Matt Corley already commented on a section of this clip, in which Sen. John McCain treated Iran’s Supreme Leader with the same “abject solicitousness” that Charles Krauthammer condemned from the president. But I think the segment is worth seeing in its longer form, as it neatly encapsulates the conservative attempt to use the Iranian protests as an instrument to regain control of the U.S. foreign policy conversation, inconsiderate — indeed, proudly defiant — of the potential negative consequences for the protesters’ cause, or for the protesters themselves.

Watch it:

McCain states that any consideration of the historical context within which an American intervention might be viewed in Iran amounts to “a betrayal of what was declared on the Fourth of July, 1776.” He then launches into a remarkably incoherent mishmash of shopworn Cold War romanticism, half-remembered historical references, and shameless grandstanding, after which Neil Cavuto asks the obvious question:

CAVUTO: All right, so let’s say the commander, supreme leader, ayatollah hears that, Senator, and says yeah that’s all well and good but I’m going through with this, I’m cracking down on these guys, and it could be a very ugly, bloody weekend. What is the United States to do then? What is our posture going to be? How do we move forward? Because this could get very bloody.

MCCAIN: (Pause) Well, you know, and there may be those indications, since the Supreme Leader said they were not gonna tolerate further demonstrations in the street. If they do, we have to judge it by what the situation is as it unfolds, and by the way, the French president, the German chancellor, and the British prime minister, far more strong in their words in support of these protesters than the President of the United States. Interesting turnaround.

…After all the wind, a politician’s dodge. The potential consequences to Iranian demonstrators? Not McCain’s problem.

Full transcript below. Read more

San Francisco’s alternative news source, Beyond Chron, pointed out yesterday that San Francisco Chronicle reporter Jaxon Van Derbeken was honored by the vehemently anti-immigrant group, Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), when they awarded him with their “Eugene Katz Award for Excellence in the Coverage of Immigration” last week.

According to Beyond Chron, Van Derbeken won the same award that was bestowed upon Lou Dobbs for “attacking San Francisco’s two-decade-old Sanctuary Ordinance and perpetuated harmful stereotypes against immigrant children.” Beyond Chron claims that Van Derbeken is partly responsible for Mayor Gavin Newsom’s “hasty” decision to issue a new policy “that puts innocent children in danger and undermines the fundamental right to due process.”

During his Q&A that CIS conveniently edited out of their video of the event, Van Derbeken admitted that he has often been accused of discrimination and biased reporting:

Q: Have you been accused of being racist or –

MR. VAN DERBEKEN: Yes.

Q: – intolerant or anti-immigrant or –

MR. VAN DERBEKEN: Yes, yes, yes. (Laughter.) Hysterical, unfair, biased, awful, evil, anti-Christ, yeah. (Laughter.)

At another point, Van Derbeken was asked who the “voices of sanity” were on the subject of immigration. To which he replied:

MR. VAN DERBEKEN : Well, they’re viewed as lunatics. I mean, the people who are offended by this are thought of as being right-wing lunatics, in the context of this sort of closed loop of San Francisco politics.

It turns out Van Derbeken and CIS share something in common. This past week, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund released a new report that called out CIS, along with several other anti-immigration groups, for having “inflamed the immigration debate by invoking the dehumanizing, racist stereotypes and bigotry of hate groups.” The report tied their hateful rhetoric to an overwhelming rise in hate crimes directed at Latinos and individuals “perceived” as immigrants.