4/11: Shays' Rebellion

Moderate Rep. Chris Shays' (R-CT) weekend comment to the AP that House Maj. Leader Tom DeLay should step aside is big news this a.m. -- at least in the liberal blogosphere. Since the DeLay controversies started heating up in the last few weeks, the left has been of two minds about their ideal outcome: Should they encourage DeLay's resignation post haste, or let things simmer until he becomes an issue in the '06 midterms? That question is still being asked today. On the right, the only thing approaching a major topic of discussion is John Kerry's repetition of the contention that there was voter "intimidation" on the right. Like with the left and the Shays/DeLay controversy, many comments are simple statements of "schadenfreude."

A few surprises today: the John Bolton hearing isn't generating much commentary on the left, though most oppose his nomination to the U.N.; the Terri Schiavo story is back thanks to a few developments. Also back, at least briefly, is ex-WH correspondent Jeff Gannon, who appeared at a Nat'l Press Club panel discussion on the future of journalism on 4/8.

TRACKBACKS: He Just Keeps Kerrying On Like This

Where the blog swarm is headed, who's taking part, and what they're saying:

• The AP first reported Shays' comments, and so is getting perhaps the most links. Other DeLay stories include Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) saying on ABC's "This Week" -- and picked up by the AP -- that DeLay should answer his critics, and a report by Michael Isikoff in Newsweek that quotes disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff as saying: "DeLay knew everything." Nearly all of the coverage is on the left: War and Piece; Talking Points Memo; Eschaton; Suburban Guerilla; Political Animal; MyDD. A few moderates link as well: The Moderate Voice; Centerfield.

  >> Oliver Willis: "I know this is just the White House greenlighting the idea of cutting DeLay off of the GOP's teat, but damn it I love when they shoot at each other. I'm glad that it's their side doing it for a change." Mark A.R. Kleiman tries to game possible scenarios: "[Potential Abramoff] prosecutors and their superiors [are] in a very touchy position: they don't need to be told that, if they go after DeLay but he survives, the DoJ budget is likely to suffer. This is another excellent argument, it seems to me, for expelling DeLay from the House right away." Matt Yglesias writes that in Russia, the parties behind the group paying for DeLay's trip were hardly secret, and links to the Russian Kommersant article indicating just that.

  >> A few conservatives have commented, but not many. National Review's Tim Graham writes at The Corner: "For putting his own media clip file ahead of party loyalty, many Republicans would like Shays to continue on the [ex-Rep. Michael] Forbes path: switch parties, and then lose your seat. These kinds of stories should prompt one to remember how much loving media attention and encouragement the media gave Democrats who considered voting for Clinton's impeachment: cue the crickets sound effect." RedState asks, in a headline: "Chris Shays: a fool, a prophet, or both?"

• The AP also carries the right-leaners' favorite story of the morning, titled "Kerry: Trickery Kept Voters From Polls." Linking: PoliPundit; Blogs for Bush; Slant Point; Little Green Footballs.

  >> John Hinderaker: "Does John Kerry really think that his voters are so dumb that they actually believe that members of different parties are supposed to vote on different days? News flash, John: that line about Democrats voting on Wednesday is a joke." Righty David Wissing: "Speaking of our favorite Vietnam Veteran, Polipundit points out that it has now been 70 days since he promised to sign the form SF-180. Just what is he trying to hide?"

BOLTON: Quiet. Too Quiet

New America Foundation's Steve Clemons considers Sen. Lincoln Chafee's (R-RI) considerations in voting to confirm John Bolton as U.N. Amb., and concludes: "Senator Chafee, I hope you are reaching out to informed and balanced commentators and people whom you respect in this and not just relying on thin assurances from the administration about Bolton's behavior given what you clearly know about him."

RedState: "As we noted before regarding Bolton, his most egregious offense is that he has stood up for American sovereignty, believing in America first. Bolton's criticisms of ineffectual and deleterious international institutions are, as John Kerry put it, "inexplicable." President Bush's selection of Bolton is simply unfathomable for many Democrats today. That America's ambassador to the United Nations could have deigned to assert that multilateralism for its own sake is no virtue, just does not compute with the worldview of many on the far left."

Conservative radio talker Laura Ingraham notes on her site: "AP WRITES NEGATIVE BOLTON CONFIRMATION STORY BEFORE IT EVEN HAPPENS! On the confirmation hearing for Bush UN Ambassador nominee John Bolton, the Associated Press decided why wait for the actual questioning to take place when their reporter could just write it ahead of time?." The story, apparently posted before 7:00 a.m. is here. National Review's K.J. Lopez notices the story available on another site, also before today's hearings began.

National Review's Beltway Buzz had an early copy of Bolton's remarks, and is live-blogging the hearing.

REPUBLICANS: Cracking Up Is Hard To Do

RedState lists the problems that have befallen the GOP: "An ethical crisis in the House leadership"; "Said 'leadership' freelancing ineffectually on social policy (or, the Schiavo donnybrook)"; "A conservative base, distracted by Schiavo and immigration, that doesn't value the importance of Social Security reform, and doesn't seem to want to provide the ammunition to get private accounts passed"; "A virtually unchallenged likely Democratic nominee who will enjoy absolute unity among her base, and who is making all the right moves to the center that Kerry wouldn't."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Pressing The Association

The New York Times gets around to covering the conservative blogosphere's objection to the AP's Pulitzer (see 4/5 Blogometer), centering on the possibility that one award-winning photo was obtained via a stringer's collaboration with insurgents. The article describes Power Line's Scott Johnson as backing down from his original criticism of the AP.

In a follow-up post at Power Line, Johnson provides details of his correspondence with reporter Mark Glassman and claims the Times misinterpreted his comments; he stands by his former comments." More: "Mr. Glassman does not note that our comments to which he refers condemning the AP's desire to let the terrorists tell their stories through photographers with connections to the terrorists derived from the AP itself." Another follow-up post quotes extensively from ex-NYT photog D. Gorton, who finds serious problems with the AP's version of events. Right-leaning Belmont Club compares the situation to another possibly staged

Moderate Dave Winer comments: "Could you imagine the Times running an article about negative letters to the editor? I can't imagine it's ever happened. But today there's an article about bloggers. ... Now the former audience is part of the news, as it should be, and not as numbers in polls, but as people with ideas. The reporters and editors always were in the story, but didn't acknowledge it, now at least they admit it's possible. This article is interesting from so many angles."

Liberal Hullabaloo disagrees with Time's Joe Klein on the impact of the Schiavo case: "In spite of the fact that three quarters of the country were repelled by the Republican grandstanding in the Schiavo circus, Klein insists, as always, that it is the Democrats who have it wrong." Duncan Black piles on: "Joe Klein is the worst pundit in Washington. And, of course, he's on 'our side.'"

Jeff Jarvis points out that MSNBC's live pope funeral web feed likely got more viewers than MSNBC's TV coverage of same, and adds: "Imagine how much bigger it would be if the audience didn't have to stream and could watch anytime, anywhere... if MSNBC provided downloads the audience could distribute."

PRESS CLUB: GannonGate -- Never Really A Tragedy, Yet Repeated As Farce

On 4/8 the Nat'l Press Club hosted a panel of bloggers and professional journalists, including the Baltimore Sun's Julie Hirschfeld Davis, CongressDaily's John Stanton, Wonkette's Ana Marie Cox, Matthew Yglesias' Matthew Yglesias, Fishbowl DC's Garrett Graff, and -- most notably -- Jeff Gannon, who seems to be sticking with that nom de plume. The event was broadcast on C-SPAN and can be watched on the web at C-SPAN.org

Lefty activist John Aravosis live-blogged the event; in the Apr. archive, you can scroll through a whole series of posts on the panel, including some transcripts and commentary to the effect that Cox "creamed" Gannon. At JeffGannon.com (no permalinks; scroll to the 4/8 post). In the 4/9 post he provides links to various round-ups.

Immediately after the discussion concluded, gay activist Mike Rogers confronted Gannon and, according to Aravosis, shouted questions at him, including: "Did you ever sleep with anyone on the White House staff prior to getting your daily pass?"

Gannon describes the scene: "Unfortunately, at the conclusion of the event, an activist created such a spectacle that I left the room immediately with security. Otherwise, I would have remained to talk to members of the press. As I was boarding an elevator to exit the building, this same person made a dash for me with unknown intent. I have been informed that he subsequently had an altercation with a member of building security and has been banned from the premises. If you saw this person's behavior, you would realize that the threats against my person, property and family have not been exaggerated."

SCHIAVO REDUX: Did This Ever Really Go Away?

Right-leaning Just One Minute devotes a lengthy post to the possible "Next Terri Schiavo," an 80-year-old woman named Mae Magourik, with links other right-leaning bloggers, from the pro-"next" Blogs for Terri and "next"-"skeptical" Megan McArdle.

Conservative Wizbang, on the Magourik story: "It's a little to early to proclaim that this story has some larger meaning, but if I had to pick one cautionary lesson that should be evident from the case it's that the much vaunted 'living will' you rushed out and drew up is only as effective as the doctors and guardian who are entrusted implement it make it."

Righty Michelle Malkin: "Last week, many conservative bloggers -- self included -- picked up on a LifeNews.com story about a new Zogby poll that showed a majority of Americans opposing removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube if the question was framed differently than most other MSM polls. But now some skeptical bloggers -- conservative bloggers -- are revisiting the poll and asking questions about the sponsors, poll wording, and reporting on the poll." She cites Football Fans for Truth as noting that 11 questions were asked in the Zogby poll, but only 8 questions were publicly released. Malkin says she intends to find out.

Andrew Sullivan takes issue with Power Line in a post related to the Terri Schiavo-related "GOP talking points memo." He cites Salon quoting Power Line: "What conservative would write that the case of a woman condemned to death by starvation is 'a great political issue'? Maybe such a person exists, but I doubt it.'" Sullivan cites memo writer Brian Darling's GOP credentials and writes: "Darling is, of course, an absolutely typical apparatchik of the religious right. Maybe the partisan blinders over at Powerline will eventually fray."

GAY MARRIAGE: Is The NYT Obsessed?

Based on the New York Times report, left-leaning Pandagon, comments on GOP consultant Arthur Finkelstein's just-revealed gay marriage: "Finkelstein characterizes himself as 'libertarian' -- a label that lately only means 'conservative who has personal peccadillos he doesn't wish to see outlawed.' Most 'libertarians' I know of are straight men who like to f--- without making babies and therefore oppose the wingnut push to legislate the bedroom. But they don't oppose it in any meaningful way, such as supporting politicians who, you know, agree with their beliefs about personal freedom. Instead, they keep supporting wingnuts and relying on liberals to do their fighting for their civil rights for them. And the worst part is that 'libertarians' count on liberals for a good reason--we're not going to quit fighting for their civil rights just so they can learn a valuable lesson about laying down with wingnut dogs and waking up with Jeebus fleas."

Female blogger Alarming News writes, "it looks like the NY Times will not rest until they turn men into navel-gazing, neurotic lunatics just like so much writing has made many women into retarded versions of Bridget Jones. Take this piece, about 'man-dates'. In it, the Times finds the biggest loser guys on the planet and gets them to talk about the awkwardness of hanging out alone with one of their friends in a setting not involving sports. Apparently, two men going to a museum or to dinner together is 'gay.'"

CIVILITY: Pie In The Sky

The recent spate of pie-ings of conservative speakers at college campuses has sparked some comment (see 4/8 Hotline). Now Right Wing News finds and links to the "fascistic rantings" of left-wing blog Dadahead: "Let the wingnuts scream from here till kingdom come about their free speech rights being stifled, I don't give a shit. They'll scream about it anyway. ... Give me a choice, and I'll take a dreadlocked Marxist college student dousing [Pat] Buchanan with salad dressing over Paul Begala sitting down and debating him any f---ing day of the week. At least one of them hasn't sold his soul to the devil yet. At least one of them is calling a spade a spade. ... Whatever you do, don't treat irrationality as rationality; don't treat insanity as sanity. And if flinging shit is the only way to expose the lie that says that the chimpanzee screechings of these f---tards are actually attempts at rational discourse, then so be it." He replies: "If Dadahead and others who think like him have their way, political dissent will quite literally become a food fight featuring goons hurling things at those who disagree with them. However, lowering ourselves to the level of feces flinging chimps at the zoo is not something that should be endorsed by civilized human beings, whatever their ideology may be."

IRAQ: Life Without Parole?

Captain's Quarters, on a possible deal to end the insurgent attacks in exchange for sparing Saddam Hussein from execution: "Is this a good trade? As an opponent of the death penalty under normal circumstances, I would say yes. ... It saves lives and allows the Iraqis to start healing the divisions between the past and future. It would also allow them to focus on the Zarqawi network exclusively; in fact, the Iraqis could make that a condition of their own for the ex-Ba'athists to meet: bring Zarqawi with you for Saddam. As long as Saddam never sees the light of day again, he can die like Rudolf Hess -- crazy, broken, and of old age."

Blogger Arthur Chrenkoff, whose weekly "Good News from Iraq" updates have been regular stops for conservative blog readers in recent months, updates with installment 25.

IN THE STATES: Joe Vs. The Volcano

Swing State Project posts a lengthy e-mail from a Dem official in CT, Myrna Watanabe, who writes that Sen. Joe Lieberman (D) has changed in office, that "negative feelings toward Lieberman have been growing for several years," and that with the floating of his name for a Bush Cabinet job, "many of us had had enough." She writes: "As I see it, Lieberman has a choice: he can go forward, risk not being the party's nominee, and come up with a third-party endorsement; switch to the Reps, with whom he will be very uncomfortable; do a mea culpa and take on the cloak of leadership of the Democratic Party ... or declare that it's time to retire and think of something else he can do as an elder statesman. I suspect that Joe won't like any of these choices. But he should have thought of that before he cuddled up with the Bushies." Liberal activist blog DailyKos picks up on the post, and notes that Lieberman will speak to an open forum at Yale on 4/11.

IL House GOP Leader Tom Cross's campaign blog posts an e-mail from conservative Illinois Leader pres. Dan Croft, discussing the Alan Keyes (R) SEN candidacy. Croft is quoted: "I'm the first one to admit the Keyes campaign was a disaster. ... On paper, Keyes could have provided a legit challenge, [which] lasted for about a week before Keyes embarked upon the Road to Damascus by himself. Wish that would not have happened but the easiest thing we could have done was just sit back and watch [moderate GOPer Andrea Grubb] Barthwell get beat 70-30, and then blame the moderates."

Left-leaning Blue Oregon argues for the re-legalization of fusion elections: "Do you want to make your voice heard in elections as more than a symbolic protest? Well, now that the election is over, and we're facing four more years of George Bush, it's time to talk about fusion. ... Unlike instant runoff voting (IRV), fusion voting focuses on issues rather than on candidates. Recognizing that it is hard to recruit good candidates, and harder yet to raise the money necessary to make them visible enough to win an election, fusion allows a third party to focus instead on being a party, raising issues, building constituencies for those issues, and holding candidates accountable on those issues once they are elected."

Sacramento Bee's Dan Weintraub, at the California Insider, on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R): "Last year, Schwarzenegger managed to paint a series of modest victories as resounding successes, and that perception of success built on itself ... The question in the weeks ahead is whether voters will give Schwarzenegger credit for backing off on his controversial pension initiative or sense that his retreat signals that he is weak and ineffective, traits that are not likely to win him more support from the electorate."

Dem-leaning Washington State Political Report, on election bill there: "The final details are still being worked out between the house and senate versions. I'm not thrilled by the ID requirement. I didn't have ID the first time I voted. I wasn't interested in driving and I was too young to need to get into places restricted to people of drinking age. So what it basically amounts to is a poll tax on youth voters who don't drive." MD-based righty David Wissing disagrees: "Personally I am not going to take any Democratic sponsored 'voting reform' seriously until mandatory photo identification is part of the 'voting reform'. Any 'voting reform' that does not include that aspect is not real reform. Of course the reason Democrats do not want not photo identification is because they know Democrats would actually lose a lot more votes than they claim that they lose due to so-called Republican 'cheating'."

Unofficial grassroots blog Kentucky Republican Voice launched in early '04. It aims to be an organizing activist site, but also offers commentary on nat'l issues.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Blogging For Fun And Profit

A recent Electronic Frontier Foundation essay that's getting some attention -- from Politech and PunditGuy and others -- is "How to Blog Safely (About Work or Anything Else)". They warn: "A handful of bloggers have recently discovered that their labors of love may lead to unemployment. By some estimates, dozens of people have been fired for blogging, and the numbers are growing every day. The bad news is that in many cases, there is no legal means of redress if you've been fired for blogging. While your right to free speech is protected by the First Amendment, this protection does not shield you from the consequences of what you say. ... In states with "at will" employment laws like California, employers can fire you at any time, for any reason. And no state has laws that specifically protect bloggers from discrimination, on the job or otherwise. "

LEST WE FORGET: Super Salad Me

OxBlog's David Adesnik reviews the McDonald's salads and comments on director Morgan Spurluck's '04 film "Super Size Me": "If Spurlock really wanted to know whether there is nutritious food available at McDonald's, why does he pay so little attention to the salads? One possible answer is that very few people actually order salads when they go to McDonald's. But according to Spurlock's own rules, he was allowed to order whatever he wanted provided that he tasted each item on the menu at least once during his 30 day experiment. ... if for some bizarre reason you decide to eat three meals a day at McDonald's for an entire month, you can probably stick to the salads and not wind up any fatter than you were before."