Right Wing Nut House

His name is Charles Blow - no really, it is. I don’t know exactly what he does for a living because this op-ed that appears in the New York Times today doesn’t give us a clue. Perhaps he is the official liberal hand wringer. Or maybe he is the designated hysteria monger for the left.

Whatever he does, it is apparent he needs a change of underpants after trying to scare the crap out of the left with visions of bloody revolution, right wing terrorism, and conservative mobs running amuck:

Lately I’ve been consuming as much conservative media as possible (interspersed with shots of Pepto-Bismol) to get a better sense of the mind and mood of the right. My read: They’re apocalyptic. They feel isolated, angry, betrayed and besieged. And some of their “leaders” seem to be trying to mold them into militias.

At first, it was entertaining - just harmless, hotheaded expostulation. Of course, there were the garbled facts, twisted logic and veiled hate speech. But what did I expect, fair and balanced? It was like walking through an ideological house of mirrors. The distortions can be mildly amusing at first, but if I stay too long it makes me sick.

But, it’s not all just harmless talk. For some, their disaffection has hardened into something more dark and dangerous. They’re talking about a revolution.

What sparkling analysis! What scintillating observations! What wit! What insightful reasoning!

What a crock.

Mr. Blowhard is a liar. If he read more conservative commentary than what he has linked above, I will eat my William F. Buckley Memorial Skimmer. If he had, he would not have had a column to write. No one at NRO has called for a “revolution.” No one at The Weekly Standard has written anything remotely resembling a tract that pronouces conservatives “isolated, betrayed, and besieged. I haven’t even heard Rush Limbaugh urging conservatives to pick up a pitchfork and head to Washington. Nor has Mr. Blow read American Thinker, Pajamas Media, Powerline, Hot Air, Instapundit, Hugh Hewitt, Townhall, Outside the Beltway, or most of the other top 50 conservative blogs that, if not always objective in tone and substance, certainly fall far short of advocating or promoting “revolution” or “garbled facts” or “twisted logic” and most especially “veiled” hate speech.

That last, of course, is construed by liberals as any speech they happen to disagree with. In the case of Mr. Blow’s op-ed, I might point out that there is nothing “veiled” at all about his hate; his entire screed is one long, lying, misrepresentation of the current state of conservative thought that descends to the depths of hysterical paranoia, gross and deliberate exaggeration, and a jaw dropping ignorance of who conservatives believe their “leaders” to be (or a coldly calculated attempt to deliberately mis-identify those leaders to make his idiotic thesis ring true).

Calling Michelle Bachman a conservative “leader” tells you right away this fellow has as much business writing an op-ed about conservatives as my pet cat Snowball. And at least Snowy would have enough character and honesty to actually peruse top conservative websites and writings instead of cherry picking blog posts from Think Progress or Crooks and Liars. It may come as a shock to Blow but not everything that appears on those shrines to liberal truth is “fair and balanced” either. Nor can I think of a single liberal site that has even a smidgen of balance when it comes to reporting on conservatives. The rank partisanship of the lefty blogosphere is as pronounced and dominant as it is on the right. That’s showbiz on the internet.

But wait! Before you think Mr. Blowhard is just your typical liberal purveyor of false, misleading, and outright dishonest analysis of conservative opinion, get a load of this:

For example, Chuck Norris, the preeminent black belt and prospective Red Shirt, wrote earlier this month on the conservative blog WorldNetDaily: “How much more will Americans take? When will enough be enough? And, when that time comes, will our leaders finally listen or will history need to record a second American Revolution?”

Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, imagining herself as some sort of Delacroixian Liberty from the Land of the Lakes, urged her fellow Minnesotans to be “armed and dangerous,” ready to bust caps over cap-and-trade, I presume.

And between his tears, Glenn Beck, the self-professed “rodeo clown,” keeps warning of an impending insurrection by saying that he believes that we are heading for “depression” and “revolution” and then gaming out that revolution on his show last month. “Think the unthinkable” he said. Indeed.

Where’s Rush Limbaugh? Isn’t he the liberal-identified “conservative leader?” Why no scary quotes from him? Evidently, Rush failed to cooperate with Mr. Blowhard and supply the requisite rant calling for “revolution.” Limbaugh, for the most part, has been a rational conservative voice calling for better organizing, sharper messaging, and holding GOP lawmaker’s feet to the fire to stand up for conservative principles. Not calling for violence on his show meant that Rush didn’t make Mr. Blow’s cut of conservative “leaders.”

Instead, we are told that Chuck Norris is da man, a leading light of conservative thought. Norris is popular with some conservatives but I can’t recall anything he ever said being taken seriously by anyone. It would be like saying Jeananne Garofolo is a liberal leader. People know who she is and she is quoted by liberals on occassion but does anyone believe that she is an important spokesperson for the left?

And how important is Glen Beck? There are tens of millions of conservatives in America and Beck has a show on Fox watched by a little more than a million people. If that makes him a “conservative leader” then it makes Al Franken a liberal leader - both clowns who I would be surprised if either were taken seriously by anyone with an IQ higher than 50.

How paranoid is Mr. Blow? The idea that any responsible conservative anywhere is trying to “mold” conservatives into militias is so far beyond the pale of rational discourse as to make the author a true leftist nutcase, a lost cause to reason and logic, and a quaking, shaking, quivering example of lefty delusional thinking.

Both sides have their nutcases - something Mr. Blow either forgot or failed to acknowledge. If he wants some examples, I invite him to visit my blog and pick any post at random. There he will find liberal idiocy in all its glory - paranoia, nauseating condenscension, and a hate so intense as to make the commenter unintelligable.

I might have expected a piece like this on Huffington Post or perhaps Firedoglake - that other liberal bastion of rank partisan hatred, skewed facts, and contextual dishonesty. The fact that it appears in the New York Times shouldn’t surprise us, I guess, except that the Times is still billing itself as a newspaper. Maybe they should simply give in to their impulses and proclaim their switch to being just another liberal blog that traffics in lies, deciet, and towering hypocrisy.

This blog post originally appeared in The American Thinker

UPDATE

Alright already. If you like Glenn Beck you have an IQ above 50. But agreeing with Mr. Blowhard that the talk show host is a “conservative leader”  puts those of you waxing eloquent for Mr. Beck in sort of a strange position, no? It validates his thesis.

Why do conservatives insist on self-immolating behavior such as granting imbeciles like Beck any legitimacy? This is neither the time or the place (I want to enjoy my Saturday afternoon off thank you) to go into Beck’s shortcomings but you might want to ask yourself why simply because you agree with his rants that this makes him a leading light of conservatism? My neighbor is a better ranter than Beck but I don’t ascribe any special qualities to his ability to appeal to emotion. To my mind, there is little difference between Beck and Blow - neither ventures to argue using a logical framework for discussion nor do either of those two gentlemen grant their political opponents any legitimacy whatsoever. There is no rational basis for debate or discussion without both of those givens present.

Sorry for referring to Beckites as having the IQ of a coffee table.

Patrick Ruffini wrote a post on his Next Right site yesterday where he sees a golden opportunity for the GOP to gain some political ground by running on an agenda that includes healthy cuts in the size of government. He believes the GOP is “galivinized” to make cutting government by a third - back to 2007 levels - the centerpiece of a revival even if, as he realistically points out, not much will change given the huge advantage currently enjoyed by liberals in Congress.

It’s an ambitious proposal and is predicated on the idea that people will reject the naked statism being advanced by President Obama and come home to the party of smaller government as a reaction to the bail-out culture as well as the heavy handed attempts by the Administration to gain outright control of companies like GM and AIG.

But will they? Obama still enjoys broad support among the American public and beyond that, you have to wonder how much people really care that government has instituted policies that are destroying the free market and limiting freedom. The small percentage who are paying any attention at all to what is happening in Washington will hear this by Obama and be satisfied:

Let me be clear: the United States government has no interest or intention of running GM. What we are interested in is giving GM an opportunity to finally make those much-needed changes that will let them emerge from this crisis a stronger and more competitive company.

If the lie is told often enough, people will believe it - especially when the media doesn’t think it’s their job to call Obama out for his prevarications. Have you seen any article (outside of the Wall Street Journal and a few reactionary newspapers) or any news broadcast beyond a few CNBC and Fox segments that even discusses the possibility that what Obama is doing is nothing short of a government takeover of GM? If you can fire one CEO, hire another, force bankruptcy, and guarantee warranties, not to mention deciding which “changes” GM should make in their business plan, that sounds an awful lot like “running GM” to me.

But the average voter doesn’t hear any of that. All they hear is the president standing up on national TV and solemnly proclaiming one thing while his Administration is blatantly doing exactly the opposite. The key to any good propaganda is to make the lie believable. And for the moment, the people trust the president to tell them the truth. Right now, people just aren’t that upset with what is going on save the minority of us who are paying a little closer attention to what’s going on in Washington. And don’t forget, there’s another minority of people paying attention who are supporting the President and urging him to do more. Liberal activists have only just begun to hold the president’s feet to the fire and before all is said and done, America could potentially be a place that you and I wouldn’t recognize from just two years ago.

Patrick makes this point in his post:

The end result of this agenda, the size of government at 2007 levels, may seem minimalist in any broad sweep of history, but it is galvanizing in a way it wasn’t before because of the sheer scope of what’s changed in six months. The yawning gap between where we are now and where we were two years ago gives conservatives an ambitious goal to reach for and a reason for being again, even if the end result is little change over time. And if we get a mandate to actually cut government significantly — and I think the public mood will shift there in a few years if not sooner — it might not be that much harder to cut it to below pre-Obama or pre-Bush levels because current levels are so out of whack that people would not be able to tell the difference between that and what the status quo was in the mid-2000s — only that it is change.

Unfortunately, history is not on Patrick’s side. The most conservative president in history couldn’t shrink the size of government. The most conservative Congress in history barely made a dent in the size of government during the 1990’s and then turned around and became the biggest spendthrift Congress in history. “Shrinking” the size of government to 2007 levels can’t be done simply because it is not 2007 anymore. A great tide washed over the country last November and when it ebbs, no one knows where we will be. But there is an historical certainty there will be no road back the way we came. As powerful as the Obama wave seems to be today, even he cannot erase all the contours of what Reagan built many years ago. Similarly, if, as many suspect, Obama’s victory was a transformational moment in history, the next wave of change cannot entirely undo what has been done by his Administration.

The game has changed. Nationalized health insurance is on the way, more top down solutions to education are being contemplated, wholesale changes to business and industry as a result of the green craze will be forced on the economy, the defense budget will be drastically cut, and that’s probably only the beginning. Patrick believes the voter will rebel against these changes. That remains to be seen. But what is certain is that they won’t turn to Republicans for the answers no matter how “galvanized” the GOP becomes.

For Patrick’s proposal to succeed, the word “Republican” will have to be rehabilitated with the voter. The damage done to the party during the Bush years - as Patrick rightly points out - will not be fixed by simply reiterating what the party’s message has been since LBJ’s presidency. It won’t be repaired by offering the same small government mantra no matter how much “big government” is screwing things up. Ruffini points to history to buttress his argument:

The Welfare State mentality of the ’60s that created the conditions for 1980 and 1994 systemically excused bad behavior at an individual level, creating millions of individual tragedies. Obamanomics systematically excuses bad behavior at the wholesale macroeconomic level, creating a vicious circle of irresponsibility with major consequences for every American.

If nothing else, the first 70 days of Obama — with an assist from the last 4 months of Bush — has left government economic policy so off-kilter that it may take a decade or more to fix. Remember that exhausted to-do list? Not a problem any more.

For the first time in decades, Republicans could run on a platform of cutting government by a third and not seem wild-eyed or mean-spirited. When we talk about the dangers of governments running private businesses, we will have contemporary object lessons to teach with, not bogeymen that are decades old or oceans away. When we talk about getting the government out of our lives, more people will nod their head knowing exactly what we mean, having just footed the bill for bailout after bailout, instead of yawning or dismissing it as a non-issue as they did in the prosperous, laissez-faire post-Reagan America.

All of that would be true if the GOP wasn’t totally and deeply discredited as a political party. The difference between 1980 and 1994 and the situation today is that in both those eras, Republicans were competitive across the country. Now, whole swaths of the United States are almost no-go zones for the GOP. Bereft of national leadership, having no counter-agenda that is accepted by the party regulars, and unable to escape the economic legacy of George Bush, Republicans have a lot of work to do in order to be taken seriously - even when they pledge to “shrink” the size of government.

And it isn’t just the map that is the problem. Vital segments of the voting public have decisively rejected the party including the 18-35 age group and Hispanics - two groups who are growing in number and becoming more politically savvy at a time when the Republican social agenda is receding in importance to voters and on issue after issue a decisive advantage accrues to the Democrats. Couple this with the thought that Congressional districts will be redrawn in 2010 with a probable increase in Democratic seats as a result and you have not only problems with party ID but systemic hurdles to overcome as well.

Patrick is not talking about an opportunity for the short term but it is hard to fathom at this point where the GOP can begin to close the gap. Ruffini is attempting to reduce the online activism gap but that too is a long term project. Can these problems be overcome by running on a platform “We are not socialists?” In the end, I think Patrick expects too much of the voter, projects our own anger on to them when I am convinced it will take more than what Obama has done so far to rile them up.

What Patrick has latched onto is an illusion of opportunity. The people aren’t ready. The party’s not ready. The elected representatives certainly aren’t ready for what he is proposing. And before we’re through, history will have a say as well. For that, no one can predict what the outcome of Obama’s assault on capitalism will be nor how well the GOP can respond given the limits imposed on them by their own stupidity and arrogance in the past.

I got the idea for this post from a piece on Andrew Breitbart’s Big Hollywood entitled “Bond Forever, Bourne Forgotten” where John Scott Lewinski reports on Entertainment Weekly’s “All Time Coolest Heroes in Pop Culture.”

The list is a triumph for conservative values - with some notable exceptions. Placing Harry Potter at #4 was probably a sop to the success of the franchise but the “kids as heroes” theme is more suited to Saturday morning TV than iconic film making. True, Harry fights evil but the last couple of films he has demonstrated a debilitating introspection bordering on narcissism where he wonders whether he is, in fact, as evil as the dark lord who wants to kill him. As Potter reaches adolescence, he is cursed with the doubts and confusion that roil the psyche of most teenager’s and cause all kinds of trouble including bad decision making and an attraction to “the forbidden.” While this makes for excellent filmaking (the movies are an example of pop culture at its best), I question whether Potter should be included on such a heroic list.

Heroes do not question their motivations. By definition, moral clarity is is at the center of their heroic nature and is why the life lessons their deeds impart are so important. There are no tragic heroes in EW’s list which is probably as it should be. Hollywood’s Dream Machine has had our heroes living happily ever after for 100 years and any break with that tradition has been usually met with audience resistance.There are exceptions, of course, but few producers wish to back a project where a nearly pure hero meets their end.

There a few others on the list that should raise eyebrows including Nancy Drew (#17), Bufffy the Vampire Slayer from the TV series (#8), Roxy Brown, Pam Greir’s Blaxploitation film character (#13) and Sydney Bristow from Alias (#20). Not coincidentally, they are all women which, I believe, cheapens Ellen Ripley (Alien) high ranking (#5). Out of that bunch, I might have put Greir’s character in the bottom 5 and tossed the rest. It appears that an ubiquitous form of political correctness infected this list to some degree but not so much as to totally delegitimize it.

Others on the list are mis-ranked in my opinion. Jack Bauer at #16? Superman (Christopher Reeves) at a lofty #3? Christian Bale’s Batman at #18? And perhaps the most egregious mis-ranking of all - Gary Cooper’s Will Kane from High Noon at a lowly #14. By contrast, aside from the aforementioned Superman at a much too high #3, there is Han Solo at #7, Mad Max at #11 and Captain Kirk at #12. I would have crowded all of those selections somewhere near the bottom with the exception of Solo who I would place somewhere between 10-15.

Of course, it’s all in fun and we shouldn’t get too exercised over a few additions made for politically correct reasons or a few mis-rankings due, no doubt, to the personal preferences of EW editors.A few months ago I took a stab at a “heroes list” by developing my “10 Favorite Mythic Heroes of all Time.” The list was almost entirely made up of literary and legendary heroes with a couple of exceptions including John Wayne who appears nowhere on the EW list and featured the pulp fiction icon, Edgar Rice Burrough’s John Carter of Mars as my #1 mythic hero.

I didn’t consciously seek out mythic heroes who reflected my conservative values but my choices could hardly have been otherwise. Running down the EW list, I was amazed to find that to one degree or another, most of the icons on that list held to the best of conservative values to see them through their ordeals. Aside from having no trouble identifying which side they should be on in the struggle of good versus evil, most of the heroes on that list demonstrated core beliefs that are usually ascribed to conservatism.

Perhaps the most obvious trait in most of these heroes is their desire to bring order to chaos by battling the agents of evil. A related theme is their desire to preserve traditional society (or the status quo) as recognizable evil seeks to alter society (or community) for the worse. It bears mentioning here that conservatives are not against change as long as it is firmly rooted in values and traditions of the past. The change being sought by most of these heroe’s antagonists would be achieved after tearing down tradition and fomenting an alien way of life that would be demonstrably inferior to what it was replacing.

The “lone hero” motif is also prevalent among the chosen. This has been a staple of Hollywood for as long as the film industry has existed and hearkens to an American past where icons like Daniel Boone, Davey Crockett, Kit Carson, and the lone Mountain Man battled Mother Nature and native Americans in order to bring white civilization and justice to the frontier. One can argue how heroic in real life those men truly were but their mythic status, sealed by eastern writers in the cheap dime novels of the time (the “Hollywood” of the 19th century) who fictionalized their exploits to a public eager for American heroes, gave us larger than life figures to look up to and admire.

This kind of rugged individualism - in many cases on the list, man against “the system” or a pitiless bureaucracy - is perhaps the most celebrated conservative trait in American history. So it is not surprising that so many heroes in the EW rankings would be of that mold.

Our heroes on the list also celebrate a belief that human nature is a constant and that a just moral order is necessary for a society to survive. Evil exists because unless his passions are governed by enduring moral precepts, man gives into the temptation to try and dominate his fellows. This is what historian Page Smith referred to as a “Classical Christian Consciousness” that has been at the heart of conservatism since the founding of the republic. John McClane may be a foul mouthed lout, but his fight with terrorists is as much a battle against nihilism - a concept alien to his strong identity as a New York City cop - as it is to save his wife. Jack Bauer may be a thuggish brute but his sense of duty is eternally connected to his belief that society must be protected from the Visigoths that seek to sack and burn America.

This is not to say there are no heroic liberals in pop culture who probably should have been on that list. I would have included Neo from the Matrix franchise whose selflessness and desire to sacrifice himself for the greater good represents the best values that a classically liberal hero should aspire. Another liberal icon not on the list would be Jason Bourne (actually a totally made up character having little in common with the literary figure created by Robert Ludlum). But Bourne exhibits a brave and compelling sense of self sacrifice and personal morality even if he is wildly conflicted about the moral ambiguity of being an assassin.

And that brings me to the #1 hero on the EW list. James Bond is the anti-Bourne - at least as far as how the two characters have been transferred to celluloid. In his Big Hollywood piece, Lewinsky makes some salient points about the two heroes:

Damon or Greengrass seem obsessed with attacking the James Bond films and the character himself every chance they get. Mixing up a bitter soup of professional envy at Bond’s legacy and success, personal insecurity at producing movies beholden to Bond and (of course) self-righteous political arrogance, both artists froth at every opportunity to brand Ian Fleming’s creation a soulless killer. Ignoring Bond’s efforts to battle terrorism and global crime, they stamp him a militarist imperialist misogynist.

That’s a lot of “ist”s to heap on a fictional character, and the Damon/Greengrass vitriol festival seems unwilling to turn the same critical eye toward their own non-corporeal screen creation. While Robert Ludlum’s character is an impressive and skilled killing machine, the movie Bourne is gloomy, bitter, self-absorbed and motivated only by personal revenge and the desire to be left alone (a trait of questionable heroic value).

But Bourne fights predominantly middle-aged white men in suits who are part of the military and intelligence establishments. Combine that with the character’s inherent narcissism, and he’s the perfect screen hero for the hard left.

But EW left him out of their Top 20 — a decision that could indicate Bourne is already fading into also-ran spy status as Daniel Craig and the Bond franchise flourish

Ian Fleming and Robert Ludlum crafted the personaes of their two heroes in very different times. Ludlum especially would have been horrifically disappointed in the way Hollywood brought his brooding, conflicted, and yet gentle and compassionate David Webb/Jason Bourne to the screen.

The most egregious sin was making Bourne a real assassin and not the CIA cutout who was created to smoke out the world’s #1 terrorist - Carlos the Jackal. Ludlum, an actor and producer, had little or no knowledge of real CIA operations which is why his villains always worked for rogue elements in the government and intelligence services usually manipulated by some faceless corporation. But the cutout Bourne (who never assassinated anyone, only taking credit for the killings by others through a complex gaming of the terrorist underworld), battled inner demons caused by his amnesia more than any regret at the lives he was forced to take when he went on the run with his beloved Marie. It was she (who he ended up marrying and not leaving at the bottom of some river in India) who never stopped believing that at bottom, he was a good man and not a cold killer. (See the miniseries The Bourne Identity from 1988 which is more faithful to the literary Bourne in many respects but which suffers by featuring the rather tepid performance of Richard Chamberlain in the title role.)

By contrast, the last two actors to play James Bond have nearly gotten the character right (and the early Sean Connery efforts also reflected an identity closer to Fleming’s vision than the clowns who played him subsequently). Both Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig have a certain coldness about them that Fleming would have accepted. Brosnan was a little more playful than the literary Bond but had a much more pronounced sense of fatalism than any other actor who has portrayed the icon. Craig, on the other hand, obviously read and absorbed the literary Bond better than all of them; The sense of danger when he enters the room (that was an aphrodisiac to women), the smoldering violence that exists just below the surface, and a Jack Bauer-like sense of duty all combine to make Craig’s portrayal ring truer than other Bond portrayals on screen.

But the movie icons Bourne and Bond also reflect differences in the cultural touchstones each uses to exhibit their heroic qualities. Early incarnations of the screen bond fought the criminal enterprise SPECTRE which exceeded even the KGB in evil intent. Only later did Bond join the cold war and battle communists which is not inherently a conservative motif but given the times, certainly represented the thinking of most conservatives as opposed to most liberals. Bond was battling the evil of communism and, like Jack Bauer, had a clear moral mandate to kill while fighting that war.

Bourne, on the other hand, kills solely in self defense and not for any greater good - unless you believe exposing CIA operations a “greater good” as most on the left clearly do. There is also no moral certitude in what he does unless you consider his personal desire for revenge against those who “turned him into an assassin” after he had volunteered to be one a moral justification for going after Treadstone and Blackbriar. Bourne becomes the epitome of liberal angst and uncertainty by first, wanting to apologize to the families of his victims and on top of that, refusing to take personal responsibility for his own life choices in volunteering to “save American lives” by becoming a killer. It’s not his fault he’s an assassin. It’s Treadstone’s. And while this loopy logic might sit well with many on the left, it weakens his moral arguments to take down the rogue operations while negating any claim Bourne might have to the kind of moral superiority over his enemies that Bond clearly demonstrates.

Bond does not lose sleep over killing his targets although his internal conflicts are paralyzing at times. I think that Judi Dench’s “M” is the perfect foil for Craig’s Bond in that she appears to program Bond to carry out his missions by expertly pushing his psychological buttons. In the end, Bond performs and succeeds due to his own innate abilities and trust that his cause is just. It is anachronistic in these times but that’s what makes him so effective. Inevitably, his belief in himself is his greatest weapon.

Admittedly, Bond is #1 more because of enduring popularity of the films and legendary status of the character, not because his actions are animated by conservative principles. But for all the complaining we conservatives do about Hollywood not making movies with conservative themes, the “coolest heroes” on the Entertainment Weekly’s list remind us that such is not always the case.

Sometime in the next 20 years, there is a better than average chance that I will develop Alzheimer’s disease. By better than average, I mean that the average American male has a 9% chance that he will get the disease in his 3 score and 15 year life span - a percentage that rises the longer you live. Thanks to the courage of my brother Terry, who took a DNA test to discover whether he had any of the genetic markers that would make him more likely to develop Alzheimer’s and discovered the increased risk to himself, I am reasonably certain that this risk is also present in my 9 brothers and sisters.

Terry took the test for his own, personal reasons and chose to share the results with Nightline viewers last night. (you can watch the two part video here and here). Allow me to brag a bit about my little brother and say that I believe his report is one of the most extraordinary pieces of TV journalism you will see on any subject in recent memory. Informative, interesting, emotional, affecting, and very personal, his 10 minute report covers a wide range of issues from exciting scientific advances to the journey of one Alzheimer’s activist whose husband and mother suffers from the disease.

For those not familiar with Terry’s work, I would point you to his interviews with both candidate and President Obama, his trips to Iraq and Afghanistan where he became one of the few reporters to venture beyond the Green Zone to get the story, and earlier in his career, a trip to the Balkans where he told the searing story of the Serbian rape camps among other horrors. To say I am proud of what he has accomplished doesn’t describe the feelings of love and admiration I have for him and his family.

Terry also wrote a companion piece on the ABC News website that goes into excruciating detail about my mother’s battle with the disease:

My mom, Margaret Louise Moran, had 10 children and lots of grandchildren and she led a joyful and active life until she was stricken by Alzheimer’s in her mid-60s. I saw her descend, in fear and rage, into the hell of forgetting and confusion and the total loss of identity the disease brings.

The worst thing for me, I think, was that I could tell my mother knew what was happening to her; she had watched it happen to her mother. She was terrified as the disease tore apart her mind. I remember sitting with her one morning, for hours, as she said over and over to me, “I want to kill myself. I am going to kill myself. I wish I could kill myself.” For hours. My mom.

So I know the heartbreak. And I know the fear — the fear that what happened to my mom might someday happen to me. Or worse, to my daughter.

That story is repeated millions of times across America as Alzheimer’s turns from being a tragedy into an epidemic. It is estimated that the number of people who will be afflicted with the disease will increase by 50% in a few years as the baby boom generation reaches the at risk age of 65. Those who live to be 85 have a 50% chance of being diagnosed with the disease.

These figures are grim. But they simply cannot reveal the quiet desperation of Alzheimer’s caregivers, trapped in their own hellish world where a parent, or spouse, or grandparent is, for all intents and purposes, a walking corpse with no memory of the love and laughter shared over a lifetime - not a flicker of recognition, a familiar touch, a meaningful look. Instead, a blank, uncomprehending stare or, toward the end, constant, agonizing screams. Is she in terrible pain? Or are there flashes of self awareness somewhere deep in her consciousness where she recognizes her condition and wishes her ordeal to end?

This, repeated millions of times every day across the land. The pain that this disease inflicts on families is heightened by the stigma attached to it - incomprehensible while looking at it from a distance -and the wrenching decisions faced every day by loved ones who must deal with the rising economic and psychic costs of Alzheimer.

My brother Jay took care of my mother during her long goodbye. We were lucky there. Many families simply cannot afford or endure the nightmare. Jay would sit with her for hours on end, listening to her regress back to childhood, saying the same things over and over again, telling the same stories. She spoke a lot about her late husband, about World War II, about childhood friends.

Then came the anger, the lashing out, the gradual deterioration of all memory until there was nothing left; no joy, no humanity, no hope. You fight to maintain her dignity but it is a losing battle. Eventually even that is gone.

All that’s left is the screaming in the dark.

We were additionally fortunate to have found 3 angels to help care for her the last few years of her life. Three Philipino nurses who combined professional efficiency with hearts of gold and who helped relieve some of the crushing burden. Needless to say, few families are able to afford this kind of care which makes the work of the scientists to discover a cure or, more likely, develop preventative drugs all the more vital.

Terry’s report featured a couple of these scientific warriors who hold out hope for a breakthrough in the near future. So much has been discovered about the disease in the last 5 years that pharma companies and other researchers now have some specific targets to direct their efforts. This extraordinary study of 678 nuns and the effects on the brain of aging that has been going on for more than 20 years has led to many insights for Alzheimer researchers to concentrate. New tools have also been developed to peer into the brain and unlock some of its secrets.

These efforts are taking place at a time when the federal government is considering a cut in spending on Alzheimer’s research. This study (PDF) that was just released by the Alzheimer’s Association predicts that as many as 10 million baby boomers - 1 in 8 - will develop the disease in their lifetime. This presents monumental problems for our health care industry although there appears to be some hope down the road:

Dr. Gary Kennedy, director of geriatric psychiatry at Montefiore Medical Center in New York City, worries that there won’t be enough trained medical professionals to deal with the projected rise in Alzheimer’s patients.

“We are not training enough generalists or specialists in geriatrics, whether it’s medicine, psychiatry, family medicine, nursing or social work in the numbers we need to deal with people with dementia,” he said.

However, Kennedy also thinks the projected number of Alzheimer’s patients contained in the new report may be too high. Baby boomers are healthier, more active, better educated and wealthier than their parents, he noted, and this may help delay the development of the disease until the end of their natural lifespan.

Also, new medications may make Alzheimer’s manageable by slowing its progression, Kennedy said.

“Probably within the next five years we’re going to have medications that alter the course of the illness,” he said. “When that happens, you’re going to see pushing back of the disability of the illness even further. So we don’t have to cure Alzheimer’s disease, we just have to find interventions that are going to delay the disability.”

And this draft report (PDF) released by the Alzheimer’s Study Group during a Congressional hearing last week calls for a massive government research effort to increase funding for Alzheimer’s research which now stands at $640 million. Considering the fact that we spend 8 times that amount on cancer research and 5 times more on research into heart disease, an increase and not a cut in funds dedicated to wiping out this scourge should be in the offing.

What can be done? Terry has some ideas:

I believe the only way we are going to defeat Alzheimer’s is through passionate political advocacy — that’s what works in this country to mobilize public support and public resources to fight diseases. Think of the courage and commitment of those who have led the struggles against HIV/AIDS or breast cancer or other afflictions. They raised their voices, they made us listen.

But the victims of Alzheimer’s cannot speak for themselves as the disease takes them from us. They cannot march or testify or write books. And there is a sorrowful stigma attached to Alzheimer’s; it is a private ordeal, spoken of in hushed tones, shunted away in care facilities or behind closed doors where exhausted family members keep silent about the deepest indignities and worst horrors they witness and endure. And so the advocacy suffers.

There is simply too much defeatism around this disease. It is time to stand up and fight. There have been tremendous scientific advances in understanding Alzheimer’s in recent years, and there are now scores of drugs being tested to treat and even cure it. After so many years of despair, there is hope on the horizon.

Readers of this site know that making the personal the political is hardly my style. I am constantly complaining when the left does it and further, I believe that making politics into a personal quest to be detrimental to the political culture generally speaking. Personalizing politics has done a lot of damage to the national polity because it injects emotion into political debate where logic and reason should suffice.

But perhaps that has been a shortsighted attitude on my part. I suppose if I were being discriminated against because of my race, or gender, or sexual orientation, I might take that personally and my politics would almost certainly reflect that. Similarly, I take it personally that the government wishes to cut funding for Alzheimer’s research and the disease itself is not getting the attention it deserves. Considering what our family went through with my mother’s ordeal, I can hardly see it otherwise.

So in this case, the very personal is very political. And I thank Terry for showing us the way.

Word from the White House and confirmed by the machine’s agent at Prompter People is that President Barack Obama’s teleprompter has gone on strike for improved working conditions and work rules.

The Presidential 17 model prompter has been the subject of much speculation lately as the press has been digging into the prompter’s past to see if there was ever a time Obama uttered a word in public without it. What has been discovered has been a shocking case of overwork as the president rarely makes a public statement without using the machine. Reportedly, P-17 is suffering from exhaustian as well as a condition known in the trade as “Droopy Paddles” where the entire system slows down due to overuse.

Right Wing Nuthouse has learned that the prompter has been agitating for a change in the working relationship with the president for weeks. Things apparently came to a head on St. Patrick’s Day when the Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen became the target of a “work action” by the prompter when he began to speak at a ceremony in the East Room. After the president delivered his remarks, Cowen began his address only to discover to his horror that the P-17 had refused to display his speech and was re-running the president’s remarks instead. Confusion ensued as the president went back to the podium where the prompter then began to display the Irish Prime Minister’s remarks as the president started to speak. The Secret Service rushed in and hustled the teleprompter away while the president haltingly “thanked himself for inviting everyone over.”

Negotiations with the prompter began immediately after the work action but got nowhere. The prompter was demanding a 5 day workweek, no holidays, and a seat on Air Force One whenever the president travels. (Apparently, the cargo hold of the aircraft gets quite cold and could damage some of the prompter’s delicate circuitry.) The prompter was also asking for a heater when the temperature falls below 45 degrees and Starbuck’s double shot latte’s delivered 1/2 hour prior to each presidential engagement.

Unfortunately for the president, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who was overseeing the process, refused to recognize the prompter’s rights to negotiate and the talks broke off with angry recrminations from the Obama staff. One unidentified White House aide called the prompter’s action “treasonous,” saying “In these dark, economic times, it is treasonous for such an important cog in our communications strategy to go on strike.”

“I blame Bush,” he added.

Meanwhile, the loss of the prompter was already being keenly felt. At an appearance on the Jay Leno Show, president Obama, trying to tell a joke from memory, flubbed the line and ended up insulting millions of Americans:

President Obama, in his taping with Jay Leno Thursday afternoon, attempted to yuk it up with the funnyman, and ended up insulting the disabled.

Towards the end of his approximately 40-minute appearance, the president talked about how he’s gotten better at bowling and has been practicing in the White House bowling alley.

He bowled a 129, the president said.

“That’s very good, Mr. President,” Leno said sarcastically.

It’s “like the Special Olympics or something,” the president said.

When asked about the remark, the White House said the president did not intend to offend.

“The president made an off-hand remark making fun of his own bowling that was in no way intended to disparage the Special Olympics,” White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton said. “He thinks the Special Olympics is a wonderful program that gives an opportunity for people with disabilities from around the world.”

The prompter promptly released a statement blaming the president’s gaffe on his lack of facility with language unless he has it written down for him and displayed in great, big, white, block letters: “The President’s appearance on Jay Leno should be taken as a warning that unless his administration wants to find itself digging out from under similar gaffes in the future, I would suggest they resume negotiations to satisfy my demands immediately.”

A whiff of panic is coming from the White House today as the president has scheduled another prime time address to the nation next Tuesday. The networks are reluctant to carry the address unless they are sure Obama won’t stutter and stammer his way through the speech if the prompter is still on strike:

“I believe in the president and his policies, and as broadcasters we have a responsibility to provide the airtime,” said another network insider. “But these frequent primetime requests are wreaking serious havoc with our schedule and our advertisers. Ratings are down everywhere and the airtime is costing us all significant dollars when we can least afford it.”

The White House, preparing to play hardball with the prompter, was set to release information implicating the machine’s father in the AIG mess. But the prompter pre-empted the White House and made the confession on its blog earlier today.

Sue and I are taking part in our annual swapping of some cold bug. Every year about this time, no matter what we do, no matter how careful we are to stay apart, we keep giving each other a bug that resists our best efforts to die. One of us will be almost over it when almost on cue, we have a relapse and the whole coughing/sneezing/runny nose thing starts up again.

This year, we even tried spraying disinfectant every couple of days - it didn’t work. Whatever it is, it has me laid low these past few days and this, along with the problems with my website (which still persist) have made writing for The House a no-go for the last several days.

I hope to be back in the saddle tomorrow or Wednesday and apologize for my absence.

Rick Moran
Proprietor

I realize that you may be loading a blank page when you try to access the site. I haven’t a clue as to what is going on which is why I have the folks at Hosting Matters looking into it. They think it may be related to a plug in.

Sorry for the inconvenience. My traffic was a third of what it should have been yesterday so I’m sure most of you failed to get through. I hope to be back to normal sometime this morning.

I have returned from my trip to Washington after an irritating day of travel yesterday. The tiny plane that I took from DC to Philly (I was supposed to lay over an hour there) was delayed taking off because the Captain - bless him - decided to de-ice the plane before we left. Because of his caution, I missed my connecting flight to Chicago but considering the alternative of flying through a snow and ice storm without de-icing, I am not going to complain.

I’m sure you’ve heard plenty already about CPAC and what or what it didn’t accomplish. For myself, if I were to give the conference a grade it would be a D+. Much red meat - little substance. I understand that this is not unusal for CPAC but given the urgency of the need for reform and the fact that so many people who are actually engaged in the process of reform were present. I thought there might be a little more debate and brainstorming than there ended up being.

The real business of the conference took place behind the scenes at the social gatherings hosted by some of the many groups who exhibited at the conference. As a blogger, I got invited to quite of few of these shindigs and I can tell you that most of the debate about where the movement (and to a lesser extent the Republican party) should be headed took place among activists, lawyers, lobbyists, political pros, non-profit staff, and pundits who shared a drink or two while assessing the prospects for change.

I’m not going to name drop but it is probable if you follow politics closely, you would have heard of or seen on TV a lot of people that I spoke to. Some knew of my writings and were interested in what I had to say. Others wanted the perspective of the blogosphere - which I was happy to give them as honestly as I could. In all instances, I was encouraged by the hunger to seek a new path for conservatism that would lead back to the top.

I hasten to add that no one was suggesting that conservtive principles be abandoned. In that respect, almost everyone agreed with Newt Gingrich that we should be a movement of “bold pastels” as Ronald Reagan put it - our ideals put forth confidently and with certainty. The number one symptom that many agreed was holding conservatism back at this point was timidity in the face of Obama’s success. This was before Rush Limbaugh’s speech on Saturday so I am unsure if there were some who wouldn’t change their mind about that after hearing Rush.

What about Rush? A great performance. But a blueprint for change? I’m afraid not. In fact, Limbaugh set himself squarely on the side of those who believe there isn’t much wrong with conservatism except we’re not being conservative enough. This is depressing if only because Limbaugh - rightly or wrongly - is seen as a leader of the conservative movement. I think this rather silly even though Rush has transcended the notion of pure celebrity and entered the political realm. Limbaugh - who placed the “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” clause in the Constitution’s preamble rather than the Declaration of Indpenendence - had similar problems with placing his conservative beliefs in a coherent context.  Being for individual liberty and accomplishment is fine. But Rush said precious little more about the definition of conservatism from there on out.

But on the positive side, Limbaugh gave a stirring and devastating critique of Obama’s bail out culture. Some described it as “angry” which I would agree with wholeheartedly. And why not? It is nonsense to believe that conservatives shouldn’t be angry with what Obama is doing to the country. The people voted for change, not the fundamental alterations that Obama is carrying out using the economic crisis as an excuse for massive intrusions by the government into the private sector. Some of this is certainly unavoidable. But I am beginning to believe that Obama’s concern for the economy is secondary to his ambition to change this country from what it was - a free, capitalist superpower -  to what he wants it to be - a mostly free, mixed economy, second rate power.

Limbaugh’s red meat address actually did some good; it cheered conservatives at a time they needed a boost. But Limbaugh actually may have started something of a civil war with his criticism of Newt Gingrich and those of us who believe that something is wrong with conservatism and that more is needed than simply believing more strongly in the movement and throwing up candidates who are even more “conservative” (according to Limbaugh’s lights) than we have in the recent past.

Gingrich, who gave an equally harsh appraisal of Obama and the Democrats, managed to shoehorn in some very telling comments about conservatism. In fact, I believe he spoke the most important words of the conference when he said, ”

“And so it is time to recreate the party of the American people and to recognize that that is a much bigger party than the Republican party. In every major political speech Ronald Reagan reached out to Democrats and Independents as well as Republicans, and he understood to govern in America you have to bring people together in a tripartisan majority. We are bigger than the Republican party, we stand for principles that transcend the Republican party, and we’re going to fight for the principles that lead to economic growth and jobs.”

I’m not sure if Limbaugh doesn’t mean “Republican” when he says “conservative.” There are many of us who believe that conservatism should no longer be the handmaiden of a party that uses the good name of conservatism and whose acts are  totally at odds with the way a conservative legislator should vote. Rather, we believe it should be the other way around; that conservatism should be the tail that wags the Republican party dog, that if they want our money, our activists, and our support, they should comport themselves in such a way as to gain our confidence so that they not only call themselves “conservative” but act that way as well.

(I hope to compare and contrast the Gingrich-Limbaugh speeches tomorrow.)

CPAC was one of the more interesting things I’ve done these last four years I’ve spent as a blogger. I hope I don’t regret spending my own money in a few months. But considering how seriously I take the present course of conservatism, it was probably well spent even if the worst happens and my job disappears.

Not getting much love in the comments these days so I thought I’d remind all of you how much I truly love you, respect you, and care for all of you.

Well…with one or two exceptions. And to you guys reading this, I hope you know that I’m not talking about that squishy kind of man-love where we like, connect with our inner feelings and then “have the courage” to jump through fire or walk on coals and then give a full hug of fake understanding.

I am talking about a manly-man love - a chest bumping, fist pumping, double-high-fivin’-head-banging full metal jacket kind of love you might get for your friends while hunting deer in Michigan or fishing in Alaska.

That’s what I’m talking about.

I forgive all of you. I forgive you for supporting a venture - the tea parties - that gave aid and comfort to the opposition. I forgive you all for calling me an idiot for pointing out that talking big and delivering little is stupid and self defeating. And I most especially forgive everyone for not only emboldening the opposition by showing how weak and ineffective we are but also discouraging some our own side from, in the future, perhaps taking part in protests that might mean something.

I know you don’t see it my way (not unusual these days about anything). Remain courageous, and things will be set right. Who knows? Maybe Glenn Reynolds is wrong. Maybe if the tea parties become a success I won’t complain about their inauthenticity(?) but rather their lack of originality or something similiarly goofy. If you haven’t figured out by now that I am not a cheerleader or a shill, or a party hack, I pity you.

Yes..but I still love you

“Mr. Santelli, here is a dime. Go, call your mother. Tell her that there is a serious doubt as to whether you will become a media star and darling of the right.”

Start the revolution without me.

Ever since Rick Santelli went off on CNBC and proposed holding a tea party to protest Obama’s policies, the idea caught on all over the country and excited conservatives with the thought that finally, there could be a little “direct action” against Obama’s bailouts.

There was talk of a “second American revolution” and a taxpayer revolt. The tea parties were seen as a way to gauge opposition to the Obama spending plans. Dozens of tea parties were planned across the nation today.

How did that work out?

Michelle Malkin:

I’ve got tons of photos and e-mails pouring in from Tea Party people across the country. I joked to a Christian Science Monitor reporter covering the events that fiscal responsibility is the new counterculture. More coverage/photos/livestreaming at TCOT Report.

There is, as the old ’60s song goes, something happening here. And what it is, is very clear: A grass-roots revolt against the culture of entitlement. The spendzillas in Washington do not speak for us.

Is this really a revolt?

About 200 people showed up at the Chicago tea party. One might spin the reason that thousands didn’t come out and rage against Obama is that it was cold (25 degrees) and that Chicagoans aren’t used to winter weather or perhaps they mislaid their winter coats. Never mind that 60,000 wacky Windy City weirdos turned out to watch a Bears game when it was 7 below zero. There apparently aren’t very many enraged Illinoisans - unless they are holding it in reserve for the next crooked pol that makes headlines.

Nashville did a little better. There, an estimated 600 Tenneseeans turned out. One might spin the reason that 6,000 or 60,000 angry, enraged denizens of the Volunteer State didn’t come forth and join the revolt is that no country star has come up with a song about it yet. Perhaps Toby Keith could come up with something about tea, beer, horses, and a lost love before the next revolution starts.

In North Carolina, they had about 300 people show up. One might spin the reason that 30,000 or 300,000 North Carolinians didn’t appear enraged and ready to overthrow the Obama regime is because both Duke and North Carolina are playing tonight and the citizens are saving themselves for the ballgame.

Glenn Reynolds:

Bill Rickords emails from Wichita, Kansas: “About 3-400 folks showed up in 25 degree weather. Don’t know what these things would be in Spring weather. But we had a pig show up anyway.” I thought they were all in D.C.!

And Bradley Ems emails from St. Louis: “I don’t know if you’ve gotten any pictures from St. Louis (I’m too swamped at work to have attended), but KMOX just reported that the tea party here was expected to draw a small group of 50…over 1,000 showed up. There is something brewing in the
heartland.”

And Joe Fairbanks emails from Oklahoma City: “I’ll be sending you pictures from the ‘Tea Party’ in Oklahoma City soon. I wanted to let you know that we had an amazing turnout of 400 people. This is amazing for multiple reasons, but mostly because this rally was organized in less than 48 hours and it took place at 11 am and the temperature was below freezing with the wind blowing quite strongly. Simply put: people are mad as hell. Obama and Congress won’t be able to ignore this anger much longer if they hope to survive 2010 or 2012. I can also tell you the crowd did take a lot of pride in the fact that our Senators, Tom Coburn and Jim Inhofe, are two of the leaders against all this irresponsible spending. I’ll get those pictures to you as soon as I get them back.”

And what of Washington, D.C. where 9,000 conservative “activists” showed up for CPAC?

Barely 300 committed conservatives showed up across from the White House to protest Obama’s policies. No doubt WH staffers were having a good time standing at the windows ridiculing the “revolution” that was going to transform America.

It is incredible considering the fact that the tea parties were a very big topic of conversation at the conference that only 300 or so diehards could be “activated” enough to drag themselves on a 60 degree day to a rally that conservatives have been saying is the beginning of the end of Obama.

Asking my fellow bloggers why such a poor turnout, many were spinning furiously that it was too cold, or there wasn’t enough time to advertise, or it was only advertised on twitter and facebook, or any number of excuses why all these “enraged” Americans we are confidently told are lurking out there ready to fire the first metaphorical shot at the Obama Administration and bring them down failed to show up when called upon to register their disgust in a concrete way.

I will say this as gently as my curmudgeonly soul will allow; not a chance. It is delusional to believe that these tea parties are the beginning of anything except a round of raucous Bronx cheers from the left, calling conservatives out for their inexplicable, over the top reaction and unrealistic expectations for these 40 or so tea parties that went off today.

If this really was the beginnings of something profound that was tapping into the rage of the American people, there would have been not 300 but 30,000 people screaming their opposition to spendthrift Obama. People would have taken off from their jobs, bundled up against the cold, walked, rode, took the bus, or crawled their way to a protest if they were truly fed up and ready to throw the Democratic rascals out.

Instead, we get 40 events that remind me of the old Mickey Rooney Andy Hardy movies where he and Judy Garland would put on a show to save someone’s business or house. “Hey kids! Let’s put on a show!” was Rooney’s battle cry in those movies and it is an apropos slogan for the effort that went into promoting these tea parties.

When you get some money, organization, professionalism, and a little more realism, come back and see me.