This isn’t the best audio but more evidence of South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham’s complete dismissal of Ron Paul’s adherence to rigid constitutional government. Notice in the first video that instead of addressing the woman’s criticism head on, Graham simply asks her who she voted for in the presidential election. When she replied “Chuck Baldwin” Graham then attempts to marginalize her based on her support for the Constitution Party, slamming Ron Paul in the process.

The following took place 10/12/09 at a town hall meeting in Greenville, SC:

UPDATE: CNN has picked up this story.

Some old video of 2003’s CPAC conference has surfaced (h/t Lew Rockwell):

On yesterday’s drive home I listened to Sean Hannity, as I often do. Hannity was upset, as he often is, about President Obama ”weakening” American defense - scrapping missile defense shields in Europe, not escalating troop levels fast enough in Afghanistan, ignoring an Iran on the verge of getting nukes - you know, not being “conservative.” “You’re a great American!” one lady caller told Hannity.

While I’m not sure how great an American he is, Glenn Beck at least deserves credit for trying to change the conversation on the talk radio Right by getting away from unqualified support for faux patriotism and blind militarism that still so-animates men like Hannity. As of late, Beck’s even become increasingly, and more solidly, antiwar.

Beck’s radio show is not carried on the station where I work, but our competitor (we have Hannity and Mark Levin. Blah.), and I had missed a rant by Beck last week where, as one WTMA listener said to a friend, “Glenn Beck was talkin’ about war like the Southern Avenger!”

While I did not get to hear Beck’s antiwar, supposedly ”Southern-Avenger-esque”  rant,  Jenn Morrill at the Salt Lake City Examiner apparently did. And it’s a good’n:

On his radio show last week, he apologized to libertarians everywhere for calling himself a libertarian in the past. He has long called himself a conservative with libertarian leanings, but he said he is now leaning so far libertarian that he is almost horizontal. He said, “I’m going through a change here.”

Beck would like the time machine to take him back eighteen months. Why? To go back to when he was calling Ron Paul a “crackpot on so many issues.” Now, he laments, “Gosh. I’d like to reexamine all those issues.” Among those issues is America’s occupation of many foreign countries; Beck specifically mentions Germany,  Korea, and Afghanistan. He admits that America’s imperialism has caused a lot of problems. He said, “Progressive members of the Republican party wanted to make sure that we spread sunshine, lollipops, happiness, and democracy to all around the world. That’s great. But the best way to do that is to live a righteous life and be a good example.” And he repeated what Paul has been saying for years, “Besides, we can’t afford it anymore!”

Though every talk radio blowhard is pretending to be for limited government now that a Democrat occupies the White House, I have maintained – not without criticism - that there remains a marked difference between Glenn Beck and most other national conservative hosts. For all his melodrama, Beck does two things which distinguish him from his colleagues:

1. Beck is not simply a blind Republican partisan. Sean Hannity does not believe in limited government—he simply believes big government is best managed by Republicans.

2. Beck is not a constant warmonger. Says Hannity with a straight face “you can’t deny that Bush was conservative on foreign policy.”

As an example of no. 2, can you imagine Hannity, Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin saying this?

I’m not saying Beck has always been a libertarian, or is even sufficiently so, and during the Bush years he said all sorts of nasty things about Ron Paul, supported the PATRIOT Act and so on. But how many Alternative Righties are former Dittoheads? Plenty. Now imagine it was all caught on tape.

What good, exactly, does it do to constantly bash neocon-leaning conservatives whose minds are beginning to change, when you could instead help shepherd them in the Right direction?

While I admit to being a fan of his hit song “Gold Digger,” hip-hop artist Kanye West has always seemed like a big jerk. Of course, maybe that’s just part of the persona of being a “thug” rapper. Who knows…

Image or not, rudeness is not cool and rudeness toward women is even worse. But after spending the last few days listening to liberals attribute Rep. Joe Wilson’s “you lie!” outburst during Obama’s recent speech to “racism” (it was “racism, pure and simple” says my friend Will Moredock), or pundits examining the supposed racism of those marching on Washington over the weekend—is it so farfetched or ridiculous to call a grown black man humiliating a young white girl “racist?” That’s exactly what West did last night to country star Taylor Swift at the MTV Music Awards:

Assuming West is racist is no more farfetched or ridiculous than the charges the Left keeps lobbing at the Right simply because a black man occupies the White House.

UPDATE: YouTube has removed the video but here’s the rundown of Kanye’s bad behavior.

UPDATE 2: New, working video posted.

I read this on the air this morning and thought it worth passing around. None of this will be earth shattering to those on the Alternative Right, but I thought of it on September 11, 2001 and still think of it every anniversary.

This is Pat Buchanan describing a hypothetical terrorist attack that could take place in the future as a result of U.S. interventionist foreign policy. From page 44 of his 1999 book, A Republic, Not an Empire.

It is in February of 2005 that the explosion occurs in the port of Seattle. It is a low-yield crude atomic device, but the devastation is incredible. Thousands are dead; thousands more are injured or wounded, many burned horribly. The device was smuggled in the cargo hold of a ship and detonated only hours after the ship had docked. No one knows for certain who put the device there. Iran condemns the act as an inhuman atrocity and an affront to Islam, but notes that America was the first to use such weapons. North Korea is also suspect. But intense speculation focuses on a group associated with the financier of terror Osama Bin Laden, whom U.S. special forces ran down and killed years earlier. Bin Laden’s agents reportedly acquired nuclear weapons from rogue army elements is Russia or Kazakhstan in the 1990’s, or got one from a Pakistan now controlled by allies of the Afghan Taliban.

On ABC’s “This Week” this morning, George Will’s retort to Robert Gates, Fred Kagan and everyone else criticizing his call for troop withdrawal in Afghanistan, was to note support for his position from former Marine Commandant Gen. Chuck Krulak and other military brass. From the Politico:

George Will, whose column last week calling for the U.S. to pull its troops out of Afghanistan brought a smackdown from Defense Secretary Robert Gates, is sticking to his guns.

The conservative columnist told ABC’s “This Week” Sunday that there’s almost no way to add troops to the fight without coming off as an occupying force.

Then he pulled out a letter from former Marine Commandant Gen. Chuck Krulak in support of his position.

“We’re going to have a debate, and there will be plenty of brass on my side,” Will said.

An actual debate in the conservative mainstream about U.S. foreign policy? Bring it on.

Link

Over at The Corner, my old friend Mark Levin is not happy with George Will’s call to pull U.S. troops from Afghanistan:

The Will Debate   [Mark R. Levin]

Mark Steyn asks a good question: What is our strategy in Afghanistan? But I suppose this question can be asked of those, such as George Will, who urge our departure: What is our strategy after we leave? I think we can agree that the fig-leaf Will urges, special forces on the border, etc., would be less useful than the force structure we currently have inside Afghanistan.

After we helped force the Soviets out of Afghanistan a few decades ago, we did indeed leave the country. I don’t need to relate what occurred thereafter, do I? The problem is that Obama is cutting the defense budget, he is undermining our intelligence system, and he is pulling troops from Iraq without reconsidering the pace of that action; and now some encourage him to pull out of Afghanistan because the administration lacks a policy there? Shouldn’t we be arguing against the defense cuts, against the assault on our intelligence apparatus, and for a more aggressive and effective use of economic and military resources in Afghanistan? I am unclear what prudential course Will and others would have us take. An Afghanistan left to its own devices clearly is a danger to our nation, as was demonstrated on 9/11. If we leave, then what?

As for nation-building, there are times to be for it and times to be against it. The Marshall Plan was all about nation-building, but not in the abstract. If it serves American national-security interests, and can be coherently justified as such, then it’s prudent. Nation-building in, say, Haiti, would be ridiculous. The general test is whether doing so helps protect our country. To have a doctrinaire objection to it under all circumstances would be imprudent.

Link

Of course, Levin’s insistence that we stay in Afghanistan indefinitely is no surprise.

Radio talk host and New York Times bestselling author Mark Levin has seen fit to add me to his list of “deranged bloggers” at marklevinshow.com, heralding my arrival into his hall of shame with the following description: “Charleston City Paper’s First Lady, Jackie Hunter.”

Never mind that I was always called “Jackie” anyway as a child (my mother still calls me this), as was my father and grandfather (both were also named “Jack Hunter.” My grandmother called Dad “big Jackie” and me “little Jackie.”)

But I’m much less interested in the sticks-and-stones aspect of Levin’s posting than what he actually posted, when he posted it and why.

As to when and why, if you Google the words “tyranny,” “liberty” and “Levin,” somewhere between Amazon.com, townhall.com and David Limbaugh’s links to Levin’s book, you will also find a link to my recent Taki’s Magazine feature “The Tyranny of Mark Levin’s ‘Liberty” on the first page. Something tells me he might have noticed this. Something also tells me Levin probably didn’t like it and this is the most logical explanation for why I would end up on his little enemies list at this point in time.

But Levin did not link to my piece at Taki’s. Instead Levin linked to a September, 2007 article on “blowback” from the Charleston City Paper where I write a weekly column. Posting this is completely random. It doesn’t even mention Levin.

I completely understand why my piece on the so-called “great one” might have touched a nerve. I also understand why Levin wouldn’t want to give my article any extra exposure. I wouldn’t want to promote what makes me look bad either.

While I’ve already posted my own initial reaction to Gov. Mark Sanford’s admission of infidelity, it might be of interest to Takimag readers the reaction of South Carolinians at large.

The three primary reaction categories are:

1. Sanford is a lying scumbag who should resign.

2. Sanford is a good man who made a mistake, but should still resign to heal his marriage.

3. Sanford’s private life has nothing to do with his principles, he should remain in office and still run for president.

In our current WTMA text poll (1250 AM WTMA is the premiere talk radio station in Charleston, SC, where I’m employed) we’re asking “Should Sanford Resign?”

The results as of now: 70% “No.” 30% “Yes.” This is by no means scientific, but the phone calls we receive reflect similar results.

I mention this for two reasons. First, we’ve been interviewed by a few national outlets, and one particular interviewer, a Los Angeles morning talk host, kept bringing up red state “evangelicals” and their attitude toward Sanford’s indiscretions. Yet, amongst Christian conservatives, there’s been a lot more “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” than outright moral condemnation.

Also, this enduring support (quite surprising, actually) for Sanford is due in large part to the grassroots popularity in this state for his particular Republican brand – strict fiscal conservatism that is markedly different and more “extreme” than most other conventional, “conservative” Republicans.

Even with his admission of infidelity, there is still more rage amongst rank-and-file Republican voters against our big spending, GOP-dominated state legislature than our cheating governor.

It will be interesting to see what developments unfold this week. It will also be interesting to see what the future holds politically for Sanford, who though badly damaged, his career may not be as “over” as some might think.

And as I’ve noted a few times on the air, Sanford will only be 55 in 2014 - the next time the still, extremely unpopular Sen. Lindsey Graham is up for reelection.