April 01, 2005

4/1: Artificial Intelligence

The contentious debate over the now-late Terri Schiavo has not receded entirely, but as happens so frequently, the blogs have been taken over by events: For the left, yesterday's report placing culpability for poor prewar WMD information on the intel departments; for the right, ex-Clinton NSA Sandy Berger's guilty plea in the document-stuffing story and temporary loss of clearance. There's some overlap, but not a great deal.

Returning to the fore on the port side of the blogosphere is the ongoing controversy over Maj. Leader Tom DeLay's leadership in the House, in part driven by his comments on the Schiavo case as well as yesterday' report by the Washington Post's Mike Allen on GOPers rallying to his defense.

What's notable about both Schiavo and DeLay cases is once again, infighting on the starboard side. There isn't much internal debate on the lefty blogs at the moment; most are standing aside and watching (and commenting) the right argue with itself. It's a mirror image of what happened in the blogosphere in the first couple months after the Dems' failure in the '04 election. Overall the volume is lower, but it's not without hysterics.

TRACKBACKS: Inside Intel

In this section we will provide a link to the original story, a brief description of what it is about, and then links to various sites offering comment. We're calling it "Trackbacks," after a common blog feature that shows which sites have linked to a particular post.

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

• Getting big play on the liberal blogs is the WH intel commis. report released 3/31 stating that pre-invasion estimates about Saddam Hussein's WMD/nuclear capabilities were "dead wrong." Linking blogs: iFlipFlop; Bark Bark Woof Woof; Cool Blue Blog; Blogs for Bush.

  >> Lefty ex-GOPer Running Scared: "For all of the [Pres.] Bush apologists who bristle with righteous indignation when progressives talk about the Iraq invasion as a 'war based on lies,' this is the information they need to be shown. For all of their denials, Bush ginned up that war knowing full well that this information, if not outright false, was subject to grave suspicion."

  >> Righty Ranting Profs uses the report to consider the NID: "Yesterday ... the word was that this report made clear that the NID had to be given sufficient clout to knock heads. But that all makes it sound as if the problem were a lack of consensus. In fact these descriptions make it look as if the problem were too much consensus, burying dissenting opinions. Like, say, from smaller independent intelligence agencies -- in this case, the one attached to the Department of Energy."

• Meanwhile, top news at a number of conservative blogs is the guilty plea by Sandy Berger will plead guilty re: taking classified documents from the Nat'l Archives. Linkin' logs: Ed Driscoll; Backcountry Conservative; Baldilocks; Little Green Footballs; TKS; Skippy the Bush Kangaroo.

  >> Right-leaning Wizbang: "It's worth noting that Berger will have his clearance back right in the midst of the primary season in 2008." And conservative "Captain" Ed Morrissey: "Far from the "accidental" removal he insisted occurred, Berger now admits to intentionally removing and destroying classified material, a condition of his plea bargain. ... He should face obstruction of justice and contempt of Congress just for this action alone, both felonies"

  >> One of the few liberals commenting is the Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "I really don't know what you can say about the Sandy Berger affair other than, What was he thinking?" But lefty Matt Yglesias is "seeing two different possible construals of what this means," but the "reporting seems ambiguous to me."

• Also looming large this a.m., Pope John Paul II's deteriorating health. The parallels to the Schiavo case are not lost on many. Linked: Michelle Malkin; Republic of T; Kinshasa on the Potomac; WizBang; Shamsellayla.

  >> Ex-Catholic Andrew Sullivan: "Could we have a vegetative Pope suspended indefinitely in this state? Yes, we could. Maybe we will."

  >> Washington Post's Achenblog: "Death is a highly personal event. There are few other moments in life when one would want greater privacy. ... The Pope is the most public of men, but even he has a right to privacy."

DELAY I: Don't 86 Until After '06?

Tapped's Sam Rosenfeld writes, "The much-cited Wall Street Journal editorial attacking DeLay had me panicked that Democrats and their allies might actually succeed in securing the Hammer's imminent fall, which would prove utterly disastrous for the prospects of nationalizing the 2006 mid-term elections with a reformist message that could topple many Republicans." He adds, Dems may achieve "remarkably fast, decisive success" on DeLay and Social Security, adding: "What did our president call it when Saddam fell too quickly? A catastrophic success. Think about it. Hands off DeLay!" At his personal weblog, Media Matters' Oliver Willis agrees.

Liberal Interesting Times, on the apparent GOP strategy: "Message: Tom DeLay didn't do anything wrong, the Democrats just can't come up with any good ideas on their own so they have fallen back to attacking DeLay's character. This is a strategy that could work, if it weren't for the fact that Tom DeLay is such a personally unappealing individual. The more people come to know him the less they like him."

Talking Points Memo: "When DeLay says 'bring it on' to his critics and marshals the full host of movement conservatism to defend him, I can't imagine that worries his critics a wink. ... Because that's just another way to drive home the reality that these groups are trying so hard to demonstrate: that Tom DeLay is the Republican majority -- extreme on a few key 'culture' issues and, beside that, on the block for the highest bidder."

DELAY II: Hero? Opportunist? Both?

Meanwhile, RedState's "trevino" quotes a Washington Times story where GOP activist Morton Blackwell says GOPers "are being told support for Mr. DeLay is mandatory if they want future support from conservatives."

The pseudonymous poster replies: "Well. It appears that the movement is now beholden to the furtherance of the haphazard career of Tom DeLay. ... Now, let us make no mistake: the Democrats and left-wing activists who are after DeLay are after him because they are leaderless and rudderless, and they have little left other than their desperation to do what they cannot in an actual election -- take down a Republican leader. One cannot blame Blackwell, et al., for reflexively not wishing to give an inch to this crowd. But this is precisely the wrong thing to do: Tom DeLay is not synonymous with Republicanism, and certainly not conservatism -- unless Republicans and conservatives make him be so. It is a favor he does not deserve: and he an albatross we do not need."

Opinion in the 80 or so comments below is decidedly mixed, with many defending DeLay on the substance of the charges, particularly re: TX redistricting. Site co-founder Mike Krempasky responds: "Tom Delay has supported hundreds of conservative movement organizations throughout his career - and I daresay no other member of Congressional leadership has done more on that front." Another commenter says: "I do have limited knowledge about some of this personally. Here's what I'll say about it: The Texas stuff is almost entirely crap and overwhelmingly false. The majority of the Washington stuff, however, is almost certainly true." And another who agrees with "trevino": "I think that Republicans investigating and possibly disciplining their own would play pretty well at the polls. It yanks the 'stop corruption!' rug out from under Democrat candidates."

FOREIGN POLICY: The War At Home

Kevin Drum, on the WH's intel commission finding that the CIA was an "uncritical cheerleader" of the belief that Saddam possessed WMD: "But if that's the case, why did the Pentagon feel the need to set up an Office of Special Plans in order to look at the raw data independently and construct the hawkish analysis they believed the CIA was too timid to produce? ... If the CIA was already championing the idea that Iraq had loads of WMD and close ties to al-Qaeda, Donald Rumsfeld wouldn't have needed Special Plans. The fact that he did must have meant that -- at least in the early days after 9/11 -- the CIA wasn't quite the uncritical cheerleader the commission says it was. At least, not uncritical enough for the rest of the Bush administration."

Lefty Eric Alterman offers a "few quotes for Altercation readers to keep in mind when examining the just-released intel report that sticks the blame for the lies the administration told about Iraq on the professional intelligence community, rather than with the Bush administration where it so clearly belongs."

DC atty Marty Lederman writes at Balkinization on the newly released Nat'l Defense Strategy (PDF), and quotes a "key assumption" from it: "Our strength as a nation state will continue to be challenged by those who employ a strategy of the weak using international fora, judicial processes, and terrorism." He comments: "Boy, if they're willing to say that in such a prominent public document, one shudders to imagine what they say in private about 'international fora' and 'judicial processes.' More chilling still is this editorial from the Washington Times. The problem, you see, is that the enemy not only knows what our laws are -- it also knows that we 'observe the laws of war.' Yes, if only we weren't so enamoured of that pesky ol' rule of law, winning wars would be oh so much easier. More: "This is a theme one increasingly hears," that Al Qaeda detainees "must be made to think that the law is uncertain ... so that the threat of extreme interrogation techniques is credible ... In other words, our law must remain opaque so that the threat of torture and inhumane treatment remains credible. (Never mind that such threats are themselves unlawful.)"

Pro-Israel blogger Charles Johnson, in a post titled "Ward Churchill is Not Alone," points out the faculty page for NC Wesleyan prof Jane Christensen, which is "proudly reeking of antisemitism and conspiracy mania." He includes actual questions from her class, "The American Presidency." Sample: "Discuss the sweeping attack on democratic rights under the Bush administration and what this means for the future of democratic government in America."; "Describe and discuss the role of the Bush advisors. Who are they? What is their agenda? And how is it being carried out?"

Lefty "Billmon" from Whiskey Bar notes a recent CQ article reporting that DHS "does not list right-wing domestic terrorists and terrorist groups on a document that appears to be an internal list of threats to the nation's security." Writes "Billmon": "Isn't it a little odd that the Homeland Security Department doesn't even bother to worry about the kind of people who blew up an entire federal building in downtown Oklahoma City? ... I guess we can file that last story under: 'Tending the Conservative Base.'"

CAMPAIGNS: Brave New Worlds

A lengthy explanation of a recent New Yorker essay by Ken Auletta about the future of political advertising and consulting by way of comparison with corporate marketing is the launching point for a wide-ranging debate at DailyKos

"Strategery": "Having run a state level campaign for NY Assembly, I can tell you it was a real bitch trying to find new and cost effective ways to reach voters. And to add to my headaches, it was a rural district where the Internet wasn't nearly as popular as most places. No emails, no money for TV. You can only run ads on so many country radio stations before you just want to vomit."

An excerpt from "Pounder": "Looking back at most TV ad campaigns BLAND doesnt even come close to describing them. What you REALLY need, and should be aiming for, is that all important 'earned media,' with a shock and awe ad that grabs the attention. SBVFT was that ad last year, by a mile. The failed 'wolves' ad was the GOP attempt. [John] Kerry had nothing. Moveon were a little better, but still pulled punches."

"BriVT" comments: "There's no bright line separating corporate campaigns, and there really shouldn't be one separating different facets of a political marketing campaign, either. You have to move across media and up and down the scale from mass advertising to many people (TV ads) to targeted advertising to specific demographics." He concludes: "[F]or God's sake, don't keep appointing TV media guys as the main communication person and then pay them by how much TV spots they manage to place. A flat fee for a media coordinator to facilitate message delivery across media is the only way to go."

There are many more comments, and many more still where it is cross-posted to The Next Hurrah.

Unrelated, Centrist Jeff Jarvis of BuzzMachine asks, "Is it possible to create an open-source polling service that gets a more accurate picture of public opinion and also allows the public to not only answer questions but also to ask them? ... I have my own pet polling wishes: I'd like to see more questions that really determine whether we are a nation at red-v-blue war or whether that is the fantasy of the fringes and media." Jarvis asks a number of interesting questions and attempts to answer them, proposing -- apologies, non-blog readers -- the "wikification, blogification, Craigsification, bittorrentification, linuxification of opinion."

SCHIAVO: Not Forgotten

The Nation's David Corn, at his personal blog: "Without knowing all the details, I can only say that it seems unfortunate that Michael Schiavo would not allow the Schindlers to remain at Terri's side. But I find it hard to take [conservative activist Randall] Terry's tears seriously. This is a fellow who preaches (his versions of) family values but who was booted out of his church for having an affair and leaving his wife." More: "Perhaps with Terri Schiavo finally dead, there can be a debate--free of political exploitation and self-serving exaggerations -- about these difficult end-of-life issues. But I wouldn't bet on it."

Weekly Standard's Jonathan Last harshly criticizes the New Yorker's lefty Hendrik Hertzberg, centrist Andrew Sullivan, and right-leaning Glenn Reynolds at the unofficial Galley Slaves blog, for assenting to the process leading to Schiavo's death. He concludes: "Like Sullivan and Hertzberg and the rest of the crew eager to get Terri Schiavo in the ground, it is Reynolds who assiduously avoided the facts at every turn--choosing instead to condemn the poor woman by association because of (some of) the people who have rallied to her cause. As Hugh Hewitt observes, this is demagoguery, pure and simple." In a post mentioning he's turned down radio appearances due to the high emotions of the debate, Reynolds writes at Instapundit: "I always hope that people can disagree without being disagreeable. ... Not everyone does. Those people are the fringey minority, for the most part, though I have to say that I was taken aback, and disappointed, by the Jonathan Last assault." Meanwhile, Sullivan finds a quote by conservative activist/bad pancake flipper Gary Bauer quote that reinforces his previous contention that the "zealots" would make a "martyr" of Schiavo and "figuratively prop her up as a symbol in the campaigns to come."

Centrist Mickey Kaus (note: scroll to "Credibility-Building") picks up on a quote by BC'04 strategist Matthew Dowd, who said: "The country's generally unhappy, and maybe they think the Terri Schiavo case is taking away from things that Congress or Washington ought to be working on." Writes Kaus: "If the country thinks the way Dowd seems to think it thinks, the country's wrong, of course." With the economy in "relatively good shape," Iraq going better-than-expected, and Bush's "unpopular private accounts plan isn't about to be enacted. Also to consider: When the Congress and Washington start visibly 'working on' something does it typically improve the situation?"

Tom Smith of The Right Coast composes "Michael Schiavo in Hell (a play in one paragraph)."

DOMESTIC ISSUES: Some Of This, Some Of That

The New Republic's &c. disagrees with the Washington Post's "sinister" take on the new policy requiring the Cabinet to hold WH office hours: "You've got to figure that the Bush White House wasn't letting its HUD secretary make policy on the fly, anyway. That he and other cabinet lowlights now have a standing invitation to the highest reaches of the White House can only be an improvement."

Centrist Joe Gandelman, on Ted Koppel's departure from ABC News: "Attention Dan Rather: There may be a new job opening for you!" More: "[T]he bottom line is that network news now loses someone who carved out a niche for himself as someone who was almost of the same stature as CBS's former news anchor Walter Cronkite. Koppel was almost universally praised ... And he was the kind of journalist journalism teachers everywhere could point to as a good role model for their young students.

At The Corner, NRO's Rachel Friedman comments on Columbia Univ.'s decision about whether student complaints against profs critical of Israel constituted threats, including useful links on the controversy.

Lefty Eschaton, on the latest jobs report: "I'd forgotten it was jobs day, so I didn't put my over/under bet in, but the unders have won again. Consensus: 225K new jobs. Actual: +110K, which as we know isn't enough to keep up with the increase in working age population..."

The New Republic's Jon Chait and National Review's Jonah Goldberg debate "liberalism and the economy" at the joint-venture website, OpinionDuel.com.

APRIL FOOL'S: Bloggers Just Wanna Have Fun

Liberal Left Coaster writes: "I've had it! Enough is enough! I am through being on the losing side every time. I'm going to change quite a few things about my life and then it will get better. I'm going to register as a Republican, and go to work to change the Constitution so that Arnold can run for president. I'm going to attend Right-to-Life meetings and get Roe v. Wade overturned. ... I'm going to vow that George Bush won fair and square in both the 2000 and the 2004 elections, and that Ohio was the result of the wishes of the populace."

Rox Populi, which typically looks like this, has morphed into a parody of Michelle Malkin's site today: real Michelle Malkin, fake Michelle Malkin.

Google's Gmail claims that "starting today, we're beginning the roll-out of our new and top secret Infinity+1 storage plan."

Not quite an April Fool's but close enough: Following Bill Kristol's pie-ing by a day, conservative Captain's Quarters points up Pat Buchanan getting "doused with salad dressing." He comments: "I'm no fan of Buchanan, but he does debate rather well, as does William Kristol. It seems that the Left has no answer for their skill, and so they instead sabotage the debate by hurling food. When that fails, as it did with Kristol, what comes next? Smoke bombs? Worse?" Via Political Teen, video is available here.

LEST WE FORGET: Godwin's Law Put To The Test

Conservative humorist Ace of Spades HQ throws draws a line in the sand with a post titled: "The Flame War Thread": "Let's be honest: I don't like any of you, and you don't like each other. Which I can understand, because you're a bunch of dribbling imbeciles ... You can have your stupid moron-talk in this thread. It seems wrong to have you simpering f---weasels jackassing around in a thread that is partly devoted to the death of Terri Schiavo. So have at it, cretins. I wash my hands of the lot of you." Warning: Shall we say, extremely extreme in the many, many comments that followed before "Ace" shut the comments down -- "Until you guys annoy me again."

NOTES AND ERRATA

The Blogometer turns 3 days old today.

If you happened to take the middle of the week off, here's a recap of what we're trying to do here: We start with a short summary of what's going on: taking the temperature, measuring the volume, however you like. In "Trackbacks," we show what mainstream media or MSM (in the parlance of our times) stories are getting a lot of attention. After that we quote more blogs than you can shake a stylus at to show what else people are talking about.

On style: Boldface and Italics: These represent people and print sources just as in the rest of the Hotline. Boldface-Italics indicate the name of a blog; because a blog is both a person and a publication, and sometimes it's difficult to tell where the person blogging ends and the blogging persona begins. We've also fixed a few formatting issues from yesterday, but it hasn't changed much otherwise.

Questions, comments, reservations? Your suggestions can make the Blogometer better. Drop us a line at blogometer@nationaljournal.com.

Posted by at April 1, 2005 12:19 PM