Bill Whittle in Newport Beach!

I have College Day at LBCC in the morning, so a big write up will have to wait. Note for now that the Newport Beach event was intimate and informative. Bill Whittle is a captivating speaker, very scholarly and counterintuitive on a number of points. And host Mike Munzing was welcoming and the guests energized and engaged. Great food too. More later!

Conservative Happy Hour with Bill Whittle

Okay, I'm heading out to the Bill Whittle event, in Newport Beach.



I'm sure he'll have a bang up presentation, given all that's been in the news just this last week. And for questions and answers, I'll be interested to see if he has an emendation to his optimistic take on American exceptionalism, seen here, in part, at his outstanding video presentation: "Bill Whittle's Firewall: 'What We Believe, Part 7: American Exceptionalism."

And tune back in here later tonight for a report and more regular blogging!

Tania Gail Interviewed on 'The Snark Factor'

With Fingers Malloy, "Snark Factor 103 with Tania Gail."



Scroll forward at the audio embed to about 7 minutes, seriously.

Newsweek Publishes 'Queen of Rage' Hit-Piece Cover Shot of Michele Bachmann

Go check Michelle Malkin's report, "The Conservative Crazy Eyes Cliche & Other Stupid MSM Photo Tricks."

She's got a larger image of this wild --- and wildly inappropriate --- cover photograph of Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann. The key passage:

Rep. Bachmann is unabashedly conservative, willing to take both parties’ leaders to task, passionate about her work, popular with grass-roots activists on the Right, committed to reining in the size, scope, and power of government, and yes, expressive. For all this, she must be destroyed.

Also:

Disseminating unflattering photos of conservatives isn’t journalism. It’s Alinskyite narrative-shaping.

This comes of course as Michele Bachmann has rocketed to frontrunner status in Iowa. See Rasmussen Reports, "Iowa Caucus: Bachmann, Romney and Paul on Top." The poll samples likely causcus participants and has a 4-point margin of error. It's looking good for Bachmann.



RELATED: At the Other McCain, "Liberal Head-Explosion Warning VIDEO: Michele Bachmann Testifies for Jesus."

Ross Douthat, Political Scientist

Douthat draws on political science research at New York Times, "Waiting For a Landslide." And for a second I thought he'd blow it, because "realignment theory," which he discusses, hasn't accurately explained, much less predicted, partisan trends for decades. But Douthat adds this, which is just right:

In reality, the next election may be no more transformative than 2008 turned out to be. The next Republican president may find himself as hemmed in and frustrated as President Obama has become. Meanwhile, America will still have a credit rating to fix, and a deficit to close.

More at that link at top, and Douthat had a great piece a few days ago on the debt deal, "The Liberals’ Dilemma." Note especially:

... American liberalism risks becoming a victim of its own longstanding strategy’s success. Because yesterday’s liberals insisted on making universal programs the costly core of the modern welfare state, on the famous theory that “programs for the poor become poor programs,” today’s liberals find themselves defending those universal (and therefore universally-popular) programs at the expense of every other kind of government spending — including, yes, programs for the poor. It’s a classic example of putting liberal political interests ahead of liberal policy priorities. In the short term, the insistence on ring-fencing Medicare and Social Security has left Democrats defending a system that often just ends up redistributing money from the younger middle class to the older middle class while accepting caps on programs that might do more (both directly and indirectly) to help downscale Americans get ahead. In the long term, by postponing any reckoning with the cost of entitlements, it’s making it more likely that the inevitable crunch will hit the poorest recipients of Medicare and Social Security harder than it should.

Read that whole thing. Basically, progressives will never cut entitlements because gargantuan socialist welfare states form the core of socialist existentialism.



Douthat's coming of his own as a New York Times columnist, by the way. He had cold feet or something after leaving The Atlantic, but he's been more consistent in posting some excellent commentary of late.

John Kerry: Media Should Not Give Time to Tea Party

The left's elitist fallback position is authoritarianism and suppression of dissent, but you knew that already.

At The Blaze, "JOHN KERRY: MEDIA HAS ‘RESPONSIBILITY’ TO ‘NOT GIVE EQUAL TIME’ TO TEA PARTY." Also at Memeorandum.

Republicans Seeking Election Remain Unsure About Embracing Tea Party

Well, perhaps I would too if half the political establishment had branded me a terrorist.

At New York Times:

WASHINGTON — The success of Tea Party-backed lawmakers in defining the terms of the debt debate in Washington has further cemented the party’s identity as part of a conservative movement insistent on deep spending cuts, lower taxes and smaller government.

But as Republican candidates gear up for 2012, many are struggling with whether to embrace those passions. Opposing the debt ceiling increase and linking arms with the Tea Party may help candidates tap into a reservoir of energy in their party’s electorate. But it also threatens to alienate the candidates from independent voters who grimaced at the bickering in Washington this summer and preferred greater compromise on issues like tax increases.

“The process didn’t please anyone,” said Whit Ayres, a Republican pollster, “but it was very clear that the new congressmen elected in 2010 dramatically shifted the debate from how much more shall we spend to how much shall we cut.”

In the coming 2012 elections, the strategic calculation for Republican candidates weighing Tea Party ties “depends on the state, depends on the politician and it depends on the particular race,” Mr. Ayres said.

Sounds fair enough. And in states like California, 0bviously, a Republican's more likely to run as a moderate. And even then you can narrow it down to individual constituencies. At the national level, the piece discusses the presidential contenders, and quotes Michele Bachmann, who dissed the budget deal and asserts that President Obama has failed the test of leadership. Hey, sing it baby!

A Tea Party Triumph

This is why the New York Times editors are so pissed off.

At Wall Street Journal:

If a good political compromise is one that has something for everyone to hate, then last night's bipartisan debt-ceiling deal is a triumph. The bargain is nonetheless better than what seemed achievable in recent days, especially given the revolt of some GOP conservatives that gave the White House and Democrats more political leverage.

***

The big picture is that the deal is a victory for the cause of smaller government, arguably the biggest since welfare reform in 1996. Most bipartisan budget deals trade tax increases that are immediate for spending cuts that turn out to be fictional. This one includes no immediate tax increases, despite President Obama's demand as recently as last Monday. The immediate spending cuts are real, if smaller than we'd prefer, and the longer-term cuts could be real if Republicans hold Congress and continue to enforce the deal's spending caps.

I've been really thinking about that this last few days. So much of current political dealmaking in the end depends on who wins in November 2012 and beyond. Republicans positioned themselves well for the upcoming campaign, and with 1.3 percent GDP growth and unemployment sticky at 9.2 percent, there's lots of reason for the Times to be even more pissed. It's another case of projection, of course. Progressives are mad. So they lash out, despite their own home-grown failures. Keep an eye out this week for more heated rhetoric from the left. Republicans might stock up on some choice quotes to run later in political ads. Democrats are really sore at losing this round, all the more so since their strategy of do-nothing obstructionism turned out to be a disaster. And we've got a presidential election as on the ballot as well. Boy, things are shaping up very well for the reviled teabaggers conservatives.

Mick Jagger's Conservative Side

Another progressive rock icon comes out as conservative. At CSM, "Mick Jagger: closet conservative?" (via Instapundit):

Tea Party Terrorists?

The partisan rhetoric is already over the top, but slamming conservative Republicans as "terrorists" is beyond the pale. William Yeomans, at Politico, is not cool: "The tea party's terrorist tactics" (via Memeorandum).

It has become commonplace to call the tea party faction in the House “hostage takers.” But they have now become full-blown terrorists.

They have joined the villains of American history who have been sufficiently craven to inflict massive harm on innocent victims to achieve their political goals. A strong America has always stood firm in the face of terrorism. That tradition is in jeopardy, as Congress and President Barack careen toward an uncertain outcome in the tea party- manufactured debt crisis.

This guy is talking about the GOP's elected representatives in Congress, and this is after Anders Behring Breivik, a real terrorist, killed dozens in Norway. And this is also while Army Private Nasser Jason Abdo, and antiwar leftist, is being arraigned in Texas and could face federal terrorism charges. But Yoemans isn't the only one. Idiot Washington Monthly columnist Steve Benen is slamming GOP members as "the suicide squad", and Little Boy Ezra at Washington Post is bemoaning the GOP's aversion to compromise, saying this reflects badly on John Boehner.

It's to be expected, I guess. So, let's hear it from the other side, from Byron York, "In debt fight, Dems reject Republican compromise":

House Speaker John Boehner has introduced two bills that would raise the nation's debt ceiling and end the current default crisis. The first, known as "Cut, Cap and Balance," was tabled by Senate Democrats without an up-or-down vote. The second, Boehner's plan to cut more than $900 billion in federal spending and raise the debt ceiling by a slightly smaller amount, could face a similar fate if it first passes the House ...

While Obama preaches the virtues of compromise, his Democratic allies and surrogates are bashing Republicans for rejecting what the White House characterizes as earnest, good-faith efforts to find common ground. "I hope that Speaker Boehner and [Minority] Leader McConnell will reconsider their intransigence," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said a few days ago. "Their unwillingness to compromise is pushing us to the brink of a default." (At the same time, Reid has been issuing absolute, inflexible statements like, "I will not support any short-term agreement.")

But the fact is, the Republicans who admitted defeat on "Cut, Cap and Balance" showed a unmistakable willingness to compromise. "The president has asked us to compromise," House Minority Leader Eric Cantor said Thursday afternoon. "We have compromised."

RELATED: At New York Times, "House Passes Boehner’s New Debt Plan."

Tea Party Targets Boehner

At Fox News, "Tea Party Activists Revolt Against Boehner Amid Debt Crisis."

And see Judson Phillips, at Washington Post, "Why the Tea Party is unyielding on the debt ceiling."

BONUS: Michelle Malkin, "Rancor on the Right: Of elephants and asses."

Afterburner with Bill Whittle: 'SHOOTER ONE-THREE'

Bill Whittle's a good man. And this is an excellent clip (via Instapundit):

Republicans Have a Shot at Winning the Youth Vote

According to Marget Hoover, at Wall Street Journal, "How the GOP Can Win Young Voters":

As the Republican field jockeys for position in the 2012 presidential primaries, it is no surprise to hear the candidates trying to bolster their authority by invoking the name of Ronald Reagan. Yet one critical demographic group will not automatically respond to Reagan's name: Young voters of the millennial generation, so named because they are the first to come of age in the new millennium.

The oldest members of this generation were just 8 years old when Reagan left office, so Republican candidates can't assume that invoking his name will win them over. But the eventual Republican nominee should strive to emulate the Gipper by finding a way to connect conservatism to this rising generation of voters.

Reagan brought an entire generation to the Republican Party in 1980, and in 1984 he won the youth vote by 20%. The GOP needs this kind of revolution again if it hopes to recapture the White House and create a sustained majority.

RTWT.

I think she makes a good case. And youth recruitment should be toward conservative values more generally, which are under assault by the armies of progressive pop culture nihilism.

And Hoover, who is the great-granddaugher of former President Herbert Hoover, has a new book out, which makes the case for capturing young people for the right: American Individualism: How a New Generation of Conservatives Can Save the Republican Party.

Gang of Six

At WSJ, "The Gang of Six Play: A conceptual breakthrough that has too few details."

Grand bipartisan budget deals are one of the great come-ons of Washington politics. They rarely work out, and when they do they usually benefit only the political class. The latest offer from the so-called Gang of Six Senators might be an exception, if—and this is a big if—its inviting generalities can be matched by useful details.

The budget outline—that's all it is so far—promises some $3.7 trillion in deficit reduction that includes rewriting the tax code, reforming entitlements, stabilizing the national debt, freezing domestic spending and rewriting federal budget rules—all in a handy seven pages of talking points. Senate committee chairmen would have wide latitude to write the new laws as they see fit. Anyone up for Max Baucus rewriting the tax code?

***
That said, the outline from the three Republicans (including Oklahoma conservative Tom Coburn) and three Democrats is different from most other such offers because it combines spending cuts with reform that would lower tax rates. Most Beltway budget deals combine immediate tax increases with the promise of future spending cuts that somehow never occur. They enhance Washington's claim on the nation's private resources. This deal has promise because it would reduce that claim.

Continue reading.

Also at NYT, "How ‘Gang of Six’ Revived Idea of Grand Debt Deal." And, "Bipartisan Plan for Budget Deal Buoys President."

And then, from James Capretta, at National Review, "The Gang of Six Disaster: The Worst Plan So Far,"In short, the Gang of Six has essentially offered a plan in which Republicans would hand over control of the budget process to Democratic senators and hope for the best. Enough said." And from Keith Hennessey, "Why I oppose the Gang of Six plan." (via Memeorandum).

James O'Keefe Uncovers Medicaid Fraud

At Daily Caller, "New O’Keefe investigation uncovers Medicaid fraud [VIDEO]."

Also at Hot Air, "O’Keefe’s latest sting target: Medicaid bureaucrats."

And at O'Keefe's website, "Project Veritas Investigates: Medicaid."

End of Blogging?

The question's only slightly rhetorical.

John Hawkins tweeted last night, and he got me thinking:

The right side of the political blogosphere is dying. I don't think anything smaller than say 50k views a day will be relevant in 5 years.

I was, well, "Hmm ... I don't know ..."

I'd just seen Glenn Reynolds post on this the other day, and he linked to Technology Review, "Google+ Marks the End of Blogging as a Means of Personal Expression." I'd read that earlier, so I Googled, and came up with Felix Salmon's, "Is blogging dead?" There's an interview with The Atlantic's Alexis Madrigal, and both Salmon and Madrigal stress the same point: Independent, single-author blogs are a dying breed:

... old-fashioned single-person blogs are largely a thing of the past, with the exception of enthusiastic practitioners in the fields they write about, be it banking or science or anything else. And those people normally blog independently, rather than as part of an old- or new-media company.

I've been blogging for 5 and a half years. I'm averaging probably 2,500 visitors a day, the majority of those through search. I don't have a large commentariat, for various reasons, not the least of which is that progressives trolls ruined the threads. But I keep plugging away because I enjoy it for me. I get my news and entertainment from blogging, and I have enough of a core readership to get feedback and encouragement to keep it up. Besides, I don't trust the MSM most of the time, so I feel an obligation to keep going, for the public good, however marginal my contribution might be.

In any case, I checked my blog ranking at Technorati. I'm still in the top 100 of political blogs, which surprised me. At one point American Power was ranked #40 at Technorati, and for a while I was in the top 50 at Wikio (I'm #94 now). Doug Ross recently ranked my blog #100 in the conservative blogosphere.

Blog rankings generally reflect the volume of incoming links, i.e., how many other blogs are linking to you. But it seems as though it's gotten more difficult to stay ranked, although the traffic has improved over the years, through search and through greater opportunities for networking and marketing. That said, change is in the air. I'm thinking about a Wordpress switch-over soon, transforming American Power into a more sleek, professional blog. I'm also thinking of soliciting a team of bloggers, people who share my ideological goals and a desire to expand the blog into a multi-media portal and neoconservative repository.

Anyway, I tweeted John Hawkins back and he said he was going to work up a post based on that earlier tweet. And he did: "The Slow, Painful Coming Death Of The Independent, Conservative Blogosphere." There's a lot of wisdom there, for example:

The market has ... become much more professionalized. When I got started, back in 2001, a lone blogger who did 3-4 posts a day could build an audience. Unless your name is Ann Coulter, you probably couldn’t make that strategy work today.

Instead, most successful blogs today have large staffs, budgets, and usually, the capacity to shoot traffic back and forth with other gigantic websites. Look at Redstate, which is tied into Human Events, Hot Air which connected with Townhall, Instapundit, which [is] a part of Pajamas Media, Newsbusters which is a subsidiary of the Media Research Center and other monster entities like National Review and all of its blogs, Glenn Beck’s The Blaze, and the Breitbart media empire. An independent blogger competing with them is like a mom & pop store going toe-to-toe with Wal-Mart. Some do better than others, but over the long haul, the only question is whether you can survive on the slivers of audience they leave behind. This plays into #5.

Go read the rest.

John's got a couple of suggestions, and I'm going to be working on integrating those into my blogging soon.

Stay tuned.