June 24, 2005

6/24: Send Karl Rove Right Over

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.

Yesterday, in explaining the sudden shift away from stories about Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), we put it thus: "The blogosphere was overtaken by events..." Well, events have done it again. Just as yesterday's Blogometer went up, objections to Karl Rove's speech before the Conservative Party of NY started to make their way across the blogosphere and, by early evening, onto the cable news. As of this a.m., a simple apology does not seem enough, as many on the left call for Rove's resignation outright. Today's Blogometer deals mostly with the fallout from the Rove story.

The Blogometer would argue that Durbin and Rove are not 2 separate stories, but the 1 story where the reaction to the 2nd event is an indirect response to the 1st. Last week conservatives "got" Durbin, so now liberals will "get" Rove as best they can. But the issue is not just to Durbin -- it is also the long-running theme argued by conservatives that the GOP is better at protecting the country than the Dems. In response, liberals have opened up lines of argument to show that conservatives are actually less reliable (see the "Democrats" section in today's Blogometer for more on this).

You can see this by reading headlines at Eschaton yesterday. Says one: "Rove: Liberals Want Troops To Die." Says another: "Ken Mehlman Says Liberals Want Our Troops to Die." Another: "Rove vs. America." Meanwhile, conservatives term the left "crybabies." PoliPundit, Lorie Byrd heads a post: "The Crybaby Party Targets Karl Rove." And there's this header at Captain's Quarters: "The Crying Game Continues."

All in all, it's a busy Friday in the blogosphere:

LEFT ROVE REAX: Rove Himself Off A Cliff

Fairly soon after the story started to break -- thanks mostly to the write-up in the New York Times -- First Draft and other blogs post the following letter, encouraging others to send it to their GOP reps (if any):

Dear Rep./Sen. [Name],

According to the New York Times, presidential advisor Karl Rove recently said that liberals in this country want our troops to die.

As a liberal, I find this deeply offensive. I don't feel this is the sort of rhetoric our country needs during wartime, and I resent the idea that I want any of our troops to come to harm. In making such statements Mr. Rove is not only impugning my politics, he is degrading my basic humanity.

As a constituent of yours, I would like to know, [sir/madam], if you agree with Mr. Rove's statements. Does he speak for you?

Sincerely,
[your name]

Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum identifies the 2 most offensive examples from the speech: 1) Rove's claim that after 9/11, Dems merely wanted to "offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." 2) Saying that Durbin's remarks put the troops in "greater danger," Rove adds: "No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals." Drum responds: "That's how the Republican party plays the game these days: accuse Democrats of being traitors and poltroons, and then, when they're called on it, turn up the volume even higher while simultaneously pretending that they're just talking about 'different philosophies.' This is McCarthy level thuggery, and one can only hope that Karl Rove meets the same bad end as the junior senator from Wisconsin."

Swing State Project states, in no uncertain terms: "Karl Rove Must Resign." Bob Brigham posts "action items," writing: "The Rove Must Resign blog swarm is gathering momentum quickly, because Rove needs to resign. There must be a zero tolerance policy."

The American Prospect's Garance Franke-Ruta doesn't go that far, but cuts him no more slack: "Give men a strong leader and a just cause, and they will join up in droves. Just look at what Pat Tillman was willing to sacrifice. American men today do not lack the courage of their forefathers. Far from it. But when men see their enemy allowed his freedom and their leaders more concerned with steering contracts to war profiteers than with a clear course of military action, they will adjudge their lives more precious and stay home. Instead of attacking liberal Americans, George W. Bush and Karl Rove should be focused on attacking the terrorists and getting bin Laden. That, and not Iraq or Social Security reform or Terri Schiavo, ought to be national job one." Josh Marshall makes a similar point.

U. MI prof Juan Cole writes, Rove "implies that Conservatives knew what to do [in response to 9/11]. Why, they got out their shotguns and went hunting for the varmints. Rove must not have heard that the Senate just apologized for not objecting to the practice of lynching in the old days..." But AG John Ashcroft had to make terror indictments "in absentia because the Conservatives hadn't got them in custody, despite all that rooting around with their shotguns."

RIGHT ROVE REAX: The Kind Of Jerk They're Glad To Have On Their Side

In general, it's safe to say that the right agrees with Rove's statements. They are also amused at how the left is reacting:

• Karol Sheinen: "Liberals are mad and urging people to write to their elected officials. I'm not entirely clear on the point of that since Karl Rove isn't elected nor is he a party spokesperson. I feel like it's more venting, useless venting, than anything else. If liberals really wanted to do something, they'd prove Rove wrong. ... They'd cheer our successes in Iraq and hope for more. Rove's implication was that liberals want us to lose in Iraq. I can't say that I think he is wrong." Ankle Biting Pundits: "Why Democrats want to make a big issue of this is beyond me. During my time in the political trenches, I've learned a thing or two about fights you want to pick and those you want to avoid. This is one the Democrats should seek to avoid. Instead, their worst instincts have gotten the best of them and they are digging it."

Rove takes some flak from the right, although it would not be fair to characterize this as a prevailing sentiment:

• GOP contrarian John Cole points out that Dems voted for the Afghanistan war as well. That resolution "passed the House 420-1 and passed the Senate 98-0, with nary a mention of indictments, therapy, or calls for understanding." He adds: My party no longer is merely content selling our bullshit. We are now starting to believe it. I'd say Mr. Rove has an apology to issue." Right-leaning Decision '08 agrees that Rove should apologize.

Patrick Ruffini: "As is usually the case when liberals are under attack, the hysterical defensiveness of the response tells you volumes more than the original critique."

Hugh Hewitt quotes extensively from an RNC-prepared list of quotes from Dems in order to buttress the argument that Howard Dean, George Soros, MoveOn.org and others have been less-than-serious about the war on terrorism.

Michelle Malkin has an updated round-up of news and reactions from throughout 6/23.

ROVE FALLOUT: D'aouh!

Ex-KE'04 blog maven/Salon blogwatcher Peter Daou gets caught up in the controversy, coming under fire from some conservatives for telling the Chicago Tribune that the outcry over Durbin's remarks was "a political tool, and it's manufactured outrage, it's feigned outrage, and it's extremely effective." Conservative Blackfive: "Of course, Daou does know feigned outrage. After all, Kerry was certainly 'outraged' that anyone would question his patriotism..." Baldilocks: "Okay, Peter, you caught me. My anger at Senator Durbin's remarks was fake. I actually think it's great when a US Senator gets up on the senate floor and impugns the honor of the US military."

In a post headlining the Daou Report, he responds to his critics and criticizes Rove for arguing "that liberals can't or won't defend America": "Despite the sheer imbecility of it, many on the right really believe it to be true. And so I'll repeat, to those who question my strength, my convictions, my willingness to defend my family -- as I have done my whole life in circumstances far more difficult than what a good number of Rove's cheerleaders will ever face -- I thoroughly reject Rove's words. And I'd expect any of my critics to do the same if their patriotism was questioned in so loathsome a manner."

DEMOCRATS: Two-Front War?

Daily Kos lists foreign policy differences between Dems -- "Believe we should have stayed the course in Afghanistan, not allowing the Taliban to resurge, the warlords to take power, and the opium trade to skyrocket." -- and GOPers -- "Ignore Afghanistan as the situation worsens."

Liberal AmericaBlog is upset that the Dems seem to have fallen for the GOP spin re: Durbin: "That any Democratic politician or pundit in 2005 does not understand how the right wing media machine operates is beyond me, but it happens over and over. ... The right-wingers love it when someone in the Democratic party establishment criticizes one of their own. They use those words against us all -- very, very effectively. Joe Biden and John Edwards attacking Howard Dean is a classic example."

David Sirota headlines a post "A Note to the Chickenhawks: Enlist, or Shut Up." The liberal blogosphere has argued for weeks that conservatives should be fighting the war they support, and now Sirota wants the party at large to say so: "That means it is time for Democrats to finally go for the throat and make clear that if you are going to vehemently advocate sending more and more innocent Americans to die in Iraq, you better be prepared to back up that rhetoric with some sacrifice of your own."

Oliver Willis implores Dem leaders, including Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Biden and Edwards: "It is time, at long last, to cease with the smiles and the well-wishes and to make clear that the time to declare open political warfare on these people is long past due."

FOLEY GATE: Foleyed Us Once, Foleyed Us Twice...

In recent months, the Blogometer has reported on the controversy between Newspaper Guild pres. Linda Foley (see here and here), who delivered a speech saying that journalists are being "targeted" by the U.S. in Iraq. Similar comments had recently led to the ouster of CNN's Eason Jordan.

On the Newspaper Guild website, Guild pres. Linda Foley: "In case you missed it, for about a month I have been subjected to what I would characterize as a right-wing screed over some comments I made..." She also clarifies her earlier remarks: "I used strong words and said it rather clumsily, but the St. Louis crowd got the point."

Instapundit credits Boston Globe columnist Hiawatha Bray with getting results; Bray had run against her for pres. of the guild, although he lost badly. Instapundit adds: "But there are a lot of ifs in her apology. And she seems clueless as to why her comments made people angry."

Foley Gate: "This woman obviously has some problems. She thinks that anyone with a brain and is disgusting with her original comments is some neocon. Wrong. It isn't a Republican or Democrat thing, it isn't a conservative or liberal thing, it is a 'respect our troops' and 'don't say asinine statements that you can't back up' thing."

WHITE HOUSE '08: Overestimating McCain

Ex-Spinsanity co-editor Brendan Nyhan points out that AP's Ron Fournier is incorrect in writing that John McCain is "favored by a majority of Democrats and independents" (see 6/22 Blogometer). Nyhan points out a recent Quinnipiac poll showing not only would Dems vote for HRC over McCain 73%-15%, but McCain's indie support is "short of a majority" as well. Nyhan: He's more or less the only partisan politician who Democrats and Republicans generally praise. As a result, the public likes him across the board ... But this will inevitably change if McCain runs in 2008. The reason is that he's never received significant Democratic criticism. He was defeated in 2000 before the Democrats felt the need to open up on him, and since then they all praise him because they want to look bipartisan and co-sponsor bills with him in Congress. ... This is how partisan politics works. Why Ron Fournier ... can't figure it out is beyond me."

MISCELLANY: All The Rage

Politburo Ditkat's "Commissar" asks: "Are you looking for secular conservative, or moderate blogs? RINO's, if you will. Are RINO's an endangered species? How can Conservative bloggers who might not want to drink the Party Kool-Aid on every single issue ... find each other?" "Commissar" creates a set of buttons featuring the profile of a rhino's head, so bloggers can place it in their sidebar. The name of the affinity group/community/list is: "Raging RINOs" - Republicans / Independents Not Overdosed (on the Party Kool Aid)." In the week since its creation, 50+ blogs have signed up.

Daily Pundit's Bill Quick signs on: "If you run a blog and aren't interested in buying into the Bush/Republican big-spending, big-government, religious-right influenced, politically bumbling, leaderless brand of politics, (yes, I could go on), check this one out."

SCOTUS: Kelo Interactive

There was another major story yesterday that is getting a lot of talk on the blogs, although we won't deal with it much here: the SCOTUS ruling in Kelo v. City of New London upholding/expanding cities' right to eminent domain. From liberal group blog Crooked Timber to conservative group blogRedState, there is much anger. As we noted re: flag-burning yesterday, the blogosphere's left and right halves both lean libertarian. Meanwhile, SCOTUSblog offers links to different reactions, and Captain's Quarters criticizes the New York Times for editorializing in favor of the ruling when their own office space was acquired via eminent domain. George Will's latest column is linked by conservatives at Power Line and Off-Wing Opinion and elsewhere. See Technorati for more on the Kelo ruling.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Mr. Yglesias And The Vicious Sphere

Matt Yglesias isn't entirely sure, but he thinks he can tell "different kinds of viciousness from the left and the right" bloggers. He points to Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds and Eschaton's Duncan "Atrios" Black as key examples: "Your rightwingers are much more likely to say something substantively scummy about someone else -- flinging around casual accusations of treason and so forth. Your leftwingers, by contrast, are much more likely to engage in workaday meanness -- name-calling and so forth. This stems, I think, from the stylistic dichotomy between Atrios and Instapundit. Glenn's a really master of the artfully worded slander -- 'they're not anti-war, they're on the other side' and so forth -- while Duncan has a much blunter approach -- 'InstaHack,' etc."

LEST WE FORGET: Just Eat It

A bit belatedly, we bring you The Sneeze's latest installment in the ongoing series: "Steve, Don't Eat It!" In this edition, Steve (who is by the way married with children) makes and then drinks "prison wine." After sampling his distillation, he writes: "Now that I think about it, prison inmates frequently turn to religion. I'm not very religious, but maybe I should be. Sure, Jesus made wine from water, but I did it with a dirty sock and fruit snacks! You tell me what the bigger miracle is." If you've missed previous "Steve, Don't Eat It!" installments, see the archive.

NOTES AND ERRATA: The Corrections

In Tuesday's edition of the Blogometer, we ran our "Blogger Spotlight" interview with Jeralyn Merritt from TalkLeft. Unfortunately, we scrambled her answers a bit, mixing up 2 of them up with a previous spotlight, and that version made it into Lexis-Nexis. We've since corrected it on the website, but for the record: Ms. Merritt does not read Mickey Kaus regularly, and she reads the Denver Post every day.

Posted by admin at June 24, 2005 12:00 PM