April 29, 2005

4/29: Prime-Time Live-Blogging

For weeks the Blogometer has been keeping an eye out for some debate, any debate, on Social Security. We've found some, but not much. When we launched this feature a month ago, nearly all energy had been diverted to the Terri Schiavo controversy. Thanks to that, bloggers attached newfound urgency to the Senate filibuster and jud. nominees. Soon after came the issues concerning House Maj. Leader Tom DeLay, and then U.N. Amb.-designate John Bolton (which bloggers all but ignored until Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) delayed the cmte vote). Bloggers tend to follow the top stories as much as any other class of journalist-commentators, and this morning we see more evidence. After a month of virtually no discussion of Social Security, all Pres. Bush has to do is call a presser, and voila -- the debate is back on. Will it last?

Plus: The New York Times gets raked over the coals (as usual), Freepers tell Senate Maj. Leader Bill Frist not to bother in '08, and Elizabeth Edwards tells her fellow online Dems to be more respectful.

TRACKBACKS: Judy The Soon-To-Be Obscure

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

• In a neat and expectation-confirming development, the right-leaning blogs talking about Bush's speech pretty much all link to the WH transcript of the presser, while the left-leaning blogs pretty much all link to the NYT transcript. Whodathunk? Meanwhile, conservatives are quite unhappy with treatment of Bush's presser by the Washington Post and New York Times. Post header: "Bush Social Security Plan Would Cut Future Benefits." Times header: "Bush Cites Plan That Would Cut Social Security Benefits." Perhaps most interesting is that some liberal bloggers didn't take the presser seriously at all, as you can see below.
  Blogs referencing at least one of the above links: DailyKos; The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid; Orrin Judd; The Corner; TalkLeft; Corrente ; The Moderate Voice; The Liquid List.

  >> Conservative PoliPundit: "I didn't hear anything tonight that made me cringe, and without reading back over the transcript, I can't recall anything that I would even count as a negative for the President." Conservative Beltway Buzz points out, as his headline states: "It Wasn't All About Social Security." Michelle Malkin headlines one post re: NCLB: "Making Fiscal Conservatives Cringe." But on SocSec, she writes: "Bush's indexing plan is moderate and reasonable. Unfortunately, the combination of Democrats' demagoguery and the MSM's relentlessly negative coverage may bring the plan down before it even gets off the ground."

  >> Josh Marshall: "The Post pretty much nails the new Bush plan on the front page of tomorrow's paper: cut pretty much everyone's benefits a lot. The sweetener? Poor people's benefits won't be cut as much!" Liberal Happy Furry Puppy Story Time reprints the transcript but rewrites Bush's answers to reflect his point of view, and puts a lot of F-words in Bush's mouth while he does it. Lefty Steve Soto fisks the presser, adding comments such as: "Lies." and: " And you've been president now for how long, and have done nothing?" and: "Ah, so it's Clinton's fault once again."

• Considering the popularity of CNN's inside-the-blogs segment on "IP" among some bloggers, it comes as no surprise that the AP's report on CNN anchor Judy Woodruff's departure from daily TV has caught some attention.

  Linking, or otherwise discussing Woodruff: Romenesko; TVNewser; Political Wire; Big Head Rob; Joe's Dartblog.

  >> National Review's K.J. Lopez: "Inside Politics might be the only CNN show I watch. This is a substance thing, not a ratings thing -- seems like a big loss for the network."

SOCIAL SECURITY: See What A Little Bully Pulpit-Wielding Can Do?

Outside the Beltway live-blogged the presser.

Right-leaning TigerHawk also live-blogged it, and comments afterward: "I think that the most interesting aspect of the President's announcements tonight was the proposal to subject Social Security to means-testing. I love that, precisely because the Democrats think that it is the absence of means-testing that gives the program its political protection. This is a huge challenge to the Democrats."

BC'00 supporter/KE'04 supporter Andrew Sullivan: "The president's press conference last night was, I think, perhaps his best ever. He was confident, in command of the facts, moderate in his views, engaging and appealing. It was much better than anything we've seen in a very long time; and it makes me wonder why his handlers keep him in such hermetically-sealed partisan settings. He's better than that; and it seems to me he keeps getting better in these contexts. ... I doubt it will shift the public mood, which is souring on the Republican hegemony. But it certainly reassured me that he is trying to tack away from the extreme right."

Lefty economist Brad DeLong on the 4 "hurdles a Bush plan must surmount before it is worth supporting": These are "primarily Republican issues, or issues that are of especial concern to those whom I once thought Republicans to be. They are supposed to worry about whether Bush's private accounts are structured to be a good deal for beneficiaries (they are not). They are supposed to be worried about raising national savings (the Bush plan doesn't, except through very indirect and improbable channels). They are supposed to be worried about competence in government. So where are the grownup Republicans on this? I don't hear a peep."

Ankle Biting Pundits writes that Bush was "fabulous" on SocSec, and comments: "As far as the substance of means testing goes I'm generally in favor of it, especially with regard to entitlements. I'm aware of valid criticisms that ask why should someone be 'punished' for being successful. But here, the system is going bankrupt and it may be the 'least worst" option that has a realistic chance to get somewhere. But the best thing is that by means testing social security you get away from a mentality of a "universal entitlement". Once you put a dent in the fact that someone is 'automatically' entitled to a certain benefit level, then you undermine support for the program."

Left-leaning Matt Yglesias, in a post titled "My Hero": "[ABC corresp.] Terry Moran. Good question about the terrorism report. Too bad he didn't ask anything about why the administration is covering it up. Delightfully off-topic response from POTUS."

A diarist at RedState argues for why personal accounts do answer the solvency question: "Integrated or 'carve out' personal accounts (meaning the accounts are funded by diverting a portion of the FICA tax and not 'added on' top of the current structure) typically include a benefit offset whereby a person's traditional benefit is reduced proportionaly according to whatever is in his or her account. This offset is qualitatively no worse than any other proposed reduction in traditional benefits to achieve solvency, be it a formula change to tie benefit increases to inflation rather than wages or a hike in the retirement age. Similarly, this offset is quantitatively no worse unless the accounts fail to achieve the same bang for the buck as the more conventional and politically painful offsets. How could that happen? In short, only if the accounts are too small to tap the power of compound interest sufficiently. ... One reason that conservatives are pushing so hard for personal accounts is because they are THE remedy to Social Security's solvency troubles, and the bigger their size the faster the solvency hawks get to nirvana."

The commenters do not all agree, but the brief debate is interesting.

"Plutonium Page" at DailyKos: So Bush's comedy act [Note: "comedy act" has a line struck through it; the Blogometer's publishing system sadly does not allow strike tags] press conference is long over, and he's gone to bed after finally finishing 'My Pet Goat' after all these years. Let's have some fun. When you aren't surfing the internets, what are you reading these days? Books? Magazines? What's your favorite genre? I'm a mystery novel junkie."

There are 341 responses.

FILIBUSTERS: Dr. Frist, Are You Keeping Tabs On Free Republic?

A poster at the conservative Free Republic writes an open letter to First under the header "Senator Frist, Even if you pull the trigger, I won't vote for you": "I just got through hearing Senator Frist on the Laura Ingram show, and Freepers, I have to say, I was disgusted by the man. He said all the right things, he talked about principle, the Constitution, the rules and all that, but what I was left with was the simple fact that Senator Frist is not a leader, he is a Politician. ... I hope that Freepers will join me in announcing that no matter what, we will not vote for Senator Frist for President, and then maybe, with that option removed from his consideration, he will then just do the right damn thing, and end this nonsense.

There is certainly plenty of agreement: a familiar sentiment in the comments: "AGREED!!! I've held the opinion for quite a few weeks now that this man is NOT presidential material, nor is he leadership material of any sort." Although some commenters are dismissive: "You have found a politician in the Senate? I am not surprised. How the heck do you think they get there?" Another writes: "As a Tennessean I agree. We voted for him because there was no other option."

Righty Ed Morrissey, on Frist's proposed compromise with Senate Dems: "The Democrats have claimed [changing the filibuster rules] as an attack on the First Amendment as well as those 'checks and balances' that they claim hinge on the use of the filibuster. However, this offer by Frist cleverly flushes out the Democrats, although the Exempt Media will certainly miss this nuance. 100 hours of debate equals at least three weeks of Senate floor time, perhaps more, during a normal work schedule. It allows for every member to spend an hour discussing a nominee's shortcomings as well as their strengths. If the Democrats have evidence of unfitness for the nominees, they will have plenty of time to present it. Why, then, don't they take the offer? Because they would have nothing specific to say, and 50 hours in which to say it."

BOLTON: Yes, Blogs Can Break News

Left-leaning Steve Clemons at The Washington Note: "TWN has just learned from a senior level source that former Assistant Secretary for Nonproliferation John Wolf has been interviewed by Republican and Democrat staff members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and validated that John Bolton demonstrated patterned and frequent vindictive behavior towards numerous subordinates at the State Department. The staff members also spoke with [ex-Amb. to South Korea] Tom Hubbard ... who was mentioned during the testimony provided by John Bolton at his first day of confirmation hearings. Transcripts of the interviews that Committee staff had with Wolf and Hubbard will most likely be made available on Monday next week."

DEMOCRATS: Lefty Blogs Spend Too Much Time Whining About The

MyDD's Chris Bowers writes in a lengthy post at DailyKos: In the blogosphere, pretty much whenever a centrist or conservative Democrat does something progressives do not like, they are called DLC." But this is "wrong. Elected DLC officials are pretty darn loyal to the Democratic Party, and I can prove it." The real "real conservative wing" of the party is the Blue Dogs. Bowers devised a "simplified scorecard ... to measure party loyalty on important votes" in the House.

Bowers breaks down which Blue Dogs defected from the party on how many votes. AL Rep. Bud Cramer voted with the GOP on all but 1 "important" vote; MN Rep. Collin Peterson voted with the GOP on all but 2. Bowers notes that in the 109th, 20 GOPers broke with their party all but 2 times.

More: ""Of the thirty members who I have come to call the 'problem children,' those Democrats who break with the party at least half of the time, only five of them are members of the DLC. This is actually a lower percentage (16.7%) than the overall DLC share of the Democratic caucus (19.2%). ... And to think that all this time bloggers, commenters, diarists and other netroots activists have been blaming the DLC for caucus disunity, when another Democratic faction entirely was to blame. It is the Blue Dogs, not the DLC, stupid!"

Mark Noonan at Blogs for Bush comments on a Mort Kondracke column on the Dems and religion: "Kondracke goes on to note how this all indicates the Democrats still haven't quite understood the religion issue and how it figured in their 2004 election loss. I take a bit of a different view of the matter: it isn't that the Democrats misunderstand, but that they actually disagree with religion but don't want anyone to know it. ... [W]hat really helps the GOP is the fact that the Democrats are being dishonest. If you approach the American people with your honest views and defend them openly, you may lose...but if you instead approach the American people by obfuscating your views and using attacks on the other side to distract from your opinions, then you will not only lose for sure, but lose very badly."

ENERGY: No Seriously -- Some Are Actually Talking About The Energy Proposal

Liberal Oliver Willis, on Bush's energy policy: "The President's proposals for energy "policy" sound so... ancient. Coal. Nuclear. Gas. C'mon. And the Democrats have really pussyfooted around this issue, and haven't attacked it at the heart. ... There is an opening for a leader, whether that's a president, senator, or otherwise - to propose a giant project, akin to going to the moon -- but much more important."

Vanity Fair's James Wolcott, on the same: "Here was an opportunity for President Bush to 'think green' for a change. Or at least think unplutocratically, just for the kicky novelty of it.... Instead, true to form, dedicated to the destruction of a livable environment for future generations, Bush is trying to boost his sagging poll numbers and beautify the landscape by jamming oil refineries and nuclear plants where the barracks and PXs used to be. He seems determined to ensure that his presidential legacy consists of little more than lies, lost opportunities, and ravagement."

BLOGGERS VS. THE MSM: Times, Times, Always About The Times

Instapundit, Mudville Gazette, The Chief Brief and INDC Journal all seize upon a New York Times editorial on Bush, and for this line in particular: "The only plausible reason for keeping American troops in Iraq is to protect the democratic transformation that President Bush seized upon as a rationale for the invasion after his claims about weapons of mass destruction turned out to be fictitious." Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds cites his own previous "link-rich refutation of this revisionist history," adding: "What's more, the Times editorial board should be very careful not to confuse "wrong" with "fictitious," given its miserable performance on the war." An Instapundit reader points out that the New York Times mentioned Bush's talk of democracy in Iraq in Feb. '03, and Reynolds writes: "Sorry, but this is just a pathetic performance by the Times, and warrants a correction. And an apology."

"Atrios," on Rush Limbaugh's legal trouble stemming from his painkiller addiction, at Eschaton: "I'm not sure which day was my favorite in recent times -- when the Limbaugh scandal broke or the O'Reilly one. But, the Limbaugh one is the one which keeps on giving. ... Like most evil liberals, I object to harsh sentencing for drug offenders and certainly think treatment is preferable to jail. But, Limbaugh has a very prominent platform which he could be using to advocate changes to the laws along these lines, which he doesn't do."

Outside the Beltway's James Joyner: "Several comments by pundits reacting to the President's press conference miss a subtle distinction between a politician consulting polls in order to figure out what stances to take on an issue vice consulting polls to figure out a strategy for selling their programs. The former is a sign of weakness. The latter is a sign of political sophistication. ... Did President Bush do tonight's press conference because the polls said he was losing? Sure. Did he adjust his message based on the internals of those polls? I hope so. Did he pick his agenda based on what polls were telling him? Decidedly not. Indeed, he surely wouldn't have tackled Social Security had he done so and been motivated mostly by the political fallout."

Instapundit: "Ann Althouse notes a slump in interest for both liberal and conservative talk radio,and puts it down to the boringness of today's debates ... How about the history of the filibuster! I think this has its parallels in the blogosphere, too. Some people wish I were blogging more about politics, but I find Social Security and filibusters boring as well. Sorry. More words of wisdom: 'If you satisfy some listeners, you lose others. You can't please everyone, and putting together an interesting mix is an art.' And the blogosphere is a place with millions of channels."

Liberal America Blog catches Microsoft founder Bill Gates in "a lie" on NPR (see 4/25 Blogometer).

BLOGGERS VS. BLOGGERS: Hypersullivating

Sullivan responds to Glenn Reynolds re: "theocracy" on the right (see yesterday's Blogometer): "Does Glenn know about this? Banning new books in public libraries that feature any gay characters or are written by gay authors? There are no theocratic tendencies among the Republicans, are there? ... Capote, Wilde, Auden, Proust and who knows who else will be barred. Government as the protector of souls. What are these 'hysterics' worrying about 'theocratic impulses' going on about?"

Liberal Marc Cooper: "Did anyone notice that George W. Bush made his big pitch on social security privatization on a day that the Dow-Jones average plummeted 128 points? After a solid month or two of similar plunges? Little wonder Dubya put the emphasis of his prime time appearance on some mumbo-jumbo about tilting a reformed system toward low-income workers. Didn't seem like the best of moments to tell his audience how exciting it would be to have a portion of its retirement future tumble before its very eyes."

Conservative Ace of Spades HQ quotes Sullivan criticizing Bush for opposing greater funding for stem cell research: Funny, before Sullivan "evolved" and felt the scales fall from his eyes regarding the perfidity of 'theoconservatism' -- coincidentally, over the same period his dream of gay 'marriage' was thwarted by a majority of the American public -- he was against stem-cell research on moral grounds ... It seems Sullivan is reversing a lot of previously-held positions lately... and all since that little decision in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court."

CIVILITY: Notes On The Underground

Conservative Malkin notes that Elizabeth Edwards "surfaced" in a discussion thread on the Democratic Underground where posters were denouncing conservative radio talker Laura Ingraham even as she was undergoing treatment for breast cancer.

Edwards writes: "We fight for the right of voices with which we disagree to speak out, for the right of people to say things we don't believe to be true, even for the right to be malicious and mean-spirited. If we fight for the right for LI to say what she says, how in the world can we use our disagreement with those words as an excuse not to be compassionate in her fight with cancer. Being willing to have her voice muted by illness is the same thing as not wanting her voice to be heard. It is not Democratic or democratic."

Malkin, on Edwards and DU: "It was an admirable attempt by Mrs. Edwards to stop the ugliness -- though she then goes on to criticize conservatives for their lack of compassion. A few commenters applauded Mrs. Edwards. And then it was back to spewing as usual: 'She probably gave it to herself...' 'I don't pray for Nazis or other Totalitarian Scum' 'I hope she goes into remission and fucking chokes to death.' And those were the ones that didn't get deleted."

Little Green Footballs: "[Dem ex-Sen.] Zell Miller went to the hospital tonight, after apparently feeling faint during a speech in Gainesville, Florida. ... At Democratic Underground, they can barely contain their glee."

Conservative Power Line: "[CO Dem Sen. Ken] Salazar is a political novice, which may explain his ham-handed climb-down. But his explanation for his intemperate outburst [quoted in the Denver Post] does not inspire confidence: 'Salazar added that his statement came after "being relentlessly attacked" in telephone calls, e-mails, newspapers and radio stations across Colorado.' This is a very curious rationale. If you run for the Senate (or the House, or pretty much any political office) you are guaranteed to be "relentlessly attacked." Indeed, in today's world, even amateur commentators like us are relentlessly attacked. ... he kindest thing we could say is that Ken Salazar is not ready for prime time."

Liberal Amygdala, on Salazar: "I'm just sorry he feels it necessary to step back at all (I'm still fairly cranky with Senator Salazar for his embrace of now-Attorney-General/torture-apologist Gonzalez, and his Wrong Vote on cloture on the bankruptcy bill, among other elements of the mixed bag that is his as-yet-short record in the Senate)." On Salazar's latest statement: "I think he was closer the first time."

IN THE STATES: The Post's Not-So-Hard-Hitting Hit

Righty Tom Maguire: "In this era of the New Puritanism, the Washington Post seems to be straining for le mot juste" -- Headline: "Mfume Accused of Favoritism At NAACP" and subhead: "Ex-President Denies Rewarding Women." He quotes the Post on ex-NAACP chair/MD SEN candidate Kweisi Mfume (D) giving "raises and promotions to women with whom he had close personal relationships" from the lead, and writes: Readers who are sufficiently patient or intrigued to get sixth paragraph will eventually get a hint of the real charge, and no, it is not exactly 'favoritism'" The 6th paragraph mentions the phrase "claims of sexual discrimination by a female aide." Maguire: "Ahh! If the past is any guide, Mfume is being accused of sexual discrimination." He has a lot more on the Post's coverage and the MD SEN race.

MISCELLANY: Setting The Truth Free

At his MSNBC blog, The Nation's Eric Alterman lists a "top-10, a partial list of Galbraith's controversial positions that turned out to be more correct than otherwise."

CAP fellow David Sirota, at his personal blog: "Operation Truth has a stunning post noting that 39 Republican U.S. Senators last week voted against funding needed to equip Humvees in Iraq with better armor (official Senate roll call vote is here). ... The Republican Party: an organization that supports sending U.S. soldiers to die in Iraq without providing them the means to defend themselves."

Operation Truth is a liberal-leaning group blog started in 3/05 and featuring primarily veterans of Afghanistan and Iraq. Here is their bio page. Ex-MN Gov. Jesse Ventura serves on its board.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Better Keep An Eye Out For Star Trek Fans

Ernest Miller at Corante notices a Los Angeles Times story claims about the Toronto sex crimes police unit: "All but one of the offenders they have arrested in the last four years was a hard-core Trekkie." Miller: "Wow. All but one in four years. Seemed rather unlikely to me. So, I called the Child Exploitation Section of the Toronto Sex Crimes Unit and spoke to Det. Ian Lamond, who was familiar with the LA Times article. He claims they were misquoted, or if that figure was given it was done so jokingly. Of course, even if the figure was given jokingly, shouldn't the Times' reporter have clarified something that seems rather odd? Shouldn't her editors have questioned her sources? Nevertheless, Detective Lamond does claim that a majority of those arrested show "at least a passing interest in Star Trek, if not a strong interest. ... A weird factoid. Nevertheless, it is not correct that 'all but one ... in the last four years' was a hard core Star Trek fan."

LEST WE FORGET:

Lefty Jesse Taylor, at the newly-redesigned and once-more fully-operational Pandagon, writes: "Being away from the blog for a week led me to watch a lot of cable news, and I eventually came up with a schedule for CNN that I think should catapult them into the ratings lead within hours." A sample:

8:00 A.M.: American Morning with a Crotchety White Guy, an Excitable Black Guy, a Calm Multiracial Woman and a Streetwise Animal Sidekick (Sorry, Hemmer.)
10:00 A.M.: People Laugh Politely At Andy Borowitz No Matter What He Says
10:30 A.M.: The Three Things I Can Be Bothered To Take Seriously with Miles O'Brien

A few more:

4:00 P.M.: The New Capital Gang with Jonah Goldberg, Ann Coulter, Wolf Blitzer and Jack Cafferty, as moderated by Mr. Moviefone
5:00 P.M.: Lou Dobbs Reports: Outsourcing with Lou Dobbs
6:00 P.M.: Lou Dobbs Reports: Outsourcing WAR ZONE with Lou Dobbs

Posted by at April 29, 2005 12:29 PM