The Week In Blog: Running with the CPAC

[Bloggingheads]

[sp3akthetruth]

I love Bill on This Week in Blog. IMO, he's the best progressive stand-in, the most aware of the facts and all sides of the arguments. This is odd because I'm not really a fan of his Huff Post writings. I think his affable personality puts conservatives to sleep and he can disarm them with his charm.

Matt Lewis was a nice change up from the conservative side of things. I wish he was more open minded. He seems like the type who pines for his Reagan and thinks conservatives lost in 2006 and 2008 because they aren't conservative enough. He didn't show enough self-awareness for me. He doesn't see where conservative principles have failed.

I hope Bob Wright starts a this week in conservative principle and has them come on and hash things out honestly. Honesty and awareness seem lacking here. This is great news for Obama and anyone of the progressive ilk, so I'm excited about this. It's just hard to watch sometimes, gives me a headache.

[sheryl]

I think Matt Lewis is one of the best conservative minds on the internet and he represents what's best in our party.

I especially liked Matt's response to Bill's remark that Republicans risk credibility if we cry pork to often when highlighting every little budget or stimulus line item.

I would only add to Matt's comments that that's exactly what Republicans should continue to do at every chance; along with presenting an alternative, more effective course of action.

There is a recklessness in Obama/Pelosi/Reid's spending spree and wanting to cram into the budget monies on "saving the rat" or "removing tattoos". Regardless of how noble the cause can be explained by Bill and other liberal nuance artists, it's just unseemly when most American's are cutting back their own budgets. And we are eventually going to be ask to pay more for these spending excesses.

As Mitt Romney said today in his speech at CPAC, there is something morally wrong that we are racking up this kind of debt to pass on to the next generation.

[sp3akthetruth]

Originally Posted by sheryl

There is a recklessness in Obama/Pelosi/Reid's spending spree and wanting to cram into the budget monies on "saving the rat" or "removing tattoos".

As Mitt Romney said today in his speech at CPAC, there is something morally wrong that we are racking up this kind of debt to pass on to the next generation.

How do we take conservatives seriously when you use debunked arguments to state your case? There is nothing in the stimulus that saves any rats, mice, rodents. It's just not there.

Every tax cut that conservatives have put forward, along with a war, along with the surplus Republicans turned into a deficit racked up a debt that was left for our children to pay off. Every bit of spending Reagan left built this debt.

Conservatives have no economic credibility. Your congress, your president, brought us to where we are now.

Hardly the liberal, Ben Stein called our Bush and his cronies for this mess just yesterday. You have a president with a 70% approval rating and you're going to cry pork. Good luck with that.

[bkjazfan]

Apparently, the warnings by David Walker and Pete Peterson on the deleterious aspects of racking up for so much debt to be passed on to succeeding generations are not being taken seriously by either party.

John

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by sheryl

I think Matt Lewis is one of the best conservative minds on the internet and he represents what's best in our party.

If so, and if your view is in the majority, I as a liberal am comforted. I did not think Matt brought very much new to the discussion. I guess I shouldn't expect much from someone who is proud to have been listening to Rush Limbaugh since the 1980s. As far as I could tell, he stands for nothing but kneejerk opposition to the Democrats and the Obama Administration. It is not very helpful when we're in the middle of an economic crisis to be rehashing stale clichés about fiscal responsibility and reining in spending, particularly when the party closer to his principles has walked the furthest thing from this walk when they've been in power for the last three decades.

About the only other thing I heard from Matt were a bunch of highly non-specific prophecies of doom.

I did appreciate his reports from CPAC. I would have preferred more of that, and less mouthing of an empty creed that we've already heard ad nauseam.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by sp3akthetruth

I love Bill on This Week in Blog. IMO, he's the best progressive stand-in, the most aware of the facts and all sides of the arguments.

I second that, although out of consideration for some of my other favorite liberal 'heads, I'd hedge and say "one of the best." But certainly, he's on the short list.

[bkjazfan]

To be fair, I thought Matt had a good disposition and was not petty. I agree with him that Gingrich and Reagan were the last politicians who could properly articulate the conservative message.

Talk about a "blast from the past": Richard Viguerie. I haven't heard that name in years. He was a big shot in the early 80's. If I remember correctly he was not in line with the Wall Street/country club Republicans. To quote Rush: "dittos" on that one.

John

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by bkjazfan

To be fair, I thought Matt had a good disposition and was not petty.

No disagreement there, although I would say his repeated vague "Obama better be careful"s were a little borderline. It's not really that helpful if this is all you have to say, because depending on context, it is either unsupported by current polling, or merely trivially obvious as a historical analogy.

I agree with him that Gingrich and Reagan were the last politicians who could properly articulate the conservative message.

What does that say to you? That perhaps the message has passed its sell-by date? Or that people such as you and Matt have an unreasonably rosy view of the past, and these two guys in particular? It seems to me that it ought not be that hard to find new, effective spokespeople for a philosophy if that philosophy has merit.

Talk about a "blast from the past": Richard Viguerie. I haven't heard that name in years. He was a big shot in the early 80's. If I remember correctly he was not in line with the Wall Street/country club Republicans. To quote Rush: "dittos" on that one.

It seems to me he got a fair amount of attention in 2000 and 2004, but I agree that he seemed to be below the radar this past election. Do you think it's because he did not care for McCain? (cf.)

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

I did appreciate his reports from CPAC. I would have preferred more of that ...

... since otherwise, I am forced to turn to Wonkette for the latest news of this most important of conferences. For example:

-- Young conservatives think liberal bloggers are gods

-- More on the decline into irrelevance of "Joe" the "Plumber"

-- New Clown-in-Chief Michele Bachmann embarrasses every white person on the planet

-- The next spokesperson for the conservative movement? (Mildly creepy video | Creepier follow-up post on HuffPo)

-- Apparently, long-time commenter John M has found a new place to share his wisdom: The Twitters!

-- It's Friday night! (NSFW)

[Stapler Malone]

Originally Posted by sheryl

...

Just wanted to say Welcome Sheryl. It's always nice to get more conservative voices (especially ones as articulate as you) joining the conversation here in the forum.

[brucds]

"As Mitt Romney said today in his speech at CPAC, there is something morally wrong that we are racking up this kind of debt to pass on to the next generation."

Unless, of course, it's done with tax cuts. What a crock of crap conservatives are stuck defending - zero credibility. And I'm loving it. Jindal's invoking the Katrina disaster as an example of why we should fear the Democrats and their Big Government startegy stands as some sort of landmark in the GOP annals Hypocrisy, Lack of Irony and "We Think The Public is Stupid - Hey, They Elected Bush! - So We'll Say Anything, No Matter How Insulting To The Truth."

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by brucds

"As Mitt Romney said today in his speech at CPAC, there is something morally wrong that we are racking up this kind of debt to pass on to the next generation."

Unless, of course, it's done with tax cuts.

Got it in one.

Originally Posted by brucds

What a crock of crap conservatives are stuck defending - zero credibility. And I'm loving it. Jindal's invoking the Katrina disaster as an example of why we should fear the Democrats and their Big Government startegy stands as some sort of landmark in the GOP annals Hypocrisy, Lack of Irony and "We Think The Public is Stupid - Hey, They Elected Bush! - So We'll Say Anything, No Matter How Insulting To The Truth."

Speaking of credibility, I just dropped in to pass along another CPAC note, this one a letter to Andrew Sullivan:

I'm one of those “wealthy” people who will be pinched hard by Obama’s tax hike. I came to this country legally 17 years ago with $300.00 in my pocket but with good education. I struggled at the beginning but nevertheless, worked my way up in the high tech world. I too think that the Obama’s tax proposals are extremely unfair as if I don’t pay already enough to Uncle Sam. And this article on a liberal web site just infuriated me beyond belief.

But after listening to and reading about CPAC conference which is held currently in Washington, DC, I realized that I would rather take my chances with Obama than anybody from that group. I can’t imagine that these people were in power for 8 years and yearn for more. This rabid bunch MUST be kept away from any kind of power for all of our sake.

Mittens!

(K-Lo swoons.)

Curtain.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by brucds

Jindal's invoking the Katrina disaster as an example of why we should fear the Democrats ...

And the hypocrisy is not the worst of it. Heard the latest? And the very latest?

[sheryl]

Thanks Stapler Malone for the welcome!

“How do we take conservatives seriously when you use debunked arguments to state your case?”

I guess you have to define what debunk means. Without going into specifics, it is a fact, that if given money from the stimulus bill, the California Coastal Conservatory would indeed spend money on Bay Area wetland projects that involve protecting the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse.

Now we can all debate whether this is a valid cause to spend money on right now, but the higher point being made, that escaped Bill’s notice, is whether it can be defined as stimulating for the economy.

Because projects like these have very few economic multipliers, most logical folks would say no, it’s not very stimulating. And because it does so little to stimulate the economy, which we would all agree is the most important task we have right now, it is correct to call it wasteful spending.

And I would go further, I'd say the Democrats are practicing false advertisement by putting something like this into a stimulus bill.

As far as Republicans having no creditability and that Bush caused this whole mess (along with all famines, droughts and wars in history I’m assuming), these are intellectually lazy comments and their stupidity speaks for themselves.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by sheryl

Without going into specifics, it is a fact, that if given money from the stimulus bill, the California Coastal Conservatory would indeed spend money on Bay Area wetland projects that involve protecting the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse.

Now we can all debate whether this is a valid cause to spend money on right now, but the higher point being made, that escaped Bill’s notice, is whether it can be defined as stimulating for the economy.

Because projects like these have very few economic multipliers, most logical folks would say no, it’s not very stimulating. And because it does so little to stimulate the economy, which we would all agree is the most important task we have right now, it is correct to call it wasteful spending.

And I would go further, I'd say the Democrats are practicing false advertisement by putting something like this into a stimulus bill.

As far as Republicans having no creditability ...

Pardon the interruption, but your argument speaks exactly to the Republicans' lack of credibility.

Let's leave aside how true your specifics-not-included claim about the Marsh Mouse is and stipulate to it for the moment. The thing that makes me say you all have no credibility is that you're harping on this, and your side has been, non-stop, in the first place. It is such a trivial amount in the context of the bill, and this is the best you can come up with, as the presumably loyal opposition?

That was Bill's real point, too -- that the GOP and their media mouthpieces have nothing better to offer than obsessing over a leaf at the end of a twig on one sapling at the edge of a forest covering hectares.

Is every last item in the bill the most stimulative thing possible? Of course not. That's not how spending bills are constructed. Members of Congress add in things that they think are important for other reasons -- in this case, environmental spending to remediate an area Bush neglected -- because they have no other realistic opportunity to appropriate such funds.

Obama asked the GOP leadership in Congress to make a list of all items they objected to in an earlier version of the bill. Their total? 2%. He took most or all of those items out, and how did they thank him? By finding the next bit of trivia they could dangle in front of their mouth-breathing base.

Zero credibility.

[sheryl]

“In this case, environmental spending to remediate an area Bush neglected”

Well with this statement, I see why you speak so authoritatively about zero credibility because your perception is just that zero creditable. Really Bush neglected the Bay Area Wetlands?

“because they have no other realistic opportunity to appropriate such funds.”

Aww how sweet of you to defend the poor city planners who can’t budget their money effectively. It’s this kind of dense mindset that blamed Hurricane Katrina on Bush too.

What’s so puzzling is that folks like Brendan and others with this far left Democratic point of view fail to see the dichotomy that’s built into their arguments.

So Brendan believes Bush (who was indeed a big government, big spending Republican that many conservatives chided but not strongly or often enough) thinks we should now triple or quadruple the Bush behavior because Obama’s is now practicing this kind of governance.

Your lack of intellectual honesty is what’s wrong with debate Brendan.

[bkjazfan]

Brendan,

Hello! I haven't been a partisan in years. I have no clue what the conservative movement stands for anymore. I know what Goldwater and Reagen said they stood for but those days are long gone. Plus, Reagen did run up a lot of red ink.

I do put some credence in what Peterson and Walker have written on the National Debt.

About Viguerie: he seems to be for the Republican little guy not the fat cats. So, I wonder if he would be for or against the numerous bailouts going on? My first reaction would be no relief for the Wall Street types. On the other side of the coin many average people got snookered by the mortagage skams so maybe he would be for the massive bailouts taking place.

Thanks for the response.

John

[pampl]

Originally Posted by sheryl

So Brendan believes Bush (who was indeed a big government, big spending Republican that many conservatives chided but not strongly or often enough) thinks we should now triple or quadruple the Bush behavior because Obama’s is now practicing this kind of governance.

Government spending does involve spending ON things, you know. Just because Bush, the GOP congress, and the conservative grassroots wanted to waste money on dumb things doesn't mean spending more money necessarily means more waste on dumb things. It just means that conservatives need to learn how to vote better.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by bkjazfan

Brendan,

Hello! I haven't been a partisan in years. I have no clue what the conservative movement stands for anymore. I know what Goldwater and Reagen said they stood for but those days are long gone.

Sorry to have mischaracterized you.

Plus, Reagen did run up a lot of red ink.

Points to you for acknowledging this.

Don't have anything to say about Peterson and Walker or Viguerie. Sorry.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by sheryl

“In this case, environmental spending to remediate an area Bush neglected”

Well with this statement, I see why you speak so authoritatively about zero credibility because your perception is just that zero creditable. Really Bush neglected the Bay Area Wetlands?

I was speaking of the environment in general, but no biggie. Go on. Keep venting your spleen about those of us of

... dense mindset ... with this far left Democratic point of view ...

with our

... lack of intellectual honesty ...

The only thing more impressive than the willingness of wingnuts to keep retyping those same phrases is this:

So Brendan believes Bush (who was indeed a big government, big spending Republican that many conservatives chided but not strongly or often enough) thinks we should now triple or quadruple the Bush behavior ...

If I'm parsing correctly, you think I believe Bush thinks we should now triple or quadruple ... what?

Nonsensical sentence construction aside, I must say I can't get enough of this rats-crawling-all-over-each-other behavior you all are displaying in your eagerness to throw your once beloved Commander Codpiece under the bus.

Now, that's entertainment.

[sheryl]

You are not parsing my words correctly, but no biggie.

BTW, leave my spleen out of your responses. WTF does that even mean anyway “venting your spleen”. What a stupid statement that is Brendan and it further perpetuates my theory about you that you have zero credibility to debate an issue let alone pass judgment on others.

You’ve reduced your dignity to name calling others with silly names like wingnuts and Commander Codpiece. How very Daily Kos of you.

Let’s do this, you live in your little world of name calling (and if I had to guess conspiracy theories) and I’ll live in the world where respect is given to all decent speaking people who try to engage in good will debate.

Life is too short to debate the likes of you. Bye bye.

So, why didn't bhtv broadcast live, Limbaugh's address to American people?
Would that be too out of the box for Bob? Better to whine about rude commenters all the time.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by sheryl

WTF does that even mean anyway “venting your spleen”.

If only there were some way to find out, some magical oracle who could translate these mysterious words ...

Originally Posted by sheryl

Let’s do this, you live in your little world of name calling (and if I had to guess conspiracy theories) and I’ll live in the world where respect is given to all decent speaking people who try to engage in good will debate.

Given that in your time here today, you've now tagged me (absent any evidence) as a conspiracy theorist and also uttered the following ...

Originally Posted by sheryl

... your perception is just that zero creditable.

and

Originally Posted by sheryl

... you have zero credibility ...

and

Originally Posted by sheryl

... this kind of dense mindset ...

and

Originally Posted by sheryl

Your lack of intellectual honesty is what’s wrong ...

and

Originally Posted by sheryl

... these are intellectually lazy comments and their stupidity speaks for themselves.

and

Originally Posted by sheryl

What a stupid statement that is Brendan ...

... one wonders what you mean by "good will debate."

Originally Posted by sheryl

Life is too short to debate the likes of you. Bye bye.

Promises, promises.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by JoeK

So, why didn't bhtv broadcast live, Limbaugh's address to American people?
Would that be too out of the box for Bob? Better to whine about rude commenters all the time.

Why won't Rush do a diavlog? Is he scared of being challenged?

And why couldn't you watch him on that great new Web-based media experience, PJTV?

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

And why couldn't you watch him on that great new Web-based media experience, PJTV?

Would that be Bob's answer as well, go away and visit this other site?

Besides, according to Limbaugh's site, both CNN and FoxNews televised his address to the nation. Just because some other web site had the same program, doesn't mean bhtv should pass the opportunity to take part in an event of such a high importance.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by JoeK

Would that be Bob's answer as well, go away and visit this other site?

Given that it's some blowhard making a speech, and not engaging in a dia(v)log? Yes.

Originally Posted by JoeK

Besides, according to Limbaugh's site, both CNN and FoxNews televised his address to the nation.

Mmm-hmm. Tell me, how many other times has BH.tv aired something that was also being broadcast on CNN and Fox?

Originally Posted by JoeK

Just because some other web site had the same program, doesn't mean bhtv should pass the opportunity to take part in an event of such a high importance. [emph. added]

I'm sorry. I can't keep a straight face any longer.

[AemJeff]

John Derbyshire's take on Rush. You never know when it's going to be gracile Derb or crazy Derb. This piece is a pretty acute, and subtle, analysis.

[I just had to use that damned adjective in a sentence someplace.]

Added: I had almost forgotten. Crazy Derb does make a brief appearance, mainly with the parting shot:

And Ron Paul, you know, has a cousin whose best friend's daughter was once dog-walker for a member of the John Birch Society. So much for him!

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

John Derbyshire's take on Rush. You never know when it's going to be gracile Derb or crazy Derb. This piece is a pretty acute, and subtle, analysis.

I saw that somewhere else, earlier today. I agree: it's pretty good -- even if I don't agree with all of it, he had a lot of no-punches-pulled observations (about both the right and the left's media efforts) that sure made me pause.

This bit seemed a little disconnected from reality:

Conservatives have never had, and never should have, a problem with elitism.

I suppose it all depends on what the definition of conservatives is, but I'd be hard-pressed to name many prominent people who I'd call conservative who haven't at least talked the anti-elite talk pretty much non-stop over the past couple of decades.

LOLed at the line about "genteel conservative events."

It'll be interesting to see if a schism develops over the idea of Rush as The Voice for the Right, a la the schism over Sarah Palin.

On a related note, Patterico (via) was cringing at some of the stupid going on at CPAC.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

I saw that somewhere else, earlier today. I agree: it's pretty good -- even if I don't agree with all of it, he had a lot of no-punches-pulled observations (about both the right and the left's media efforts) that sure made me pause.

This bit seemed a little disconnected from reality:



I suppose it all depends on what the definition of conservatives is, but I'd be hard-pressed to name many prominent people who I'd call conservative who haven't at least talked the anti-elite talk pretty much non-stop over the past couple of decades.

LOLed at the line about "genteel conservative events."

It'll be interesting to see if a schism develops over the idea of Rush as The Voice for the Right, a la the schism over Sarah Palin.

On a related note, Patterico (via) was cringing at some of the stupid going on at CPAC.

I got the feeling that he was referring to "conservatives" (in that bit about elites) in some particular sense that didn't include the current "lowbrow" aspect he was otherwise describing. If that's accurate, my sense is that there is some truth to what he's saying. Buckleyites and Tories, for instance, can easily be described as pretty pro-elite (essentially viewing themselves in exactly that sense.) But, even if I praise the quality of the piece, I don't necessarily endorse all of the views he's expressing. You rarely find conservatives willing to be as frank as this about Limbaugh's strengths and weaknesses - one of the reasons I really am a fan of Derb's.

Originally Posted by AemJeff

John Derbyshire's take on Rush. You never know when it's going to be gracile Derb or crazy Derb. This piece is a pretty acute, and subtle, analysis.

[I just had to use that damned adjective in a sentence someplace.]

Added: I had almost forgotten. Crazy Derb does make a brief appearance, mainly with the parting shot:

I love Derb, but to criticize Rush now, when we are all witnesses to his amazing display of leadership, is a bit misguided to say the least. Still, it is laughable for liberals to enlist Derb in their assault on Rush. There is no question Derb and Rush are on the same side even within conservative movement; David Brooks and other sleazy characters being on the other side.
Regarding dangers of lowbrow conservatism, in today's speech Rush quoted Hayek - that to me sounds like a lowbrow conservatism Americans can be proud of.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by JoeK

I love Derb, but to criticize Rush now, when we are all witnesses to his amazing display of leadership ...

Must. Resist. ...

Still, it is laughable for liberals to enlist Derb in their assault on Rush.

Ah, the never-ending victimology. It can't just be that someone wrote an interesting article and two people (one of whom has been reading Derb for years) decide to talk about it. No. It has to be all "enlist" and "assault."

Or maybe the verb choices just speak to too many hours hanging out on sites run by the Keyboard Commandos, 101st Chairborne Division. (Go RedState Trike Force!)

Did you even read Derb's piece, by the way?

Regarding dangers of lowbrow conservatism, in today's speech Rush quoted Hayek - that to me sounds like a lowbrow conservatism Americans can be proud of.

Proving what, that Rush (or his speechwriter) knows how to search quotations sites on the Web?

I would give a large pile of money to any conservative of the Limbaugh ilk who could come up with a way to show he's got some intellectual chops that didn't begin and end with name-checking Hayek.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by JoeK

I love Derb, but to criticize Rush now, when we are all witnesses to his amazing display of leadership, is a bit misguided to say the least. Still, it is laughable for liberals to enlist Derb in their assault on Rush. There is no question Derb and Rush are on the same side even within conservative movement; David Brooks and other sleazy characters being on the other side.
Regarding dangers of lowbrow conservatism, in today's speech Rush quoted Hayek - that to me sounds like a lowbrow conservatism Americans can be proud of.

I think if you want the conservative movement to stage a comeback, you're going to have at least consider the idea that Rush isn't quite the asset you seem to think he is. Quoting Hayek is easy. That doesn't distinguish Rush's contribution from "lowbrow" conservatism (and where does Derbyshire say that lowbrow is bad thing? It would be more accurate to say he called it an insufficient thing.)

Despite what I said elsewhere about the rarity of conservatives willing to size Rush up with some objectivity - Derb's not alone. You can easily find dissent from that strain of conservatism from people like Douthat and Larison for instance - and that's a hopeful sign of possible renewal, I think, within the movement. (I'm all for a healthy conservative movement - democracies thrive on conflict.) You should be hoping for more such signs of a vigorous debate within your party, not wishing that the demagogues and wannabe potentates were even freer of the possibly of fraternal criticism than they unfortunately already are. That latter is not the way to build a movement, and Rush is not the guy who is going to lead it back into the light.

Originally Posted by AemJeff

I think if you want the conservative movement to stage a comeback, you're going to have at least consider the idea that Rush isn't quite the asset you seem to think he is. Quoting Hayek is easy. That doesn't distinguish Rush's contribution from "lowbrow" conservatism (and where does Derbyshire say that lowbrow is bad thing? It would be more accurate to say he called it an insufficient thing.)

It is way too early to think about comeback. The only thing conservatives can and should do now, is speak what they believe. Without paying too much attention how popular it is, right now.

Originally Posted by AemJeff

Despite what I said below about the rarity of conservatives willing to size Rush up with some objectivity - Derb's not alone. You can easily find dissent from that strain of conservatism from people like Douthat and Larison for instance - and that's a hopeful sign of possible renewal, ...

I am not against conservatives having vigorous ideological debate amongst themselves. I just think Derb will very soon, if not already, find Rush to be his ally in that debate.

I like Ross, even though I am with Rush on what he had to say about "Grand New Party". Funny thing is I think Rush was thinking of Ross and Reihan when he said this in his speech today:
I cringed -- it might have been 2007, late 2007 or sometime during 2008, but a couple of prominent conservative but beltway establishment media types began to write on the concept that the era of Reagan is over.

[timba]

This was one of the best - both heads are great (I also love Conn). It's absolutely amazing that Blogginheads has a virtual monopoly on conservatives who are not stupid, obnoxious, or both.

[timba]

I clicked on the ad to do my part, but then I wound up reading it for about an hour - very cool site.

[themightypuck]

You gotta give Matt credit. The kid is good looking and has a lot of charm.

[bjkeefe]

Just came across something that I thought I'd post for the record in response to this:

Originally Posted by sheryl

I guess you have to define what debunk means. Without going into specifics, it is a fact, that if given money from the stimulus bill, the California Coastal Conservatory would indeed spend money on Bay Area wetland projects that involve protecting the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse.

Now we can all debate whether this is a valid cause to spend money on right now, but the higher point being made, that escaped Bill’s notice, is whether it can be defined as stimulating for the economy.

From Politifact/St. Petersburg Times, posted 13 February 2009:

No money in the stimulus for San Francisco mice

To hear Republican House members tell it, you'd think House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stuffed $30 million into the stimulus bill to benefit an endangered mouse in her district.

Rep. Steve King of Iowa called it an earmark and "a pet project" while pointing to a sign he made that said "Pelosi's Mouse slated for $30 Million."

Rep. John Boehner of Ohio opposed the bill and asked how money "for some salt marsh mouse in San Francisco is going to help a struggling autoworker in Ohio?"

And Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana said on Fox News that there was "$30 million in there to protect mice in San Francisco."

The tale of the mouse appears to have originated around Feb. 6, 2009, from Republican staff members of the U.S. House of Representatives Appropriations Committee.

[...]

The memo lists a number of projects, including up to $37.5 million for "wetland restoration in the San Francisco Bay Area — including work to protect the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse."

[...]

That became fodder for a Feb. 11 e-mail from Michael Steel, Boehner's spokesman. ... That e-mail made it into a Feb. 12 story in the Washington Times ... The story stated, incorrectly as it turns out, ...

And that story was then picked up by the Drudge Report.

That's when the mouse references exploded, morphing from a possible project of an unnamed agency to Pence's "$30 million in there to protect mice in San Francisco."

We wanted to get to the bottom of this issue and find out what was up with the mouse.

Turns out the salt marsh harvest mouse is a previously obscure beneficiary of a major environmental restoration project for the San Francisco Bay area.

"A friend e-mailed me and asked me if any of the $30 million for the mouse was for us, and I was like 'What are you talking about?'" said Steve Ritchie, an engineer with the California State Coastal Conservancy, a state agency charged with preserving and restoring the coastline.

When the stimulus bill was first proposed and a call went out for ready-to-go projects, Ritchie prepared a list of the agency's shovel-ready projects and submitted it to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, both of which received money in the final version of the stimulus bill.

Three projects would turn abandoned industrial salt operations back into natural wetlands, about 26,000 acres in all. It turns out the mouse is an endangered species that likes tidal salt marshes, and it's mentioned by name as one of several species that will benefit.

But the projects themselves — the South Bay Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project , the Napa Plant Site , and the Napa Salt Marsh restoration — are intended to do more than just benefit wildlife. It's major construction work to create recreation areas and to restore marshland that will resist flooding and storm surge.

"This is bulldozers, front-end loaders, backhoes. These are major earth-moving projects to break down levees, to resculpt the landscape and to make sure nature can do its thing," Ritchie said. "Right now, we just have these lousy little salt pond levees and they break."

"These are real jobs, and these are truly ready to go," he added. "We can definitely spend this money for construction by Nov. 30, 2010."

Given this description of the projects, which were first reported in the San Jose Mercury News , it's a serious distortion to say there's money in the bill to protect San Francisco mice. The bill doesn't even list the San Francisco projects by name. And the funding agencies — the Corps of Engineers or NOAA — could still decide to fund the projects or not. The bill passed a final vote in the House on Feb. 13, with no Republicans supporting it.

So Pelosi did not put an earmark in the bill to save the mice. In fact, there's no money in the bill for mice. For this reason, we rate Pence's remark False.

Is that good enough to serve as a definition of debunk?

[AemJeff]

Derb reacts to email on his piece (evenly split pro and con, he says.)

I don't know that I'm much wiser after reading all the email. I already knew there's a culture gap in conservatism. Indeed, I wrote a much-discussed column on the fact six years ago. I also knew that I myself am mostly on the side of the effete fops, though I regard the word "lowbrow" as neutrally descriptive, not slighting. I'm not much interested in "internecine warfare," and didn't think I was engaging in it. The gravamen of the piece was that radio conservatism is unbalanced. There's nothing wrong with lowbrow conservatism. Or, to quote my actual words in the piece: "There's nothing wrong with lowbrow conservatism. It's energizing and fun." But where's the middlebrow counterweight? That's not internecine warfare. It's more: OK, we've got the cavalry working a charm, but where's the bloody infantry?

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

Derb reacts to email on his piece (evenly split pro and con, he says.)

Thanks for the heads-up.

Thanks also for passing along a new-to-me word, in this sentence:

The gravamen of the piece was that radio conservatism is unbalanced.