Tuesday's column will build on my comments to Patrick Ruffini about the devastating Washington Post article highlighting the mediocrity of most conservative blogging.   Relax, a lot of liberal blogging isn't much to write home about either, but in general, it's significantly more effective than the conservative variety.  In many ways, I love Townhall.  Blogging here has been one of the most enjoyable and enlightening experiences of my life.  But TH could be much better than it is, both in the essays and in the blogs.  Unfortunately, it's becoming something like a giant electronic landfill in which there are rumored (correctly) to be treasures.  If only one could find them, which one usually can't, it would be a truly enriching experience.  Too much of the stuff that appears on the site is junk, including racist and sexist rants.  Does such nonsense really benefit the conservative movement?  Politics shouldn't be about repetitively expressing the pent-up hatreds of a lifetime.  Instead, it should be about finding practical ways to improve life in America.   Anyway, I'd love to hear your comments -- with an emphasis on how to make TH better. 



Monday: Patrick Ruffini of TH has a blog mentioning the A1 Washington Post article about how terrible conservative blogging is compared to, say, liberal blogging, which is a powerful force in the Democratic Party.  In the Republican Party, bloggers are regarded mainy as irritants.  The following is my comment to Patrick, which expresses my beliefs about why TH is about one-tenth as effective as it could be.  Comments welcome:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/20/AR2007052001408.html?hpid=topnewsI believe the Post article is very much on target. On the conservative side, we have nothing like the "Daily Kos," not even close.  It's a reflection of sloganeering dominating over any sort of serious analysis. 

I have a blog on Townhall.  I think it's very, very good.  It has had over 4600 visitors, and it will have a lot more in the future.  But it's good enough -- I'm a former writer for NR, AS, and even Fortune -- that it should be drawing 4600 people a day.  Where's the guidance on TH to enable that to happen? 

Instead, we get thousands of comments every day, most of them political nonsense fromm nativists and Ron Paul types.  It's a classic case of bad material driving away good people.

On TH, we get "featured" blogs where people haven't made an entry in weeks -- and haven't made a coherent, useful post in the blog's existence.  We also get blog promotions of TH-associated people who are not exactly up to standard yet. 

TH publishes essays that wouldn't have merited a C-minus in my freshman English classes.  Meanwhile, there's apparently no place for a distingusihed conservative like Jack Kelly (of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette), a man who would love to write for Townhall.  Instead, we get several people who recite various slogans apparently designed to energize the worst elements of the base. 

Any essay containing the word "feminists" or the term "gay agenda" is sure to be a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.  Too much pandering, too little pondering.

Trust me, there are many people out there capable of writing coherent, compelling prose.  Some of them (mostly women for some reason) are on TH, but many aren't.  Why not?

Instead, we have the ancient retainers, all of them much older than I am.  Some of them, like Bob Novak, haven't been conservatives for a generation or so, but here they are.  One elderly conservative worthy recently had a long article on the trusteeship issue at Dartmouth.  Pat Buchanan hasn't been a conservative -- he's a populist and nativist -- since my 20-year-old cat was a kitten.

No wonder so many people think we conservatives are a bunch of old-you-know-whats. 

My "bag" is coalition-building (click on my name to see).  I wrote an e-mail to the TH Coalitions Director, asking her if we could work together.  I never got a reply.  I mean who's in charge of this train wreck? 

TH's main appeal seems to be to people on Social Security (relax, I'm one) who are into the "What oft was thought, but neer so well expressed" mode.  Except they aren't all that great at expressing themselves.  Do we really want this to become an online version of a nursing home?

On the 4,000 blogs cited by TH.  Only about 90% of them are inactive.  Put them out of their misery please.

Thus, TH is supporting the wrong blogs, publishing the wrong people, and generally acting like the "Mitt for President" site.  These are not good qualities on a site that should going like gangbusters. 

Thanks for giving me the chance to complain.  The guy from the Post got it right -- sad to say.

My solution: Hire me to run the place.  Alternatively, hire somebody.

steve maloney
ambridge, pa 


OPPOSITION TO IMMIGRATION REFORM COLLAPSING

I urge my fellow conservatives to support the proposed Immigration Reform legislation.  People who’ve played a critical role in the modern conservative movement – including Michael Barone, Fred Thompson, Jack Kelly (conservative columnist and distinguished former Marine), Senator Jon Kyl, Senator John McCain, Senator Saxby Chambliss, Senator Jonny Isaacson, and Rep. Bobby Inglis (SC) – strongly support this legislation.  The alternative is not some fantasy bill that doesn't exist and never will.  Instead, it would mean the continuation of things as they are, which is unacceptable.  Worse than that, if no legislation passes this year, the next bill probably will be written by Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid.  

Do the right thing: support the proposal. 

In "Senate Immigration Bill is Progress" Townhall, May 21, 2007, Michael Barone says the following: 

“To regularize the flow [of immigrants], we also have to do something about the illegal immigrants already here. The bill, as I understand it, would provide them immediately with a chance to regularize their status without putting them on the road to citizenship. They would have to pay a fine and would be subject to deportation for criminal offenses, but if employer sanctions were known to be enforceable they would have an incentive to regularize.”

”Also, to get in line for a green card and citizenship, the head of household would have to return to the country of origin -- a "touchback" provision that was not in the bill passed by the Senate last May. In addition, we must do a better job of securing the border. Some opponents of this bill fasten on the provision that commits to building only 370 miles of the 700-mile border fence that Congress approved last year. But almost no one calls for a fence along all of the 2,000-plus mile border. I should think that the length of the fence to be built is negotiable.”

”The Kennedy-Kyl immigration compromise, now under attack from many conservatives and some liberals, attempts to steer the immigration ship in the direction of regularization, enforcement that actually works and toward skill-based rather than family-based immigration. At least if they get the details right.”


Fred Thompson’s Stand on Immigration Reform:  

”As recently as 2006, Mr. Thompson clearly stated that some sort of legalization — or "amnesty" — would be necessary. He seems to be for a virtual border fence (like President Bush) instead of a brick-and-mortar one. And he doesn't want tough sanctions for employers.”

This all puts Mr. Thompson roughly in line with Rudy Giuliani.

On a path to citizenship: "[B]ecause we allowed ourselves to wait until we woke up one day and found 12 million illegals here, there's no easy solution. And I think that you have to realize that you're either going to drive 12 million people underground permanently, which is not a good solution. You're going to get them all together and get them out of the country, which is not going to happen. Or you're going to have to, in some way, work out a deal where they can have some aspirations of citizenship, but not make it so easy that it's unfair to the people waiting in line and abiding by the law." (Fox News' "Hannity & Colmes," 4/3/06)

On the problems with cracking down on employers: "We haven't enforced the law, in terms of employers. … For 20 years, we've not enforced the law, and that's a part of the problem. You can't enforce it all on the backs of the employers. People falsify information that they give employers and all that. That's not a solution to the problem." (Fox News' "Hannity & Colmes," 4/3/06)

On his skepticism of a brick-and-mortar border fence: FOX's ALAN COLMES: "You don't put up a fence, either, do you? Is that bad neighbor policy, put a fence up?" THOMPSON: "If it would work. I mean, I don't know – that's a technical problem. In this day and age, I would not think you would have to use bricks and mortar to get that job done. But we ought to do everything that we can to get it done to the extent that we can and then, as I say, I think people would be willing to take a look at the rest of the problem, what we do with the problem that we created." (Fox News' "Hannity & Colmes," 4/3/06)

Steve Says:  We conservatives need to think long and hard about the fence.  Is it, as some people believe, a barrier version of the bridge to nowhere?   The big argument among conservatives seems to be that it should be 700-some miles rather than the proposed 371.  Gee, the border is TWO THOUSAND miles. 

The proper questions are:  (1) How much is the fence going to cost? (2) Is it going to work in cutting off the flow of immigrants? (3) How is it superior to other barriers – including electronic?  These very practical questions deserve answers. 

On enforcement first: "We woke up one day after years of neglect and apparently discovered that we have somewhere between 12 million and 20 million illegal aliens in this country. So it became an impossible situation to deal with. I mean, there's really no good solution. So what do you do? You have to start over. Well, I'm concerned about the next 12 million or 20 million. So that's why enforcement, and enforcement at the border, has to be primary." (Fox's "Fox News Sunday," 3/11/07)

On not rounding up illegal immigrants: "You know, if you have the right kind of policies, and you're not encouraging people to come here and encouraging them to stay once they're here, they'll go back, many of them, of their own volition, instead of having to, you know, load up moving vans and rounding people up. That's not going to happen." (Fox's "Fox News Sunday," 3/11/07)

URGENT RED STATE ALERT: DISTINGUISHED CONSERVATIVE JACK Kelly JOINS CAMPAIGN2008VICTORY IN BACKING PROPOSED IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION:

On Sunday), Jack Kelly, former Marine, former Army Ranger, former congressional candidate and America's outstanding conservative columnist, conditionally endorsed the proposed immigration legislation.  Kelly's comments include the following:

" . . . I think most of the illegal immigrants are decent, hard-working people who are an asset to this country, or would be if our policies weren't so screwed up.  I want the government to know who is in the country.  I want to keep out crooks and terrorists.  But I think it would be insane and immoral to try to throw all of these people out.  Most Americans agree with me.  A Gallup Poll in April indicates 78% of the American people think illegals presently in the country ought to be given a chance at citizenship. . . . I blame the duplicitous mush [that remains] in the Senate bill chiefly upon the anti-immigrant hardliners.  We could have had a comprehensive bill last year with serious enforcement provisions, but the [backward, anti-immigrant] wing of the Republican Party would countenance nothing that smacked of amnesty.  So now the Democrats call the shots." 

www.post-gazette.com/forum 


Steve Says:  There are tremendous implications to the proposed legislation.  If it passes, it basically brings to an end the presidential campaigns of Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo, who are largely one-issue candidates.  It would also insulate the Republican Party from charges of being anti-Hispanic, an absolute necessity if we’re to win future elections.  Finally, it revives the McCain candidacy – and also gives a boost to Giuliani.