June 29, 2005

6/29: I Wanna Testify

The Hotline's Blogometer takes the daily temperature of the blogosphere. For more information on the thinking behind this feature, go to the end of the story.

This morning's hottest link is to a transcript of Pres. Bush's Ft. Bragg speech -- whether at Fox News, the Washington Post or the White House itself. Those that don't link are at least talking about it.

The speech is of course big news elsewhere in this Hotline, but in the world of blogs another potentially big story is unfolding, viz., the ongoing FEC hearings at which a few prominent activist bloggers, both GOP and Dem, have teamed up to oppose new regulations on their online activity. More on that below.

Today's "Trackbacks" is devoted to Bush speech reax:

TRACKBACKS: They Didn't All Like It, But They Did Pay Attention

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

• Some conservative bloggers give Bush high marks for his speech, others judge it merely adequate.
  
  

  >> Power Line pronounces it: "Clear, confident, substantive." INDC Journal: "The speech was Bush's most cogent articulation of the strategy, difficulties and stakes in Iraq to date; the use of bin Laden's assessment of the importance of the conflict was particularly effective. The only thing that could have enhanced its political impact would have been a direct, personal appeal to the American people, above and beyond the declaration of resolve."
  
  

  >> At NRO's The Corner, Cliff May posts a televised comment by bipartisan ex-WH aide David Gergen, who said: "I was troubled and at times offended by the regularity of coming back to 9/11." May objects: "But they didn't even discuss the fact that the one and only place in the world where al Qaeda kills people virtually every day is in Iraq." The Indepundit: "He's conflating the War in Iraq with the War on Terror. 'Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war.' Controversial, but true -- Zarqawi is carrying out Bin Laden's agenda."
  

  >> Garfield Ridge: "I wasn't the audience for the speech tonight -- my position is clear -- so I don't know if it was all that effective. There wasn't anything new there, since the strategy behind the war hasn't changed." Canadian Damian Penny: "I wish Bush had explained that the WMD issue was just one of several reasons for the invasion of Iraq, and I'm also a bit surprised he didn't address the allegations about Guantanamo Bay. Aside from that, I couldn't argue with any of it."
  

  >> Donald Sensing: "Bush's conclusion with a tribute to the troops was direct and obviously heartfelt. Well done. Overall, I don't rate this speech very high -- no better than a 'B' and maybe B-minus."




• On the left we find some substantive criticism, and some anger:
  
  

  >> Washington Monthly's Political Animal: "That was sure a....ho hum speech. ... No wonder the networks were hesitant about televising it."
  

  >> Whiskey Bar: "[W]hile Bush was using the troops as a visual backdrop, politically speaking he was trying to hide behind them. And it showed." Hullabaloo: "I notice the props are having a hard time keeping their eyes open, though. Poor guys."
  

  >> Josh Marshall, at TPM Cafe: "The press folks seem to have gotten down to a fine descriptive science the president's now well-practiced tactic of not quite explicitly connecting Iraq and 9/11, but repeating both in succession so many times as to create the impression of a connection without any verbal fingerprints. We've at least become sophisticates of our own bamboozlement, I guess."
  

  >> The Left Coaster: "What do you think Bush should have said? I would have like to have heard an abject apology for starting a ill-begotten war and a resignation." UT-Austin law prof Brian Leiter, from headline-to-post: "The Criminal War Monger Bush ... told another series of bald-faced lies, spiced up with some fibs and half-truths, on national TV this evening."



• Reax from the centrist and libertarian bloggers isn't so hot, either:
  
  

  >> Libertarian Jim Henley notices the part of Bush's speech where he said the U.S. is "working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave": "That, if sincere, would make the speech a bombshell, pretty conclusively forswearing any ambition at enduring bases."
  

  >> Ex-USA Today columnist Walter Shapiro, at the Huffington Post: "Bush's uncharacteristically flaccid rhetoric will soon be forgotten. And tonight's speech ultimately will be viewed as a lost opportunity in an Iraqi misadventure filled with them." DLC's Marshall Wittmann, at his Bull Moose Blog: "If only the President possessed the capacity to call on the rest of our country to give more. He does not. That is the nature of our current leadership." Left-leaning centrist Mickey Kaus: "The address was too presidential and rhetorical, a view from 40,000 feet, when what was needed was humility and gritty detail, a cold-eyed view from the ground."
  

  >> Generally right-leaning Brendan Loy is agitated: "HE JUST QUOTED OSAMA BIN LADEN!!! He actually said Osama's name!!! He hasn't forgotten about him!!! Where is Osama bin Laden, by the way?"

FEC: Blogging BCRA To Death?

Yesterday was the 1st of 2 days of testimony before the FEC re: a possible move to regulate online political activity, including blogs. Roll Call wrote up the hearing, setting the scene thusly: "[T]hose potentially affected by such regulations are expressing confusion about why" the fed'l gov't "wants to monitor what they say on their blogs. And those who wrote and supported [BCRA] are wondering whether the whole campaign finance structure they created could come crashing down in a loophole as big as the Internet itself." The article quotes Matt Stoller from The Blogging of the President (which it erroneously calls "Blogging the President"; the correct title alludes to Theodore White's "The Making of the President, 1960"). Stoller, "dumbfounded": "I feel like I am speaking a different language here."

The prepared testimony of Mike Krempasky is available at conservative RedState. Krempasky argues that bloggers should be allowed the same exemption as the MSM: "The boundaries defining who or what is a quote-unquote media entity have eroded to the point of irrelevance. No longer do we have limited number of easily-defined outlets or a restricted professional community. Government rules and regulations granting media bona fides (and all the associated privileges) to some while denying those credentials to others would be like building a new laptop computer with vacuum tubes. The old ways simply cannot keep up. Presumably, this media exemption is rooted in the notion of the intrinsic value of trusted, objective, and comprehensive information in the hands of the citizenry. Unfortunately, when we look at our traditional media today -- it is neither trusted, nor objective, nor comprehensive. In the explanation and justification for this rule, the Commission identifies Slate.com, the Drudge Report, and Salon.com as entities presumably deserving of the exemption. But if the Commission grants credentials to these three -- how can the Commission then deny the same privilege to AndrewSullivan.com, Joshua Marshall's TalkingPointsMemo.com, or Kevin Aylward's Wizbang blog? They all provide news coverage and opinion. They all generate revenue through advertising. Substantively, they are no different."

Elsewhere at RedState, Krempasky scoffs at a proposal to create a "Blogger Identity Seal," which would "provide an independent avenue for bloggers to show whether they operate independently or in partnership with specific political parties or candidates." He writes: "Talk about not getting it. First, the FEC is not going to force blogger disclosure. It's a serious departure from current regulation. Second, the idea of a commercial web vendor providing an "online directory" smacks of a smarmy marketing scheme. (in direct mail, we call this an 'involvement device.')"

Liberal Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas comments on his testimony: "All the commissioners seemed sensitive to protecting the medium. Of course, the GOP commissioners were the most friendly, given their general distaste for regulation. But even the Dems on the commission seemed legitimately trying to find ways to comply with the judicial order while protecting the medium. That was good to see. I see in the comments of my previous thread that some took exception to Commissioner [Brad] Smith attacking [Daily Kos blogger "Armando"] for inaccurately claiming it's the commission's Republicans who want to squash blogs. Smith asked whether such inaccurate reporting deserved the media exception? In reality, it was a softball question designed to allow me to talk about the already partisan media. Smith clearly supports the media exception for bloggers."

Eschaton's Duncan "Atrios" Black, who will testify today: "Apparently some FEC commissioners believe the media exception should only apply to those who are 'responsible.' Missed that part of the constitution."

Kristinn Taylor from conservative message board FreeRepublic.com will testify 6/29, as will Michael Bassik from the Online Coalition, Karl Sandstrom from OMB Watch and ex-FEC chair Trevor Potter.

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: AP Hoc Ergo Improper Hoc?

Last summer, Harper's editor Lewis Lapham drew flak -- mostly from the right, but not entirely -- for writing a piece commenting on the GOP convo before it actually happened. Starting last p.m., a dispatch by the AP's Jennifer Loven draws the snark first from conservative Michelle Malkin: "The clairvoyants at the Associated Press have already released their report on the Bush speech, written in the past tense -- a speech which isn't scheduled to happen until 8pm EST tonight. Amazing!" And then from others -- Little Green Footballs header: "AP Transcends Space, Time."

It's a regular practice for the WH to release a full transcript of a POTUS speech in order for early editions of newspapers to get the content in time. And Bush, unlike Clinton, has a reputation for sticking to his speech text. Now, calling for the WH to release early speech text to all, not just the MSM, is another story.

Meanwhile, liberal blogs including TAPPED and TalkLeft linked to the same story in posts re: the speech, but paid no special attention to the article's past tense. Lefty Uggabugga points out the story's "harsh" headline at Yahoo! News: "Bush: Bloodshed in Iraq is Worth It." Uggabugga's "Quiddity" adds: "Looks like it's going to be a contentless speech. Amazing."

Righty Tom Maguire quotes from the New York Times article on cong. Dems' visit to Gitmo, where the reaction was similar to that of Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR): "'I feel very good' about the detainees treatment..." Noting its A15 placement, he slugs the post "Meanwhile, Back In The Want Ads..."

BUSH: Mission Accomplished? (His Opponents', That Is)

Liberal Steve Clemons makes 2 points about John Bolton's likely recess appointment to the U.N.: "1. Bolton will hold one of America's highest profile diplomatic portfolios without the validation of American citizens behind him. He will not have the Senate stamp of legitimacy on his Ambassadorship and thus will be perceived at home and abroad as without 'weight.' 2. During this era of preaching 'democracy' throughout the world -- which means not just 'electocracies' or 'ballot box democracies' but rather a system of checks and balances, respect for minority rights, and rule of law -- sending John Bolton to the U.N. is a lesson that legislatures can be ignored and minority rights in government trampled by the demands of the Executive Branch."

• For the 1st time this a.m., we noticed that ConfirmBolton.org redirects to Clemons' Washington Note blog. ConfirmBolton.com is a blog organized by RedState to support Bolton; its last post was 6/21.

At TAPPED, The American Prospect's Garance Franke-Ruta looks at Survey USA's state-by-state breakout of Bush's approval ratings, noting that among states Bush won in '04, only in NV has he fallen before 40%. She concludes: "[T]hough Bush appears to be viewed with increasing public disfavor nationwide, that disfavor may be of questionable relevance in Bush's base states, and, hence, to Republican strategists looking to determine whether Bush ought to change course in response to shifts in public opinion."

Citing a left-leaning post at the Huffington Post, Instapundit writes: "Well, that Hitler thing was getting sooo passe: The first known comparison of Bush to the BTK Killer. Jeez, Rove's stooges are everywhere."

DEMOCRATS: Dean Puts His Stamp On The DNC Site, But Early Reviews Aren't Exactly Raves

This week, the DNC reorganized its web site -- introducing a new feature called "Democracy Bonds" and re-designed its blog. Once titled Kicking Ass, the blog now appears to be name Blog.

Dem blogger The Rogue Angel quotes an official DNC e-mail from Howard Dean, pointing out that on the "new site, you will be able to ask your friends and neighbors to join us. You'll also be able to track your progress as you build your own network of people committed to shaping the future of our party and our country." "Angel" comments: "Okay, Dean... let me get something straight. I have been a member of the DNC site for some time and have been quite active in raising money for the Democratic Party. I have an account where I used to be able to log in, edit my personal page, lead my team members, and take care of various actions. ... Now, maybe I am just dense... but, I have yet to figure out how to login and do that anymore. ... I mean, I understand we are going to do things a bit differently, but hiding my account is not what I thought you had in mind."

Ex-BC'04 web guru Patrick Ruffini reviews it: "Belying People Powered Howard's "50 State Strategy," the new DNC site doesn't even link to state party web sites, let alone have real state pages; the closest it comes are lame regional blogs. The DNC site features no real activism tools -- not even the basic letter-to-the-editor and contact-Congress tools that can be useful in off years. ... If you're wondering how this web site offers a window into Dean-land, and what broader inferences can be drawn from it, then look at how they built it: in Movable Type (the URLs and the search are a dead giveaway), whose license fees range from free to $324.95 for non-profit entities. The DNC's web team coded little if anything outside the basic functionality offered by MT, and as detailed above, they actually removed very important features that couldn't be built purely in MT. We knew the DNC was having money problems, but geez... is it this bad?"

WHITE HOUSE '08: Pod People

John Edwards' podcasts are now available free-of-charge through Apple's iTunes store (note: requires iTunes 4.9).

Conservative Eric Pfeiffer from NRO's The Buzz, on John McCain criticizing fellow GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel: "Not only is McCain saying all the right things on Iraq, anyone watching can sense he actually cares strongly about this subject and believes every word he is saying. That's more than you can say about most Iraq pundits. And I'm sure it doesn't hurt that he gets to zing a probably 2008 rival in the process."

IN THE STATES: Yippee-Ki-Yay

Left-leaning PinkDome has started selling products bearing the likeness of Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) with his new catch phrase, "Adios, Mofo."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Trading Places

Crooked Timber's Harry Farrell: "Something that I've been wondering about for a while. Google Ads don't necessarily match their advertisements to websites in quite the manner that you'd expect, presumably because of the way that its underlying algorithm works. Brad DeLong's site, for example, seems to have become the new in-spot for Republican and Conservative singles to hook up with each other ... But does this undermine the rationale behind using Google Ads for politically targeted advertising? Left-leaning blogs are likely to 'sound' Republican to Google's algorithm because of the frequency with which they mention Republican politicians (and Republican blogs will sound left-wing). Thus, they're likely to attract a disproportionate number of ads which are aimed at exactly the wrong population." Note: When we checked the site yesterday, Farrell was correct -- the Google Ads along the side were all related to "Republican Singles." This a.m., it looks different, probably because new posts will affect Google's algorithm.

LEST WE FORGET: A Souter-ble Ploy

SCOTUS justice David Souter's trend line skyrockets this a.m. as bloggers including Instapundit, Boing Boing and many others promote a press release by a libertarian-leaning activist org. Freestar Media: "Justice Souter's vote in the 'Kelo vs. City of New London' decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner. On Monday June 27 [FreeStar's CEO] faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home. ... The proposed development, called 'The Lost Liberty Hotel' will feature the 'Just Desserts Cafe' and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel 'Atlas Shrugged.'"

Posted by at June 29, 2005 01:12 PM