Don't count chickens ... well, you know.

Perhaps we are enjoying a giddy exuberance that Massachusetts is even only apparently on the verge of electing someone conservative. When Barney Frank says that Brown's election would stop the whole Democratic agenda -- that's probably an exaggeration, but the conservative heart leaps. Give us the moment, Don.

I wouldn't have believed it a year ago.

With your permission, Kate: "Give us SIX YEARS, voters of Massachusetts!!"

Kate, I'm all for savoring the moment, the day, and we hope a sea-change moment. I'm just not sure a narrow victory by Coakley will be received by the Dems as a warning shot.

And given the Dems are untethered by reason, rules, honor or integrity, they're free to employ all manner of techniques to delay if not deny a narrow Brown victory.

Mark Steyn had it right some time ago ... this Health Care thing is all about dragging something across the finish line, in any way possible. Once in place it'll never be repealed. Everyone knows this.

I hope very much Brown wins, and wins by tens of thousands of votes. I hope the Health Care thing is finally derailed. I hope the GOP wakes up and finds someone with some leadership vision. I hope a lot of things.

But life has taught me that when my hope competes with the selfish whims of liberals in power, my hope rarely succeeds.

Gary, in one form or another I'll be praying that all day.

Only a big win will do. If it is a close election and Mass Dems pull something similar to the hanging chad nonsense of 2000 or the other crooked things I hear about from the Cleveland area or saw in the last election, won't it prove something about that party? Even NPR mentioned what officials in Mass are are talking about to avoid seating a Republican if Brown wins. Yes, I know this is a long shot.

Still, it's been great to see so much of Massachusetts embrace this guy's politics. Really, I would not have believed this a year ago. It's a hopeful day. If you think you are being rolled to Hell and can pick a flower along the way you don't just smell the flower, you hope its an omen.

Kate, do you actually think that God will intervene for a particular outcome in an election?

Well, Craig, God does tell us to "cast ALL our cares on Him."

Why not pray to God for Brown to win? America's enemies will be praying to Allah the Arab terror god for Coakley to win.

I'm sure that He has intervened in human affairs in more peculiar ways than that, Craig.

Owl, since I got you here, what do you think of NLT removing their link to LittleGreenFootballs after Charles Johnson critiqued the fringe elements that he thought were damaging conservatism??

"Well, Craig, God does tell us to "cast ALL our cares on Him." "

So, Mechelle, does God then simply tabulate the number of prayers he gets for each candidate? If not, and He hears all the prayers but then decides what's best in His supreme omniscience and omnibeneficence, wouldn't it be somewhat arrogant to critique God's judgment?

I don't think God is a democrat. Nor does he refer to himself as referee. We are instructed to pray for our government and its officals so that we can live in peace. How God handles my prayers in that regard are his business, not mine.

We could have a lovely argument about the extent of God's sovereignty and how that works with or in opposition to man's free will, I suppose. I don't know how it works and allow God his mysteries. I think God could intervene, which is why I pray. People prayed for me to know God before I ever believed. How did I acquire faith? I still do not really know. Perhaps God influenced me to leap into faith. No human argued with me, yet I was persuaded.

How do you know that NLT removed the link to that blog for the reason you say?

Kate - NLT removed its blogroll link to LittleGreenFootballs quite shortly after the right-wing blogosphere started crying foul over Johnson's distancing himself from their extremist elements. I posted a link to Johnson's critical blog post, and the blogroll link to LGF was gone shortly thereafter. No reason was given that I'm aware of, so I wouldn't bet my NRA membership on it, but considering how static that blogroll has been over the years, it's hard to believe that there could have been any other reason.

Of course you don't think God is a democrat, but do you think he might be a republican?

I wish he would have taken a different course of action, because he is a good man. But I definitely understand and respect his decision.

The reason I will stay on the right is that no political coalition is perfect, I think you could say definitively. It seems like Johnson could be doing the same thing that he does now while remaining on the right, but I suppose that is up to him. From what I understand, 9/11 caused him to shift right in the first place, so...

And as for the *apparent* connection to NLT taking him off the blogroll, well, that's their business, I guess. It isn't as if LGF just suddenly fell off the face of the earth now that they aren't on it or something.

Owl, you've certainly mellowed on that issue compared to just a few weeks ago:

https://nlt.ashbrook.org/2009/12/on-the-terrorist-attack.php#comment-66620

"OK, I admit that I have to agree with Scanlon on one point. If LGF was on the blogroll and is not anymore (and I hope it is not due to some of the things Charles Johnson has said), then I dislike that. Johnson is in my opinion doing the right a service by trying to reign in all the crazies on our side."

Of course, personally, I couldn't care less if LGF did fall off the face of the Earth, but to me NLT's quick, knee-jerk reaction was not a very classy thing to do - it really strikes me as somewhat childish. But of course, that's "their business."

I think God is a monarchist by nature.

Are there no comings and goings on the NLT blogroll? I confess to never having noticed nor used their recommendations.

Now I have to go be irrationally exuberant about the Massachusetts election somewhere: excuse me.

Er, I think you over-read my tone in the first statement. All I have added is that I continue to like and respect Johnson, and that I think he could have done the same thing while still staying on the right. In the first post, I never said that NLT was shady or something, only that I "dislike[d]" the move. Of course it is their business. I am sure they have their own prudential considerations.

By the way, where did that come from? It is sort of a weird "gotcha" moment to try to catch somebody in.

I think it is also clear in my first post that his removal from the blogroll is distasteful if it is due specifically to his recent disapproval of some of the more severe elements of the movement.

Oh sure, Johnson's/LGF's removal from NLT's dusty, cobweb-laced blogroll at that particular moment in time is probably just a simple coincidence. (Sorry, but I have to wonder if that sort of naive denial is painful to maintain)

crooksandliars.com/logan-murphy/conservative-blogger-charles-johnson

I'm not much interested in Johnson's blog even now that he's firmly put the ring-wing fringe at arm's length (I don't think he's a lefty by any stretch, and as far as conservative/right-wing blogs go, I've got a certain loyalty - sniff-sniff - for NLT), but I have to give him credit for these 2 items.

Mocking those who do the whole "It's cold outside - so much for global warming!" schtick (hmmm.... that sounds familiar!):

https://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35605_Video-_How_Can_There_Be_Global_Warming_When_Its_Snowing_Outside

and making Glenn Beck his "Idiotarian of the Year" - a well-deserved honor, indeed:

https://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35534_The_Fiskie_Award_for_2009_Goes_To-_A_Raving_Freakazoid_Nut_Sandwich

What an outrage!

Was that what you wanted??

Craig, I never listened to Glenn Beck until your vehement recommendations got to me. He talks too much, but that's the problem of anyone who has that kind of show and has to fill up hours of time every week. Otherwise, I like him, agree with most (not all) of what he says. That I think about it, I don't even always agree with everything I say.

Are you outraged by the hyperventilations of Rachel Maddow or going further, Jon Stewart or anyone like that? Why does Glen Beck bother you so much?
He is an entertainer on the subject of politics. Why is
that a big deal?

If NLT found that they could no longer support suggesting that blog to readers then it was right of them to take it off their blogroll. If the point of such a roll is “If you like us, then you’ll like them.” Then taking that name off the list for all of the reasons you mention makes perfect sense. Would you expect to see NLT on a similar left-wing list?

Owl - A tad more consistency over the span of 3 weeks might've been nice, but ultimately I couldn't care what your reaction was. I didn't "want" you to do anything.

So, I guess you dislike the removal of the blog from their blogroll, and you find it "distasteful" but you have no formal objection to NLT's rejection of Johnson's "service" of "trying to reign in all the crazies on [the right] side." After all, it's their blog - indeed, it is.

Which leads me to...

Kate - Beck is a ridiculous figure posing as some serious, scholarly journalist (or journalistic leader) [see Hayward's WashPost piece about "brain-dead conservatism" for how he's pulled that off], yet his main qualification to anything is that he's lived his life and he's a recovering alcoholic (wow). He's on FoxNews, Kate, he's not on Fox (the regular entertainment network) after The Simpsons. He can't really use the Limbaugh-esque (equally disingenuous) excuse that he's just an "entertainer" and it's odd for you to attempt that for him [Was he billed as a comedian or entertainer of some sort when he spoke about "militant Islam"? Perhaps he got a laugh suggesting that they all be rounded up and put in camps? (Don't make me dig out the quote)]

Maddow is a legitimate journalist, and she gives real, hard-hitting, tough-questions interviews (contrast that with Beck's absurd love-fest with Palin a few days ago), and she's never spun conspiracy theories about public artwork on city buildings, or pretended to pour gasoline on a studio drone in order to make a point about... anyone. She's polite and professional, even to guests that she gives challenging interviews to, as opposed to Beck who just makes ridiculous assertions to his choir (Obama has a "deep-seated hatred for white people").

Stewart is an entertainer, a (funny) comedian, who analyzes the news from a liberal perspective and seems to divide the time quite effectively between comic jabs and insightful analysis. He doesn't "hyperventilate" (nor does Maddow), unlike Beck, who does just that practically nightly, reminding us - for our own good - about how the radical leftist Obama is trying to destroy the "Leave It To Beaver" 1950s America we all knew and loved (blah, blah, blah). And if you want hyperventilation, let's not forget Limbaugh. Watching video of his radio show is enough to make me wince and hold my heart awaiting his imminent coronary failure. And going back to your description of him as "an entertainer on the subject of politics" - he certainly seems to be more of a political activist when he's promoting and organizing tea party rallies, doesn't he? It's not like he's singing a few songs or doing 20 minutes of stand-up comedy and then saying "Stop Obamacare!" as he steps down from stage. What was possibly "entertaining" when he announced his sobfest Project 9/12 and went on and on about how much he loved his country and we all needed to come together again (and agree with him). He's a pathetic charlatan, and surely something antithetical to almost any conceivable notion of manliness. That's my very abridged version of why he bothers me so much.

You agree with most of what Beck says, and NLT can't tolerate Charles Johnson's amazingly moderate shift to the center:
https://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35243_Why_I_Parted_Ways_With_The_Right

....all of this makes me wonder, Kate, what IS the fringe right, in your definition? Is there one, does it even exist? Beck's not part of it, Limbaugh's (presumably) not, Palin's not, O'Reilly's not... What about Michael Savage, is he the sole fringe right-winger? We know that Obama is a wild-eyed leftist racist terrorist symp (who continually upsets actual leftists somehow), but what of the fringe right - who, where are they?

And if you want to see a professional, smart blogroll from a liberal, look no further than Glenn Greenwald's (he's got NRO's The Corner there - and I don't think he ever agrees with them):

https://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/index.html

Uh yeah, that about sums it up. (?)

btw, John Stewart is hilarious. Am I going to be put on the record for that one too?

What is far Left in your definition? Rachel Maddow's prejudices are so blatant and absurd that she makes me laugh. She seems ridiculous to me and may as well wear clown make-up; I cannot take her seriously, like you obviously do. At least Jon Stewart means to be funny. I think Beck does, too, and often. Part of what's so funny about Maddow is that she expects to be taken seriously. Granted, I have only watched her maybe a dozen times and some of those were when you linked to her to prove some point you were trying to make. I suppose if she is legitimate I ought to believe Beck is legitimate in the same way. They all look like a circus from here. I prefer some clowns to others.

I don't like to watch O'Reilly as he seems a pompous ass and I don't know anything about Michael Savage. One of the things I don't like about TV is that it turns politics and the news into a form of entertainment. People cannot tell the difference anymore between the show and what it observes. Take you; you ride a wave of opinion and tell me to look out for the undertow. I say it tickles my feet and you say it is sweeping me away. Maybe that's funny, too.

It's nice that you found some left-wing guy who has The Corner on his blogroll. If I went looking, I'll bet I could find something similar on the right. I don't want to go looking. You seem to have loads of time; you do it.