Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Pajamas Media is capitalizing on its earlier coverage of the Tea Party movement and has launched Tea Party TV. As the PR release says, “Expanding on its coverage of the National Tea Party Convention last week, PJTV announced its launch of Tea Party TV, offering comprehensive coverage of the Tea Party movement. The cornerstone of the Tea Party TV coverage will be a twice-a-week Internet TV show hosted by Glenn Reynolds and AlfonZo Rachel, well-known commentators on PJTV. ” Since the original PR release, they’ve also added Dana Loesch to Reynolds and Rachel. It’s “the best way to stay informed about the Tea Party movement,” they claim.

So, what is it all, anyway? To answer that I chatted with Glenn Reynolds and we talked about all things Tea Party. Coming down from the stomach flu as he was, we still had a lively talk.

I asked Glenn what sort of future he saw for the tea parties and he said that he was an early booster of the movement even when folks like Roger Simon thought it was all a flash in the pan and would go nowhere. “I think it is the most genuine outbreak of popular grassroots political activism in my lifetime,” Reynolds said, “and so that’s a pretty big deal and I think it’s coming to a crucial time for the country as well.”

Reynolds told me that PJTV wanted to cover the Tea Party movement because the Old Media was doing its best to ignore the whole thing. He praised PJTV as being one of the few to “put eyes on what is the biggest thing politically that’s been going on” in the nation.

One of my worries about the Tea Party movement is that it just might suffer from being too widely diffused. I asked Glenn if he thought it might suffer from not having a few central figures that can be focused upon.

Reynolds:The thing I’ve learned from the internet is that you can accomplish a huge amount with searches of popular entries and you can get more from the Internet in a period of a few weeks to a few months with people who just sort of drop whatever they’re doing and get involved, than you can do in years or decades of professional organization, but I’ve also learned if you want somebody to stick on something and keep plugging, it helps to have somebody who’s paid to deliver it. And that obviously is something you aren’t going to have in a grassroots organization very much.

Keeping with the question of long-term effectiveness, I asked Reynolds how long he felt the movement would remain potent?

Reynolds: I think that it’s going to last through the next election and probably through the election after and what’s going to happen after that is, you know, a lot of the grassroots enthusiasm will fade but it’s going [to] fade and some people [will] just find something else to do which may be political or not. And on the other side of it, it’s going – people are going to leave the Tea Party movement and they’re going to run for office themselves, become cabinets themselves, become precinct chairman or county chairman or members of the state or national party committees and things like that. And you know, that’s what normally happens with grassroots movement if they’re successful, which is, that they become part of the mainstream.

But what of the supposed extremists in the Tea Party movement, I asked. Won’t that just introduce the wackos, as the left and the Old Media claims?

Reynolds: The New Left took the Democrats further away from the mainstream of the American public, its true. But I think the Tea Party is moving the Republicans more in line with the mainstream to the American Public, so it’s more likely to have productive effects.

There is no political movement that doesn’t [have] fringes, but compared to the new Black Panther Party which is getting kissy face from Eric Holder, compared with Bill Ayers, compared with Bernadine Dohrn, compared with Van Jones these are people at the core of the administration Democratic party today, the Tea Party has got no fringe at all.

I pointed out that the Old Media focuses on what they portray as the Tea Party extremists, but it ignores all the extremists always in attendance at the left’s protests. There are actual communists, anarchists, radical abortionists, even animal rights and enviro terrorists but you never see these whack-jobs in the news.

Reynolds: Well, when we had the anti-war protest in 2003, 2004 with the almost sole exception of David Korn at the nation, nobody was willing to point out that those movements were organized by people who are literally, not pejoratively, literally communists. David Korn was we talked about Answer and the Workers World Party and the people who are providing the organizational infrastructure for those big marches on Washington and he wrote about in the nation and in L.A. weekly but places like Washington Post and the New York Times pretended that these are just ordinary mom-and-pop types of middle America coming down. When they don’t give that kind of a treatment to the Tea Party, but that is because they are fundamentally dishonest in their reporting.

I brought up another one of my worries for the candidates that try to rely on Tea Party groups and that is money. The sad fact is that politics means spending money. I asked Glenn if he thought that the Tea Party groups could raise the money necessary to help a candidate they are supporting win an election?

Reynolds: There are three angles to the money front. Angle number one is that in many ways Tea Party activism is the substitute for cash, that is to say, you don’t have to pay people to go out and do yourself because Tea Party people will do it for free.

I read over 6000 people traveled in from out of state to work as volunteers for Scott Brown and you know, and so that’s as good as money and indeed a lot of the publicity, a lot of the support of the Tea Party people produce is far more valuable than paid political ads.

The second thing is that yes, they do raise money as you’ve seen, for example, in the Scott Brown money bombs and for that matter with some of the other fundraising efforts.

The third part is that the real impact of the Tea Party rule on money has in some sense been a dog who didn’t bark which is say since 2005, 2006 Republicans have had a hard time raising money from the grassroots. And those are, I think, the same Tea Party people who decided to quit giving to the Republican Party when they felt it wasn’t living up to it’s principles.

My next question was about candidates claiming to be “the Tea Party candidate.” I think it is a mistake for a candidate to claim this mantle because there are so many groups, no national organization, and therefore it is a bit disingenuous for a candidate to say “I am the Tea Party candidate.” Plus it seems that this could actually work cross-ways and make Tea Party groups mad at the candidate that makes the claim without really having the solid support to back it up.

Reynolds: Well, the problem with that is there is no Tea Party to give you the nomination. The Tea Party is a movement it’s not party. If you support Tea Party principles and Tea Party people back here, then you are [a] Tea Party candidate but you can’t become one by calling yourself one and I suspect people [are] really pretty good at spotting the phony.

Well, it was a very good interview and I was glad Mr. Reynolds took the time with me. I asked him if he had anything to close with about PJTV Tea Party TV and here is what he said…

Reynolds: I think the Tea Party is going to be fun. Dana Loesch has come on board to Spearhead and she’s terrific for a number of reasons, one is she’s just terrific. She’s a really smart, savvy person. She’s very good on radio and TV, and you know does a fair amount of it. I mean she was one of the real movers and shakers in the St. Louis Tea Party movement which is one of the more successful Tea Party movements around the country. So she’s really a great person to have involved and the goal is going to be to really get out there and put the spotlight on people who are actually doing stuff. You know, the stars of Tea Party TV will be the Tea Party activists who are out there doing things and that’s something I’ve done to some degree to my own show on PJTV and will continue to do. But Tea Party TV is just a way of throwing more focus on that and more organized in the same way.

So, once again, thanks to Glenn Reynolds for the time. Please do check out Tea Party TV, folks.

[edited]

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Fortunately, there is an alternative. Tom Mullins is also running as a Republican to represent New Mexico, and unlike Adam Kokesh, he’s the real deal: a Reagan Republican who certainly has never paraded around in a Marine Corps uniform holding an upside-down American flag, defacing public property, or staging “die-ins” in Washington D.C. the way his opponent has.

I had the chance yesterday to speak with Tom about Adam Kokesh, as well as ask him a few questions about where he stands on the issues.

Cassy Fiano: What are your thoughts on Adam Kokesh’s anti-military activities?

Tom Mullins: I disagree with Adam’s positions regarding our military. I support Guantanamo Bay being open. We are not occupiers. Adam’s activities offend the many veterans, including my father, that I have met. We are not the world’s policeman. We have a volunteer military. Our military men and women deserve support from our elected officials and all members of the American public. I don’t understand how Adam’s actions are “Constitutional”. Adam is nothing more than an Internet Celebrity and a War Protester. I don’t believe New Mexicans agree with his views or his methods to share or voice them.

CF: What would you say the primary difference between yourself and Adam is?

TM: My faith, knowledge, experience, good listening skills, and my good judgment. My faith grounds me and I will stand for innocent life. My knowledge of the energy industry the most important industry in New Mexico is a big difference as well. My life experience growing up as a military brat, traveling around the country, putting myself through college working multiple jobs, building my business from scratch with hard work, perseverance, and luck, being a father of two wonderful girls and raising them, and serving my community. I have been paying my taxes, creating jobs and wealth, which allows our government to function. I don’t think Adam’s even held a job since leaving the Marine Corps.

My good judgment sets me apart. As an engineer, I solve problems. We have problems in Washington that need an Engineer’s skill set. I have the character, the competence, and the compassionate record of making good decisions. I think we are all defined by who we associate ourselves with. I am proud of my actions and my decisions. That includes who I have associated myself with. I don’t know if my opponent’s associates give confidence to the voting public. I ask that New Mexico voters get to know their candidates, their prior words and actions, as well as their associations. I am a grass roots candidate with my grassroots support from right here in New Mexico. I have not been anointed by the political elite. The short answer is that I am qualified to serve as a Congressman, and I don’t think Adam is qualified. He’s a great public speaker, I’ll give you that. So if you’re looking for an unqualified guy who looks pretty and can speak well, then Adam’s your guy.

CF: Do you feel that Adam is an electable candidate?

TM: No.

CF: What made you decide to run for office?

TM: I have never run for nor held public office. I have watched silently as our country is being destroyed. I became more active in the past few years… but became frustrated. When asked what I could do, I decided the most important thing I could do would be to take away the job of the person making these decisions and responsible for holding the executive branch accountable. This is personal. My children’s future and our nation’s future is at stake. I’ve already served as a Tea Party organizer, and now is the time for me to serve our country and New Mexico as its next Congressman.

CF: What would you say the most important issue facing the country today is?

TM: Jobs, economy, and energy. We need private sector jobs and affordable energy to fuel these jobs and our economy. Ben Ray Lujan, Jr. is living in a false utopia, and is out of touch with the citizens of New Mexico. I plan to reduce the size and role of the Federal Government to allow private sector companies to create private sector jobs. That is the solution. Allow for energy development which will allow for private sector manufacturing, which will create meaningful direct jobs and all the associated service industry jobs.

CF: If you were in office, would you have voted for the stimulus package?
TM: No to the stimulus and no to government bailouts.

CF: Would you vote for the health care bill?
TM: No.

CF: Do you approve or disapprove of the abortion funding in the bill?
TM: I disapprove of abortion funding. The government should not pay to murder innocent life. I will stand for innocent life at every opportunity.

CF: What is your position on energy? Would you support offshore drilling and drilling in ANWR?
TM: We need affordable energy. Yes, drill offshore and drill in ANWR (Sec 1002). Being a petroleum engineer and having constructed my own passive solar home. I understand energy. I support Nuclear, Solar, Wind, Natural Gas, Oil, & Coal. Nuclear energy due to its energy density will be our nation’s saving grace in the future. Natural gas is the fuel of now. It should be promoted. Rep. Lujan has voted against New Mexico’s important natural gas industry repeatedly.

CF: Would you support repealing DADT?
TM: I believe that our volunteer military must have standards. The commanders and leaders of our men and women in combat need to make this decision, not Congress. There is no right to the job to serve our nation. It is an honor and a blessing. It is a shame that we politicize this issue.

CF: What is your position on gay marriage?
TM: No to gay marriage. Marriage is sacred and is between one man and one woman. I support the Manhattan Declaration.

CF: And finally, why should voters vote for you instead of Adam?
TM: I am qualified to serve as our next Congressman. I will protect the Constitution, stop the out of control spending and bring common sense to Washington. I have no baggage in my past. I have made good decisions and judgments so far in my life. I believe past performance is a good indicator of future performance. I am a solid qualified candidate who can win this seat for the people of New Mexico. This is not about me. I want to serve them and have been blessed to be at this point in my life where I can serve them. Adam has made poor choices in the past and shown that he has bad judgment. When you put someone who makes poor choices and has bad judgment into office, I think you’ll find that the results will be at best chaotic.

CF: Tom, thanks for taking the time to talk with me.
TM: Thank you!

After speaking with Tom, I feel like the choice is obvious. The Roniacs have come out in full force for Kokesh listing all of his so-called “conservative” credentials, but what about his past? What about his anti-military and anti-American activities? What about his associations with Marxist, liberal, and communist groups? Even if he did somehow change his mind and see the light, so to speak, does that mean that we should just ignore all of that? The problems with Kokesh are problems that any rational American can’t just ignore. Tom Mullins is just as conservative, and frankly, seems much more genuine to me than Adam Kokesh. And unlike Adam, Tom Mullins doesn’t have a history of anti-American and anti-military activities in his background.

Help Tom Mullins defeat Adam Kokesh in the primary. Get the word out, and donate to his campaign. We need real representatives who love this country, not a false prophet claiming to fight for the Constitution.

Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more original commentary, or follow her on Twitter!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Neil Cavuto of Fox News had a visit with former Vice President Dan Qualyle on Jan 13. Ostensibly the interview was about the earthquake in Haiti and the efforts that Quayle was saying needed to be made for the victims there, but Cavuto also asked the former veep about his feelings about the Tea Party movement. Quayle’s reply was revealing in that he proved that he really didn’t know how to think about the Tea Partiers. I think that Quayle is in exactly the same confused state that most of the old guard GOP is. They just don’t get it.

Cavuto asked what Quayle thought of the Tea Party movement and what it portended for the Republican Party and Quayle’s reply was that the GOP had to “co-opt” the Tea Partiers back into the GOP.

Sorry, Dan old pal, but that is wrong, wrong, wrong. The GOP had better understand that it is the Tea Partiers that have the upper hand here and the party also better understand that THEY must be the ones to become “co-opted.” It ain’t the other way ’round, Danny!

Transcript:

N.Cavuto: What do you think of that whole Tea Party stuff… are you worried about that, that it divides conservative votes, what?

D.Quayle: It is somewhat of a traditional American populist movement. Populism has always been part of American politics.

N.C.: But is it a potent third party?

D.Q.: Well that’s an important question. I don’t know yet. We’ll find out beginning in 2010 and probably more so in 2012. But here’s the challenge of my Party, is basically to co-opt the populist movement, the so-called Tea Party Folks whether they are Republicans or Democrats, because they are low taxes, they are for less regulations, they’re for less government interference, which are many principles of the Republican Party. To be able to get them within the Party with our basic principles rather than having them outside the Party…

N.C.: But when they target like I think they have Mr. Vice President, a dozen of so so-called vulnerable Republicans who do not march to all of these principles, what does that risk? Are you worried about it or is it healthy?

D.Q.: I’m not concerned about it right now because I think that most of them will join the Republican Party because they want to see government smaller, less involved in their lives, and they want less taxes, and they want less regulation, and they are for a strong national defense….

First of all, Mr. Veep, the Tea Party movement is in no way a “traditional” populist movement. All traditional populist movements of the past were more or less one issue movements and few were so grounded in traditional Constitutional theory as are the Tea Parties. Anti-liquor folks were just anti-liquor, silver bug folks were all about setting the monetary standard to silver, women’s suffrage were only about getting women the vote, etc. etc. Few of these populist movements had much interest in a greater array of issues once you got past their one, big issue.

But the Tea Party movement is not merely anti-bailout, or just low taxes, small government, pro-Constitutionalists, or anti-communists. They are all these things and more. It should be pointed out that all of the issues that the Tea Partiers stand for are traditional American concepts, not sudden populist issues that may or may not be grounded in Constitutional theory and American tradition like most other populist movements in the past have been.

Additionally, Quayle speaks about the Republican Party as if it has been about small government, less regulations,and the rest. But it has not. Not since Reagan has the GOP been about those things. This is why the Tea Partiers are saying that they are just as mad at the GOP as they are the Democrat Party.The Tea Party folks do not want to just meekly return to the Republican Party if it continues in the Country Club, big government vein in which it has been operating since 1989.

Quayle may not be “worried” about it now, but he should be. This all seems to me to be the sort of backwards thinking that all the old guard GOPers are blinded by. These guys just don’t get it that the Tea Party goers have the political power here. They don’t understand that their flawed Country Club Republican way of thinking has been rejected by the people. If they want to stay in power, the GOP better come to terms with the ideals and principles as espoused by the nation-wide phenomenon that is the Tea Party movement.

Now, let me here say that I’ve always had a begrudging respect for Dan Quayle. He has always exhibited, for instance, the sort of staunch support of traditional marriage that I appreciate. I also thought he withstood well the leftist assault on him when he was VP. But he is still a member of the old guard and here he reveals that he and his ilk are out of the loop when it comes to what to think about the Tea Party movement.

You can’t “co-opt” us, Mr. Quayle. You will be lucky if WE co-opt YOU!

Here is the full Cavuto segment (Tea Party talk at about seven minutes in):

And so the GOP better get this warning…

(Cross posted at BigGovernment.com)

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

On a previous episode of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Conservatism, Babe and I interview the delightful Leon Weinstein, Russian immigrant and capitalist booster.

Leon has made a few YouTube videos that are well worth the time to watch as they teach a good lesson on why the socialist/communist direction that Barack Obama is trying to drag this country toward is NOT the right way to go.

Here is a sample video:

Leon has also written a great book called the “Capitalist Guidebook.”

Here is a video introduction to the book:

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

It’s nice of you to say I’m a leader in the blogosphere, but nobody really leads bloggers. It’s like herding cats through a yarn factory in the middle of a flood.

Did you intend to become a leader or did it come naturally? How much responsibility comes with this role, and how serious do you take the role?

My original goal was to become a full-time blogger. I did that. Now, my goal is to get my ideas out to a much wider audience. If I can help other bloggers during that process, all the better.

How has the blogosphere changed for the better since you first began? Do you consider yourself a pioneer?

The blogosphere is more corporate, more professional, and much more competitive than when I got started. A new solo blogger whose name isn’t something like Ann Coulter or Thomas Sowell would have a tough time breaking in and building an audience with a general solo blog these days. As to my being a pioneer, I don’t feel like I’ve had it tough enough to be considered a real pioneer.

How has it changed for the worse?

I don’t think it has changed for the worse. It has just gotten more mature and more saturated.

What changes for the better and worse do you see in the near future for blogs?

I keep expecting bigger outlets to swoop in and bring bloggers who’ve built audiences into their fold. It hasn’t happened yet, but it would seem to make sense. I also think the next big leap will be when some of the conservative money men start giving blogs on the Right the money they need to take things to the next level.

Right vs. Left, who is faring better in the blogosphere and why?

The Left. They grew much bigger than the Right because the party out of power tends to have more energy and momentum.

It’s been said conservative blogs seem to fare better when a liberal is in power. Have you seen this since Obama got elected?

A couple of conservative blogs have really taken off since Obama was elected, but most of them seem to be growing slowly so far. I’m hoping this will change soon.

There seems to be a split in the conservative and moderate side of the Republican Party. What are your predictions on the direction this will ultimately go?

Conservatives have the money, energy, ideas, and momentum. Moderates have only been able to stay in control of the GOP because conservatives have allowed it to happen. That’s starting to change and it’s a good thing.

In the conservative blogosphere, do you see cliques that have developed? If so, can you expound a bit?

Not necessarily cliques per se. It’s very easy when you are inundated with emails and swamped with work to get into the habit of just looking at and linking your favorite blogs. That’s not really fair to the other talented bloggers out there, but it’s reality.

Are there any new blogs without money backing like Breitbart’s that you see potentially becoming a major influence in the future or growing to more success?

That’s the thing — there are lots of blogs that could become influential — but they do need the resources and backing to get there. If Big Hollywood would have had Joe Blow behind it as opposed to Andrew Breitbart, it would probably have 2000 people a day reading it right now. That’s not an insult to Andrew Breitbart, who is amazingly talented; it’s just an acknowledgment that talent alone is not enough in the blogosphere.

Do you see Twitter and Facebook expanding influence amongst bloggers?

Perhaps — but more likely, they’re taking traffic and money away from bloggers instead of expanding their influence. The more time people spend Tweeting and Facebooking, the less time they have to read blogs.

Do you ever see blogs becoming something lucrative or is this only for the very talented and lucky bloggers?

The right side of the blogosphere needs significantly more traffic or investors to make things lucrative for more than a handful of bloggers.

What advice do you have for other bloggers to become more influential and successful?

Find a popular niche you really like and dominate it. Become the Go-to blog for a particular type of info and ride it all the way to the top.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Leader? Mheh. Never thought of myself as such. I just do what I do and well, if others follow my lead occasionally, then that’s great. On leadership qualities in general vis-à-vis the political blogosphere, I do believe that it helps, at least as far as a willingness to get out in front of an issue and let yourself be heard. It’s easy to fall in with the side you agree with once a consensus has developed, but a consensus will never develop unless somebody is willing to jump out and make a claim in the first place. And in that respect, other bloggers are far more active and deserving of credit than I. But yes, it’s important that somebody stakes out a claim. You don’t want an issue to become an issue after it’s become a non-issue.

Did you intend to become a leader, or did it come naturally? How much responsibility comes with this role, and how serious do you take the role?

I can certainly say that I never had any intentions in that direction. I didn’t even have an idea that it would grow like it did. Honestly, when I started I was just looking for a place to rant, somewhere to put down my unrestrained opinions, but I didn’t really expect anybody other than maybe a few wandering by to be even remotely interested. If anybody had suggested that the site would end up with a readership in the thousands, I would have laughed at them. So no, there was no ambition whatsoever involved in my creating a site. It was actually only because a few fellow commenters at another site suggested that I do so and I reluctantly had to admit that I liked the idea. And the rest is history. I guess it’s just the way I’m wired.

Responsibility? Well, if you DO acquire a readership that trusts you and your opinions, then you DO have a responsibility, in my opinion. Not just to yourself, after all you don’t want to make an ass of yourself and especially not when it turns out that somebody is “listening” (or reading, more accurately), but more importantly to the readers that have come to trust you and your honesty and integrity. Obviously, everybody should remain critical of anything they read, no matter who writes it, but it’s also a fact of life that, over time, you come to trust some people more than others and, as a result, you’re more likely to take what they say at face value because they’ve always been truthful and on the money in the past. Some might say that that’s not your “fault” if somebody trusts you “too much” and therefore accepts a half-assed statement of yours without doing the fact-checking, but I disagree. *Technically* you’re not responsible for somebody believing you too readily, but morally and ethically you are, if you ask me. I mean, if I were to put up a post leading to a massive protest against somebody innocent based on poorly vetted information on my part, then I sure as Hell would feel partly responsible. And deeply ashamed for having made an ass of myself and, more importantly, made an ass of people who have come to trust my judgment. So yes, that responsibility should lead you to be more careful with what you put up there. Of course, nobody’s perfect, I know I’m not, so every once in a while you’ll post with your foot in your mouth, so to speak, and that’s where it’s important that you come out and own it while accepting the justified criticism.

Bottom line: If you want people to trust you, then you’ve got to earn it and you’ve got to take that trust, when earned, seriously.

Of course, with MY readers, who are a highly skeptical bunch, bless ‘em all, I’m in no big danger of anybody taking anything I write too seriously without checking it first. I like it that way.

How has the blogosphere changed for the better since you first began? Do you consider yourself a pioneer?

The blogosphere was already there when I started. Only barely, which is why I consider myself one of the “Old Guard”, but it was there. I wouldn’t call myself a pioneer, though, even though I got in well before the pool turned into an ocean. Has it changed for the better? Yes and no. Yes because more speech is always a good thing. People need to put their opinions out there instead of keeping them to themselves where they don’t do anybody any good. Not to mention that a lot of people keep their opinions to themselves because they’re not sure that anybody, or enough somebodies, feel the same way. That’s not true, as I learned myself. I honestly never dreamed that there were that many pissed off people who were sick and tired of being “politically correct” out there, people who believe, think, speak and feel like I do. That encouraged me and, from what I hear, encouraged others, a lot of them readers of mine, to go out there and make themselves heard too. I think the expansion of the blogosphere, indeed the whole online networking aspect of it, is very much responsible for the fact that we’re even *having* Tea Parties today. People are tuning in, people are learning that they’re not alone and people are learning that they, too, have a voice that not only needs to be heard, but that there are others more than happy to listen.

How has it changed for the worse?

On the other hand, the massive expansion of the blogosphere has meant that it is much more difficult for a newcomer to make a name for him or herself. If you have a burning desire to make a name for yourself online, it’s a steep hill to climb nowadays. But it’s not impossible. We see new names popping up all the time, it’s just that the bar is higher. So if your primary goal is to establish a huge site and really make waves, then you’ve got your work cut out for you. But if you’re just, like I was, looking for a place to rant that you can call your own, then it’s the same as ever. The upside is: If you truly do stand out, if you’re really bringing something new to the table, then you’ll make it. But it’s much harder to make that splash now than it used to be.

What changes for the better and worse do you see in the near future for blogs?

If you’d asked me that question 7 years ago I’d have been wrong then too, so why not be wrong today? I could never in my wildest dreams have imagined that the blogosphere would become such an engine behind forming popular opinion and movements or, for that matter, being successful in areas where the main stream media have failed. If you’d told me that one day the blogosphere would be instrumental in bringing down administration officials, for instance, I would have told you that you had to have been smoking something illegal in all 50 states. But if you want my two cents, I see it growing stronger. It’s already a well known fact that more and more people are getting their news and opinion from the ‘sphere with every passing year. And I don’t see people getting less informed as a result, as some Eeyores of the past have suggested. Don’t underestimate the intelligence of the average American, is what I always say, and don’t underestimate their ability to adapt to an ever bigger load of information. People haven’t become less critical as a result of the mass of highly opinionated news they can get from the ‘sphere. Quite to the contrary, if you ask me. The problem in the past was that almost everybody only had one source of information, and that was the “accepted wisdom” of the main stream media monopoly. Now they have ready access to numerous different opinions, takes and interpretations of the same news item. And when people hear two diametrically opposed views on an issue, the natural reaction is “both of them can’t be right”, which spurs critical thinking. That’s a good thing, and I only see that getting stronger as the ‘sphere becomes stronger.

The only thing better than free speech is more free speech. It *forces* people to think for themselves because there isn’t any longer a cookie cutter “conventional wisdom” beamed into your skull every night on the news. You have to pick sides now.

Also, we’re seeing media biggies realizing that there’s something to tap into there and giving us a bigger bullhorn as a result. Glenn Beck is a perfect example. The media is realizing that there’s something going on and that works for both us and them. That too is going to grow.

The downside, as some might say, is that with the growth of the number of people having a public opinion, the message is going to get watered down and confused. I’m not too sure about that, however. Again, I think people are too smart for that. They know how to sort the wheat from the chaff. What’s important is that everybody gets a say. If they’re good, if they contribute, they’ll float. If not, they’ll find another outlet and somebody else will take their place.

Right vs. Left, who is faring better in the blogosphere and why?

Currently, the Right is doing better as far as getting things going and making a difference is concerned. Getting people out for the Tea Parties was a huge success for the Right, doing the vetting that the MSM won’t do of Obama’s administration is another huge success. Why? Well, the obviously disastrous policies of Obama’s administration is the most glaringly obvious factor. It’s a lot easier to get people to pay attention to you when they can see that you’re right just by looking around themselves. It’s not hard to get the public ear about idiotic policies when the public is getting laid off to the tune of hundreds of thousands of people a month. It’s not hard to get people to pay attention to the argument that nationalized healthcare is a bad idea when you have hundreds of examples of failures from the rest of the world with not one success story. It’s not hard to gain traction for the opinion that the current administration are screwing up royally on foreign policy when all of our allies AND enemies are laughing at us. In other words: it’s not hard to gain the ear of the public when the evidence supports everything you say.

The other factor, and that helped the Left a lot from 2001 to 2008, is that it’s easier to mobilize people who are the underdogs. When your point of view is not the one being shared in Washington DC, then it’s a lot easier to get yourself out of your chair and doing something. Being ignored makes you angry. The Left got what they wanted, Democrat control of both the White House and Congress. It’s harder for *them* to get their troops mobilized with that as a fact. What would be the rallying cry for them now? We need a Democrat elected G-d as well? Fire all of our elected representatives? Help a Republican win the White House? It’s always easier to get people out of their chairs when they’re in opposition.

It’s been said, conservative blogs seem to fare better when a liberal is in power? Have you seen this since Obama got elected?

See the above.

There seems to be a split in the conservative and moderate side of the Republican party. What are your predictions on the direction this will ultimately go?

I honestly don’t know. There are two possibilities: Either the “moderate side”, actually the “elitist establishment side”, prevails and the GOP sinks and becomes a third party, or they reform and get back to what made them different from the Democrats. The latter will mean that we’ll get back on track quicker since it will take time to build a party that can take over from the GOP, so obviously I prefer that solution. And signs are promising. The NY-23 race is a good sign, for one. It looks like conservatives ARE willing to make the “favored candidate” lose rather than elect a RINO and, no matter what the outcome, the message will be clear. If Hoffman wins, then the RINO wing are soundly defeated. If he doesn’t and the Democrat wins (Scozzofava is a dead horse now), then the message is the same: We want somebody who represents us. We don’t want to have to choose between two liberals and if that means losing an election, then so be it.

That’s the only direction that will bring this country back on track, and I speak from personal experience. Once you allow incrementalism because it’s “not as bad as the other side”, then you’ve basically conceded the fight. You’ll lose just the same, it’ll only take a bit longer.

In the conservative blogosphere, do you see cliques that have developed? If so, can you expound a bit?

Cliques? Well yes, but I don’t take it all that seriously. Birds of a feather flock together and you tend to network more with people that you know. That doesn’t mean that you don’t like the other ones, it just means that you tend to read their sites a lot more frequently and, as a result, link or read them more often. I’m as guilty as anyone. Being of the “Old Guard” I tend to read blogs from that group more often because I always have. They were there when I started, after all. But that doesn’t mean that I ignore new ones or “gang up” with “the boys” just because. I’ll happily pick a fight with one of the Old Guard if I think they’re wrong and I’ll just as happily side with a new guy or gal if they think the same. If I’m made aware of it, that is. So yes, there is sort of a “clique” thing, but it’s not a conscious “us vs. them” issue, it’s just people that have always been on my read list and therefore tend to stay on it.

Are there any new blogs without money backing like breitbart’s that you see potentially becoming a major influence in the future or growing to more success?

Honestly, I can’t come up with an example. But that’s not because they’re not there, it’s because I don’t have as much time as I used to have and because there are so many new blogs now.

Do you see twitter and facebook expanding influence amongst bloggers?

I don’t “get” twitter at all. To me, it’s like blogging without wanting to put any energy into it. But that doesn’t mean that it won’t be important and, as a matter of fact, it might be. I see Facebook as more of a force, really, because of its networking aspect. It’s a way to spread the word to people who just want to hang with their friends and don’t really have an interest in blogging but, then again, Twitter might do the same thing. The bottom line is: the more people talk together, the more they get together with people they don’t necessarily live next door to and who aren’t their immediate family, the greater the likelihood that they’ll get turned on to checking out some sites.

Do you ever see blogs becoming something lucrative or is this only for the very talented and lucky bloggers?

As a business model, no. In a very few cases, maybe, but I wouldn’t quit my day job over it, and I speak as somebody who runs a moderately successful site. It won’t pay the bills. Yes, my readers most certainly *have* helped me (and others) in times of desperate need and I can’t thank them enough for it, but it doesn’t replace a pay check. Granted, I’d *love* to be able to do this for a living, but it’s just not going to happen. The supply of opinion is so huge that the price of it has to approach zero and, in many ways, that’s a *good* thing. It releases you from the obligation to produce output since nobody’s paying for it anyway and it makes it more likely that somebody will actually pay attention because there’s no price of admission. And what you write is not dictated by “what will make a buck” as is the case with old media. “If it bleeds, it leads.”

As a blogger, you have no monetary restraints on what put you there.

If I wanted to be a journalist, I would have taken the hit and slept through three years of journo school.

Do you think influence is one of the main hopes bloggers have in what they are doing? Is it more about venting for some? What percentage of each would you estimate?

I think that the majority of bloggers, like I, are in it to vent. Yes, we’d love for somebody to read it and agree with us, who wouldn’t?, but the main issue is that we want to say it out loud and in public. There might be some who are in it to become movers and shakers but they, if you ask me, ought to get their hands dirty and get in the game instead. And they’d have my support too. Opinion is all very good to get people moving, but you need people in positions where the actual decisions are made to get anything out of the movement.

What advice do you have for other bloggers to become more influential and successful?

Keep doing what you do. If you really want to create a stir, get to work and dig up something that nobody else is talking about. Then do the research to make sure your opinion is solid and spread the word. Be you. Don’t be afraid to stand up in a crowd and don’t be afraid to get booed out. Get your facts and arguments in order before you start shooting your mouth off. And be different. Don’t do something that 600 other bloggers are already doing.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

You are considered a leader in the conservative blogosphere. How do you feel leadership qualities are essential in making a difference in the political blogosphere?

Does anyone set out with such a goal? I did not. But I wanted to make a difference. I wanted to be heard and I thought my clarity would help me be heard, and I thought that the nature of my thinking was seldom being articulated and not in a forceful, passionate way. I speak for the smallest minority in the world: the individual. My political party is capitalism. I think the Constitution is as close to a religious document as you can get. America is the most noble experiment in human history: noble, moral, benevolent and successful. My goal at the outset was preserving the America I grew up in – fighting for the free, protecting and defending the individual’s rights against majority tyranny and minority plotting. And that is still my goal.

I don’t know if leadership qualities are essential in making a difference in the political blogosphere, but integrity is. And so is an uncompromising work ethic. You have to say what you mean and mean what you say. Walking the walk, talking the talk — at least that’s the requisite on the right blogs. The left has no morals, no ethics, no values. What is required on the left is viciousness. The more vicious, the more successful the blog. The left and right blogs are as different as night and day.

Did you intend to become a leader, or did it come naturally? How much responsibility comes with this role, and how serious do you take the role?

I did not intend to become a leader. I don’t know that I am. I certainly don’t see myself that way. The responsibility is to the work. Always. And despite what difficulties you might encounter, you stay true to yourself and what you believe, no matter what the cost.

I take the role of online journalist and alternative media outlet very seriously.

How has the blogosphere changed for the better since you first began? Do you consider yourself a pioneer?

I think I was late to the party with Atlas Shrugs. I started in February 2005. The blogs on the right were well established – Malkin, Powerline, Little Green Footballs before he turned traitor and defected. But I thought I had something more to say and so I jumped in.

I wanted and still want to help build this medium. If I help to pioneer that effort, I will die a happy blogger.

How has it changed for the worse?

Little Green balls is the easy and obvious answer. That blog was a touchstone for so many of us. When he tried to destroy my reputation in November 2007 for not bending to his will and denouncing members of the trans-atlantic counter jihad movement, I knew it might be blog suicide. He was wrong, but he was king. My daily visitors went from 10,000 a day to 2,000. I was never linked by any of the big blogs ever again – Malkin, Instapundit, et al. Even when I broke big stories, like Obama’s campaign contributions from a Hamas refugee camp in Gaza.

But it was a valuable lesson. I came back without being part of the link chain or the blog clique. I built it back one reader by one reader. It’s better, of course. That way you are not slave to the link master.

Turning to the overall picture of the right blogosphere…. what has changed for the worse is the abandonment of the issue of Islamic supremacism by the big blogs — the most dangerous threat facing the West, more dangerous than Nazism, more insidious than communism and they won’t touch it. Of course Jihad Watch covers it comprehensively, but that’s what Spencer does. Islamic jihad is not a tangential issue. It is the defining conflict of our time.

What changes for the better and worse do you see in the near future for blogs?

Nothing will change for the left, they are smear machines. It’s what they do. It’s the currency they traffic in.

For the right blogs, the future’s so bright, I gotta wear shades. More and more people are flocking to the net in pursuit of the real news. They see that the mainstream media has become a corrupt activist media for the left. Americans feel betrayed by a media that did not vet Obama. They saw grammy and pop labeled racists and nazis because they didn’t want socialized medicine. People are waking up. It’s a very good time for us.

Right vs. Left, who is faring better in the blogosphere and why?

Moneywise, the left. They are well funded by Soros, moveon, media matters. But they are void of credibility, short on accuracy, big on invective. They traffic in smear. Very boring.

The objective of left wing blogs is to smear and destroy. Those blogs have become very sophisticated search and destroy machines. Alinsky ridicule is the MBO.

The right has created a new news media outlet. Alternative media is becoming as influential as talk radio. The objective of right wing blogs is to investigate and report the news the media won’t touch. And the right has done such a good job because it’s all low hanging fruit; no one else is doing it. ACORN, Rifqa Bary, Obamacare, the stimulus, the socialists and radicals in the White House ………. exposed by the blood, sweat and tears of right blogs.

It’s been said conservative blogs seem to fare better when a liberal is in power? Have you seen this since Obama got elected?

Of course! Obama is destroying the country. And the media is in the tank for him.

The county forgets how destructive leftist policies are. Clinton, Carter, Obama ….disasters all.

Americans have short memories, and they get seduced by a media that functions as the propaganda arm of the Democrat party. They go to bed with hope and change, they wake up to Obama.

If the media operated as an honest agent, the Democrats would have gone the way of the KKK decades ago.

There seems to be a split in the conservative and moderate side of the Republican party. What are your predictions on the direction this will ultimately go?

“Moderate” is a euphemism for directionless, void of principles. You can’t sit on the fence in matters of life and death and political philosophy. You must be vigorous, fierce in the protection of individual rights, limited government, Constitutionalism, low taxes. Rugged individualism.

In any compromise between good and evil, evil profits. Enough with the RINOs. They had their shot. They routed the party – they are done, finished, cooked. McCain was the final nail in the coffin. The DIABLOs ought to switch parties. Olympia Snowe is our worst nightmare.

In the conservative blogosphere, do you see cliques that have developed? If so, can you expound a bit?

Of course, it is very cliquey and it has swept some blogs with inferior content to undeserved rank/position because of regular big blog linkage. But so what? If you work hard, stay focused, love what you do, you can be successful. Atlas is not part of any clique. Check my referrals. No big linkage, but my numbers are big.

I think the blog cliques are tired and their content is tired too. They all sound alike. They don’t have to work as hard and it shows — their ranking reflects yesterday. Tomorrow will look awfully different in the blogosphere.

Are there any new blogs without money backing like Breitbart’s that you see potentially becoming a major influence in the future or growing to more success?

Tip of the old hat to Breitbart, alternative media’s William Randolph Hearst

There is a lot of new, smart, ass kicking blogs in America and Europe too. The most interesting blogs are the international blogs like New Zeal and anti-jihad blogs like the Finnish Tundra Tabloids that are doing incredible work exposing the scoundrels on the Hill. New blogs like Brave New Commie, Vigilant Squirrel Brigade, and summer patriot, winter soldier offer a refreshing new perspective. But guys like Vanderleun, who have been around awhile, are still fresh, original and delish. And Oleg at The People’s Cube, outstanding.

Do you see twitter and facebook expanding influence amongst bloggers?

Twitter had little effect, for me, until the Iraninan bloodbath. Then it was essential. I saw it make a huge crack in a walled off dictatorship erected in a oppressive, brutal, censored society. It was a Gutenberg moment. I worry still about Persian Kiwi. When he/she went dark on twitter, he/she was never heard from again. Marching for freedom and dying for tweeting. Devastating. And Obama’s callous dismissal of those marching and dying for freedom is a stain on American international policy that we will not long live down.

The only benefit for bloggers from facebook and twitter is to hook your blog feeds to these social networks. When you post to your blog, it updates your status and goes out to all of your friends and followers who repost it. It builds readership. I never actually tweet or post FB status updates, but my blog does. And Facebook made a difference – I am maxing out on friends now, which is wild. 5,000 FB friends and I have like two friends in real life.

Do you ever see blogs becoming something lucrative or is this only for the very talented and lucky bloggers?

It’s tricky. My blog is not a money maker. I don’t do advertorial stuff ever. I have some small maverick advertisers, but Atlas is mostly reader supported. Yet if not for the blog, I would never have gotten a big book deal from Simon and Schuster or a regular gig at Newsmax or a radio segment on Jaz Mckay or opportunities to speak. So Atlas is the heart of everything I do. Atlas Shrugs comes first.

Newspapers are history. The future belongs to the blogs. I don’t know what the business model will look like, I don’t know how the blog business will monetize, but it is the future. It will happen.

Do you think influence is one of the main hopes bloggers have in what they are doing? Is it more about venting for some? What percentage of each would you estimate?

Are influence and venting mutually exclusive? I don’t think so. Venting is the mother of great blogging. But it’s not enough to vent, you have to have answers, solve problems. Take them on. I do. I vent but at the same time, in the same post, and I state what should be done, what policy would work, what action Atlas readers should take if they agree.

Just venting is not interesting. It’s like having a spouse that’s always bitching, STFU already.

What advice do you have for other bloggers to become more influential and successful?
Advice?

Find your own voice (no matter how long it takes). Be prepared for a long slog. Blogging is a long term career choice, IMAO. No one gets famous overnight and has real staying power. You have to build an audience and they have to find you and make you a habit. That takes time. It’s a process.

Don’t be an echo chamber. Find what you love or care about passionately and give it everything you’ve got. Go out and cover the news. Always take your camera. Original reportage gets linked. Do you admire someone of note? Get an interview with him/her. Just call and keep calling. Thomas Edison said, genius is one percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration. Well, so is blogging

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

You are considered a leader in the conservative blogosphere. Do you feel leadership qualities are essential in making a difference in the political blogosphere?

Thanks. I appreciate that. As far as leadership – as conservatives we have to be confident in our positions. As leaders we have to understand that we are not in the minority because our positions are unpopular. We are in the minority because we have not been able to communicate our positions effectively.

Did you intend to become a leader, or did it come naturally? How much responsibility comes with this role, and how serious do you take the role?

I try to be consistent with my conservative positions. I don’t know if it came naturally. It came with a whole lot of work as you know.

How has the blogosphere changed for the better since you first began? Do you consider yourself a pioneer?

The biggest change since I started blogging in late 2004 early 2005 is the introduction of YouTube and videoblogging. When I started blogging videos were too expensive to post on a website. Today it is changing the blogosphere.

How has it changed for the worse?
Hmm.

What changes, for the better and worse, do you see in the near future for blogs?

Let’s pray government does not become involved. We all know that would be disastrous.

Right vs. Left, who is faring better in the blogosphere and why?

Conservatives. Definitely. This year we have ACORN, Van Jones, etc. under our belt. These were huge stories and wins for conservatives and the country.

It’s been said conservative blogs seem to fare better when a liberal is in power? Have you seen this since Obama got elected?

Traffic is up. Conservatives are scared… And the only place to get the truth today is on the blogs, talk radio, conservative websites and FOX News. The MSM is very corrupt.

There seems to be a split in the conservative and moderate side of the Republican Party. What are your predictions on the direction this will ultimately go?

Let’s hope the party can move to the right. The Maine senators are popular with the state-run media but have been disastrous for the country.

In the conservative blogosphere, do you see cliques that have developed? If so, can you expound a bit?

We all have our favorite blogs and websites. I try to stay out of petty bickering.

Are there any new blogs without money backing like Breitbart’s that you see potentially becoming a major influence in the future or growing to more success?

Tucker Carlson is behind a project. We’ll see how that takes off.

Do you see twitter and facebook expanding influence amongst bloggers?

Twitter and facebook are nice complements to blogging. The Twitter community is huge.

Do you ever see blogs becoming something lucrative or is this only for the very talented and lucky bloggers?

Let’s hope so. Let’s hope that conservatives start to recognize the value of the blogs. The left funds and treats their bloggers well. We need to continue to communicate our value to the conservative movement. There are many conservatives out there who are not familiar with the blogs. I see them as uninformed.

Do you think influence is one of the main hopes bloggers have in what they are doing? Is it more about venting for some? What percentage of each would you estimate?

We all like to be heard. We all want to feel valued.

What advice do you have for other bloggers to become more influential and successful?

Work hard. Promote your work. Be consistent.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post