Right Wing Nut House

Predictably, there wasn’t much of a meeting of the minds on anything except both sides are at fault and it is impossible - indeed traitorous - to think about saving the country from unmitigated disaster by working together to solve the twin crisis of deficits and Medicare reform.

Does anyone else think it kind of stupid to deliberately sit back and allow the country to spiral into bankruptcy and God knows what else because the thought of working together to save America is just too much to bear? There are several issues that simply will not be dealt with unless both sides can work together.

I am not making any startling revelation here. This is known to anyone with half a brain. It is unfortunate that many commenters on this site and many of my correspondents and commenters from Pajamas Media suffer from that condition. But why? Is it that you are not convinced that trillion dollar deficits run over a decade will not destroy us? Is it that you simply don’t believe that Medicare Part A will run out of money in 2015 or 2016 and that the deficit will have to come out of the general government fund? Or perhaps you are simply unaware that If we don’t start dealing with the rest of the Medicare crisis, we will find ourselves breaking the bank to pay for coverages?

Which is it? Are you stupid or do you hate America? I tend more toward stupid for the bunch of you because you might actually believe that one party or the other can solve these desperately serious problems without involving the other. The hard choices that will need to be made on both of these issues - and I mean draconian cuts along with tax increases - will never be addressed by either the Democrats or Republicans alone. Hence, the notion that a bi-partisan solution isn’t an option, or a convenience, or a pie in the sky, let’s not be beastly to one another, do gooder fantasy. It is a crying necessity and that’s all there is to it. Period.

Every year that passes where we don’t do something about this crisis makes it all the harder to deal with. Waiting until disaster has already befallen us to act is a fanciful idea - a ridiculous idea - a notion only fools and ignoramuses, blinded by extreme partisanship, could embrace.

The crisis is upon us. The solutions are unpalatable, and they will only become more so the longer we wait. Of this, there is no dispute, no disagreement among people from both sides of the political divide - from liberal Robert Samuelson to conservative Fred Thompson - who aren’t besotted with the ideological Kool-Ade being imbibed by their rabid, unreasoning bases. Politicians being skittish creatures, they will not make a move if it unleashes the anger and destructive bile that the opposing bases reserve for those who transgress against the idea that their opponents are satanic in their evil and can never be approached because to do so is traitorous to “the cause.”

This is not exaggeration or hyperbole. It is a statement of fact. I think Olympia Snowe was wrong to vote in favor of health care reform in committee but kick her out of the party because she is seeking a solution to the very real, very serious problems in our health care system? I think she went about it back asswards but people weren’t going after her for trying to make the Democratic bill better (an exercise in futility I will admit) but because she dared to work with the opposition in the first place. If representing your constituents by doing their bidding and working with Democrats to address the problems with the health care system is grounds for being dismissed from the Republican party, I daresay it won’t be very long before the GOP will be able to hold their convention in a telephone booth.

Judging by the comments I received on the article on this site as well as the emails and comments I got from PJ Media, it is apparent that I am tilting at windmills. My only hope is to give encouragement to those who read this site and who believe that logic and reason as a basis for political action, rather than ignorance and fear, is an absolute necessity if there is any hope that the US will survive the next couple of decades with anything close to the economy we have today.

As for the rest; I invite you to continue to carry on grasping for power in Hitler’s bunker. Eventually, you will be fighting over what remains of a country made prostrate by your foolish, and shortsighted hatred.

My latest wildly popular, huzzah-eliciting article at Pajamas Media has to do with the idea that maybe if we want to solve some extremely serious problems like the deficit or Medicare reform, it will be necessary to work with the Democrats and vice versa.

A sample:

The radical idea that 500,000 citizens in a congressional district send a representative to Washington to do something other than scream his head off that the opposition are a bunch of traitorous, America-destroying philistines trying to undermine democracy because they want to declare tomorrow “National Blue-Haired Ladies Day” just hasn’t caught on yet on either side.

Of course, the Democrats actually have to do something about governing the country because they are in power and have to take evidence back home to hold up as an example of how busy they have been the last two or six years. This is sort of like a kid who proudly holds up his homework to the teacher, showing her how hard he labored over the assignment even though he waited until the last minute to work on it.

But that hasn’t prevented the Democrats from acting in a beastly manner toward Republicans, which is only payback for when the GOP was in the majority and acted in a beastly manner toward the Dems, which they only did because previous to that when the Democrats were in power, they acted in a really beastly manner toward GOP lawmakers.

Politics sure is a serious business, isn’t it?

No, it is impossible to expect the GOP to have worked with the Democrats on health care, or cap and trade, or even card check. These things are an anathema to Republican principles - as it would be if the GOP asked Democrats to help on a tax cutting bill for business, or some other issue that would be a bridge too far to cross for liberals.

But on the great challenges facing the country, the people have a right to expect that they shouldn’t have to pay for the consequences of this childish nonsense that passes for political discourse today. And the consequences of not reforming Medicare or making serious efforts to bring down the deficit are too horrible to contemplate.

Read the whole thing.

Interesting reactions from left and right to the passage in the House of health care reform.

A bill nobody has read, that contains nobody knows what, that no one has a clue of what kind of impact it will have on the current health care system, with a cost known only to God, has been passed with no formal hearings, extraordinarily limited debate, and in a totally partisan manner (minus one Republican who doesn’t have a prayer in 2010).

That’s the “reality” I would say to my friends in the reality based community. Can you argue with any of those points above? Only if you spin so hard you are in danger of flying off into orbit.

If we had a rational government, any one of those realities would have derailed health care reform long ago. But rationality has left the building, as has common sense, proportionality, wisdom, and that fine old conservative virtue, prudence.

National Health Care Reform represents a new way of governing; the blind, leading the deaf and dumb, toward an unknowable future - driving the engine of government at full speed, and without any brakes. Can’t see that break in the tracks up ahead? Ooops! My bad. We’ll pick up the pieces later.

Of course, this is only the first step. Something approximating the House bill is going to have to pass the senate - by no means a foregone conclusion, but made more likely by last night’s vote. And the conference committee to reconcile the two versions while hanging on to enough votes in both houses for passage will be something akin to trying to put a round peg in a fractal hole.

But the momentum appears to favor getting something passed before the end of the year. If the House vote proved anything, it is that the Democrats are fully capable of coming up with solutions that will allow their huge majorities to win the day regardless of the issues. They have proven adept at papering over their differences, finessing the insoluble, and coming up with imaginative gimmicks to make national health care reform a reality.

The question then arises; where to, conservatism?

There has been more than one liberal pundit who has speculated that the passage of national health care reform would mean the death of conservatism. Holy Jesus! If communism couldn’t be killed by it’s massive internal contradictions, I hardly think conservatism is in any danger of going the way of the Dodo bird because national health insurance has become a reality.

But perhaps the chocks will be pulled out from underneath the kind of “small government” conservatism that believes rolling back the Great Society, the New Deal, and taking America back to a fiercely literal interpretation of the Constitution, is the path that conservatism should follow.

I put “small government” in quotes because the reality is that most who adhere to that brand of conservatism are actually proponents of “no government” conservatism. All conservatives look in askance at the welfare state. But there is a difference in seeking to destroy it willy nilly and substitute a pre-Constitutional environment more in keeping with the Articles of Confederation, than in drastically reforming both the programs and ideology that undergirds the culture of dependency that has taken control of government. But the “no government” conservatives will become even more irrelevant now that we are on the road to nationalized health care. Government as the “enemy” may still be a potent call to arms for these conservatives, but their impact on actual public policy will be close to zero.

If national health care becomes a reality, history tells us that it will never be repealed, that one sixth of the American economy will be permanently controlled by Washington. There will be successful efforts to play around at the margins, bringing efficiencies and changing some of the more odorous aspects of what is to come. But politicians have never taken away an entitlement in history, and I am extremely skeptical that it can be done in this case.

Once the independent health insurance industry is gone, how to you get it back? How do you reconstitute a private health care system? The answer is you can’t. Once national health care has had its way with the system and we see single payer insurance, and a health care bureaucracy that dictates treatments, costs, eligibility, as well as rationing what care is left, it will be impossible to ditch that system in favor of a market based, private entity. It is much easier for government to destroy private industry than it is for government to actually create a free market for health care. The very act of government creation would, by definition, not allow the market to determine the parameters of its operation.

So, do conservatives deal with this reality and work to affect it, or do they cling to the irrational belief that they can turn the world upside down, repeal a middle class entitlement, and resurrect an entire industry? I believe that, along with other entitlements, conservative principles can be applied to governance so that it’s costs are kept from rising too quickly, while choices can be broadened. In short, if there must be national health care, conservatives can run it far better than liberals.

Not very satisfactory but real world options are rarely as palatable as those we imagine when clinging to dreams of Jeffersonian (or Randian) utopias. John Galt may be a folk hero, but even he is going to need to see a doctor at some point. So, from where I’m sitting, (given the strong probability that national health care will be a reality by the end of the year) you can either work to radically improve what the Democrats have so carelessly tossed into the people’s laps, or you can continue thinking that it is possible to create a government that doesn’t do much except kill terrorists and give out tax break like pieces of candy corn on Halloween night.

That’s an exaggeration, of course. But my purpose - groping, feeling my way in the dark though it seems - is to think about what conservatism means facing this new reality. Those who wish to continue living in a fantasy world where “no government” or “small government” (rather than “smaller government”) dominates, I congratulate you on your efforts. It is more than the rest of us who wish to advance the cause of conservatism in the real world are capable.

No matter how the vote in the House on health care reform turns out, the amateur historian in me is tickled to be living in such “interesting times.”

I think that 200 years from now, this interlude in American history will be seen in the same way that we look upon the Missouri Compromise, or the nullification debates. More modern examples would include the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act. The impact that all those debates had on the future of America cannot be overstated.

Even debates over New Deal or Great Society social legislation were muted and, in retrospect, not as controversial as the health care reform bill that is being brought to the floor today.

Never has such a large part of the American economy been designated for federal control. Never has the government reached so far into the personal lives of its citizens, compelling them through force of law to surrender some of their liberty. Every American will be affected by this bill in ways that not even the bill’s most ardent supporters can say with any certainty.

It is, as was said of the 1981 tax cuts, “a crap shoot.”

There is the potential for great mischief - a veritable smorgasbord of slippery slopes - some more realistic than others. There is the danger that the bill will not do what its supporters say it will do; lower costs and cover more people. There is the certainty that with the government now paying more for health care, they will feel it necessary to, if not dictate, then strongly encourage people through punitive tax laws to change what they consider “unhealthy” behavior.

I have written often over the last months that some reform is vitally necessary. The system is broken. Too many who want and need insurance are priced out of the market. Costs are rising at a ruinous rate and are sucking the life out of our economy. And some provision must be made for those with chronic or pre-existing conditions who are rejected by insurance companies.

Then there are the real biggies; We need to begin now to reform Medicare and Medicaid. There simply is no choice if we don’t want our economy to be destroyed.

But the bill that has been brought to the floor of the House today is far too ambitious in some areas, much too timid in others, way too expensive, and at bottom, an invitation for government to inject itself into the economic and personal lives of its citizens. The president and the Democrats have not made their case that this bill is the answer. Instead, they have made the primary goal of the process not the reform of health care, but a political yardstick by which to measure the president’s success. A failure is to be avoided because it would wound his presidency and damage the Democratic party’s chances for electoral success in 2010. Using that thinking, a bad bill is better than no bill at all - a recipe for unmitigated disaster.

This is not surprising because the monumental complexity of this bill makes it impossible to boil down into coherent policy. It is a slap-dash, confused, utterly incomprehensible mish mash of clashing interests, favors for industry, mandates for business, and the worst that nanny statism has to offer. It is too much for America to digest at once, and the best we can hope for is that the votes to pass it never materialize, forcing its withdrawal.

Despite the Democrat’s huge majority, chances for passage are still up in the air. That’s due to something that the president, in his health care reform speech, said was not in the bill but to no one’s surprise, ended up being included anyway; federal funding of abortions.

An agreement on language that would have set up an “independent monitor” to make sure that federal funds were not spent on abortion fell through last night - largely because the Catholic bishops, who are involved in the negotiations for this issue - wouldn’t support it.

Instead, Pelosi reluctantly agreed to a deal where Bart Stupak would be able to offer a floor amendment banning most federal funding for the procedure. It appears that this will satisfy a couple of dozen Democrats who will vote for the final package once the abortion amendment goes down to defeat.

According to Politico, that’s not nearly enough to assure passage:

“It’s a question of how you can keep everybody together and that’s the challenge before us,” Waxman said of the proposal earlier in the day. “What’s being called the Ellsworth language is also the bishop’s language which is the Stupak proposal. It’s basically to stop any services for abortion coverage in both the public plan and all private insurance. Not just for those who get subsidies but for everybody who goes to private insurance policies.”

“I would like the bishops, who I understand want to see passage of the legislation, to help us work out a way so we don’t have winners and losers,” Waxman said. “Because the losers will make us lose the bill and the winners then wont have won anything.”

Democratic officials said their count of hard “nos” was in the range of about 25. While House Speaker Nancy Pelosi can afford to lose up to 40 votes and still win passage, there are dozens of other lawmakers who remain on the fence publicly.

The last whip count had Pelosi at least 14 votes short, with no doubt a lot of fence sitters added to the “Yes” column. And that was for a bill with a “robust” public option. The abortion and illegal immigrant access issues weren’t even considered.

President Obama will come to the Hill today to twist some arms, and perhaps do a little horse trading with the fence sitters. Indications over the last month is that there may be as many as 60 Democrats who are very nervous about the bill, either because of abortion, or it’s ever climbing cost. No doubt many of them are open to blandishments from the White House. But in the end, it may be that there are just too many who won’t go along with the majority to realize passage - at least now.

It is possible that Pelosi will yank the bill from consideration today and delay the vote for a few days or a week in order to really turn the screws on recalcitrant members. But regardless of what happens, the thrust and parry in this debate has been one of the most fascinating exercises of democracy in our republic I can remember.

How it ends will determine what kind of country we will be forever after.

I probably shouldn’t write this. Every time I say that to myself, I get into trouble. And I still might hit the “delete” button before it’s published.

But I am spitting mad and feel the need to share my anger with those precious few of you who are not so blinded by partisanship that logic, reason, and above all, good common sense can’t be applied to a discussion about what happened at Fort Hood yesterday.

The rationalizations for Major Hasan’s rampage - his motives, his state of mind, even the environment in which he carried out his horrific attack - are being tossed about the blogosphere on both sides as if everything that can be known about the circumstances has already been revealed.

This must be the case because without any definitive word from authorities, from his friends and associates, or from Hasan himself, both lefty and righty blogs have already “solved” the mystery of motive and any argument to the contrary is “racist,” or “pro-jihad,” or “hate speech,” or “political correctness.” By far the most bizarre explanation for Hasan’s killing spree is that it was the result of some kind of weird Post Traumatic Stress Disorder transference where the good doctor heard so many horrible tales of what happened in Iraq that he cracked.

News flash: Everyone can’t be right. In fact, it is likely everyone is wrong. Was it an example of Muslim extremist terrorism? Or a reaction to bullying and name calling by brother officers? Or the prospect of being deployed to Iraq? A combination? None of the above?

I am making the same argument I made when six police officers were gunned down in Pittsburgh - the result, we were told, of the maniac listening to conservative talk radio and reading conservative literature. Trying to glean motive when a madman acts insanely is an exercise in futility. This is especially true when you pull such theories out of your ass because no investigation had been made at that point into the shooter’s motives.

Brainwashing and indoctrination are a separate issue. In this case, we know he attended a wahabbist mosque headed up by a radical imam. But regardless of the personal views of the imam, there apparently wasn’t a terrorist cell operating out of the mosque, nor are we aware that the imam preached jihad. Even if he did, there is absolutely no evidence that the kind of “immersion” necessary to brainwash an individual into committing suicide attacks was available to Hasan at his place of worship.

Needless to say, we are unaware of any other members of that mosque going on a shooting rampage anywhere in the US.

I am going to be accused of being in “denial” about this incident being a terrorist attack. I would rather be accused of waiting until the facts are in before making a judgment like that. I will also be accused of ignoring “Islamaphobia” and the terrorizing prospect of Hasan being sent to Iraq. I am not ignoring anything. Well…almost anything. Anyone who accuses me of ignoring “PTSD transference” as a motive is a loon. Not only because no one has ever heard of it but for the simple reason that only a psychological evaluation - not done yet - could uncover such a reason.

I hope you see what I’m getting at. In the rush to score political points against the opposition, one thing appears to be an afterthought; the unspeakable tragedy of 12 people having their lives extinguished for no good reason at all. In fact, both right and left bloggers are using the dead bodies of the victims to play “gotchya” with the opposition. And that’s what’s got me smoking hot this morning.

A couple of samples from prominent (second tier) blogs will illustrate what I am getting at:

Atlas Shrugs:

UPDATE: Shlep Smith has the jihadi’s cousin on the phone, Nader Hasan, and Schlep is lapping up the lies and he is doing the taqiya. Nader is saying the Malik was a great American. Hasan is saying that the mass murderer “was harassed” and that’s why he methodically planned and executed this massive attack on a US military installation.

He was not a convert. He is a devout Muslim who joined the army with a purpose.

“Methodically planned and executed?” Have we traced the shooter’s steps for the few hours prior to the attack? If not, how is Geller so sure? “Joined the army with a purpose?” He joined at age 17 against his parent’s wishes. How can Geller possibly say that? It’s not even a guess.

Hullaballo:

Regardless of motivation one would certainly hope, above all, that this had nothing to do with it. It’s pretty awful that one’s thoughts would immediately turn in that direction when something like this happens. But after Tim McVeigh, you have to consider it. (If the shooters were civilians, my thoughts would go in a different direction.)

Digby’s first thought was that it was right wing terrorists. The link goes to the “oathtakers” website - the group of military and law enforcement who re-swear to uphold the constitution and not obey any orders that go against it. The irrationalism of the Oathtakers is a separate issue but it is revealing that this moron just pulled that kind of crap out of absolute thin air. No execessive partisan spinning there, by God!

Stacy McCain:

A madman inspired by Vlaams Belang and incited to violence by right-wing extremists . . . Oh, wait. No.

IT’S THE JIHAD, STUPID!

Couldn’t have said it better myself, Pamela. A jihadi psychiatrist? Yeah, there’s your irony, Dr. Freud.

Excuse the dark sarcasm. Having spent the past week in upstate New York with Ali Akbar — yes, that’s his real name, and he’s a Southern Baptist from Texas — covering a campaign repeatedly maligned as “radical” and “extremist,” there is something especially bitter for me in this ugly reminder that there are still people who want to kill us all, just because we’re Americans.

We don’t know he was a jihadist. And this was not some foreigner, but an American born in Arlington, VA and who joined the military because, as he told friends at the time, he thought it was his duty to serve. It could very well be he didn’t want to kill “all” Americans - only those in the military.

I hate to be picky like that, but the truth has to matter somewhere. Jumping the gun before all the facts are in to write an authoritative sounding post when in reality, you don’t know your ass from a hole in the wall about what happened or who this guy was, makes my point about the utter banality of the blogosphere.

Andrew Sullivan:

It looks increasingly as if he snapped at the thought of participating in a war he might have seen as anti-Islam. This, if borne out, is grim news:

Hasan indeed, snapped. Why, I suspect even the brilliant Andrew Sullivan doesn’t know less than 24 hours after the attack occurred. Except it must feel good to climb on the back of dead soldiers to tell us the “grim news” that Andrew Sullivan is against the Iraq War.

To those who accuse me of sticking my head in the sand about terrorism, I will say this:

1. Yes, this fellow posted some rather incendiary views on the internet. But others post worse and don’t gun down 12 US soldiers or anyone else for that matter.

2. He was anti-war and hated the thought of going to Iraq. Well, that closes the case then, right? Except no one else has felt motivated to shoot up an army base because of those feelings.

3. He was exposed to extremist rhetoric and views on the internet and in his mosque. He may even agree with most of it. But it is a rather large step to take from sympathizing with Muslims you feel are being persecuted to picking up a gun and slaughtering people.

4. He shouted “Allahu Akbar” before opening fire. This is the smoking gun for Hasan being a terrorist, right? Unless you can show me that the maniac was not delusional and thought he was somewhere else killing somebody else, I will simply point out that gleaning motive from a diseased mind is not a job for bloggers - me, you, or anybody.

This is why the FBI has not ruled out terrorism but is refusing to call it that at the moment. Law enforcement has a little different standard than partisan bloggers; they feel the need to investigate carefully and make a judgment based on the facts and not wild, politically motivated speculation. This may inconvenience those who seek to score political points, or show off their anti-Muslim bona fides. But then, reality is always more boring than what bloggers can come up with to increase their audience, and garner links.

I fully understand that this is how the game is played in the blogosphere and am under no illusions that it will ever change. But these bombs being tossed back and forth - with 12 dead bodies lying between them - made me snap this morning.

Since it looks like I am going to hit the “publish” button, better batten down the hatches and lay out the plastic over the furniture. The spittle will be flying shortly.

Want to piss off the left? Everybody watch every single episode of the new ABC mini-series “V.” Drive the ratings through the roof. Make the show the hottest cultural happening since Seinfeld. Copy the hairstyles. Ape the fashion. Start bidding up the action dolls on Ebay.

And most especially, actually tell people you believe that this is a show about Obama and the left. It isn’t, but if you want the liberals to poop in their pants, say you think it is.

I find it not a little ironic that Jonathan Chait would see a “Tea Party Worldview” in a show that is such a hammer over the head metaphor for fascism. That’s because in the universe created for “V,” the birthers are right, the paranoid loons who believe Obama is a Muslim terrorist have a point, and there really are Haliburton built concentration camps in Utah.

Except the plot line follows fairly closely the original “V” which aired before many tea partyers were even born. This makes any overt connection to Obama problematic, although the writers manage to stick it to the president on at least one occasion when “national health care” is mentioned to describe the Visitors plans to help humanity.

Chait:

The political drama of the original was replaced by a ham-handed metaphor for President Obama. The visitors are young, charismatic, futuristic, and have a one-worldish vision of peace. They target the young by enticing them to join an idealistic (but, in reality, sinister) youth group. A few perceptive humans warn of the dangers of hopping on the bandwagon before we know what the bandwagon is really about. The alien leader, Ana, promises to use futuristic technology to heal humans. “You mean universal health care!” gapes a reporter, who, naturally, has been co-opted by the aliens. Anna soothes skeptics by declaring that accepting change can be difficult. A small band of human resistors forms. The lead character is skeptical–what proof do you have she asks, besides some scary thing “you read on the internet.” But the seemingly hysterical message from the internet is true! The charismatic new leader is masking her true identity! The death panels are real! Etc., etc.

The real irony passes so far over Chait’s head it doesn’t even muss his hair. The fact is, the “resistors” are paranoid. That’s because at first, there is no proof that the aliens are anything other than benevolent souls who only want to help. It is not until the true reptilian nature of the Visitors is revealed to one of the main characters, FBI Agent Erica Evans (played by the ravishing MILF Elizabeth Mitchell) that the “paranoid” conspiracy nuts are proved correct.

Now this might be considered something of a birther fantasy come true - except the show has been in the works since 2007, according to executive producer Scott Peters:

Others on both sides of the political spectrum may point to the visitors’ explicit promises of hope, change and universal health care as a pointed reference to pledges of the Obama administration. But [Executive Producer Scott] Peters says the show has been in the works since 2007. Reality was “never really a factor,” he says. “There’s no political message being shoved down anyone’s throat.”

Could it be that the outward, and unintentional parallels with Obamamania is discomfiting some on the left because the parallels to Hitler’s Germany - so obvious, so easily seen - hold implications for the ease with which many of them succumbed to the siren song being sung by the president? Not that Obama is a fascist in any way, but is Chait really upset because he and his fellow leftists might, under other circumstances and with another candidate less dedicated to constitutional order, have fallen into supporting a real fascist?

It would upset me if I suddenly realized my susceptibility to abandoning critical thinking and embracing an undemocratic leader. All that is missing from Obamamania for it to have become an American nightmare was a candidate willing to take the cult of personality he created and turn it into something that perverts democracy. The same can be said for some other political leaders in America (one - Huey Long - may have actually harbored such un-American notions).

But in Obama’s case, the ability to manipulate the media (not to mention the open cheerleading for the candidate during the race), more money than God, and the extra added bonus of being able to stifle criticism by playing the race card at the drop of a hat all combined to create an extraordinarily incendiary mixture that a man with more authoritarian appetites than our president might have been tempted to use to the detriment of democracy.

Thankfully, Barack Obama is not such a man. Sure, he tries to stifle dissent. What modern president hasn’t? Clinton blaming conservative talk radio for the Oklahoma City bombing and Karl Rove calling war protestors “unpatriotic” are just two examples of how the presidency has evolved to control the opposition by marginalizing resisters. It didn’t work any better than Obama’s efforts to shush Fox News so perhaps we can be grateful that even with their enormous power, presidents have to put up with criticism despite their best efforts to silence it.

In the case of “V,” one wonders if the unintentional parallels to Obamania will actually force script changes down the road. That’s because ABC has decided to air only 4 episodes this month, and then send the series off to hiatus until the spring. Already, there are signs that someone is not happy with the finished product.

Naturally, when a show debuts to huge ratings and mostly great reviews, the producer’s career is golden. Not this time. Apparently the network who gave Obama an infomercial and refuses to release the “Path to 9/11? DVD decided to replace the show runner Scott Peters before the pilot even aired. In fact, ABC hosted a big visit by press people last Monday, but Peters was notably absent. Exec producer Steve Pearlman spoke with the reporters.

Peters has been demoted to exec producer, a largely honorary title and has been replaced by former “The Shield” and “Chuck” alum Scott Rosenbaum.

Was this a case of ABC purging a political dissident from the show to make it more politically subservient? ABC has been very pro-Obama. And while the president’s name is never mentioned once in the show, there’s little doubt what they’re getting at. Critics of the “V” aliens are shown to be viewed as wackos and fringe people, the same way the MSM likes to portray ordinary Americans who don’t drink the kOOl-aid. Journalists who question the motives of the V are treated like they’re “not real news”. Wink!

My understanding is that such a change is not uncommon in the industry once a series goes on the air. Still, one wonders if the writing will take a different turn for future episodes given the jawboning on the left about parallels to Obamanania.

Yes, there are superficial similarities with Obama, but perhaps because I loved the original mini-series so much (both parts), I was more focused on how closely this incarnation of the story reflected back to the 1983 version. From what I’ve seen so far, the biggest change is the strong female characters compared to the original. Elizabeth Mitchell plays one tough cookie. She is also a single mom raising a problem teenager. The alien leader, Anna, is cool, gorgeous, scary smart, and so self possessed that any male I know would fight for the chance to ask her out for coffee.

There’s also an interesting religious angle with a Catholic priest questioning his faith with the arrival of beings from another world who never heard of Jesus, and who appear to be the real “saviors” of man. I hope they develop this a little more because it certainly would be one of the major implications for humankind if it was ever discovered that an alien civilization existed.

The special effects are a lot less cheesy, the revelation that the “Visitors” who look gorgeous in their human costumes are actually dragons isn’t handled half as well, and there is less big hair and more pixie styles among the women. (Being a big hair lover, I found this disappointing). The way we discovered the Visitors were aliens in the original was when the female co-leader Diana was seen by newsman Marc Sanger who had snuck aboard the Mothership, devouring a hamster whole. Now that was great television.

The 1983 series had “scientists” who were the persecuted minority - stand ins for the Jews. Given references to the internet already, might bloggers be targets in the remake? I’m with Chait who doubts whether scientists will be the imagined “enemies” of the Visitors. I also doubt that the fifth columnists will all be filthy rich, having been promised fabulous wealth by the Visitors if they cooperate. The great columnist Dorothy Thompson once wrote a piece on “Who would go Nazi?” if fascism ever came to America. Most of her choices were Republicans. I wonder if the new series will try and advance that same meme?

Overall, I’d give the production a B+ for it’s faithfulness to the original (so far) and a B- for political content. The have yet to really get into the fascist parallels that made the original so compelling. That grade may change as the story is fleshed out more in the coming weeks.

But if you want to enjoy the show, I suggest not trying to see Obama criticism or tea party worldview validation in every scene. It’s not there, and it will take away from immersing yourself in what promises to be a good story with lots of action.

I’m a little bemused this morning reading lefty blogs who are chortling over Doug Hoffman’s defeat last night. Isn’t that sort of like someone who’s been thrown in a sh*t pile and accidentally discovering a brass ring?

It isn’t just the raw results that should give Democrats a cold chill. The internals of the exit polls reveal several key demographic groups moving strongly back to the GOP including ex-urban whites, as well as suburban women. If that trend continues - and at the moment, that’s a big “if” - the GOP is back in the national ball game with several states that were trending blue like Virginia inching away from the Democrats and returning home.

Of course, the low turnout in these elections make it difficult to really pronounce such trends as harbingers of victory for Republicans in 2010. But moderates and Blue Dogs on the Hill think they’re real enough, which should, at the very least, complicate matters for Nancy Pelosi as she moves the health care reform bill to the floor. I don’t think the results changed anyone’s vote - and that’s the problem for Pelosi. She’s still short a couple of dozen votes for passage of a bill with a strong public option and what happened last night will just make her job of arm twisting Blue Dogs to jump on board that much more difficult.

Of all the results that came in last night, Republicans can take the most heart from the Virginia governor’s race. It’s not that McDonnell won - that was expected. But his margin of victory was astonishing considering that Obama took the state by 7% last November. Deeds finished 12 points behind Obama’s total and the other two statewide races saw similar massacres of the Democratic candidates. Again, it is perhaps folly to read too much into this race, but if you were to ask Axelrod (and if you were able to get an honest response from him), I think he would say that they were most disappointed in what happened statewide in Virginia.

New Jersey is an entirely different narrative. It is pretty clear that Obama’s presidency was a non-player in people’s decision for whom to vote. The issue was a scumbag governor - period - and the clear desire of New Jerseians to kick the bum out.

Nate Silver:

Obama approval was actually pretty strong in New Jersey, at 57 percent, but 27 percent of those who approved of Obama nevertheless voted for someone other than Corzine. This one really does appear to be mostly about Corzine being an unappealing candidate, as the Democrats look like they’ll lose just one or two seats in the state legislature in Trenton. Corzine compounded his problems by staying negative until the bitter end of the campaign rather than rounding out his portfolio after having closed the margin with Christie.

That’s pretty convincing evidence that, at least in the New Jersey governor’s race, “all politics are local” prevailed.

Not so in NY23. I am very disappointed that Doug Hoffman lost. As in any vote, it was a variety of factors that did Hoffman in. Was he “too conservative?” I doubt that. Hoffman wasn’t a bomb thrower nor is he a radical rightie. He was a nice little “gray man” as I called him yesterday, who didn’t impress the locals with his knowledge of local issues nor set them on fire with his personality. And I think the enthusiasm felt for him by national conservatives never translated into support on the ground in the district.

The Dede Factor probably had something to do with Hoffman’s loss. How much is hard to say. And don’t forget the machinations of the national GOP and state party bigwigs who foisted Scozzafava on the district in the first place. If Hoffman hadn’t been on the ballot, I am not convinced she would have won anyway. Owens centrism contrasted badly for the GOP with Scozzafava’s center left voting record as well as her open embrace of such positions as pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. That would have kept many conservatives at home last night watching “V” rather than heading to the polls to vote for the likes of Scozzafava. The notion that she would have won if Hoffman had stayed off the ballot is just not supportable by what we know.

From some New York commenters and correspondents, I am told that redistricting will probably make this a safe Democratic enclave by the 2010 race. We will see about that. It could be that come the mid terms, very few seats in the country would be “safe” for Democrats unless the unemployment rate comes down significantly, and a way is found to lower the deficit. In case you didn’t hear, voters are indeed angry. They appear angry at both parties, but Democrats come in for the lion’s share of the blame simply by virtue of them being the “ins” at the present time.

If I were a Democrat, I would be relieved that the night wasn’t as bad as it could have been. As a nominal Republican, I am pleased but very cautious. I see nothing from those results that shows me the voter is ready to embrace the GOP as an alternative to Obama and the Democrats. I think there was a lot of “holding of noses” by people in Virginia and New Jersey when going into the polling booth. I sense little enthusiasm for choosing Republicans over Democrats - something that can be changed only if the lessons from last night sink in with the mossbacks currently in charge of the party in Washington.

What are those lessons? Listen to conservatives. Not the ones calling for a purge of incumbents that don’t measure up to some idiotic notion of ideological purity. That way leads to madness and defeat:

But their success in Tuesday’s upstate New York special election, where grass-roots efforts pushed GOP nominee Dede Scozzafava to drop out of the race and helped Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman surge into the lead on the eve of Election Day, has generated more money and enthusiasm than organizers ever imagined.

Activists predict a wave that could roll from California to Kentucky to New Hampshire and that could leave even some GOP incumbents — Utah Sen. Bob Bennett is one — facing unexpectedly fierce challenges from their right flank.

“I would say it’s the tip of the spear,” said Dick Armey, the former GOP House majority leader who now serves as chairman of FreedomWorks, an organization that has been closely aligned with the tea party movement. “We are the biggest source of energy in American politics today.”

“What you’re going to see,” said Armey, “is moderates and conservatives across the country in primaries.”

Dick Armey is a fool. He knows full well that incumbents challenged in a primary are much more vulnerable to defeat in the general election than those who run virtually unopposed. And why the challenge? Does the member have ethics problems? If so, then by all means throw the rascal out.

The idea that an incumbent has “betrayed conservative principles” might be cause for removal but who are these national conservatives that they think they can dictate to locals and define “conservatism” for them? They may have their own ideas on how conservative their member is and to have someone else tell them they’re full of it - especially someone from outside the state or district - is a real recipe for a civil war.

I am coming around to the notion that the GOP has to blow their opportunity in both 2010 and 2012 for anything to change. Losing when you should have had a slam dunk win (as I think 2010 should be) might wake up a few people who need a kick in the ass. And that includes throwing out the deadwood in Washington as well as putting the radical righties in their place. Both groups are dragging the GOP down and, like a drunk who has hit rock bottom, will only reform when the alternative is more unpalatable.

UPDATE

Pete Wehner points to something I hadn’t considered:

Among the important by-products of this election is that it will encourage many impressive and capable Republicans from around the country to become candidates. They now believe, with justification, that 2010 looks to be a very good year for the GOP. If an individual ever wanted to toss his hat into the ring, this is the time to do it.

I wrote in both 2006 and 2008 about the way the Democrats far outperformed the GOP in candidate recruitment, and how that factor was one of the primary reasons for their success. There are several factors that go into recruiting a good candidate including having a strong base of support in some part of the district, some nominal name recognition, and, as always, an ability to self finance is seen as a huge plus.

I am willing to bet that Hoffman was not the best conservative candidate available in NY23, although not knowing anything about the district I can’t say for sure. But if the GOP can attract some up and comers, as well as a few old political hands who are known in the district who might be encouraged by what happened last night, more power to them.

There is no way to adequately explain how royally delicious the irony that can be found in this post by Jon Walker at Firedoglake.

To those of us on both sides who look in askance at the excessively ideological fringes of both right and left, the echo that can be heard in Mr. Walker’s piece from conservatives is eerie:

Bill Owens is a conservative Democrat. He is arguably more conservative than the official Republican candidate was (Dede Scozzafava dropped out over the weekend). For example, his opposition to the public option puts him not only far to the right of the bulk of the Democratic party, but significantly to the right of the majority of Americans. He was selected because he fit the Rahm Emanuel philosophy that the only way for Democrats to win right-leaning districts is with conservative Democratic candidates.

The theory is that a center-right Democrat will win the entire Democratic base, most of the independents, and a few of the more liberal Republicans. That theory is getting blown out of the water in NY-23rd. Bill Owens’s remaining competition is the ultra-rightwing Conservative party candidate Doug Hoffman. The vast majority of the district should be ideologically much closer Owens than Hoffman, yet Hoffman is leading in the polls.

If Hoffman wins it will be a big loss for the misguided ideal among some Democrats that the only way to win right-leaning districts is by diligently staking out bland center-right positions. Having a candidate that seems “real” and can really fire up the base is very important. People often vote because they feel elected officials are ignoring them and they want to send a message. Right now, there is a real populist rage out there directed at Washington in general.

Yep - even though the “vast majority” in the district should be supporting Owens because they are closer to his more moderate ideology, somehow, someone is playing a trick! Hoffman is leading in the polls? How is that possible?

Well, maybe the district is closer to Hoffman in their ideology than Owens. But that’s not possible because Hoffman is a radical, far right, loony tunes, ass-upside-down drooling righty.

Or, Mr. Walker has a hole in his head and his cranial matter has been leaking lo these many years.

Now read this from Mac Ranger:

The Republican Party wins ONLY when Conservatism is it’s core. Willy-Nilly RINOISM got us shalacked in 2006 and 2008. Trying to out liberal the liberals, quasi-Republicans made deals with the devil and got burned in the process.

Is that too remarkable for words? One state, two state, red state, blue state - it doesn’t matter. Those in thrall to ideology see things exactly the same only coming at the issue from opposite ends of the spectrum.

Politico had this piece of cheery news today; the True Blue Conservative Brigade will fan out across the country and attack those they see as too “moderate” to be Republicans - even incumbents!

Activists contend that the only way back to majority status is to embrace the conservative principles that the party jettisoned during the past decades once it became too enamored of power. To them, the issue is less about ideological purity than about the compromises they see the party’s Washington establishment making and what they contend is a lack of support for conservative candidates who are deemed unelectable by GOP solons.

“New York 23, on some scale, is the first battle of a larger internal Republican debate over how to define the party,” said former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio, a conservative who is challenging Crist for the Senate nomination. “They want us to vote for their candidates, but they don’t want us to run for office.”

Imagine the cheering going on at the DNC upon reading this. Millions and millions of Republican dollars being spent to kill each other off. Brilliant! And then bloodied and nearly broken, some poor senator or congressman goes into a general election nearly broke and facing a well funded, attractive Democratic challenger. The result? Pelosi and Reid laugh all the way to January and the swearing in of even bigger Democratic majorities.

As I’ve repeatedly said, the circumstances in NY23 are unique and serve the valuable purpose of telling those mossbacks in Washington to recruit good conservatives who will remain that way once they get to Washington. But sharpening the long knives for incumbents? To what purpose? It’s not a question of “victory at all costs” but rather “Who’s side are you really on when these actions will help only the Democrats?”

Now Mr. Walker does not go so far as to advocate the targeting of Blue Dogs although that has been suggested numerous times on liberal blogs. But I’m afraid he is dead wrong about Doug Hoffman - who apparently committed the cardinal sin of supporting Glenn Beck’s “9 Principles and 12 Values” which include such radically right wing subversive notions as “1) America is Good.” And for good measure, Mr. Hoffman informed Glenn Beck on his show that he was his “mentor” - a very polite response from an affable, polite man.

Actually, Hoffman is a nice, pleasant, gray little man who’s about as radical as a chicken breast, and a lot less loony than some of his national supporters who want to imbue the nondescript Mr. Hoffman with qualities that would have made George Washington blush. I like the fellow - especially the fact that he is an accountant. Just think of a Congress full of accountants instead of lawyers.

Now that’s a conservatism I would pledge my undying devotion.

But note the chilling similarity in the thought processes between Mac Ranger and Jon Walker. The “key to victory” is ideological purity. Never mind that the district had little interest in voting for Scozzafava once they found out she was not much of a Republican - even for a reasonably moderate conservative district like NY23. And the voters up there are apparently ready to reject a moderately left Democrat like Owens.

Hoffman probably wins because he got a boost from conservative activists who trashed Scozzafava (sometimes unfairly. As I said in this post, she is far from being a “radical leftist”), and propelled the GOP candidate to the front by dint of sheer enthusiasm and successfully portraying him as the only “real” Republican in the race.

If he loses? Well then it’s back to the drawing board. Maybe they’ll be able to find someone even more conservative than Hoffman because, after all, the reason he will lose is because he “just wasn’t conservative enough.”

Unless the GOP is very, very careful, that may be an epithet on the tombstone of many an incumbent when all is said and done in 2010.

I don’t know why it’s taken me five years to realize something of paramount importance to understand if one wishes to make a living as a writer.

I am not the brightest bulb in the room, but I still should have grasped this concept long ago; the reader’s perception and understanding of what is written trumps the author’s own intent to impart meaning every time.

I don’t know why this fundamental rule escaped my notice. I am familiar with literary criticism, where certain schools dominate and great works of literature are examined through a particular prism of understanding. I remember reading a Marxist critique of Moby Dick that had me on the floor laughing. Another critical essay I remember reading about the Melville classic dealt with the influences of Shakespeare on the writer - a brilliant exposition of a particular point of view that forced me to examine the book from a perspective I had never imagined.

But isn’t it ironic that when it came to my own writing, I failed to understand that each of us perceives the ideas and concepts on the page in front of us through our own prejudices, ideology, upbringing, and other elements that make us individuals?

Imagine the hubris it takes to believe that, as the author, your perspective on what you mean is really what counts, and that any notions to the contrary are examples of poor reading skills or worse? That has been the delusion I have been operating under these many years. And while there are almost certainly times when people are incapable of understanding my intent, I suspect that for most who pass through the doors of this web portal, they glean the essence of my thoughts through the same personal prism that I use when reading others.

Now, it may very well be that one of the reasons this is so is that I am not always crystal clear in imparting exactly what I want to say in my writings. My wordy wanderings have great need of an editor, and I really do appreciate those who make an effort to understand my intent, my meaning. I realize this is not always possible, but insofar as my efforts to be precise in my criticism fail, I shouldn’t go off the deep end excoriating someone who may or may not have understood what I was trying to say through no fault of their own.

I don’t know why this is hitting me now, except that my post yesterday was criticized roundly by many conservatives who, in my estimation, missed the point of what I was trying to say. If the criticism had been grouped around one, general theme, I probably wouldn’t have given it a second thought. But in both the comments to the post, and criticism on other blogs, there was wild divergence in what readers found wrong with what I wrote.

Again, it may very well be that my skills as a writer are deficient to the point that the piece was incoherent to most. I know what I was trying to say but hardly anyone picked up on it - even if they agreed with it! Hence, I was struck with the thought that the reason this is so is because either 1) the piece was poorly written and inadequately reasoned in its arguments and conclusions; or 2) the piece was viewed through the personal prism we all use to process what we read and each perceived my arguments in a different reality.

It could be argued that some of both conclusions were at play - something I am incapable of judging to any degree of certainty. But even if it was more of #1 than #2, I still think I have literally stumbled across a truth that writers ignore at peril to authentically understanding the essence of their craft; perception and reality is in the eye of the beholder.

Or, more poetically:

“Beauty is truth, truth beauty,” - that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.’

What is it that possesses certain conservatives to fool themselves so spectacularly into believing that they can create a majority out of a minority?

That kind of alchemy hasn’t been seen since Nostradamus tried to turn lead into gold. In the case of far right conservatives who think that they can turn their meager numbers into a ruling majority all by themselves, the disconnect from reality would normally call for an intervention - except they reject anything from anybody who doesn’t agree with them 100%. Nor can they seem to grasp complex political realities that would complicate their simplistic, ignorant view that their idea of what constitutes a “conservative” reigns supreme all across the land.

The recent Gallup poll showing that 40% of Americans see themselves as “conservative” was leapt upon by these morons as “proof” that their brand of anarcho-conservatism dominates the political landscape. Would that it were true. The fact that there are a dozen different definitions of “conservative” depending on where you live doesn’t seem to penetrate. And the pogrom they wish to carry out against “moderates” who agree with them on 90% of the issues they hold dear but fail their ever more spastic “litmus tests” guarantees Democratic dominance for the foreseeable future.

Why the name calling? Why the harsh, unyielding language? Because I too, believe this country is in enormous trouble. But the way the base is going about trying to overcome the political deficit that George Bush and his cronies placed the Republican party will only lead to permanent minority status for conservatives. In truth, the gloating being done on the far right over the ravaging of Scozzafava has led to a belief that the template used to stick it to the establishment in NY23 can be grafted on to other districts where “RINO’s” are running - GOP incumbents be damned.

The RNC, the NRCC, and other conservatives like Newt Gingrich erred in trying to foist a liberal Republican onto the people of the 23rd congressional district. On this, we can all agree. But when I read bullsh*t like this, a cold chill goes up my spine:

This showed just how bad things have become. The Republican Party has been hijacked. Conservatives have been driven underground by the RINOs and the DIABLOs (Democrats in all but label only). This leftish creep was insidious until we got clubbed over the head when the ultra liberal media picked our presidential candidate — the Gang of 14 tool John McCain.

We all sucked it up. We went along. We embraced the ticket in the spirit of AROO — (any Republican over Obama) — and we held our noses until Sarah Palin came along. Ah, just a spoonful of Sarah helped the medicine go down.

But now it’s time to clean house. Newt and his ilk will be relegated to the dustbin of history, and deservedly so. Enough with the old, in with the true!

A couple of hundred thousand conservatives fill up the mall on September 12 and Geller thinks conservatives have been “driven underground?” What kind of utter nonsense is that? Geller is a full throated member of the Anti-Reason Conservatives - those who reject reality in favor of persecution complexes, wildly exaggerated hyperbole, and a frightening need for vengeance against their imagined “enemies” - despite the fact that those imagined foes agree with them on virtually everything they think they stand for.

The idea that Newt Gingrich should be “relegated to the dustbin of history” - a not uncommon sentiment I’ve read over the past week - demonstrates a determined refusal to objectively analyze the political realities of the unique situation in NY23 and deliberately remain ignorant of the consequences that would have accrued if the Republican party had failed to support the Republican candidate in the district.

A good case can be made that Gingrich especially could have kept his mouth shut about conservatives rightly gravitating to Hoffman. His petulance with national conservatives who sought to replace the liberal Scozzafava with a more palatable choice was uncalled for and further demonstrates his unfitness for the presidency.

But kick him out of the party? Marginalize one of the only public intellectuals on the right who can speak to a broad cross section of America with authority and credibility? Perhaps that’s Newt’s real problem; the anti-intellectualism on the far right that sees any independent thinking deviating from their worldview as suspect. Or perhaps it’s just the idea that Gingrich, through his years of service to the conservative and Republican causes, has become a part of the establishment and hence, a target.

Who do these louts think the party establishment should have supported in NY23? There would have been no real difference if the DC Republicans had supported Hoffman or the Democrat Owens over Scozzafava. The result would have been exactly the same; the national party spitting in the face of local Republican organizations who chose Scozzafava - regardless of her admitted liberalism and regardless of whether her candidacy was rammed through by powerful New York state GOP bigwigs.

The pragmatism demonstrated by the national Republicans in giving Scozzafava the support they felt necessary for her to win is lost on the ideologues who can’t seem to wrap their heads around the idea that majorities are crafted by addition, not subtraction. Scozzafava would have been a beastly congresswoman, as unreliable a Republican vote on the issues as could be imagined. But Congress is governed as much by procedure as it is ideas, and when the whip is cracked by the leadership, she probably would have been with the party most of the time.

In effect, the base is criticizing the Republican establishment for acting like a political party and not a college debating society. The advantage of belonging to the latter is that you can pick and choose members based on whatever subjective criteria you wish. Don’t like the cut of a man’s suit or women with red hair? Fine. But don’t apply your ridiculous litmus tests to a political party trying to fashion a majority.

If you wish to deny membership into your ever shrinking club of “true” conservatives to those who you think don’t live up to your narrow, parochial, rigid definition, that is your problem. But if you care one whit about the United States of America, you would swallow your excessively ideological outlook on politics, take off the blinders, and realize that a party made up of lockstep righties who think like you is not only impossible, but the effort to realize that goal would be monumentally stupid.

The childish view that most of the base has of what it takes to turn politics into a governing majority would be amusing if they weren’t so obstructive in realizing that goal for the GOP. And even if Hoffman goes down to defeat, the wrong lessons - as usual - will be drawn from the effort to elect him. Sending the establishment a message to work harder to find and support good conservative candidates who can win in different regions of the country is one thing. That is an effort worth making, and I applaud activists who are seeking to send that message to the powers that be.

But sending the message to not only seek out conservatives for office but also replace those who fall short of being “true” conservatives in the estimation of the base is loony. It is this kind of gunslinging that guarantees a Democratic majority. It would be a huge waste of resources to attempt such madness. But that is the goal of many in the base who can’t stand the thought of “moderates” calling themselves “Republican.”

I believe in party reform. I believe the GOP should be a friendly place for conservatives - however they define that label. I believe that good conservatives should be running the Republican party and the conservative movement.

But above all of that, I believe in victory. And if that is not paramount in your mind, then you might as well switch parties and vote for the Democrat.

WHAT ANTI-REASON CONSERVATIVES? WHERE?

Bill Quick:

All you need to do to keep track of the thinking in the credentialist, careerist (yes, that describes Moran to a tee - he’s been trolling for some sort of DC establishment GOP job for, like, ever) nuthouse wing of the faux GOP, is read Rick Moran - or as much of him as you can stand to swallow without retching.

I wouldn’t drum anybody out of the party over abortion (though it isn’t my issue) or gay rights, (which I’ve supported for ages), but I would like to see these phony Republicans and fake conservatives remove themselves to the party that mirrors their views.

As to the charge that I want a job in DC - been there, done that and have absolutely no desire to go back. Obviously, Mr. Slowwitted believes DC is the destination of choice for people who wish to make a living writing about politics. For a fellow who never tires of telling us (it’s on his blog’s masthead) that he coined the term “blogosphere,” he seems not to have heard of the internet. This marvelous invention makes working from the comfortable confines of my office here in Streator, Illinois (”Smack dab in the middle of Middle America”) for companies located in California a pleasant reality.

No matter. Quick, like most of the excessively ideological, rabid right, didn’t bother to read what I wrote and simply spouted that I was horrified at the prospects of “conservatives finally asserting themselves in the party that ostensibly claims to represent them.” That must have been in the bits I edited out because I don’t see me writing that anywhere in this particular post, nor do I agree with that notion generally. In fact, lo and behold, there is this:

Sending the establishment a message to work harder to find and support good conservative candidates who can win in different regions of the country is one thing. That is an effort worth making, and I applaud activists who are seeking to send that message to the powers that be.

I dunno, Bill. Sounds like I approve of “conservatives asserting themselves,” but what the fu*k do I know? I’m only the writer.

Quick suggests I change the name of my site. Before I do that, perhaps he should change his to “Idiot Child Pundit” since he gibbers like a two year old without making any sense about anything.