Glenn Greenwald excerpts some noxious drivel from The Corner and goes on to complain:

And these are the high-minded, deeply Serious observations one finds in just one 24 hour period in the most respectable right-wing outlet in America. This is to say nothing of what one finds peddled by the lower levels of the right-wing noise machine: Rush Limbaugh, Instapundit, Bill O’Reilly, Drudge, right-wing blogs and the like. But this really is exactly the political faction that has exerted dominant political power in this country for the last 15 years, and has exclusively shaped America’s behavior for the last eight years. And, as a result, we have exactly the country one would expect would be produced when people who have these beliefs are empowered.

I’d like to extend the thesis to Mr. Greenwald that it’s not that we have the country we do today because of the fulminations of certain right-wing publications, but rather that these fulminations are an expression of the true beliefs and dark paranoias which haunt America’s psyche. Fighting the symptoms is no cure.

McCain is courting Huckabee. He threw his delegates to him in West Virginia to spitefully thwart Romney, the candidate of the Republican establishment. During his victory speech, McCain warmly congratulated Huckabee on his unexpected successes and cooly mentioned Romney only as an afterthought. Could it be that the establishment Right’s hatred for McCain is only matched by McCain’s hatred of movement conservatives?

In a rambling essay, unfocused even by her standards, Kathryn Jean Lopez at National Review hints at this dynamic:

If you want the base to work for you, Senator, it’s most important that you be honest. Don’t try to remake the conservative movement; don’t pretend to be someone you’re not. When you speak to conservatives, play it straight: You don’t listen to Rush. You’re not comfortable at the Family Research Council. Don’t pretend otherwise.

I don’t think McCain’s pretending about anything—he’s very much trying to remake the conservative movement. He’d like to do an end-run around these self-appointed gatekeepers and use his “maverick” status to connect with Republican-leaning independents in a big way.¹ Pairing with Huckabee would get him the support of the religious working class without having to kow-tow to the likes of James Dobson. It’s a win all around!

Even if this is his strategy, it may not play out like that. The pressure will be enormous on movement organs² to align behind McCain. They may ask for some symbolic gestures and commitments from him in exchange for their backing. The pressure will then build on McCain to mend fences in order to increase his chances against a very strong Democratic candidate.

But we’ll see. McCain is old and prickly and stubborn—and liable to be spiteful just because he can. He might think that realigning the Republican Party to his outlook is more important than getting elected. Or he might just enjoy marginalizing all the enemies he’s made during his years in office.

Who said that the Democratic race was the exciting one to watch?

In the previous paragraphs of your no doubt hastily-composed rant, you assert that:

Whether we get round to admitting it or not, in Pakistan, our quarrel is with the people. Their struggle, literally, is jihad. For them, freedom would mean institutionalizing the tyranny of Islamic fundamentalism.

Let’s just assume, to be charitable, that you’re eliding nuance for the sake of a clean and forceful argument. So what exactly do you mean by this?

But we should at least stop fooling ourselves. Jihadists are not going to be wished away, rule-of-lawed into submission, or democratized out of existence. If you really want democracy and the rule of law in places like Pakistan, you need to kill the jihadists first. Or they’ll kill you, just like, today, they killed Benazir Bhutto.

If ever one needs reassurance that the right’s ideologues are intellectually, strategically and morally bankrupt, one can readily turn to the National Review’s armchair pundits. NR’s website is a comforting place to visit in some perverse way.

Andrew Sullivan links to a transcript of the below-linked debate between Norman Podhoretz and Fareed Zakaria, and approvingly notes that though Podhoretz didn’t fare well against Zakaria’s attack, at least he denounced religious fanaticism in the Middle East.

So I went back and read the whole transcript, worrying that the editors at Talking Points Media had somehow sliced up the interview in such a way to make poor Norman look bad.

Not so. Podhoretz comes off even more spittle-flecked and sputtering than in the abbreviated TPM digest version. As Josh noted, there’s real condescending disdain for Zakaria oozing out of that contorted little maw.

While I was at SAIS, I remember going to a conference put together by The Center for the Defense of Democracies and the Committee on the Present Danger titled “World War IV”. My professor at the time, Eliot Cohen, was speaking, as was Podhoretz and then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz (who I’m still fascinated by).

I’ve always respected Dr. Cohen as an excellent and provocative lecturer and teacher, and even though we rarely saw eye-to-eye on specific policies, I wanted to go see him speak to a non-academic audience. I distinctly recall his talk being far too pragmatic for most of the nervous balding men in attendance—too few warnings of incipient danger for their bloodthirsty palettes.

In contrast, Podhoretz gave them just what they wanted. Even then, I remember being quite struck at how unpleasant this stunted little man was to listen to. He exuded a cagey paranoia which the audience just lapped up. He fed into their fears of inadequacy and of Western civilizational decline with stiff talk of rallying the nation and dark warnings of what it would mean if they failed.

This is all from memory. I have notes to the conference, with specific reactions to Podhoretz’ speech, which I may try to dredge up if I remember next time I’m in rooting around in my electronic archives.

Norman Podhoretz, Giuliani adviser and dangerous paranoid (via TPM):