May 02, 2005

5/2: Safety First

Several items in today's Blogometer are notable, one external and one internal. First, national security (and as a corollary, Iraq) returned as a dominant topic on both sides of the spectrum. Second, the Bloggers vs. The MSM debate was particularly active, ranging from debate over PBS, the Los Angeles Times' editing habits, and the decline in influence of the MSM in general. Related is a new effort underway for what's being referred to as a blog news service, which raises interesting questions we look forward to seeing answered as the discussion evolves.

Also, everyone's a constitutional scholar when it comes to the filibuster. And what's this about the President and a horse?

TRACKBACKS: Oh Yeah, The War

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

• Weekend violence in Iraq is noted all over the blogosphere, most without commentary. But a story in this weekend's Washington Post did spur some opinion, with each side picking out details relevant to their argument. Linking: PowerPundit, Power Line, Blogs for Bush, A Hill Of Beans In This Crazy World, The Sundries Shack, The Hedgehog Report, The Only Blog You Need To Read...Except for those that we explicitly recommend, Espella Humanzee, Rantingprofs

  >> Righty Sundries Shack: "Wow. So when the President said this is what would happen when he first laid out his plan four years ago, he wasn't just a unilateral idiotic cowboy with an 'avenge Daddy' complex?"

  >> Lefty Juan Cole: "Apparently if the US were not in Iraq, Americans would be facing almost no threat of terrorism at the moment. Since Iraq was not even listed by the US government as a sponsor of terrorism in the late 1990s, the argument some make that Americans are better off fighting terror 'over there' than 'over here' does not hold water."

• Today's New York Times piece about bias at PBS, and the GOP chair of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, draws some feedback from right. Linking: PoliBlog, The Corner, Hugh Hewitt, Romanesko, Brothers Judd, Doug's Dynamic Drivel

  >> Righty Steven Taylor: "I can't disagree that, on balance, PBS has had a liberal-leaning perspective. However, the idea that the government, in any capacity, is to be influencing content is disquieting."

  >> Conservative Tim Graham: "The Times demonstrates its own liberal bias by equating efforts to seek balance with 'chilling journalistic efforts.'"

  >> Righty Hugh Hewitt: "Does anyone want to dispute the idea that public broadcasting is seriously left-of-center? Of course they do. To admit otherwise is to surrender another myth about old media. Press on, Mr. Tomlinson."

WAR ON TERROR: Safer But Not Safe?

Righty Matt Margolis, on the Washington Post's story on terror threats: "We are winning the war on terror."

The Only Blog You Need To Read...Except for those that we explicitly recommend: "Establishing a credible commitment to punish terrorism is very costly (as we have seen), but now it seems that we may be beginning to see the payoffs."

Power Pundit's Rick Edwards: "Even if reports of credible terrorist threats against the United States appear to be at 'their lowest level' since September 11, 2001, this is no time to relax. ... It would be foolish to think that we are in any less danger of a major terrorist attack in this country simply because of a drop -- possibly temporarily -- in 'credible' domestic terrorist threat reports."

Lefty "Armando" at Daily Kos, on weekend violence in Iraq: The "lack of a rational policy which drives my belief that we must stress that all is NOT well in Iraq -- that elections and Cabinets, admirable in a vacuum, do not address the central problem we have - the inability to provide security for Iraq.

Several lefty bloggers have picked up on this New York Times piece about the U.S.-Uzbeki relationship. Crooked Timber: "No other conclusion is possible than that the United States of America is deliberately and consciously shipping people to third party regimes so that information can be tortured from them. This is general knowledge. Yet it isn't being acted on."

FILIBUSTERS: They Just Don't Make 'Em Like They Used To

Tiger Hawk notes the Filibuster Frist protest at Princeton Univ. and writes: "I think that these Princeton students have the right idea: If you are going to filibuster, then you should have to filibuster. Filibusters should come at some personal and political cost. We should abolish the candy-ass filibusters of modern times, and require that if debate is not closed it must therefore happen."

Righty Glenn Reynolds agrees: "Filibusters, traditionally, were an expensive proposition for the filibusterers, and the recent rule changes that removed those costs fly in the face of the very Senate traditions that pro-filibuster folks are invoking. This reform makes sense to me, as it would ensure that the filibuster-nuke is dropped only when the stakes are high enough that the minority is willing to pay a price."

Moderate Mickey Kaus (scroll to Some Middle Ground Isn't) writes: "Democrats would clearly be willing to undertake a 'real' filibuster to block Janice Rogers Brown, for example. So we're still presented with the question: Should they be able to do that? Allow 'real' filibusters and the Democrats win."

Blogs for Bush's Matt Margolis: "The Constitution is a brilliant document, and while the Democrats regularly invoke the Constitution, they seem conveniently ignorant to what it actually says." Margolis notes only 7 cases of where the Constitution specifies that a supermajority is required -- none of which relate to a filibuster. "When a vote to ban judicial filibusters comes up, it is not changing the rules, tradition, or breaking apart the system of checks and balances... it is simply restoring them."

Informed Comment's Cole offers his own Constitutional interpretation, referring to Article II Section 2, Clause 2. Cole: "Such a supermajority is not required for the appointments, but there is clearly no presumption that the president should be deferred to by the senate. The president should be consulting beforehand, which would have made consent easier to obtain. The issue isn't the filibuster. The issue is the independence of the Senate and of the judiciary."

Conservative John Hawkins, after reading David Brooks in the New York Times, writes: "The reality here is that the GOP is as close to 100% right on this issue and the Democrats are as close to 100% wrong as it's ever going to get. If the Republicans in the Senate don't have the guts to stand up for themselves on an issue as vitally important as judges, even when the Constitution and 200 years of Senate tradition are on their side, then I'm not sure they have what it takes to lead.

JUDGES: Extreme Makeover

Righty Ed Morrissey writes at Captains Quarters: "The Left has no evidence of any extremism about Janice Rogers Brown or any of the other nominees. They talk in sound bites about extremism and 'deeply held personal beliefs' and attempt to convince people that the nominees will attack minorities and the disabled -- but they have absolutely no evidence of any such hostility. When they get challenged for specifics, they simply make up stories designed to scare people. Meanwhile, judicial ethics demand that the nominees refrain from defending themselves."

Daily Kos' "Armando" takes issue with the Weekly Standard's take on nominees and the use of "the race card": "The GOP chooses African-Americans and women to be the most extreme, out of the mainstream nominees imaginable. And yes Clarence Thomas is Exhibit A of that theory. Why do they do this? To try and cow legitmate opposition to the unbelievably extreme positions they want their nominees to hold, and they believe the only way to get these extreme views confirmed by the Senate is to cynically play the race card - to wit, nominate African-Americans and women who hold these extreme, out of the mainstream views." He also notes that nominee Janice Rogers Brown may have won 76% of the vote in CA, but cites a release noting that all judicial candidates won by wide margins in an election that attracted little attention.

REPUBLICANS: The Grass Is Always Greener ... When You Have No Lawn

Left-leaning Sunday Morning Talk, on Sen. George Allen's (R-VA) "Meet the Press" appearance: Allen "may have gotten in a bit over his head. ... On private accounts, he suggested that Americans might have to sell their homes to survive in retirement. But, that would be a good thing, because they wouldn't have to trim hedges and cut grass, he noted." Lefty Kevin Drum: "Way to sell those private accounts, senator!" Whiskey Bar: "Even by the state's contemporary standards ... Allen is a dunce. One of the few politiicans, in fact, who could make people refer to John Warner as 'the smart one.'" Which, needless to say, could make him a hot prospect for the GOP presidential nomination."

Lefty Matthew Yglesias guest blogs at Talking Points Memo: "When selling phase-out to policy mandarins, journalists, etc. the administration is always quick to point out that there will be severe restrictions on where people can put their money. ... But when selling the plan to the public, the White House is all about choice. ... [A]gree or disagree, everyone should understand that the administration's promises on this score are not credible. But then again, when are they?"

Right-leaning John Hinderaker: "Entitlements are devouring the federal budget and, if they are not checked, will inevitably dictate higher taxes and a downward spiral of slow growth and unemployment. ... And no one is doing anything about it. The 'cuts' proposed by the Republicans are so trivial as to be merely symbolic, as is the ritual faux-outrage expressed by the Democrats in response."

Chris Bowers quotes House Maj. Leader Tom DeLay saying "This is the budget the American people voted for when they returned a Republican House, a Republican Senate and a Republican president to the White House last November." Bowers: "I have to agree with Tom DeLay on this one, especially since the budget is the only major piece of legislation that was unanimously opposed by Democrats in the House during this session of Congress. Huge tax cuts to the rich that will drive up the deficit? Check. Cutting healthcare to the poor and middle class? Check. Destroying pristine wildlife refuges while funneling billions of dollars to large energy corporations? Check. This is indeed the budget the American people voted for when they returned a Republican House, a Republican Senate, and a Republican President to the White House. You get what you vote for."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Bloggers, Unite!

Roger L. Simon writes an "Open Letter To All Bloggers," detailing plans to "turn blogs into a business" by "aggregating blogs to increase corporate advertising and creating our own professional news service." On the business side, they are "working on another model that will sell ads en masse, not blog-by-blog." With a Blog News Service, "a lot of work needs to be done and a lot of questions answered." They've set up an ed. board with Glenn Reynolds, PowerLine, Lawrence Kudlow, Hugh Hewitt, Marc Cooper, "Wretchard" of the Belmont Club and Tim Blair, as well as the founders. "This is no way meant to be exclusive. We invite you all to join us." On the advertising end, any blogger -- whether political or not -- is welcome.

Simon updates on the so-called "Pajamas Media" creation, saying response "has been extraordinary with well over a hundred blogs already fully signed up" from across the globe. Jesse Taylor writes at Pandagon: "How exactly you make a news service out of complaining that news services are covering things incorrectly is beyond me, but more power to 'em."

Patterico's Pontifications writes: "Los Angeles Times editors have edited a Reuters story to remove critical facts supporting the U.S. position" in the shooting of Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena and security agent Nicola Calipari. At the center of the dispute is the speed of the Italian vehicle approaching the U.S. checkpoint. "The Reuters story reported that there is definitive proof that the car was speeding towards the checkpoint -- critical information that tends to justify U.S. soldiers' decision to fire on the car. But in the version appearing in the L.A. Times, editors cut out the passage reporting that proof."

Little Green Footballs: "Why would the major newspaper of one of America's largest cities do something like this? Well, Sgrena is a self-acknowledged radical Communist. Need I say more?" Moderate Mickey Kaus: "Excising the paragraph seems an iffy strategy for the Times to take in a story so widely broadcast. ... Isn't it better just to say 'CBS, citing Pentagon officials, reports X,' and rely on the readers' knowledge that not everything CBS or the Pentagon says is bankable?"

Righty Kevin Aylward: "It's worth noting that CBS is the only one reporting the existence of satellite proof of the speed of Sgrena's car. That story, absent additional proof, appears to be collapsing quickly."

Decision '08's Mark notes CNN News exec Jeff Klein's comment that the WH Press should cancel the dinner and "instead spend that time and energy creating standards-and enforcing them-for those who would call themselves White House correspondents." Mark: "Here's a suggestion for you, Johnny Boy: cancel your own trip to the gala and spend that time and energy trying to salvage a once-great news network -- if you would call yourself a 'broadcaster'. Just don't let anything keep you from covering that monumental runaway bride story.

BLOGS VS. THE WORLD: Those Pesky I-talians

Buzz Machine's Jeff Jarvis links to a 1115.org posting that reports that Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) -- "the twit who wants to extend FCC censorship to cable and satellite -- now wants to install one of his aides in one of the empty chairs at the FCC. This is war, people." The report is based on a Reuters story.

Righty Michelle Malkin leads the chorus of angry voices criticizing the Italian gov't and several two newspapers for "leaking" information in the U.S. investigation of the shooting the Italians, as noted by Political Animal's Kevin Drum. Malkin: "Yes, someone on our side screwed up bigtime in leaving the redacted portions in the PDF file. But it was a mistake, and the Italians are exploiting it recklessly at the expense of national security. Silvio Berlusconi, Il Manifesto, and Corriere della Sera don't care a whit about our soldiers' safety. You should. Loose lips sink ships. This Italian leak may be just as deadly." Austin Bay gives a detailed analysis linked to by Malkin and others: "The biggest worry isn't specific details of the incident, but confirmation of coalition tactics, techniques, and procedures. ... [But] a little military adaptation will overcome this foolish mistake."

IN THE STATES: Filibuster Change? Might Not Need One!

RedState's "doverspa" surveys the '06 SEN landscape: "Two days after the 2004 Republican win, I stated that a filibuster-proof Senate was possible in 2006. Although unlikely, the possibility of Republicans picking up 5 seats is not out of the question." There are 4 open Dem seats -- MD, VT, NJ, MN -- to only 1 GOP open seat: Sen. Frist's TN. MN is a swing state, but GOPers "will need strong candidates to overcome Democratic registration advantages" in VT, NJ and MN. But "there are many more vulnerable Democratic incumbents in 'red states' than vice versa" -- FL, NE, ND and WV. Only RI and ME "are in a similar position" for the GOP. Bottom line: "the landscape seems to be good for Republicans to pick up 1 to 3 seats in 2006. One can hope that the stars align (as they did in 2004) and Republicans get the 5 necessary to overcome the filibuster, but much would have to fall into place."

Michelle Malkin notes the latest "salvo" in the Los Angeles, Mexico controversy.

MISCELLANY: Real Journalism

Markos Moulistas Zuniga writes in Daily Kos reports from London, where he's writing about the British election for the Guardian. "Today I went to a Labour rally headlined by Tony Blair in Hove, a southern coastal town. Some good stuff there I'll write about in the Guardian tomorrow. I also ran into Adam Nagourney and Dan Balz, of the NYT and WaPo respectively. I called them media whores. They called me a blogger whore. We then looked at the prices of things in London and decided that we'd all have to be whores to afford anything at all."

Right Wing News polled righty blogs on their favorite columnists. See the top 20 here.

DEBATE: The Uneasy Embrace

In the p.m. of 4/29, the Blogometer attended a Time dinner at Metropolitan Club. The appetizer was crispy caesar salad, entree was a roast tenderloin of beef with wild mushroom risotto and tiny sweet peas in zinfandel essence. Desert was a teardrop-shaped cinammon caramel pear williams. All were quite tasty. Afterward, managing editor Jim Kelly moderated a debate between WH correspondent John Dickerson and Wonkette's Ana Marie Cox. Subject: are blogs "good for you" or are they "ruining America?" Rather than a debate about the overall virtues of blogs (or lack of them), the discussion centered on the difference between blogs and the MSM, plus recent controversies involving both, with questions taken from the audience. A few hastily assembled notes:

• For Dickerson, a good day at work is getting the POTUS to answer your question -- he asked Pres. Bush the famous "any mistakes?" query at an '04 presser, and hasn't had a question answered in public since. For Cox, a good day is Jenna Bush getting photographed dancing topless on a table.
• It wasn't long before the topic of Time's recent placement of Ann Coulter on its cover arose. Kelly fielded the questions, acknowledging a cover is "undeniably a validating factor." His goal was to describe the state of political discourse in the 21st century. The article did not necessarily begin as a cover story, but there was a week between the death of John Paul II and the selection of Benedict XVI. The story had been "banked" for 8 or 9 weeks, was "terrific," and got called up during the week without a pope.
• Another topic of interest is Jeff/James Gannon/Guckert, whose name is familiar to us because liberal blogs became curious about his inaccurate and biased questioning. Dickerson discussed how the Bush admin. had "devalued" the press briefings, allowing individuals such as Gannon to attend. Cox joked that "more White House correspondents should have porn sites."
• Comparing Cox's ribald site to the "saucy" Post Style section of the 70's, Kelly ventued the notion that Cox is a "Sally Quinn for the 21st Century."
• Wonkette gets 90 to 100K unique pageviews per day; she is contractually obligated to run 12 posts per day. Because Cox is writing a novel, she currently has a co-blogger. Asked about her business model, she explained that she receives a stipend from Gawker Media. (For more on Gawker's business operations, I Want Media's interview with managing editor Lockhart Steele is especially informative.)
• Cox is hardly a blog evangelist, or in her words, is "not univeraally pro-blogger." Cox: "Iran won't be freed by blogs." Asked to name her favorite sites, she mentioned the snark-heavy pop culture blog TMFTML. Pressed about which political blogs she liked: "Tougher. Tougher." She said she doesn't read many, as most are "one-note" and "strident." To the question of where blogs fit on the menu of media options, Cox said blogs merely supplement one's diet: "You need your roughage."
• Despite her blog skepticism, she shares one perspective common among many bloggers -- what she termed the "myth of objectivity" -- that no person or news outlet is completely free of bias, and that it is better to admit one's bias up front. (Cox said she would have loved nothing more than to be making fun of John Kerry right now, which was not only a joke.) More Cox: "There's a place for Fox News. There's a place for Air America." Dickerson said his editors allow him to take a position as long as it is "backed by facts and analysis." And unlike bloggers, he said: "I'm not the story."
• Kelly used the event to announce that starting soon, Dickerson will be writing a weekly online column. Cox, perhaps confusing most of the guests, quoted the cult Tod Browning film "Freaks": "One of us! One of us!"

A final note on blog panels: Cox is ubiquitous on blog panels around DC. The Blogometer does not wonder why she gets invited to so many -- she is thoughtful and savvy. Her story goes: The faults that got her fired from MSM jobs are actually strengths in the blogosphere; that gets attention. Not to mention, she's an attractive young woman who cracks jokes about sex. For Time, looking to entertain its out-of-town visitors, this is just the kind of person you want. But we do wonder why places such as Brookings and the Nat'l Press Club invite her to debate after debate about political blogs, when a) she is admittedly a humorist first, and b) the District has perhaps the greatest concentration of political bloggers anywhere in the country. The Blogometer would like to see other prominent bloggers invited to more of these events.

THOUGHT(S) OF THE DAY: Hits And Mrs.

Marshall Wittmann writes, Laura Bush's "superb performance at the White House's Correspondence Dinner was the most effective political moment of the Bush Administration since her husband's inaugural address. Perhaps, there was a strategic plan in having the First Lady substitute for the First Man. As W.'s popularity wanes, Laura will have more exposure -- Barbara played that role in Bush I. Expect to see more of Laura as the President struggles with his approval ratings."

David Corn, on the WH Correspondents Dinner: "No mention of the US troops being killed in Iraq but a horse jerk-off joke--that is one way to sum up the First Couple's appearance at the White House Correspondents' Dinner on Saturday evening. ... Laura's racy act was the talk of the town. But there was something more strange and discomforting about the evening than her channeling of Ellen DeGeneres. Neither she nor her husband once referred to the Americans serving in Iraq in Afghanistan, particularly those who had recently lost their lives ..."

LEST WE FORGET: Visitors From 2105, Take Note

Glenn Reynolds points us to the fine work being done at MIT, which is hosting a Time Traveller's Convention. From MIT: "Time travelers from all eras could meet at a specific place at a specific time, and they could make as many repeat visits as they wanted." How can you help? "Write the details down on a piece of acid-free paper, and slip them into obscure books in academic libraries! Carve them into a clay tablet! If you write for a newspaper, insert a few details about the convention! Tell your friends, so that word of the convention will be preserved in our oral history!"

But wait, isn't Time Travel impossible? "We can't know for certain. The ancient Greeks would have thought computers were impossible, and the Phoenicians certainly wouldn't have believed that humans would one day send a spacecraft to the moon and back. We cannot predict the future of science or technology, so we can only make an effort and see if any time travelers come to our convention." If you're from the future: "Come as you are! No dress code whatsoever. We do request that you bring some sort of proof that you do indeed come from the future, and haven't just dressed like you do. We welcome any sort of proof, but things like a cure for AIDS or cancer, a strategy for solving global poverty, or a cold fusion reactor would be particularly convincing as well as greatly appreciated."

Posted by at May 2, 2005 12:26 PM