9/12/2005 04:48:00 PM|||kim|||

For a while now I've been wondering if the more shrill of the right-wing pundits continue to have any relevance. At the moment they don't seem to be serving any useful purpose. They don't seem to represent the rank and file conservative. There is no common issue that they're fighting for. You could certainly argue that they were united behind the common goal of defeating Kerry in 2004, but what now?

To be clear I'm not talking about the Grover Norquists or Frank Luntzes of the world; they have a clear role in returning America to the dark ages. No, I'm talking about the Ann Coulters, Instapundits, Malkins etc. Have they become irrelevant? Let's take a closer look:

• Michelle Malkin continues to pursue the hypothesis that a proposed Flight 93 memorial may contain a veiled reference to Islam. One thing that makes her suspicious: Teresa Heinz-Kerry is one of the private funders.
• Instapundit: "Bush is, in my estimation, adequate as President, but not much more."
• NRO, backing the Bush administration to the hilt: "Unlike most conservatives, I think the Census Bureau does a pretty good job, considering."
• Powerline, on Brownie's resignation: "I think Brown's padding of his resume constitutes sufficient reason for him to resign or to be removed." [ed: In the final analysis it's the resume padding that bothers these guys?]

This is anecdotal of course, but these excerpts paint a picture for me of bloggers who are just bored with themselves. Dimly aware that they have nothing to say, they offer half-baked pronouncements, and grumble aloud. Running the gammut of perspectives between the trivial and the trite. Or is it that when there's no unifying aim it becomes clear that there is no there, there?

|||112656243747517151|||Are They Irrelevant? Save Template Changes.