Just one more thing

One thing I've learned since I started writing this blog is that conservative bloggers hate Meghan McCain. This is what Lori Ziganto recently said about her and McCain's recent Daily Beast article: "The very first paragraph alone divulges Meghan McCain's real problem; childish jealousy due to a gigantic, and unwarranted, ego mixed with a delusional persecution complex. She's like Jan Brady, only not as groovy."

Ziganto says that McCain's political analysis is "banal" and characterizes McCain's book as "drivel-filled." "Your book was basically a tale told by a useful idiot," writes Ziganto. "Full of shrieking sound and temper tantrum fury, signifying nothing." And that's not all. According to Ziganto, McCain "thinks incredibly highly of herself for no discernible reason" and "has no leadership qualities whatsoever, nor any original thoughts of her own." 

But I want to focus on one passage in Ziganto's post in particular:

[McCain] talks a big game about a "big tent." Except, by big tent she means very exclusive tent consisting only of people who agree with her and who, she desperately hopes, will worship her while they're at it. Those who disagree with her need not apply. Tolerance for me, but not for thee, says Meghan. She's not a fan of diversity, particularly not of diversity of thought.

Ziganto appears to be castigating McCain for allegedly shunning those who disagree with her. McCain is not the only person Ziganto has abused for this particular crime. Consider what Ziganto said about Gloria Steinem recently:

Gloria Steinem recently said conservative women cannot be Feminists. Cannot. Why? Because you are anti-woman if you are pro-life. Many other faux-feminists, or femisogynists, have been flapping their soy-drinking gums with outrageous, and shrieking, outrage in a similar vein. “Oh noes!” they say “Conservative women are trying to steal Feminism! They can’t be feminists. They are icky!” Um. Selective support for only “the right kind” of woman and slamming the doors you claim to open right in their faces is antithetical to actual feminism. Shatter that glass ceiling, but only if you do it by walking in lock-step with us!

Again, the problem with Steinem, according to Ziganto, is that she shuns conservative women, i.e., women with whom she disagrees. And consider an exchange on Twitter between Amanda Marcotte and Ziganto. Marcotte tweeted, "I don't know why women who aren't feminists want to be called 'feminist' anyway. Do they think we get special discounts or something?" In response to Marcotte, Ziganto tweeted, "Not feminists? Saying some women don't meet yr assy club standards is antithetical to Feminism. Not very For The Women-y!" Again, Ziganto criticizes someone for shunning those who disagree with her, but this time she goes even further: she claims that shunning women who disagree is "antithetical to Feminism."

Ziganto has declared that she herself is a feminist. I am not making this up. Ziganto writes:

I’ve said before that one day I hope to take back the term Feminist, as it has been bastardized beyond any recognizable meaning. I lied. I’m doing it now. I am a Feminist. [Feminists] are not. They are, at best, Faux Feminists and, at worst, misogynists. In fact, I think they require a new term: Fem-ogynists.

Great. So I take it that Ziganto herself, being a feminist, is against shunning those who disagree with her, since it's "antithetical to Feminism." In fact, she congratulates herself for attending the so-called "Smart Girl 2010 Summit" with "the strong and diverse group of women, and the men who support them, who are at the center of the Conservative movement today." All right, then.

Just one more thing.

How are we to understand this other post in which Ziganto says the following to one Meghan McCain:

If you were truly brave, you would actually, you know, discuss Conservative principles. You would STAND UP for conservatives, not constantly deride them. You would applaud them, not mock them. You would work WITH them, not against them.

Come to think of it, why does Ziganto abuse McCain so savagely? I know they disagree on a number of issues. McCain is apparently not conservative enough for Ziganto. But McCain is a woman, and Ziganto wouldn't want to shun her, would she? But it sure seems as if that's exactly what she's doing. Ziganto writes, "Meghan must believe in antiquated stereotypes of the Republican Party, perpetuated by her buddies in the media, that are not true." Is that why she is abusing McCain? They don't agree about the truth of the stereotype? It just doesn't seem very for-the-women-y to me. I mean, you know, with feminists celebrating diversity of thought. Well, whatever it is, I'm sure Ziganto can explain her apparently hypocritical behavior. Perhaps someday she will!

Bonus Comment

Can you find the problem with the following sentence from McCain's article?

The further I got into my book tour last month, the more paranoia set in as I started questioning the idea that the only thing that made me interesting to some people was my association with Sarah Palin.

Me neither. Grammarian-in-training Ziganto believes that there is something wrong with the phrase "questioning the idea," but I have no idea why. One sense of the verb "to question" is "to subject to analysis." Can't ideas be subjected to analysis? I thought they could. 

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.

Lori Ziganto's semantic games

Recently, Lori Ziganto has recently attempted to redefine the term "feminism." Ziganto most recently writes,

I was taking the term feminist back, not because it’s a necessary or even a desirable term, but so that the LEFT can no longer use it and can no longer continue to use identity politics as a wedge and a way to put people in race based and gender based boxes.

Regarding the meaning of that term, Ziganto writes,

Sarah Palin and the women of the GOP are “true feminists,” in the original intent of the word, yes. And the fact that the faux feminists on the Left are so up in arms about them using the term, which they have bastardized beyond recognition, attests to that fact.

I wonder if any of her readers have wondered what Ziganto means by "feminism"? What is "the original intent" of that word? If "faux feminists" have "bastardized" that term "beyond recognition," then surely Ziganto knows what its original meaning was. And though I do not have encyclopedic knowledge of Ziganto's collected prose, I have read many of her feminism-related posts, and I do not recall her ever defining the term for us.  So, what was the original intent of the word?  I have a feeling that Ziganto will never answer that question for us, for either she actually doesn't know and only claims to, or she believes she knows but will learn that she is actually mistaken.

But certain passages in Ziganto's latest post about feminism are suggestive of what meaning she has in mind. Ziganto writes:

My point was that conservative women are strong, capable and are fed up at having faux feminists (who are actually Femisogynists) constantly claim that they speak for us as they strive to turn all women into perpetual victims, at the mercy of big strong daddy government. We are also tired of motherhood being diminished and considered a detriment instead of an attribute.

Ziganto also writes:

We don’t rely on a victim mentality; we rely on ourselves and the love of our families. We don’t invent sexism with insane claims that marriage itself is sexist. We have no problem taking our husbands’ names, as we aren’t cuckoo pants and thus, realize that marriage isn’t some nefarious plot, but rather a loving bond. We want to share our name with our children, whom we don’t consider punishments.

Ziganto also criticizes "faux feminists" for embracing metaethical moral relativism and with it a tolerant attitude toward the oppression and abuse of women in certain Islamic countries.

So who is the enemy, according to Ziganto?  Her post suggests that the enemy

1. Accepts metaethical moral relativism, 
2. Strives to turn all women into perpetual victims, 
3. Relies on a victim mentality rather than themselves and the love of family, 
4. Supports leaving women at the mercy of big strong daddy government, 
5. Believes that marriage itself is sexist, 
6. Is opposed to women taking their husband's names, 
7. Fails to realize that marriage is a loving bond, 
8. Considers children to be punishments, and 
9. Diminishes motherhood.  

(The "real" feminists, then, are just the opposite.)  Now, we ought to ask at least two questions: first, does anyone satsifying Ziganto's description actually exist? and second, if so, are they representative of feminists?  To the first question, it is probably safe to answer in the affirmative.  There are around seven billion people on the planet, so surely someone satisfies this description.  To the second question, however, it is safe to answer in the negative.

Unlike Ziganto, I have offered a definition of feminism.  According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,

Classical liberalism or libertarianism . . . holds that women and men are self-owners capable of acquiring property rights over things. As such women and men, equally, have the right to freedom from coercive interference with their person and property. This right to freedom from coercive interference consists in, at least, rights to freedom of conscience and expression, freedom to control what happens to one's body, freedom of association, freedom to acquire, control and transfer property, freedom of contract, as well as the right to compensation when rights are violated. The state's role is, exclusively, to protect citizens from coercive interference by protecting their rights. Some reject even a limited state, however, holding that nongovernmental means of protecting rights are to be preferred.

The classical liberal or libertarian feminist simply holds that classical liberalism is true.  Now, the careful reader will note that this feminist view entails virtually nothing on Ziganto's ridiculous list.  As a feminist myself, the only item on Ziganto's list I might endorse is (6).  But think about it: why must a woman take her husband's name?  Why shouldn't the man take his wife's name?  The practice is obviously completely arbitrary and therefore without merit and indefensible.

As a feminist who rejects metaethical moral relativism, I am opposed to any effort anywhere in the world to oppress and abuse women.  I do not favor making women into perpetual victims; I do favor uncovering the ways in which society makes women into victims so that it can be addressed by the law.  Leaving women at the mercy of government is not the same as believing that government ought to protect the equal rights of all citizens, including women.  I don't believe that marriage is sexist, but I believe that many marriages are.  The right to freedom to control what happens to one's body also guarantees a woman's right to be a mother if she autonomously chooses.  Ziganto's inclusion on the list of the idea that children are punishments is based on her willful misunderstanding of a statement made by President Obama and is therefore a piece of partisan political bullshit that I shall not address.  And finally, to actually suggest that feminists fail to recognize the value of the loving bonds with family members and spouses is absurd.

By suggesting that the list is representative of feminism, Ziganto has already redefined the term.  Her argument against feminism is in fact a semantic game.  By changing the meaning of "feminism" so that it refers exclusively to radical forms of feminism which may not have any actual adherents, she is committing the straw man fallacy. Think about it: which form of feminism is more likely to have more adherents, a moderate form, or a radical form?  And by trying to take the term back, as she puts it, Ziganto is doing the very thing she abhors, i.e., using identity politics as a wedge.

This isn't the only semantic game Ziganto has been playing lately.  Ziganto recently published this adolescent attack on Meghan McCain.  Now, McCain and I aren't exactly playing on the same team, but I have a hell of a lot more respect for McCain than I do Ziganto because McCain is usually more nuanced in her thinking. Regarding Rand Paul's primary win in Tennessee, McCain writes:

Paul’s nomination could have been a moment of triumph for the Tea Party movement, as well as for Republicans, but instead it was an embarrassment. And I felt the disappointment firsthand, given that I agree with and support numerous things the Tea Party represents. Like many Americans, I’m angered by the intense spending going on under the Obama administration. But when the movement was given the opportunity to present specific solutions and answer real questions, its leaders nominated someone who—yet again—revealed weird, racist undertones, no matter how he wants to spin it. 

I respect Paul’s ideological commitment to libertarianism, of which it’s quite obvious he’s a die-hard supporter, even if there are reasons there’s no real libertarian senator. And I, too, believe that the government should stay out of people’s lives as much as possible. Yet Paul seems to be taking these beliefs to an extreme, one that’s making even fellow Republicans uneasy.

Why Does Paul give McCain the willies?  Immediately after his primary victory, Paul did an interview with Rachel Maddow in which he seemed to indicate that the government has no right to prohibit private discrimination on the basis of race.  This put him at odds with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is rather extraordinary.

McCain goes on to indicate which team she's on:

Paul’s role within the Republican Party (if any) has yet to be determined. But one thing I am sure of is that, until we start nominating candidates who have more realistic views of the complex world we live in and stop seeing things strictly in black and white (no pun intended), we are going to continue losing elections and becoming punch lines for late-night talk-show hosts.

So, plainly, McCain is urging the Republican Party to moderate its stances for its own good.  That seems like excellent advice to me.

How did Ziganto take this advice? Well, she said the following, among other things:

As always, Meghan McCain is concerned only with Meghan McCain. And being thought of as “cool” and “hip” and “edgy” so that the right people, in her mind, will like her. She has yet to learn that they only pretend to like her as long as they can use her to bash Republicans. She obviously doesn’t realize yet that is the only reason she is paid – such a depressing thought – for her alleged writing.

She also has yet to learn that the “I’m so brave, I speak my own mind” line doesn’t work when one always takes the easy route and never, ever says anything actually brave. You see, Meghan, you can’t claim to be an individual nor a rebel. You have proven yourself to be a sheep — in cute shoes, yes, but a sheep nonetheless.

That's right, Ziganto went straight for the ad hominem fallacy dangling in front of her mind like a carrot. Even if McCain's motivation for writing is the desire to be thought of as cool, hip, and edgy, her analysis may be perfectly sound.  But there's something more interesting going on here. McCain probably doesn't give a flying fuck what Ziganto has to say about her.  But surely McCain's attempt to combat the radicalization of the Republican Party has its significant detractors.  David Frum was made to pay for his opposition to the epistemic closure of the Republican Party.  Some would plausibly say that Frum's willingness to call out Republicans took courage.  Well, then, how could Ziganto characterize McCain's willingness to challenge the radical elements of the Republican Party as anything other than courageous? How can that be the "easy route" for McCain? Her father was the Republican Party's nominee for President in 2008, for fuck's sake, and only after shedding his maverick reputation to become one of the most conservative members of the Republican Party.  For Ziganto, the brave thing to do would be to simply go along with the people in charge of the Republican Party right now—the people who led the party to their Waterloo over health care reform, the epistemically closed Party of No that panders to Tea Partiers who would take the party even further to the right.  That would be brave, if by "brave," we meant "cowardly."

People like me use people like Frum and McCain to bash Republicans like Ziganto and Paul, i.e., right-wing extremists. And we should. Such work is noble, for it hastens the day when rational, mature, principled conservatives will take their party back.

(By the way, what does Ziganto mean when she refers to McCain's "alleged" writing?  Does she mean to say that McCain's writing isn't actually writing?  Is she serious?)