Someone in the crowd used a racial epithet, but the single video recording device failed to capture it. 

Why believe that Carson and Lewis are lying? Why not just believe their story, since "[r]acism still does exist in this country"?  Here's my guess: Wolf is probably thinking that, well, there's just something that's not quite right about those two, Carson and Lewis.  Gee, what could it be?  Well, whatever it is, many of their readers probably noticed it as well and were therefore more likely to accept Wolf's lame argument.  I mean, what else would someone who reads RedState expect from these two congressmen who don't quite look right, who seem unsavory somehow? 

What is both completely laughable and offensive is Wolf's admonishment of Lewis and Carson in the final paragraph, as if Wolf is actually an authority on the cause or even cares about the cause. Lewis was part of the civil rights movement in the previous century; Wolf is some asshole who contributes to a blog. Spare me.

Update: RedState's Martin Knight is presenting the same flawed argument.  It's there alongside some rather irrational ranting:

There has not been a single competitive election, legislative battle or even debate on the issues in the past four decades that Democrats have parachuted charges of racism and “hate.”

It is what Democrats use as shorthand for “I disagree”; it’s what they call their kids when they don’t do their homework. How does anyone think it became racist for one to be pro-life, or pro-school vouchers when the vast majority of black parents support school choice?

I think that in his hysteria, Knight said the opposite of what he meant to say in the first paragraph.  In the second, he infers from the fact that many of us are calling the protesters who hurled racist epithets "racist" that we think that being pro-life and supporting pro-school vouchers is racist.  I don't think that being pro-life or supporting pro-school vouchers is racist; I think referring to African Americans with the n-word is racist.  Martin, get a grip.

RedState's incoherent take on the torture memo lawyers

Leon H. Wolf of RedState is a very confused man.

Recently, he criticized liberals for criticizing the Justice Department's treatment of Bush II lawyers who wrote legal memos authorizing the torture of suspected terrorists. The men, John Yoo, Jay Bybee and Steven Bradbury, were accused of exercising poor judgment. This ruling superseded the original judgment of the investigation, which was that the lawyers were guilty of professional misconduct. That judgment could have led to their disbarment or even criminal prosecution. Read more from my sources here and here.

On my view, this ruling is troubling. There is no doubt that the Bush II administration used torture, and torture is illegal. Those responsible for the torture are guilty of war crimes. David Margolis, the man at Justice responsible for this latest judgment, has exonerated the men responsible for the torture memo and thus saw to it that they will not be punished for war crimes. The memos themselves justified the Bush II administration's use of torture, and therefore those in charge of the torture can avoid responsbility for their criminal acts. In the end, everyone involved in these war crimes will not be prosecuted and are therefore in effect above the law. As Scott Horton argues, this is a very serious matter:

Open criminality is a cancer on democracy. It implicates all who know of the conduct and fail to act. Such compliance presents a practical crisis, in that a government that is allowed to torture will inevitably transgress other legal limits. But it also presents an existential political crisis. Many democracies have simply collapsed as the people permitted their leaders to abandon the rule of law in the face of alleged external threats. The turn to torture was rapid, for instance, in Argentina at the time of the Dirty War and in Chile after the American-directed coup against Salvador Allende. In both cases, that turn had little to do with a perceived benefit from the use of torture in interrogation. To the contrary, the very criminality of the act had a talismanic significance. It asserted the primacy of the will of the torturer. It made the claim, for all to accept or reject, that the ruler was the law. Such a claim is, of course, intolerable to democracy, which presupposes, as Thomas Paine wrote, that “the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.”

So, what is Wolf's take on this? I'll quote his post at length:

Like a spoiled and petulant child who has tattled on a sibling to Daddy to no effect, angry liberals who are mad that Bush Administration lawyers suggested it was legal to put a terrorist in a box with a caterpillar have decided to try the other parent to see if they get a more satisfactory response. . . . Ever content to parody themselves, outraged liberals offended at our very uncouth treatment of people who plot our national destruction have been busy demanding the heads of current law professor John Yoo and current federal appeals judge Jay Bybee ever since. . . .

Of course, as everyone (most especially the Obama Administration) realizes, this course of action is preposterous and dangerous for the future of our country.
In the first place, . . . it’s preposterous to go on a witch hunt against lawyers for the crime of rendering a legal opinion, simply because that legal opinion proves to be politically unpopular with certain sets of the population. . . .

More to the point, the ridiculous hyperventilation directed at Messrs. Yoo and Bybee by people who haven’t the foggiest clue of these basic principles - and the politically-motivated witch hunt that has followed, will lead inexorably to the practice of defensive (read: bad) law. . . . In a rare exercise of foresight, it appears that someone in the Administration has posed the question, “Say, what’s to prevent people from going after our license if we, say, opine that it’s legal for the EPA to enact cap-and-trade without legislative authorization?”
This, however, is a point that is lost on the bungling left, who seemingly have no guiding star or principle other than being nice to people who want to kill Americans and destroy this country.

One can immediately see that Wolf is going to use whatever fallacious, non-rational means of persuasion are required to convince his readers, who are all too ready to believe what he says anyway and whose intelligence Wolf obviously does not respect. For who is the opposition here? The "bungling left," composed of "spoiled and petulant" children who want only to "[be] nice to people who want to kill Americans." If Wolf's actual arguments are so good, what purpose does the abuse serve? But think about it: how plausible is it that liberals, who are actual Americans, really want to be nice to actual terrorists? Last I heard, they want to convict them in civilian courts and execute them. So the portrayal is not only false; it is ludicrous.

Second, notice that, according to Wolf, the reason why liberals want to go after the torture memo lawyers is that their "legal opinion proves to be politically unpopular with certain sets of the population." This is, of course, false, as Horton makes clear. And, of course, it is also ludicrous.

Third, Wolf argues for the claim that punishing the lawyers will produce bad law. But his argument for this claim is that, if the torture memo lawyers are punished, then other lawyers might also be held responsible for their own actions. But what is wrong with that, exactly? The Bush administration wanted a specific legal opinion for political reasons, and it was the job of the torture memo lawyers to provide it. Holding lawyers accountable for their actions would not only give them additional incentive to do their jobs competently, it would also protect them from politicians would would prey on them. This might not have occurred to Wolf: as I have said before, those on the right have spent so long avoiding responsibility for their actions that by now it is probably second nature for them.

Finally, Wolf mischaracterizes the nature of the torture. He writes that the lawyers said only that "it was legal to put a terrorist in a box with a caterpillar." And this is where Wolf's post is not only false and misleading, it's just freaking incoherent. The justification of torture on the right is that it works, i.e., that it rapidly produces actionable intelligence better than alternative methods—a claim that is almost certainly false, by the way. (Just ask John Kiriakou.) Now, how could torture be so effective if it involves merely putting people in boxes with insects? It couldn't be, of course, so it must involve techniques that actually traumatize its victims. But then the liberal concern about the use of torture seems justified. I would be willing to waterboard Wolf it would help him see the point. But I doubt that he would sign up for it.