Don Pesci, Nick Uva, Doug Wrenn and More
March 2nd, 2007 by Peter
The Hartford Courant recently held a forum on political blogging in Connecticut…with a panel that didn’t include a single conservative. Don Pesci, one of our state’s best conservative bloggers, responds:
When the Hartford Courant recently hosted a forum on blogging, no conservative bloggers were represented on the panel that included McEnroe, introduced as a blogger, a progressive radio talk show host and a Courant columnist. There are no conservative columnists on the op-ed staff of the Courant; John Zakarian, the longtime Editorial Page Editor of the paper pronounced a doom upon them during his tenure and, ever eager to carry forward traditions, other editorial page editors followed suit. The result is: Conservative viewpoints on state issues are bleached out of the paper, and the resulting product is, predictably, wan, feeble and shallow, hardly more than a recitation of comforting liberal and progressive platitudes. In their progress, writers at the Courant rarely confront a hard, immovable, antithetical thought; for them, thinking is a matter of arranging their prejudices in a pretty way and setting up straw dummies they can then torch from within their own impregnable bunkers.
The forum on blogging is emblematic of what passes for “debate” in the state; it was, in essence, a five person one man show. Everyone agreed on the most important points, and a good time was had by all. In fact, nothing new was added by the bloggers to the “debate,” and most of the points made at the forum had been circulating through the mainstream press for some time. No contrary opinions were permitted to disturb the “debaters.” Where all were agreed, all were agreeable. One would hardly have guessed from the panel that nearly the oldest blog in Connecticut, YourNews2, is a conservative blog.
That’s the Courant for you. But Don’s post does remind me of a few good items on Connecticut’s conservative and Christian blogs that deserve a wider audience.
There is, for instance, Pray Connecticut’s great new Google-powered Connecticut Search Engine. And as long as you’re looking at my favorite local Christian blog do check out Nick Uva’s insightful post on the 5 reasons why the Connecticut press keeps doing profiles of evangelical churches. FIC members should take special note of Reason # 4:
Another reason is politics. Most people in the press probably view evangelicals and charismatics as a conservative faction in society, and so they are quick to explore the question of whether their heightened visibility will influence the politics of our State in any way. This part of the article on Bishop Ramirez was almost obligatory:
Anne Stanback, executive director for activist group Love Makes a Family, said she’s not aware of Kingdom Life’s role in fighting same-sex marriage. She said her organization is only seeking civil marriage and churches that do not favor same-sex marriage would not have to perform them.
“I think we shouldn’t put into law a religious position of one church and ignore that of another,” Stanback said, noting some churches sanction same-sex marriages.
Ignoring the sophistry of Ms. Stanback’s argument, it’s obvious that the call of any church will create “political” activity, as people now understand “politics.” Because morality has become political in American life, we can expect to see this type of reporting continue. Like it or not, when your capital city is one of the “gayest” in the country, the Bible is unavoidably political.
Over at Radio Free West Hartford Doug Wrenn has written an important piece titled Real Christians Don’t Bash Veterans Or Gays. Doug praises a bill in our state senate that would restrict an anti-homosexual church’s protests at military funerals. He’s been to that church’s web site and recognizes its message for what it is:
I’m about as “Christian Right” as they come, and unabashedly so. But I detested the vile, vitriolic and vulgar sewage that I saw on the WBC website, which often contained hateful terms for male and female gays, as well as gratuitous swear words and searing sarcasm that makes my admittedly sometimes fiery commentary seem tame. This is no church. This is a camouflaged clearinghouse for angry, hateful people to spread their venom. At least some of these folks might also possibly benefit from a few sessions on a shrink’s couch. The rest are either very duped or simply evil. I resent any inference to “The Christian Right” in comparison or suggested association with the WBC. Much like how Cindy Sheehan’s moon bats have harassed our injured veterans at Walter Reed Army Hospital while contorting the word and notion of “peace,” these WBC cretins are venting their sick, pathetic rage on vulnerable, distraught, grieving families of our country’s fallen heroes while not promoting God, but by sniping and hiding from behind His name…
In case you haven’t noticed, I usually write out of passion, sometimes more or less so than other times. This was one of those columns that gnawed away at me inside relentlessly until I could get to the keyboard. This issue has little, if anything, to do with right or left. It’s primarily about right and wrong. I’m not looking for a pat on the back, or even any thanks, but I do hope that some gays and secularists, particularly of the myopic, reactionary variety, are reading this column.
I hope so too. And I encourage our fellow pro-family activists to check out the October 2006 Citizen Magazine article on why we should view the church Doug is referrring to as a cautionary tale.
There are many other items on the right side of Connecticut blogdom that I hope to spotlight in the future–including several new religious blogs.
I’m flattered… but thanks for calling attention to the fact that even in one of the bluest of blue states there’s still a great diversity of belief and expression… the real diversity that might create a real debate rather than the type of debate Don Pesci was speaking about. I think the ice is cracking and soon more of Connecticut’s citizens will get to hear other points of view!
You’re right that Don Pesci is one of the state’s best conservative bloggers. And therein lies the problem: he is simply not a very good blogger. That’s not to say that he’s a bad writer or a bad human being or whatever, but he could copy-and-paste op-eds from the Wall Street Journal and the site wouldn’t be all that different. There’s no real reason what he does is interesting from a blogging perspective.
Also, you write on his site that “FIC Blog just may have the most lively comments section of any conservative blog in the state,” but you guys are reduced to trolling for hits and still come up short of 100 visits a day, mostly from people who come by to give you a hard time. No My Left Nutmeg writer was on the panel, and we get more visits in a day that you guys get in two weeks. But whatever – your influence comes from being able to get a message trumpeted over a few dozen pulpits on a Sunday and in various religious newsletters. It’s not to say that you have no influence, but your influence is basically unrelated to blogging.
The reason one would host a panel on blogging would be to explore what makes the medium uniquely vital and influential at this moment in our culture. The CT conservative blogosphere is notable neither for its vitality or influence, but merely for its existence. Inviting one of you on for “balance” would be as ludicrous as an NBA team hiring little people for a third of their team to get a “good variety of heights.”
Though I suppose it’s interesting to note that conservatives favor affirmative action when it benefits failed conservative pundits. “Wingnut welfare,” I think the kids call it.
Matt: “…he could copy-and-paste op-eds from the Wall Street Journal and the site wouldn’t be all that different.” But it would though, because Wall Street Journal op-eds are mostly about national politics, whereas the Pesci blog is devoted, mostly, to state politics. So the subjects are different. If you mean to say that Pesci and the Wall Street Journal writers both sound conservative, I congratulate you on your humdrum perception. I would not reason that because, in some instances, Colin McEnroe sounds like … well, you … he is not worth reading because he cannot say something fresh.
This line of reasoning is pretty nearly perfect example, I would say, of someone arraying their prejudices seriatim, rather than thinking, and I thank you for providing an example to illustrate a point I tried to make in the blog.
Matt: “Also, you write on his site that “FIC Blog just may have the most lively comments section of any conservative blog in the state,” but you guys are reduced to trolling for hits and still come up short of 100 visits a day, mostly from people who come by to give you a hard time.”
Quantity is no indication of quality. I’ve just finished reading – for the first time — the FIC thread on Plan B. It’s not everyone’s cup of tea, I understand, but that is a discussion.
Maybe people ought to just stop listening, and giving attention, to Colin and his Hartford Courant gang. Ignoring them can work, one only has to look at the Couran’t anemic circulation numbers in this state as proof. I would wager that Dan Lovallo is beating Mr. McEnroe on radio as well in terms of listeners, and that to me is just more proof of the success of a market economy. Just ignore them and concentrate on your own message.
I was invited to go to the forum, not as a panelist though. I chose not to go because
1) I wasn’t going to shell out $20 to go listen to a bunch of bloggers all pat themselves on the back and discuss blogging (a concept I already grasp)
2) Colin McEnroe was going to be on the panel
3) It was sponsored by the Courant.
I’d much rather spend my time and money on worthwhile events like the New Hampshire Liberty Forum.
I hear something. Is there a cat in here? Did somebody let a cat in?
What a strange place this is.
A cat?!?!?
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/kittycat.php
Indeed.
Wow, Judy, you’re as right about radio ratings as you are about everything else.
If you feel underrepresented why not hold your own forum to foster the local conservative blogging community? You could even invite Dan Gerstein, who apparently also felt left out. It’s easy to whine and moan about being excluded from everything. Surely organizing your own event would be a more productive use of your time.
As for the bloggers you love to hate, why bite the hand that feeds you? Most of your blogroll hits come from CTLP, Bob, and Colin McEnroe. We direct more traffic your way than your conservative friends do. Spazeboy even offered you a chance to guest blog on his site. I won’t even get into how much you rely on us for your actual “content”.
Believe it or not I would love to see a developed community of conservative blogs and bloggers in CT. I’m of the opinion that the more voices added to the discourse, the better. But the FIC blog doesn’t actually seem interested in working to build an online community. I guess it’s just easier to throw spitballs.
Maybe the Waterbury Republican-American will hold a political blogger forum and invite bloggers from those blogs that they feel are vital and influential in CT politics today. It would be very interesting to see who they included.
I don’t dispute Matt’s point that the lefty blogs have greater readership and influence than FIC Blog. And CGG is right that we owe a good many hits to those blogs. (In fact, I commented on CT conservative blogdom’s relative weakness a while back in a thread on Connecticut Bob–and building “a developed community of conservative blogs” in CT is something we have been thinking about.)
But it is simply false to say that FIC Blog is “trolling for hits” or that we rely on liberal blogs for our actual content. FIC Blog–under its previous name–was started in Oct, 2004–before most of the liberal blogs–and our content is driven largely by the morning newspaper.
And it amuses me to be accused of sub-par content–or “content”–by, of all people, The Caffeinated Geek Girl (CGG). Last month, in a debate with CGG over the addition of a conservative blogger to CTLP, one of her fellow liberals wrote that the blogger in question “barely touches on anything. He does regurgitate a lot of newspaper stories and press releases, –like a certain someone else I know….” Exactly. Don, above in comment 3, is right that quality counts. And on that score CGG is perhaps the most boring and overrated blogger in Connecticut.
Finally, there’s two seperate issues at play here: the influence of liberal blogs vs. conservative blogs AND the influence liberal bloggers THINK they have vs. the influence they ACTUALLY have. I concede the former but on the latter, well, I’m embarrassed for you.
Consider your big claim to fame: you defeated Sen. Lieberman in the Democratic primary. At first glance it’s an impressive achievement. But what happened next? Lieberman won the general election as an independent and holds in his hands the power to end the Democrats’ new Senate majority, were he so inclined.
Think about it. 2006 was the year the Dems came roaring back into power–largely because of voter disgust with the Iraq War. But tell it to an Iraq War hawk and here is the response you will get: “The country’s not as opposed to the Iraq War as you think. After all, Joe Lieberman was re-elected.” And earlier this year, everytime Lieberman spoke in defense of the Iraq War on the floor of the Senate, an item was posted on National Review’s blog, The Corner, titled “Thank You Voters of Connecticut!”
And that is what the liberal bloggers of Connecticut have to show for 2006. In an election that otherwise appears to be a nationwide repudiation of the Iraq War the one bright spot for the dreaded “neocons” is…Joe Lieberman. Your anti-war politics triumphed everywhere except the race you cared most about.
Note to the state’s liberal bloggers: Get off your high horse. You’re not that important. And Colin saying differently–because it encourages an army of mini-Colins but without the wit–doesn’t make it so.
OOo Peter!
Hell hath no fury like a consblogger scorned!
Who says you don’t get sad?