Right Wing Nut House

My five year old Alienware PC burned through its power supply yesterday. And when I say “burned through” I mean the acrid smell of toasting electronics was quite prevalent in my office. It appears that I didn’t clean the air portals often enough and the machine finally screamed “enough” and gave up the ghost.

Could that have been the reason my machine was slowing to a crawl after a few hours online? (Blogger shakes his head and begins to cry).

The nearest rescue for my machine was 70 miles away. Streator, IL is a lovely town but it is smack dab in the middle of nowhere. We had to go to the Best Buy in Bloomington to get a new power supply. And, just in case, we got my Christmas present early - a new HP laptop that really is handsome and functional.

To make a long story short, we put in the new power supply but it still doesn’t work. It now turns on alright but soon after, you hear 3 distinctive beeps and then the box shuts off. The power supply is fine. The sound system and monitor are getting juice. Something else was affected by the burnout so we have to pack the box up and drive all the way back to the Geek Squad at Best Buy (or find a repair place that is closer) just to see if we can’t get it working again.

I’d say screw it except for the pics, the docs, and some programs that I paid for and now don’t want the hassle of having to remember which ones they were and go back to download them again. It is definitely worth fixing if only for the 1st class sound and video cards that make watching movies and listening to music such a joy. So for the foreseeable future, I am going to have to write using this very nice laptop that will definitely take some getting used to.

Ergonomically, it sucks the big one. My neck and shoulders already ache because I have yet to experiment and find a comfortable working mode. For someone online for 14 hours a day, this is very serious. My desk is built for a desktop and am limited at the moment because we don’t have a router so I can work away from my internet connection.

But that is the least of my worries. So far, no complaints about Vista. And I was able to import all my AOL bookmarks which is making life this morning a lot easier (couldn’t do it before using XP for some reason - or I never figured out how). Now I just have to download Firefox, Skype, and maybe one or two other “can’t do without” programs and I’ll be fixed for a while.

I will try to write something later if I can get more comfortable. Right now, I can stand being in this position for maybe an hour before I have to take a break.

Any suggestions, analysis of my computer problem, or just catcalls from the peanut gallery would be appreciated.

Rick Moran
Proprietor

An interesting back and forth recently between two of my favorite bloggers highlighted a couple of things that needed airing as well as revealing some on the right to have the intellectual capacity of a chipmunk.

Patterico and Goldstein got into it over something I’ve written about at length; the idea that we should not attempt to delegitimize Obama, that he is the clear winner of the election and that in a democracy, once the people have spoken, the minority accepts the will of the majority and takes on the role of “loyal opposition.”

Patterico took this concept one step farther and posited the notion that Obama was a “good man:”

Good men do bad things, and in the pursuit of ambition, they almost always do. Barack Obama is not perfect, by any stretch of the imagination.

What’s more, I think he will damage this country with bad policies. I’m not going to pretend otherwise. Inevitably, he is going to take actions that I think are disastrous, and somebody will come back and say: “Hey, Patterico! I thought you said Barack Obama was a good man!” Yes, but I never said he wasn’t going to do horrible things. It’s quite clear he will.

What’s more, there is no way in hell he is going to do away with the poisonous atmosphere in Washington, and anyone who thinks that he can is a fool. It will be amusing to watch him try.

But I make no apologies for saying he is a good man. He is my President. He is our President. And while he hasn’t always done good, I do believe he is fundamentally a good man and a patriot who wants to make this country a better place.

Goldstein tried for a shot across the bow in response and ended up hitting the main mast instead:

Precisely the kind of self-righteous civility that fried McCain. Want to be clapped on the back for your decorum? Fine. Just say so.

But let’s not pretend you are being honest or principled. Graciousness is one thing; praise is another.

This “good man” was involved in ACORN blackmail schemes. With an attempt to fraudulently undermine the Second Amendment by gaming court rulings. He got rich off of schemes that led to the mortgage crisis — then stood by and let others fix it in order to keep his hands clean during the final stages of an election. He has thrown in with race hustlers,”reformers” who believe that domestic terrorism was a valid form of expression, odious foreign potentates –

There is nothing at all noble about praising a man and a party who reviles you simply because in doing so you appear noble. Jews have tried that. And it’s often ended with skeletons and ash, or the twisted wreckage of a bus in Tel Aviv.

In this case, it will end with more McCains — and so more Obamas and Reids and Pelosis and Olbermans.

If that’s nobility, I’m not interested. Yes, Obama is my President. But that doesn’t mean I’m forced to forget all he’s done to get there — and all that’s been done on his behalf, either by the savage supporters who went after Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin, or by the “objective media” that sold its soul for a shot at establishing the government it desired.

I would agree with Goldstein - to a point. In questioning Pat’s intentions and motives in writing the post, Goldstein goes too far. Unless he has been vouchsafed the ability to peer into the souls of men and glean intent, I would suggest he stick with what he recommends and fights for so tirelessly - a literal interpretation of what is written. In literature, we can extrapolate intent from what we know about the author and his times. Can we not grant the same courtesy to Mr. Frey? Pat has not shown himself to be a link whore in the past nor has he necessarily proven to be the kind of blogger who sets himself up as the conscience of the right. (That job is taken and I will not, under any circumstances, give it up.)

In that, I see no attempt at self-aggrandizement on Pat’s part. If Goldstein wishes to make that argument, he must take me and dozens of other righty bloggers to task for writing basically the same thing. (Note: From what I’ve written about this subject, one could infer that I believe Obama to be a man fatally flawed by hubris and ideology but a man with good qualities.) How Jeff could separate those who genuinely feel that Obama is a “good man” from those who are looking for a “pat on the back” would be an interesting exercise that might even tax the abilities of the brilliant Mr. Goldstein.

But where Jeff nails it is in delineating the difference between “graciousness” in defeat and actual “praise” for what some might see as salutary qualities in the president elect. Patterico makes the age old argument, i.e. good men do bad things in the pursuit of power. Goldstein rightly calls Frey on this by listing a slew of bad things this supposedly “good man” initiated. Not to belabor the point but Hitler liked dogs, was good with kids, and generated enormous loyalty and devotion among his personal staff.

No jerks, I am not comparing Obama to Hitler. I am pointing out that even the worst of men apparently had some good qualities. Obama is not the worst of men but, as Goldstein points out, neither can he be termed a “good man” based on the fact that he exhibited many qualities in common with “bad men.” Good men may not be perfect. But they don’t lie for a living nor do they throw long time friends and associates under the bus because they have become a political millstone.

I have grown quite cynical about all politicians over the years. There are a handful I have met and known or covered closely who could be considered “good men.” Obama ain’t one of them and neither, for that matter, is John McCain. The only good man I thought who has run for president in my lifetime was Paul Simon. Much too guileless, gracious, and cerebral to have any chance whatsoever in 1988, Simon nearly won the Iowa caucuses on a shoe string but faded badly after that. Simon was legendary for his courtliness, believing good manners in politics was essential to a functioning democracy.

Obama ain’t no Paul Simon neither.

Stung to the quick by Goldstein’s broadside, Patterico responded, trying to explain:

I’m sick of people who want to write off entire groups of people as Bad People because of what they believe in. I’ve watched the left do that, and I’m seeing a lot of people on the right doing that now as well. (I’m not talking about Jeff here; I think he’s too smart to demonize all Democrats. But I believe some folks out there are demonizing people for their beliefs.)

When it comes to Obama, we’re obviously talking about a different situation. Many here are calling him a bad man because he has done some bad things and associated with some bad people. It’s true, he has, and I can respect the people who write him off for that reason. I’m simply not going to do it, yet. Like Beldar, I’m

deliberately giving Obama the benefit of the doubt on some of his associations, to call that merely “bad judgment” as opposed to evidence that he, himself, is also a “bad man.”

And like Beldar, I may well end up admitting that I was wrong about that.

But I’m not going to write Obama off as a Bad Man because of his beliefs, contrary to the wishes of my former commenter. And I’m not going to write him off as a Bad Man — or the majority of his supporters as bad People — based on what I’ve seen to date. So far, as I’ve said, I see him as a basically good and decent man who, like many politicians, has engaged in some highly questionable behavior in the pursuit of power.

I don’t think too many people are saying that Obama is a bad man because of what he believes - wrongheaded, dangerous, and even illogical as some of those beliefs are. If I were to believe that, I would have to condemn most of my family who believe many of the things that Obama does and that is something I cannot do. Liberalism may be a horrid ideology but it is not in and of itself evil or bad. A denial of the reality of how humans live and interact, yes. An ignorance of how wealth is created and the efficacious nature of private property rights, absolutely. But it is not fascism or Marxism.

And Frey is wrong in intimating that Goldstein was condemning groups of people for what they believed. In fact, it is something of a mystery where he got that idea from Jeff’s response to his original post.

Goldstein disagrees with me that Obama is no socialist but he does have a point about what is important about fighting the Obama Administration:

Patterico accused me of “demonizing” all Democrats, which is patently absurd. In fact, I dealt specifically with denying the appellation “good man” to someone who, through his actions, has proven to be anything but.

It matters who gets called a “good man.” It matters who we say has this country’s best interests at heart. And yes, it’s possible Obama does, to a certain extent — though what is important to recognize is that, at least so far as his governing principles to this point suggest, he doesn’t hold that view from the perspective of the country as it was founded, and as it was intended to be governed.

Which means that Obama’s best interests for the country are really the best interests for a country he’d like to see this one become — a new text that he’d like us to believe will be but an re-interpretation of the original text.

As someone who believes in the principles upon which this country was founded, I refuse to allow that someone whose ideological predispositions compel him to radically redefine that “imperfect document” that is the Constitution, has this country’s best interests at heart.

And I likewise refuse to allow that a man whose thuggish deeds and unsavory associations have defined him be granted the honor of “good man.” Because to do so is to make a mockery of good men, and to cede yet another bit of our ability to evaluate and describe and conclude in good faith into a bit of “hate speech” that won’t help the GOP regain power.

To which I say, outlaws ain’t team players. And it’s time to be outlaws.

And to which I say, sign me up for the “Hole in the Web” gang.

Goldstein’s point cannot be overstated or overvalued. At bottom, the real war between right and left is the destruction of conventions that facilitate real communication. We have all seen and commented on it. The constantly changing definitions of terms like “racism.” The deliberate textual misinterpretation of what conservatives say and write in order to extract a self-selected “meaning” that advances their argument at the expense of the author’s intent (Glenn Greenwald and Dave Neiwert are absolute masters at this).

Such machinations make it impossible to carry on a dialogue with the left about much of anything. And there are precious few on the right who consistently call the left out for their assassination of the language, taking the battle for intentionalism directly to the source. Goldstein is one of them.

We must refuse to allow Obama and his allies any room to breathe when it comes to opposing their stated intent to “remake” America into something it was never intended to be. But we can and should do it if not “graciously,” then certainly by recognizing that our disagreements should not devolve into the kind of mindless deconstructionism that the left has used against us for the last 8 years. Gleaning intent from Obama’s proposals should not concern us as much as fighting what he will attempt to do.

I believe at bottom, this is what Pat was trying to say. There is nothing “noble” in this construct any more than it is “noble” or “patriotic” to pay taxes. I believe it is self-evident to any conservative which is why I am confident that we would shame the left with our ideas of what constitutes a “loyal opposition”…

If the left could feel shame about anything.

UPDATE: 11/13

Patterico emailed me a few days ago asking me to correct what I had written - that he was condemning people who despised all Democrats - including Jeff Goldstein.

In fact, I misinterpreted what Goldstein had written believing that this was something Patterico had actually said rather than Jeff’s analysis of what Pat had written.

Apologies to Pat for the error.

The prospect of being slaughtered next Tuesday is concentrating the minds of some prominent conservatives wonderfully.

Patrick Ruffini, Jon Henke, and John Hawkins are beginning to flesh out their thoughts on what a post election conservative on line community might want to accomplish in the future. Let’s take the meat of their arguments one at a time.

Henke:

Actually, I don’t think it’s ironic at all that the analysis of problems on the Right is similar to the arguments made by the Netroots Left. For one thing, the “claims made by Markos Moulitsas” are in many ways intentional recycling of the movement on the Right.

The underlying systemic inputs are very similar. The political/electoral culture and incentives, and the emergence of the internet as an important social and technological phenomenon impacted both the Left and Right at approximately the same time.

The difference in uptake and evolution is predominantly due to the political cycle. Democrats went through the wilderness from 1995 to 2003; they found their way from 2003 to 2008. Republicans entered their wilderness in 2007, though I would argue that the Right has been in the wilderness for longer. How long the Right wanders in the wilderness depends, in large part, on how seriously they take the lessons they can learn from the Left.

***********

Will the Right’s netroots movement look like that of the Left? To the extent that the tools, and the social/political dynamics, are similar, I’d say the Right’s netroots movement will look a great deal like that of the Left. The question is not what tools are available, but how they are relevant to the surrounding environment. The components will not be identical, but the basic concepts they represent should be very much the same. Or rather, they will be when the Right regains its footing.

Jon also notes that “the surrounding political environment” i.e., the conservative on line community’s relationship with the Republican party, has to change before much progress can be made.

Hawkins makes somewhat the same point and amplifies the idea of using the netroots model for the rightysphere:

Why has the left side of the blogosphere grown so much faster?

Personally, I think there are two reasons for it. The first is that the Right has a large talk radio presence while the Left doesn’t. That means on the left, strongly motivated partisans have little choice other than to flock to the blogosphere while on the right, they can simply opt to listen to Rush Limbaugh or Laura Ingraham to get their daily fill of conservatism.

The other more salient reason for the Left’s growth is simply that they’ve been out of power and that has produced an anger and an energy that has driven them online. There was similar growth on the right during the nineties when websites like Townhall and Free Republic rose to prominence as a response to the Clinton years. If Obama gets into the White House, it will be terrible for America, but my guess is that the right side of the blogosphere will grow like a weed for the next 2-4 years.

The bad news is that the Republican Party looks at bloggers solely as an alternative means to get their message out. In other words, there’s a completely non-functional top down organizational structure. It’s non-functional because the Republican Party organizations and pols issue talking points and press releases, most of which are of no interest to bloggers, and they are largely ignored. In other words, they spend most of their time issuing unheeded orders to people who, by and large, think they’re incompetent and aren’t inclined to pay much attention to what they say.

There are exceptions: Jim DeMint, Tom Coburn, Thaddeus McCotter and a few others — but most of the Republican Party doesn’t really understand the blogosphere or know how to communicate with bloggers.

I would add to Hawkins excellent analysis that the GOP doesn’t want to understand blogs or communicate with bloggers because, in my opinion, they want to maintain control of the message. Not only, as John points out, does the GOP treat bloggers as an appendage of the Republican PR machine, but at bottom, there is a profound disrespect for the blogosphere (except for a select few who have proven useful to them) and they despise the independence of most conservative bloggers.

How many GOP functions will Michelle Malkin be invited to after skewering the party 6 ways from Sunday for immigration, corruption, and incompetence?

Finally, Patrick Ruffini riffs off of both men’s analysis and offers a challenge:

What will it take to turn this around? If you’re a conservative blogger, the question you need to ask yourself is this. Is the main purpose of your blog to express your personal opinion? Or is its primary purpose to build political power for a cause? If you cannot answer yes to the latter, you’re probably not going to be comfortable with making the changes necessary to make online conservatism a political force to be reckoned with.

This is not a criticism, but an observation. Most conservative blogs are still stuck in 2003 — both in terms of the overwhelming focus on media criticism and punditry, and the tendency to outsource electoral politics to the Republican Party. This was in some ways legitimate response to what was happening in 2003-4, when media surrender-monkeys were undermining the War on Terror, Republicans had a kick-butt political operation, and Kos was going 0 for 16.

I don’t fault bloggers for holding on to this point of view in 2003 and 2004. What is unfortunate is that they clinged to it in 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 and failed to pivot to the new reality, leaving the Republican Party without a powerful enough force to rein in the self-destructive tendencies of its elite.

Sadly, it’s human nature to cling to the frame in which you came up — traditional media people will never fully reconcile themselves to the blogosphere, talk radio people will always tend to view it as the center of the universe, and even denizens of the “new media” can become easily set in their ways. This is not unlike people who got rich on the housing bubble thinking it could never end. When things first start going wrong, it’s always just a momentary blip, not a sign of an impending crash. Only a catastrophic collapse is usually enough to make people rethink matters.

Building critical mass behind an independent online movement on the right will probably require new people. The old blogs that have been with us since 2003 will not go away. But they’ll need to be joined by people who care more about Indiana’s 8th district than Islamofascism, and MN-SEN more than the MSM.

Allow me to give the perspective of a blogger who has been online for 4 years and may have some unique insights into these matters as a result of my building a modest success of this site and my equally modest success at making a living as a blogger/writer/editor on the net.

All three gentlemen make excellent points about what needs to be done to improve the effectiveness of conservative blogs in making an impact on the political process. Certainly there are things we can learn from the left while at the same time, it is important to recognize that some specific tactics and structural components of the netroots simply aren’t transferable to the rightysphere.

Ruffini and Henke write for The Next Right, an online conservative community. This is the template used by the netroots to organize - large communities of online posters who rail against conservatives, exchange ideas, reinforce their own views on issues, and generally offer a comfortable, enjoyable place to belong.

That is the key - the need to be part of something greater than yourself - that drives the netroots and allows them to connect via these huge communities. The question is, can this model be duplicated by conservatives and further, is it desirable to do so?

Ruffini nails it with his description of conservative blogs being outlets mostly for punditocracy. My one foray into the real world of politics was my advocacy for Fred Thompson’s presidential campaign. This website alone raised more than $10,000 for the candidate in two blog blegs I organized and my efforts to unite conservatives behind Thompson’s fund raising activities in December and January were modestly successful. (I really can’t take much credit when Glenn Reynolds and other large bloggers linked and helped promote both fundraising efforts).

That part of it I didn’t mind. It was burying my native skepticism and critical eye in service to the candidate that discomfited me. In the end, I just couldn’t help myself and wrote critically of the campaign and candidate. But for a while, I was 100% with the program - and I hated every minute, every blog post and article I wrote in service to the cause.

Don’t get me wrong. I actually think Thompson would have been a decent president. He had certainly thought longer and more deeply about many issues than either McCain or Obama and his conservatism was informed by both a love of country and a deep, abiding respect for the Constitution and its principles. But he proved a weak, ineffectual candidate and it was a chore trying to defend him.

Ruffini seems to be saying that he wants bloggers who will shill for the cause. He appears to want bloggers who would subsume their independence and buy into the notion that the “primary purpose” of an individual’s blog is “to build political power for a cause.” That “cause” would be backing specific conservative candidates and issues.

One assumes this would be accomplished by adopting some of the online activist model created by the netroots - the most important in my opinion being the creation of online communities that I mention above. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this idea and I hope it is realized.

The problem, as Patrick mentions, is that many of us old mossbacks are stuck in 2003 and our blogging is unrelated to political activism, except in a roundabout way that presupposes our readers are forced to think about what we write and whose opinion might be altered because of the scintillating brilliance of our logic and reasoning.

Or not.

I am not so full of myself that I actually believe my writing makes a difference. But it is mine, my own, and not beholden to a group, a party, or a cause. I suppose that means I will be left behind when this new conservative on line community begins to take shape. That will be my choice and I will harbor little bitterness towards those who choose another path.

But is it the best way for conservatives to achieve power? Is it a way at all?

There is a definite push back on the right these days against the “elites” who make their living inside the Washington-New York axis; where conservative media and commentators exist side by side with their liberal counterparts and it is believed - wrongly in my opinion - that criticism directed at conservatives in flyover country for their passionate embrace of Sarah Palin and the emphasis placed on social issues like abortion is an attack on “ordinary folk” and indicative of the elites’ desire to be accepted at liberal cocktail parties as well as a lack of ideological purity.

I have written that this smacks of a nascent anti-intellectualism (to go along with the anti-science notions pushed by some of the social cons) and that this is an argument as old as the republic itself (populists vs. elites). Questioning the conservative bona fides of Peggy Noonan or David Brooks - two conservatives who have done more to promote conservative ideas than all of their critics combined - doesn’t make sense in any other context except as an indication that many on the right prefer purges to debate and the guillotine to reasoned discussion.

For their part, the elites are, well, acting like elites - seeking a top down, “Live from Mount Olympus” here it is, rubes, take it or leave it analysis that inherently questions the ability of “ordinary folk” to think and act in their own interest and march to their own drummer. The fact that the conservative movement needs both sides to reinvent itself and thrive is lost in recrimination and threats of excommunication.

I have taken my own shots at the anti-intellectuals because I think their take no prisoners attitude is destructive. And if Ruffini et al believes that these purists will be able to see beyond the end of their own nose and participate in any community or movement that isn’t in absolute lock step with their precious notions of who and what a conservative is, they have a lot to learn. Perhaps, as Hawkins points out, the netroots coalesced because they were in the wilderness for so long and that maybe a few years on the back benches in Congress will bring some sobriety to “the base.” I am not confident that will occur.

Last year, I was one of the few conservatives who attended the Yearly Kos convention at McCormick Place in Chicago. What I saw was startling and, for a conservative, not a little frightening. At the time, I was laughed at and roundly criticized for seeing more into what the netroots were up to than was possible. I don’t think too many conservatives are laughing now:

In the summer of 1980, I was a volunteer for the Reagan campaign in Northern Virginia. There were many of us who had come to Washington to work in Congressional offices or fill positions in the burgeoning conservative lobbying industry and “idea factories” that were popping up every other week, contributing to the intellectual ferment that made conservatism so dynamic. It was pretty heady stuff for a 26 year old political neophyte whose bookish ideas of government and the people who ran it was largely shaped by narrative historians and political philosophers.

What was striking at the time was how confident everyone was and how determined people were to bring about a conservative revolution that would sweep the old order away and bring to power those who truly believed in conservative principles. The ideas themselves were important but only as a means to an end. Shaping the ideas, framing them, and packaging them to move the voting public to cast ballots for conservatives was the subject of much discussion in memoranda, position papers, editorials and articles from the few conservative publications at the time.

Anyone who lived through those times and experienced the feeling that ideology and politics had merged so that the ends and means were exactly the same would recognize what is happening at YearlyKos. Top to bottom, inside and out this movement is first and foremost nothing less than revolution. The ideas driving that revolution are pretty standard liberal fare; anti-war, health insurance, environmental protection, education, and jobs top the agenda here at the netroots convention. But the way the issues are being framed by participants in the dozens of panel discussions, workshops, and forums is where the action is. The nuts and bolts savvy of the political activists fuses with the wonks and wise men of the left’s intellectual brain trust to turn out a brand new way to showcase these ideas to the public.

And the netroots are even farther ahead now. They are organizing not just at the state level but all the way down to the precinct level to make the gains they made in 2006 and are going to make next Tuesday into a permanent, liberal majority. This will drive the Republican party to the left - much as conservative success eventually drove the Democrats to the right - and make conservatism an ideology that will be on the outside looking in.

Unless our online conservative wise men like Ruffini, Hawkins, and Henke can figure out a way to tap the enormous potential of the rightosphere and turn its energies toward creating a network of conservatives that can challenge the left at every digital turn.

If you visit the site everyday, you are aware that it has been loading more and more slowly recently. Increased traffic due to the election plus some other long standing issues with the site finally convinced me it is time to change hosting companies.

Many thanks to Blogs About Hosting for their years of putting up with me crashing their server whenever I was lucky enough to get a link from Glenn Reynolds or Hot Air. I have used Blogs About since I got off Blogspot. They designed and hosted this site for nearly 4 years and were always there when I needed them.

But times change. A redesign of the site is coming and I thought it would be a good time to make a change. As of today, the excellent company Hosting Matters will be our new home here at the House. Hopefully, their excess server capacity will solve all of the slow loading issues we’ve been experiencing plus serve as a platform for future growth.

Sounds like a little “Hope and Change” but what do I know?

I owe those precious few of you - those who were civil, who took the time to read and think before posting, and who were unfailingly polite - an explanation of why, finally, I have decided to disallow comments on this site.

Long time readers know I have been back and forth on this issue for probably a year. I’ll shut them down for a week or so but then after some of you email me asking that they be reestablished, I break down and do it.

I’ve tried moderated, unmoderated and semi-moderated (lots of words in the spam instructions), But each time I would reestablish comment privileges, the same reasons that made me stop them in the first place would rear up and bite me in the ass.

Look. I know I have a temper. I know I fly off the handle. I know I have a thin skin. I know I am not a very pleasant person. I know all of these things.

And I get worse when comments are allowed.

I am an emotional, passionate, person with strong opinions. After 4 years of blogging, I know the kinds of people who prowl the internet - many of them even more unpleasant than I am. Perhaps I should be writing a diary instead of a blog. Some would probably argue that’s a good idea. That way, I wouldn’t have to deal with people who could care less what I write - the ideas, the arguments, the threads of logic - and say whatever they want in response to whatever they think I am saying (or, more obtusely, what they believe I should be saying).

And if the feedback I got was intelligent, respectful, and open to the give and take, parry and thrust of debate then this blog would be a joy. Alas, such is not the case. That’s just the way the internet is.

I have indeed had spirited debates with some commenters over the years. But the fact is, I’m tired of the bull, tired of the insults, tired of the flaming, tired of the whole damn thing.

I will no doubt receive criticism for this - probably deserved. But I know 2 prominent bloggers who reached the same place that I am now - one quit blogging altogether and the other stopped allowing comments.

Since I am not going to give up the blog, option B would seem to be my only alternative.

It’s been a devastating 24 hours for the man the world has come to know as “Joe, the Plumber.” Just yesterday morning, he was the toast of the political world, appearing on Good Morning America and being interviewed by Katy (don’t call me a journalist) Couric. He appears in a new John McCain ad, conservatives have embraced him as an entrepreneurial icon, and the apparel industry is going nuts with every manner of Joe the Plumber T-Shirts (For just $35.95 plus shipping, you can own this “Joe the Plumber is my Homeboy “T” in black, navy blue, or ten other colors.)

But this was before the minions of our political savior decided that Joe the Plumber must die.

Well, not literally, I suppose. Rather, they set out to kill his name - a careful, deliberate, gleeful campaign to assassinate, smear, and destroy his name in order to lay the icon low. The problem is that this icon is just an ordinary American citizen whose own mother would now probably disown him after the left and the national press have unearthed a frightening amount of information - some of it not very flattering - about his life.

A tax lien, a question of whether he is working legally (there is a a debate whether he actually needs a license to perform residential work), a divorce - it is enormously disconcerting to see the kind of information you can dig up on someone if you know your way around a search engine or two.

And the dumpster diving press must have temporarily re-assigned the smelly, stinking reporters who have been rummaging in Sarah Palin’s trash in Alaska the last 6 weeks. They probably welcome the change in scenery although I imagine the stench in which they are now wallowing in Holland, Ohio smells pretty much the same. From the looks of what they’ve been able to dig up, they sure seem to know their way around a sh*t hole.

For those in the upper echelons of the garbage sniffing media, it is important to get the smear out - even if you are unsure whether the crap you are dealing out is actually, like, you know, true and stuff.

Example: Huffpo:

You see, Joe Wurzelbacher is apparently related to Robert Wurzelbacher. Who is the son-in-law of (are you ready…?) Charles Keating!

Yes, that Charles Keating. The Charles Keating of the Keating 5 Scandal. For which John McCain was reprimanded by the United States Senate, for his involvement in attempting to illegally influence government regulators. The Charles Keating who John McCain has been trying to avoid have mentioned. So, he basically mentioned it 24 times.

[snip]

Mind you, I thought it odd when John McCain first brought up Joe Wurzelbacher’s but then never referred to his last name again. I thought perhaps he’d forgotten it. Or it was too hard to pronounce. Apparently though there was a better reason for him to quit saying the name “Wurzelbacher” 24 times. If only Sen. McCain (R-AZ) had remembered the pesky Tivo, where you can rewind.

Now, in fairness, John McCain might not have known than Joe Wurzelbacher was from that same Wurzelbacher family. He might have thought it was just some regular Wurzelbacher. And who knows, maybe they’re not even related?

Get that? All of this smear by association, all of this information about Joe splashed all over the pages of the #1 liberal website in America, and then “Who knows, maybe they’re not even related…”

Pardon me for my stupidity (which many on the right and left have been noticing lately) but shouldn’t it be the other way around? Shouldn’t you like, sorta first, ascertain the truth and THEN print the smear?

Just asking…

At any rate, there has been a lot of pixelated poison being dished out by our good friends on the left. Some of it is even true, although the relevance of anything relating to Joe the Plumber’s personal and professional life escapes me. Last time I looked, all Joe did was ask Obama a question. And no matter what they dig up about poor Joe (they have only scratched the surface of his sex life - I assume that stuff will be out before long), it doesn’t change what Obama said about “spreading the wealth” one iota.

They can smear Joe from now until the 2012 election but it doesn’t change the underlying reason that they need to smear him: Obama revealed just a little bit too much of his real philosophy.

For more than a year, Obama has survived largely by uttering the most banal, the least offensive pablum that, falling on the ears of the young and less sophisticated voters, has proved to be as soothing a balm as has ever been applied to the American electorate. But in that one moment, after many months of obfuscation, obtuseness, and just plain lying about his positions on the issues, Obama let slip the concept of redistributing the wealth. Every taxpayer regardless of their education or sophistication knows full well what “redistribution” means to them - higher taxes. Obama can swear on a stack of Korans between now and election day that he will only tax the rich. But that single phrase - “spread the wealth” - has damaged if not destroyed his credibility on taxes.

So in essence, this entire smear campaign by the Obamabots on the left is really for naught. They might kill Joe the Plumber’s iconic status. But they will never be able to whitewash what Obama said.

There are some who take this smearing of Joe to be an example of what America under Obama will be like - dissent stifled, opponents destroyed. I’ve got news for my friends on the right - we’d be doing the same thing in their shoes.

I don’t know what information the righty blogs and media would be digging up and plastering all over the net if McCain had responded to a question by Joe on the economy and made some stupid statement in response. All I am certain of is that we would be doing it. I know I would. I have no doubt I would be republishing all the stuff the rightysphere dug up on poor Joe and do it with a clear conscience. “He asked for it by getting himself involved…” would be my rationalization. And those honest enough to ask themselves whether they would participate in such a campaign - to switch places mentally with the left -should think long and hard before they answer in the negative.

I would hasten to add that such an attack by the right on Joe would no doubt have s lot less resonance than smears against Joe by the left now, given the mainstream media’s curious inability to get off their knees and take a respite from their Obama worship long enough to play this little media scenario exactly the same way they are playing it today. Joe would be trumpeted to the skies as an “Everyman,” anything negative in his past would be buried, while McCain’s dumb comment would be highlighted continuously.

If life were fair, this is the way it would be today only it would be Obama’s comment on “spreading the wealth” that would be shown over and over again on every cable TV news channel and become the subject of long, thoughtful pieces in the New York Times. But life isn’t fair and conservatives, more than anyone else, know this. It’s written on the first page of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Handbook: “Life in a world dominated by a liberal media, liberal intelligentsia, liberal culture, and a liberal educational system will never be fair for members of the VRWC. GET USED TO IT.”

Joe might not be “fair” game. But he is game nonetheless. It is a fact in this age of polarized and poisonous politics that it hardly matters who gets caught in the crossfire. What matters is that anyone who gets in the way or who inserts themselves into this great, gaping maw of political media that can build you up, lionize you, and destroy you in less time than it takes to digest your breakfast, is by definition, part of the story.

I’m sorry for Joe. I admire his ambition and the fact that he works hard all day and comes home at night, taking care of his 13 year old son on his own.I agree that he is an iconic figure. He wants a better life for his kid and himself. And he has the right idea of what government’s role in America should be.

And he doesn’t deserve the disapprobation and calumny being heaped upon him by the rabid dog left, the Obama campaign, and the media. But in this case, as well as other cases like Joe’s, “deserve” has got nothing to do with it.

It’s not that I was completely unaware of the fact that the internet is largely populated with people who need help in telling the difference between a fork and a spoon. Or whose idea of great literature is See Spot Run (I always cry at the end too.) Or whose notions of sublime cinema run the gamut from The Flintstones (That Barney Rubble. What an actor.) to Fast Times at Ridgemont High. (Man, I so wanna be kewl like Spicoli.)

After all, I’ve been blogging 4 years and I’ve seen it all. And writing 1500-2000 word essays everyday as I do, you eventually get used to people not reading what you write, or not understanding what you write, or not being able to read what you write and simply say any old thing the pops into their empty heads in the comments. It’s a pet peeve but I am gradually getting to the point where I understand that it’s not really these people’s fault. They are products of an age where taking the time to read and digest anything longer than a People magazine profile on “The Sexiest Man Alive” just isn’t done. The effort is better spent playing World of Warcraft or downloading classic porn or watching reruns of Charmed. (Man that Alyssa Milano is so hot.)

Thankfully, about a third of us have the cognitive and reading comprehension skills to thrive in this milieu of ideas. And someday, we shall rule the world. To those of you who actually read what I write, took the time, and made the effort to comment intelligently (even though most of you disagreed with me), thank you. You know who you are.

And no, it’s not you. Or you. Or the two thirds of you commenting on my much linked post from yesterday. For you - even if you agreed with me - I say, don’t worry. The world will always need dental assistants, telephone solicitors, dish washers, burger flippers, and government workers. I’m sure that someday, you will find a place where your rather unique, um, skills will be utilized to the fullest.

Give blood recently?

The Kingston Trio’s Nick Reynolds with his trademark tenor guitar.

Nick Reyonolds, a founding member of The Kingston Trio, one of the most influential musical groups in modern history, died on Thursday in San Diego. He was 75.

His obituary will show that Reynolds, Bob Shane, and Dave Guard started the trio in the late 1950’s, achieving their first success with the recording of the tragic folk tune Tom Dooley in 1958, and subsequently hitting the top of the charts with a series of albums that changed the face of American music and paved the way for such artists as Peter, Paul, and Mary, Bob Dylan, Joan Baez, Simon and Garfunkel, and a host of other folk-rock artists whose music influenced generations of Americans.

“The first thing that turned me on to folk singing was Odetta. . . . From Odetta, I went to Harry Belafonte, the Kingston Trio, little by little uncovering more as I went along,” Bob Dylan once said.

Reynolds typically handled the middle part of the trio’s scintillating three-part harmonies, sometimes adding bongos, congas and other percussion accents. Although the group’s music generally shied away from the politicized content of such forebears as Woody Guthrie and the Weavers, its commercial breakthrough in the late 1950s represented a clean-cut alternative to the sexualized rock ‘n’ roll of Elvis Presley, Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis and others that had American teens in its grip. And it helped set the stage for folk-rooted protest singers such as Dylan, Joan Baez and Peter, Paul & Mary.

“It really started with the Weavers, in the early ’50s,” Reynolds said in a 2006 interview, referring to the New York-based quartet that included Pete Seeger. “We were big fans of theirs, but they got blacklisted in the McCarthy era. Their music was controversial. Suddenly, they couldn’t get any airplay; they couldn’t get booked into the big hotels, nothin’.

“We played their kind of music when we were first performing in colleges. But when we formed the trio . . . we had to sit down and make a decision: Are we going to remain apolitical with our music? Or are we going to slit our throats and get blacklisted for doing protest music? We decided we’d like to stay in this business for a while. And we got criticized a lot for that. . . . If Bob Dylan or Joan Baez had come out at that time, they’d have been dead in the water. But four or five years later, [their music] became commercially viable.”

Purists will debate whether or not Reynolds and the Trio were actually “folk” artists in the “traditional” sense of the term. In truth, the boys themselves realized their rather unique position in the folk firmament and never tried to be anything other than that which they presented themselves; first class entertainers and popularizers of the folk genre.

In addition to the Kingston Trio, the “Folk Revival” that brought to the fore artists like Pete Seeger and The Weavers, Harry Belafonte, The Chad Mitchell Trio, The Limelighters, and dozens more hit college campuses in the late 50’s and early 60’s. But it was one song by the Kingston Trio that brought the revival to the Moran house and forever after made folk music a part of our family.

The story, first told around family campfires, is that my father, who never listened to music on the radio if he could help it, evidently heard the Trio’s Charlie and the M.T.A. - about as close to a political protest song the Trio ever got - and brought home the album it was on, The Kingston Trio “At Large.” My father had already taken a liking to Belafonte’s husky-voiced calypso stylings so exposing us to the more traditional folk music sung by the Kingston Trio (named after Kingston, Jamaica because an earlier incarnation of the group sang calypso numbers) was an easy sell.

One of our number (there would eventually be 10 of us) became so enchanted with the music being sung by the Trio that he lobbied my parents for a guitar the next Christmas. My brother Jim was all of 11 years old when he found a cheap Silvertone under the tree but he quickly mastered the three or four guitar chords that allowed him to play many of the songs on that album as well as learn a few other favorites gleaned from the sudden appearance in the house of folk songbooks, that all to this day, form the basis of my own love for music.

There is no doubt in my mind that the music of the Kingston Trio and other folk artists brought our family closer together. Through the years, we welcomed into our family artists like The Clancey Brothers and Tommy Makem (who, as I explain here, helped us all discover our Irish heritage), the Chad Mitchell Trio, Gordon Lightfoot, Bob Dylan, as well as older, less well known folkies like Paxton, Blind Lemon, Woody Guthrie, Leadbelly, Houston, Cisco, and Monroe. Their versions of the ancient work songs, drinking songs, shanties, love songs, protest songs, and songs of natural and man made disasters became a staple at family gatherings for the last half a century.

So the death of Reynolds has meaning for me beyond the normal mourning I might feel at the passing of a familiar figure from my youth. It is, in fact, like experiencing the death of a relative, someone who has walked beside me most of my life and who gave me an enormous amount of joy and a feeling of closeness with my family.

Reynolds and Bob Shane started a “fantasy camp” later in life where my brother Jim met the guys and actually performed with them. At the camp, he met a couple of other folk artists and they started a trio of their own - “Chilly Winds.” With more than 146,000 YouTube viewings of their performances, the group proves how the music of The Kingston Trio and other folk artists of the “revival” period have endured.

For in truth, many of the songs played by Chilly Winds and the Kingston Trio are as much a part of the American soul as the events and people they celebrate. Our national consciousness is plugged into this music and a large part of what makes us unique can be found in the richness and diversity of our folk music. From the Delta blues to the Scotch-Irish traditionals, the Cajun experience, the old Negro spirituals, and even popular music that has stood the test of time and become part of the American folk songbook like Tenting Tonight and other Civil War standards - all of these and music from other countries, other cultures have immeasurably enriched the American experience and have formed the background and rhythm of our family’s life.

A whole new generation of Morans have been exposed to the music of my youth and have embraced it as willingly and as lovingly as their fathers and mothers did. This is why the music of Nick Reynolds, the Kingston Trio, and other folk artists will never disappear; these timeless classics, when heard or sung together as a family, ensure that the bonds that make life worth living are strengthened beyond measure and allows us to share the common heritage we all claim by birthright as Americans.

UPDATE

It is an honor to welcome members and posters of The Kingston Crossroads who are probably the only group of people whose love of folk music exceeds my own.

Now, pay no attention to my brother Jim who is a Humphrey liberal (as opposed to an Obama liberal or a Noam Chomsky liberal) and while generally a sensible fellow, nevertheless usually is able to drive me to distraction with his political views. Here on this site you will find rational, reasoned critiques of American politics. The fact that those critiques come mostly from other people, however, shouldn’t deter you from perusing some of my more entertaining spittle flecked rants that target both so-called “conservatives” who struggle mightily to achieve a 19th century consciousness and modern day liberals who struggle mightily to achieve sentience.

As for Jim - yes, he was 11 years old at one time in his life. He may have even been 10 years old at one point but the evidence for that is suspect, coming as it does from recently discovered diaries excavated from a site in Northridge. Far more likely - Jim sprang fully growed with a Martin in one hand and a glass of Chivas in the other, holding forth on Chaucer (or Jacqueline Susanne) while strumming the Martin with his toes and swilling the Chivas through his ear and singing Jug of Punch with a perfect brogue.

A talented man, there…

UPDATE II

My brother Jim emails with some corrections:

Great job, but

I missed the fantasy camp error and decided to leave the midrange thing alone, even though it started with LA Times writer Randy Lewis. People seldom pay attention to retractions, however prominently placed. It’s the first impression that a piece makes - and Nick getting all the attention now (including on CNN and George Stephanopoulous and elsewhere) is what counts.

My good friend Kender of Kender’s Musings has run into a spot of bad luck and is asking for help.

Knowing Kender, it is killing him to go public with his problems. And knowing how proud he is, I know he is devastated over having to ask for our help at this low point in his life.

The guy is a marvel - what he has to overcome on a daily basis is…well he wouldn’t want me to write about it so I won’t. Suffice it to say, the guy lives the word courage 24 hours a day.

And as I told him last night - who else but your friends and readers should be helping you…THE GOVERNMENT? Anyone who knows Kender knows full well that’s all I had to say to get him to put his request for help up on his blog.

Many of you are probably familiar with Kender if you visit this site - he’s been on my radio show a couple of times, most recently he was on my 9/11 Memorial Show. He is funny, passionate, witty, opinionated, loud, obnoxious and a bane to liberals and trolls all across the blogosphere. For someone like that, can’t you see your way clear to dropping a few bucks in his tip jar?

Please go to his site and donate generously.

Won’t you help my friend in his hour of need? I am counting on all of you.

Thanks.

ed.

Note: If you don’t want to donate via Paypal, you can click on my Amazon donation button on my left sidebar and give that way. I will pass your donation on to Kender along with your email addy so he can thank you.

Nearly 2700 posts. More than 31,000 comments. Much laughter. Some frustration. A little genuine anger.

The day was half gone before I realized that today is the fourth anniversary of the birth of my blog, Right Wing Nuthouse. I have told the story of why I started it before so if you wish to know, go back to other September 23rd posts. I have thanked everybody before who had a hand in whatever little success I have enjoyed as a blogger-writer. They know they are and so do I. The short list begins with Ed Morrissey, goes through Glenn Reynolds, and ends up with Allah and Michelle Malkin.

There are dozens of others - some of whom aren’t even blogging anymore. And some are no longer supporters. Being a presence on the internet for 4 years guarantees making enemies - both right and left. I can honestly say I never consciously picked a fight with anyone. And some of those fights - whether they were between me and another blogger or more often, a commenter - mystify me to this day.

But I’ve found there are some people who will deliberately choose to interpret what you write a certain way just so that they can fight with you. Longtime readers of this site know that these blog tussles have been few and far between because I think they are petty and useless. Believe me, I’ve had plenty of opportunities but have passed on around 95% of them. I’ve usually had better things to do than engage in stupid, useless, back-and-forths over some minor supposed insult I’ve given.

Looking back over the last four years, there is plenty to be grateful for and some things to be sorry about. I am grateful that my writing has been recognized in a small corner of the internet and am now making a fairly decent living exclusively as a result of the success of this blog. And I am sorry for some of my more intemperate and angry posts where a judicious use of the “delete” button or a vigorous red pen should have been employed.

But that’s blogging, people - raw, immediate, personal, and as honest as one can dare to be. I have tried not to shave my positions on issues to go along with the crowd. If I believe differently than most on a certain issue, I try to say so. But no one is perfect nor is anyone completely honest about everything. In the end, I have to face the fellow in the mirror who stares back at me and frankly, I take great pride in being able to say that even when I’m wrong or wrong headed, it is not out of design or calculation but because I try to be honest with myself about what I believe.

This is what I owe to you, the readers of this site. It is what I hope keeps bringing you back. I won’t win any web popularity contests. I won’t win any prizes for being a great journalist or scholar, or thinker, or commentator. But at the end of the day, if I’ve made you pause and see things briefly from my point of view and caused you to examine your own thoughts about an issue, then I am content.

Rick Moran
Proprietor