Stubborn is the new serious. Haven't you heard?

I read the major right-wing journals on a regular basis, and in those foul swamps of militant nationalism I frequently find articles so deceitful and malicious that I can feel my blood pressure rise as I read them. This, for example.

But when the Weekly Standard twists logic and reason into pretzel form to produce a spiffy bit of falangist propaganda, one can generally sense the underlying Straussian mechanics of the article. The purpose of propaganda is not to make sense. The purpose is to generate a specific, desired response from the audience.

By contrast, when Jake Weisberg writes an article, I often get the feeling that he shuffled a deck of Beltway pundit cliches and played solitaire with them. He always starts the pile with a criticism of the President or the handling of the war in Iraq, but the pile always inevitably builds up to the face cards of Washington journalism: The Democrats are soft on defense. The Democrats can only win by moving to the Right. Incumbents deserve a free pass in the Primary. And finally, the Ace of Spades: Any Democrat who opposes any war will lose like McGovern did.

Matt once again supplies evidence that the Beltway is not, in fact, a magical barrier that shields all who live inside it from dangerous intrusions of common sense. The war is unpopular. The Bush Administration's policies have been discredited. Opposing these policies and insisting on dealing with terrorism primarily via intelligence and law enforcement tactics is not only a serious anti-terrorism position, it is THE serious position. There is nothing so unserious as doubling down on a bad bet because you can't be bothered to care about your losses or reconsider your strategy. There is no Democrat as unserious about assisting the Iraqi people and protecting the world from terrorism as Joe Lieberman. None.

And there is no pundit so unserious about these issues as the one who realizes the war is going badly but refuses to do anything about it because 34 years ago a badly-managed far-Left Presidential campaign lost to an incumbent who ran on the platform of bringing our troops home from Vietnam in a "responsible" fashion.

Weisberg is a bit oblique: "In a similar way, the 2006 Connecticut primary points to the growing influence within the party of leftists unmoved by the fight against global jihad."

Does it mean that some of us are so blinded to this apocaliptic danger that they insists that Constitution should still have the same meaning as before 9/11? And that human rights did not become "quaint" on that tragic day?

Some are so delirius as to think that we can indulge in cutting totally unnecessary items from the defence budget/ Yes, star war defence cannot work (luckily, it protects us against rockets that do not work either) but what signal we would send to the word by nixing thing program? That we are sane? Do we want to look sane, or fierce?

A bold resolute program is needed. Say, daily human sacrifices at Jefferson Memorial, where captured terrorist suspects will be beheaded in front of spectators. (A loose adaptation from an Ukrainian political joke.) THAT would be serious. With such a show of resolve, perhaps total dismantling of the Constitution would no longer be necessary.