(1) It is necessary to return briefly to the episode reported last week by Radar Online's Jebediah Reed, in which Tom Edsall referred to David Broder as "the voice of the people." I've become convinced, more or less, that Edsall made that comment sarcastically, not seriously.

Over the weekend, Edsall sent an e-mail to Reed, which he also forwarded to me, in which Edsall insinuated (without stating) that he was joking. In his email, Edsall linked to this post by Mark Kleiman, who says he has known Edsall for 40 years, that Edsall has an "unusual tic" where he makes "ironic" statements so seriously that people frequently misunderstand his meaning, and that "anyone who knows Edsall" would have understood "the natural inference [] that he was being sarcastic, making fun of the fact that of course people like Broder, who believe intensely in their own wisdom, distrust the machinery of direct democracy."

Eric Alterman, who notes that he plays poker with Edsall, made more or less the same point about Edsall yesterday, and Edsall himself, in our e-mail exchange over the wekeend, finally came out (after much prodding) and said that he was not serious in referring to Broder that way. So unless one is prepared to believe that Edsall is simply lying about his intent, and there is no basis for believing that he is, it seems quite likely that he was speaking of Broder derisively, not reverentially.

I want to make a few brief points about this episode. The reporter here, Reed, did absolutely nothing wrong. Even Edsall's defenders claim that his manner of expressing himself is "unusual" and frequently leads to his being misunderstood.

And while many reporters would have refrained from reporting the incident because it would be deemed to violate some implicit journalist club rules whereby establishment journalists (rather than their sources) want everything to be off the record unless everyone consents to its being reported (the Tim Russert Rule), Reed rather courageously reported what was a noteworthy incident notwithstanding the fact that it involved several highly influential journalists (angering several of them in the process).

Additionally, Edsall could have easily corrected the record by immediately and clearly stating that his comments were intended in jest, but for whatever reasons, he was plainly reluctant to do that. He waited several days before making a clear statement, perhaps because admitting that he referred to Broder that way "ironically" is tantamount to an admission that he was mocking the Dean of the Washington Press Corps. And after Edsall requested that I add an addendum to my post about this incident noting that he claimed to be joking (which I said I would do), he then withdrew the request and affirmatively requested that I say nothing.

More to the point, and contrary to Kleiman's claims, it would hardly be surprising to hear a Beltway journalist speak of Broder with such reverence. They do that with great frequency. And the specific conceit of believing that they speak for "the American people" is one of the most common fallacies of Beltway punditry.

None of the points made by anyone during the discussion prompted by Reed's article is undermined by the fact that Edsall's statements were offered ironically. The Edsall/Broder episode was offered merely as an incident illustrating the broader trends discussed, not as dispositive evidence standing alone. Nonetheless, given the strong likelihood that Edsall's comments were not made seriously, that fact ought to be noted for the sake of accuracy and fairness.

(2) Continuing its trend of offering outstanding and unique original reporting, FireDogLake is hosting regular reports on the trial of Jose Padilla, written by Lew Koch. On his (relatively) new blog, Rick Perlstein highlights what an accomplished investigative reporter Koch is, and also offers some meaningful insights on the Padilla trial.

(3) Cato's Gene Healy -- in a post entitled "The Party of Death" -- examines Rudy Guiliani's ongoing popularity among Republicans despite his heretical stances on abortion and gay rights (h/t Jim Henley). Healy argues that the "conservative" movement now rests, in essence, on virtually nothing more than a belief in endless, mindless militarism. As Healy says: "Giuliani's support among GOP primary voters appears to stem entirely from his hard-guy reputation and perceived willingness to blow stuff up."

Healy's argument relates to the principal point of a post I wrote in early February arguing that Giuliani's tough guy image would far outweigh his positions on social issues because, even among a large bulk (though obviously not all) of "Christian conservatives," war in the Middle East now has primacy on the political agenda, and a perceived tough-guy warrior is what they crave more than a pious domestic issue moralist.

Max Blumenthal reported yesterday that various Christian conservative leaders, including James Dobson, recently met with Bush in the White House about Iraq and Iran, and Dobson -- as he typically does -- thereafter made statements making clear his support for the most militaristic policies possible.

The centrality of the Middle East for many "religious conservatives" is due to several factors: some religious conservatives see war against Muslims as a religious battle in defense of Christianity, some see it as necessary to secure the existence of a "Greater Israel" which many Christians believe is a prerequisite for the return of Jesus, while still others see bellicosity as a test of loyalty to the Cause or even as proof of one's belief in the exceptionalism of the tribe, whether the Tribe is "America," "Christianity," or "conservatism."

As my post documented, many "Christian conservative" leaders have made expressly clear that Middle Eastern militarism is of the highest concern, not as a mere foreign policy matter but as a matter of what they consider to be "moral issues." Obviously, there are plenty of Christian conservative voters who will not vote for a pro-choice or "pro-gay" candidate no matter what. But it is a significant mistake to believe that abortion and gay rights are dispositive for that movement the way they were in the 1990s.

The Middle East is a vital part of their political agenda, and what they crave more than anything is a Leader who they believe exudes "strength," "toughness," antagonism and scorn towards all of their Enemies -- primarily Muslims and liberals.

(4) At Cliff Schecter's blog, an article on Eric Rudolph's activities in prison is examined to highlight how "Terrorists" are thought of very differently in some circles based upon the agenda which their terrorism is designed to promote.

(5) Blue Texan notes yet another long-time Republican Party adherent -- Vic Gold, the deputy press secretary for Barry Goldwater's 1964 presidential campaign -- who argues that the Republican Party has become almost completely unmoored from its ostensible "principles," as evidenced by, among other things, its "messianic foreign policy" and "theocratic view of church and state."

The circle of True Patriots with Courage and Backbone to Fight is shrinking every day (here Richard Perle complains that the Bush administration "is beginning to appease ["appease" is Neoconservative for "failing to wage war on"] rather than confront America's enemies" and he "describ[es] the president as 'a failure' who is proving powerless to impose his views on his administration"). The trap for the Republican Party is that its base demands increasing allegiance to its core militarism, even as that militarism, on a seemingly daily basis, becomes increasingly unpopular.