Politico's media reporter, Dylan Beyers, noting a Washington Post story (which, in true WaPo fashion, was relegated to the Style section) on Sheryl Atkkisson -- the CBS reporter who's been one of the most dogged pursuers of the Benghazi story -- adds some interesting behind-the-scenes color:

... [The] piece places Attkisson in a David-vs.-Goliath narrative, wherein the Obama administration is Goliath ...

...  But from where Attkisson is sitting, there are actually two Goliaths, one of which is almost entirely absent from the Post profile.

The second Goliath is CBS News, which has grown increasingly frustrated with Attkisson's Benghazi campaign. CBS News executives see Attkisson wading dangerously close to advocacy on the issue, network sources have told POLITICO. Attkisson can't get some of her stories on the air, and is thus left feeling marginalized and underutilized. That, in part, is why Attkisson is in talks to leave CBS ahead of contract, as POLITICO reported in April.

Because Attkisson was also one of the few journalists making a prolonged push on Fast and Furious, I think we can all imagine a certain cable network that probably has her representatives on speed dial.

And I'm not sure that's a great thing.

Make no mistake, Fox gives a lot of talented, smart people a platform they wouldn't otherwise have. Those aren't the only people they give it to, but it's still something.

Still, is it too much to ask that a few troublemakers hang on to their seats at the other broadcast and cable news networks? Fox, for all its merits, is an outlet that primarily talks to people who already agree with the vast majority of its stances (which always --always-- leads to a little softening of standards). It simply means more to the median voter when a reporter at CBS gets critical of Benghazi than when Sean Hannity does the same. 

It's great that the right has taken the initiative over the past few decades to build a legitimate opposition press. But it's shameful that the rest of the media has interpreted that as a hall pass to drop any pretense of adversarial coverage of the people with which they agree.

Heather Mac Donald has written an excellent analysis of the "diversity" machine at the University of California - a machine that includes several administrators making well over $200,000 a year. The following are a few choice passages:

It’s impossible to overstate the extent to which the diversity ideology has encroached upon UC’s collective psyche and mission. No administrator, no regent, no academic dean or chair can open his mouth for long without professing fealty to diversity. It is the one constant in every university endeavor; it impinges on hiring, distorts the curriculum, and sucks up vast amounts of faculty time and taxpayer resources. The university’s budget problems have not touched it. In September 2012, for instance, as the university system faced the threat of another $250 million in state funding cuts on top of the $1 billion lost since 2007, UC San Diego hired its first vice chancellor for equity, diversity, and inclusion. This new diversocrat would pull in a starting salary of $250,000, plus a relocation allowance of $60,000, a temporary housing allowance of $13,500, and the reimbursement of all moving expenses. (A pricey but appropriately “diverse” female-owned executive search firm had found this latest diversity accretion.) In May 2011, UCLA named a professional bureaucrat with a master’s degree in student-affairs administration as its first assistant dean for “campus climate,” tasked with “maintaining the campus as a safe, welcoming, respectful place,” in the words of UCLA’s assistant vice chancellor and dean of students. In December 2010, UC San Francisco appointed its first vice chancellor of diversity and outreach—with a starting salary of $270,000—to create a “diverse and inclusive environment,” announced UC San Francisco chancellor Susan Desmond-Hellmann. Each of these new posts is wildly redundant with the armies of diversity functionaries already larding UC’s bloated bureaucracy.

 

UC San Diego’s electrical and computer engineering department found itself facing a mandate from campus administrators to hire a fourth female professor in early 2012. The possibility of a new hire had opened up—a rare opportunity in the current budget climate—and after winnowing down hundreds of applicants, the department put forward its top candidates for on-campus interviews. Scandalously, all were male. Word came down from on high that a female applicant who hadn’t even been close to making the initial cut must be interviewed. She was duly brought to campus for an interview, but she got mediocre reviews. The powers-that-be then spoke again: her candidacy must be brought to a departmental vote. In an unprecedented assertion of secrecy, the department chair refused to disclose the vote’s outcome and insisted on a second ballot. After that second vote, the authorities finally gave up and dropped her candidacy. Both vote counts remain secret.

An electrical and computer engineering professor explains what was at stake. “We pride ourselves on being the best,” he says. “The faculty know that absolute ranking is critical. No one had ever considered this woman a star.” 

 

Sometimes, [UC's diversity machine] can’t manage to lower hiring standards enough to scoop in a “diverse” candidate. In that case, it simply creates a special hiring category outside the normal channels. In September 2012, after the meritocratic revolt in UC San Diego’s electrical and computer engineering department, the engineering school announced that it would hire an “excellence” candidate, the school’s Orwellian term for faculty who, it claims, will contribute to diversity and who, by some odd coincidence, always happen to be female or an underrepresented minority. UC San Diego’s Division of Physical Sciences followed suit the next month, listing two tenure-track positions for professors who could “shape and expand the University’s diversity initiatives.” If the division had any specific scientific expertise in mind, the job listing made no mention of it.

Here's the latest from the front lines of the academic left: The student government at Northwestern University warned students this week not to eat tacos or drink tequila on Cinco de Mayo.

Because--you know--it's racist.

“Drinking tequila shots, eating tacos, and wearing sombreros do not commemorate Mexican culture; on the contrary, that offends, marginalizes, and isolates many of our friends, classmates, and community members, and casts our entire community in poor light.”

Suddenly, I'm feeling guilty about that guacamole I ate last night. I had no idea I was disparaging an entire race. I would like to publicly thank the Student Government Association of Northwestern University for alerting me to the error of my ways.

It looks like the Obama Administration may soon request greater enforcement authority against internet communications companies to allow wiretaps. Apparently, the FBI is having trouble surveilling electronic communications beyond e-mail, such as instant messaging and social media. The FBI wants the ability to go to the courts for fines against communications providers that do not build in a backdoor to allow messages to be collected, pursuant to a warrant.

Let's get the obvious out of the way up front: if a Republican administration had proposed something like this, the civil libertarian heavens would have fallen.

The Patriot Act did something similar: it updated existing surveillance powers for the internet age. But the left jumped on it as the end of civilized government.

Let's recall the hype: Former Vice President Al Gore, calling for the Patriot Act’s repeal, accused the Bush Administration of using “fear as a political tool to consolidate its power and to escape any accountability for its use.” Then-presidential candidate Howard Dean denounced it as “morally wrong,” and “shameful.” In House floor debate, Dennis Kucinich claimed that “it has become crystal clear that this administration is currently and will continue to abuse, attack and outright deny the civil liberties of the people of this country in defiance of our constitution.” The American Civil Liberties Union convinced several city councils to pass symbolic resolutions refusing to obey the act and some librarians to file lawsuits against its expanded surveillance powers.

I am certain we won't hear these usual suspects voicing outrage against the Obama Administration, even though it is going just as far as Bush. In fact, it's actually going further.

Rather than ask companies for compliance with an individual warrant, it appears that the FBI wants courts to force communications providers to build in certain systems to make collection of communications easier in case there is a warrant.

This represents something much broader than complying with a court order for surveillance of an individual; it requires companies to systematically change the nature of their product to comply with a potential future government request. There seems to be precedent for this; e-mail and network providers do turn over communications in response to warrants. But in those cases, the government seeks the communication itself or some electronic systems communication -- like GPS signals, tollbooth images, or cellphone locations -- that are not created for surveillance purposes, but rather to make the system work more effectively.

What if a communication provider's very modus operandi, for example, is that it doesn't create permanent records of the messages? Can the government force changes even in those systems, undermining their very competitive advantage?

So let me get this right. President Obama had a narrative and the narrative went like this: "Thanks to my heroic assassination of Osama Bin Laden and my simultaneous wooing of the more peaceable elements in the Umma (the Cairo "surrender monkey" speech; the redesignation of NASA as an agency for Muslim outreach; etc) I, your president, have now single-handedly defeated the Al Qaeda menace."

And when reality contrived to get in the way of that narrative, reality was brushed swiftly under the carpet and four brave men - including Ambassador Chris Stevens -- lost their lives so that the Obama Administration might continue to live out its fantasy.

Sorry, but to my mind, this is way worse than Watergate or Contragate or any of the recent scandals in which Republican presidents have been implicated. In fact, in my view, had the MSM done its job it should have cost Obama the last presidential election.

Why did it not? Well, as I argue at my Telegraph blog there was a great big clue in Obama's joke at the White House correspondents' dinner.

I recognize that the press and I have different jobs to do.  My job is to be President; your job is to keep me humble.  Frankly, I think I’m doing my job better.

Except it wasn't really a joke at all. Just an honest reflection of the near-total lack of scrutiny that the Obama administration gets from his amen corner in the MSM.

My second post for my guest blogging series for the Louis D. Brandeis Center is now up. By highlighting several prominent cases, I explore the selective application of "hate speech" rules on campuses against those who offer any criticism of Islam, regardless of how mild or truthful.

These cases provide compelling examples of how students can get themselves in trouble for expressing viewpoints critical of Islam in the one place that is supposed to enthusiastically welcome important debates: our colleges and universities. It’s also a tale of how, regardless of their good intentions, “hate speech” rules can be selectively used as a political cudgel to silence speech administrators and faculty dislike.

Mother's Day is the worst. I know, I know, you're trying to get me fired just for saying it. Here's my short case for why I don't really celebrate it:

• It's not on the liturgical calendar (speaking of which, Happy Ascension Day, everyone!). My enthusiastic celebration of non-holy holy days is limited to the 4th of July and Thanksgiving.
• It can be a spectacularly cruel day for women who are barren, who grieve dead children, who failed as mothers or who never married.
• It gives children and spouses the idea that one day of pampering makes up for a general lack of gratitude.

It turns out that I'm blessed to have a husband and children who make me feel appreciated and loved every day of the year. That's far more than I could ever hope for.

Anyway, before you yell at me for my un-American ways, allow me to point to someone whose ideas about Mother's Day are even worse! Kate Stone Lombardi writes a piece for Time headlined "Is Mother's Day Sexist?" It begins:

It’s the time of year when we celebrate mothers and — about a month later — fathers. But the way we view each holiday reveals a lot about the growing gap between cultural gender stereotypes and the reality of most families’ day-to-day lives.

Lombardi writes that everyone celebrates Mother's Day by giving mothers the day off and everyone celebrates Father's Day by letting him do fun stuff with the kids. Whether it's true or not that this is how everyone celebrates these made-up holidays, it makes sense that these types of traditions would develop on account of the particular sacrifices that grown men and women make for their families. But, we're told, these things are bad:

Other messages in Mother’s Day and Father’s Day cards also reinforce sex stereotypes. Moms are thanked for the hugs, for drying the tears, for “always being there.” Dads, though, tend to be thanked as role models and individuals to look up to. A typical Hallmark Father’s Day card reads, “Integrity. Respect. Honor. I learned these things from you.”

Of course, there is not a thing wrong with children saying thank you for all those cuddles and comfort, or for expressing gratitude for models of strength and responsibility. These are all lovely sentiments. The question is: why in 2013, are we still dividing all these traits by gender? It’s insulting to both women and men and it has less and less to do with contemporary American families. Dads can be nurturers. Moms can be role models. Many, of course, already are.

I'm sure you agree that if there is one thing we need to fix in this country, it's that too many fathers are teaching too many of their children about integrity, respect and honor. It's about time someone told men that there is nothing special about them and that a mother can do these things better than they can (and vice versa).

Which is, of course, the real point of the piece:

Studies that look at gay parents question the presumption that mothers and fathers bring separate gender-based skills to parenting (like mothers excel in nurturing and caretaking, while fathers bring discipline and rough housing into the mix).

See, children don't need to be raised by their mothers. Children don't need mothers at all!

I haven't seen confirmation of this in the mainstream Israeli press yet, but the Sunday Times is reporting that Israel

is preparing to agree a defence co-operation deal with Turkey and three Arab states aimed at setting up an early warning system to detect Iranian ballistic missiles.

The proposal, referred to by the diplomats involved as “4+1”, may eventually lead to technicians from Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan working alongside Israelis in joint command-and-control centres.

The American-brokered plan is to build a “moderate crescent” of allied states that share a powerful vested interest in countering Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

“The plan is to start with information-sharing about Iran’s ballistic missiles,” said an Israeli official.

Israel, he said, believes President Barack Obama has no appetite for an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. “That’s why the Americans are working on a regional alliance to deter and contain Tehran.”

Under the plan the Israelis would have access to real-time data from radar stations in Saudi Arabia and the Emirates.

In return Israel would provide access to its highly advanced anti-missile defence systems and early warning radar which would be shared online with its new partners.

Israeli Arrow anti-missile interceptors will also provide a defensive shield for Jordan against incoming Iranian missiles.

If this is true, it's remarkable, to say the least. Last time I checked, Israel has no diplomatic relations with Riyadh or Abu Dhabi. 

The Times also reported recently that Israel is capitalizing on the recent warming of relations with Ankara to negotiate the establishment of a base in Turkey for Israeli strategic assault aircraft:

Yaakov Amidror, the head of Israel’s National Security Council, is due in Ankara to settle details of the reconciliation. He is also expected to offer the Turks, who are equally wary of Iran’s nuclear programme, advanced missile and surveillance technology in exchange for a base and training facilities at Akinci air base, northwest of Ankara.

Amidror had been sent to Ankara ostensibly to arrange compensation for the families of the nine Turks killed on the Mavi Marmara in 2010. A reconciliation was brokered by the Americans at the cost to the Israelis of a public apology and an agreement to pay damages.

The second Times piece is interesting for the light it throws on the details of the Israeli-Turkish military relationship. Turkey's and Israel's IAFs maintained lines of communication throughout the rift, but politics got in the way of open deal-making. What the Turks have in mind, now that the Israelis have been embarrassed sufficiently to move forward, is a pile of Arrow anti-ballistic missiles, some Elop technology (Elop is an Israeli company that has developed an advanced visual intelligence system for fighter pilots), and an advanced electronic warfare system manufactured by a subsidiary of Israel Aerospace Industries. Israel has also, according to the article, upgraded old Turkish tanks for years, and supplied the Heron drones that Turkey has used during its long battle with the PKK. The restoration of the relationship is an urgent priority on both sides:

Turkey’s continuing need to upgrade its air force is in part a reaction to the deterioration of security in Syria as its two-year civil war becomes bloodier and more unpredictable. It also shares western and Israeli suspicions about Iran’s nuclear programme, which Tehran insists  is being developed only for peaceful purposes.

“The Israeli defence establishment has been lobbying hard for the politicians to find a form of apology, in order to restore the Israeli-Turkish alliance against Syria and Iran,” said an Israeli defence source.

“Turkey is very worried by Iran’s missile ambitions — countering this independently would take them years. With Israeli know-how based on the Jericho ballistic missiles, the time-frame will be cut short.”

Turkey is a signatory to the missile technology control regime, a 34-country voluntary pact to prevent the proliferation of nuclear-capable missiles with a range of at least 180 miles.

“Until the recent crisis, Turkey was our biggest aircraft carrier,” observed an Israeli military source. “Using the Turkish airbases could make the difference between success and failure once a showdown with Iran gets under way.”

Friedrich Hayek was born on May 8, 1899 -- 114 years ago today -- and died on March 23, 1992, just short of his 93rd birthday. In recent years, much of the discussion of 20^th century economics has centered around a discussion of the relative influence and contributions of Milton Friedman and John Maynard Keynes, in large part because national fiscal and monetary policy are in such disarray. But it is important to remember that Hayek also did work on some of these issues, including on the business cycle. His lasting influence, however, comes from a very different source: his ability to articulate a coherent attack on the dominant views of central planning that were in fashion during much of that time, especially among the intellectual elites in England.

His most significant work, which culminated in The Road to Serfdom, was his relentless critique of the view that a perfect society could use central planning as a means to achieve  incompatible ideals: high production and some preconceived ideal distribution of wealth. His simple insight -- prices are an effective means for individuals to coordinate their efforts in ways that allow society to take advantage of widely distributed knowledge -- remains, to this day, the strongest argument against central planning of the economy. The ability to pull people back from the brink of socialism led to a massive increase in market activity throughout the world, unleashing the constructive forces of voluntary exchange as a tool to advance overall social welfare.

For that one contribution we should be eternally grateful; but, by the same token, we should not deceive ourselves into thinking that there were no weaknesses in the Hayekian intellectual armament. Here are two.

Some years ago (indeed, on the 100^th anniversary of his birth) I wrote a short paper called Hayekian Socialism, which was meant to point out the elements in Hayek’s thought that, in fact, were in serious tension with free market principles.

The short version of the argument goes like this: in dealing with the pressures of his own time, Hayek was intent on getting rid of the built-in protections that workers would receive regardless of the demands for their services. Think, for example, of the position of the miners in England before Margaret Thatcher took office. The price that he was prepared to pay to eliminate this wrong was his willingness to guarantee essential social services, like health care and unemployment insurance. This strategy was a vast improvement over the earlier state of affairs, but Hayek did not see the vast extension of state power that could emerge from a robust Medicare program and 99 weeks of unemployment insurance.

The second error in Hayek was his unwillingness to understand that certain elements in society must be subjected to a form of centralized planning. The government need not set prices and production quotas for all goods and services in the economy. But it does have to lay out infrastructure, condemn the land needed to build it, and find some way to finance it all. That requires extensive planning in a limited sphere, and it is notable that Hayek (like Friedman) was reluctant to wade into this area.

In truth, many of Hayek's views are extremely relevant to the question that situation poses: how is it that free market principles can help with the creation, financing and maintenance of these essential projects?

No matter how those issues are resolved, however, Hayek’s signal contributions are always cause for renewed celebration.

Back in January, when Hillary Clinton had her infamous "What difference does it make?" moment on Capitol Hill (delivered in response to the fantastic Senator Ron Johnson), I remember expressing disbelief to a few friends about the resultant media coverage. Papering over it, not covering it -- I could have understood those reactions as garden-variety media malpractice.

But the clip ran everywhere. And usually with an implicit understanding that this was the Secretary of State in a moment of heroic defiance. A blithe disregard for the murder of American citizens at the hands of terrorists somehow became a through-the-looking-glass triumph of girl power. This wasn't just journalistic incompetence. It was moral influenza.

For all the criticisms Hillary's received since that day, none is quite as eloquent-- because poignant -- as the opening statement delivered today by Eric Nordstrom, the State Department's Diplomatic Security Officer and former Regional Security Officer in Libya, in his testimony before the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee:

This strikes me as a very interesting point:

Remember last week, when "local crime stories" were unimportant?

Having been behind the wheel since 2:30AM today, I was eager for daybreak to come and work its rejuvenating magic on the senses.  The truck's headlights seemed barely able to penetrate the thick fog that had encased the road during the night, prompting me to back off the throttle in accordance with my own personal rule to never outrun my headlights. If I can't stop within the stretch of road made visible by the headlights, then I'm allowing unknown factors to control my destiny, which doesn't seem especially smart in an 80,000 pound vehicle.  

Focusing on the white lines, looking into the distance, scanning the gauges and mirrors, I had neglected to watch for the first signs of daybreak. Then again, with all the cloud cover and fog, who could blame the sun if it called in sick? That's when I noticed that things had begun to change. At treetop level, the dark, gray thickness of fog began to shed its imposing gloom as the sky behind it became a purple and blue canvas upon which sooty, low-level clouds moved. Then a thick patch of fog blurred the details, transforming the whole landscape into a dreamy, royal turquoise masterpiece of infinite dimensions and reaching up, up into ever brighter and more majestic heights. How fortunate to witness this birth of a new day. How fortunate, I thought, to have witnessed all sorts of things in the last few days.  

"Open Pandora," I said to the smart phone, and in a moment the truck was filled with music. Baroque? Mozart? Choral? ZZ Top?  Yes, that would be the appropriate greeting to the day, after a weekend spent at Talladega Speedway. Between never-ending formations of rain clouds, NASCAR had managed to squeeze in a couple of races, while letting two Ride of Pride trucks take a lap on the track before the big race on Sunday.  

Have you seen a NASCAR race? Television gives only the lightest impression of what the event is really like, and doesn't begin to compare with the sensory overload of experiencing the event in person. It would be like trying to learn what a good gumbo tastes like by looking at a picture in a magazine. At over 2 1/2 miles in length, the track is a monster.  

The turns are banked at 33 degrees which, as the photo shows, make them taller than our trucks. While I knew intuitively that the race would be loud (earplugs were mailed to me in advance), I wasn't prepared for the ferocity of it all. The chorus of "Sweet Home Alabama", playing over the track's loudspeakers was easily overpowered by the approaching cars on the final pace lap. The very concrete under our feet vibrated as the low and thunderous formation came even with us, the engines snarling and popping. Even at a relatively low 70 mph pace lap, the power seemed barely contained.  

Speaking of sensory overload, I wasn't ready for the scent of the race either. The fuel they burn, combined (I guess) with fresh tires heating up, makes for an aroma very much at odds with the fragrance of potpourri next to the flat screen television while the race plays quietly at home. No sir, this was testosterone-inducing, aroma-fide steroids that would give even a bed-wetting hippie the edge in a bar fight. A snoot full of this stuff and even a little pansy like Chuck Schumer could … well, … I shouldn't get carried away here.  

As the pace car broke toward pit row and the drivers were given the green flag, the crowd roared its approval as the cars throttled up to racing speed. Over a mile away from us, on the back stretch and completely out of sight, they were still gaining speed and the sound was positively ominous. Taking the turn at speeds approaching 200 mph, everything seemed to vibrate as the herd approached us. Then, as they blasted by, the vicious power culminating in a gigantic and earth-shaking roar that seemed to coarse through our bodies, I became an instant NASCAR addict and told the gentleman seated next to me that I might need a cigarette. I'm not terribly familiar with the names, though I did have to haul Jeff Gordon's car from Atlanta to Charlotte once (the trailer for the car had more lights than the Vegas strip). I heard a lot of stories about various drivers and the drama amongst them, which was only mildly intriguing. Experiencing the race in person, watching these drivers maneuver, at terrifying speeds, with only inches to spare, was simply incredible.

 I haven't mentioned the crowd yet. There were folks from all walks of life. Some with the means to afford box seats, well dressed, sported headsets that were attached to scanners enabling them to hear the drivers converse with their crews during the race. Most of the assemblage, however, were people who will look a stranger in the eye when they greet them and wish them a good day. These are the kind of people I grew up around -- people who work hard and play hard. These are the people toward which self-described elites will condescend while simultaneously depending on many of them who work as firefighters, medics, police, and the fighters of our country's wars. Patriotic, proud, hard working, these people are the backbone of our country and many of them don't hesitate to thank a vet for his service. Some of them get rowdy and, like one fellow who refused to seek shelter when a thunderstorm postponed the race, prefer to dance the boogaloo in the rain (aided, no doubt, by the high octane refreshments on sale at the track). But the sense that I was surrounded by good folks was, in itself, very comforting.  

When it came time to roll out the Ride of Pride for the crowd, the reception was heartwarming. Another employee of our company, a retired Army major, rode in my truck as we made our way around the track. The 2012 Ride of Pride, driven by Tony, another Air Force retiree, had a special rider in his truck as well. Sitting in that passenger seat was a 65-year-old gentleman named Larry. Larry served in Vietnam as a teenager. At the age of 19, he received three Purple Hearts during a single combat tour in 'Nam. As down to earth and unassuming as the day is long, it was a privilege to listen to the soft-spoken veteran and enjoy the camaraderie of four vets trading stories and comparing notes from our service. The gentleman riding in my truck, also named Dave, is one of the funniest people you could ever meet. As the video below shows, we enjoyed our lap (though a couple of times, we did forget that we were being recorded).

Remembering an incredible weekend that allowed me not only to represent my company, but to fly the colors on behalf of all who have served as well as their families, it seemed that my cup truly ranneth over this morning as the drums and guitars of ZZ Top rang in the new day to the hard-driving sounds of La Grange. I wonder if the beer commercial was right. Does it really get any better than this? I'll have to sleep on it while you watch the video. I have, after all, been up all night.

If you are a Twitter-holic like me, you are aware of "subtweeting."  It is basically tweeting about someone without using their names.  

Well, let me "sub-post" for a moment: There are a couple of conservative pundits and/or reporters who insisted to me that there was no way Mark Sanford would win yesterday's special election. I insisted otherwise and told these individuals, who I highly respect, that there was no way that Sanford would lose. I actually told them it wouldn't even be close. In addition, I wagered $50 with a young Heritage staffer two weeks ago on the race. I've decided to be gracious and not collect.

My point is, and one doesn't get these chances often, I told you so.

I know it looked like Sanford was going down in flames. But those prognostications were all coming from people who live outside of South Carolina. Even people who lived outside of the First Congressional District of South Carolina.

The National Journal's post-mortem hits it on the head.

In a district of southerners who favored 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney by 18 percentage points, a vote for Colbert Busch was a vote for an elitist San Francisco liberal -- and that was not a vote they could stomach.

“I don’t think Sanford winning means voters forgot about what he did. I think it means they care about politics more than personal indiscretions,” said Katon Dawson, former chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party.

The district’s conservative leanings are even more pronounced in special elections, which draw light turnouts of only the most ideological voters. Over 15 years in Congress and the governor’s mansion, Sanford built a record of fiscal frugality – a theme he keep alive with sloppy, spray-painted, ply board campaign signs throughout the district.

“The one thing you can say about Mark is that despite his person foibles, he’s been consistent in his frugality and ideology in terms of advocating less spending,” said South Carolina-based Republican strategist Chip Felkel. “Then he whacked his opponent over the head with a two-by-four by the name of Nancy Pelosi. That nationalized the race and allowed him to stop revisiting his own personal problems.”

But I knew this a month ago. There was no way that SC-1 was going to elect a Pelosi clone whose only street cred is that she has a nationally-known, semi-funny brother on a nightly comedy/news show. Forget it.  

Say what you want about Mark Sanford, but he proved to be even a harder worker than I thought. These are his people, folks. This is the base that elected him to Congress the first time, and propelled him to election as Governor. They know him and they know his voting record.

Blood, sweat and tears has always been the cornerstone of American politics. Mark Sanford wouldn't have been my choice among the original 16 Republican candidates, had I lived in SC-1. But I would have been knocking down walls to make sure that he won last night. He and his campaign did just that and proved that retail politics beats the mainstream media once in a while.

Dear Penelope,

I have a problem that I'm a little ashamed to cop to here at Ricochet, but here goes.

I'm a pretty hard-nosed fiscal conservative (mostly libertarian on social issues), and I vote Republican. But I'm living way undercover. I live in a very, very blue neighborhood. Everyone I live and work with is either a Democrat or the kind of person who sort of aimlessly gravitates toward Democrat positions because they're the easier option from a social point of view. Also, I'm in a long-term relationship with a guy who thinks all politics are stupid, but who votes Democrat pretty much as a matter of course (and before you tell me I should dump him, he's a wonderful person). He knows I vote Republican but thinks it's kind of hilarious. He hasn't ratted me out to the neighbors (or to his family either, who are all way on the left). For the most part we don't talk about politics.

I think about it a lot, though, and I'm pretty much alone with my worries. Ricochet is like a secret clubhouse for me. But I feel that, by staying undercover, I'm letting down the team. 

I'm just not one to man the barricades and start preaching the gospel when I know all I'll get for the effort is social ostracism. I've got to go on living and working with these people. I have no illusions that I'm going to convince anyone of anything, and since I'm alone in my views (as far as I know) it's not as though I'm going to get any support. 

I'm basically the opposite of Lileks, who talks on the podcast a lot about getting into these big political tussles with his lefty French brother-in-law. I'm just not cut out for that kind of confrontation, especially when I know it's not going to accomplish anything. I don't want to fight. I believe what I believe, they believe what they believe, and we'll just keep it at that.

So I guess my question is whether I'm a traitor to the cause. I just want to keep my head down, keep on getting along with the people around me (who are very nice), and hope that the country will come to its senses soon. Is that bad?

Thanks,

Closet Republican

Dear Closet,

Don't fret. The right needs the introvert vote as much as it needs anybody's vote. There's no point in your sabotaging your life for the sake of a hopeless political mission, so go ahead and keep your views on the q.t. if it makes you feel more comfortable.

I wonder, though. It's interesting that you identify yourself as "Closet Republican." I read recently that being conservative on campus is now roughly akin, in terms of the risk of social ostracism, to what being gay on campus was fifty years ago. You're not on campus, but it sounds as though you're in a similarly homogeneous and restrictive social environment. And you might not be as alone as you think you are.

Is there anyone else in your neighborhood or workplace who tends to clam up when politics enter the conversation? You might send out some cautious trial balloons. Drop the name Hayek and see if anyone's eyes light up. The risk is low, and it'll be more than worth it if you manage to locate a fellow traveler.

Now, you asked me not to tell you to dump your boyfriend, so I won't. I'll just point out that unions of two people whose political opinions differ widely are similar to intermarriages: they can work, but they are starting out with an extra hurdle. You don't necessarily want to embark on a life partnership with someone with whom you can't discuss, let alone agree on, one of your main preoccupations. Just saying.

Got a question for Penelope? Write to AskPenelope@ricochet.com.

Disclaimer: The advice offered in this column is intended for informational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended to replace or substitute for any professional, financial, medical, legal, or other professional advice. If you have specific concerns or a situation in which you require professional, psychological or medical help, you should consult with an appropriately trained and qualified specialist. Neither Ricochet nor the writer of this column accepts any liability for the outcome or results of following the advice in this column. Ricochet reserves the right to edit letters for length and clarity.

How do you communicate that help is available to abused children when they are accompanied by their aggressor?

An ad company in Spain called Grey has come up with an idea that's simple and brillant at the same time. On an outdoor poster ad for the ANAR Foundation (an advocacy organization for at-risk kids), a lenticular top layer was used to alter the appearance of the ad depending on the height of the viewer. If you look at the poster from the perspective of a person above 4'5" in height, you see a child's face and copy that reads, "Sometimes, child abuse is only visible to the child suffering it." If you are under 4'5", you see the same child but with a bruised face and bloodied lip, together with the foundation's phone number and the line, "If somebody hurts you, phone us and we’ll help you." 

Here's a closer look at the ad:

Cheney nails Obama on Benghazi.   From the Daily Mail:

Former Vice President Dick Cheney criticized the Obama administration on Tuesday for its handling of the September 11, 2012 terror attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, calling it 'a failure of leadership.' Cheney said U.S. leaders should have been better prepared for violence on the anniversary of the al-Qaeda attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in 2001.

'They should have been ready before anything ever happened,' Cheney told MailOnline exclusively during a party in Georgetown celebrating the launch of a new book by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

'I mean, it's North Africa - Libya, where they've already had major problems,' Cheney said. 'You know that al-Qaeda is operating there, and you have some of the other al-Qaeda-affiliated groups there like Ansar al-Sharia and others.'

And then he reminds us:

Cheney said that the George W, Bush administration made a point of ramping up security at military bases, diplomatic outposts and other American facilities worldwide each year on September 11.

Whaddya know.  They "ramped" up security on the anniversaries of September 11th.  Interesting strategy.

I miss Cheney.

Thomas Friedman of the New York Times has grown famous touting the Beijing model of economic growth--a strong central government that just darned well does what needs to be done without having to trouble itself with the irrationality and inefficiency of a democratic system.  Typical Friedman:

One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century.

Enter a new book, How China Became Capitalist. Each of the two co-authors, Ronald Coase and Ning Wang, possesses a critical attribute.  A Nobel Prize winner in economic, Coase possesses one of the finest minds in the profession--and even at 102, Coase remains acute.  Wang?  Before coming to this country, he studied at Beijing University.  Coase and Wang, in other words, bring us what Friedman lacks:  analytical and deep knowledge of China.  

What do they find?  From a review of their book in the Wall Street Journal:

China's dramatic economic growth over the past three decades hasn't been a top-down process engineered by party leaders in Beijing. Instead, China's rise has been a bottom-up process driven by what the authors call the "four marginal revolutions"....

First came the "household responsibility system" in agriculture that, the authors say, "emerged spontaneously in rural China" in the late 1970s and was implemented nationwide in 1982....The next "revolution" resulted from rural industry reform in the form of township and village enterprises, which impelled townships to behave like entrepreneurs in producing and marketing their products. These enterprises in turn led to the emergence of entrepreneurs and the "individual economy"—"a euphemism for private economy," the authors explain, that was intended to disguise the underlying capitalist reality of this third revolution. The fourth revolution was the establishment of the "special economic zones" in Shenzhen and several other towns in Guangdong and Fujian provinces, as well as in Shanghai and other coastal cities.

According to the authors, the four marginal revolutions gave birth to "a vibrant non-state sector" that contrasted sharply with "a stagnant state sector"....

The Communist Party's role in bringing this to pass, the authors say, consisted mainly in getting out of the way. Messrs. Coase and Wang conclude that "the gradual withdrawal of government from the economy, rather than the strength or omnipresence of the political leadership . . . explains the success."

The Communist Party's role consisted mainly in getting out of the way.

The Chinese experience, in other words, hasn't produced a new model at all.  It has only confirmed what Hayek and Friedman and Reagan always believed:  Get the government out of the way and individual initiative will prove astonishing.

Thomas Friedman, wrong again as usual.

The secret is out.

Unable to maintain the storied façade of Senate collegiality, Majority Leader Harry Reid reluctantly spoke a dark truth about newly minted Senator Ted Cruz. “My friend from Texas is like a schoolyard bully,” Reid said from the Senate floor, more in sadness than in anger.

It took the most powerful man in Congress to say publicly what many nervous senators have said privately about the “very junior senator from Texas." I have cataloged the most shocking allegations of bullying, intimidation and alpha-male unseemliness from the tumultuous first months of Senator Ted Cruz:

• Cruz bumped Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) in the hallway, pointed and said "what's that on your tie?" When Udall looked down Cruz flipped up his hand, batting him in the face. As Udall arrived at the Senate cafeteria, he noticed his lunch money was gone.

• Ted Cruz regularly sits on the hood of his Camaro in the Senate parking lot, with a toothpick in his mouth, waiting for the Senate Women's Caucus to let out.

• When Sen. John McCain asked Cruz what he was filibustering against, Cruz replied "whaddya got?"

• Suspect fitting Cruz's description drove slowly by the White House, clinking three empty beer bottles stuck to his fingers and taunting, "Obaaaamaaa! Come out to play-ee-yay!"

• Spends all Republican caucus meetings slowly rocking his back-row chair, chewing gum and cracking wise.

• Anonymous complaint filed with the Senate Ethics Committee alleged a certain Texas senator "only refers to Hawaii Sen. Schatz by the present-tense version of his name."

• Gave Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank a swirly. Refused to pay for replacement eyeglass lens.

• His knuckle tattoos read "SINE DIE." (Cruz lost his left pinkie at a high-stakes Federalist Society moot court.)

• Joined Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) for an extended game of keep-away with Sen. Leahy's lip balm. The Senate Judiciary Committee meeting had to be rescheduled.

• Every time Sen. Barbara Mikulski enters a room, Cruz slicks back hair and says, "How YOU doin'?"

• Cruz interrupted a long answer by SecDef nominee Chuck Hagel, with "speaking of drones, we gonna wrap this up soon?"

(Note to our progressive friends: All of the bullet points above are satire.)

You can follow Jon on Twitter at @ExJon.

I've never really seen a politician do things like this.  Looks like a huge effort.

Tell me what you think:

The Associated Press is reporting that former South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford has won the special election to represent the First District of South Carolina in the U.S. House of Representatives.

What do you think? Is Sanford a decent public servant who deserves a second chance despite his past behavior? Or will he be a distraction (or even an embarrassment) for the conservative cause?

By the way, our friends on the left have already weighed in. The ever urbane Markos Moulitsas tweeted moments after the result was announced:

SC-01 proves Republicans don't actually give a [expletive deleted] about "family valies" [sic]. That's just an excuse to hate gays.

Feel free to respond to him in the comments too.

From ABC News:

A year after Amanda Berry disappeared in Cleveland, her mother appeared on "The Montel Williams Show" to speak to a psychic about what happened to her daughter.

Psychic Sylvia Browne, who has made a career of televised psychic readings, told Louwanna Miller on a 2004 episode of the show that her daughter was dead, causing Miller to break down in tears on the show's set.

"She's not alive, honey," Browne told Miller on the show, according to the Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper. "Your daughter's not the kind who wouldn't call."

Miller told the newspaper that she believed "98 percent" in what Browne told her. Miller died a year later from heart failure.

On Monday, Berry was found alive after she broke free from a home in Cleveland where she says she has been kept for the past decade.

Now, as sympathetic a figure as Miller is, anyone who goes on "The Montel Williams Show" looking to be met by the Phythia can't have their judgment left unquestioned. Still, who do you have more sympathy for? A distraught mother whose final years were dominated by uncertainty about the fate of her daughter or a glorified carnival worker who's gotten rich as a world famous haruspex?

So, yes, it's a two-way street and people who put their faith in psychics are culpable too. But imagine being Sylvia Browne and knowing that you had conned a grief-stricken mother into believing that her daughter was dead -- and that she never had the chance to know that you were wrong.

There's no amount of shame sufficient.