In my previous post, I offered my first shocked-and-awed thoughts about the “immigration compromise” to a breathless world, clamoring to know my take.  If I am in any way typical, it’s a deep self-inflicted wound for the Republican Party. But maybe I’m not typical.  

So, how does this Amnesty-in-Drag hurt Republican prospects in the near term. Today David Frum basically says, “let me count the ways!” In this post he reels off not five, not six, not seven, but eight ways this damages Republican prospects in the next election.

 A tender morsel:

6) As we have seen in both the Harriet Miers fight and the Dubai ports deal, this White House’s first instinct when faced with dissent in the ranks is to insult and abuse its strongest supporters. “Sexist”; “elitist”; “registered bigots” were some of the terms cast during the previous fights. Brace yourselves for much, much worse. This is no way to win friends and influence people. And triggering an internecine party conflict on the eve of a difficult and dangerous election is no way to re-elect a damaged incumbent party.

In my previous post, I offered my first shocked-and-awed thoughts about the “immigration compromise” to a breathless world, clamoring to know my take.  If I am in any way typical, it’s a deep self-inflicted wound for the Republican Party. But maybe I’m not typical.  

So, how does this Amnesty-in-Drag hurt Republican prospects in the near term. Today David Frum basically says, “let me count the ways!” In this post he reels off not five, not six, not seven, but eight ways this damages Republican prospects in the next election.

 A tender morsel:

6) As we have seen in both the Harriet Miers fight and the Dubai ports deal, this White House’s first instinct when faced with dissent in the ranks is to insult and abuse its strongest supporters. “Sexist”; “elitist”; “registered bigots” were some of the terms cast during the previous fights. Brace yourselves for much, much worse. This is no way to win friends and influence people. And triggering an internecine party conflict on the eve of a difficult and dangerous election is no way to re-elect a damaged incumbent party.

I cast my very first vote in a presidential election in 1980. I was 20 and voted for Ronald Reagan with a heady mixture of zeal, pride and anti-Carter-malaise-dispelling bravado. My only regret was that I could vote only once. So I voted hard to compensate.

The bundle of passions and convictions that made me a loyal, activist Republican 27 years ago:

• National Security (countering the Brezhnev Doctrine of Soviet/socialist expansion in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Angola, etc.) 
• Respect for Human Life (recognizing the Roe v. Wade was a travesty and a tragedy.)
• Resistance to Bloated Government & Statist Social Engineering
• Tough Law Enforcement and Respect for the Rule of Law

. . .these kept me voting for, working for and donating to Republican candidates in the intervening years. Though some of the threats have changed names (goodbye Soviet Union, hello militant Islam), they are still pretty much the ones that animate me today.

But on most of the above issues, large segments of the Republican leadership have either abandoned the field to the statists, the multilaterialists, and the appeasers; or have actually joined them.

Today I find myself questioning whether or not I am still a Republican.

On this sad day a Republican President and significant numbers of Republican Senators sold out their country and conservative principles and then tried to pretend the opposite was actually the case. This so-called Comprehensive Immigration Reform compromise may be the last straw for me. 

I need to sleep on it but I’m so angry right now I could leave a voicemail for Lindsey Graham and John McCain that would make Alec Baldwin’s ballisto-rant on his daughter seem like a Precious Moments greeting card.  

I haven’t left the party. But it does appear the party has ditched me.

“I mean. . .here I am on Fox News. . .” 

 A magenta-faced, sputtering Bill Clinton threw those words at interviewer Chris Wallace and didn’t bother to finish the sentence. He didn’t feel he needed to. And if he had still been inside the insular echo chamber of left-liberal cocktail parties in Manhattan, he wouldn’t have. It’s understood. Fox News is a byword. 

By the time the former President got to the chair opposite Chris Wallace, he was well into a media tour designed to let Clinton humbly receive kudos for all the money he’d raised for his “Global Initiative.” At every stop, he was fawned over, praised and babied. If memory serves, Keith Olbermann handed Clinton a check and gave him a foot rub.

This explains Clinton’s gobsmack-ed fury when Chris Wallace suddenly went all “journalist” on his posterior and asked him a tough, but relevant question.

You see, Conservatives/Republicans know that almost every engagement with the news media is likely to involve tough questions, adversarial postures, and “gotcha” games. You will hear them complain (with ample justification) about liberal bias in the newsroom and left-wing agenda journalism. But, like adults, they keep showing up and make their case.

That brings us to today’s news that the Democratic presidential candidates refuse to conduct a debate hosted by Fox News—far and away the most watched cable news channel. There will be two, that’s right, two CNN debates. Another two on NBC/MSNBC, as well as one each on ABC and CBS.

What must we deduce from this? That, like Clinton, a critical mass of left-of-center politicians have now become so accustomed to dealing with a friendly press that they have come to view kid-glove treatment as an entitlement.

And after decades of posturing about the vital role of a free press in keeping government honest and accountable, they are prepared to send the following message to every major news division:

“Be our ally or we will shut you out.”

. . .to his readers at the Minneapolis Star Tribune, here.

. . .to his readers at the Minneapolis Star Tribune, here.

I joined the James Lileks/Minneapolis Star-Tribune blogswarm a couple of days ago. If you remotely care about the topic, this lengthy and thoughtful essay from ABCNews.com’s Michael Malone is must reading.  Here’s a tasty nugget:

One of the reasons for this intense reaction is that for most of us in the rest of the world, the only thing we know about Minneapolis these days, and certainly about the Star-Tribune, is what we read in Lileks.com. In other words, James Lileks is far bigger than the newspaper that employs him, is its single most effective bastion against falling subscription revenues, and is its most powerful marketing and promotion tool.

To rip that platform out from underneath its single most important asset now makes the “Strib” the poster child for the astonishingly stupid and suicidal decisions made by newspapers in the 21st century.

Do read the whole thing.

I joined the James Lileks/Minneapolis Star-Tribune blogswarm a couple of days ago. If you remotely care about the topic, this lengthy and thoughtful essay from ABCNews.com’s Michael Malone is must reading.  Here’s a tasty nugget:

One of the reasons for this intense reaction is that for most of us in the rest of the world, the only thing we know about Minneapolis these days, and certainly about the Star-Tribune, is what we read in Lileks.com. In other words, James Lileks is far bigger than the newspaper that employs him, is its single most effective bastion against falling subscription revenues, and is its most powerful marketing and promotion tool.

To rip that platform out from underneath its single most important asset now makes the “Strib” the poster child for the astonishingly stupid and suicidal decisions made by newspapers in the 21st century.

Do read the whole thing.

The man who filled one of the most anticipated sequels in the history of film with cringe-inducing dialogue and Jar-Jar Binks, has called Spiderman 3, “silly.”

In related news, comedian Benny Hill described Victor Borge’s stuff as “lowbrow.” And the head of the White Star Line mocked the seaworthiness of Cunard’s ships.

The conservative blogosphere is on fire today. The spark was James Lilek’s announcement on his blog this morning that the new owners of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune are killing his column and reassigning him to cover hard news.

On my other blog, I have repeatedly referred to Lileks as “one of the most gifted writers in America.” I really think he is. And his daily blog, “The Bleat” is one of the oldest, most widely read, and influential in existence. James Lileks, dashing off a few thoughts about puttering around his house, is reliably better than 99% of the Pulitzer prize winners who pull down big salaries for the big city dailies.

But those big name columnists are uniformly liberal. And Lileks is a conservative, you see. Not an angry conservative mind you. In fact, James’ writing is consistently characterized by good humor, wit, and loads of self-deprecation. Which has earned him the respect and admiration of many prominent left-of-center folks as well—including many liberal readers of the very-liberal Star-Telegram Tribune.

For many of us who write for a living, James is discouragingly good.

So, just how outrageous and stupid is this move?

 Today, columnist Dave Barry (yes, that Dave Barry) blogged: “This is like the Miami Heat deciding to relieve Dwayne Wade of his basketball-playing obligations so he can keep stats.”

Hugh Hewitt described it this way: “Imagine The New Yorker asking E.B. White to manage the restaurant listings. Envision the Los Angeles Times dropping Jim Murrayfrom Sports and sending him to cover county government. Think about the San Francisco Chronicleassigning Herb Caen to the police blotter.  It is that level stupid.”

A sampling of other reactions:

American Thinker — “Death wish at the Star-Tribune”

Powerline — “Big Bang at the Star Tribune”

Captains Quarters — “Strib Manages to Make It Worse”

Vodkapundit — “Stupid, Stupid, Newspaper Creatures“

There are scores and scores more, but you get the idea.

Here’s the bright side. James can and will do a lot better than his old gig. His often very personal blog posts reveal him to be a guy who likes routine, avoids change, values safety and eschews risk. He’s a genius. But like a lot of geniuses, he is mildly neurotic. And his neuroses seem to be those that would tend to keep him anchored in a place that is way beneath his talents.

Thus, a truly idiotic move that will probably hasten the demise of a paper which deserves it’s impending rendezvous with Darwinism, will at the same time serve to blast James out of his nest and force an embrace of the pain of change. [End of amatuer psychoanalysis session.]

Lileks seemed to hint at this very thing in his post this morning. He wrote:

“To quote Dave Bowman in “2010”: something is going to happen.  Something wonderful.

That was before Jupiter became a new sun. Yes, I plan on collapsing into a giant ball of flaming gas. It’s worked for me before. “

All the best to you, James. Flame on!