The Dish

Christianism laid bare in Iowa – behind Huckabee.

Noah Millman urges prudence on Pakistan. Greg Djerejian concurs.

Support for suicide bombing has plummeted in recent polls. Stanley Kurtz remains pessimistic.

I don’t think Glenn Greenwald really wanted to go there … but such are the perils of blogging.

Hey, it’s my blog. Herewith some highly personal favorites from 2007.

Most under-rated movie: Zodiac.

Best movie: Into Great Silence.

Best TV series: Sunrise Earth.

Best Cultural Commentary: "The Imaginationland Trilogy," South Park; "Fundamental," Pet Shop Boys.

Most Under-Rated TV show: The Soup.

Guiltiest Pleasure: Judge Judy.

Best Books: "Farewell To Alms" by Gregory Clark. "Takeover" by Charlie Savage.

Most Under-Rated magazine: The New Republic.

Worst Online Development: That Awful Vlogging Period.

Funniest Blogger: Chris Kelly.

Strange New Respect: John Derbyshire.

Best Magazines: The Atlantic, New York, Wired.

Biggest Disappointment: Mickey Kaus.

Most Under-Rated blogger: Will Saletan.

Best Columnist: George Will.

Most Under-Rated Columnist: Roger Cohen.

Best Magazine Essay: Kenneth Anderson’s "Mormons, Muslims and Multiculturalism".

Best Campaign Bloggers: Marc Ambinder, Ben Smith.

Best Moral Compasses: Scott Horton, Hillary Bok, Anne Applebaum.

Best Group Blog: My readers.

Geez:

"We ought to have an immediate, very clear monitoring of our borders and particularly to make sure if there’s any unusal activity of Pakistanis coming into the country."

A reader writes:

Ed Morissey’s sneers at Richardson are based on pure ignorance. Richardson is right. The US should push to get rid of Musharraf and they could do it by cutting off the $150 million a month that goes to subsidising the Pakistani military. The new Army Chief of Staff General Kayani would have Musharraf gone in a second and would return to the country to a semblance of democracy within six months because he understands the damage that military rule does to a military’s image — that will only get worse after BB’s assassination. Democracy won’t be perfect but it will be better than this. Here’s why the US should not support Musharraf: — He’s an illllegitimate leader with no popular support (see recent IRI polling). He has had to prop himself up by repeatedly declaring martial law. Pakistanis don’t hate us because we are western, they hate us for propping up a miserable unelected government.

— On November 4th, the day after the declaration of martial law (it was not a state of emergency — that is a specific constitutional measure in Pakistan) Musharraf released 28 jihadis, including three found with suicide vests, in exchange for 200 soldiers who had surrendered to a jihadi group without a fight. That’s what our close ally in the war on terror has been up to.

— He’s been playing a double game with the US and the Islamists, dribbling out the occasional al Qaeda suspect in return for billions in cash — none of which has gone to the war on extremism (see NYT stories last week but also see extensive research in a book called Military Inc by Ayesha Siddiqa. Why go on paying him to do nothing — a democratic election would bring to power those who have no interest in supporting jihadi groups.

— Jihadis have been political allies of the military (but not of the PPP) since the 1970s. The Pakistani military channelled billions to the worst jihadis in the 1980s, created the Taliban in the 1990s and have supported it quietly since 2001, allowing it to maintain bases in Quetta. The military supports jihadi groups because they are useful in supports its vision in Kashmir and Afghanistan and because they undermine nationalist Pashtun and Balochi forces at home which the Punjabi dominated military sees as its real threat.

— Musharraf has unravelled the Pakistani consitutions, provoking extensive violence in Balochistan and elsewhere. The country is at real risk of implosion as long as he rules and there are no free and fair elections.

Deal Hudson gives up:

It’s clear from his convoluted statements on embryonic stem cells that Romney’s thoughts on this issue are still far from coherent and consistent.

So far as I can tell, the only truly consistent thing in Romney’s life is his own ambition. If this race ends up between Clinton and Romney, it really will be two hollow shells ricocheting off each other’s opportunism.

I find it hard to disagree with any of this. In Obama, the Democratic party has a chance for a landslide in the 2008 election, something they will immediately forfeit with the divisive, cynical, hollow candidacy of Hillary Clinton. In Obama, disaffected Republicans also have a chance to punish their own party for its abandonment of conservatism, embrace of dumb authoritarianism abroad and spendthrift liberalism at home. The logic is overwhelming to me, but it’s good to see it echoed in the Washington Times. If the Democrats throw this opportunity away in favor of a corrupt dynasty, it will be the biggest self-inflicted blow since … well, John Kerry and Harry Reid.

A reader writes:

Is it really so puzzling why lower middle class people go to church but have higher rates of abortion, illegitimacy, and divorce?  Very often people who lack a quality are the ones who obsess ostentatiously about it.  That applies, not just to family virtue, but to many other traits — intellect, culture, beauty, class, professional achievement. People who insecure about possessing a quality compensate by displaying conspicuous signs that they have it. A paralegal, for example, anxious about her class, will carry a Gucci handbag to try to show that she is rich and fashionable.  An aristocrat, living on inherited money earned four generations ago, is more confident and wears a favorite five year old jacket when she walks outside in the snow.

The same pattern applies to family virtue.

A liberal who lives in Boston and has been married to the same woman for twenty years has no need to proclaim his virtue; it is evident in his own life.  The man from Alabama who has divorced and fathered a child out of wedlock is acutely conscious of his lack of virtue and is nervous about the impression it will give to other people.  He covers his soiled family life with the clean blanket of churchgoing and vocal participation in groups devoted to conservative causes.

But why does this lead to opposition to gay marriage, when gay marriage promotes the virtues of fidelity and stability?  I strongly support gay marriage and believe that it promotes family virtue.  But if we are trying to explain (but not excuse) why the churchgoing divorcees oppose it, the answer is that they see homosexuality, married or not, as non-traditional.  The churchgoing divorcees are not asserting their family virtue, logically conceived, but their family virtue as traditionally defined.  It is the traditional definition of family virtue that prevails in the communities where the churchgoing divorcees are trying to ingratiate themselves, as a way to compensate for and cover their fractured family lives.  And while an argument can be made that gay marriage is compatible with tradition, gay marriage is not the same as that tradition, which has historically been bitterly bigoted and hostile towards homosexuality.