WATCHING MICHELLE MALKIN SUB for Bill O’Reilly, I noticed that her guest , Democratic consultant Julie Roginsky, appeared to have gotten her Media Matters talking points confused. When responding to a question about the Edwards blogger fiasco, she quickly parried with a blurted remark about McCain “having an anti-semitic blogger.”

Hmm. I’ve never heard anyone call Patrick Hynes an anti-semite, and it’s an absurd charge based on my knowledge of him. So I googled “Patrick Hynes anti-semite” and found this Media Matters press release calling Bill Donohue an anti-semite, while attacking Patrick Hynes on other grounds. Roginsky probably just confused the two. Call it talking-points crosstalk?

UPDATE: Video here.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Clay Waters of TimesWatch emails:

Last Saturday on Fox she also accused Hynes of “inflammatory, racist statements” and cited the NYT as her source in a discussion of Marcotte. I tackled the false charges in the Times story here (insulting Rep. Henry Waxman’s big nose is apparently anti-Semitic, and it wasn’t even Hynes, it was his commenters that the Times called anti-Semitic). If you want, you can try and discern any actual anti-Semitism in the comments in question (which would have nothing to do with Hynes’ “anti-Semitism” anyway).

What reporter John Broder of NY Times said on Feb. 9: “[Hynes] then came under fire for declaring that the United States was a ‘Christian nation’ in a book and television appearances that predated his work for Mr. McCain. Last November, while employed by Mr. McCain’s campaign, Mr. Hynes posted on his personal blog a picture of Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, and invited readers to submit nicknames, some of which were anti-Semitic.”

That seems pretty weak. More here.

MORE: Don Surber thinks Fox should give Malkin a show.

A PACK not a herd.

HEH: “I would like to remind Prime Minister Prodi about Mussolini and the way Mussolini was dealt with.”

COMMENT FAKERY: Pretty lame.

UPDATE: Indeed: “Yet another of those situations where, had it been a conservative blogger, the netroots would have spent days up in arms.”

ANOTHER UPDATE: Of course, in this, as in so many things, Jane Hamsher is a pioneer.

GUN CONTROL IN BRITAIN: An assessment, from The Telegraph:

We have, post-Dunblane, what are said to be the toughest gun control laws in the world. They have actually proved strikingly ineffectual. Gun crime has doubled since they were introduced.

This was predicted at the time, of course. But crime-control was only the excuse. (Via Dave Hardy).

MORE INSURGENCY IN IRAN:

Police and insurgents clashed after a bombing in southeastern Iran late Friday near the site where an explosion killed 11 members of the elite Revolutionary Guards this week, Iranian news agencies reported. . . .

A Sunni Muslim militant group called Jundallah, or God’s Brigade, which has been blamed for past attacks on Iranian troops, has claimed responsibility for the Wednesday bombing.

Iran has accused the United States of backing militants to destabilize the country. Tensions between Tehran and Washington are growing over allegations of Iranian involvement in attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq, and over Iran’s nuclear activities.

Hmm. Maybe I spoke too soon in criticizing the Bush Administration for doing nothing about Iran. On the other hand, this sort of thing has been simmering in Iran for a while, and Iranian claims of American involvement are hardly conclusive evidence. In fact, they’re hardly evidence at all.

RUDY GIULIANI: “It’s okay, they aren’t real.” Heh.

A D.A.R.E. VIDEO on what to do in case of a school shooting. Actually sounds sensible.

COOPERATE WITH A FEDERAL GUN INVESTIGATION, get badmouthed by the Brady Campaign:

You have to worry about doing business with the wrong customers. And a Washington lobbying group could post your name on its Web site, naming you as an arms dealer who caters to criminals.

Which is what happened last month when the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence released a report, “Shady Dealings: Illegal Gun Trafficking from Licensed Gun Dealers.” Tanner’s store was featured as one of the scurrilous.

What the Brady Center didn’t know is that the sale had been a sting, arranged in cooperation with the local office of the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. . . .

A black eye for good behavior.

Oops.

A local newspaper ran the news from the Brady report on the front page.

“The phones started ringing off the hook,” Tanner says. Some customers were outraged and threatened never to do business with the place again. Others called to say they couldn’t believe it was true.

To their credit, Brady apologized. (Via Snowflakes in Hell).

GOOD THING IT’S NON-BINDING: Resolution in favor of defeat passes in the House. “This was expected: but the good news is, the 40-60 Republican defectors that the Democrats had been predicting failed to materialize. Only seventeen Republicans voted for the resolution — and two Democrats broke ranks to vote against it. ”

I’m disappointed that my own Rep. John J. Duncan voted for it. At least he’s consistent, as he also voted against the Iraq war. Nonetheless, I think this vote was a mistake on his part.

UPDATE: Joe Lieberman has some thoughts.

ANOTHER UPDATE: John Hinderaker comments: “The press will no doubt try to spin this as a ‘bipartisan’ resolution, but the truth is that the Democrats didn’t get anything like the number of Republican supporters they were hoping for just a few days ago. I think the public will recognize that the real meaning of the resolution is that the Democrats, as a party, have committed themselves to a policy of failure and surrender. Time will tell whether that commitment will turn out to be a wise one.”

MORE: “Support the troops. Let them win.”

STILL MORE: Capt. Ed points out that those supporting this dumb resolution aren’t traitors:

Unfortunately, the House just sent a huge signal to the terrorists that waiting us out is a winning strategy, one they will not have to endure for very long. I don’t believe that the politicians who voted for this resolution are traitors or Quislings, and in fact I strenuously reject that characterization. I think they’re idiots and fools, though, and idiots and fools can be almost as dangerous.

Glad he cleared that up.

AN INSIDE LOOK at postwar planning.

FREEZER CASH: Not a security risk!

Eight months after stripping Rep. William J. Jefferson of his seat on the Ways and Means Committee, Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to award the lawmaker with a spot on the Homeland Security panel. . . .

Jefferson, the subject of an ongoing federal bribery probe, surprised fellow lawmakers and political observers Dec. 9 when he won election to a ninth term in a close runoff race.

“He’s been in limbo for a long time,” the leadership aide said. “He’s a member of Congress representing his constituents and is working on issues of concern to his district and the country.”

Jefferson has been embroiled in a nearly two-year-old federal investigation focusing on whether the 59-year-old lawmaker accepted bribes when he attempted to help set up some telecommunications deals in Africa for a Kentucky-based company called iGate Inc. Court documents indicate that the FBI has accumulated a significant amount of evidence in the case, including video of Jefferson allegedly accepting a $100,000 cash bribe from an FBI informant.

The case became fodder for late-night talk show comedians after investigators raided his home and found $90,000 in cash tucked away in a freezer.

But he’s not a security risk! (Via Dave Weigel, who writes: “These Democrats are making it really really hard for me to shill for them.”)

BLOGS AS A disaster relief tool.

CHARGES OF MCCARTHYISM, at Duke.

SAM BROWNBACK HAS MISSED MORE VOTES THAN ANY SENATOR except for Tim Johnson, who has a much better excuse.

JOHN PODHORETZ:

The words “I support the troops” are now solely for those who oppose what the troops are doing.

It’s positively Orwellian. But true.

UPDATE: “Bring the troops home” — from 1983?

HERE’S A LIST of people liveblogging the New York Law School symposium on writing about the law.

UPDATE: Photo- and video-blogging here. It includes the rock-star-like Randy Barnett.

A FOLLOWUP ON THE PELOSI C-SPAN STORY that I mentioned yesterday.

ELEVEN EMORY PROFESSORS ASK: “What’s Jimmy Carter afraid of?”

ALABAMA’S SEX TOY BAN UPHELD: I think that this decision is wrong, and that such legislation is beyond the legitimate police powers of state governments, as explained here. We even talk about dildos.

And there’s always Amazon!

DEMOCRATS IN A PICKLE OVER THE WAR:

Democrats face a host of risks as they move toward more substantive steps to tie President Bush’s hands with funding restrictions on the Iraq war.

Leaders are wary of allowing the more intense anti-war activists define the party’s image.

As they should be. Unfortunately, it’s a bit late for that. (Via John Hinderaker, who comments: “In all of the convoluted political calculations detailed by the AP, there is not a single word, by any Democrat of any stripe, about what is best for the troops, for the Iraqi people, or for the security of the United States.”).

IN THE MAIL: P.J. O’Rourke’s On the Wealth of Nations.

UPDATE: Reader Kevin Fleming emails: “I grabbed this one and read it as soon as I saw it in the bookstore. It’s well-written, smart, funny, learned, witty, acerbic, and a good explanation of tough material. I wish they’d make this a textbook for high school students. Hell, it ought to be required reading for Congress. Annually.”

A CONTRARIAN VIEW: Has George W. Bush regained his political footing?

Alternate view: It’s a dead-cat bounce! But it’s really hard to say. Clinton’s presidency looked dead several times, and he rebounded with an assist from his enemies’ overreaching and obvious over-the-top hatred. Plus, in 1995, a terrorist attack. Let’s hope that history doesn’t repeat itself that way.

UPDATE: Don Surber comments.

MICHELLE MALKIN, profiled in the Washington Post. I predict an unfavorable response from Kosland. On the other hand, there’s this quote: “There is a feeling that every time we go to bat for the Bush administration, they pull the rug out from under us.” I think a lot of Bush supporters feel this way.

Allah wasn’t crazy about the piece.

UPDATE: Oops, the dreaded co-blogger confusion: It was See-Dubya, not Allah.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Ed Morrissey: “Kurtz’ article does her on-line persona justice. It’s not really his job to go beyond that, but he gives readers a glimpse of what makes Michelle special for those of us fortunate to know her.”

(Morrissey link was wrong earlier. Fixed now. Sorry!)

NEWS ON THE “SURGE,” from The Mudville Gazette. It seems clear that this really is about a change in tactics more than additional U.S. troops, which I think is a good thing.