E!!

Two years and one week later, I return to the scene of the crime. It’s time to dig up old bones and resurrect the blog that was. I’ll bring you news and commentary, criticism and snark, kudos and can-you-believe-its on Nevada, the nation and parts yet unknown. You will bookmark the page and visit religiously, always wondering what you will find. It will be a love affair for the ages, Dear Readers. Walk with me and let’s see where it goes.

They must be getting desperate.

Why else would the White House post the following blurb at whitehouse.gov:

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care.  These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation.  Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

Let’s re-cap.

Emails.  And casual conversations.  And stuff on the web.  That are “fishy.”  Should be flagged.  And emailed to the White House.  So they can keep track of them.  And combat “disinformation.”

Oooo-KAY.

Since when, and based on what precedent, does a sitting President ask American citizens to report on their fellow citizens in regards to political speech? Has the White House staff lost their senses?  Is the Teleprompter drunk?

The audacity of the request is eclipsed only by its foolishness. Trying to control information – or disinformation – on the web is like trying to herd a million cats. You can’t do it.

And if you’re the White House, you shouldn’t be trying.

I guess this “flag the fishy” idea was dreamt up by the same geniuses who thought it was wise to call concerned Townhall attendees an “angry mob” spouting “manufactured information” when they dared to show up and ask tough questions about health care reform.

People like the woman who asked her congressman, “How can you manage health care when you can’t manage Cash for Clunkers?”

Or the elderly woman who asked her congressman if HE was going to be on the new health care plan.

Yeah, these people are just totally unhinged.

Our elected officials must find it SO annoying to have to deal with these pesky citizens and their annoying questions.

(Iowahawk embellishes with his usual brilliance.)

For all you online media and blog and journalism geeks, this is an interesting post.

It resonates with me because I always click source links, read the “About,” and check to see who is paying the bills before I assess the “objectivity” of something I read online.

Do you?

My new AZ-based blogger-friend Rachel Alexander was in L.A. for the Heritage Resource Bank and AFP and ATR events last week.  She wrote about some of it here.

I’m mentioned about 3/4 of the way down, along with the snark-lovely (snovely?) E.M. Zanotti and my new friend and reigning Twitter Queen Melissa Clouthier.

Also mentioned are new pals Eric Telford, Jon Fleischman, Todd Thurman and old pals at ATR.

Not mentioned is Twitter King Stephen Kruiser who has a great blog. And who also does a daily show for RFC Radio. And who has also been appearing on Pajamas Media TV lately.  And who has been invited to appear on FNC’s Red Eye. He was invited the day time conference but mostly hung out after hours and kept us laughing.  (Rising Star Alert!)

It would take half a day to create a complete Who’s Who list of who was there last week.  So I won’t.  But I will say this:

I was encouraged to hear so much talk – in lectures, on panels, in workshops, and after hours – about New Media and blogging and their place in the conservative movement.

My first mantra for the two-days can be summed up as this: 

Conservative organizations need to pony up and budget money for Technology and New Media both internally and as part of their overall communications plan.  We can talk about citizen-activists and grassroots efforts all we want – and volunteerism is powerful – but a lot of the things we need to accomplish cost money because they require significant time + intense labor. 

The Left is already spending millions on online marketing and activism; the Right is still behind.

(Note to my blogger buddies:  I’m going to see if I can get my hands on a few of Alex Castellanos‘ PowerPoint slides from Thursday so I can try to post some blurbs.  If anyone knows him personally, help a girl out.)

Mantra Two: 

Figure out some new messaging some of the time.  There’s a huge demographic of conservatives (ages 18 to 49) who passionately believe in our principles but who do not fit the stereotype.  

They are Middle Americans.  They work and live regular lives.  They budget and pay their bills and save a little.  And expect their government to do the same.  They don’t go to conservative leadership conferences.  They don’t read National Review.  They rarely (if ever) wear a tie.  They own guns and would use them if needed.  They’re pro-military, pro-defense, and pro-kill-the-SOB’s-before-they-kill-us-first.  They live life enthusiastically and at times a little irreverently. They love rock-n-roll or sh*t-kickin’ country music. They hate political correctness.  They love the flag.  They spend time with their kids and then send ‘em to bed so they can watch their DVR’d TV shows, read their news online, and watch South Park.  They laugh at (and make) off color remarks. They listen to RFC Radio.  They are tired of conservatives who are not Conservatives and Republicans who are really Democrats.  They are tired of being mocked and pigeon-holed and they really don’t give a damn about people in Washington D.C.

If you’re a movement person or organization, you should be asking yourself:  “How do I reach these folks?”

Write-ups of and photos from The Sammies will prob’ly start to surface today; I’ll post links here as I find them.

Here’s a nice piece and a couple of photos from Illinois Review (that’s me on the far left, next to Mary Katherine Ham).

And here’s Warner Todd Huston’s write-up.  (How on earth did I miss talking to WTH?!  Darn it!!)

Here’s Bob Weeks’ blurbs at Kansas Meadowlark.  Including mention that Joe “the Plumber” Wurzelbacher presented me with my award.

Since I don’t have an agent or a PR department, I have no choice but to shamelessly promote myself (see award #4).  I think there is a blog badge or button coming at some point; I’ll proudly post it here when it arrives.

If you’re in the Chicago area (or want an excuse to be) and would like to attend the awards banquet and ceremony on April 18, click here for tickets.  Presenters and VIP guests include Michelle Malkin, John Fund, Stephen Moore, Mary Katherine Ham, Paul Jacob, and Joe the Plumber (yes, really!)

A quote in honor of Sam Adams, the namesake of the award:

“It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate and tireless minority keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”

The award-bestowing Sam Adams Alliance is a 501(c)(3) “To Do Tank” based in Chicago.  They educate, inform, and empower citizens about important political issues through New Media tools (blogs, wikis, Google groups, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc.)  Among other things, they created Blogivists:  the platform/server upon which this blog was started.

*

I do realize this isn’t the Grammys and that the Thank Yous are the most boring part of any awards event…but in addition to a general “thanks” to my readers and fellow bloggers, I would like to specifically acknowledge a few people for their support of this blog:

So, about that CPAC speech and the subsquent dust-ups over Rush Limbaugh.

Rahm Emanuel and Robert Gibbs’ comments were obviously calculated.  Declaring Rush the de facto leader of the GOP put every elected Republican on the spot.  To agree was to admit taking your talking points from a radio talk show host.  To disagree and disparage Rush was to alienate his twenty-two million listeners, as Michael Steele so handily did on CNN.  Why so few Republicans went the obvious third way – giving Rush his just due as one of our country’s strongest, loudest traditional conservative voices while also pointing out that he is not running for office (or running the RNC) – is a mystery.

Unfortunately, some conservatives failed to love-their-neighbor and even went as far as to accuse Rush of being “bad” for the Republican party.  And many of the anti-Limbaugh comments were harsh.  David Frum got particularly personal and nasty, and I like him the less for it.  Why is Frum so concerned with policing conservative talk radio?  Is he now the self-appointed Roger Ebert of the airwaves?  Frankly, I find it silly that Frum would even enter the fray.  He made himself smaller in the process, and millions who had barely heard of him (and quite a few who had) now think he’s a royal jerk.

Some conservatives enjoy Limbaugh’s in-your-face style.  Not everyone does, and that’s fine.  It doesn’t burn a lot of calories to turn a radio dial.  As for Rush’s personal failings and struggles, we ought not to judge him by these things – lest we, too, be judged by our worst mistakes and most obvious flaws. 

What is important in the context of this intramural competition for The Party is that Rush is a (not “the”) star player who brings in the crowds.  He is unapologetically passionate re: his traditional, Constutionalist views; he swings his bat hard; and he is well loved for it.  At this point, there’s no doubt that El-Rushbo’s personality and following are Babe Ruth big.  His three hours a day on the field does far more good than harm for the conservative cause, if only to please the fans by kicking some dirt on the shiny shoes of an obviously biased referee:  the mainstream liberal media.

He ain’t high fallutin’, but I see no crime in that, nor any harm to The Party.  To my mind, and the minds of many conservatives with whom I talk from week to week, there is no real party at present. Indeed, while we argue amongst ourselves over What Happens Now, it seems to me that Rush is the glue holding together nearly half this country’s post-election conservative voters when they might otherwise have gone their separate ways in rank disgust.  As for the other half, if they want the reform and moderation the two Davids – Frum and Brooks – are selling, and if they like the pretty package it’s wrapped in, let ‘em have it.

For many of us, cow-towing to creeping social progressivism and big bureaucracy, advocating compromise on core conservative principles that must be unbending if they are to mean anything, and “reforming the message” by echoing White House attacks on widely-liked conservative personalities are vices far worse than any Rush has yet displayed – and are far more harmful to The Party.

.

A few readers have commented, some publicly and some privately, that they (1) found this post pretty funny, and (2) were a little shocked to learn that I am not always completely proper.  Or nice.  Some, like Local So-and-So, say they are a little annoyed to find they’ve needlessly been minding their manners around me.

I usually don’t use profanity because in general I’d rather emphasize points with clever phrasing and well-placed modifiers (adverbs and adjectives, for all you non-grammarians).  Once in a blue cheese moon, though, some sarcasm, irreverence and a curse word or three can come in quite handy.  A nice little Rant gets the blood flowing and lets off steam, and I think that’s fine – as long as Ranting does not become a habit.  (Then it just becomes tiresome.)

Occasionally something really rubs me the wrong way – like my daytime employer repeatedly pressuring me, and all its employees, to contact Congress and support their industry-related agenda, which as a conservative is not MY agenda.  I think it’s highly presumptuous and improper and possibly even in violation of some sort of employment law and have thus refused to comply.  And yesterday I had a little fun with my outrage.

In general, in terms of manners and rules here on E!!, I don’t mind a little “color” but don’t want any deliberate, personalized nasty-ness.  I do realize color is in the eye of the beholder, of course.

For an idea of what I find brilliant and loveable in terms of sarcasm, satire and the like, see Iowahawk.  He is one of our great modern-day scribes:  smart, scathing, derisive, outrageous, and funny like few can be.  His recent Senora Kennedy post had me laughing so hard and so long that my stomach ached and I had to pee.  (There is no higher praise when it comes to funny.)

I don’t claim to be living in the same comic galaxy as Iowahawk, and wouldn’t be silly enough to try to get there in my cute little cardboard rocketship.  Comic geniuses are like albinos:  very rare, and born (not made).  I admire Iowahawk from afar and despite the line he walks and often crosses, I am never offended.  In my book, funny covers a multitude of sins.

Anyway, for those who were shocked or disappointed by my letter, be assured that things like that are rare here on E!! – and know that your kind pardon, if granted, is appreciated.

Well, I am not personally acquainted with Leslie Carbone, but I’ve linked to her before and know she’s a true conservative, a very good writer, a prolific blogger and, perhaps most importantly, a Red Sox fan.

And I know she was abruptly and rather rudely disconnected from a White House conference call this week, after being invited by “The Office of Public Liason” to listen in on Barry Jackson, Assistant to the President for Strategic Initiatives and External Affairs.

She speculates that this post may be the reason she was banned.

Oh Yes, How DARE she tell the truth like that!

Seems to me the WH Liason office needs to do some decent Liasing – and at least apologize.

Beyond that, it really burns me that a few negative words about policy can get a blogger-journalist banned from WH conferences.

Please pass this on so it will spread like blogosfire.

(Hat Tip:  Blue Collar Muse)