I’m really enjoying Brad’s “Fuck the Rats” posts over at S,N! The latest, on the coming Palin fiasco, is everything an aspiring Liberal version of Rove will need to propel herself (or himself!) to the top of the Democratic Party machine.

But going after political personalities is far too typical to truly hack an election, i.e., influence media-friendly events to wildly change the dynamics of an election. The infamous October surprise is a well-known example, but not all encompassing, and it is a commonly held belief that Ross Perot hacked the ‘92 election.

None other than Prime Minister Putin is accusing Dick Cheney of inciting war to benefit McCain. The Guardian reported the following yesterday:

Vladimir Putin, Russia’s prime minister, said yesterday that the Caucasus crisis was started by the US as an election ploy.

As Moscow found itself increasingly isolated internationally for invading Georgia and recognising two breakaway regions of the country as independent states, Putin suggested that the Georgia war had been cooked up in Washington to create a neo-cold war climate that would strengthen Republican candidate John McCain’s bid for the White House.

…
In an interview with CNN, Putin, seen as the main force behind Russia’s hammering of Georgia, amplified conspiracy theories aired in the Russian media - that the war was created by Dick Cheney, the US vice-president, and McCain to create an international crisis and fan anti-Russian hostility that would undermine Barack Obama’s chances of getting to the Oval Office. “The suspicion arises that someone in the United States especially created this conflict to make the situation more tense and create a competitive advantage for one of the candidates fighting for the post of US president,” Putin said.

The Bush White House is denying the accusation, so that clearly bolsters Putin’s claims, although it does smell like bullshit from afar. (Also, Bob Scheer floated the election hack accusation balloon weeks ago in The Nation, and truthout lays out the publicly available evidence to support the claim.)

What does this have to do with Himmicane Gustav, as my wife would say?

It will be obvious to all wingnuts, if indeed the coverage of the storm and its aftermath overshadows that of the Republican National Convention, that Barack HUSSEIN Obama asked Rev. Jeremiah Wright to confer with God on the possibility of reprising Katrina and the Republican embarrassment thereof. Much uncompassionate whining will ensue. The MSM will be blamed. Obama = Landslide. QED.

MM’s Q:

I ask again: Who’s next?

A: Umm. Glenn Reynolds?

Michelle has some well-intentioned critique for the Obama camp as it relates to defending the candidate against unsourced smears:

As I reported yesterday, Kurtz spent two hours on legendary radio talk show host Milt Rosenberg’s Chicago program on WGN last night detailing his initial findings. The Obama campaign went ballistic — and in typical Chicago mafia-style, smeared Kurtz and tried to shut down the show.

Ignoring that Michelle never does any original “reporting,” she does an interesting job of conflating many vintage attacks that have been used by the Blame America Last contingent.

The Obama/Ayers connection is an attempt at bringing 60s radicals, many of whom have entered the mainstream of society, back from the Weird/Bizarro/Scary/Acid Trip days. The terrorist allegations aren’t sticking. This is mainly because Ayers is now a middle-aged white guy. Other middle-aged white people see him standing on the American flag and shrug their shoulders. “He’s a professor, huh? Well, that’s nothing new.”

The “Chicago mafia-style” reference is also less-than-resonant. In no way does Obama’s supporters defending their man look anything like organized crime. If anything, what Michelle is complaining about resembles what Republican activists did back in 2000 to stop the recounts–something Michelle likely applauded.

And, of course, Michelle and “thuggery” cannot be mentioned together without reminding all of how she posted the personal phone numbers of members of Santa Cruz’s Students Against War. She wouldn’t remove them after a request. She responded, “You are responsible for your individual actions. Other individuals are responsible for theirs. Grow up and take responsibility.”

If only she gave Stanley Kurtz the same suggestion.

100% of all likely voters in my household last night:

• It won’t be Lieberman. It’s gonna be Cheney! (He has the experience, after all.)
• Obama will win in a landslide after it becomes obvious to the electorate that McCain wants to be President because he feels entitled to it. (Americans hate entitlements, right?)

I hope, I hope, I hope we’re right.

Michelle has been a consistent failure as an activist and policy wonk. Even with three best-selling books and a widely syndicated column, she has been unable to even blow on, much less steer, the Republican Party’s immigration and naturalization policies.

Her position is clear:

• Limit immigration to its extreme minimum. This will somehow reduce terrorism.
• Limit access to citizenship. This will ensure the survival of Fatherland.

So, Michelle, prone to displaying her entitlement complex, didn’t get her way with Senator John SIDNEY McCain, and is whining now that the RNC Platform is being written to (surprise) McCain’s specifications.

She hasn’t commented on the failed “anchor baby” amendment, but here’s how it’ll probably go:

Ugh. Don’t blame me, I voted for Tom Tancredo.

I’m in the same camp as Brad the Sadlynaught. The politics of spite must be exploited by the Obama camp if they hope to win, to wit:

It’s time for the Dems’ dirty tricks team (does one even exist?) to start ratfucking operations, my friends. Ideally, you’d want to exploit St. BBQ’s divisions with the anti-immigrant wingnuts and the religious wingnuts, and McCain’s warm embrace of Daddy Yankee has created an opening to do just that. I’m picturing a new 527 group called Values Voters Against McCain.

Although completely true, we must understand that this breaks from the Rovian calculus of attacking an opponent’s strengths. McCain is woefully weak already on immigration and family values. The voters he’s won who might be demotivated by Brad’s concept have already forgiven Sen. McCain–the Anybody But Obama crowd. But if you can successfully present a reluctant Republican voter with a strength repackaged as a weakness, you’re one vote closer to landslide. (V.P. Gore and Sen. Kerry were serial victims of this kind of onslaught, by the way.)

An important aspect of the tactic I’m describing will involve sowing discontent among online wingnuts to reap activist apathy. I’ll present a decent point of attack:

McCain does not share in the American Exceptionalism that is so pervasive among the Limbaughs, Malkins, and Ole Perfessers out there. Here are just two paragraphs from McCain’s March 26, 2008, Foreign Policy Speech:

America must be a model citizen if we want others to look to us as a model. How we behave at home affects how we are perceived abroad. We must fight the terrorists and at the same time defend the rights that are the foundation of our society. We can’t torture or treat inhumanely suspected terrorists we have captured. I believe we should close Guantanamo and work with our allies to forge a new international understanding on the disposition of dangerous detainees under our control.

There is such a thing as international good citizenship. We need to be good stewards of our planet and join with other nations to help preserve our common home. The risks of global warming have no borders. We and the other nations of the world must get serious about substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the coming years or we will hand off a much-diminished world to our grandchildren. We need a successor to the Kyoto Treaty, a cap-and-trade system that delivers the necessary environmental impact in an economically responsible manner. We Americans must lead by example and encourage the participation of the rest of the world, including most importantly, the developing economic powerhouses of China and India.

This is damning rhetoric that the wingnuts should really be defensive about.

Not to mock his agony, but McCain’s experience as a prisoner of war informs only one of these policy positions–whether or not GTMO should remain operational. Does this not raise doubts among McCain’s accidental supporters concerning the application of torture victim bona fides? That maybe, having been in that box for five years, not knowing if he might be executed on any given day, is a path toward good will and humanity–things totally antithetical to the goals of movement conservatism?

Because there are these other nagging issues with McCain’s policy positions: Consulting the global community on the proper way to fight terrorism is an antithesis to the Bush doctrine; “international good citizenship” sure sounds a lot like “global test” (that is, we’d probably have to take a citizenship test); and “successor to the Kyoto Treaty” may be a greater hindrance to “free markets” as modern conservatives see them.

And this doesn’t even get into his views on China’s emerging as a clear and present superpower or his analysis of how the Cold War was won. Sen. McCain is not one of Them. Our challenge is to remind Them of this over and over.

Gavin the Sadlynaught has it about right with this Shorter Right-O-Sphere:

Video Exclusive: Michelle Malkin Attacked At DNC

Ho-hum, we condemn the alleged plot to assassinate Barack. . .OH MY GOD, SOMEBODY YELLED AT MICHELLE MALKIN!

One, i.e., me, might conclude that Michelle can’t go out in public without running into members of The Unhinged Left. And that would explain at least one of the major themes of her oeuvre–that liberals, as a people, aren’t just crazier than their conservative counterparts, but they are less likely to reel in fringe elements.

Another conclusion: She just brings out the worst in people.

Update: As is the case with my entire oeuvre, this post is ill-informed and unreadable. David Neiwert has the goods on the man who accosted MM. Basically a solid STFU to Gateway Pundit.

Rose Mary Beuthien writes to the Kansas City Star,

Are there no conservative columnists available who discuss issues intelligently?

No.

This has been a co-oped edition of simple answers to simple questions.