I got an iPhone recently, and one of the apps I downloaded was a book-reader, which came with a number of free, expired-copyright books, including "The Prince" by Nicolo Machiavelli.

I read the book many years ago, but decided it would make a good waiting-to-board read. It reads like a counter-insurgency manual against Saul Alinsky radicals. Alinsky deals with getting power, Machiavelli with keeping it. With the Democrats looking into the abyss, some Machiavellian tactics are certainly called for.

"There are some situations in which the more the survival is threatened the narrower the margin of choice becomes, unless you say you would rather have your society destroyed than to pursue marginal means." --Henry Kissinger

This is a nice way of saying that when your survival is threatened, the choices aren't between good and evil, but evil or greater evil.

An apparent third party initiative in Nevada, seems to be fifth column attempt to divide the Tea Party vote and allow Harry Reid to come up the middle. A nasty trick you might say, but fully expected from a politician as steeped in the culture of keeping power, and as threatened with losing it as Harry Reid is.

Its clear we can expect to see more of this kind of thing over the next few months and years, which makes this story interesting if not entirely believable.

Big Government has learned that Clintonistas are plotting a “push/pull” strategy. They plan to identify 7-8 national figures active in the tea party movement and engage in deep opposition research on them. If possible, they will identify one or two they can perhaps ‘turn’, either with money or threats, to create a mole in the movement. The others will be subjected to a full-on smear campaign. (Has MSNBC already been notified?)

Big Government has also learned that James Carville will head up the effort.

Breitbart seems to have crossed the line between journalism and activism, and the breathless declaration that Clinton and Carville--all purpose boogeymen for conservatives--are at the helm, is just a bit too precious. Clinton had people go to jail for him--he doesn't need to engineer a dirty tricks campaign--his people know to do it on his behalf and take the rap if they get caught. Carville of course is no longer doing that kind of work now that he's a celebrity and all-purpose political commentator.

The real problem for the Democrats is that there isn't anybody to discredit. Going after random plumbers is only going to make things worse and accelerate the denouement.

Yet there is a proven way to do it--over time--and not a great deal of time at that.

The Tea Party movement reminds me a lot of the blogosphere of 2004. Anybody could start a blog and attract and audience. Linking was ubiquitous, and one could jump from obscurity to guest spots on cable news is a flash.

All that is gone, with just a handful of survivors from those early days. Virtually every well-read blog is corporately owned or written by experienced journalists. Blogging is business--not big business, but business nevertheless. Remember Ed Morrissey? He had a top five conservative blog called Captain's Quarters until Hot Air bought him out. He's still on the masthead, but invisible for all practical purposes.

The Tea Party movement doesn't have any 'leaders' yet, but that makes it all the easier for politicians to anoint their own. Do you think that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton just spontaneously rose to prominence? The civil rights movement started in very similar fashion to the Tea Party movement, but movements need leadership, and leaders get recognized and flattered. When they don't play ball, associates (like Jackson and Sharpton) are encouraged to strike out on their own, given seed capital, favorable media and a microphone to say whatever crazy sh_t comes into their heads, and the elites simply nod approvingly and smile, understanding that they've neutralized another threat to their power.

Now Harry Reid can call a black Supreme Court Justice an idiot and refer to the President's lack of an objectionable 'Negro' dialect, and the black elite absolve him of all sin.

Feminism is another case in point--just as egregious, but more pathetic. The cover feminists gave Bill Clinton, then in his late forties, for sexually exploiting a 22 year old female intern, was such an obvious betrayal of feminist principles that no one but old hippie girls will even claim the association. No wonder Sarah Palin has them so apoplectic.

The obvious objection to this analysis is that the Democrats are philosophically 180 degrees out from the Tea Party, to which I respond that the party of Jim Crow now commands over 90% of the black vote in each and every election, no matter how patrician the candidate.

Never underestimate the power a motivation of self-preservation produces.

I was watching a little O'Reilly tonight and saw Alan Colmes was on to defend the indefensible on the question of why politics is so polarized under Obama's 'rule'.

Monica Crowley simply said the obvious--a President that campaigned on a new kind of politics has proven to be the more partisan and divisive political figure in living memory and Americans are justifiably upset about it.

Alan Colmes opined that the Tea Party is simply a manifestation of racism.

Nothing too surprising in that except perhaps in my own reaction--I wasn't angry or upset. I didn't grit my teeth at the insult.

I laughed.

Colmes clearly had no answer, no way of spinning massive public disaffection with Obama and the Democrats. His charge of racism was a "your mother wears army boots" retort--distinctly inelegant, ineffective and ill-conceived.

To make matters worse, he had to admit that there was absolutely no way he could know this, suggesting rather lamely, that no one was going to come right out and say they were racist--a classic rhetoric fallacy along the lines of "when did you stop beating your wife?

I actually felt sorry for Alan Colmes, his beta-maleness exposed like Don Knotts doing a Tarzan yell. His job is to go out and take a beating, to be humiliated in place of his betters within the Democrat establishment.

It doesn't get more girly-man than that...

UPDATE: I'm happy to have rediscovered Richard Fernandez and the Belmont Club after a long estrangement. You would do well to read this whole post.

Who makes monsters? Mostly the Left: because of its huge presence in the media and the arts, the Left has traditionally manufactured the most hate-objects. They’ve done it for so long that it has become almost a birthright. The photographer Zombie has documented dozens of calls from the left, from demonstrators to celebrities, for the assassination and murder of President George W. Bush. But that’s not a crime, is it? “Threats to the president aren’t excusable now, and weren’t excusable in the past — and yet death threats against Bush at protests seem to have been routinely ignored for years (and readers who have any evidence showing that the threateners depicted below [in the Zombie post] were ever prosecuted for threatening the president, please tell me and I’ll update this essay with the new info). Why the discrepancy?”

The discrepancy is probably because the Left has long appointed itself the guardian of the freak-minting industry. It is a prerogative that is jealously guarded. Thus Glenn Reynolds could receive this insulting email calling for civility without the slightest irony. “I cannot emphasize this enough: your brand of public discourse is hurting our country. It us poison. So fuck you, you GOP utensil, and fuck your mother for bringing you forth.” Get it Glenn? So too could Ann Coulter be threatened by protesters at the University of Ottawa to prevent her from making a “hate speech.” S**t flows downhill. There is no mystery to that. It’s Leftist physics.