May 03, 2005

5/3: A Fool And His Words Are Soon Blogged

It took about 24 hours, but Pat Robertson's remarks on "This Week" to the effect that fed'l judges are worse than al Qaeda are drawing near-universal criticism. The conservative blogs are embarrassed to have him as an ally; the liberal blogs make sure they don't get off easy for it. Besides Robertson, also getting pixels (you know, instead of ink) are the jud. nominee fight and related cultural issues. "South Park" comes up.

As noted in yesterday's Blogometer, a consortium of foreign policy-minded bloggers are getting together to create Pajamas Media, "an extensive network of globally affiliated blogs to provide first-person, in-depth coverage of most major news events, including both camera and video footage." That's from the blog-friendly New York Sun, about which more below.

Despite the Dems' success in stalling Pres. Bush's SocSec plans, a few liberal bloggers express frustration with the Dems' handling of the issue. Some fear the SocSec plan will morph into a tax overhaul that they won't like either. A trend to watch.

And: This may be your only chance to buy a mind-reading machine!

TRACKBACKS: Pajama Party

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

• The New York Daily News seems to be the only MSM outlet to publicize the Robertson statement: "Over 100 years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings." Both liberals and conservatives pay attention: Secular Blasphemy; Little Green Footballs; Captain's Quarters; Eschaton; Obsidian Wings; Professor Bainbridge; TalkLeft; DailyKos; Balloon Juice.

  >> RedState sums it up for most: "If Republicans start to lose moderate voters it will be because of outrageous comments like these from Mr. Robertson." Orrin Judd is alone in not condemning Robertson: "It's not even an arguable assertion -- 9/11 killed a few thousand; Roe v. Wade has killed tens of millions. And that's just the direct effect of one ruling."

  >> Liberal prof Jack Balkin: "Robertson isn't against Muslim judges because of their religion, or because he fears they might secretly be terrorists. He's against Muslim judges because he's worried that they might secretly be liberals!"

• Roderick Boyd at the New York Sun notices the in-the-works blog news service, and a few bloggers notice back: Power Line; Publius Pundit; The Corner.

  >> Pajamas Media co-founder Roger L. Simon: "I always wince when I first read about myself in the press, dreading inaccuracies. But Boyd's piece seemed fine from my perspective (thanks, Roderick!) with one minor correction -- Paul Mazursky, not Woody Allen, directed Scenes from a Mall." Michelle Malkin: "Impeccable timing: The news of this groundbreaking venture comes as newspaper circulation figures plummet."

JUDGES: Taylor-Made Debate

Liberal Univ. of MI prof Juan Cole was quoted in the Blogometer yesterday arguing that Bush's nominees "do not deserve an up-or-down vote. They don't deserve anything at all." He wrote: "The issue isn't the filibuster. The issue is the independence of the Senate and of the judiciary." At DailyKos, "Armando" agrees with the general point of Cole's post, but takes issue with the latter quote: "[T]he filibuster is central to this dispute. Why? Because it is the filibuster, the zealously guarded Senate tradition, that ensures the drive for consensus in choosing judges not beholden to one faction or the other. Norm Ornstein of AEI, an expert on the Congress, has driven this point home time and time again. The filibuster is no mere procedural technicality. It is intended to force consensus."

The 5/2 column on jud. nominee Janice Rogers Brown by National Journal's Stuart Taylor has been generating some buzz since late last week. Volokh Conspiracy's Orin Kerr writes: "I haven't followed Brown's nomination closely, but Brown's speeches (linked to in the Taylor piece) should be enough to give judicial conservatives serious heartburn." Fellow Conspirator David Bernstein disagrees at some length: "Unlike many circuit court nominees, Brown is not an unknown judicial quantity, but has served on the California Supreme Court and lower courts for many years. Thus, regardless of her rhetoric in speeches given to ideological audiences, we can actually judge her judicial performance on the record. ... On the record, I see no reason for the Senate to reject Brown as anything approaching a judicial extremist prone to ignoring precedent. Rather her opinions are sharp, pointed, well-reasoned, and firmly grounded in precedent."

SOCIAL SECURITY: Don't Just Do Something -- Stand There!

Sam Rosenfeld of The American Prospect's Tapped writes, the "consequence of the savvy but dangerous approach Democrats have taken to the Social Security fight," i.e. "hammer home the distinction between the privatization issue and the solvency issue, and require complete Republican surrender on the former as a precondition for negotiation on the latter" has also "tended to prevent the principled case for doing nothing on the solvency issue from penetrating even most liberal circles. The argument that Democrats won over the word "crisis" has been largely semantic; everyone acknowledges there's a Social Security "problem." But there might not be! And even if there eventually is a solvency problem, it would be better -- better, not worse -- to deal with that problem later rather than sooner."

More: "I'm not seriously afraid that a compromise proposal on Social Security solvency will actually come out of this fight; it's not a politically appealing endeavor for anyone. But I'm tired of watching the Tim Russerts of the world browbeat one Democrat after another, week after week, into 'at least acknowledging there's a problem.' It makes them look weak and mealy-mouthed. It prevents them from fully conveying the extent of the swindle Republicans are trying to perpetrate here."

Liberal Daily Howler: "When it comes to Social Security, the world-class bungling by Major Dems continued on yesterday's programs. ... Dodd's statement [on when SocSec becomes insolvent] is flatly inaccurate -- and his misstatement tilts in favor of Bush! Meanwhile, Sunday viewers saw two Dem spokesmen making contradictory presentations about this elementary fact. But Major Dems have performed like this ever since this debate began. No corporation would ever tolerate such inept work from its spokesmen."

Liberal think tanker Ed Kilgore at New Donkey: "I am wondering more than ever if my ... prediction, that GOPers would eventually segue from Social Security privatization to a proposal for "tax reform" allowing high earners to shelter most of their investment income, will come true now that Bush's SocSec campaign is way off in the high weeds."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: A Boy And His Glob

MN-based conservative blog Kennedy vs. The Machine writes, "daily newspaper readership for the nation's top 20 newspapers continues to plummet. The 'Left Angeles Times' considered by many to be the only paper more poorly edited than the Minneapolis Star Tribune dropped an astonishing 6.5% in the last 6 months. But remarkably one of only 3 papers to enjoy a miniscule rise in readership in the last half year is -- you guessed it -- the Strib. Score one for 'The Machine.'"

Conservative Wizbang: "Yesterday, there was a rally in Boston in support of expanded state sanction for illegal aliens, and the Boston Glob [Blogometer note: Intentional misspelling] (which is owned by the New York Times) was on the scene. Let's take a look at the numbers:

Citations of illegal aliens as "undocumented": 2
Citations of illegal aliens as "illegal": 1
Citations of illegal aliens as "illegal" outside of a quote from a rally opponent: 0
Deliberate blurring of the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants: 2
Number of sympathetic supporters quoted: 3
Number of hostile critics quoted: 2
Side that gets the last word in: Supporters

WHITE HOUSE '08: The VRWC Slacks Off No More

Conservative Michelle Malkin prints an e-mail from businessman/HRC donor Peter Paul, who will launch an anti-Hillary Clinton site at HillCap.org later today: "Yes, I was coerced to become her biggest contributor by far, but when I discovered she didn't report my contribution in February, 2001, I immediately approached the FBI and the Justice Dept with all the details of what she did." Paul's site will be the "Hillary Clinton Accountability Project." Malkin observes: "This should be interesting."

Conservative PoliPundit reports the results from a just-concluded online poll at his/her site. "PoliPundit" suggests that "PoliPundit readers are a good stand-in for Republican primary voters." Readers were asked: "What is the most important issue President Bush and Congress should tackle?" 4% said "Tax Cuts"; 14% said "Social Security Reform"; 50% said "Judicial Nominees"; 32% said "Illegal Immigration." "PoliPundit" comments: "Illegal immigration is an issue waiting to be seized upon. What happens once the judicial-nominee issue is resolved with the Constitutional option? Well, if those people break out in proportionate numbers to everyone else, illegal immigration would be considered the most important issue by a strong majority of PoliPundit readers -- 64 percent!"

CULTURE WAR: Kyle's Mom Is A Big Fat Overbearing Liberal

Canadian conservative Damian Penny considers the new book "South Park Conservatives," which argues "that an increasingly media-savvy right is fighting back pop-culture's anti-conservative hostility": "It's an interesting thesis, and I've requested a review copy from the publisher -- but is South Park really a conservative TV series? True, no show takes on liberal sacred cows (anti-smoking fanatics, environmentalists, anti-corporate activism) as often as South Park, but they don't shy away from savaging conservative Republicans, either. ... Fact is, South Park goes after everybody, on the right, left and in between - and while conservatives may find that an improvement on most other movies and TV shows, which exclusively make fun of Republicans and religious people, it can't really be called a 'conservative' program."

Right Wing News: "Conservatives who like the show, myself included, tend to just shrug off the few things we disagree with and enjoy the humor and the vicious liberal bashing. ... I'm not offended by the lewd topics or bad language in the show. Furthermore, while I wish the show were friendlier to religion, I'm not a purist about it and I'm not going to write off South Park even if I don't agree with their take on the subject. ... Most television shows are made by liberals, have a generally liberal view of the world, and if and when they get political, they come at it from a liberal point of view. So when you have a show like South Park, that's generally hostile to liberalism, it stands out so much that's it's practically a conservative show by default."

Amanda Marcotte at Pandagon notes an AP story about an upcoming KS decision on teaching evolution. Title of post: "Kansas to debate whether Adam had a navel next week." She writes: "Also on the agenda for the Kansas Board of Education -- whether or not unicorns simply forgot to board the Ark and if 'the curse' is women's punishment for being daughters of Eve. It's science! Well, it's better science than Intelligent Design theory. ... It's time to face up to it -- these religious nuts are not about to give up thinking that wishing will make their beliefs reality. So, I agree with Katha Pollitt that it would be best to compromise, and they can live in their fantasy world and the rest of us can keep living in reality."

A Washington Times story quotes The Nation's David Corn as saying of Laura Bush's WH Corresp. Dinner routine: "It was very risque. I was wondering what the social conservatives and James Dobson had to say about all these jokes that were laced with sexual innuendo. Not a very family-values-type speech. I'm not sure I want to explain a lot of those jokes to my 4-year-old." Ace of Spades HQ retorts: "Awww, poor David and his virgin ears. He doesn't want to explain Chippendales to his 4-year-old? Really? Is this a major concern? Do 4-year-olds typically watch C-SPAN broadcasts of Correspendents' Dinners in wide-eyed wonderment? Remember, these are the same assholes who asked 'What's all the fuss about?' when Janet Jackson popped out her mommysac during the Superbowl, a show children really are watching."

BLOGGERS VS. BLOGGERS: You May Not Be A Blogger, Drudge, But At Least Concede You're a Proto-Blogger

Liberal blog Crooks and Liars: "A few minutes ago, the Drudge Report briefly linked to an article from The Swift Report entitled, 'Conservative Christians Not Laughing at First Lady's Comedy Act.' Well, I went to the Traditional Values Coalition website and they say: HOAX PRESS RELEASE ATTACKS FIRST LADY. I was emailed the same story so it took me about a minute to find out that it was a fake. It's good to see just how thorough Matt Drudge vets his sources." Andrew Sullivan linked to it as well, writing: "This is too precious a story to miss. It's not very often that the president's and his wife's own closeted tolerance and humor reveal themselves this starkly. The contrast between who they really are and the forces that sustain them in power isn't often so obvious." He later updated to add: "Actually, too hilarious. Like Drudge, I thought this was legit at first. It's a spoof."

MISCELLANY: Tune In, Turn On, GOP Out

RedState gets into podcasting -- its first one can be downloaded here. Clayton Wagar writes: "This week we're talking about the Georgia voter ID law, liberal minds exploding due to the election of Pope Benedict XVI, and whether there really is a 'Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.'"

Weekly Standard's Vic Matus, at Galley Slaves, on returning from jury duty: "It turns out the defendants we recently convicted for unlawful entry ... will not be spending a night or more in the slammer. The Washington Post reports that the guilty parties were ordered to pay $100 fines and $50 to a victims fund. Frankly I expected the penalties to be a bit heavier. And considering the time and energy (not to mention taxpayers' dollars) put into this trial, it certainly feels a bit incongruous."

IN THE STATES: There May Be Just 3, But It Seems Like More ...

Colorado Pols, on the ongoing -- but never quite-progressing -- saga of the "Denver Three": "Really -- this has got to come to a close soon. We all get by now that these three have great media skills, great timing, and a great soapbox. And I would venture that nearly everyone on this site has either served as or with Campaign Advance Staff at some point. I'd also wager that, in some far corner of our minds, we all know how easily volunteers can get out of line. But when the henchmen/perpetrator/zealous wannabe is outed? What then?? I bet we'll be bored once the mystery is solved." Title of post: "This Will Apparently Never Go Away." A commenter adds: "As I suggested before, when this guy is outed [Dem Sen.] Ken Salazar will need to keep a low profile because of his close association with a big time advance guy who has had his own dust-ups in the past for posing as a secret service agent."

Conservative James Joyner, on the allegations against Rep. Don Sherwood (R-PA): "The fact that the woman apparently was not bruised belies her claim of being choked. The 'back rub' story, however, is rather implausible."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Whistleblowers, Inc.

Univ. of TN prof Glenn Reynolds writes about blogging in the workplace at TechCentralStation: "Where an earlier generation of articles on employee-blogging warned the employees about the danger of retribution from the employers, a newer version of the story warns employers about the power of the bloggers in their midst. On the other hand, it's hard for organizations to operate when dissent becomes easier, and more popular, than actually running things or doing work. Whistleblowing is all very nice, but no organization made up largely of whistleblowers is likely to thrive."

LEST WE FORGET: If You Only Read One "Lest We Forget" This Week, Make Sure It This "Lest We Forget"

Want to buy a (non-working) mind-reading machine from the future on eBay? You've only got 4 days left. As we went to press it was going for $177.50.

The seller's description, verbatim: "hello, i am selling what i believe to be a mind reading machine built by Dr. J. S. Strauss in the year 2282. After finding the time machine and the shrinking machine in my house i started to think what other stuff might be hidden away in my home. So i started searching from top to bottom and thats when i found the mind reading machine. It was hidden in a very tight corner of my attic and was wrapped in a old bed sheet, covered with dirt. With a wet paper towel it cleaned up very nice (see pictures)."

You really have to see the pictures.

Sorry, you've already missed your chance to buy the also-defunct shrinking machine and time machine (which sold for $647.59). His description of the time machine: "Hello, I am selling what I believe to be a time machine that was built in the year 2239 by Dr. J. S. Strauss. I found the machine under my house when I was doing remodeling to the bathroom. The machine was hidden in a old rotten wood chest..."

Posted by at May 3, 2005 12:25 PM