Andrew Breitbart Slams Media at Nashville Tea Party Convention!

From Gateway Pundit, "Andrew Breitbart at National Tea Party Convention to Media: “It’s Not Your Business Model That Sucks, It’s You That Sucks” (Video):

Transcript from Newsbusters, "Breitbart to Media at Tea Party Convention: 'It's Not Your Business Model That Sucks, It's You That Sucks!'":

When I watched Contessa Brewer on MSNBC raise the question whether or not a protest was racist in which she showed a man have his gun around his chest and his holster. MSNBC did an entire discussion on are these protests, these gun-wielding freaks, are they racist. Does everybody here know what happened with that photo where they cut the head off? That was an African-American gentleman. That my friends is not media bias. That is contempt for the American people.

In order to create the perception that the minority is the majority and the majority is not just the minority, but a bad, racist, homophobic, all those buzzwords that they learned in the freshman orientation class at Wesleyan, are used as weapons to try to destroy you and intimidate you to not speak up and to speak your mind. And your days of doing this are over. It's not your business model that sucks, it's you that sucks.

Also, from the Los Angeles Times, "Tea Party Convention Opens With Speakers Slamming Mainstream Media."

Glenn Reynolds Interviews Andrew Breitbart at Nashville Tea Party Convention

The pic's c/o Dana Loesch on Twitter:

Glenn's interview is here: "Andrew Breitbart v. The Arrogant Bastards."

Anne Hathaway in GQ Magazine Britain!

I have been trying to do some blogging on the Nashville tea party. I especially wanted to post some new videos from the convention, and Glenn Reynolds' interview clips in particular. But YouTube has been down, which was the problem. It's up now, but as I've been surfing the web for something else to post, here's some Anne Hathaway distraction material:

Cover credit is actually from The Superficial, but check GQ's page as well, "Queen of All She Surveys."

More good stuff at John Hawkins' Linkiest. Plus, lots more good stuff at the Washington Rebel. And at Theo's, "Saturday Night is Bath Night ..."

UPDATE! Blazing Cat Fur links!

Meg Whitman Pulls First TV Ad Spot

From the Los Angeles Times, "Whitman Tweaks Campaign Ad to Fix Inconsistency":

Gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman stumbled out of the gate this week with the campaign's first TV commercial fudging how long the Republican candidate has lived in the state.

"The state is in the worst shape that I've seen in the 30 years that I have lived in California," Whitman says in the ad.

One problem: Though the former EBay chief first moved to California nearly 30 years ago, in 1981, she hasn't continuously lived here since then. She was out of state from roughly 1992 to March 1998. The Whitman campaign declined to specify when she moved out of state.

After The Times and others reported the inconsistency, California Democratic Party Chairman John Burton called on her to pull the ad ...

And at National Review, "Treating a Residency Comment as a Bigger Deal Than the D.C. Snownami."

The Next Industrial Revolution

Some readers might recall my discussion last week at my entry, "Fourth Quarter GDP, the iPad and American Power." With respect to Apple's information industry dominance, I noted:

It's still early to say, but these kinds of developments at the macro level (economic growth) combined with those at the micro level (industry innovation and market dominance), are generally encouraging for the larger questions of American world leadership in the years ahead.

Well, I'm reminded of that discussion after reading the cover story at the February edition of Wired, "In the Next Industrial Revolution, Atoms Are the New Bits." The piece begins with a lengthy review of the next generation manufacturing model for the Rally Fighter, from Local Motors (pictured below). I'm not hip with some of the insider's tech-geek lingo, but the leap-frog innovation and decentralized design and decision processes are exactly the kind of first-mover advantages I had in mind last week. The U.S. is not going to be overtaken by the Chinese in the next wave of industrial and manufacturing competition. Readers shouldn't miss that introduction, so I'll skip that to quote a bit from the main thesis of the article:

Here’s the history of two decades in one sentence: If the past 10 years have been about discovering post-institutional social models on the Web, then the next 10 years will be about applying them to the real world.

This story is about the next 10 years.

Transformative change happens when industries democratize, when they’re ripped from the sole domain of companies, governments, and other institutions and handed over to regular folks. The Internet democratized publishing, broadcasting, and communications, and the consequence was a massive increase in the range of both participation and participants in everything digital — the long tail of bits.

Now the same is happening to manufacturing — the long tail of things.

The tools of factory production, from electronics assembly to 3-D printing, are now available to individuals, in batches as small as a single unit. Anybody with an idea and a little expertise can set assembly lines in China into motion with nothing more than some keystrokes on their laptop. A few days later, a prototype will be at their door, and once it all checks out, they can push a few more buttons and be in full production, making hundreds, thousands, or more. They can become a virtual micro-factory, able to design and sell goods without any infrastructure or even inventory; products can be assembled and drop-shipped by contractors who serve hundreds of such customers simultaneously.

Today, micro-factories make everything from cars to bike components to bespoke furniture in any design you can imagine. The collective potential of a million garage tinkerers is about to be unleashed on the global markets, as ideas go straight into production, no financing or tooling required. “Three guys with laptops” used to describe a Web startup. Now it describes a hardware company, too.

“Hardware is becoming much more like software,” as MIT professor Eric von Hippel puts it. That’s not just because there’s so much software in hardware these days, with products becoming little more than intellectual property wrapped in commodity materials, whether it’s the code that drives the off-the-shelf chips in gadgets or the 3-D design files that drive manufacturing. It’s also because of the availability of common platforms, easy-to-use tools, Web-based collaboration, and Internet distribution.

We’ve seen this picture before: It’s what happens just before monolithic industries fragment in the face of countless small entrants, from the music industry to newspapers. Lower the barriers to entry and the crowd pours in.

The academic way to put this is that global supply chains have become scale-free, able to serve the small as well as the large, the garage inventor and Sony. This change is driven by two forces. First, the explosion in cheap and powerful prototyping tools, which have become easier to use by non-engineers. And second, the economic crisis has triggered an extraordinary shift in the business practices of (mostly) Chinese factories, which have become increasingly flexible, Web-centric, and open to custom work (where the volumes are lower but the margins higher).

The result has allowed online innovation to extend to the real world. As Cory Doctorow puts it in his new book, Makers, “The days of companies with names like ‘General Electric’ and ‘General Mills’ and ‘General Motors’ are over. The money on the table is like krill: a billion little entrepreneurial opportunities that can be discovered and exploited by smart, creative people.”

A garage renaissance is spilling over into such phenomena as the booming Maker Faires and local “hackerspaces.” Peer production, open source, crowdsourcing, user-generated content — all these digital trends have begun to play out in the world of atoms, too. The Web was just the proof of concept. Now the revolution hits the real world.

In short, atoms are the new bits.

RTWT at the link.

Mainstream Outlets Flirting With Objective Reporting on Tea Parties

Another Black Conservative reports, "Tea Time in Nashville: The Tea Party Convention." He's right to note the MSM outlets will milk purportedly outlandish criticisms of the administration for all they're worth, on Tom Tancredo, for example.

Yet, Dan Riehl discusses MSNBC at his report, "MSNBC Does Reasonable Report On Nashville Event." And see also the Los Angeles Times, "'Tea party' Convention a Forum for Woes, Worries." At least with this passage, I think the Times is trying to be fair as well:

Some advocates want to require citizens to pass a civics test before being allowed to vote, a proposal reminiscent of the Jim Crow laws used to keep blacks away from the voting booth.

Former Colorado Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo, the convention's opening speaker, raised the issue to enthusiastic applause.

"People who could not spell the word 'vote' or say it in English put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House -- name is Barack Hussein Obama," Tancredo said.

The remarks didn't go over well with everyone.

"I don't think that's the way to unite people. You might have thoughts about some things, but some things are better left unsaid," said Lisa Mei Norton, a defense contractor by day who moonlights as a singer-songwriter of tea party pop inspired by talk radio.

Norton opted to perform her song "A Revolution's Brewing" on Thursday night, instead of her version of "Where Were You Born?" -- a country-infused song questioning the president's birthplace.

Added: Uh oh ... I hope I didn't speak to soon! See Top of the Ticket, "Joseph Farah, to Cheers at Tea Party Convention, Again Questions Location of Obama's Birth."

Jay-Z at Interview

From Elvis Mitchell's interview with Jay-Z:

ELVIS MITCHELL: Would you have ever thought there would be a time where you could have a song like “Empire State of Mind” blow up the way it has, and, yet, there aren’t any record stores around any more? Isn’t it strange that we got to this point?

JAY-Z: It’s horrible. I mean, you didn’t foresee this specifically, but you knew something would happen because whenever people reject change, things change for them anyhow. I think that’s what happened to the record business when Napster came around. The industry rejected what was happening instead of accepting it as change. Here we are today, more than a decade later, and we still haven’t figured it out.

MITCHELL: Well, it still speaks to the power of music that something like “Empire State of Mind” can pop like that. There’s still an appetite for it.

JAY-Z: Well, I don’t think the appetite is the problem. I think the consumption of music is at an all-time high. But I think the ways that record companies are trying to monetize it is just all over the place. At the end of the day, music is in the clouds. That’s where it’s at now. Before, you could hold it, look at it, turn it around. Now, it’s just in the air. That’s where it’s gonna wind up. You won’t need a shelf or a wall unit like my mom and pop had with all these big-ass records. You’ll just need your phone to call it up.

MITCHELL: I’m sorry, I’ve gotta stop you here. You must hear this all the time, but whenever you say something that’s a phrase from one of your songs . . . When you said “all-time high,” I just went right to “Numb/Encore.” Does that kind of thing happen often?

JAY-Z: All the time. It’s good. . . . It’s weird and good.

MITCHELL: I think it has to do with how you fold certain phrases into your lyrics in the way that people talk.

JAY-Z: I think it comes from me trying to tell the story in the most clear, concise, and truthful way—taking those everyday words and phrases and capturing them in a way that they become something else.

The people who write the headlines at places like the New York Post do something similar. They turn these phrases that you know into hooks. Sometimes they’re clever. Sometimes they’re stupid, like TIGER’S TALE. [laughs] Actually, that was pretty clever. Rakimsaid, “I can take a phrase that’s rarely heard/Flip it/Now it’s a daily word” [from “Follow the Leader,” off Eric B. & Rakim’s 1988 album Follow the Leader]. That’s what I’m talking about.

MITCHELL: But having that power of understanding the way people speak obviously really means something to you.

JAY-Z: I started doing it on a small level, just for the people around me. Then I realized the impact it had, the connection it created with the millions of people who’ve been through the same thing that I’ve been through, or who can relate to my ambitions or emotions . . . You don’t have to be from Marcy projects to relate to the idea of, I’m not gonna lose. I’m gonna fight, and I’m gonna make something out of nothing. You know, that’s pretty much the American dream as it stands now. So, for me, the realization that I could speak to people like that came first on a small scale. Then it just started happening—I started having this vibration.

MITCHELL: You’ve always had a really good ear for things like that in your music, but one of your real gifts is that you can hear those sorts of things in other people’s music, too—like The Notorious B.I.G. or the Neptunes or Kanye West. That’s part of what makes you a great collaborator.

JAY-Z: I just really love the music. Everyone who makes music is a good collaborator at their foundation because in order to make music, you have to connect to it in a way that other people can’t. Other things can get in the way, whether it’s the boxes that people put themselves in, or the feelings they might have towards a person. But those things don’t get in the way for me. To me, there shouldn’t be any lines. All these ways we classify things as R&B and hip-hop and rock . . . It’s bullshit. It’s all music. If you put yourself in that box, then you won’t be able to hear that it’s all music at its soul. When people say stuff like, “Oh, that’s soft rock. I don’t listen to that,” I find that elitist. It’s music-racist. [laughs]

MITCHELL: That was one of the big parts of rap for a while. Not only were you not supposed to listen to other kinds of music, you weren’t supposed to listen to other MCs either.

JAY-Z: Yeah, but that was all bravado. That was all about, “I’m the best! No one else exists!” I pretty much forget all that in terms of collaborating. I really just like breaking down those barriers, whether it means doing an album with Linkin Park, an album with R. Kelly [The Best of Both Worlds, 2002], or playing at the Brandenburg Gate with Bono.

MITCHELL: Or doing a song like “Empire State of Mind” with Alicia Keys?

JAY-Z: Exactly.

MITCHELL: If you think about all the guys in hip-hop that you came up with, you’re one of the only ones who is still here—and part of the reason is that a lot of those guys didn’t break out of that box you’re talking about. In fact, most of them are still in it.

JAY-Z: I think a big part of that is insecurity. You know, successful people have a bigger fear of failure than people who’ve never done anything because if you haven’t been successful, then you don’t know how it feels to lose it all. You don’t have that fear. So why do you think people get stuck in those boxes? It’s that fear of going back down. “I had success. I had a number one record. I had a number one album. I have to make this kind of record again or else I’m going to lose it all.” So that’s how you end up making the same song over and over. People find their zone, a place that’s comfortable, and they say, “I’m not gonna try that other thing. What if I fail? Then I’ll have to go back! What if I can’t get in the club anymore?” [both laugh] It’s difficult for me as well. The Blueprint 3 was the most difficult album that I’ve ever made.

MITCHELL: Why is that?

JAY-Z: Well, what I was trying to do with this album—which is the same thing I was trying to do on Kingdom Come [2006]—is go somewhere that hadn’t been gone before, to try to chart a new territory in rap. The reason I’ve been grounded, though, and able to make albums, is because I’ve allowed my friends to come with me and voice an opinion. That’s who keeps you grounded—the people who have known you longest. People who don’t know you, you don’t know their motives. They smile at you all day, “Oh, that’s great. You’ve done it again! You’re the greatest!” And that’s not good for an artist. You’ve gotta keep the people that have been around you, who saw you when you didn’t have anything, so they have the confidence to say, “Get out of here. That shit is bullshit!” I welcome that.

RTWT at the link. "Empire State of Mind" lyrics here.

Obama the Fiscal Conservative?

At the video, CNN's Rick Sanchez interviews Judson Phillips, the organizer of the Nashville tea party convention. It's a moderately interesting discussion, but toward the end Mr. Phillips blanks when Sanchez argues that President Obama inherited the current unprecedented budget deficits from the Bush administration. It's simply not true, as Julia Seymour argues at the Wall Street Journal, "Obama Submits Largest Budget in History, But Networks Portray Him as Fiscal Conservative":

President Obama just submitted a $3.8 trillion budget proposal, the largest federal budget ever, which will come with a "record amount of red ink." The projected deficit of that budget would be $1.6 trillion, yet the networks didn't criticize him for being spendy.

To put this in perspective: Obama is proposing a budget $700 billion larger than big spender Pres. George W. Bush's last budget. It's TWICE the size of Pres. Bill Clinton's last budget of $1.9 trillion, who was credited with generating a budget surplus.

Despite the "staggering" size of Obama's budget, which broadcast networks admitted was "dripping with red ink," the reports managed to paint him as a fiscal conservative and deficit slasher.

NBC's Savannah Guthrie portrayed all the excess spending as a way to get the economy back on track saying: "He's asking for $100 billion to spur job growth - things like tax cuts for small business, tax breaks to increase wages - and he's doing this knowing that it will drive up the deficit, certainly even more in the short term. But all economists agree the real way to get a chunk out of the deficit is to increase hiring."

But Guthrie was highlighting only a tiny fraction of the overall budget and failed to criticize the administration for not finding ways to cut more waste.

CBS's Bill Plante also agreed with Obama's spending priorities for the $3.8 trillion budget Feb. 1 when he said the president "needs" to spend right now.

"The president has a serious money problem. He needs to spend more money in the short-term to create jobs, but he desperately needs to spend a lot less over the long-term," Plante said on "The Early Show."

Obama began his budget announcement on Feb. 1 by once again passing the buck to "previous administrations." Clearly blaming Bush for what he termed a "decade of profligacy," Obama criticized the funding of two wars, prescription drug spending and tax cuts before presenting himself as a fiscal conservative.

ABC's David Muir must have bought it, because his Feb. 1 "World News" report echoed Obama. Muir pinned the record deficits on President Bush's tax cuts and war spending when he answered the question: "How did we get here?"

His timeline of the expanding federal deficit began with an image of Bush signing a bill and the words "Tax relief for America." This has long been the claim of the national news media. While Bush was certainly responsible for helping balloon the federal deficit, American's for Tax Reform's tax policy director Ryan Ellis told the Business & Media Institute the tax cuts weren't the problem, overspending was.

"The networks are stupid if they think tax cuts had anything to do with this," Ellis explained. Tax revenues were higher than the average when Bush took office, but fell before the tax cuts because of the dot-com bust and the 2001 recession.

"Federal tax revenues are much more dependent on the economy than they are on tax policy. Tax revenues ROSE as a percent of the economy in the years after the BTC (Bush Tax Cuts) became law. They only fell again when the economy imploded."

According to Ellis and others, the real problem is government spending. Even a budget expert with the liberal Brookings Institution told the Wall Street Journal that Obama's "proposals will still leave us with unsustainable deficits as far as the eye can see."

Yet, none of the broadcast network morning or evening news shows mentioned that Bush's last budget was $700 billion less than Obama's proposal for 2011 or that Clinton's last (nominal) budget was half its size.

A couple of those reports cited political dissatisfaction with Obama's budget but none actually criticized Obama for spending too much.

There's more at the link.

RELATED: From Rasmussen, "Americans Reject Keynesian Economics" (via Memeorandum).

Tea Parties Generating Major National Media Attention

Really interesting things are happening down in Tennessee. Glenn Reynolds comments on the MSM press conference at the Nashville tea party convention: "Funny to think that the Tea Party movement is less than a year old, and that when it started only bloggers were covering it."

And here's Bill Whittle's great discussion with Andrew Klavan on exactly this topic:

I'll be updating on the convention as I find new information. But check Memeorandum. Also, interesting piece from WSJ, "Tom Tancredo to Tea Partiers: ‘Thank God John McCain Lost’."

Plus, at ABC News, "Tea Party Fireworks: Speaker Rips McCain, Obama, 'Cult of Multiculturalism'," and from Nashville Scene, "Morning Roundup: Tea Partiers Hiss Mention of 'Socialist Ideologue' Obama on Convention's Opening Night."

'Orange County Local News Network' Just Spammed My Blog!

Now, that's got to be a compliment, or something!

I saw Mike Reicher and Gretchen Meier at last night's Newt Gingrich lecture. They were sitting right in front of me, on the floor actually, during the talk. In fact, that's Mike Reicher on the right in this picture, where we see Speaker Gingrich exiting stage right:

The truth is, I would have never even known who the hell Mike Reicher and Gretchen Meier were until someone at "Orange County Local News Network," their online magazine, spammed my comments. They left a link to their story on the event last night, "Gingrich Riles Irvine Crowd With Jobs, Other Proposals."

Here's a screencap of the editorial staff, at the introductory essay, "Hello, Orange County!":

Look, I've been blogging long enough to know some of the do and don'ts of the trade, and one thing these folks might want to do is get to know who's out there blogging on the issues before they start making theirselves at home in the comments with advertising links. I'll give 'em credit though: It's a pretty gutsy move to a launch magazine start-up in this economic environment. But if they're adopting an old-school hierarchical mindset, they're going to be in for some epic fail. Folks might remember what happened to Hollywood Today. Editor and Publisher Jeffrey Jolson actually went so far as to allege libel in an e-mail to me, and I told him to take a hike (see, "Jeffrey Jolson, Publisher and Editor-in-chief at Hollywood Today, Responds to Absence of Source Attributions at Tareq Salahi ATFB Story").

Thus, my suggestion to the editors at Orange County Local News Network is understand that there is NO HIERARCHY anymore. Bloggers take down the media's big boys all the time nowadays, so it pays to learn the lay of the land. In this case, a link first THEN a track-back would have been perfectly legit. Indeed, that's how you go about making folks feel appreciated, and in turn you might get some links thrown back your way. So, yo! You sho' wanna be keepin' good with us homies (citizen journalists) of the blogosphere! Because, man, sometimes "It's REALLY Hard Out There..."

Kris Stoke Newington is a Bleedin' Idiot!

Man, this is both a blast from the past and a shot out of thin air, to mix the metaphors there. But Kris Stoke Newington, for the damnedest of reasons, left this broadside just now:

Trust you Donald, to weigh in of "practicalities" and "military effectiveness" - given you've never served and all.

Even you will be aware that gays have been openly serving in the British military for the past 10 years - with dignity and the respect of their peers, junior and seniors.

I don't suppose you're now going to lecture us on Brit Forces being a bit "gay" for your liking. I doubt our troops would.

You've rolled out the same tired arguments - and their foundation rests on your twin specalities of prejudice and conjecture. Go you.

I await your "editing".

Editing? No way, this is gold, I tell you, GOLD!!

Kris is commenting at my post, "Against Gays in the Military," where I write -- WAIT FOR IT -- >>>>> ...... ******* ++++++ ### ..... $$$$$ ..... @@@@ !!!! >>>>>> :

I don't write about it often, but I oppose "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Some of my opinions have been influenced by academic research, especially, Aaron Belkin's, "A Modest Proposal: Privacy as a Flawed Rationale for the Exclusion of Gays and Lesbians from the U.S. Military." Also interesting has been some of the milblog arguments against the ban on open service. I'm also not convinced current policy has been effective ...

Perhaps the title of the post was confusing for "Stoke-Hooligan"? But that'd be Mackubin Thomas Owens who's "against gays in the military," at the Wall Street Journal, not me. Actually, I thought dunderhead Scott Erik Kaufman might have been tripped up by the title, so aggressively on the prowl he is to find "stoopid" conservatives. But maybe he should be hanging out at the Political Jungle or American and Proud instead. Real blogging Einsteins over there, ya know, with good old Texas "Dunce Cap" Fred sitting in the corner!

But wait! I've been trying to get along with all the shoot-the-immigrants-advocatin' bloggers of Texas Fred's posse! Oh well, ... screw it. They never link my blog anyway!

Condescending Leftists

I don't use the old-fashioned term "liberal" to describe today's political left, and while my view on this has been firmly grounded in abstract ideological thinking (which some, in futility, have challenged), it's interesting we have some confirmation of such leftist identification in David Paul Kuhn, discussing Gallup's new poll, "Majority of Dems View Socialism Positively."

And that socialist ideological foundation -- found in places like the vapid rogue's gallery of Larisa Alexandrovna, Lawyers, Guns and Money, and No More Mister Nice Blog (and not to mention the T-Bogg demon seed) -- provides the background for Gerard Alexander's essay, "Why Are Liberals So Condescending?" (via Memeorandum):

Every political community includes some members who insist that their side has all the answers and that their adversaries are idiots. But American liberals, to a degree far surpassing conservatives, appear committed to the proposition that their views are correct, self-evident, and based on fact and reason, while conservative positions are not just wrong but illegitimate, ideological and unworthy of serious consideration. Indeed, all the appeals to bipartisanship notwithstanding, President Obama and other leading liberal voices have joined in a chorus of intellectual condescension.

It's an odd time for liberals to feel smug. But even with Democratic fortunes on the wane, leading liberals insist that they have almost nothing to learn from conservatives. Many Democrats describe their troubles simply as a PR challenge, a combination of conservative misinformation -- as when Obama charges that critics of health-care reform are peddling fake fears of a "Bolshevik plot" -- and the country's failure to grasp great liberal accomplishments. "We were so busy just getting stuff done . . . that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are," the president told ABC's George Stephanopoulos in a recent interview. The benighted public is either uncomprehending or deliberately misinformed (by conservatives).

This condescension is part of a long liberal tradition that for generations has impoverished American debates over the economy, social issues and the functions of government -- and threatens to do so again today, when dialogue would be more valuable than ever.

Liberals have dismissed conservative thinking for decades, a tendency encapsulated by Lionel Trilling's 1950 remark that conservatives do not "express themselves in ideas but only in action or in irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas." During the 1950s and '60s, liberals trivialized the nascent conservative movement. Prominent studies and journalistic accounts of right-wing politics at the time stressed paranoia, intolerance and insecurity, rendering conservative thought more a psychiatric disorder than a rival. In 1962, Richard Hofstadter referred to "the Manichaean style of thought, the apocalyptic tendencies, the love of mystification, the intolerance of compromise that are observable in the right-wing mind."

This sense of liberal intellectual superiority dropped off during the economic woes of the 1970s and the Reagan boom of the 1980s. (Jimmy Carter's presidency, buffeted by economic and national security challenges, generated perhaps the clearest episode of liberal self-doubt.) But these days, liberal confidence and its companion disdain for conservative thinking are back with a vengeance, finding energetic expression in politicians' speeches, top-selling books, historical works and the blogosphere. This attitude comes in the form of four major narratives about who conservatives are and how they think and function.

RTWT at the link.

Post-American Bandstand with Pat Boone

Pat Boone on Pajamas TV!

Tea Party Nation Convenes in Nashville

I haven't met Chuck DeVore yet, but I can't find anything to disagree with in this interview with Dylan Ratigan. Dan Riehl, also at the clip, has the MSNBC video, which includes Ratigan's longer introduction:

As Dan notes, he's been a consistent critic of Tea Party Nation and its pay-to-play scheme for the convention. Personally, I have no qualms with the profit motive. It's just that Judson Phillips' organizing model seemed a bit more self-interested than I'd prefer, although by the looks of those who're heading to Nashville, such concerns have been subordinated in the larger grandeur of the moment. See Gateway Pundit, for example, "Liveblogging the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville" (via Memeorandum). And Melissa Clouthier has some comments on the movement. See, "The Tea Party Movement, Tea Party Nation & Judson Phillips: A Round-Up."

Also, at the Washington Post, "'Tea Party' Leaders to Unveil National Strategy for Grass-Roots Organizing." And, at CNN, "Tea Party Convention Aims to Boost the Movement."

The Left's Shameful Politicization of the Census

Marco Rubio is absolutely awesome in the interview here, and as always, Michelle Malkin shreds the Democratic Party's illegal alien political empowerment census scam:

And at Michelle's blog, "The Super-Sized Census Boondoggle."

Gingrich in 2012?

Okay, following up on my post from last night, "Newt Gingrich in the O.C.!," unlike many other politicians I've met, Newt Gingrich seemed like a cold, self-superior political actor. There was no sense of inclination toward glad-handing. In contrast, videos of Sarah Palin at her book signings show a potential candidate eager to engage her followers and supporters. Gingrich gave a good talk, and had I just left after the lecture I might have a different opinion of him. When he walked into the reception room for the signing, there was a punfunctory feel and a forced-smile atmosphere to the event. I can't remember feeling that I'm getting a privilege to meet someone who might very well be asking for my support. Call me selfish, but I don't necessarily view Gingrich as a model of personal integrity and leadership. He's an idea man, most of all. Super smart, he provided the GOP the punch for its comeback in the 1990s. But personally, he doesn't seem that much different than a lot of other run-of-the-mill partisan hacks. He's been under ethical clouds, and his fidelity to matrimonial sanctity leaves something to be desired. Nevetheless, he's a huge player on the right, and time tends to smooth the rough edges of political notoriety.

In any case, the editorial board at the Orange Count Register met with Gingrich, and the paper's got the results published this morning. See, "Gingrich Lays Out Terms for 2012 Run":

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Thursday that he would need the support of a broad coalition of Republicans, Democrats and independents before he would consider a 2012 presidential bid.

Speaking to the Register's editorial board, Gingrich spoke of building a “tripartisan movement.”

While many core Democrats view him antagonistically, his message of government reform and lower taxes are similar to views expressed by Republicans, Tea Party followers, frustrated independents and Reagan Democrats.

“I spend time every day thinking about how to build that,” he said.

Gingrich has given no indication that he is pursuing a presidential bid, but he has not ruled it out.

Gingrich came for meetings throughout the area. Also on Thursday, his American Solutions group met with small-business owners at the Irvine Hilton. On Saturday at the St. Regis resort in Dana Point, he's speaking at the annual summit meeting of Legatus, a Catholic organization for business and civic leaders.

Gingrich said that next February, he and his team would gauge the prospects of a 2012 presidential run. He said he would have to feel a “citizen obligation.”

“Do I have a responsibility that I can't walk away from?” he asked.

Gingrich was in town to tout his American Solutions organization and its “Jobs First” proposal.

He described the country's economic malaise as being perpetuated by a “secular socialist machine that is fundamentally trying to change this country.” The next several election cycles will be critical to determining the future of the country, he said.

“We're either going to decide to be a secular socialist system or we're going to throw the rascals out.”

He blamed the movement on the influence that public unions, trial lawyers and liberal activists have over the government, and he took several shots at President Barack Obama.

“The president has lots of words, almost none of which has meaning,” he said. “He says we can't afford to spend more while he's increasing spending. … He says he's for jobs, except that he wants to tax everybody who raises money.”

Gingrich outlined five tax changes he said will spur the economy and job creation:

Give a two-year, 50 percent reduction of Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes paid by both employers and workers. He said the difference could be made up by unspent TARP and stimulus money.

Allow small businesses to deduct 100 percent of new equipment purchases.

Abolish taxes on capital gains.

Reduce the business tax rate to 12.5 percent.

Abolish the estate tax.

More details from Jan Norman, "Newt Gingrich Has Small-Biz Jobs Proposal," and Peggy Lowe, "Jobless Are the New Soccer Moms."

See also, "Newt Gingrich in the O.C.!"

VIDEO HAT TIP: American Solutions, "Platform of the American People."

Newt Gingrich in the O.C.!

Okay, got home a little after 9:00pm from the Newt Gingrich lecture at the Irvine Hilton. After I found a seat (reserved up front), I took this shot of the crowd while standing at the podium at the stage. The event is still filling up here:

As I was taking the picture, I saw a commotion at the back of the ballroom. I made my way back there to see what was happening. Newt Gingrich was preparing for his interview on Hannity:

Back up front, I'm photographed here with Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle. He's a true leader in the state's conservative movement, and was Speaker of the California State Assembly in 1996:

Here's Mayor Pringle introducing Speaker Gingrich:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich greets the crowd. And from the American Solutions website: "LIVE BLOG: Real Jobs Summit in Irvine, CA:

Beginning his talk:

You can see how packed it was in the ballroom during the lecture. Audience members were able to comment and ask questions:

Speaker Gingrich responding to questions:

I'm not particularly thrilled by Speaker Gingrich. He gave a very good speech, naturally, and he was especially strong in his views that enemy combatants should not be getting Miranda rights, etc. But last October/November I was really bothered by Gingrich's endorsement of RINO Dede Scozzafava. And even during his address tonight he came off a little too moderate. I'm with Michelle Malkin on this, for example: "Dear Newt Gingrich: Meet Ronald Reagan." Doug Hoffman ran within a couple of points of Democrat Bill Owens, NY-23's winner, on election night November 3rd. Had Speaker Gingrich endorsed Hoffman, and perhaps campaigned for him in New York, he could have provided the lift for the conservative Republican to take the seat. I don't really understand Gingrich's thinking on that one.

I bought a book anyway. Gingrich did a signing and I thought I might as well go for it rather than regret it later. I studied Gingrich's House leadership in some detail in graduate school, so better to be open-minded as far as historical significance goes. And honestly, I'm pleased so far with the book, Rediscovering God in America: Reflections on the Role of Faith in Our Nation's History.

And here's the obligatory picture. This was a high-speed production, as you can see. Speaker Gingrich was signing the next person's book while posing for a photo with me:

Anyway, I'm glad I attended, even if Speaker Gingrich was too businesslike and impersonal at this stage of the evening. There were roughly 75 people or so at the signing. Michelle Malkin had more people waiting in line when I met her, and she took the time to smile, shake hands, and stand for photos with those in attendence at her event.

All in all, though, a worthwhile evening.

UPDATED!! - Sean Hannity Newt Gingrich in the O.C.!

UPDATE: I just came from the event at the Irvine Hilton. Actually, Hannity interviewed Speaker Newt Gingrich via satellite (which I just missed right now coming home) on the 9:00pm encore broadcast. I'll look for a video of that tomorrow. Meanwhile, I'll be posting pictures from the lecture in a new blog entry. I'll update this post when that's published.

*****

UPDATE II: Here's the report, "Newt Gingrich in the O.C.!"

*****

I just got word this afternoon that Sean Hannity will do his show tonight live from the Irvine Hilton. Hannity's Twitter page is here. And Melinda Stone's tweet has the details:

Here's the American Solutions announcement, "Real Jobs Summit in Irvine, California":

There's a chance I'll be part of the live audience, so I'm planning on arriving to the event at 5:00pm. Check back later here tonight for a report!

RELATED: I actually don't care much for Newt Gingrich, so this is interesting: From CNN, "Club for Growth Targets Gingrich" (via Memeorandum).

Here We Are Now, Entertain Us...

Hey, maybe rock blogging is catching on among us conservatives!

From Sean Hackbarth, "Why Nirvana’s Nevermind Is Overrated":

A Twitter chat tonight with @LizMair, @ToddThurman, @CalebHowe, and others involved the supposed greatness of Nirvana. There’s no doubt they altered popular music for the better when Nevermind was unleased in 1991. But they’re also the most overrated band in modern times. Critics and supposed smart people too often speak of Nirvana in the same breath as The Beatles and Led Zeppelin. And it’s all pretty much based on Nevermind–or to be more exact “Smells Like Teen Spirit.”

More at the link.

Actually, I was never much into Nirvana personally. "Smells Like Teen Spirit" is a wicked song, but I was especially turned off by Kurt Cobain's death, which seemed to me a copy-cat suicide seeking the same kind of rock immortality as Jimi Hendrix or Janis Joplin. All a waste, and especially for someone like Cobain, who clearly had a long future in the music world.

Lyrics here. And Theo Spark's "Bedtime Totty ..."

NBC Loves Them Some Fried Chicken and Collard Greens!

Actually, this wouldn't bother me, since I SHO' DO LOVE ME SOME COLLARD GREENS! Hmm, hmm, mammy!

But considering the stereotypical nature of this AND the hypersensitivities of today's black folk, well, perhaps this isn't the best idea:

Mediaite has the story, "NBC Cafeteria Celebrates Black History Month With Fried Chicken Special." And from the links there, "Cook Defends Fried Chicken Choice for Black History Month Menu":

See also, Michelle Malkin, "MLK, Black History Month, and Cuisine Correctness" (via Memeorandum).