This isn’t a very important post, and it’s a long one. In other words, don’t forget you have a Scroll Key at your disposal.

Here’s the deal with blogging: It works best for people who have active minds that spin off in a million different directions. Andrew Sullivan’s blog was originally fascinating, then became something of a bore when his mind focused exclusively and relentlessly on a couple of issues. What still makes Andrew’s blog worth reading are the times when his fertile mind hops on something other than one of his worn-out hobby-horses.

Lately, he’s been doing some talking about writing versus blogging. That subject interests me, too. Andrew and I take a fundamentally different approach to what we do, even though we’re both known as bloggers. I consider myself a writer, and whether I’m writing on a blog, in a magazine, or for a newspaper, I take the same amount of care to make sure it’s good, or at least as good as I can make it.

Regardless of the medium, the written word has the potential for immortality. In the highly unlikely event that I write anything that achieves immortality, I hope it’s because it’s good rather than notorious. If I’m remembered at all, it would be nice if it’s for the pieces that I consider my best like the stuff that I’ve written about my health or the post after the Virginia Tech massacre or the article where I was essentially the first guy to spot the Daily Kos as a force that would remake the Democratic party.

And speaking of Kos, the mere mention of his name brings up the danger of writing something that becomes immortal for being notorious. Markos has spawned a hugely influential political movement and will be a political power player for decades to come, and yet his “Screw them” remark is permanently attached to his name. Regarding the “Screw Them” remark, here’s something you might not know. It wasn’t in a blog post. It was in a comment Markos made to a blog post. In all likelihood, it took him a grand total of two minutes to write and publish the infamous words that will forever put a ceiling on his respectability, sort of the way Chappaquiddick put a ceiling on Ted Kennedy’s respectability.

WHEN I STARTED BLOGGING, I GAVE MYSELF A RULE – never publish anything until a half hour after I’ve finished writing it. At times I downgraded this rule to a guideline, but since I’ve come to Hugh’s site, it’s become pretty much fixed in concrete. Too many people read every word I write for me to get away with something that’s truly offensive. I can’t say that the 30 minute rule has saved me from any “Screw thems,” but it probably has cut my bonehead mistakes in half.

Of course a bunch of bonehead mistakes still get through. Believe me, I wouldn’t mind a mulligan on my 2006 election predictions. And it’s not like Allah wasn’t warning me via email that I was badly confused. While my 2006 Election predictions stand-out as a low point, there are a lot of other things that sprang from my laptop that I wouldn’t mind erasing from the Internet.

My friend Jonathan Last of the Weekly Standard wrote a mini-essay on his Galley Slaves site in the aftermath of that Joe Rago “The Blogs Stink” piece. Although Jonathan takes a much dimmer view of the blogosphere than I do, his logic was right on the money. Jonathan argued that the problem with blogging is that it demands instant responses to even the most complex issues. Speed is the key. The problem Jonathan identified wasn’t the bloggers themselves, but rather the medium. The blogosphere insists that you record what you’re thinking at a given moment. Because most of us think some pretty stupid things in the course of a given day, if you’re going to follow that dictate, you’re going to produce some pretty poorly thought out posts.

Where Jonathan and I part company is that I think most prominent bloggers, right and left, have matured beyond the phase of blogging where they post their instant reactions to each and every news story that comes off the wires. I can’t think of any major blog where the writing isn’t the product of the most careful reflection the author is capable of.

Scratch that. There is one: Andrew’s. Andrew still responds to each news story in a visceral way. That’s why Mickey Kaus calls him excitable. That’s why there’s a surfeit of cursory name-calling on the Daily Dish. I don’t mind name-calling as long as the writer defends it. Too often for my tastes, on Andrew’s type of blog the blogger doesn’t.

But because Andrew’s an interesting guy and a talented writer, this is an interesting spectacle if not always an edifying one. Yesterday, he devoted no fewer than six posts to bashing Mitt Romney in a personal and passionate way. He even coined a derisive new nickname for him - “Republichamaleon.” I don’t see it catching on.

What Andrew does obviously isn’t my cup of tea. We may post the same number of words in a given day, but our intentions are different. Each man is the conservator of his own talent – Andrew and I use ours in different ways. I don’t think his choice makes for a dignified or productive use of his formidable gifts, but hey – that’s why Baskin Robbins sells 31 flavors.

DID I MENTION ROMNEY a couple of paragraphs ago? Oh yeah, guess I did. For those of you who can’t bear reading another word about Mitt Romney on this blog, I remind you once again that when Al Gore created the Internet, he was kind enough to equip most computers with a Scroll key.

Some of the commenters here think Hugh and I discuss Romney too much. This hasn’t been a representative week, since everyone in the blogosphere including Andrew Sullivan was spending a lot of time talking about Romney, but here’s how I spent my writing week: Most of my time was spent talking about torture. After that, my next most talked about and linked to column was the piece on John Edwards with the funny photo-shop. I also conducted a lengthy interview with an Israeli Knesset member. I did several general state-of-the-race pieces which didn’t focus on Romney but did mention him. To be fair to myself, that guy named Gilmore got almost as many pixels as Mitt in each of those.

Regarding pieces that focused on Romney, there were three. One was a brief piece on his Leno appearance, and the other two didn’t really focus on him per se. One dealt with what I considered his accurate view on the global struggle against radical Islam, and the other addressed that bizarre Robert Novak column.

Okay, enough of the boring rundown. The point is that as writers we all have to go with what interests us. Both Hugh and I are very interested in the Romney campaign, but there are many other things that interest us that also show up in this blog. Hugh writes about the Cleveland Indians, one sin I promise I’ll never commit. I write about American Idol, something that to date Hugh has refrained from doing.

As regards our feelings about Romney, neither of us has played it particularly close to the vest. I mention nearly every time I write about him that I’m an avowed supporter, just so newcomers have the advantage of knowing where I’m coming from. Hugh said on pages 16-17 of “A Mormon in the White House”:

“If the California primary were held tomorrow, I would indeed vote for Mitt Romney…I have never met a more intellectually gifted, curious, good humored broadly read, and energetic official than Mitt Romney.”

For some people, these seemingly clear words have struck them as befuddlingly ambiguous. They insist Hugh formally endorse Romney or else he’s guilty of hiding something or intellectual dishonesty. Sorry kids – you really don’t have to read between the lines of the above quote to see where Hugh is coming from. Individual media people don’t do formal endorsements because we’re not Senators, Congressmen or Dog-catchers. What Hugh and I have both done is make our feelings as clear as is humanly possible. Would that Brian Williams and Katie Couric would be as transparent regarding where their sympathies lie.

OKAY, SO YOU’RE PROBABLY WONDERING, WHAT’S MY POINT? I’ve been rambling so long, I’ve almost forgotten myself.

What I’m trying to say is that in order to produce an interesting piece of writing, the writer has to be interested in the topic. Additionally, because the stuff I write will attach to my name, I’m more than a little interested in making it good.  I'm quite sure Hugh feels the same way.

I’m aware that most readers here are less interested in Mitt Romney’s campaign than I am. And Hugh? Well, he spent a year of his life writing a book on Romney so the topic’s on his mind probably even more than it’s on mine. Since we’re biased, should you bother reading what we write on Romney and the race? I hope you do, but it’s obviously your call. After I wrote my initial reaction piece to the debate, I got a lot of “Boy – what a shock you said Romney won” emails. But my initial reaction to both Rudy’s and Mitt’s performances has become conventional wisdom in the past 48 hours. I know I’m biased, but I’ll still analyze everything I can to the best of my abilities.  Again, I'm quite sure Hugh will do the same.

Like I said at the start of this unnecessarily windy essay, the written word lasts forever. I’d rather keep the stuff that makes me look stupid to a minimum.

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com