« 5/23: Internecine Blogfare | Main | 5/25: Middling Progress? »

May 24, 2005

5/24: Deal Of The Century

For the second time since the Blogometer was brought forth into this world, we have a day with almostly literally only one issue on the table. The first was the passing of Terri Schiavo. Bet you can guess what it is today.

There are roughly 6 lines of thought on yesterday's compromise resolution, and without the time or resources necessary to conduct a survey worthy of the Pew Research Center, the Blogometer assumes they are more or less equally prevalent:

  • Conservatives who are pretty sure the left got screwed worse than they did.
  • Liberals who are cautiously optimistic that this won't be so bad.
  • Conservatives who are how howling with anger that the GOP has sold out again.
  • Liberals who are howling with anger that the Dems have sold out again.
  • Those who have no idea what to make of all this, on the left or right.
  • Those in the middle who are just glad it's over with.

All about equal, except perhaps for the last one (if you're writing about it, you probably care). And "anger" is not quite accurate; "disappointment" is probably more accurate. A lot of the reaction can be summarized by the mixed reaction at 2 activist blogs on either side, the conservative RedState and liberal DailyKos.

DailyKos founder Markos Moulitsas: "It's not a good day to be Bill Frist. He looks weak, unable to control his own caucus. His winger friends go ballistic. They get some judges, sure, but ultimately, we can filibuster Bush's next Supreme Court nominee unless he picks a moderate."

RedState co-founder Mike Krempasky: "This deal is bad for conservative activists -- but a whole lot worse for the Democrats. The best upside, of course, was watching the coverage of the press conference close -- and to see Harry Reid waste several hundred thousand dollars of liberal interest group cash with his little 90-second ad. Heh."

From the comments at DailyKos: "Perhaps part of the deal was that the Republican senators would vote down [Priscilla] Owen, [Janice] Brown and some of the others. They'd get their up or down, but the result would be down. That would be a pretty good deal for us. Of course, if we choose to invoke the 'extraordinary circumstances' clause with a supreme court nomination, presumably the Republicans would feel free to try this nuclear option again."

RedState commenter "Nick Danger":

[D's:] Ok, it's settled then. We let the two women through, and then we're back to square one on the white males, right?
[RINOs:] Deal.
[R's:] <crickets>

TRACKBACKS:

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

CONSERVATIVE REAX I: Sometimes You Feel So Saad

John Hawkins of Right Wing News did an interview with Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), in which he asked: "The deal that was cut on judicial filibusters: in your mind, good deal, bad deal? Would you prefer to have gone nuclear or do you think we're better off with the deal that was cut?" Brownback: "I'm still digesting that point. I was ready to move forward. It seemed to me that it was time to move forward. We had showed every restraint, every caution. We had worked closely with the Democrats to move these (judges) forward. ... It seemed like we would have a cleaner case and set-up for a Supreme Court nominee had we moved on through and that was probably the thing that actually secured the deal with a number of the Democrats not to allow us to exercise the constitutional option."

The Anchoress: "It's gonna be a long cold day before the [GOP] sees a dime of my money. A long. Cold. Day. Can someone please explain to me why, with 57% support from the nation (under-reported, of course), the GOP caved on this?"

At The Corner, Ramesh Ponnuru asks whether a rules change is still permissible in this Congress, and notes the wording of the compromise "seems to allow for some Republican wiggle room if Democrats act contrary to the deal's 'spirit.' Republican signatories -- especially [Lindsey] Graham, [Mike] DeWine, and [John] Warner--should be asked to clarify their reading of the deal's ambiguities."

Captain's Quarters, on the GOP sacrificing Judge Henry Saad: "Saad may have sealed his own fate with his ill-advised e-mail attacking Debbie Stabenow in 2003, and the GOP may well have sacrificed him for that reason. ... Saad got tossed under the bus, although it may come from a failed confirmation vote rather than a filibuster, no matter what Reid says. If Reid demands a filibuster and all seven Democratic signatories support it, it will qualify as 'bad faith,' resulting in a resurrection of the Byrd option. I think all seven GOP signatories agreed to oppose Saad in a floor vote."

ConfirmThem: "It is not compromise, but capitulation. And I say that as somebody who did agree that a certain form of compromise was acceptable. ... I guarantee you there was horse-trading in there concerning pork and other matters. And I guarantee you that not a one of them gave a thought to the havoc they have wrecked on these nominees' lives. Shame on them all. Fie on them all. Disdain for them all."

Heritage's Mark Tapscott: "I said months ago that Senate GOPers are terrified of offending Senate Democrats. Now we will see the Senate GOP leadership desperately searching for a way to share in the glory that even as this post is being written is being prepared by the MSM to shower upon Senate 'moderates' of both parties who 'saved' the Senate and the federal judiciary from the Extreme Right and the Evangelical Christian Theocracy."

Meanwhile, a handful of conservatives are pleased.

UCLA law prof Stephen Bainbridge, on those who are upset: "Will somebody please get these folks some cheese to go with their whine? I find these reactions not only short-sighted but also surprisingly unconservative. They reflect a willingness to put possible short-term partisan gain (and I emphasize the word possible) over both principle and long-term advantage. ... The filibuster is a profoundly conservative tool. It slows change by allowing a resolute minority to delay -- to stand athwart history shouting stop. It ensures that change is driven not "merely by temporary advantage or popularity" but by a substantial majority. Is it any wonder that it has usually been liberals who want to change or abolish the filibuster rule?"

Conservative Jawa Report lists 5 reasons why the GOP won, including: "We have given up nothing. The Dims promised not to filibuster unless under extraordinary circumstances. The other two nominees can be brought to the floor and if filibustered the Dims can be made out to be liars because the 3 most arguably extreme judges have already been allowed through."

PoliPundit's Alexander K. McClure is another: "In short, this is the submission of the minority to the will of the majority. Democrats and wobbly Republicans can spin it as they will, but you, my readers, will I hope see otherwise."

Blogs for Bush live-blogged the presser.

LIBERAL REAX: Win, Lose Or Blog

Jesse Taylor at Pandagon: "Democrats win, basically. But they win in a way that is neither sure nor particularly productive in the long term."

Slate's Mickey Kaus writes, "the mere postponement -- until, presumably, a Supreme Court seat opens up -- favors the Democrats, for the reasons outlined earlier. Bush will need to nominate someone who will either avoid or win such a somewhat-less-likely filibuster battle when the stakes are high enough for the bulk of the voters to be paying attention."

Oliver Willis: "No doubt that this is a win. Why? Because the filibuster is still a part of our political system. Checks and balances have been preserved. Yes, we will get some right-wing judges, but less of them. Frist is angry. Dobson is angry. If those two wet blanket extremists will be upset, I'm happy. Period."

The Left Coaster disagrees: "While it's entertaining to watch the caterwauling from the wingnuts who were baying for blood, let's keep things in perspective: under the compromise agreement, Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owen -- the worst of an already odious lot -- are well on their way to receiving lifetime appointments on the federal bench. No matter how you slice it, this prospect is disheartening, to say the least. This may be a tactical victory for Harry Reid, and there's certainly the lingering question of whether he would have had the 51 votes needed to defuse the nuclear option. But from a long-term perspective, this agreement is nothing to be smiling about."

Steve Gilliard: "This is a major defeat for the theocrats. This is what happens when amateurs play at politics. Dobson was under the delusion that he could control the Senate ... This didn't work."

A blogger at DailyKos quotes from a long list of apoplectic conservatives at Free Republic. A sample: "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Ezra Klein, analyzing the signatures on the agreement: "Lincoln Chafee writes like a kid, [Mary] Landrieu's got the best handwriting (followed by [Susan] Collins and [Olympia Snowe], proving that women do indeed possess superior penmanship, maybe to make up for those inferior math and science skills (kidding!)), the majority seem to drop a number of letters from their names, and the senator on the lower right is clearly trying to hide his/her identity."

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "I guess I'm puzzled. A bipartisan group of 14 senators has agreed to a last-minute compromise that will avert Bill Frist's attempt to end judicial filibusters for good, but the text of the deal only mentions five nominees. ... [W]hy aren't [Richard] Griffin and [David] McKeague mentioned? Presumably, not mentioning them is equivalent to "no commitment," right? So why not say so? What am I missing here?"

Blogenlust: "Feelings on both sides seem to be mixed at this point, and I'd have to say I feel the same way. On the one hand, we still have the filibuster, but on the other hand, the "extremist" bar has just been raised to a level that makes me a bit uncomfortable."

Crooks and Liars has perhaps the most complete round-up of reaction from both sides.

MORE REAX: Stuck In The Middle

2 conservatives and 1 centrist who just aren't all that exercised about the issue:

Instapundit: "I'd probably care more about this issue if Bush looked likely to appoint some small-government libertarian types to the bench. Since he doesn't, I don't."

Outside the Beltway: "Hopefully, this issue can stay away for a while. I was among the very many Americans who could have cared less about the bickering. And, like Steve, I found both sides to be hypocritical. It was power politics, not principle, all the way through, and it frankly had me turned off most of the way."

BuzzMachine's Jeff Jarvis: "So the filibuster meltdown option is avoided. And a good thing it is. I don't think the people would have tolerated political war and a congressional shutdown. ... I call moderation a virtue."

WHITE HOUSE '08: How Frist And McCain May Fare

A headline to an Ipse Dixit post says it all for many: "McCain And Frist Kiss 2008 Presidential Race Bye-Bye."

But not all. Conservative Robert Tagorda writes, John McCain "seems poised to reap most of the benefits. Unfortunately for him, the next presidential election is still four years away. Only a small number of Americans will remember this episode then, and primary voters, who represent the biggest hump to his political aspirations, will give him few -- if any -- points for the moderate gesture. But at least he gets to overshadow Bush and Frist for a couple of press conferences."

The more common sentiment is from "Jayson" at PoliPundit: "John McCain's national political career is over. All that's left for him is a Perot-style third-party run, and just like H. Ross already proved, along with George Wallace, and John Anderson, and Ralph Nader, that's not a growth industry."

Conservative Southern Appeal: "Note to Sen. Frist: You are the Senate Majority Leader, so act like it for a change. McCain totally out maneuvered you and yet you probably won't do anything to punish these GOPers who have spit on the Constitution, not to mention spitting on those Republican supporters and voters that helped put them in a majority."

The news for Frist is pretty much all bad, with 1 somewhat unlikely exception.

Liberal South Knox Bubba: "So the good news is that cooler heads prevailed, and Senators John McCain and Ben Nelson are the heroes while Sen. Bill Frist is the goat who comes out looking like an idiot. (I saw somewhere that he had cots brought in for an all-nighter. What a drama queen.)"

Liberal Brains and Eggs: "Frist's presidential aspirations (that's the only reason he was doing this, for 2006 and the evangelical bloc) exploded on the launchpad. And John McCain's got stronger."

Conservative humor site The Nose on Your Face reports on a fake poll to make a point: "A just released Zogby poll shows that the word "frist" has leapfrogged dozens of other more established slurs to become the put down of choice on school yards across America."

Only The American Prospect's Tapped sees some chance of victory: "If the nominations of Brown, Owen, and Pryor don't constitute extraordinary circumstances, what will? This only delays the nuclear option and may even weaken the Dems' position at that point; if these nominees can be traded so freely, why oppose any of them? Bill Frist just said it himself: 'All options remain.' And here we thought Frist couldn't possibly come out a winner."

IN OTHER NEWS: What There Is Of It, Anyway

JustOneMinute: "A deal on filibusters? Then two other stories should move to center stage." He provides links to details on France's coming vote on the EU constitution and the stem cell bill.

MaxSpeak, You Listen!'s Max Sawicky offers his latest "MaxSpeak Maxim": "The Newsweek affair distracts attention from the underlying importance of the Koran riots in Afghanistan: the tenuousness of the U.S. imperial project in the Middle East. Journalists and politicians dwell on it out of ignorance, self-centeredness, and most of all, to avoid facing up to the monumental U.S. foreign policy quagmire that they have had a hand in creating."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Guess Who?

DC-based righty Bill Ardolino notes that the print edition of the Washington Post includes a "picture of a protest sign that reads 'Newsweek Deserves to be Banned,' with a caption of, 'The Koran story is a new wedge in the culture wars between left and right.' Obviously, since those on the 'right' are the ones shellacking Newsweek, it would appear that some right wing protestors have expressed that 'Newsweek Deserves to Be Banned,' which is a pretty fascistic sentiment. There's one problem with this appearance: you can't tell from the close cropping, but the sign is actually from a rally of Indian Islamists," who are visible in differently cropped versions of the picture. More Ardolino: "The WaPo's version only shows the sign, and they've effectively projected the impression that some domestic right-wingers are clamoring to ban Newsweek, by using an artfully presented and captioned picture of Islamic protestors expressing decidedly non-Western sensibilities regarding censorship."

Liberal Daily Howler objects to departing New York Times public editor Dan Okrent's criticism of Times columnist Paul Krugman: "According to the exercised editor, Krugman "has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers." Beyond that, Krugman is 'ideological' and 'unfair,' Okrent says -- and he seems to say that the slippery scribe selects his misleading numbers in a fashion designed to 'please his acolytes.' These are very nasty charges. But in the style of classic hit-and-run bullies, Okrent provides no examples of his target's troubling conduct, and he bravely offers these ringing complaints in his final public editor column, depriving Krugman of a chance to respond (and knowing he wo't have to defend himself against the complaints that will come)."

BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: Blog 'Em, Danno

Note: Starting today, the Blogometer will run twice-weekly interviews with some of the bloggers we quote. While a handful of bloggers are established writers well-known in political circles, the vast majority are not. Therefore, we'll try to give you an idea just who these writers are. Like the Hotline's Staffer Spotlights, everyone gets the same questions. The difference is, in the Blogger Spotlight, we add URLs. First up is Daniel W. Drezner.

What is your full name?

What the blog says -- Daniel W. Drezner

What is your age?

36

Where did you grow up?

I lived in seven different places by the time I was ten -- after that, I grew up in Avon, Connecticut.

Where do you live now?

Chicago, IL

What is your occupation? Have you ever worked on a political campaign or for the mainstream media?

I'm an assistant professor of political science at the University of Chicago. During the 2000 campaign, I was an unpaid advisor for Bush-Cheney (one of my mentors in graduate school was Condoleezza Rice).

When did you start blogging and why?

I started blogging a year after the 9/11 attacks. I had been reading blogs for quite some time. After 9/11, it was only natural that the politically oriented blogs started talking more and more about foreign policy. While I read much of interest, it struck me that none of the prominent bloggers had any advanced training in international relations. There was a niche to fill.

What has been your favorite post, or favorite story to write about, in that time?

I posted a lot about offshore outsourcing when it first became a big issue. I posted so much about it that I decided to write something more substantive -- which became my Foreign Affairs piece "The Outsourcing Bogeyman."

Describe your typical blogging schedule. And what is your average output?

I aim for a post a day -- sometimes I do more, sometimes less. My main times for blogging are first thing in the morning and late at night when my children are asleep.

Who is your favorite political blogger? Favorite non-political blogger?

Like blog posts themselves, the answer to this question is very transient -- my faves shift from week to week.

Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?

[No answer.]

What is your favorite television news program, either network or cable?

With two small children, I have zero time to watch news on TV. I do still get nostalgic for This Week with David Brinkley, however.

What MSM-produced websites (i.e. newspapers, magazines) do you visit on a daily basis?

The New York Times, Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, Economist, and Slate.

What non-MSM websites (i.e. blogs) do you visit on a daily basis?

Instapundit, Andrew Sullivan, Virginia Postrel, Marginal Revolution, Brad DeLong, Crooked Timber, Volokh Conspiracy, Brad Setser, and Belgravia Dispatch.

How often, or do you ever, read a newspaper in its dead-tree (i.e. print) form?

I read the Chicago Tribune six days a week and the New York Times on Sunday and when I'm traveling.

How do you see the new media and old media affecting and influencing each other in the next five years?

I see co-optation and symbiosis mostly, though I'll be very interested to see how blog syndicates (e.g., Pajamas Media) perform and whether old media will put more of their content behind a subscription wall.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: If The Daily Show Hadn't Already Used "Kim Possible," We Would Have

The New Republic's Noam Scheiber, on something completely different: "That someone managed to affix a piece of paper denouncing Kim Jong Il to a bridge in North Korea, film the result through a hole in a cigarette carton, and smuggle the footage out is certainly intriguing. I downloaded the six minutes of film to view this record of civil disobedience and to see some shots of life inside the kingdom. ... To tell the truth, the film is not unfailingly riveting--or especially colorful. But, as the Los Angeles Times points out, the filmmaker was taking some chances: "[E]ven the slightest criticism of Kim Jong Il can result in execution or deportation to a prison camp. Under [North Korean] law, three generations of a family can be punished for the crimes of one member." Fair point. And, at least, it's hands-down the best North Korean film of 2005. Kim must be jealous."

LEST WE FORGET: Cruise Control

Defamer posts a series of amusing-to-bizarre screen captures from Tom Cruise's appearance on "The Oprah Winfrey Show": "Film is a visual medium, and Tom Cruise is perhaps the biggest film star in the world, so we're going to photoblog Cruise's Oprah appearance as fast as we can upload the images. Really, words would only get in the way."

Posted by at May 24, 2005 12:00 PM



Copyright 2007 by National Journal Group Inc.
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.