Right On The Right

Here's another story I am a bit late on because of lax weekend blogging. A liberal blogger over at The Huffington Post has taken to calling for military coups. He goes out of his way to try to make his argument seem reasonable, but the bottom line is, he's calling for a General to usurp the Constitution by attempting to relieve the President of his command:

General Pace - you have the power to fulfill your responsibility to protect the troops under your command. Indeed you have an obligation to do so.

You can relieve the President of his command.

Not of his Presidency. But of his military role as Commander-In-Chief.

You simply invoke the Uniform Code Of Military Justice.

Immediately, Conservatives answered his ridiculous plan, explaining the the UCMJ does not supercede the Constitution. Legal scholars and anyone that paid attention in History or Civics class, feel free to let out a collective "duh" at this point.

Captain Ed from Captain's Quarters has an interesting point about the liberal left and their apparent obsession with calling right-wingers nazis and fascists while being complete hypocrites:

The Left likes to talk about supposed fascism among conservatives, but the Huffington Post is literally calling for a military coup to reverse an election, not only an un-Constitutional act but also the kind of authoritarian rule they supposedly despise.

For some laughs, go read how the idiot attempts to defend his argument while ignoring the Constitution. He claims, over and over, that this would not be a military coup. A member of the military partially stealing power from the President? Sounds coupish to me.

Members of the Nutroots aren't happy with their slim Democrat majority, which may very well have no choice but continue to support the surge, given a positive report from General Petraeus. So, instead of worrying about expanding their lead in 2008, they want to incite a riot within the party by "purging" the Blue Dog Democrats. They're even calling them "Bush Dog" Democrats. Cadillac Tight has the coverage:

That makes this another netroots war against regions of the country that elect these Democrats precisely because they are Blue Dogs. It’s obvious when you read netroots diaries that there is a lot of disdain for and rage against Democratic voters who don’t identify with the progressive movement, and efforts like this one by Stoller and Bowers (Northeastern liberals both) only serve to highlight that disdain and rage.

The regional war he's talking about has to do with the fact that they're targeting mainly Southern and Southwestern Democrats. Southern Democrats tend to be more Conservative because they're in the Bible Belt and Southwestern Dems are Conservative on issues like immigration (most of the time). Left of Ohio, which appears to be a moderate-left Dem blog from my state, is mad that they also target Ohio Democrats Charlie Wilson and Zack Space. Ya, this Zack Space:

Charlie Wilson only got elected because of a rather catchy jingle that was ran over and over again on local radio stations by the DCCC. I happen to sit just north of his district and I heard the ad at least two dozen times prior to the 2006 primaries. My suggestion to the RNC? Despite some vast differences on some key issues, open the doors to the Blue Dogs to cross party lines should they receive primary challenges, especially the few in solidly blue districts (like Wilson and some folks they mention from Illinois). They could be some easy GOP pickups.

Glorified Iraq War Veteran and official member of The Nutroots John Soltz was on Hardball with Move America Forward co-chair Buzz Patterson. Soltz was the same man who shouted won another Iraq vet at the YearlyKos convention. Check out Buzz, who is planning on attending the Gathering of Eagles:

I demand more rights! I demand more pay! I demand... who am I talking to? That's the simplest way to describe the idiocy coming out of the nutroots today. Tom Blumer says he's missing the punch line. I think I am too:

CHICAGO — Do bloggers need their own Norma Rae?

In a move that might make some people scratch their heads, a loosely formed coalition of left-leaning bloggers are trying to band together to form a labor union they hope will help them receive health insurance, conduct collective bargaining or even set professional standards.

The effort is an extension of the blogosphere’s growing power and presence, especially within the political realm, and for many, evokes memories of the early labor organization of freelance writers in the early 1980s.Organizers hope a bloggers’ labor group will not only showcase the growing professionalism of the Web-based writers, but also the importance of their roles in candidates’ campaigns.

“I think people have just gotten to the point where people outside the blogosphere understand the value of what it is that we do on the progressive side,” said Susie Madrak, the author of Suburban Guerilla, who is active in the union campaign. “And I think they feel a little more entitled to ask for something now.”

Tom asks what employer they plan on going after, and my thoughts immediately jumped to Markos Moulitsas. Tom's did also. The thought of thousands of diarists staging a walk-out, or log-out, or something, is pretty appealing. I'm starting to like the idea. In all seriousness though, bloggers are their own bosses, or depending upon how they run their sites, the readers may be in charge. Bloggers don't need to unionize to demand more of themselves, and they certainly shouldn't demand more of their readers. Running on ads and donations is the safe bet, not unionizing.

Set the stage in your mind. A panel is answering questions about progressives and the military, and a man in uniform stands up to argue that the surge is working. He's shouted down by the moderator. From The American Prospect:

As the Military and Progressives panel came to an end, a young man in uniform stood up to argue that the surge was working, and cutting down on Iraqi casualties. The moderator largely freaked out. When other members of the panel tried to answer his question, he demanded they “stand down.” He demanded the questioner give his name, the name of his commander, and the name of his unit. And then he closed the panel, no answer offered or allowed, and stalked off the stage.

Wes Clark took the mic and tried to explain what had just occurred: The argument appears to be that you’re not allowed to participate in politics while wearing a uniform, or at least that you shouldn’t, and that the questioner was engaging in a sort of moral blackmail, not to mention a violation of the rules, by doing so. Knowing fairly little about the army, I can’t speak to any of that. But it was an uncomfortable few moments, and seemed fairly contrary to the spirit of the panel to roar down the member of the military who tried to speak with a contrary voice.

—Ezra Klein

The left crushing dissent? Unheard of! The left parades around soldiers that disagree with the war, but soldiers that agree are silenced. Little Green Footballs has analysis on whether or not he was breaking military code by speaking up at a political meeting. Short answer, no.

More from AllahPundit, Malkin, The Pungo Picayune, and Volunteer Opinion Journal