July 29, 2005

7/29: Slow News Day? It All Depends On What You Call News

Note for web readers: To go directly to the SCOTUS coverage, click here.

The blogosphere has plenty of balls up in the air at the moment, and we're catching the ones we can. Among them -- liberals are rolling their eyes at the State Dept's concession that U.N. Amb. John Bolton did not disclose being questioned in the Niger uranium case, and by this point a few conservatives are ready to cut him loose; almost no one thinks Senate Maj. Leader Bill Frist is doing himself a favor by switching sides on stem cells; a financial scandal surrounding liberal talk radio network Air America is spreading from the right-blogosphere to the left, and bit by bit into the MSM; commentary on CAFTA comes from all corners, and neither side seems entirely happy; the DLC continues to take fire from liberal bloggers, on CAFTA as well as their proposal to increase the size of the military; reactions to the Pentagon's renaming of the war on terror are something short of enthusiastic; and the OH 02 special election is getting more intense by the day.

TRACKBACKS: Memories From The Corner Of His Mind

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

• The Bolton revelation was prompted by a letter from Sen. Joe Biden (see 7/28 Blogometer). It's not the buzziest story today -- there doesn't seem to be a single such story -- but here's what both sides are saying:
  
  

  >> From the left -- Josh Marshall: "Of all the things for John Bolton to forget about, he forgets that he was interviewed for the Joint State-CIA IG Report on the Niger forgeries. ... My impression is that you don't just fill these confirmation disclosure forms out one evening in the den over a cup of tea." · Barbara O'Brien: "Lordy, people in Washington sure do have awful memories, don't they? Must be somethin' in the water. Or else they all live in Bizarro Faux Nooz World, in which everything is just the opposite of what it is here." · Header at libertarian Unqualified Offerings: "That Administration Is Inoperative"
  

  >> From the right -- Tom Maguire: "Is this a State Department press briefing, or have I blundered into a comedy club? Apparently, 'the answer was truthful then' means 'the answer was wrong then...'" · James Joyner: "Bolton's policy preferences are fine but his character and judgment have been called into serious question on a repeated business. It is well past time to withdraw this nomination and choose another candidate."




• Frist's split with Pres. Bush on the stem cell issue also draws attention from both sides; the New York Times version is widely-linked.
  
  

  >> From the right -- Power Pundit: "Not exactly the way to endear himself to conservative primary voters in 2008. But then, Mr. Frist has not been doing very well in recent polling, anyway." · Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds: "I'm with Frist." · Pro-life LTI Blog: "Have you seen Bill Frist's lovely claim that he's 'pro-life' and believes 'that life begins at conception,' but now supports killing embryos for research? Try squaring that gem with pro-life metaphysics." · NRO's K.J. Lopez headlines a Corner post: "You're So Over, Man"
  

  >> From the left -- A Daily Kos diarist observes, "Frist's puppetmaster James Dobson isn't going to be very happy, along with all the other 'culture of life' folks who voted for Bush in 2004." · Running Scared: "Sounds like 'abortion is murder, unless the fetus is sentenced to death beforehand.' It's good to see that he has some scientific reasoning left in him, but I doubt you can stay sane along that line." · AMERICAblog" "Flip flop alert!"
  

  >> On a different note -- center-left poli sci grad student Brendan Nyhan: "The stem cell debate is ... a great test of the hypothesis that abortion politics are so polarized because Roe v. Wade removed the issue from the democratic process and prevented compromise. If that hypothesis is correct, then conservatives should eventually accept the legitimacy of stem cell research. The fact that so many conservatives have already accepted President Bush's original plan -- which allows for the destruction of embryos -- suggests that the Roe theory is correct. Frist's decision may be another step down that road."

CAFTA: What Was Sillier, This Floor Vote Or The '03 Prescription Drug Bill Marathon?

In light of CAFTA's passage, conservative Captain's Quarters holds up for derision a few recent newspaper analyses asserting that Bush is a "lame duck," and "these critics will have to eat a supersize helping of crow."

Liberal blogs Talking Points Memo and Daily Kos make fun of Rep. Charles Taylor (R-NC) for claiming his voting card didn't work. TAPPED, on Rep. Jo Ann Davis (R-VA), who would have voted no but was stuck in traffic returning from the Boy Scout jamboree: "True, it had been an open secret all day yesterday that the CAFTA vote was going to happen around midnight and surely Davis knew that and could have planned accordingly -- but hey, these things happen!"

Dem activist David Sirota approves of a report that Dems who voted for CAFTA may have their cmte assignments "reviewed": "That's absolutely necessary -- why should Democrats who undermine their party be given plum committee assignments over other, far more loyal and principled Democrats?"

GOPer Balloon Juice's John Cole isn't pleased with how it got done: "I really long for the day when we were the good guys. Now we are nothing more than a bunch of arm-twisting thugs, big mouth bully boys, and we simply bend the rules to suit our needs."

Conservative WILLisms posts a chart comparing House GOP and Dem support for NAFTA in '93 and CAFTA this week. GOP support increased from 76% to 87%, while Dem support fell from 40% to just 7%. Noting that the DLC endorsed CAFTA, he opines: "What happened to make the DLC so irrelevant? I have no earthly idea, do you?" He links "I," "have," "no," "earthly" and "idea" to prominent lefty blogs (including Sirota) criticizing CAFTA, the DLC or both.

DLC: Paging Peter Beinart ...

The Left Coaster: "Now comes the new mantra from 'moderate' Democrats and the DLC that we need more troops in Iraq to better protect the troops that are already there. Exactly where are these additional troops going to come from? The Army can't meet its current recruitment quotas. Those quotas are inadequate to keep the troop level where it was two years ago. The National Guard can't supply more and will be hard pressed to maintain the current level of deployments. Do the DLC bozos expect to see lines at the recruitment centers if Hillary is in the WH? ... Watching the newly invigorated DLC has caused me for the first time to consider that Nixon may have ended the Vietnam War faster than Humphrey/Muskie would have."

Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum has similar thoughts: "I'm sympathetic to the DLC's proposal that we need more troops -- after all, undermanning has obviously been our biggest problem in Iraq from the very start. At the same time, Iraq is a done deal one way or the other, and a commitment to additional troops in the future won't help us in Iraq now. ... If the DLC really wants to produce some fresh thinking on national security, perhaps there are smarter ways of doing it than proposing that we need more of what we have already. If this is truly a new kind of war, surely we need a new kind of military to go along with it?"

AIR AMERICA: Losing Altitude

This a.m. the Washington Times has an op-ed on the blog-originating story about the diverting of gov't grant money from the NYC Gloria Wise Girls & Boys Club to Air America (see 7/27 Blogometer). Radio talker Brian Maloney, who helped break the story, updates with new developments and a list of questions for Air America.

Conservative bloggers including Ed Morrissey and Kevin Aylward aren't satisfied by Air America's claim that it bears no responsibility. Air America has since released a 2nd statement.

In a diary for Daily Kos, Air America webmaster Adam Mordecai gives their side of the story.

Conservative Michelle Malkin asks: "Yeah? But where did the money go? Was the loan repaid? And was there an agreement between Air America and Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club officials to promote the latter's activities as part of the loan deal? Apropos that last question, take a look here at an Air America host promoting and soliciting donations for the summer camp run by the ... club. The date of this promotion was June 14, 2005. Several sources tell me the possible quid pro quo involved here should be of special interest to the FCC."

Conservative Mark In Mexico titles his post "Al Franken steals money from kids and old folks" and assembles a near-exhaustive round-up of the blogs discussing this case.

MILLER: Remember In "Fire Walk With Me" When David Bowie Said, "We're Not Gonna Talk About Judy At All, We're Gonna Keep Her Out Of It"? Think About It

Right-leaning JustOneMinute, on whether New York Times' Judy Miller interviewed Valerie Plame, or otherwise knew her: "File under 'Stray Thought' -- aren't professional women encouraged to network? And wouldn't folks feel that both Valerie and Judy, as women in a male-dominated profession, really ought to meet? OK, covert agents probably handle their networking a bit differently than lawyers or bankers. Still, don't we think that Judy knows some covert agents? These two getting together seems to be destined."

Centrist Mickey Kaus, on the widely-noted 7/28 New York Times piece by Doug Jehl reporting that the Times "declined to address written questions" about Miller's work on Joe Wilson's Niger trip. "What is Jehl suggesting that his colleague Miller was doing if she wasn't 'assigned' to the Wilson story -- freelance conspiring with Bush aides to prop up the Saddam-has-WMD theory with which she was identified? Surely Jehl knows reporters never do such things!... And why's he casting aspersions on his beloved, incarcerated fellow Timesperson? Maybe Arianna's right [see 7/28 Blogometer] that the Judy-source scenario..."

At TalkLeft, atty Jeralyn Merritt has been "trying to cull down the mass of information" to determine Miller's role, and offers a "shortened list" of what she finds "significant." She writes: "No matter where I start, I always end up at the same place: with Cheney and Libby's visits to CIA..."

BLOGS VS. THE FEC: Fist Of Currie

Atty Ron Coleman calls attention to the blog Currie for Congress, by milblogger Rusten Currie, who aims to unseat Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA). Coleman comments on the prospect of a proliferation of blogger candidates: "This is going to really, really, really screw up the whole evolving, twisting, oft-times disgusting McCain-Feingold-Anti-Sedition-Act-Special-Priveleges-for-Bloggers calculus, isn't it? You bet it is."

TX GOV candidate Chris Bell (D) announces his bid at his campaign blog and at MyDD. The announcement gets plenty of attention, from (among others) Political Wire, Off The Kuff, and Drudge Retort.

OHIO 02: Ooooooglay!

OH 02 House candidate Jean Schmidt (R) aide Eric Minmayer posts an update about the military service of Dem candidate Paul Hackett (see 7/26 Blogometer) to his blog: "Was Paul Hackett in combat? Yes, on October 21, 2004 traveling from Ramadi to Fallujah."

Ohio 2nd blog posts an appeal for Hackett volunteers by ex-Sen. John Glenn.

Meanwhile, Swing State Project's Bob Brigham posted allegedly libelous claims about the Schmidt camp, then removed it upon complaint. Steve Gilliard defends the original posting.

Democracy GuyTim Russo: "Nothing would make this Ohio Democrat happier than to see" Hackett win the race, but "It ain't gonna happen, and the irrational exuberance of the lefty blogosphere over this race is a good study in just how irrelevant the loud, lefty blogosphere makes itself." Noting that "nothing gets the lefty blogosphere revved up like a soldier Democrat running on an anti-Iraq war platform," he writes: "He's a soldier returned from Iraq, who now criticizes the war. If that strikes you as a caricature of the rationale that governed the entire 2004 presidential primary process for Democrats, you're right."

TERRORISM: What's In A Name?

Counterterrorism Blog's Steven Emerson reports, the widely-reported a fatwa issued by a group of American Muslim leaders against "terrorism and extremism" is "bogus." Emerson writes, "Nowhere does it condemn the Islamic extremism ideology that has spawned Islamic terrorism. It does not renounce nor even acknowledge the existence of an Islamic jihadist culture that has permeated mosques and young Muslims around the world." Moreover, officials of the groups FNCA (which issued the fatwa) and CAIR (which got the word out) "have been linked to various terrorist organizations."

Matthew Yglesias, on the gov't designation changing from "Global War On Terrorism (GWOT)" to "Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism (GSAVE)": "Why the goofball semantic shift? Nobody really knows. Ostensibly the point is to emphasize that combatting terrorism isn't really a war in the sense of something you accomplish by sending armies around the world. But that can't be right, since when John Kerry made this point he was savagely attacked by the very people responsible for this new policy."

Liberal Bulldog Manifesto: "Apart from being completely ironic that an extreme ideologue such as Bush would be struggling against idealogical extremism, the term is laughable because it is a thinly disguised attempt to confuse us all into believing that this 'war' is something that we can all live with. I can see it now, 'The Struggle in Iraq.' ... Jihad also means 'struggle.' Oh brother..."

Michelle Malkin notes that NRO contributor Michael Graham has been suspended from WMAL-AM radio for writing in a JWR column: "Islam is a terror organization." Malkin calls Graham "clumsy," but like Rep. Tom Tancredo (see 7/19 Blogometer) he "raises fundamental issues that need to be tackled head on..."

IRAQ: Withdrawal In Disgust Is Not The Same As Apathy

Center-right OxBlog's David Adesnik criticizes the media for "oversell[ing] the Pentagon's caveat-laden talk of a partial" '06 Iraq withdrawal: "Undoubtedly, some Republicans would prefer to get out of Iraq. Yet there was speculation across the board, starting in mid-2003, that Bush would cut and run rather than face a tough re-election fight with our soldiers still in Iraq. But Bush refused to compromise and won the election decisively. So what makes anyone think that 'top Republicans' have much hope of persuading Bush to pull out now?" Instapundit: "One question is where U.S. troops will go from there: Syria? Iran? Saudi Arabia? Or elsewhere? I suspect we want to keep people guessing about that, too."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: As Opposed To Non-Internet Bloggers?

USA Today reports on missing Philly woman Latoyia Figueroa: "Internet bloggers appear to have played a role in pushing Figueroa's case into the spotlight. Starting last Friday, Philadelphia-area writers of Internet weblogs, or blogs, organized an e-mail campaign and coordinated their blogging efforts." As the Blogometer mentioned yesterday, Philly bloggers were working to push this into the MSM -- and they've succeeded. And while her name doesn't appear on Technorati's top searches, there are about 176 posts mentioning her name as of this hour (with misspellings, surely more).

SENATE '06: Dogging Byrd

Conservative WV blogger Don Surber is very pleased by the NRSC's new ad hitting Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV): "The ad is cool. No sheets. None of that KKK crap. It never worked before and not bringing it up shows some class. The ad gets to issues people care about without distortion. He's changed, is that good? That is what the election should be about." The ad itself is available at The Political Teen.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: So I Says To Mabel, I Says

Ace from Ace of Spades HQ tackles the dilemma of many a blogger -- how to write when one really has nothing to say: "A lot of times I don't link big stories because 1, I imagine everyone knows about them, so why should I waste your time linking a story you already read? and 2, because I have nothing to add. I mean, they rounded up nine bombing suspects in London. This is great news. And that would be my comment: 'Hey, guys, this is great news.' The suspected bomb-master has been detained in Zambia. Again: 'Hey, guys, this is really super news. I hope they hang him. That would be even more super.' So, nothing to add. Unless I could pull a Wretchard [of Belmont Club] and analogize the capture of nine terrorist suspects to Darius' defense of Athens or somethin'. Which I can't. Was Darius even the king of Athens? I have no idea. So, right there, strike one. Anyway... just letting everyone know, they're catching the terrorists. Yes, I know about it, and I'm not mentioning it because I figure you all do too."

LEST WE FORGET: To The Many Innovative Uses Of The Blog Format We May Now Add Mash Notes

Someone is hoping for attention from CNN's Inside the Blogs segment, and from CNN producer Abbi Tatton in particular. Someone going by the handle iluvabbitatton. This is from the latest entry on the blog I Luv Abbi Tatton: "It's time again for the Wonderful World of Abbi Tatton. For those of you airheads, Ms. Tatton is the co-host of the segment Inside the Blogs on CNN's Inside Politics, and she's something to see. You should tune in. Seeing Ms. Tatton now is like listening to Edward R. Murrow during the Blitz. Some day, you can pull your grandchildren up on your knee and say, 'I used to watch her back when she hosted that show about blogs!' And the wee ones will say, 'Ooooo!'" More: "The segment got underway shortly thereafter (here comes the reason why today was notable). I was distractedly lounging and watching the tape when I saw something that literally made me leap up: Ms. Tatton had a new necklace on!" Here's one more: "I know I said I wouldn't do this (and I'll have something to say about that soon), but I couldn't help noticing Ms. Tatton and [CNN blog reporter] Jacki [Schechner] dressed similarly today: similar blouses and with necklaces. Like stylish bookends.

°   °   °   °   °

BLOGOMETER SPECIAL: Stratego

What the blogs are saying about Pres. Bush's pick of John Roberts for the SCOTUS.

At Bench Memos, NRO's Ed Whelan writes, because the left has been "unable to embrace" either a strategy of painting Roberts as a moderate to set up the next fight or inflicting political damage on the WH by fighting hard against him, their default strategy -- "whether it deserves the label of 'strategy' is dubious" -- has become "using document demands and other maneuvers to try to delay the Senate's confirmation of Roberts, in the hope that ammunition to use against him will develop in the meantime. This strategy gives every promise of backfiring." Whelan predicts the public will support the Roberts nod, the Dems will oppose him, and the public will conclude that Dems "are not reasonable and will discount their screeching about the next nominee."

At TPM Cafe, contributor Elizabeth Cavendish laments the "strenuous legal and policy efforts John Roberts undertook [in the Reagan WH] against the interests of African-Americans, women, immigrant children, and prisoners, typically in the name of some other principle like 'judicial restraint'..."

THE FIGHT: Who Says The Art Of Letter-Writing Is Dead?

The Dems have put up a web page soliciting questions for Roberts. A number of liberal bloggers take notice, including Tennessee Guerrilla Women, Air America's Majority Report blog, Lucky Spinster and othes. MyDD's Chris Bowers posts his submission, a question asking what's the truth behind Roberts' Federalist Society association.

GOP-leaning Confirm Them: "If the past is any indication, groups on the Left will inundate the Committee with letters opposing Judge Roberts or raising questions about his record. And at some point during the hearing, we can count on [cmte Dems] whining that they have hundreds or thousands of letters from lawyers, academics, organizations, and individual Americans expressing concerns about Judge Roberts' nomination. It's critical that [cmte GOPers] be able to respond in kind..."

RELIGION: Church And State Eye Each Other Warily From Across The Room

RedState's Mike Krempasky posts the text of an AP headline: "Roberts would be fourth Catholic on Supreme Court; impact unknown"; he asks: "Anyone ready to deny that we'd see a protest march on AP headquarters if that headline had read, 'Roberts would be fourth Jew on Supreme Court; impact unknown'"?

Power Line posts the text of a letter sent by Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL) to Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) re: Roberts's Catholicism. Hyde: "'Practicing Catholics need not apply' cannot become a rallying cry of modern day religious bigots who would seek to drive from the public square all federal office candidates of faith."

Posted by at 12:26 PM

July 28, 2005

7/28: Slimer! And The Real Spook Busters

Note for web readers: To go directly to the SCOTUS coverage, click here.

The Hotline's Blogometer takes the daily temperature of the blogosphere.

MILLER: Return Of The Judy-Did-It Theory

At the Huffington Post, Arianna Huffington speculates that New York Times' Judy Miller was upset by Joe Wilson's 7/6/03 NYT op-ed, which "call[ed] into question" her pre-war WMD reporting, investigated him, and leaked Valerie Plame's name to the WH. Huffington writes, the Times is divided "into two camps: those who want to learn everything about this story, and those who want to learn everything as long as it doesn't downgrade" Miller's newfound "heroic status." But if this scandal is to "unmask" the "ill-conceived" Iraq war, the "unmasking ... has to include Judy Miller and the part she played in the mess in Iraq." Josh Marshall writes, though "not all the details are the same ... I've heard similar stuff." Huffington sent out e-mail notices to bloggers, and approving posts can be found at Crooks and Liars, TalkLeft, and Daily Kos.

INTEL HEARINGS: Always Use Protection

Liberal Wayne Madsen Report speculates that Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) will grant to Karl Rove and Scooter Libby "general immunity from prosecution in return for their testimony before" his Intel Cmte. TalkLeft picks up on this nugget and warns that the GOP may be getting ready to "slime" Fitzgerald.

The Left Coaster goes further: "If Pat Roberts or anyone else wants to offer them immunity, that would constitute direct evidence that they themselves believe Rove and Libby are guilty. If Pat Roberts or anyone else wants to go after Patrick Fitzgerald, that would constitute direct evidence that they themselves believe Rove and Libby are guilty."

Ex-KE'04 aide Ari Melber, at the Huffington Post: "Why focus on the CIA right now? The approach offers two potential benefits for Republican leak apologists. First, it helps them claim they are responding to calls for Congressional investigations by holding hearings, even though the hearings aren't about the actual leak. ... Second, focusing on CIA policy instead of the White House leak protects the Administration and diverts blame to the CIA. But this is a risky strategy that could backfire on live television."

Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum and RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh continue their disagreement over the intention of Roberts' new round of hearings, at the respective links.

ROVE/PLAME: Daddy, What Did You Do During The White House/CIA War?

Liberal Mark A.R. Kleiman, on a New York Times reporting that Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus says the WH volunteered Plame's name to him: "This is going to make it extremely hard for the leakers to get out from under by pretending that the information was either given to them or wheedled out of them by reporters. And, of course, insofar as the officials' accounts of the interactions don't match the journalists, there's the issue of false statements and perjury to consider."

A diarist at RedState notes the New York Post report that Valerie Plame donated $372 to Dem-assisting 527 ACT in the '04 cycle while marking her employment as "N/A". The diarist asks: "Valerie Plame is still employed by the Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA allows its employees to donate to political groups, and so she faced no repercussions for that donation. Yet she chose to claim she was retired. Why?" Blogs for Bush: "[S]he was either pretending she was still undercover, or she just lied... I'm going with the strong possibility that she just lied...lying seeming to be the default position for her and her husband."

Crooked Timber's Ted Barlow strongly criticizes Christopher Hitchens' latest Slate piece defending Rove and criticizing the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. At his personal blog, Reason intern Daniel Koffler argues that Hitchens is mostly right about the IIPA law, but Barlow is correct that "a substantial portion of Hitchens' piece stinks of score-settling over the Iraq-WMD issue."

Right Wing Nut House writes, the "leak that outed Valerie Wilson did not take place in a vacuum. The White House was under attack by our own CIA." RWNH points out an interview that "non-partisan" ex-CIA official Bobby Inman did with NRO's Media Blog. Inman, on the leaking of Plame's name: "I would rather not see[ that], but she was working in an analytical organization, and there's nothing that precludes anyone from identifying analytical officers. I watch all the hand-wringing over the ruining of careers... there are a lot of operatives whose covers are blown. It doesn't mean the end of their careers. Many move to the analytical world, which is where she already was" and showed no signs of returning. Inman also expresses his displeasure at CIA leaks against others during WH'04.

Conservative Baseball Crank: "[T]o me, if somebody was just negligent with the identity of a non-covert agent and accidentally revealed that she'd been covert in the past, that's a blunder, but it's not something you organize a lynch mob over."

FITZGERALD: IL Communication

Liberal IL-based ArchPundit considers a rumor that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald will not be reappointed as U.S. Atty. In the next post, titled "The Many Layers of Patrick Fitzgerald," ArchPundit goes into the "local ... origin" of Fitzgerald's trouble with House Speaker Denny Hastert. TPM Cafe has more.

Skeptic's Eye's Allison Hayward notes a Roll Call story where John McCain expresses his displeasure that the "wrong people" -- i.e. McCain-Feingold opponents -- may be seated on the FEC commis. by recess appointments: "It might be enlightening, given McCain's disdain for the 'wrong people' to know who the Senator believes are the 'right people.' He shouldn't be able to take potshots at candidates without his alternatives (presumably he has some) seeing the same scrutiny."

CAP's Think Progress posts a letter Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) sent to Sec/State Condoleezza Rice, asking if an MSNBC report that U.N. Amb. nominee John Bolton testified in the Fitzgerald investigation.

Right-leaning Tom Maguire questions the salience of the New York Times' report on the Fitzgerald's investigation into then-WH spokesperson Ari Fleischer's involvement in the leak, noting this "mini-bombshell" from the Times' latest: "Few if any reporters who traveled with Mr. Fleischer, [Dan] Bartlett and the White House entourage that week have been called to testify before the grand jury." Maguire responds: "'Few if any'? Just last week, Timesman Adam Liptak told us that 'Four reporters have testified in the investigation: Glenn Kessler and Walter Pincus of The Washington Post, Tim Russert of NBC News and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine.' So who are the 'few, if any'? I am pretty sure neither Pincus nor Cooper went to Africa; is the Times rowing back from Liptak's pronouncement, and admitting that more reporters have testified, or given evidence? Well, no kidding..."

TERRORISM: Cough Cough

Conservative Captain's Quarters guest-blogger Daffyd ab Hugh calls attention to the fact that the "Failed Millennium Bomber" Ahmed Ressam was given only 22 years, and by U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, a Reagan appointee. He partially titles the post "Stupid Republican Tricks" and notes that Ressam "could be out of prison when he is only 51 years old... not exactly too old to continue his jihad against America." In an update, "Captain" Ed Morrissey notes that the maximum sentence is 35 years. Hugh Hewitt posts more info on Coughenour, calling him "the perfect example of what life-time tenure does to the ego, and a reminder of why Democrats should not be allowed to obstruct" Bush's jud. nominees. Hewitt notes that Lynndie England could get 3/4ths of that time for Abu Ghraib. In a follow-up post, he recommends donating to MN SEN candidate/Rep. Mark Kennedy (R) as a start toward putting different judges on the court. In a header, Michelle Malkin calls Coughenour "The Terrorists' Little Helper." At Daily Kos, a front-paged diarist (unknowingly) concurs with Hewitt that Ressam is "no less a terrorist than Mohamed Atta -- just less successful" but calls Judge Coughenour's comments praising the "public trial" above military tribunals "incredibly powerful."

RedState picks up on a U.S. News report on the Pentagon's new counter-terrorism strategy, which expands the target from "al Qaeda" to "Islamist extremism"; contributor Charles Bird comments: "Should've been done a year ago."

Jeff Jarvis reports on NYC subway bag searches: "Yesterday, when I came down to the PATH station, I saw cops performing their random searches. I wasn't picked. But I walked up to a couple of them and said, 'I don't know whether you're getting crap for doing this but I'm glad you are.' They nodded thanks. Well, it turns out, they're not getting crap. They're getting volunteers."

GITMO: On The Next Episode Of "JAG" ...

Liberal atty Marty Lederman posts text of previously unreleased JAG memos criticizing Gitmo interrogation techniques, originally written in '03. He provides a lengthy analysis (1st link) and writes: "These memos reveal the JAGs as the real heroes of this story. Indeed, it's uncanny how prescient these memos were." Centrist journalist Andrew Sullivan links approvingly, adding, "decent conservatives in the Senate understand that this administration's shameful record must be corrected by legislation. ... Deep down, this is a debate about whether the president, in a war with no defined end, can simply place himself above the law whenever he so desires, in order to reverse America's long-standing policy of treating prisoners humanely." Conservative NRO blogger Eric Pfeiffer disagrees: "Right or wrong, this seems too broad a statement. Taken literally, Sullivan's argues those Republicans opposed to the John McCain and Lindsey Graham amendments lack decency."

IRAQ: I Like That It Shook My One Hand, Then Hugged Me With The Other Arm! That's A Handsome Apology!

Libertarian-leaning Instapundit, frequently the target of criticism that he doesn't take bad news in Iraq seriously, defends himself: "So I put up a post on why I think an Iraqi civil war would be bad, but is unlikely, and Bradford Plumer at the Mother Jones blog accuses me of happily 'daydreaming about a possible Sunni-Shiite civil war in Iraq.' Well no, not like the MoJo folks daydream about worker control of the means of production." Plumer posts what Instapundit calls a "very handsome apology," and calls the matter settled.

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Olbermann Gets A Pat On The Back From A Blogger With An Audience Bigger Than His Own

Liberal Philly bloggers are posting to blogs pictures and info of a missing pregnant woman, Latoyia Figueroa, who has been gone 8 days. The case receives attention on Daily Kos and Eschaton. Figueroa is non-white and has received little media coverage, prompting questions about this known media trend. The All Spin Zone writes an open letter to CNN's Nancy Grace, who again on 7/27 prominently featured the Natalee Holloway/Aruba disappearance. Earlier that p.m., CNN's Inside the Blogs segment on "IP" spent a few minutes discussing the case, albeit for a smaller audience. All Spin Zone has now helped set up a reward fund.

Daily Kos' Armando: " I saw this ratings synopsis and it really impressed me that it looks like [Keith] Olbermann is really the biggest show on MSNBC now. Pretty impressive. ... Evidence that truly 'fair and balanced' news is a ratings winner? Is it not time that these cable news networks stop trying to Out-Faux Faux?" (Note for the slang-impaired: "Faux" is "Fox.")

CAFTA: You Can't Spell "Decline" Without D, L And C

NRO's The Buzz notes, the DLC "advocated" CAFTA passage, yet 33 of the 43 DLC-aligned House Dems voted against it, as did 10 of 18 Dem Sens, including WH'08 "aspirants" Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), John Kerry and Evan Bayh (D-IN). At TAPPED, Matt Yglesias downplays CAFTA's likely effects: "The reality is that the impact will be pretty trivial. NAFTA was a much more consequential agreement, and even it, contrary to myth, had at best a small impact on the United States."

At conservative PoliPundit, Lorie Byrd asks in a header: "Why Do Most Americans Not Realize The Economy Is In Good Shape?": "I remember going through this same thing in 1992 when the Bush recovery was described as the worst economy in 50 years until the day after the election, when it became known as the Clinton recovery. It frustrated the heck out of me then, and although it does less so now because this is not an election year, it still annoys me."

OHIO 02: Yeah, But What If He Loses?

MyDD reports from the OH 02 special election, where previous long-shot Paul Hackett has closed the gap in some polls, and the NRCC is helping out GOPer Jean Schmidt. MyDD's Scott Shields: "The NRCC ad buy was $285,000 and Hackett is now within 5 points. They're clearly freaking out. Really exciting stuff..." The data comes from Swing State Project's Tim Tagaris, who writes, "if we can win here, we can win anywhere."

Tagaris also follows up on criticism of Hackett's Iraq service (see 7/26 Blogometer), writing: "The 'swift boating' is picking up steam, and we have to fight back. I sat no less than five feet away from a reporter from a cable news outlet that asked, 'Some say that this was all a plan on your part. To go to Iraq and come back with this great story while running for congress.'"

Liberal TX blogger Charles Kuffner notes that Hackett has been named an "Honorary Texan".

MISCELLANY: Boots On The Ground

• In response to a UK Guardian report, Dartmouth undergrad Joe Malchow defends his criticm of the Guardian's slowness to fire a terrorist-sympathetic writer, Dilpazier Aslam. Little Green Footballs notes that Aslam may sue the Guardian.
• Kausfiles comments on the Washington Post's story about lefty blog criticism of HRC: "A milestone for the blogosphere! Kos writes 10 paragraphs and makes Dan Balz write eleven."
• Aaron's CC declares oline shop CafePress "officially a tool" of the Dems -- many individuals have created anti-Rove products, and CafePress itself sends out e-mails to customers promoting those products.
• James Taranto's 4-year anniv. writing the "Best of the Web Today" column for the WSJ is today; starting 7/27 he is running a 3-part retrospective.
• Registration is open for DeVry's Blogger Boot Camp; a speaker will be Vodkapundit's Steven Green.
• Registration is now open for Eschacon, the Atrios-focused Philly blogger convo.

BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: Conspiracy Theory

Today the Blogometer talks to righty economist Don Luskin, who contributes to National Review Online and blogs at The Conspiracy To Keep You Poor And Stupid.

What is your full name?

Donald L. Luskin

What is your age?

51

Where did you grow up?

California

Where do you live now?

Silicon Valley

What is your occupation?

Investment strategist

Have you ever worked on a political campaign or for the mainstream media?

No.

When did you start blogging and why?

Late 2002. I thought it would help me write a book I've been working on. It didn't.

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

No one single favorite post. But my favorite story has been my ongoing unmasking of Paul Krugman as a political hack, and the way I've been able to goad him into completely discarding any semblance of dignity or authority from his prior life as an overrated economist.

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

No particular schedule. Output varies greatly from day to day.

Who is your favorite political blogger?

James Taranto.

Favorite non-political blogger?

None. Never read them.

Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?

John Tierney.

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

None. Never watch.

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

NY Times, Wall St. Journal, WaPo, National Review.

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

None.

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

Never.

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

Old media will imitate look-and-feel of new media. New media will continue to watch-dog old media and discover the stories that old media can't cover, especially the stories about old media itself.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Who Stands A Better Chance Of Reaching Across The Aisle -- AFL-CIO Or FRC?

Conservative Slublog: "Only days after two major unions left the AFL-CIO, the union re-elected John Sweeney as its president. I think Sweeney, by tying the unions so strongly to one political party, has done more to hurt organized labor than any recent figure. Such a strategy would have worked if the Democrats had regained the White House or either house of Congress in the last few election cycles, but that has not happened, and labor has been shut out of the political process almost entirely. Conservatives, instead of simply rejoicing over the union's troubles, should learn from Sweeney's mistakes. Organizations such as the Family Research Council should make note of how politically isolated organized labor has become and start reaching out to Democrats."

LEST WE FORGET: The Kids Are Alright

UK Maxim editor/Huffington Post contributor Greg Gutfeld: "Every one loves a cute story about kids and the love they share with those around them. But nobody's cuter than a child-friendly HuffPo, helping kids see the world around them through HuffPo eyes!" Here's one: "A Teacher was talking to her first graders about families. One little boy says he had different color hair than his brothers. One girl says he was adopted. He says, 'What does it mean?' 'It means,' said the girl, 'that you grew in your mommy's heart instead of her tummy!' 'That's true,' says the teacher, 'But your natural birth mother did not have to bring you to term. She could have aborted you. And you should have supported her decision.'"

NOTES AND ERRATA: We'll Be More Nareful

In the 7/27 edition, when we said NAFTA? What we really meant was CAFTA.

°   °   °   °   °

BLOGOMETER SPECIAL: Doc Roberts

What the blogosphere is saying about Pres. Bush's pick of John Roberts for the SCOTUS:

CONFIRMATION: Paper Weight

Liberal Talking Points Memo, on the limited release of documents re: Roberts: "I'm wondering what the argument is, precisely, for the White House having access to any more information in the process of nominating Roberts than the Senate should have in confirming him. ... I know it may seem like I'm being willfully dense or naive. But what's wrong with the standard of: If the White House got to see it, why not the senate?"

Conservative Power Line's Paul Mirengoff, on the Dems' "desperate strategy" re: the Roberts nod: "Create procedural disputes by demanding that the White House produce documents that every living former solicitor general has said ought not to be produced. Insist on answers to questions that Justice Ginsburg steadfastly refused to answer. Hope that this gets you enough traction to delay the process. Use the delay time to dig for dirt, as they tried to do with Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas." Noting that Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) "threatened to call a third strike if the Senate majority sets a confirmation schedule that would enable Roberts to take his place on the Court when it re-opens for business in October," he writes: "A politician intoxicated by his own power can be frightening, but a politician drunk on impotence is mostly comical."

THE FIGHT: A Civil Action

Re: Roberts' writings for the Reagan WH on busing, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) tells the AP: "From what we know now, John Roberts had a hand in some of the most aggressive assaults on civil rights protections during the Reagan administration..." Blogs for Bush's Matt Margolis responds: "This is yet another attempt to take isolated legal analyses out of context from nearly 25 years ago ... This was an issue which there was much debate and disagreement on a quarter-century ago including within Kennedy's own party. ... Senators Byrd, Biden, and Inouye disagreed with Kennedy's position, but Kennedy has [never] suggested his fellow Democrat Senators were waging an 'assault on civil rights.'"

At the Volokh Conspiracy, UCLA law prof Eugene Volokh defends Roberts from criticism in the "french fry" case in a Bloomberg column by Berkeley law prof Goodwin Liu.

IMPACT: Strictly Speaking

At RedState, Gerry Daly responds to a KRT analysis of comments Roberts made on PBS's "News Hour" in '97, suggesting Roberts might allow assisted suicide or gay marriage laws to stand: "Of course, what the President had promised was that he would nominate a strict constructionist, who would faithfully interpret the Constitution and not legislate from the bench. This too is an approach that can lead to results that would make conservatives happy, or liberals happy, depending on the case at hand. And it is an approach that is completely square with the philosophy hinted at by Roberts' comment."

Posted by at 12:32 PM

July 27, 2005

7/27: So, What Else Is New?

Note for web readers: To go directly to the SCOTUS coverage, click here.

TRACKBACKS: Not Quite At Energizer Bunny Status, But Working On It

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

• Liberal bloggers seize upon a Washington Post report: "Prosecutor In CIA Leak Case Casting A Wide Net"; as the header suggests, the key development is that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald "has interviewed a wider range of administration officials than was previously known." Most concede that there isn't much new, but more than a few dig for details. Others simply note its' existence, as AMERICAblog does with this header: "New Wash Post story on Rove, Fitzgerald is up."
  
  

  >> Talking Points Memo writes it contains "no explosive quotes or shocking revelations" as further evidence of "an elaborate fraud perpetrated upon the American people" by the Bush admin. · Hullabaloo: "I have to say that I'm not getting my hopes up. Unless he's got a high level witness who's spilling his guts, I have my doubts that this will blow the lid off of the Iraq lies." · The Mahablog: "We can only speculate about where Fitzgerald is going with his investigation. However, it's becoming clear that ... the career spooks have had it with this White House." · Crooks and Liars: "No matter how much of our press wants to run away from this story; the story will run to them."
  
  

  >> The lone conservative to mention it yet is Orrin Judd, who frames it with an American Prowler column arguing that Dems are "strangling" themselves by focusing on Karl Rove. More interesting, in the comments Judd gets drawn into a debate with lefty journalist/pamphleteer Rick Perlstein.

INTEL HEARINGS: The Subhead Formerly Known As "Rove"?

Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum criticizes right-leaning bloggers, including QandO specifically, for setting too high a standard for agreeing that Rove should go, criteria Drum says is so loose that they "essentially justify in advance virtually anything that Rove might plausibly have done." On Sen. Pat Roberts' (R-KS) announced Intel hearings into "use of covert protections for CIA agents and others involved in secret activities" (Roberts' words), Drum asks: "Does it sound like Roberts is concerned about CIA agents being exposed in the press? Of course not. Instead, Roberts is preemptively defending Rove by implying that perhaps the real problem is that the CIA overuses clandestine cover for its agents." At RedState, Pejman Yousefzadeh sarcastically praises Drum for his "ability to read minds": "I of course had no idea that Pat Roberts was engaged in 'preemptively defending Rove by implying that perhaps the real problem is that the CIA overuses clandestine cover for its agents.'"

Talking Points Memo finds a New Republic assessment of Senate Intel Cmte co-chair Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), in which anonymous Dems "say Rockefeller has allowed Roberts to roll over him."

Liberal TPM critic Bob Somerby calls Josh Marshall's reaction to the Roberts hearings (see 7/26 Blogometer) "propagandistic" and defends Roberts from misinterpretation by Marshall and ex-CIA official Larry Johnson.

DCCC's Stakeholder posts text of a letter from Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) and other House Dems to the DoJ Inspector General, asking for an investigation into the DoJ's "handling of the investigation" of the Plame leak.

Noting a Washington Post report that Bob Novak was warned off the Plame story by a CIA official before putting her in his '03 column, Daily Kos' Armando surmises, Novak and Rove "may have forgotten the "'don't f--- with the company' rule."

ROVE: And Now Come Attacks On His Personal Life

At Daily Kos, Markos Moulitsas picks up on the Radar Online rumor (also reported this a.m. in the New York Daily News) and attempts to confirm the accusation with another anonymous source.

Liberal Loaded Mouth is irritated by the post: "Making wholly unsubstantiated accusations against a despicable political opponent only serves to strengthen them. Stick to the facts, Kos, and lay off the personal attacks about someone's sex life -- You're starting to sound too much like a Republican."

WHITE HOUSE '08: Will We Eventually Say "Romney's Mormonism Is So 2005"?

Conservative Joe's Dartblog thinks Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) "poached a taboo personal fruit" in bringing up MA Gov. Mitt Romney's (R) religion in an interview with The Atlantic: "It is impossible to distinguish between this rather pathetic move and the espousal in recent years of 'outing' homosexual Republicans as a tool in the bag of DNC dirty tricks."

Hugh Hewitt: "Now that seems to me to be an extraordinarily inappropriate question --like asking a Catholic when they last went to confession. But I fully expect Romney opponents to keep throwing such stuff at him, and in real sense it is better for the questions to come now rather than later. By the time 2008 rolls around, the 'LDS issue' will have been talked to death and it may in fact have the same impact as Kennedy's Catholicism did in 1960."

Right-leaning Skeptic's Eye passes along a report from Political Money Line: "McCain's Straight Talk America registered again as a federal PAC on 7/15. Keith Davis is listed as Treasurer. The phone number on their form is also listed as the fax number on the website of the Reform Institute, a 501c3 organization supporting McCain's goals. The previous Straight Talk America PAC terminated in 2003." RedState's Mike Krempasky: "Straight BS, if you ask me. Keep the bad money out of politics, eh?"

Right Wing News tests out an anti-Hillary ad for '08.

DEMOCRATS: Keeping It On The DLC

At TPM Cafe, DLCer Ed Kilgore defends the DLC from accusations that Al From and Bruce Reed "spend their days attacking Kos," noting that "neither of them has ever mentioned Kos by name in public anywhere, anytime." He adds: "Frankly, I'm very happy to comply with Hillary Clinton's call in Cleveland for a cease-fire in the intra-party wars. I've tried to be reasonably civil since beginning my blogging career, though it's hard to stay civil when people who know nothing about you blithely call you or the people you work with corporate whores or worse..."

IA Gov. Tom Vilsack, in the New York Times: ""We can't afford to be anti-, against everything. America is waiting for us. They are desperate to know what we are for." Atrios puts Vilsack in with "certain" Senate Dems "who imagine that appeasement will spare them from the right wing shit machine," posing the choice: "Tools or suckers, you decide..."

Center-left Mickey Kaus disagrees with multiple reports that HRC's DLC speech exemplified "her now-famous move to the center": "The speech (which you can read here) doesn't sound too conservative to me. For one thing, Hillary avoids completely the obvious hot-button move-to-the-right issue of immigration ... And if reporters are willing to give Hillary credit for being "downright conservative" just because she uses the phrase 'old fashioned values' -- well, reporters are cheap dates!"

Under the header "The Gift That Keeps On Giving," conservative Balloon Juice notices that DNC chair Howard Dean mistakenly blaming the "right-wing" SCOTUS for the Kelo decision, when the Court's 3 most conservative members dissented. Balloon Juice: "Is he this stupid? Did he just get 'caught up in the moment?' Or is he simply lying?"

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Don't Wanna Be Like Mike

L.A. Observed: "That was fast. Michael Kinsley, who just took over on June 14, 2004, will soon relinquish his spot as editor in charge of the L.A. Times editorial and opinion pages." Kinsley will continue with the LAT in some as-yet-undefined capacity. Nation contributor Marc Cooper: "I'm certainly not the only guy who has noticed that Kinsley drew a lot more attention to himself than to any particular changes he made in the editorial sections of the Times." Kinsley "helped import some very mushy conventional columnists" onto the op-ed page, including himself. More: "Kinsley is clearly a smart guy -- but, in fact, he's a smart-aleck. He seems committed to very little except some editorial gimmickry -- his columns always a degree or two removed from authentic human passion and drama." Centrist media blogger Jeff Jarvis: "Michael Kinsley is whining that the internet doesn't operate the way he wants it to operate and so he's taking his marbles and going home. Or something like that."

LABOR: Say, That's A Nice House Seat You Got There

Firefighters Assn. pres. Harold Schaitberger tells labor blog Working Life that his org. will "cut off" Dems who vote for CAFTA [Update: Not NAFTA, as we first had it]: "A Democrat who votes for CAFTA, if we haven't already given them money, will not get a dollar from us." Schaitberger singled out Rep. Melissa Bean (D-IL), who "might" vote in favor: "[S]he would not be in this Congress if it were not for the labor movement. And, then, to potentially cast such a crucial vote I think is unconscionable. ... This is a bright line issue for labor. "

SENATE '06: Lefty Bloggers Have Their Targets Already Picked Out

Lefty satire blogger Jesus' General's latest campaign is based on Sen. Rick Santorum's (R-PA) "proudly" declaring his "opposition to Griswold v. Connecticut on CNN: "Call a press conference today and declare that you stand with Sen. Santorum and his efforts to end legal contraception. Contact your membership and ask them to write letters to the editors and to call talk radio shows demanding an end to birth control. We can win this battle with your help." He posts e-mail addresses for female PA GOP officials.

TAPPED's Garance Franke-Ruta suggests that Karl Rove is "actively harming" likely MD SEN candidate/LG Michael Steele (R) by fundraising for him, in part because of the attention brought by MoveOn and other groups.

Daily Kos' Armando notes a DSCC poll showing Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH) vulnerable, adding: "Paging Sherrrrrod Browwwwwn!" Moulitsas adds and update: "This is the same poll leaked to me back in early July. Except in their 'official' release the DSCC has omitted the Sherrod Brown numbers."

NEW YORK GOVERNOR: Over And Out

Chris Bowers, on NY Gov. George Pataki (R) likely not running for a 4th term: "Of course, [Eliot] Spitzer would have won anyway. Now, whoever the [NY GOP] throws up will get utterly slaughtered. Eliot Spitzer will be a major force in national politics for years, if not decades, to come."

PoliPundit's Alexander McClure concludes the GOP's only hope is Rudy Giuliani.

MISCELLANY: In The Air

• Conservative radio talker Brian Maloney finds a "tidbit" in the New York Daily News which leads him to do some digging and report back to his blog: "Bronx-based Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club nearly shut down major programs recently, because almost $500,000 in governmental grant money was instead diverted to Air America's liberal radio network." Club founder Charles Rosen has stepped down as CEO. The story gets a major assist from Michelle Malkin.
• Header by The Left Coaster's eriposte: "Uranium from Africa and the Senate (SSCI) Report: Part 3A-4 (Uraniumgate v2.0)"; in a previous post eriposte gave a preview: "I don't believe the story has been broken by any mainstream media outlet yet." At issue is 1 line from the Senate Intel report on "how the foreign government service collected" info. Eriposte: "As they say, it all depends on the meaning of 'how' and 'collected.'"
• At Sound Politics, WA-based conservative Stefan Sharkansky notes that Seattle P-I columnist Joe Connelly "fell for" a "spoof," or otherwise non-official website supporting GOP WA SEN candidate/Safeco CEO Mike McGavick. The "sexist" joke site declared: "It's time for a man to represent Washington."
• At Alarming News, a gay conservative guest-blogger responds to MA's debate about replacing "Mother" and "Father" on birth certificates with "Parent A" and "Parent B": "Let's not force the 80,000 children of straight parents to choose which parent is A and which is B for the sake of gay community's fragile ego."
• Michael Yon: "The enemy in Iraq does not appear to be weakening; if anything, they are becoming smarter, more complicated and deadlier. But this does not mean they are winning; to imply that getting smarter and deadlier equates to winning, is fallacious."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: How Hillary Could Win Texas?

Liberal BOP News' Glenn Smith, late 6/26: "The GOP majority in the Texas House of Representatives today fell apart, its party discipline destroyed by the stink of corruption that permeates the Bush era in Texas and across the country. If Texas had icebergs, this would be the tip of one. ... I'm talking about the stinging defeat suffered by the Texas GOP on the floor of the state House today. GOP leadership, helped to election by illegal corporate contributions, watched helplessly as the Democratic minority and a few frightened Republicans voted down bills that 1) raised taxes on the middle class; 2) Cut taxes for Big Insurance and other special interests involved in the scandal; 3) Stiffed school children and teachers under the guise of education reform. This is no small matter. It should be pointed out that in the early 1970s, a political scandal called Sharpstown surfaced just ahead of a national political scandal called Watergate. By 1976, Jimmy Carter could carry Texas."

LEST WE FORGET: The Backstroke Of The West

Matthew in Beirut posts screen shots from a Chinese bootleg "Revenge of the Sith" DVD. The subtitles are in English (for some reason), as the dialogue has been translated from English into Chinese and then back to English. "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away..." becomes "Long time ago in the faraway galaxy," which isn't much difference -- but somehow "Jedi Council" becomes "Presbyterian Church."

°   °   °   °   °

BLOGOMETER SPECIAL: Stare-ing Contest

What the blogosphere is saying about Pres. Bush's pick of John Roberts for SCOTUS:

ROE V. WADE: To Everything, Overturn, Overturn, Overturn ...

AG Alberto Gonzales is drawing some attention this a.m. for saying in an AP interview that the SCOTUS "is not obliged to follow" Roe v. Wade. A number of bloggers bring up the legal concept of stare decisis, referring to a preference for letting decisions stand unless there is a compelling reason to do so.

• From the right -- PoliPundit's Jayson Javitz is surprised to hear Gonzales say it: "You know, that putative 'RINO' about which perma-fickle, perpetually-pessimistic conservatives were in high dudgeon mode only two weeks ago?! It's not 1989 anymore, much less 1974." · Captain's Quarters points to Brown v. Board of Education oveturning Plessy v. Ferguson, and more recently Lawrence v. TX overturning Bowers v. Hardwick as better rulings on the 2nd time around: "The notion of requiring a Supreme Court nominee to some blood oath to 'settled law' shows more than a little hypocrisy. If pressed, Roberts should point out that the Supreme Court has a long history of poorly-decided cases..." · UCLA law prof Stephen Bainbridge points out, "stare decisis is given far less weight with respect to Constitutional issues than with respect to statutory or common law decisions."
• From the left -- Steve Soto: "Read Alberto Gonzales' comments today, and you would think that he himself is auditioning for the next vacancy on the court, by pandering to the American Taliban." He adds, "Gonzales has just unwittingly handed the Democrats a club to insist that Roberts tell them exactly what he thinks about Roe v. Wade." · Daily Kos: "I think we better ask Judge Roberts about this."

THE FIGHT: Things That Make You Go Hmmm ...

Under the header "Racism Evident in 1981 Roberts Memo," liberal MyDD's Scott Shields focuses on paragraph from a New York Times report about a "blistering critique" on affirmative action by Roberts from '81, "saying the 'obvious reason' affirmative action programs had failed was that they 'required the recruiting of inadequately prepared candidates.'" He adds: "Just to be clear, it was Roberts' opinion that it was 'obvious' that the minorities recruited under affirmative action policies were, by definition, 'inadequately prepared candidates.' In other words, it wasn't possible for minorities to be anything but 'inadequately prepared.' This was not a position based on research or fact. This was not even a position based on an ideologically conservative reading of the Constitution. This was a position based on prejudice. John Roberts is not fit to serve on the Supreme Court." Responding to a similar story in the Washington Post, Atrios calls Roberts "More Wingnutty Than Ted Olson."

TAPPED's Jeffrey Dubner follows up on the disputed report by atty Jonathan Turley that Roberts told Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) that he would recuse himself from a case where upholding the law required him to go against his religious beliefs: "If it weren't for Durbin's participation in the damage control, I'd be inclined to believe a conspiracy theory that ... Roberts' reported remark was part of a devious plot to goad Democrats into appearing anti-Catholic."

Lefty Oliver Willis: "Again putting the liberal media meme to death, right-wing loon Ann Coulter explains ... that Bush should appoint a more extreme Judge than Roberts to the Supreme Court because 'we have the media now.'" Willis posts the audio, from Sean Hannity's radio show, in MP3.

CONFIRMATION: Privileged Information

Conservative Beldar Blog's atty William Dyer calls Sen. Pat Leahy's (D-VT) statements that Roberts' papers from the WH Solicitor General's office are not covered by atty-client privilege "preposterous and incorrect statement of the law, and it's not a close question. He's just completely full of crap on this." More: "As for the MSM mouthpieces that have been repeating Sen. Leahy's comment as if it weren't drivel, I'm pretty sure they all have lawyers available to them. Any lawyer with Westlaw or Lexis/Nexis could have found" the relevant cases "in about 30 seconds (which is how long it took me). I'd say 'For shame!' but they're obviously shameless, as is Sen. Leahy."

FAMOUS LAST WORDS: We'll Save You The Cost Of Today's Lunch

Headline at The Onion: "Supreme Court Justices Devour Sandra Day O'Connor In Ancient Ritual." Yale Law Review's Zachary Katz, "quoted": "The ceremony is said to be quite moving. By consuming O'Connor's mortal body, the other justices seek a communion with her transcendent qualities -- her respect for the discretion of the court, her pragmatism, and her refusal to commit to abstract legal principles."

Posted by at 12:29 PM

July 26, 2005

7/26: HRC, DLC, Baby, You And Me!

Note for web readers: At the risk of turning the Blogometer into a see-saw of a web column, today we're putting the regular Blogometer up top, and the SCOTUS Special at the bottom. To go directly to the SCOTUS coverage, click here.

The Hotline's Blogometer takes the daily temperature of the blogosphere.

In recent days, liberal bloggers have been asking a variation on a question made famous during Watergate -- what did Pres. Bush know about Valerie Plame's CIA classification and when did he know it? Now, conservative bloggers are expecting Senate Jud Cmte Dems to ask another question reminiscent of an earlier era -- is Judge John Roberts now or has he ever been a member of the Federalist Society? Both may well be soon-forgotten tangents to the SCOTUS confirmation and leak investigation. Yet in partisan battles such as these, one can never be sure.

The Blogometer noted yesterday that discussion about the investigation's Karl Rove angle seemed poised to slow down considerably, and today this is all the more apparent. Several widely-read conservative blogs have now expressly sworn off all coverage of minor developments, and even liberal bloggers find themselves talking more about the OH 02 special election, the labor split, the DLC meeting, and Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA). The Patrick Fitzgerald investigation issue is far from dead, but the Rove aspect has moved to the back burner while other tangents move forward. The announced Senate Intel Cmte hearings related to the matter are already attracting comment from both sides, and the reputation of an ex-CIA official and WH critic is coming under scrutiny from conservative bloggers.

Today's edition also features the results from a poll testing WH'08 GOPers' popularity, plenty of harsh words for the DLC (and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) by association), and our latest Blogger Spotlight.

DLC: Don't Go Chasing Waterfalls

At the DLC meeting in OH last p.m., HRC called for a "cease fire" between the liberal and centrist wings of the party. At Daily Kos, Markos Moulitsas scoffs: "Please. The DLC has always been at the forefront of intra-party mud-slinging. They're just finally being called on it ... If she wanted to give a speech to a centrist organization truly interested in bringing the various factions of the party together, she could've worked with NDN. Instead, she plans on working with the DLC to come up with some common party message yadda yadda yadda. Well, that effort is dead on arrival. The DLC is not a credible vehicle for such an effort. Period."

A number of left-leaning bloggers are similarly down on the DLC, its goals, its net effect, and so on. Dem activist David Sirota: "Instead of working to debunk these right-wing stereotypes, these insulated Beltway snobs seem to only feel relevant if they reinforce the right-wing stereotypes parroted by Fox News and the Republican Party. It just shows that for Democrats who want to win -- and not just preserve their status on the Washington cocktail party circuit -- the DLC is really part of the problem, not the solution." Hullabaloo's Digby responds to DLCer Will Marshall's contention that the left has rejected traditional patriotism, and needs to embrace it. Digby disagrees: "I don't know who he's talking about. We all have the same frame of reference as everyone else who has lived in our time. We live in the new reality too and we've come to grips with it -- we simply don't agree with their prescription for dealing with terrorism and it has nothing to do with Vietnam or patriotism."

MyDD has a message for Dems challenging Clinton in WH'08: "You cannot possibly hope to challenge her by somehow out-DLCing her. Your only option is going to be to look to outside sources of power within the Democratic Party that she would not have a stranglehold over, such as labor and the netroots."

RedState's Charles Bird opined on HRC's move: "This is smart politics on Hillary's part ... Joining the DLC will allay concerns of moderate Democrats. If she can develop an agenda and at the same time bury the hatchet a little with hardliners such as moveon.org and dKos, this can help maintain her prominence." Conservative Professor Bainbridge doesn't think she can pull it off: "Fortunately, I don't think this attempted coronation is going to sit well with the Deaniac wing of the Democrat party."

DLCer Marshall Wittman posts to his Bull Moose Blog from the meeting in OH, prior to the critical posts referenced here. He praises the Dems assembled, calling it them the "future of progressivism in America." Writes Wittman: "The Moose avers that netroots are fine but grassroots are finer."

INTEL HEARINGS: You're Nobody Until You're Leading An Investigation

At TPM Cafe, site founder Josh Marshall notes that Senate Intel Cmte chair Pat Roberts (R-KS) "has announced that he'll begin an investigation not into the origin of the Niger forgeries or the outing of Valerie Plame, but into Patrick Fitzgerald's on-going criminal probe." Marshall: "Still more the matter with Kansas." Daily Kos header: "GOP to investigate Fitzgerald"

Center-left Brendan Nyhan questions Marshall's implication that Roberts is doing the political bidding of the WH: "This is close to an accusation of obstruction of justice. And Marshall has no proof; he just asserts that the White House is involved. Didn't Democrats used to object when the GOP acted like this during the Clinton years?"

Conservative Tom Maguire: "Since the chairmen are Republicans, these may not be the most comprehensive probes in the history of Washington." However, with Oliver North in mind, he adds, "a dramatic witness can derail the most careful stage management. Hmm -- whom might the Dems attempt to cast in this role? No, Joe, put your hand down, we are looking for a fresh and at least potentially credible face. Valerie? The nation would tune in, certainly..."

The Mahablog: "'Scuse me for being jaded, but where Republicans are concerned I do look for an angle. I expect the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence will be careful not to address the Rove-Plame issue specifically. We'll see."

ROVE: Going On Strike Until Headlines Improve?

A front-paged diarist at Daily Kos headlines a post: "The SCLM Headline We've All Been Waiting For: 'What Did The President Know?'" (Note: SCLM stands for "So-Called Liberal Media".) The 7/25 column by the Washington Post's Dan Froomkin carries the above-mentioned Watergate-era question. The diarist quotes from the Froomkin column, and adds: "Thank you Dan Froomkin, for putting it out there. His White House Briefing in today's washingtonpost.com is music to my ears."

QandO's John Henke writes, "I'm throwing in my hat" on the Plame investigation. "There's plenty of room for speculation, but there's also plenty of room for uncertainty. I'm happy to wait for the Fitzgerald Report, and I'd imagine I'll accept his conclusions with little problem. I've no particular love for any White House official, and I've little interest in protecting established wrongdoing." Right Wing News comes to roughly the same conclusion: "[U]ntil there's some actual news of substance to report, I've relegated the whole Rove/Plame story to the 'Dullsville file' and don't plan on putting everyone to sleep by pontificating endlessly on the newest minor details released to the press via anonymous leak..."

Liberal Daily Howler, on a David Von Drehle profile of Fitzgerald: "A brilliant, hard-nosed prosecutor who 'got his fill of rich and powerful people' as a youth? If we were a leaker-gone-wrong in the White House, we'd be asking: Who hired this guy?"

Wizbang's Jay Tea: "A while ago, Kos over at Daily Kos decided to 'clean house' and get rid of a some of the slightly more insane barking moonbats that have taken up residence there." Tea links to a Daily Kos diary (via LGF) which compiles an extensive timeline for the careers of Rove, GOP operative Roger Stone, culminating with the Rathergate scenario, featuring an appearance by Jeff Gannon. The diarist aims to show that Rove, Stone, Karen Hughes and Dan Bartlett were responsible for disappearing Bush's TANG records and delivering bad forgeries to Bill Burkett.

ROVE II: What's More, He Was Also Cousin Larry From "Perfect Strangers

In a weekend post at RedState, contributor and Balloon Juice proprietor John Cole points out that some ex-CIA agents who signed a recent letter to the House leadership accusing the WH of outing Plame (hosted at Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo (PDF)) also participated with controversial Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) in a 7/22 hearing where it was suggested that the Bush admin "ignored warnings or may even have had a hand in" the 9/11 attacks.

Other contributing RedStaters note that one is Larry Johnson, who has recently appeared on Marshall's TPM Cafe criticizing the WH (see 7/13 Blogometer). Then RedStater "Nick Danger" points to a 7/10/01 New York Times op-ed by Johnson, titled "The Declining Terrorist Threat" (which Danger had originally posted to FreeRepublic on 9/11/01). Now PNAC's Gary Schmitt has a story up on the Weekly Standard site, "Meet Larry Johnson," which draws largely upon this last fact.

At TPM Cafe, Matt Yglesias responds in particular the Schmitt article: "[T]he relevance of [the NYT op-ed] to Johnson's writing and speaking on the Plame case utterly escapes me. But of course it doesn't really escape me. This is 'slime and defend' at its best. Joe Wilson said some stuff that was politically inconvenient for the White House. So the White House had to say some mean stuff about him. ... Now Johnson comes along and says the right is making stuff up, so it's time to go after him. Simple as that."

Conservative Protein Wisdom, on the prevalence of CIA agents hostile to the WH: "Jesus. Does anybody have a tougher job than Porter Goss?"

OHIO 02: Can A Single Blog Post Constitue A Smear Campaign?

MyDD assesses on the OH 02 special election which the liberal netroots have been cheering on: "One month ago today, the Cincinnati Enquirer ran a story on the special election entitled "GOP counting on ads, Dems on shoe leather" ... Well, it is indeed true that [Dem Paul] Hackett is massively out-canvassing [GOPer Jean] Schmidt, but now Schmidt's financial advantage has been entirely wiped out. ... If you can't make it into the district to help canvass, his Act Blue page is on the verge of passing 3000 contributers (right now it stands at 2,982) and $150K (right now it stands at 148.3K). The netroots shave done an excellent job helping Paul out in this campaign."

Pro-Hackett OH 2nd blog quotes Schmidt adviser Eric Minmayer as commenting on Hackett's service in Iraq: "I understand that Hackett did not participate in combat at all. It is still dangerous over there as I can personally attest. Let's just not act as though we led marines in combat if we did not, okay..." The quote comes from Minmayer's blog.

At Swing State Project, Tim Tagaris has a roundup of coverage, and in a diary for Daily Kos, he calls it the "'Swift Boating' of Hackett."

Last p.m., Minmayer writes at his own blog: "Let's clear up the hornet's nest about Hackett's service in Iraq. Earlier today I sent an email to him asking direct questions" about the nature of his service. He lists the questions, and concludes: "Dear readers, I will post the reply, when I get one. This is not disrespect, this a legitimate list of questions considering his ad implies he led marines in combat."

WHITE HOUSE '08: Does Romney Have Actual Supporters, Or Are Conservative Bloggers' Opinions of McCain And Frist Just That Low?

Over the weekend, conservative Patrick Ruffini hosted his 3rd WH'08 poll: "In February, it was a free-for-all with most potential candidates ('too hot'); last time it was a series of coldly calculating two-way matchups ('too cold'). For this one, I'm simulating a five-way between George Allen, Bill Frist, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney ('just right')." Results as of this a.m.:

     Candidate    Votes    %age
     Allen         2778    37.5
     Giuliani      2542    34.3
     Romney         886      12
     McCain         706     9.5
     Frist          434     5.9
     NA              62     0.8

Last p.m., Ruffini looked at the results (which were essentially the same), with a breakdown of preference-by-referring blog.

At The Corner, John J. Miller and K.J. Lopez both link to Romney's Boston Globe op-ed explaining his contraception bill veto, in which he states: "I am prolife." Lopez summarizes, "in essence, Romney's announcement he's not running for reelection and is running for president."

LABOR: Union Station

Lefty labor blogger Nathan Newman, on the labor split, at TPM Cafe: "[T]he effects of the disaffiliations will be that we'll see some experiments, probably now in both the remaining AFL-CIO unions as well as in CtW, on different organizing strategies. There may be some gains from some healthy competition and maybe some losses from repetition and wasted resources, but this is not some epic divide in the labor movement, like the old AFL v. Knights of Labor, AFL v. IWW, or AFL v. CIO fights." In all, he thinks "people are making too much" of the split.

Libertarian Vodkapundit speaks for many on the right re: the AFL-CIO breakup: "Unions had their time. Way back when, workers were treated as chattel, or worse. Unions gave a negotiating voice to those without one, and (sometimes) a mailed fist to hit back at the Pinkerton goons some businesses used to keep their workers oppressed. But those days are long gone, and so is most of the unions' utility. ... Would competition be good for the union movement? Undoubtedly. But it's also sweet, sweet justice for a particular labor union which tried to all but outlaw competition for labor, itself."

Citing the labor split and Roberts' relatively warm reception, among other issues, Viking Pundit declares: "What a great day to be a Republican. All of our traditional enemies are split, demoralized, and increasingly irrelevant..." PoliPundit's Alexander McClure says the same thing: "So, the AFL-CIO is breaking apart, and major Democratic donors in New York City are giving to Michael Bloomberg, as if he needs the money to win re-election. So much for the old Democratic theme song Happy Days Are Here Again."

But RedState's Mark Kilmer thinks it probably "shouldn't hurt the Dems"

SANTORUM: How Many Pointed Questions Did The Post Choose To Leave Out?

Lefty Steve Gilliard on Sen. Rick Santorum's (R-PA) 7/25 Washington Post live chat: "The Post had NO questions about his getting a free ride for homeschooling his kids, his wife's lawsuit, the Schiavo fundrasing or his gay aide? Much less his rabidly homophobic comments. Why the hell not? They had ONE question about his blaming Boston for priestly pedophilia. Instead, people were treating his idiotic book like Dr. Phil wrote it. I wonder where the tons of hostile questions went, or did they just 'avoid' them."

TERRORISM: "The Metrics" Was Pretty Cool, But The Sequels Sucked

NRO's Mark Levin, at The Corner: "McCain, having thoroughly screwed up the financing of federal elections, is on to his next subject -- interrogating detainees. I have no problem with Congress's constitutional oversight authority, but legislatively spelling out the circumstances and conditions of interrogations, which McCain and others are now seeking to do, is a completely different matter. ... Issues arise during war that do not lend themselves to broad legislative mandates."

Mark Leon Goldberg at TAPPED: "Assuming -- and I'm going out on a limb here -- that a good metric for measuring the success of the global war on terrorism is the frequency of significant terrorist attacks worldwide, the dramatic increase of such attacks since 2003 implies to those who value empiricism that the Iraq War was a strategic blunder in the war on terrorism. Even if we were to smoke the Stephen Hayes pipe and believe that Hussein and bin Laden were full partners, that still wouldn't change the fact that the Iraq War has utterly failed to diminish the frequency and deadliness of Islamist-inspired terrorist attacks around the world. Might be nice to see the Standard acknowledge that."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Sassy!

Liberal hawk Roger L. Simon noted yesterday a.m. that CNN.com has featured most prominently the "accidental shooting" of a Brazilian man by London police, such that it "pushed the bombings themselves off their front page, as well as the subsequent bombings in Sharm el-Sheik in which many dozens were murdered (quite intentionally, not accidentally) by homicidal Islamists."

MISCELLANY: On The Hustings

• In the 7/25 Blogometer we noted criticism of AEI scholar John Lott re: a canceled debate with the U. Chicago Federalist Society; over the weekend, Lott gave his side of the story at his blog, John Lott's Website.
• Righty Michelle Malkin talked on the phone with PA LG Catherine Baker Knoll CoS Sal Sirabella, who was then drafting a letter of apology (which Malkin later posted) for Knoll's having disrupted the funeral of a Marine killed in Iraq (see 7/25 Blogometer). Malkin relates: "Sirabella read parts of the letter on the phone, and it will include boilerplate pablum about how Knoll "supports the troops" and is "sorry for the misunderstanding" ... Sirabella says that Knoll has no plans to make herself available for public comment about her obnoxious crashing of Staff Sgt. Goodrich's funeral. She will not hold a press conference. She will not take phone calls from the media. She will not address constituents who have complained or veterans who have protested. If Knoll thinks the letter is going to put things to rest, she clearly misunderstands the situation."
• As the Times of London reports, the Guardian has fired journalist Dilpazier Aslam, who is the member of an extremist political party but did not disclose this fact before writing a controversial op-ed after the 7/7 attacks. As the Times notes, right-leaning UK blogger Scott Burgess is largely responsible for reporting the Aslam's affiliation. Burgess' first comment on the subject is here; his; last p.m., he provides a round-up of his own coverage here.

BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: The Bowers Mission

Today the Blogometer talks to lefty Chris Bowers, who blogs at MyDD.

What is your full name?

Christopher James Bowers

What is your age?

31

Where did you grow up?

I grew up in Liverpool, New York, about two miles north of Syracuse, New York

Where do you live now?

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in University City.

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

I work as a blogger and a political consultant on labor/Internet matters. I have worked as a union organizer, but my experience in electoral politics is entirely at the volunteer level. I have never worked for the mainstream media.

When did you start blogging and why?

I started reading blogs in 2002 in order to look for information on the midterm elections. MyDD and Daily Kos were the first two blogs I found. I was immediately hooked because the amount of information on elections found there far surpassed mainstream media outlets. I started blogging for MyDD, which I still blog for, and Swing State Project, which I no longer blog for, on the same day: April 29, 2004.

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

That is a really tough question. I have a lot of posts that I am very proud of, but I suppose my all-time favorite might be "Gallup's Shame," which can be found here. The reason I chose this one is because around one week after I wrote this some of my friends began asking me questions like "do you believe Gallup has too many Republicans in their polls?" These tended to be my less politically engaged friends who never read my blog, and they had no idea I had played a big role in helping push that idea into the mainstream. A couple months ago my girlfriend made a comment like "well, if Bush is only at 45 in Gallup, then his approval must be much lower in reality," without knowing I had helped push that idea. It makes me feel as though I have contributed to the national discourse, if only in a small way.

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

Monday through Friday, I blog for at least eight hours a day, starting around ten and ending around six. Often I will also put in a few hours in the evening, usually looking for stories to write about the next day and moderating the MyDD community. On Saturday and Sunday I put in half days-around four to six hours. Overall, I probably blog for sixty hours every week.

I try to write longer posts than the average blog, I also try to produce a significant amount of original research, with less focus on The Big Story of the Day than the average blog. I produce around twenty-five posts every week, averaging a little over 1,000 words each.

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

Jerome Armstrong [of MyDD] is, and always has been, my favorite political blogger. This may sound like I am sucking up, but it is the truth. MyDD was the first blog I ever found, and it was always my favorite. I truly admire his grasp of politics, strategy, elections and organizing. Also, not only do we share the belief that the primary purpose of blogging is action and agitation, no other individual is more responsible for building the progressive netroots than Jerome. He is the progressive Blogfather.

As far as non-political blogs go, I choose Rob Neyer. He has completely changed the way I look at baseball.

Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?

Matt Bai in the New York Times magazine is my favorite political writer in the MSM. If that doesn't count, I'll go with Grance Franka-Ruta, even if it irritates me that I am a year older than her. If she doesn't count, then I'll go with Frank Rich of the New York Times.

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

"The Daily Show"

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

New York Times, Washington Post, Yahoo News, and Google News. Until recently, National Journal as well, but I'm having trouble with my password.

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

I cycle through about fifteen or twenty blogs every day: Daily Kos, Political Wire, The Gadflyer, BOP News, Donkey Rising, Atrios, Washington Monthly, Talking Points Memo, Buzzflash, Billmon, Liberal Oasis, Oliver Willis, BooMan Tribune, TalkLeft, Seeing the Forest, and Swing State Project.

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

Around once or twice a week. Sometimes I read free ones on the subway, or buy the New York Times for trips on trains and planes.

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

I imagine that the MSM will continue to adopt certain elements of blogging, like having more bloggers come on as pundits, and having more of their columnists start blogs. At the same time, as blogs continue to draw away the hard-core political audience from the MSM and receive more credibility, I imagine that coverage of political news will continue to decline in the MSM. This will result in a blurring of the difference between inside and outside. Already, with the Republican Noise Machine, it is becoming difficult to tell the difference between "regular" and "alternative" news sources. My sense it that trend will only accelerate into a truly post-modern news landscape.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Four Years Hence

At Protocols of the Yuppies of Zion, "Asparagirl" writes, "I have not gone soft on the war on terror. But I have gone rather silent on it lately, and there are several good reasons ... chief among those reasons is the refusal to become a repetitive Cassandra. When you spend months writing long screeds about your views and fears about the war, about how widespread and terrible it could potentially become, about the emergent anti-Semitism on the Left being the cliched "canary in the coalmine", about Europe's vulnerable people and foolish leaders thinking they are magically safe from terrorism, about the delusional cognitive dissonance in the Arab Muslim world that both celebrates 'martyrdom' and simultaneously denies that its main perpetrators and victims are Arab Muslims, about the strain of self-hatred that runs through too much of the West, and so on, and so forth... well, why retype it all again when it just becomes that much more apparent three years later? The appeal of saying (or blogging) "I told you so" is universal, but no one really wants to be right about such gloomy, bloody things."

LEST WE FORGET: This Is Your Hearing!

At WuzzaDem, John Roberts' confirmation hearings turn into a game show. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), as a contestant on the "Dating Game": "Good morning, Judge. If I were a Tootsie Roll Pop, what would do to me if you wanted to get to my chewy Tootsie Roll center?" Actually, several game shows. We've already said too much.

°   °   °   °   °

BLOGOMETER SPECIAL: Reds

What the blogs are saying about Pres. Bush's pick of John Roberts for the SCOTUS:

FEDERALIST SOCIETY: Witness

Under the header "Have You Ever Been a Member of the Federalist Society?" Volokh Conspiracy's pseudonymous Juan Non-Volokh posts a list of questions that Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT) asked judge Edith Clement during her '01 confirmation to the Fifth Circuit. Among them: "What does it mean to be a member of the Federalist Society as a judge?" and "Do you share a judicial philosophy with the Federalist Society?" and "Did you consider resigning from the Federalist Society when you became a judge? If not, why not?" He later updates to note that some of Pres. Clinton's nominees were asked similar questions re: the ACLU.

Objective Justice hosts a blog post "carnival" for legal bloggers -- "Blawg Review #16"; for plenty of links to different thoughts on Roberts, his nomination, his background and likely impact, check it out.

PULPIT POLITICS: Opiate Of The Mass?

Liberal TAPPED's Jeffrey Dubner quotes from Jonathan Turley's LAT op-ed, which relates the story of Roberts telling Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) that he would "recuse himself" if the law "required a ruling that his church considers immoral." Dubner: "Oh, I don't see how that could be a problem. He'd only have to recuse himself from abortion and gay-rights cases... and maybe the death penalty... and perhaps pornography cases... and possibly questions of church-state separation... and, I suppose, poverty and social justice issues... and then there's the moral acceptability of war..."

Under the header "The Catholic Test Again?" Power Line's Paul Mirengoff comments on the same op-ed: "It's not just Federalist Society members and 'hangers-on' that some liberals would like to exclude from the Court; it's also Catholics who believe deeply in the teachings of their religion." Meanwhile, Power Line's Scott Johnson writes: "Some liberals would like to exclude from consideration for the Supreme Court anyone who belongs to, or has 'hung out with,' the main organization for conservative lawyers in the U.S. This is part of their ongoing effort, recent election results notwithstanding, to define the political mainstream as including liberals and moderates, but not conservatives."

SPECTER: He Is Haunting Conservative Bloggers

National Journal's Beltway Blogroll collects instances of conservative bloggers turning "a critical eye toward" Senate Jud Cmte chair Arlen Specter (R-PA).

Posted by at 12:31 PM

July 25, 2005

7/25: In, But Not Of?

Note for web readers: For the time being, we're still putting our SCOTUS Blogometer Special at the top of the regular, non-special Blogometer. To skip all the SCOTUS chatter, click here.

News from the weekend splits blogger attention in a few different directions, such that the swarm on WH dep. CoS Karl Rove becomes just another one of the stories. The implications of the 7/23 al Qaeda attack in Egypt, the announced breakup of the current AFL-CIO coalition, and the funeral-crashing of PA's LG were all widely discussed on the blogs this weekend and into this a.m. And that's to say nothing of the John Roberts SCOTUS nod. In some small part, it could be argued that the flap over Roberts' Federalist Society affiliation has (temporarily) replaced the various controversies around Rove, which are rapidly approaching the point of being prohibitively intricate and based more on speculation than known fact.

Liberal bloggers will probably keep the Rove case going for awhile no matter what, but the number of pixels it attracts will derive more from news (whether originating in the blogosphere or the MSM) than commentary, and ultimately, will go big-time or bust depending on the outcome of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation. We are reminded of the political firestorm this spring, when many of the same bloggers were calling for the head of House Maj. Leader Tom DeLay. The legal case at issue there is still in the TX courts, and the pursuit of DeLay is today almost nil. Whether the same happens to the Rove story over the coming days and weeks is anyone's guess.

TRACKBACKS: Does This Qualify As A Flip-Flop?

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

• This a.m. the Washington Post's Charles Lane reports that, contra previous reports that Roberts was not a member of the Federalist Society (following reports that he was) and contra statements by Roberts that he couldn't remember if he was a member or not, in fact Roberts is listed in a '97-'98 leadership directory for the conservative/libertarian legal group.
  
  

  >> From the right: Betsy's Page: "Roberts has said he wasn't a member after many media organizations had reported that he was. I guess the media couldn't stand that they had made a mistake and had repeated it over and over. So, instead, they dig up an eight-year old directory and splash it on the front page." · NRO's Jonah Goldberg: "He must pay. He must apologize like Henry in the snows of Canosa for this perfidy. Take his liver, I say!" · PoliBlog: "I will say that given the strenuous denials that Roberts was ever in the Federalist Society does make this something that Roberts/the admin will have to dance around."
  
  

  >> From the left: MyDD: "I wonder what else he has forgotten. Perhaps he has forgotten that he served a purely political position in the solicitor's general's office. ... These seem to be things that even fellow Democrats are forgetting. This guy is not another David Souter." · Duncan Black: "When they feel the need to lie about the little things ... we know they have no problem lying about the big ones..." · Kevin Drum: "Look, I'm always up for a spirited round of conservative scandal-mongering, but this is about the lamest excuse for a nano-scandal that I've seen in a long time."
  
  

  >> More: The Sideshow; Corrente; Volokh Conspiracy.

CONFIRMATION: If Roberts' Confirmation Is Basically A Given, All That's Left Is To Game Out How The WH'08 Dems Will Vote ...

The Drudge Report has an "exclusive" report quoting a "top Hillary source" indicating that Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) has "confided to associates that she intends to vote FOR" Roberts. The reaction is midly skeptical.

Left-leaning Brendan Nyhan: "Given what Drudge did to [Pres.] Clinton in the 1990s, it would certainly be ironic if her campaign is actually leaking to him now. But given [Matt] Drudge's standards of 'journalism,' this might be complete garbage." RedState's Confirm Them's "RyanK": "I'm not buying it just yet, primarily because I do not believe she has the 2008 nomination wrapped up." Headline at conservative Power Line: "HILLARY WAS ALWAYS SMARTER"

THE FIGHT: Out -- Borking; In -- Estradification

Conservative PoliPundit takes issue with John Kerry calling on the WH to release Roberts' records "in their entirety," considering Kerry's stinginess with his SF-180 military records: "Judge Roberts could just follow the senator's example and release his records (see 5/25 Blogometer). But only to three friendly reporters. And only after he's confirmed. And isn't there the wee matter of attorney-client privilege between Roberts and the White House he was advising?"

Captain's Quarters, on the WH's announcement that it would not hand over Roberts' papers from the solicitor's office: "The Bush administration must keep its spine stiffened on this point, and break out the Byrd option at the first hint of a filibuster. If the Democrats attempt to Estradify a Supreme Court nominee the way they've done to John Bolton, they will kiss their red-state Senate seats goodbye in 2006, and perhaps hand the GOP a filibuster-proof minority."

IMPACT: Peeling Back The Layers

DLC pres. Bruce Reed writes in a post at his Slate blog, The Has Been: "The best window into what kind of justice Roberts will become may be what kind of judges he helped Reagan pick." He notes that of Reagan's judges, 59% had "exceptionally well-qualified" or "well-qualified" ratings from the ABA, well-below the judges picked by Dem presidents, and below Bush 41's as well. They were also "95 percent male, 97 percent white, 24 percent Ivy League." Reed quotes from an '03 exchange between Roberts and Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT), where Roberts claims judges who said they would put political considerations above legal ones would not be promoted. Roberts said this was because they wanted "judges who were going to follow the rule of law." Reed comments: "Maybe. But it seems just as likely that the process was designed for another purpose: to weed out candidates who'd never get past the Judiciary Committee because they gave their politics away with every answer."

U.S. News' Michael Barone writes in a letter to Power Line: "My radical proposal, which I am sure will never be adopted, is: reduce the number of Supreme Court law clerks to one or two. My expected result, were this ever to be done: many fewer separate opinions and clearer, more straightforward opinions that intelligent citizens could easily read in full. ... As for Justice Roberts, he seems clearly to be a man who will not be moved away from his convictions by his clerks."

From Think Progress' SCOTUS-focused blog, Supreme Court Extra (nee Clerks): "Hoping against hope that Roberts will turn out to be another Souter strikes me as a very dangerous form of wishful thinking that has been spreading through left wing blog comments."

TAPPED's Sam Rosenfeld notices pieces by New York Times columnist David Brooks and Weekly Standard publisher Bill Kristol calling Roberts "the sort of person who rises when a movement is mature and running things" (Brooks' description). Rosenfeld is skeptical: "Does the mere existence and ascension of a respectable, well-credentialed, well-connected, conservative jurist really merit the potent symbolic weight these guys are trying to attach to it? ... Not to put too fine a point on it, but" GOP governance since '94 "has been characterized by corruption, incompetence, managerial ineptitude, and a rather elastic adherence to actual conservative principles, and that puts folks like the Standard's editors into some tough binds at times."

Supreme Court Nomination Blog's Lyle Denniston takes an in-depth look at Roberts' rulings per the war on terrorism.

POLITICAL MONEY BLOG: When The Bar Meets The Sidebar

PFA has a blogad up promoting its website JudgeRoberts.com, plus an "exclusive [online] commercial." The ad features the standard head shot of Roberts and features a quote from quote from "Former Al Gore Attorney David Boies": "Judge Roberts is a brilliant lawyer, a brilliant judge. He is a very careful judge, a thoughtful judge. I would agree with what the President said earlier. He is a decent man. I think everybody who knows him likes him." The campaign began on 7/21 and will run through 7/27.

PFA spokesperson Jessica Boulanger explained: "We were looking for a good cross section of blogs where we felt we could reach the largest number of members of our target audience. Just as we do with all of our online adbuys, we'll evaluate the performance when it's done and use that info for future buys." More: "Bloggers are influential and an important part of this process. They have audiences we want to reach."

PFA placed the $3.5K ad buy through BlogAds for space on about 30 weblogs "of a right, libertarian, or legal bent." Those blogs include PoliPundit, Instapundit, Blogs for Bush, Outside The Beltway

For previous blogad reports, see the 7/14 and 6/17 Blogometers.

FAMOUS LAST WORDS: No Vacancy

At NRO's Bench Memos, Matthew Franck disputes Sandra Day O'Connor's announcement that she would serve until her replacement was named. According to his interpretation of the relevant U.S. code, if she remains in her seat until confirmation, there is no vacancy to be filled. He adds: " I never thought Justice O'Connor understood legal principles with any particular clarity, and she departed from the Court in just such a way as to prove me right."

°   °   °   °   °

BLOGOMETER: Divorce Is A Good Thing?

LABOR: The Fall Of The House Of Labor

Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum, on the AFL-CIO split: "I suspect this is for the best, since the two halves have genuinely different goals and a breakup will allow them to pursue those goals as aggressively as they want. Still, I sure hope Andy Stern knows what he's doing..." TPM Cafe's House of Labor bloggers don't have much to add -- posts are few and comments are minimal; ex-AFL-CIOer Bill Fletcher expresses "sadness and frustration."

At The Next Hurrah, "DHinMI" considers potential repercussions for Dems: "[W]ithout voters from union households, Kerry would have been slaughtered. Other than maybe gay environmentalists with a PhD who live in Brookline, MA or Manhattan, about the only segment of white males who consistently vote Democratic are union members."

MyDD's Chris Bowers, who discloses his paid consulting for SEIU, calls it "huge -- at least as big as" Karl Rove or John Roberts. He argues that Stern is likely doing the right thing, as "the value of maintaining the current structure is not in clear to me. What ... Stern and SEIU [are] doing seems to be working, as they are actually rapidly increasing in size at a time when overall unions are in decline. I, for one, am more willing to support a plan that seems to be working rather than one that seems to be failing." At Daily Kos, Markos Moulitsas is disappointed but optimistic, writing, "fact is, the AFL-CIO is broken and there was no will to reform. And when the status quo won't budge, sometimes it takes drastic measures to shake the establishment out of its inertia."

ROVE: Mind The Gap

On 7/16, a diarist at Daily Kos noted the "11 HOUR GAP" between when then-WH counsel Alberto Gonzales found out about the DoJ's investigation into the Plame leak and when he told the WH staff to preserve relevant documents. In the New York Times this weekend, Frank Rich brings issue back to the fore.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post reports that Gonzales informed WH CoS Andrew Card about 12 hours before the rest of the staff knew. In a new post on the matter, Daily Kos' Moulitsas suggests, "it was a heads up to the administration to what, fire up the shredders?"

JustOneMinute's Tom Maguire writes, the Post makes this a "bigger deal than necessary," noting that news reports made it clear that "criminal referral was imminent" and so with or without Gonzales' notification, "any criminal conspirators had plenty of warning."

David Corn lists the "ritualistic moments" of the Rove/Plame scandal, including the "lack of attention from the establishment press," the "dismissal from spinners," the WH "stonewalling," and the "inconvenient quote." But one key moment "has yet to occur: a member of the president's own party publicly criticizing the White House for the wrongdoing being investigated." Yet so far GOPers have closed ranks, even, "[s]adly," John McCain.

INTELLIGENCE: Different Roberts

Liberal Talking Points Memo calls Senate Intel Cmte chair Pat Roberts (R-KS) a "shame": "Note that there are no congressional investigations into the origin of the Niger forgeries, the outing of Valerie Plame, and countless other scandals and mysteries large and small. (Remember, after the 2004 election, Roberts announced that there's now not enough time for the investigation into possible political manipulation of Iraqi WMD intel, which he promised prior to the election.) But now there will be congressional hearings into whether the CIA does a good enough job at protecting the 'cover' of its agents in its Directorate of Operations. It's necessary to unpack this one to see just what a lickspittle the Senator from Kansas really is." He does. Stygius, on the same topic, headlines a post: "Pat Roberts tries to pull a fast one"

The Left Coaster's "eriposte" launches into a multi-part analysis of the "whitewash" Senate Intel report on Iraq and Niger's uranium, answering in part 1 the question, did the report provide justification for the claim that Saddam was "recently seeking significant quantities" of uranium. The answer: "a resounding NO."

Right-leaning Balloon Juice notices ex-Defense Undersec. Jed Babbin discussing an apparent DoJ investigation into Dem Sens. Jay Rockefeller (WV), Dick Durbin (IL) and Ron Wyden (OR) having "leaked details about a secret 'black ops' CIA satellite program" in 12/04, adding: "I am fighting a mighty urge not to say something like 'the CIA referred it, so it must be serious.' Woops." More: "As a general rule, if you even think it might be sensitive information, don't blab it? Is that too difficult a principle for everyone in DC?

TERRORISM: London And Beyond

Instapundit collects reactions to the misbegotten Tube shooting from moderates Joe Gandelman and Ann Althouse, who writes: "[I]f anyone ever behaves like [the victim] again, the presumption that he is a terrorist will be so overwhelmingly strong that the police really must kill him." Some Instapundit readers suggest it was a case of "suicide by cop."

Atrios, on the same incident: "This issue is not those who are second-guessing cops who are frequently in horrible positions. ... The issue is the cheerleaders of the 'shoot first ask questions later' attitude, and the critics of those who dare suggest that shooting someone the government has labelled 'terrorist suspect' absent trial is problematic. [Pres.] Bush and the Right generally have become masters of this rhetorical trick. Criticize the Bush policies in Iraq? You're attacking the troops! ... It's long past time for the Right to take responsible for its own actions and rhetoric, and stop trying to pawn it off on those on the front lines."

The Left Coaster's Matt Davis snarks: "I think it's important that we all understand why these kinds of attacks happen. These people hate Egypt's freedoms."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Have You Had Your Phil?

In the 7/7 and 7/8 Blogometers we mentioned the outcry over the New York Times' manipulation of an op-ed by milblogger Phil Carter. On 7/17, Times public editor Barney Calame published an explanation, and on 7/24, Calame ran a column of letters from still-angry readers. Conservative Medacrity comments: "Basically, Calame put his increasingly pathetic column on autopilot, while he goes back to sleep on the divan. ... Every biased and inept journalist loves reader letters. They are a thousand times better than the Public Editor roasting your tootsies."

MSM VS. THE BLOGS: Was The Denver-Area Press Threatened By All The Scoops Colorado Pols Has Been Getting? (Does The Pope Wear A Funny Hat?)

Having "traced e-mails" from a pseudonym of the heretofore anonymous Colorado Pols founder, Rocky Mountain News' Jim Tankersley and M.E. Sprengelmeyer on 7/23 identified that person as Jason Bane, a journalist, a registered Dem, and aide to Denver DA Mitch Morrissey's '04 campaign. Bane "admitted responsibility" for the site, which he runs with 2 others, including a GOPer. Bane: "Certainly I have had a lot of involvement with it. It's not my blog."

Colorado Pols noted the article when it was posted on 7/22 p.m., under the header "Caught!": "Colorado Pols is the work of many people on different sides of the aisle, and only one of those identities have been revealed (the others will not be, unless some news entity finds it on their own)."

TANCREDO: That's Tancredible!

Conservative radio talker Hugh Hewitt calls Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) "preoccupied with attention-getting statements," "incoherent" (more than once) and writes, Tancredo's argument is an "insult to every Muslim who has courageously stood up to Islamist terror..." More Hewitt: "No serious politician in the country has come to Tancredo's defense, and indeed I have not seen any credible authority on war or religion endorse this foolishness." Conservative Minneapolis Star-Tribune columnist James Lileks: "Bombing Mecca to revenge the acts of maniacs is like nuking the Vatican to protest the pedophilia scandal in Boston." But he adds: "Providing he apologizes, this incident shouldn't discredit his concerns over border security."

Noting the launch of a Stop Tancredo website, Colorado Pols opines: "Protesting Tom Tancredo is like protesting Ward Churchill. In the end, all you're doing is making their voices louder..."

BYRD: Sometimes It Makes Me Wonder How I Keep From Going Under

Silflay Hraka is one of a few conservative bloggers to pick up on a questionable sentence from a letter by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) praising John Roberts, here referenced by the Washington Times. About the "mollycoddling of criminals," Byrd -- whom Silflay Hraka designates "(KKK-W.Va)" -- is quoted: "One's life is probably in no greater danger in the jungles of deepest Africa than in the jungles of America's large cities." Silflay Hraka: "Post-colonial imperialist connotations aside, does anybody think Trent Lott could get away with saying something like that?"

IN THE STATES: Crash

In a post titled "Outrage: The Funeral Crasher," conservative Michelle Malkin writes: "Milbloggers and e-mailers are buzzing about" how "moonbat" PA LG Catherine Baker Knoll (D) "reportedly showed up uninvited at a Marine's funeral and voiced her anti-war views." Blackfive quotes from the relevant Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article, provides contact info for Gov. Ed Rendell (D-PA) and links to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review's page about the Marine, Sgt. Joseph Goodrich.

PoliPundit's Alexander McClure speculates: "It should be interesting to see if Ed Rendell comes out against the Iraq War to rescue his hapless and rude Lieutenant Governor. If he does, that could end up bringing national security and terrorism into the gubernatorial race next year. Such a development would, I think, help the GOP in Pennsylvania." The incident reminds conservative John Hawkins of the movie "Cadillac Man." A RedState diarist: "I don't have much to add here, other than to say I am completely outraged."

INTRODUCING: Who Says Looks Aren't Everything?

Newly redesigned this weekend: Hugh Hewitt's eponymous blog and Jeff Jarvis' BuzzMachine. Other site redesigns in the past few weeks include Americans For Bayh and John Cole's Balloon Juice.

MISCELLANY: More Blogs, Less Time

• Liberal Australian prof Tim Lambert writes that controversial AEI scholar/pro-gun author John Lott "libels" John Donohue from the U. Chicago Federalist Society over a debate that never came to be.
• Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) will answer questions in a Washington Post live chat today; over the weekend, Philly-based lefty Atrios posted a link, encouraging his readers to pose questions.
• Conservative Robert George: "John Bolton will never be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Whether he should be or not is no longer the question. Whether the 'temperament' charges against him were fair or if he was just a victim of Chris Dodd's pro-Cuba fetish doesn't matter. It is now politically impossible." It has to do with Roberts and Plame. He explains.
• On 7/22, ex-Sen. John Edwards' One America Committee posted links to facilitate reader participation in online polls hosted by CNN, FNC, etc. as it does every few days.
• At Washington Monthly's Political Animal, Los Angeles Times' Michael Hiltzik praise the work done by outgoing Times editor John Carroll.
• Re: the commentary about John Roberts' personal life extending from a New York Times profile (see 7/22 Blogometer), Unfogged is one of a few liberal blogs to mock conservative blogs such as Reasoned Audacity for taking some comments too seriously. Unfogged's "Fontana Labs" snarks: "Our cause is doomed."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Putting Them On The Map

Conservative TigerHawk: "Test your knowledge of the location of European countries here. Victory lap moment: I scored 44 out of 45 countries, having blown San Marino notwithstanding the small assist the game gives you for the microstates. Atlanticist triumphalism moment: How many Europeans can score 98% locating American states? Finally, I hereby challenge everybody with a bumper sticker that reads "49% of Americans agree with 99% of the rest of the world" to a geography contest, head-to-head, right now."

LEST WE FORGET: May The Best Man Win

NYC-based Gawker is hosting a poll for readers to vote for the "Gawker Hotties," or "Men of the Times"; categories include "Love Him For His Brain" and "Love Him For His Body." As of this a.m., crossword puzzle editor Will Shortz easily leads the pack in the former category, while Styles editor Warren St. John holds a narrow lead over Metro reporter/ex-Washington Monthly writer Nicholas Confessore in the latter.

Posted by at 12:46 PM

July 22, 2005

7/22: Implied Society

What the blogs are saying about the SCOTUS vacancy:

Most on the right initially shrugged off the Ann Coulter column criticizing Pres. Bush's selection of John Roberts for the open SCOTUS seat, but there is in fact an emerging subset of conservatives who are concerned about his conservative credentials. His lack of a paper trail put Coulter and some conservative bloggers on notice, and the widely-read "PoliPundit" (founder of the aptly-named PoliPundit) is alarmed by liberal Harvard law prof Lawrence Tribe's assessment of Roberts -- Tribe "does not recall Roberts as a political conservative" at Harvard. PoliPundit: "It'll be months, or even years, before we know if Roberts is just another Souter." This sets off an intense debate in the 135 comments that follow the post.

Moreover, the initial assumption of Roberts' membership in the Federalist Society has been revealed to be a mistaken one, and as we'll see below, there are a few concerns. Their qualms tidily mirror the nonchalance of many liberal bloggers, as noted in this space in recent days. The dissenters bear watching, but by and large Roberts has the solid support of the right.

FEDERALIST SOCIETY: Whoops!

As the Washington Post corrected on 7/21, Roberts is not a member of the conservative/libertarian Federalist Society, contrary to numerous previous reports. Bloggers comment:

• Right-leaning Southern Appeal's "JoelL": "By and large I am satisfied with the nomination ... However, I find it odd that at this point in his career we don't know more about where he stands." He updates later with news that Roberts is not a Society member, he adds: "Now I am a little more concerned."
• Conservative "Patterico": "It seems like yesterday that I was talking about how [Los Angeles Times'] David Savage often seems to get things wrong on the law and the judiciary -- to the detriment of conservatives, naturally -- when the Washington Post gets them right. (To be fair, the WaPo got this one wrong initially as well.)"
• Liberal Ezra Klein: "Both sides think, deep down, very secretly, that he's the sort of conservative they like, either an extremist or an impostor. Sounds much like Clinton, where New Democrats thought he was their boy, liberals though he was their boy, and he ended up being circumstance's boy. But were I conservative, I wouldn't be so relieved that folks in the know were flooding the airwaves with assurances."
• GOP Bloggers: "The immediate near-unanimity of the 'Right's' coronation of Roberts ushering in a new right-ward shift left me even more uneasy since all of this was based on ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE. Anytime I see potential group-think so quickly form, I recoil even further. ... Why do we give the money we give, lick the stamps we lick, write the letters we write, register the voters we register, relentlessly blog the critical messages we blog, and vote overwhelmingly the way we vote when there are just as many arguments to be made that we have just nominated the next David Souter as there are that we have nominated the next Antonin Scalia?"
• Conservative Power Line: "It is striking how little of John Roberts's thoughts on issues of concern to conservatives can fairly be deduced from his public commitments or comments. ... I wish we had more to go on, but I agree with Judge Roberts's former summer clerk. 'My best guess' is that Judge Roberts is one of us."
• Left-leaning Corrente calls the Post story "mysteriously unenlightening" and notes that membership is secret and identification with the Society is up to the member: The headline should read that Roberts says he isn't a member of the Federalist Society, or, even more precisely, can't seem to remember whether he was or not. Look, I don't care if Roberts lied to us. He's a Republican, so we expect that. But should someone with a memory that bad really be on the Supreme Court? Why, he might forget about the Bill of Rights! Oh, wait..."
• Economist Steve Verdon: "Everybody update your talking points."
• Liberal Blue Mass Group asks: "Is there something that bugs him about the Federalist Society? ... Did he just never get around to sending in his fifty bucks? Hard to say. But his non-membership does carry just a hint of a suggestion of the possibility that he's not the hard-core, team player, belt-and-suspenders right-wing activist that the Dobsonites so desperately want on the Supreme Court."

REPUBLICANS: Nah, He'll Do

Conservative WILLisms is less concerned, noting that his employers have given predominantly to the GOP, and Roberts' personal contributions have been to GOPers only. While "at least one" Dem may raise objection to Roberts' BC'00 contribution, this and other info "ought to put conservative Republicans somewhat at ease."

Hugh Hewitt: "I haven't gone back to check yet, but my guess is that the nomination of the relatively young William Rehnquist in the fall of 1971 was met with some hard-core conservative opposition..." He also expects Bush's next pick to be a better-known conservative, adding, "and when that happens, perhaps [Roberts skeptic] Fred [Barnes] will see that there was a plan: To put Roberts into the O'Connor chair, and Judge Luttig into the Chief's seat, both of which minimized out-of-the-gate opposition."

And RedState, which is organized as a 527, announces its formal endorsement of Roberts: "The Directors of RedState.org, Inc. urge the Senate to move forward promptly with the confirmation of John Roberts, give him a fair hearing, refrain from partisan hyperbole, and confirm him to the United States Supreme Court."

MISCELLANY: Dressed To Bork

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff asks, can Senate Dems "afford not to go after Roberts big-time? The key liberal interest groups aren't backing off. Yesterday, the president of NOW publicly compared Roberts to [Robert] Bork. These folks are "all dressed up," and the Senate Democrats may pay a price if they deny them "someplace to go."

Liberal blogger Micah Holmquist went up with a post originally titled "John Roberts should be questioned about his involvement in Iran-Contra" -- until he was tipped off that the John Roberts involved back then was not the same John Roberts. As per blogger etiquette, the post remains where it was, albeit struck-through to indicate the author knows the info is incorrect.

Right-leaning David Adesnik responds to Sandra Day O'Connor's take on Roberts -- "He's good in every way, except he's not a woman" -- at OxBlog: "I would have been much happier if O'Connor said that she can't stand John Roberts, but that what's between his ears matters far more than what's between his legs. If there is one institution in this country that should be protected from affirmative action, then the Supreme Court is it."

Bench Memos posts Sen. Chuck Schumer's (D-NY) list of questions for Roberts.

PrawfsBlawg: "While not approaching the florid prose of Justice Scalia, Judge Roberts' opinions have some interesting rhetorical characteristics -- amounting to what I might call the judicial version of 'compassionate conservatism.'" The style "consists in expressing demonstrative sympathy for the unfortunate 'victim' of official action, while at the same time proclaiming that no legal remedy exists."

GOSSIP: How Much Of This Tongue-In-Cheek? (P.S. This Is Why Bloggers Get A Bad Name)

Left-leaning Wonkette draws conclusions about Roberts' personal life based on the New York Times' Roberts profile.

• Univ. Madison-WI prof Ann Althouse writes, "the same notion crossed my mind. I do think the NYT piece was subtly constructed to plant this idea."
• In a widely-linked post late 7/20, Confederate Yankee noticed similar comments being made on liberal blogs about Roberts' family.
• Incidentally, this is the same profile that caused liberal Eschaton to deride the Times as "Pravda on the Hudson" (see 7/21 Blogometer).

FAMOUS LAST WORDS: Wet Blanket Alert

GWU prof Daniel Solove, at Balkinization: "We're really grasping at French fries, I think, to fuel our speculation over Judge Roberts. The only thing we can say for sure is that we have so extremely little to go on."

°   °   °   °   °

BLOGOMETER: Pretty Soon We're Going To Need A Flow Chart

Undoubtedly the biggest story this a.m. is a report by Bloomberg's Richard Keil that testimony before the grand jury by WH aides Karl Rove and Scooter Libby doesn't match up with testimony by reporters Tim Russert and Bob Novak. Libby says Russert told him that Valerie Plame helped send husband/ex-Amb. Joe Wilson to Iraq; Russert says this is not so. Rove says he learned of her from Novak, who gives a "somewhat different version" of the story. Rove's testimony also differs from that of Matt Cooper re: whether they discussed welfare reform during a key conversation. Liberal bloggers swarm to spread the news of these developments and attempt to figure out what it means. While many conservatives are focusing more on the John Roberts SCOTUS nod, others can't avoid mentioning the Bloomberg report.

Meanwhile, yesterday's Tube attacks and ongoing confusion cause many to think hard about terrorism; liberal bloggers discuss the OH 02 special election; plus, a right-leaning author makes waves on CNBC, and then in the blogosphere.

TRACKBACKS: Now Bloomberg Is The Popular One!

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

• CAP's ThinkProgress posted the full text of the Bloomberg article late last p.m. and, on a number of liberal blogs, gets primary credit for it. Plus, Raw Story scooped everyone else (including Matt Drudge, whose website still didn't have the news as of 9:00 this a.m.) with news that the Bloomberg story was coming. It's gloss is a bit different from Bloomberg's, heading their story: "Bloomberg reveals Rove, Libby gave false testimony." It's also similar to the Murray Waas story in the American Prospect, noted in this space on 7/20.
  
  

  >> Liberal Oliver Willis: "Sort of ironic, when you consider the GOP's past 'anger' towards those they considered to be lying under oath..." · Steve Clemons: "These guys took America into war and have relied on lies and deceit to accomplish much of what they have done. They are the most responsible for puncturing the mystique of American power, moral authority and status in the world. It is when America is showing its limits that allies will not count on us and enemies will move their agendas." · MyDD: "No matter what else happens, this will turn the media firmly and permanently against the White House. They clearly are trying to send reporters to jail to cover up their treason. The cliquish media will not forgive them for that."
  

  >> Conservative Kevin Aylward: "I'm still wholly underwhelmed by the story, but given the details that have emerged (and are likely to emerge), it's just about time that both Rove and Libby take one for the team and step down." · Decision '08 holds out for more info: "Clearly, somebody has perjured themselves (well, fairly clearly -- nothing's too clear in this thing), but who?" · At The Corner, Jonah Goldberg just notes: "Interesting."
  

  >> More reax, all from the left -- Echidne of the Snakes; Rising Hegemon; Daily Kos; Suburban Guerrilla; Political Forecast; Preemptive Karma; Max Blumenthal; onegoodmove; Jesus' General; Tennessee Guerrilla Women; Rubicon; TalkLeft; Dadahead.

ROVE: If You've Got A Modem, They've Got A Theory!

Inspired by a New York Times account of the INR report and the Iraq trip, Josh Marshall asks: "Ever wonder why George Tenet's July 11, 2003 mea culpa about the Niger uranium snafu seemed so protective of the White House? Maybe that was because it was written by Karl Rove and Scooter Libby."

JustOneMinute, the conservative blog following the Plame/Rove story most closely, states: "I believe there may be a substantial, ongoing press cover-up in the Plame leak investigation. Various White House staffers claim to have heard about Ms. Plame from reporters, but not many reporters seem to have been subpoenaed..." He cites a New York Times report that Russert told Fitzgerald that "he did not know Ms. Plame's name or that she was a CIA operative and that he did not provide that information to Mr. Libby." Pace parsing of Rove's statements, JustOneMinute wants to know: "[D]id Russert tell Libby that Joe Wilson's wife tapped him for the Niger trip, without giving a name? Did Russert say she was an 'analyst,' not an 'operative'?

Captain's Quarters thinks the evidence available makes it less likely the memo was the leaker's source, in part because "the memo referred to Valerie Plame by her married name, Valerie Wilson. She wasn't 'outed' under that name..."

RedState's "Leon H" considers the New York Times' account of whether Rove saw the INR memo: "I have been a fierce defender of Rove throughout this entire mess, but I have steadfastly maintained that if it turns out that Rove did learn of Plame's identity from classified sources, and did intentionally leak that identity to the press, I won't stand behind him. I'll not be dragged down to the level of James Carville, defending the indefensible on technicalities and throwing my own self-respect under the bus for the sake of my party." For liberals who might use the post "to make a ridiculous 'Republicans Jumping Off Rove's Bandwagon'" argument, he adds: "Rove denies having seen the memo, and I still believe him. If Fitz tells me differently I'll be the first to bite the bullet and demonstrate the difference between a Republican partisan and a Democrat partisan: I'll call for his resignation, rather than defending the indefensible."

NRO's Media Blog highlights instances from yesterday's widely-circulated Washington Post report on the INR memo marked "(S)" for secret (see 7/21 Blogometer). The article was co-written by the Post's Walter Pincus, whom Media Blog points out, "was one of the reporters who granted Joe Wilson anonymity so he could leak his lies about Niger and damage the Bush administration," and when the admin. "tried to tell Pincus that he'd been had -- that Wilson's wife had engineered the trip -- Pincus didn't write about it because ... he 'did not believe it true that she had arranged his Niger trip.'"

Anonymous Liberal weighs several possible scenarios to explain what is happening with prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation, suggesting that "someone is playing a very high-stakes game of chicken with" Fitzgerald, who "must be furious. Whoever it is is practically daring Fitzgerald to indict him/her. ... Rather, whoever it is may be gambling that, absent [Judith] Miller's testimony, Fitzgerald won't have enough evidence to prosecute and will therefore elect not to. That's a pretty big gamble." More: "It's also possible that Miller's source has come to the conclusion that an indictment is inevitable and is now attempting to minimize the possible evidence that could be used against him/her at trial."

A blogger at TPMCafe asks, in the header: "DID CONDI PUSH THE 'WILSON'S WIFE SENT HIM STORY'?"

TERRORISM: Different Worlds

• Ace of Spades HQ responds to shirts reading "I do not consent to being searched" -- which are themselves a response to reports that NYC will start searching MTA riders' bags (the shirts were also featured prominently at the Drudge Report) -- writing: "So, the lines are drawn on t-shirts. Some will refuse to acknowledge that people want to kill them, and will, whether deliberately or not, aid terrorists by causing problems in searching bags. Others accept the world as it is and have decided they'll do what is necessary to live." Confederate Yankee responds with T-shirts that say "I do not consent to being blown up"
• Jackson's Junction hosts video of Australian PM John Howard castigating a reporter re: the London attacks. A number of pro-war bloggers link; Instapundit calls it a "devastating response to dumb press questions about Iraq." Little Green Footballs calls it "brilliantly crushing..."
• Vanity Fair's James Wolcott notes the "dispute between Michael Kinsley and Mark Danner in the letters section of The New York Review of Books over the Downing Street Memos. Kinsley thinks they're of trifling importance. Danner disagrees. And sees in Kinsley's blithe dismissal a symptom of the press's failure to confront the deception and full dimensions of the Iraq debacle." Wolcott sides with Danner, and moves on to defend the notion that Britain's involvement in Iraq was a cause of the 7/7 bombings -- despite "official erasure attempts, the British people sussed out the fine mess Blair had helped get them into by attaching himself to Bush's missionary hip."
• Right-leaning GayPatriot notes the possible convergence of 2 big stories this past week -- the attempted 2nd strike on the Tube and the execution of 2 gay teenagers in Iran -- now Islamists have made threats against gay clubs in the UK. In an earlier post, Andrew Sullivan commented on the Iranian hangings, posting the photo now widespread across the blogosphere, of the 2 teens moments from execution: "I'm amazed that we haven't seen more targeting of gay clubs or venues by Islamist fanatics. And I'm saddened that more gay organizations haven't rallied to the war against Muslim religious fanatics."
• Liberal prof Juan Cole announces that he's "been trying to trace the influences on and organizational contacts of the July 7 bombers in London," and posts partial results of his research.

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: If Nothing Else, Bernie Gets The Blogosphere

Right-leaning The Political Teen hosts video of ex-CBS reporter Bernard Goldberg being "ganged up on" during a segment on CNBC's "Big Idea" to promote his book ""100 People Who Are Screwing Up America (And Al Franken Is #37)"; one was BuzzMachine's Jeff Jarvis, who writes that Goldberg "went bonkers" first, "snarling at" host Donny Deutsch "for no good reason." Goldberg's allies include conservative bloggers; Captain's Quarters contacted CNBC and notes that another "Big Idea" guest had a similar experience, concluding that Deutsch's show "has a history of this kind of Jerry Springer antics, and that those invited to participate in on-camera interviews on the CNBC show may want to reconsider." Left-leaning Crooks and Liars also hosts the video, and comments: "If I write a book attacking 97% liberals, I should expect serious grilling about the content by liberals." Captain's Quarters later points out for conspiracy theorists" that Goldberg's 7/21 appearance on "The O'Reilly Factor" marks his "ninth appearance on Fox since the release of his book..."

NRO's The Buzz: "What does Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank have against Texas Senator John Cornyn? For two days in a row, Milbank has published inaccurate or misleading statements concerning Cornyn and President Bush's Supreme Court nominee."

SPECIAL ELECTION: Can He Hackett?

Guest-blogging at Sirota Blog, Matt Singer notes, nat'l Dem orgs. are sending volunteers into OH 02 on behalf of Paul Hackett, and warns: "Here's a secret: no likes out-of-staters." The GOP "realizes this and has been building a neighbor-to-neighbor program across the country. Instead, we try to nationalize a Congressional race that is competitive because of localized ethics issues." He snarks: "We can only hope they give these out-of-staters orange hats."

Stygius: "For the sake of its own vitality, the Democratic party needs military veterans like Hackett. It injects the experience and perspective into a party needing to craft good national security policy. Unfortunately, this race has been way too far off the radar screen up til now, given it will be held on August 2.

MISCELLANY: If The BiMonSciFiCon Isn't Geeky Enough For You ...

• In Philly over Labor Day weekend, there will be Eschacon, a liberal bloggers conf. centered around blogosphere heavyweight Duncan "Atrios" Black, author of the blog Eschaton.
• NRO contributor Cathy Seipp partially transcribes an interview of Wonkette's Ana Marie Cox by Kausfiles' Mickey Kaus. Cox, responding to Columbia Journalism Review's description of bloggers as "a lynch mob of salivating morons": "I would call CJR thuggish prudes."
• The Operation Yellow Elephant campaign (see 6/21 and 7/7 Blogometers), started by liberal satirist Jesus' General, is profiled in Seattle's The Stranger.
• Daily Kos and MyDD both gloat about Rep. Katherine Harris' (R-FL) slow fundraising start for her SEN '06 bid. Kos: "That's gratitude for you, GOP style. You steal an election for them, and this is how they repay her." MyDD: "My only worry now is that she won't be the Republican nominee."
• Centrist Andrew Sullivan, on the Sudanese gov't roughing up NBC's Andrea Mitchell: "She asked the right question. [Sec/State Condoleezza] Rice did right. I think we know what that thuggish government is about. If they do this to the entourage of the secretary of state, can you imagine what they do to domestic dissenters?" Liberal Marc Cooper snarks: "Let the Sudanese government be warned: In the view of the U.S. government, killing 200,000 people in Darfur and displacing another 2 million or so is one thing. But roughing up NBC's Andrea Mitchell? Well, that is quite another!"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Even Worse Than Illinois Nazis

Vic Matus, at Galley Slaves: "At last night's sweltering game against the Colorado Rockies, some four seats down from me sat an older fellow, a white male probably in his 60s, overweight, and wearing knee supports. As I scooted past him to get to the aisle, I noticed a small tattoo on his lower leg. It was greenish blue in color, no thicker than a Sharpie. But there was no mistaking what it was: a swastika. 'That's a prison tat,' said one of my colleagues. I guess everyone has their favorite team, even a member of the Aryan Brotherhood. But I also couldn't help hoping he and his buddy would get lost somewhere in Northeast Washington after the game."

LEST WE FORGET: Now That You Mention It, "Twisting Your Mind And Smashing Your Dreams" Does Describe A Lot Of Philosophical Thought ...

At Crooked Timber, philosophy prof Harry Brighouse notes a Humboldt State call for papers on Metallica and Philosophy:

"Possible themes and topics might include, but are not limited to, the following: Search for Meaning -- 'Frantic' and 'Through the Never'; Nuclear Fear and Politics -- 'Fight Fire with Fire' and 'Blackened'; Capital Punishment -- 'Ride the Lightning'; Politics, Economics, and Ethics -- '...And Justice for All' and 'Some Kind of Monster'; The Problem of Evil -- 'Creeping Death'; Alcoholica: Free Will and Addiction -- 'Master of Puppets' and 'Fixxer'; Appearance and Reality -- 'Enter Sandman' and 'Escape'; Foucault and Metallica on Madness and Insanity -- 'Sanitarium' and 'The Frayed Ends of Sanity'; Truth -- 'Eye of the Beholder'; Hypocrisy and Inauthenticity -- 'Leper Messiah' and 'Holier Than Thou' ... Selling-Out, Commercialism and Marxism: Why did Metallica start making videos?; Napster and Intellectual Property; Group Identity and Personal Identity: Are the group members the same persons they were 20 years ago? Is it the same group it was 20 years ago, given the changes the members have undergone and given the changes in bass players?"

Brighouse comments: "I thoroughly approve of the Pop Culture and Philosophy series, but would have to rule myself out of this one."

Posted by at 12:38 PM

July 21, 2005

7/21: Supreme Snoozer?

What the blogosphere is saying about the SCOTUS vacancy:

TRACKBACKS: Slander, Treason ... The Usual

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

• At the Drudge Report, Matt Drudge promotes a column by Ann Coulter slamming SCOTUS nominee John Roberts as likely too-moderate: "Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever. ... It means absolutely nothing that NARAL and Planned Parenthood attack him: They also attacked Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy and David Hackett Souter."
  

  >> From the right -- In The Agora: "Chief Justice Rehnquist had no more experience when he was selected. The comparison between Roberts and Rehnquist is a good one, too. Rehnquist once had Roberts as a law clerk and considers him a protege." · Secular Blasphemy: "This is all we need to know to conclude that John Roberts is an excellent choice for the Supreme Court." · At The Corner, Ramesh Ponnuru writes: "I think she raises some points worth pondering ... but ultimately I disagree with her. ... think Roberts is likely to make the right decision on abortion, and that is among my reasons for supporting him. But the fact that none of us can be certain is one of the things that may get him confirmed." Conservative-friendly centrist Roger L. Simon thinks Coulter is doing Roberts "a favor": "Triangulation, anyone?"
  

  >> From the left -- Whiskey Bar calls her "over the top," and refers to her as "Frau Koch," "Ilse" and other Teutonic names. · Left in the West: "It seems that the radical right are teaming up this morning to drive the name John Roberts away from ... themselves." · Pandagon's Jesse Taylor writes, her objection "is pretty much the equivalent of Michael Moore going into the heart of Oklahoma and denouncing John Kerry as a die-hard conservative. (In other words, it can only help.)"
  

  >> More: The Moderate Voice; Michelle Malkin; Ed Driscoll; Andrew Sullivan.

CONFIRMATION: Ask Away

RedState's "Leon H", who yesterday pointed out that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg declined to answer many questions, now pulls together more think tank-provided data showing the same was true of Justices Stephen Breyer and Sandra Day O'Connor.

He quotes "Armando" at Daily Kos, who himself cites a RedState post on Ginsburg, and writes: "I tell you what I suspect -- he does not want to discuss Roe. And that is unacceptable."

At his blog, Congressional Quarterly columnist Craig Crawford decries the "disinformation out there" about Ginsburg and Breyer: "Both answered some questions, and refused others. But in Ginsburg's confirmation, she clearly told senators she favored a right to abortion (and the Equal Rights Amendment)."

The Nat'l Women's Law Center blog, NominationWatch heads a post: "The public has a right to know why the far right endorses Roberts so strongly"

THE FIGHT: Or The Lack Of One?

At Daily Kos, Markos Moulitsas expands on his previously cautious reaction (see 7/20 Blogometer) to Roberts: "It's not about giving anyone a free pass, but laying the foundation for what might come forth. It does no one any good to be hysterical about Roberts from day one, when we truly don't know who the guy is. ... So we demand a full airing of his views and prepare for what might emerge. If we don't like what we see, then whack. We let loose the artillery."

NRO's Bench Memos has been running a series of posts "Feeble, Laughable PFAW" -- here's installment V.

Conservative Real Clear Politics: "Barring some revelation on John Roberts that has been missed in the previous 5 FBI background checks and the 2003 confirmation hearings, this nomination is almost certainly a done deal."

Center-left Bull Moose Blog: "While abortion is clearly a critical issue, Democrats should also develop a compelling narrative that explains what is the impact of a right wing court on the everyday lives of Americans. In addition, the donkey should also be making the argument that there must be a check on the Republican lock on all three branches of government."

NAM is one of the business groups that have been recently more involved in the judicial battles, and at NAM's blog, Patrick Cleary writes: "We will begin to be involved in this most important nomination, starting today."

Confirm Them notes a Howard Kurtz story on blogger conf. calls with Dem senators, and writes, it's "interesting to see how many on the Left are refusing to get on board with the 'attack Roberts no matter how silly you'll sound' game plan. In many ways, the Left's inability to mount a straightforward attack on Roberts speaks volumes about his qualifications, temperament and other attributes. There's no question that the Left will hone and ramp up its attacks as the weeks go on, but for now, their collective incoherence is reassuring."

MORE REAX: Even The Dissent Seems Somewhat Muted

At Reason's Hit and Run, Daniel Koffler writes, "Roberts' ruling last week in the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case should be troubling to civil libertarians and folks generally concerned with executive branch abuses of power under the guise of national security. ... Roberts approved of [trials for al Qaeda members where they have no right to be present] on the grounds, in the words of the opinion written by his co-panelist A. Raymond Randolph, that Congress' enabling of the executive branch to use 'all necessary and appropriate force' after September 11 was in effect an authorization of review by military tribunals."

Law prof Randy Barnett: "Sorry, I seemed to have fallen asleep. I guess that means ... John Roberts is who you get when the President finally nominates the 'best qualified' candidate." He adds: "In his distinguished career, he has somehow managed not to give a speech or write an article that reveals the core of his judicial philosophy. ... But what may be missing is a judicial philosophy that will withstand the rigors of decades on the Court."

In a post titled "Ken Starr Hired Roberts to Promote Bush I Social Agenda," a diarist at Daily Kos quotes from a 9/29/89 Washington Post story: "The job, counselor to the solicitor general as well as deputy solicitor general, was created in 1982 after strong conservative criticism that the traditionally independent office was not forceful enough in pushing the administration's social agenda at the high court." At MyDD, Chris Bowers comments: "Is it that much of a stretch to argue that the second Bush is trying to hire Roberts in order to perform the same function on the Supreme Court?"

Liberal labor blogger Nathan Newman gives him the benefit of the doubt, writing: "In general, he will be less of a judicial activist than O'Connor in both bad ways but also potentially good ways. ... Roberts really does seem to believe in deferring to elected government, which is probably not surprising for someone who spent so much of his career representing governments arguing on behalf of courts not overriding their power."

Conservative Damnum Absque Injuria posts a "handy-dandy table of what one could expect" from a SCOTUS with Roberts on the bench. Among other areas, DAI predicts that 1st-trimester abortion would remain constitutional, while "hiring doctors to poke open half-born babies' skulls" would not.

Conservative BeldarBlog: "Why I'm not worried that Judge John G. Roberts will become 'another Souter'"

THE COVERAGE: If You're Happy, You're Not Paying Attention

"Atrios" responds to a New York Times header, "A Life That Is Light on Politics, but Rooted in Law and Faith," writing: "The indisputable characteristic of Roberts' career is that he's a Republican operative and complete Republican hack. A made man." The title of his post refers to the Times as "Pravda on the Hudson."

Vodkapundit takes the Washington Post's Richard Cohen to task for writing: "You hang enough chads, and you get to change the Supreme Court." Noting that Bush didn't appoint a SCOTUS judge in his 1st term, Vodkapundit's Stephen Green writes: "Cohen is using the Dowd Method. Hanging chads were icky. John Roberts ... is icky. Therefore, hanging chads and Robert Johns (or John Roberts) must be somehow related."

Power Line's John Hinderaker, on an AP story titled "Roberts Has Backed Administration Policies": "There you have it: Bush nominates administration stooge to Supreme Court. Of course, some observers would say that the AP's headline could more accurately have read, 'Administration's Policies Generally Upheld In the Courts.'"

°   °   °   °   °

BLOGOMETER: "(S)" Is For Staying Alive

As we noted yesterday, liberal bloggers are determined to not let John Roberts' SCOTUS nod overshadow the focus on Karl Rove. Today, the Washington Post provides an assist. In other news, bloggers react to the apparent-copycat attacks in London, rumor has it that more Abu Ghraib images will surface, and one blogger proposes an idea for how the FEC can make effective use of the Internet. And don't forget to check out our latest Blogger Spotlight.

TRACKBACKS: Sizzle Or Fizzle? More Like A Drizzle

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

• The Washington Post's Walter Pincus and Jim VandeHei report on the State Dept. (INR) memo present during Pres. Bush's 7/03 Africa trip. They write, the memo contains a "paragraph marked "(S)" for secret [this point first reported in the 7/19 WSJ], a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified," and which identified Plame "as the wife" of ex-Amb. Joe Wilson. More: "The CIA classifies as 'secret' the names of officers whose identities are covert, according to former senior agency officials."
  
  

  >> Liberal bloggers are very pleased to see this get play -- The Mahablog calls it the "big, must-be-linked story today" · Noting that the story runs on A1, Daily Kos adds: "It looks like Bush rushed forth his nomination for no good reason." · Avedon Carol: "The New York Times, on the other hand, being good administration toadies, has dutifully kept Rove off the front page." · Informed Comment: "Pincus and VandeHei have to go to so much trouble to prove that the identity of a CIA operative working on Weapons of Mass Destruction was secret and shouldn't have been blown by Rove is a tribute of sorts to Rove the master of spin and propaganda." · Header at The Left Coaster: "Treasongate: For the Nth time, She Was Cover"
  

  >> As yet, there isn't much interest from the right -- Outside The Beltway: "It's rather unlikely that Rove or [Scooter] Libby saw a memo for the eyes of an Undersecretary of State, let alone read the footnotes. It's also unclear to me why her name would be classified 'Secret,' given that she had not worked in a covert capacity or overseas for years."
  

  >> More: Talking Points Memo; Rising Hegemon; War And Piece; AMERICAblog; NW Progressive Institute; onegoodmove; David Corn; King Of Zembla.

ROVE: Targeting The Source

Crooks and Liars posts a photo from '03 of Rove standing next to Bob Novak and wearing a pin saying: "I'm a Source, Not a Target"

Mark A.R. Kleiman suggests, "if the White House press corps wants a new way to torment Scott McClellan, they might start asking 'Scott, does the President intend to comply with Section 5.5 of Executive Order 12958?'" The E.O. is closely related to SF-312 (see 7/18 Blogometer).

Kevin Drum: "Step back from Plamegate for a moment and ask yourself a broader question: why did the White House react so violently to Joe Wilson's suggestion that the story about Saddam Hussein trying to procure uranium from Niger was false?" Drawing upon conversations with acquaintances in Orange County, he writes: "Without nukes, even Bush sympathizers were skeptical about the whole Iraq adventure. ... They were lashing out because they believed their political lives depended on their own supporters continuing to believe that Saddam had been actively working on a nuke program." Just One Minute's Tom Maguire disagrees that the uranium charge was Wilson's sole allegation, and links to himself to buttress his claim.

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: London Fog Of War

Jeff Jarvis, on this a.m.'s scare on the Tube: "Every network is now talking about evacuated tube stations in London and reports of smoke and a 'nail bomb' and a bus attack. They are being careful, as they should be, not to go overboard. In the days after 9/11, there were many scares and reports that, thank God, did not pan out. We can only hope that's what is happening in London." Damian Penny: "I'll say this for the Beeb: their site seems to be handling the traffic surge a lot better than Sky News or ITV." La Shawn Barber: "If only authorities would stop and search Middle Eastern-looking men with backpacks headed for public transit systems, they could prevent most of these suicide bombings. But they'd rather feel me up in the airport than 'offend' homicidal Muslim maniacs."

Dan Gillmor: "Grade the News cites widely acknowledged data saying the San Francisco Chronicle is losing well over $1 million a week, an amazing situation given the paper's dominance in its market."

ABU GHRAIB: Coming Around Again?

The "progressive/radical" legal blog Up Against The Law!! reports: "As part of the ongoing FOIA litigation ... a whole slew of the unreleased photographs and videos from Abu Ghraib are set to be released on Friday. These are the photographs and videos that were shown to the closed session of Congress, which reportedly include videos and photographs of the rape of detainees, including the rape of a male minor being held at the facility." TalkLeft passes the word along, noting: "This is unverified but seems likely."

DEMOCRATS: Does That Mean Clinton Is Don Corleone?

Whiskey Bar's "Billmon" counsels Dems on how to behave, by way of analogy to "The Godfather": "The Dems don't want to be like Fredo -- weak, insecure and eager to earn the good will of people who are inevitably going to be enemies of 'the family.' (That's where too many of them are at now.) They shouldn't be like Sonny -- impulsive, emotional and a few quarts short of a full crankcase. Shrub is like that and it's usually what gets him into trouble. ('Bring 'em on!') The Dems need to try to be more like Michael -- cool, analytical and totally pragmatic. 'It's not personal, Sonny. It's strictly business.'"

FEC: Constructive Ideas From The Blogosphere? What Will They Think Of Next

Last month, Matt Stoller was one of several bloggers to testify before the FEC on the subject of whether new rules were needed to regulate political blogging (see 6/22 Blogometer). Bloggers by and large resisted the idea of new rules, but Stoller sought to meet them part way, sketching out a plan to provide disclosure of activities. At BopNews on 7/20, he expands on the idea, proposing "an affirmative regulation requiring all registered Federal political committees to promptly disclose to the FEC all mass public communications, which will then quickly be placed into a public archive called the 'FEC Public Communications Database' for dissemination and analysis by the public." He concludes: "By forcing political actors to disclose not just who gives them money and what they spend it on, but also what they say, the FEC can use the internet to dramatically supplement the current regulatory architecture and better fulfill its established mission."

BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: Instapundit's Gonna Get You, Gonna Knock You Right On The Head

Today the Blogometer talks to libertarian-conservative law prof Glenn Reynolds, better known as Instapundit.

What is your full name?

Glenn Harlan Reynolds

What is your age?

44

Where did you grow up?

I grew up all over. I was a faculty brat like some people are Army brats: Dallas (SMU), Cambridge (Harvard), Germany (Heidelberg), Knoxville (UT).

Where do you live now?

Knoxville

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

I'm a law professor at the University of Tennessee. I worked for Al Gore ('88) and, to a lesser extent, Dukakis ('88) and Clinton ('92).

When did you start blogging and why?

I started blogging in August of 2001, as a way of engaging in hands-on Internet activity in support of my teaching Internet Law. And I thought it would be fun, which it is.

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

Tough choice. I think it was the reporting and photography from Afghanistan, furnished by my Afghanistan correspondent, John Tammes.

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

I blog in dribs and drabs throughout the day. Typically two or three posts in the morning when I have my coffee, then more every hour or two as time permits. I probably average 25 or so posts a day, but I don't actually keep count.

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

Those are tough choices. At the moment I'm particularly admiring Tom Maguire for his ability to blog across political lines and to retain his sense of humor.

Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?

Probably Mark Steyn, for his prolific output, sense of humor, and willingness to actually report (as he did from Fallujah). Also Austin Bay, a novelist and military reservist who writes a syndicated column.

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

"Kudlow & Company," not least because he incorporates so much blog content. "Reliable Sources" is good, too.

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

The usual: NY Times, Washington Post, etc. I check out NRO's The Corner (does that count as mainstream?), TAPPED, and the Wall Street Journal daily, too. Also Wired, CNET, etc. Slate (especially Kausfiles) is a more-than-daily stop.

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

Slashdot, Volokh Conspiracy, Bill Quick's Daily Pundit, Publius Pundit, Gateway Pundit (both of which provide excellent coverage of the struggles for democracy abroad), Power Line, BuzzMachine, Roger L. Simon, LGF, TalkLeft, Political Wire, etc. I probably visit 50 or so blogs daily.

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

Not very often anymore. Mostly when I'm travelling. I get the WSJ at the office and probably read it more than any other dead-tree publication. I used to get the local paper, and I stopped it not because of complaints about its content but because the paper kept piling up in the recycle bin. Internet papers are much more environmentally friendly.

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

I think there will be a lot of symbiosis, and big parts of each will wind up assimilating the other. Big Media will absorb quite a few bloggers, and some Big Media folks will go independent with their own blogs. But the sheer number of blogs guarantees that most blogs will always be amateur efforts.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Idiotarianism -- The Unknown Vice

Joe Katzman at Winds of Change traces the history of the blogosphere neologism "Idiotarian," from its vestigial origins on Instapundit in 1/02, almost immediate proper coinage on Little Green Footballs, clarification by Tim Blair, manifesto-ization by Eric Raymond, and subsequent "grand coalescence." Katzman, who is updating the word's Wikipedia entry, adds: "Its usefulness seems proven by the fact that nothing with a comparable range of focus has ever caught on, despite attempts to replace the word."

LEST WE FORGET: What's Wrong With Google? Ah, It's Just Human Error

Boi From Troy, upon learning the name of Bush's SCOTUS pick on 7/19: "Drudge says it's John C. Roberts Jr that Bush will pick. Obviously they're going for the least googlable person in America with just 13 entries." Later, he adds: "Of course, Drudge gets it wrong. It's John G. Roberts Jr. Much more googlable."

Posted by at 12:22 PM

July 20, 2005

7/20: Okay, But For The Next Pick We Want Harry T. Stone

Note for web readers: For publication on the web, we've been appending our special SCOTUS edition to the end of the regular Blogometer (in The Hotline document where it is principally published, the 2 run in separate sections). Today for the 1st time since Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement announcement, the SCOTUS section is where all the action is at. For as long as that is the case, we'll reverse the order.

Conservative reaction to Pres. Bush's nomination of Judge John Roberts for the SCOTUS ranges from content to enthusiastic, and share what anecdotes and background info they have on him. All know this is a big event, and several assemble substantial round-ups of links to other blogs. Otherwise, many turn their attention to what they see as too-eager Dem opposition.

Meanwhile, an early split emerges between bloggers at 2 of the largest liberal sites: As quoted below, Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas takes a wait-and-see approach, whereas MyDD's prolific Chris Bowers immediately deems him unacceptable. Moulitsas is not alone: many are resigned to the inevitability of Justice Roberts -- but they don't like it. Several admit that Roberts doesn't strike them as an extremist (although "partisan hack" quickly emerges as an epithet of choice) while others state the obvious explanation for their SCOTUS passivity: they want the focus to stay on WH dep. CoS Karl Rove (about which plenty more in the other Blogometer section).

SUMMARY JUDGMENT: What Could Be More Meta Than A Round-Up Of Blogs Rounding-Up Blogs Rounding-Up Other Blogs?

• The Political Teen hosts video of Bush's speech and the Dem response.
• Supreme Court Nomination Blog has a summary of Roberts' career, assembled in June. Dkospedia, a wiki-encyclopedia -- like Wikipedia for members of the Daily Kos community -- has a Roberts page as well.
• Supreme Court Nomination Blog's Brian Fletcher lists the ages of SCOTUS justices when they joined the Court. At 50, Roberts is below both the median and mean age.
• Underneath Their Robes' "federal judicial starf***er" "Article III Groupie" puts together a wide-ranging, informative (and enthusiastic) quiz with Roberts as its subject.
• Michelle Malkin has an impressive round-up of links to reax from other bloggers. So does Instapundit. Wizbang, also. On the left, Crooks and Liars puts together a round-up of links from liberal bloggers. Right Wing News posts a dispassionate roundup of reax from the left blogosphere as well. Truth Laid Bear has its own Roberts page, tracking the latest posts on the pick.

RIGHT ROBERTS REAX: Vote Him Up Or ... Up!

It should come as no surprise that conservatives largely support Roberts for SCOTUS. A few concede they don't know much about him, but aren't much worried:

• Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds: "Just watched Bush's intro, followed by the [VT Sen. Pat] Leahy / [NY Sen. Chuck] Schumer response. Bush was smirking; he thinks he's got it in the bag. More significantly, perhaps, Leahy and Schumer looked pretty flat; they seemed to be going through the motions; I don't think they believe they can stop him. That could change of course, but it's certainly how it looks now." More: "What do I think of him? Beats me. Just searched his hearing transcripts on the right to bear arms and found nothing. How is he on federalism and other limits on government power? Beats me again."
• Confirm Them: "Judge Roberts is a solid nominee who should be easily confirmed, and without need of any help from the blogosphere!"
• Stuart Buck: "For what it's worth: A few years ago, Justice Scalia said to a friend of mine that he and other Justices thought of John Roberts as far and away the best Supreme Court litigator in the country. I asked the friend why Justice Scalia said that, and (paraphrasing from my memory) the answer was something like this: 'No matter how intense the questioning, Roberts is never flustered, and is always able to calmly answer any question whatsoever, while skillfully weaving in the substantive points that he wanted to make in the first place.'"
• RedState, referring to the wording of the Gang of 14 compromise: "It must be said: There is nothing extraordinary about John Roberts, Jr."
• Ryne McClaren: "If I may use a baseball reference here, it looks like Roberts is something of a five-tool player: he's decent, he's made few enemies (that we know of yet), he's a great lawyer, he's been a great judge, and he conforms to what "conservatives" have in mind when it comes to what a Justice ought to be. How 'bout that?"

Not a few check out what the left is saying:

• Patrick Ruffini live-blogs the reax since the Roberts pick was known around 7:30pm monitors reax at "SICKO WATCH 8:03 p.m.: Daily Kos Comment: 'Kill Him.'" The comment is later removed; Ruffini adds: "Down the memory hole."
• Weekly Standard's Jon Last at Galley Slaves: "Let the record show that at 11:58 p.m. I clicked over to Kausfiles and found this ad already running. It's NARAL, helping you stop 'right-wing judicial activist' John Roberts from rushing into your doctor's office with his Mighty Gavel of Truth!"
• PoliPundit's Alexander McClure: "How can Senate Democrat filibuster Roberts when so many members of the caucus supported Roberts for the DC Court? If Democrats have the temerity to filibuster, then Bill Frist will easily assemble enough Senators to invoke cloture or to change the rules."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker calls PFAW's brief on Roberts "a feeble attempt at opposition research": "The Democrats simply don't have anything to work with. And, thankfully, they are a minority in the Senate."
• RedState, on Schumer's assertion that Roberts needs to answer all questions: "It's convenient ... that Schumer has forgotten the confirmation of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose confirmation hearings were the gold-standard for question refusal in confirmation hearings..." (PDF)

Others sound off on a variety of related subjects:

• Viking Pundit compares right and wrong predictions from NRO's The Corner.
• Southern Appeal: "Let me illustrate how thoroughly the specter of Roe v. Wade dominates the judicial-nominations process" -- as of 12:51am "only one news outlet has mentioned ... the recent Hamdan (Gitmo) decision" which Roberts joined. And though Hamdan was "a high-impact decision of contentious issues of great import in the Global War on Terror," the article "discussed Judge Roberts's courtroom demeanor."
• RedState's Erick Erickson -- the promoter of not a few SCOTUS rumors in recent weeks -- settled on Roberts at 6:45pm, an hour before the AP reported so. Erickson was quite prolific on 7/19, at one point cautioning readers: "What I know for sure is that I don't know who the nominee is going to be."
• Southern Appeal: "Judge Roberts eliminates any threat that the O'Connor Seat would become the official 'Woman Seat.' The Supreme Court for too long featured its own demographic ghettos: the Catholic Seat and the Jewish Seat. (Not to mention the Massachusetts Seat.) ... Good job, President Bush."
• At Bench Memos, Matthew Franck notes that Roberts would be the 5th Harvard grad on the court, adding that "it is not to be expected that its graduates all think alike -- as we can see they don't when we look at the justices who studied there. ... But is it the best of all possible worlds when a majority of the nine most powerful lawyers in America went to the same law school?"

LEFT ROBERTS REAX: Judge Dread?

Unsurprisingly, a fair segment of the liberal blogs fiercely resist Bush's pick:

• At MyDD, Chris Bowers is one who leads the charge against Roberts, with plenty of links coming his way from other blogs: "This guy is totally unacceptable, and probably was chosen in order to start a fight. ... If Republicans are forced to use the nuclear option to confirm Roberts, then so be it. As far as I am concerned, that is the only way he should be confirmed."
• Pandagon's Amanda Marcotte agrees: "Dictionary definition of an activist judge. He will have to go."
• At MyDD, Jerome Armstrong compares statements by the "1990 Roberts" to the "2003 Roberts." The former: "We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled." The latter: "Roe vs. Wade is the settled law of the land." Armstrong: "Well, at least he's on record as being a flip-flopper. He'll say whatever he needs to be nominated."
• Seeing The Forest calls Roberts "a Ken Starr clone, one of those partisan insiders who can be counted on to do the bidding of the 'conservative movement.'"
• CAP's Clerks blog points out that Roberts once co-authored a brief in favor of an anti-flag burning amendment and recommends that he be pressed on whether he "still believes the Flag Act to be constitutional, in light of his views on the commerce clause."

However, given the months of preparation by liberal activist groups to oppose Bush's nominee, it's notable how many are keeping their powder dry:

• Best-read of all is Markos Moulitsas: "As Roberts answers all questions posed, we can then decide whether it's worth opposing or not. And as that process plays out, we can make sure that Rove isn't forgotten in all the Supreme Court hoopla. Unlike some, us progressive bloggers can walk and chew gum at the same time."
• Atty Jeralyn Merritt: "I think it's too soon to start opposing ... Roberts. Most of us knew nothing about him before tonight. ... I'd like to know more about him before I make up my mind. I don't think it helps that liberal groups are coming out swinging so soon. It has the appearance that they would oppose anyone Bush would nominate."
• Mark Schmitt, at TPM Cafe: "Why does everyone seem to think that they have to decide tonight, whether John Roberts is an outrageous ideologue, or a pretty mainstream, incrementalist conservative of the type that you have the right to expect [from a GOP WH and Senate]? ... In Supreme Court nominations, it's almost always the hearings that define the nominee, and the effort to get ahead of the hearings can be futile or counterproductive."

No one seems to believe strongly that Roberts' nod can be derailed, and many try to make peace with their expectations:

• Steve Soto advises his fellow progressives to "put up a good fight, make him explain his views and get him on record, aim to keep as many Democrats in the "oppose" column as possible knowing that there aren't the votes to block him, and move the agenda back to where it was before tonight at 9 PM EDT."
• Rising Hegemon: "Not that I am suggesting giving Judge Roberts a free pass, but lets admit it, bland is bland. The time for getting worked up about this guy is as things emerge."
• UPenn prof Kim Schepelle points out that Roberts wrote the opinion in the case dismissing a complaint about the arrest of a 12-year-old girl at a DC Metro stop for eating a single french fry. (Note: The case is pretty well-known around DC, although Roberts' involvement is news to most.) She comments at Balkinization: "As a doctrinal matter, the Hedgepeth case might be of little interest. But it is one of the few decisions we have to go on to see how a future Justice Roberts would differ from the departing Justice O'Connor. ... Though many of us have railed against Justice O'Connor's fact specificity and her predilection to decide cases on the narrowest possible grounds, I suspect that we are going to very much miss her humanity."
• Progressive Values is skeptical of Roberts, but concedes: "Roberts will no doubt be confirmed. He is not as self-sinking figure as Robert Bork was ... Roberts is unlikely to behave as silly and self righteous as Bork, and sink his hopes. Roberts is a far more serious legal mind and judge."
• Yale prof Robert Gordon, at TPM Cafe: "With Roberts Bush is obviously playing it safe -- maybe because he's tanking in the polls, or suffering from the Rove scandal and bad Iraq news, or just because he doesn't want another battle to distract from his faltering domestic agenda. ... [His positive] qualities are going to make Roberts's confirmation easier. They are also what make him dangerous."
• UT-Austin law prof Brian Leiter: "The best hope -- and this tells us a lot about the condition of America today -- may be that he will be a Justice Scalia and not a Justice Thomas."

OTHER ROBERTS REAX: Not Everyone Has A Dog In This Fight

Supreme Court Nomination Blog, on what Roberts might be like: "William Rehnquist, his former boss." Similar to Rehnquist, Roberts "is an institutionalist -- he has worked for essentially his entire professional career before the Supreme Court. I also have the sense that they have a similar ideology. For example, I get the sense that he (like the Chief) simultaneously believes in strong Executive Powers (see the D.C. Circuit's recent Hamdan decision, which he joined) but also limited federal powers (see his dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc in the Rancho Viejo case)." However, Roberts may be "more of a judicial craftsman than the Chief, who tends to write as concisely and directly as possible."

Roger L. Simon: "I gather some conservatives are upset. I have advice for them -- get over it! ... The last thing a wartime president needs at a moment like this is a divisive Supreme Court fight. And for what? I don't want George Bush spending one ounce of his credit on this and it may be that he feels the same way."

Moderate Joe Gandelman: "His every word, statement and attitude will be explored and if he's wise he'll answer." He adds, abortion "seems on life support in legal terms."

At Volokh Conspiracy, Jim Lindgren and Orin Kerr debate the usefulness of popular online betting/trading site Tradesports in predicting the pick. Lindgren post a line chart showing Roberts' value throughout the day.

°   °   °   °   °

BLOGOMETER: Divided Attention

In a jarring -- albeit predictable -- turn of events, nearly all the activity is in the SCOTUS Special half of the Blogometer today. As we mention there, liberal bloggers are loath to let Pres. Bush's pick of John Roberts for the SCOTUS drown out coverage of the Valerie Plame investigation and commentary on Karl Rove's involvement. Not to mention, there are also a few conservative bloggers who have had fun countering Dem theories, and kept at it in the past 24 hours. That said, there just isn't much news to go on.

ROVE VS. ROBERTS: The Answer Is Simple -- Everyone Just Has To Blog Twice As Much Now!

Liberal bloggers seize upon a passage from a Boston Globe story: "Sources said the timing of an announcement had been moved up in part to deflect attention away from a CIA leak controversy that has engulfed Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove. 'It helps take Rove off the front pages for a week,' one Republican strategist said."

• MyDD's Bowers, in a post before Roberts was announced, terms the Roberts pick "Distraction-gate." He writes: "This does not necessarily hurt us. First, we can push the distraction meme. Second, a quicker nominee almost certainly means they did less background work, which will give us a chance to bring the noise on opposition research against [Edith] Clement (or whoever it might be)."
• Under the header "Trained Monkeys," Eschaton provides a number of quotes from CNN anchors speculating that the Roberts nomination will take heat off Rove.
• Majikthise's Lindsay Beyerstein guest-blogs at Political Animal: "Bush will have to produce something more compelling than a partisan hack like Roberts if he wants to distract us from the leaking elephant in the room and the ever-deepening puddle forming around its ankles--especially if it turns out that Rove lied to the FBI. Many commenters are skeptical that Roberts will dominate media coverage. One writes, the only way he'll "monopolize the news cycle" is if "his wife goes missing."
• Seeing The Forest, on why now: "Was it because Bush is worried that the CIA leak case is headed to the Supreme Court? Did Bush nominate Roberts to be a vote on the Court that will protect Rove?"

ROVE: Less Than Total Recall

In The American Propect, Murray Waas reports that Rove did not disclose to FBI investigators his discussions of Plame with Time's Matt Cooper. This catches limited attention, mostly from lefty bloggers.

Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum observes, "For a guy with a reputation for having a steel trap mind, he sure does seem forgetful lately, doesn't he?" Josh Marshall: "[I]f Waas's sources are right, Rove's in a ton of trouble." Atrios agrees, expletively. Centrist Andrew Sullivan calls Waas's story a troubling assertion "if true."

"Proud" liberal Lawnorder helps keeps the Rove story alive by linking to this Jonathan AlterNewsweek piece. Art imitiates life when you play the "West Wing Game" at Swing State Project, which channels the spirit of the TV series with a clever analogy between the TV characters and real Bush West Wingers involved in the Plame investigation.

Think Progress invites readers "who have tried so hard to downplay the importance of Valerie Plame's outing" to "read President Ronald Reagan's remarks at CIA headquarters upon signing the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (which the Plame leakers may have violated)."

Meanwhile, conservative Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters links to his online Weekly Standard article about parallels between Watergate and Plamegate: "Sounds just like Watergate, except in this case, the White House told the truth while low-level elements at the CIA appear to have twisted intelligence reports into lies to undermine the government -- a clear abuse of their power and position. An anonymous source had once again proven its value ... right? Not exactly."

QT Monster's Place links to a piece in the online American Thinker piece which asserts that the real story in the Rove/Plame affair is that DCI Porter Goss has begun to "clean house": "The spook bureaucracy is fighting for its perks, hand-in-hand with the Democrats and the media. This is exactly the same iron triangle that destroyed Richard Nixon."

Right-leaning Just One Minute solicits help in locating an Andrea Mitchell TV appearance, in which she reportedly admits that much of DC's journalism elite knew Plame worked for the CIA prior to Robert Novak's infamous column. JustOneMinute references a Power Line post that says Mitchell agreed Plame's identity was "generally known" during an unknown MSNBC appearance.

WHITE HOUSE '08: Does "No Freakin' Clue" Have A PAC Yet?

With a little over 8K respondents participating, Daily Kos announces the results of its latest WH '08 straw poll, as listed below. Results are also provided for the 1st go-round

     Candidate        Results    6/20
     Clark                34%     26%
     No Freakin' Clue     13%     17%
     Clinton              10%     10%
     Feingold             10%     10%
     Edwards               7%      8%

Daily Kos: "Remember, there's nothing scientific about this, and doesn't measure rank-and-file Dems. It measures us, the chosen few who think it's fun to talk about this sort of thing 3 years out from the election."

ENDTRODUCING: The End Of A Bubba

The popular long-running liberal TN blog South Knox Bubba is no more. He posts a message to readers: "It was fun, but lately it has become too much like work and not so much fun. Contrary to wild speculation around the internets, that's pretty much all there is to it. It's a personal decision, and that's all." In June, the formerly anonymous SKB was rudely identified as "bank software designer" Randy Neal by an area alt-weekly editor (see 6/20 Blogometer). Readers mourn at the Knoxville News blog. Say Uncle links to new groups for readers to continue discussions formerly held in SKB's comments. Instapundit: "It's a big bummer."

MISCELLANY: Who Are These People Who Are Writing About Non-Rove, Non-SCOTUS Issues?

• Semi-retired humor blogger Jim Treacher is now maintaining a blog for the movie "Blowing Smoke."
• Under the header "Comcast Conspiracy?" Gadflyer's Brian Dolber notes that After Downing Street's David Swanson "discovered that Comcast had effectively blocked anyone from receiving emails that contained his site's URL, because Symantec, the company which operates Comcast's filter, had supposedly received 46,000 complaints regarding mail from his organization."
At Ragged Thots, GOPer Robert George comments on the outing of Sen. Rick Santorum's (R-PA) spokesperson: "He apparently told Santorum three years ago -- when the outing on the left started up. Now, Santorum didn't tell [Robert] Traynham to hit the road -- so, is that supposed to make him some sort of hypocrite? And would the left critics be much happier if Traynham had been fired (as opposed to apparently having been promoted a couple of times since he outed himself)? The outers had a political point to be made. Just what it is, we can only imagine."
• Longtime CA political columnist Joe Scott shoots down rumors that new L.A. mayor Antonio Villaraigosa will challenge Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) in '06. He writes, "source very close to Villaraigosa told me that talk about any gubernatorial bid is ludicrous."
• Through ActBlue.com, Duncan Black raised $3,250 for OH 02 special election candidate Paul Hackett (D) on 83 contributions.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Power To The People

TAPPED: "Two days after [IL Dem Sen.] Barack Obama visited the United Nations -- a trip he billed as the opening of a new phase of his Senate career that will focus on shoring up his Foreign Relations Committee portfolio -- the Chicago Tribune is reporting that he's hired Samantha Power, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of "A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide," to join his staff as an adviser. ... The more power Power has, the more thoughtful America's response to genocide and man-made humanitarian disasters in Africa and beyond will be."

LEST WE FORGET: Bork Would've Been A Smarter Pick?

Mickey Kaus: "If the alternative to a divisive Supreme Court fight is returning the public's attention to a) the ongoing casualties in Iraq; b) a scandal involving the president's top aide and c) a highly unpopular Social Security plan, I'd say Bush's biggest fear is that Roberts isn't controversial or divisive enough. He might just sail through!"

NOTES AND ERRATA

Questions, comments, reservations? Drop us a line at blogometer@nationaljournal.com.

Posted by at 12:33 PM

July 19, 2005

7/19: George W.J.C. Bush?

Although the buzz surrounding Karl Rove does not seem to have diminished, today other controversies in the blogosphere actually emit a noticeable hum of their own. Some are tangentially related to Rove, including conservative bloggers' objection to the MSM's interpretation of Pres. Bush's presser last a.m. Other blog swarms are not, such as confrontations over questionable satire and Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO). We also bring you our latest Blogger Spotlight, with lefty journalist Marc Cooper.

TRACKBACKS: Just Karl-ing 'Em As They See 'Em

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

• Bush's presser got a lot of attention, and we'll get into it more below. The quickly turned-around AP version gets plenty of attention. Multiple liberal bloggers compare Bush to Pres. Clinton at the height of the Lewinsky scandal, although at least 1 takes a more skeptical approach.
  
  

  >> From the left -- Liberal The Sideshow: "The facts -- that Rove and [Scooter] Libby were indeed responsible for the leak -- are well known and now on the public record. But the White House is apparently now relying on the idea that no one can prove they were strictly in violation of the 1982 law that most people have been talking about, although Matthew Cooper's testimony suggests that they were. This means it would be helpful if people keep pointing out that there are other laws that certainly were violated." · Majikthise compares Bush to NYC journalist Helaine Olen, whose nanny-firing has made the blogs lately: "It's amazing how different employment standards are for the White House vs. the real world. If you work as a nanny in a Brooklyn brownstone, you can get canned for any reason whatsoever ... if you're the President's most senior advisor..." · AMERICAblog: "If Bush wants to comment only when he's going to lie and move the goal post, then the media and the American people have the right to demand Bush explain why he lied to the American people two years ago when he said he's fire anyone involved in the leak. Apparently 'W' stands for William, as in William Jefferson Clinton."
  

  >> Those who disagree with the liberal-left consensus -- Conservative John Hawkins asks, "should Karl Rove, a man who has been very valuable to Bush, be fired even though it looks as if he has done nothing wrong at this point just so Bush can say he's being consistent? Well, as Emerson said: 'A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.'" · The Moderate Voice: "So we have a shift. And some Democrats and journalists will point to it, note it, and write about it. But it's highly unlikely to raise an eyebrow among staunch White House supporters." · Liberal NewsHog concedes the partisan aspect of this fight: "But it has to be said, if the roles were reversed the Democrats would insist on a conviction before firing a high-placed aide too. Not an allegation, however well it was backed by evidence, not a criminal charge even -- a conviction."
  

  >> More: The Huffington Post; The Left Coaster; Rising Hegemon; Orrin Judd; Whiskey Bar; Daily Kos; Daly Thoughts; Running Scared.

ROVE: How Lame Is Washington? It's The "Silly Season" -- Yet Everyone Is Still Poring Over Legal Documents

An update to MyDD's Rove-meter (see 7/15 Blogometer) counting the number of Rove-referencing stories on Google News stories (including blogs and the MSM):

     Saturday, 7/9: 49
     Sunday, 7/10: 77
     Monday, 7/11: 639
     Tuesday, 7/12: 1,150
     Wednesday, 7/13: 1,200
     Thursday, 7/14: 1,230
     Friday, 7/15:799
     Saturday, 7/16: 303
     Sunday, 7/17: 845
     Monday, 7/18: 624

Conservative Baseball Crank accepts a challenge from liberal Mark A.R. Kleiman to respond in detail as to the applicability of U.S. v. Morison, a 4th circuit ruling from '88, to the Rove case. A sample: "I know of no reason why [Valerie] Plame's identity as a CIA analyst would satisfy the statutory requirement of 'information relating to the national defense,' and Kleiman doesn't explain why it would. On the other hand, if she had been a covert agent recently enough that the disclosure of her identity would compromise covert intelligence-gathering sources, that would likely satisfy the requirement."

"Leon H" from RedState addresses the SF-312 form that Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and liberal bloggers had raised as a statute Rove may have violated (see 7/18 Blogometer): "I've taken some time to read over this form and the attendant executive order, and basically what it says is that if anyone violates the order, then it is up to the President to discipline that person according to the President's discretion. This can be anything from a reprimand (Bad Karl! Bad!), to a dock in pay, to firing. Totally and completely up to the President."

Josh Marshall has a few questions about the State Dept. memo then-spokesperson Ari Fleischer was seen "perusing" on the Africa trip in July '03. He is especially intrigued by conflicting reports, from the New York Times and Bloomberg, which cite different preparation dates for the memo.

Daily Howler's Bob Somerby writes, "conservatives pundits recited bogus claims last week, as they've done for years and years. But today we ask a further question -- is a similar habit of thought developing now on the left?" In the case of Marshall, he says yes, singling out Marshall's dismissal of the Senate Intel Cmte report -- which refutes claims by Joe Wilson, whom Marshall supports and Somerby does not -- even though it was "unanimously" agreed to by 8 Dems, including IL's Dick Durbin, WV's Jay Rockefeller and ex-Sen. John Edwards.

On the conservative side, Michelle Malkin takes several conservative bloggers/columnists to task for invoking "the 'John Kerry did it' card to pooh-pooh Rovegate," and links to a post she wrote in April debunking the claim, "Did senators blow a CIA agent's cover? No."

Crooks and Liars posts an ABC News report from '73, commenting: "Here's a blast from the past. ... The press corp was yelling at the White House for refusing to answer questions about Watergate. (sound familiar?)"

Swing State Project is quite pleased to see that Rove will be headlining a fundraiser for "embattled" Rep. Jim Gerlach (R-PA).

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Goooooooooooooooooaaaaaaal!!!

Under the header "Moving The Goalposts (Back To Their Original Position)" right-leaning JustOneMinute's Tom Maguire criticizes the AP and Washington Post for its coverage of Pres. Bush's 7/18 presser, where he said that a person convicted of leaking Plame's identity would be fired. In the past 24 hours, the MSM has focused on a contradictory statement by WH spokesperson Scott McClellan and a few Bush statements which sounded differently. But Maguire argues that they are playing "'Gotcha' with the President," and addresses the AP's report specifically: "Bush said [in 9/03] that 'if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.' In June 2004, a reporter asked if Bush stood by a pledge Bush had not previously made, namely, to fire anyone 'involved' with the leak. Now, if the reporter had asked Bush to revise his original pledge, Bush would clearly have assented to a modification of his original pledge. However, since the reporter did not note that he was misrepresenting or revising Bush's pledge, it is perfectly reasonable to recast their exchange as follows:

     Reporter: Do you stand by your original pledge?
     Bush: Yes."

Maguire adds, "Bush should have avoided this verbal trap (as if!) by answering something like, 'I made my position clear last fall.' With any luck, the next questioner would have let him move on without forcing him to try and remember what his position was."

• Power Line, on the Post version: "At a minimum, the Post should have provided the fuller version of the June 2004 quotation, and the text of the original pledge, so that its readers could have an adequate basis for deciding whether the president actually lowered the standard. But the Post's standard of journalism seems to have less to do with informing its readers than with taking shots at the president."
• Three Bad Fingers agrees that the MSM is misreading Bush's comments in order to play it as a scandal, and lists several other news outlets which make the same errors: "Lemmings I tell ya, lemmings!"
• Conservative Ramesh Ponnuru, at The Corner: "So my tentative conclusion is that the press's version of the president's words and Maguire's version are both a bit too definite. But the ambiguity is tougher for the press's version, since it tries to portray the president as breaking a pledge."
• Liberal MyDD's Chris Bowers, on the same coverage: "The weekend wasn't much of a break for the White House, and today promises to be the largest day ever. This is fueled primarily by Bush's statement today, which was an obvious moving of the goalposts that even the media is picking up on..."

Eric Alterman, on Time's Rove cover story: "We're told we're not going to get nearly as many unattributed quotes any more and we get, from Time, 'legal sources?' That's the best Time could do? What the hell good is that? For all we know, this story is sourced to Arnie Becker."

Centrist Roger L. Simon highlights a report from Andrew McCarthy on the MSM's amicus brief supporting Cooper and Judith Miller; in it, the MSM takes the position that no crime was committed because they say Plame's cover had been blown before Robert Novak published his column.

WHITE HOUSE '08: Wesley Clark Kent

Liberal Daily Kos holds another (unscientific) straw poll measuring reader support for realistic WH GOPers -- "So no Gores, no Deans. Sorry," Markos Moulitsas writes -- and voting is under way. Click here to see current results as they roll in. Last month in the 1st Daily Kos straw poll (see 6/22 Blogometer), Wesley Clark took the plurality of 26% support. As of this a.m., he's polling 37% support.

MIDTERMS '06: Dems Set For A Comeback By Unpopular Demand?

Right-leaning James Joyner, on an NPR poll indicating that while the GOP is unpopular, Dems are even more unpopular: "The party numbers are even more odd when one looks inside the poll and sees that more people in the same survey say they would vote for the Democrat in the 2006 congressional elections were held today (which, I hasten to add, they will not be). So, they feel 'cooler' toward the Democrats but still say they are more likely to vote for them in a generic race."

Conservative PoliPundit's Jayson Javitz, on the RNC's $59.4M take YTD: "People need to start getting used to the idea of GOP hegemony. And by 'people,' I mean to say: trust-fund liberals, champagne-swilling law professors, spaced-out liberal media drones, spooky black helicopter types, and silver-spooned anarchists."

DASCHLE: A Campaign So Indelible You'd Have To Sandblast It Away

Conservative South Dakota Politics writes, the FEC "has written a letter to [ex-Sen. Tom] Daschle about his '2010 candidacy'! It really is a permanent campaign! The FEC says Daschle is not in compliance if he doesn't (1) declare himself a candidate or (2) 'disavow [the] activities' of his ongoing permanent campaign. Apparently Daschle ignored the FEC's deadline to respond, which was July 14, but scrambled around yesterday when some reporters called and then wrote a letter." For more on the so-called "permanent campaign" involving '04 match-up victor/Sen. John Thune (R-SD) see the 7/13 Blogometer

TANCREDO: The Other Nuclear Option

Conservative Captain's Quarters criticizes Rep. Tancredo for saying the U.S. could "take out" Islamic holy sites if al Qaeda uses nukes on the U.S.: "Besides, who is Tom Tancredo to make these threats anyway? He doesn't have anything to do with the military chain of command or the national security systems that would make those kinds of recommendations." Some lesser-known conservative bloggers take issue, such as Pink Flamingo Bar & Grill: "What Tancredo has done is put uncertainty into the jihadist minds and thats not a bad thing." Righty Hugh Hewitt seems to agree with Captain's Quarters, calling Tancredo's remarks "the most irresponsible statement any American official can make." Michelle Malkin, who calls Tancredo a "friend," hedges: "Rep. Tancredo's remarks were most certainly unwise, and he should do the right thing and retract them quickly, but I do not agree that his words were 'the most irresponsible' opinions expressed by any American official."

BLOGGERS VS. BLOGGERS: Race To The Bottom

Last p.m. "Paul" at conservative Wizbang quoted from a San Bernardino Sun news story about the school district incorporating Ebonics." The header is "Black Kids Are Too Stupid to Learn English," and he summarizes the quoted passage thus: "Black kids are too stupid to learn english, we all know that. ... I say we keep them stupid. If not, how will I ever get anyone to pick my cotton?" Sometime later, he added the following to the top: "Editors Note: For the benefit of new Wizbang readers, please note that every story at Wizbang is categorized. You can see the category for each post on the byline at the bottom of each story."

• Liberal David Anderson responds at his own blog: "I ask ALL decent members of the blogsphere to condemn this hate speech by Paul of Wizbang, disguised as some sort of sick satire. I especially beseech those decent conservatives I know to provide feedback on this post, and to demonstrate once and for all, that this type of speech is unwelcome as part of our political discourse!"
• Paul follows up by calling Anderson the "drama queen of the blogoshere" and protests that when he says "(in jest) that black kids are too stupid to learn english it is "hate speech." When a liberal says it for real they are an educator."
• Anderson follows up this in an update to his same post: "Earth to Paul. I disagree with Ebonics as much as you do. But I am not using stereotypes like cotton picking am I?"
• Liberal journalist Joy-Ann Reid: "The post touched off a furor on Wizbang over whether it was proper satire. I, for one, actually agree with Paul that it makes no sense to bring 'ebonics' into the classroom (though he probably shouldn't quit his day job and camp out outside 'Chappelle's Show' just yet.)"

MISCELLANY: What Do Howard Dean, Rick Santorum, The FBI, Pepsi, And Daily Kos Have In Common? You Tell Us

• Responding to a New York Times story about the FBI gathering 1000s of pages of documents on anti-war and other left-wing protest groups, MyDD suggests: "Maybe we should FOIA to see what they have gathered about progressive bloggers." At Volokh Conspiracy, Orin Kerr is skeptical, writing that "it's beginning to look like" the Times story "about the FBI's keeping records on the ACLU is based on a serious misrepresentation."
• Liberal Jerome Armstrong follows the local coverage of Howard Dean in MT, UT and ID, and finds that he is "being well-received," adding: "The best thing that Dean can do is continue to ignore DC, and continue to grind away in the states and raise the small donor effort to fund the Democratic Party. He's doing an excellent job."
• Power Line's Scott Johnson finds it "almost unbelievably disgusting" that PepsiCo pres. Indra Nooyi was invited to the WH state dinner for the Indian PM, referring readers to his Weekly Standard online column describing a commencement speech she gave criticizing U.S. foreign policy.
• Liberal Amanda Marcotte, on the brief flurry of attention surrounding the outing of Sen. Rick Santorum's (R-PA) spokesperson (see 7/18 Blogometer): "Santorum [has argued] that allowing people the chance to have a life other than complete celibacy, married monogamy with strict gender roles, or being outcast from society leads directly to priests raping kids. Which means that by hiring an openly gay man instead of refusing him a job unless he got himself a proper beard and led a life of misery in the name of all things holy, Santorum is, by his standards, a tolerant liberal who hates children."
• Jesse Taylor comments on the Weekly Standard article, "The Electoral-Based Community," recently popular on the conservative side: "Oh, and read to the second page for one of the unintentionally funniest bits of "evidence" ever to be marshalled in a conservative column. In order to show that Democrats are somehow intractably in thrall to Daily Kos, the author shows Dick Durbin having a conference call with bloggers who aren't in any way connected to Daily Kos... and then doing something Daily Kos hated in the aftermath."
• Right Wing News compares George Lakoff's "framing" ideas to the Pet Rock.

BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: Hangin' With Mr. Cooper

Today the Blogometer talks to lefty Marc Cooper, who blogs at MarcCooper.com.

What is your full name?

Marc Cooper

What is your age?

54

Where did you grow up?

Born in Los Angeles. Educated in Los Angeles. Have lived also in Chile, Argentina and Italy.

Where do you live now?

Suburbs of Los Angeles

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

Never worked on a campagin per se, but as a young man in the 1970's I worked as translator to Chilean President Salvador Allende (those experiences are gathered in a memoir of mine titled "Pinochet and Me" (Verso, 2001).

I have been a working journalist for more than 30 years with articles and essays published in MSM ranging from Atlantic and Harper's to Rolling Stone, Playboy and Los Angeles Times. Currently a contributing editor to The Nation and columnist for L.A. Weekly. Also write cultural reviews for The Atlantic.

In the past I have also worked as a contract producer for CBS News, PBS Frontline, Christian Science Monitor Television. I have worked as raio reporter for public radio, NBC radio, CBS radio and the CBC.

When did you start blogging and why?

I started in April 2004 "because it was there." I had been reading a lot of blogs and was intrigued. The truth is I had a website built then as a place to "park" info about my latest book "The Last Honest Place in America" which had just come out and I was considering blogging but wasn't sure. With trepidation I gave it a try and it was somewhat exhilarting. It felt great to be able to say whatever I wanted without going through the filter of an editor. I could write directly to the readers and not have to second-guess an editor's reaction. Editors usually aren't very smart is my experience. That's why they edit instead of write.

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

I've had several strings that have been favorites for different reasons: Writing about the abuse at Abu Ghraib seemed to get my juices flowing. Also had a great time writing about Ayatollah Sistani's sex advice page. I never tire of fisking Michael Moore (hopefully he has another movie coming out soon that we can all trash). And I generally enjoyed writing from the DNC and RNC last summer.

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

Depends what you mean by 'blogging." I'm reading stuff on the web -- blogs, newspapers etc -- several times a day. I generally write an average of one posting per day. Usually late at night, around midnight when all is quiet. usually takes 30-45 minutes to put one together.

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

I don't have one favorite in either category, though I'm not much interested in non-political blogs (don't really care where someone has last had a party or a meal unless I have been invited). I read a regular list of bloggers, some of whom are friends. They include but are in no way limited to: Randy Paul, David Corn, Eric Umansky, Roger L. Simon, Michael J. Totten, Mickey Kaus, Kevin Drum, Chris Nolan, Juan Cole, Jay Rosen, Tim Porter etc. There are also a number of L.A.-centric blogs I'm loyal to including Kevin Roderick, Matt Szabo, and Joe Scott among others.

Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?

Christopher Hitchens, though I guess he's not technically mainstream. I find most national political columnists very bland and boring. If I had to pick one MSM columnist, probably the L.A. Times' Steve Lopez who writes about, yes, Los Angeles.

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

During the campaign I became a bit of a "Hardball" addict. Post-campaign I not quite such a fanatic but I continue to TiVo it every night and watch most episodes.

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

L.A. Times, Washington Post, New York Times, Newsweek, Chri Sci Monitor, ABC News all on a regular basis.

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

Most of the blogs mentioned in answer #9. Also look at NRO, Opinionjournal.com, TheNation.com, frontpagemag.com, and many others.

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

I read the L.A. Times in hard copy 5-6 times a week and always on Sunday.

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

I don't know but I know the effects will be huge. What I'm most hoping for is that MSM newspapers will be forced to abandon what Jay Rosen calls "the contraption" -- the post World War II specifically American invention of the "objective, balanced" voice. In reality, this mode often sacrifices authentic objectivity (i.e. truthfulness) for an artifical he said/she said balance. In any case, there are big changes coming and I'm excited to be able to witness them.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Five (Or So) Websites You'll MeetUp In Heaven

Daily Kos: "[T]he first of what should be several MeetUp replacement services -- Gatheroo -- announced it will open shop in the fall. It'll be free and based on the open source CivicSpace platform. MeetUp, which will flame out any day now, has been driven to charging ridiculous fees to meetup groups, leading to a massive exodus from the service. It is for all purposes dead, at best treading water until a suitable replacement could develop. Chances are Gatheroo won't be the only player in the space. This is a vertical begging for strong open source alternatives. "

LEST WE FORGET: A Very Good Question

WuzzaDem presents "Straight Talk From From Governor Thomas Vilsack (D-IA)"; includes special encore appearance by "Mrs. Thomas Vilsack (D-IA)"

°   °   °   °   °

BLOGOMETER SPECIAL: Clement Time?

What the blogs are saying about the SCOTUS vacancy:

Since the controversy involving Karl Rove reached a fever pitch last week, the SCOTUS issue has taken a back seat. Today, thanks to just a little bit of movement from the MSM on the SCOTUS story, blog discussion of the vacancy moves just a little bit more. Like before, most of the rumors and speculation come from bloggers on the right: many conservatives are tired of the Rove story and have their own favorites to root on. Meanwhile, the left is by no means done with Rove, and besides that have been taking a wait-and-see approach on the SCOTUS nod (though it is a safe bet that most will oppose Pres. Bush's pick). This is changing a bit, as we'll see below.

TRACKBACKS: Ediths Head Up The List

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

• Bloggers comment on The Hill's report that the SCOTUS pick will not be AG Alberto Gonzales, and that Edith Jones or Edith Clement is most likely:
  
  

  >> On Gonzales -- Conservative Michelle Malkin writes, the news "has many conservatives breathing easier." · Liberal No More Mr. Nice Blog snarks: "The White House told conservatives this? Or did conservatives tells the White House?" · The Moderate Voice: "It wouldn't be surprising to see Gonzales be proposed next time around. If he puts someone on the court to his conservative-base's complete liking he may have an easier time next time pitching Gonzales." · Conservative "Angry Clam" disagrees: "Next, we need to make sure he stays off the table for Rehnquist's seat and any additional vacancies (Stevens, Ginsburg)."
  

  >> On the Ediths -- Conservative PoliPundit's Alexander McClure: "Either one would be a superb pick, adding a fourth tried and true conservative to the bench." · Tom Goldstein: "For the little that it is worth, I stand by my prediction soon after Justice O'Connor's retirement that the President would nominate a conservative woman and most likely Priscilla Owen." · NRO's K.J. Lopez: "I've had Harriet Miers on my mind this morning. And from I'm far from the only one, based on conversations -- again not based on intelligence, but hunches. There's the Dick-Cheney-becomes-veep SCOTUS scenario."

THE RUMOR MILL: If At First You Don't Succeed, Try, Try Again

RedState's Erick Erickson had previously reported SCOTUS rumors that didn't come to pass, particularly the once-expected resignation of Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Today he goes for it again (cross-posting to Confirm Them) with caveats: "People are buzzing that there is a nominee. I have no insider information on who that nominee is, but signs are pointing to one of the Ediths and, of those two, Clement seems to be ahead." He also notes, "We know for sure that Edith Brown Clement had a meeting at the White House last week. We are also hearing that she had a phone call today." A bit later he adds, in an update only at RedState: "I might be reading too much into it, but it is interesting that a number of people are starting to talk about Clement the enigma as Clement the conservative."

Just before midnight, Erickson posts to RedState more detailed rumors, from an e-mail:

1. It is Joy [Clement].
2. WH will announce quickly, probably tomorrow.
3. Major players are on board.
4. Senate Dems are okay.
5. Specter is pleased. His staff is gearing up tonight.
6. Expect Dem groups to go nuts.
7. A handful of Dem Senators will play "mean" to pacify base. Bark will be worse than bite.
8. Joy is like O'Connor on business issues and we are comfortable that she is with us on upcoming life cases.

BLOGS VS. THE SCOTUS: Sketching Out Scenarios

Conservative Kevin Aylward, on what influence the blogosphere will have on the confirmation process: "The real question is not whether a cumulative dribble of defamatory information will accompany the President's forthcoming nominee -- past confirmation battles indicate that it will -- but how far Senate Democrats will go in parroting the research of anti-nominee bloggers. Given their current state of cozying up the DailyKos's of the left side of the blogosphere, it's not unimaginable that Democrats, lead by Sen. Edward Kennedy, will become a sounding board for any and all Gannon-esq slime campaigns." Aylward also points to the Bork fight: "During the Bork confirmation battle a row broke out over the release of his video rental records from a local DC video store. In 2005 the clerk at that video store will probably be a blogger, and will have anonymously posted the porn preference of the forthcoming nominee long before Blockbuster can seal those records from prying eyes."

THE FIGHT: Is This What Byrd Got In Exchange For Praising Bush?

Bench Memos, on an FNC report that Sen. Robert Byrd's (D-WV) "pre-approval" is being sought on possible SCOTUS picks: "It is hard to imagine an authentic constitutionalist who would be acceptable to Byrd, so I hope [Major] Garrett's reporting is wrong about this."

REHNQUIST: The First (and Last?) Call For Impeachment

Univ. of MD prof Mark Graber, at Balkinization: 'The Constitution provides that justices "shall hold their Offices during good Behavior.' Most of us would agree that a justice who fails to attend court sessions, writes far less than his fair share of opinions, and writes pretty mediocre opinions at that is not exhibiting good Behavior. 'Shockingly,' however, no movement exists to impeach Chief Justice William Rehnquist. ... A decent society, I believe, would not allow people to be fired for having cancer, even when they are Chief Justice. If, however, the 14th Amendment does not permit Congress to pass laws allowing private cancer patients to keep their jobs, no good reason exists for interpreting 'good behavior' in Article III as allowing a Chief Justice with cancer to keep his job."

INTRODUCING: Kevin Smith, Call Your Lawyer

Liberal CAP's Think Progress announces new blog from the think tank, Clerks: "What sets Clerks apart from many of the other SCOTUS blogs is its writers: an esteemed group of legal thinkers, professors, litigators, and advocates, virtually all of whom clerked for Supreme Court justices in recent years. Although each blogger brings a different perspective, all write from a deep awareness of the Court's importance and a deep concern about how a new justice could change our country." In a recent post at Clerks, Tim Wu lists a number of conservative judges, including the 9th circuit's Alex Kozinski, who should be on conservative short lists but are not.

Posted by at 12:35 PM

July 18, 2005

7/18: Remember What Blogs Were Like Before The Rove/Plame Controversy? Nor Do We

As we enter the second week of intense speculation about Karl Rove's involvement in the Valerie Plame outing/investigation, there is little common ground between bloggers on the right and left. There's a good reason for this, and it tends to be overlooked: Once one side or the other makes its case effectively, the other side tends to quietly drop previous assertions. Of course, here at the Blogometer we tend to focus on what the blogs are disagreeing about -- and frequently overlook this ourselves.

First and foremost, facts have proved the left correct on the key point that's kept this story going, i.e. Rove did in fact discuss Plame with reporters. As of this weekend, the right seems to have mostly won the argument that the Intelligence Identities Protection Act does not apply to Rove; most liberal bloggers have ceased to bring it up. Some have mentioned the Espionage Act as another controlling statue, but now the focus is moving toward the Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement (PDF), aka SF-312, as raised by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) in a 7/15 letter (PDF). SF-312 stipulates that Rove should not have confirmed Plame's CIA involvement regardless of where it originated. (There's a bit of irony here: For months, conservative bloggers hounded John Kerry by asking about military-records release form SF-180, until he finally released those records to the press. Now the "SF" is on the other foot, as it were.)

To hear the left tell it, the fact of Rove's lawbreaking is incontrovertible, and the next question is what Pres. Bush knew. To hear the right tell it, the question of Rove's culpability is closed, and any potential scandal more likely involves actions on the part of the press.

Keeping track of all the relevant angles in this case is a struggle. If we've missed a key angle, we trust you'll let us know about it.

In other news -- what there is of it -- conservatives are up in arms over the outing of Sen. Rick Santorum's (R-PA) spokesperson, the Los Angeles Times takes criticism from both sides, and the Washington Post finds out what happens when bloggers stop being polite and start getting real.

TRACKBACKS: Animal House

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

• The most popular MSM stories this weekend all had to do with the Rove controversy. Howard Fineman's "Rove at War" and John Tierney's New York Times column, where he terms the scandal "Nadagate," were among the most-cited. But even more than the others, Matt Cooper's return to the public view -- with an account of his grand jury testimony for Time and interview on "Meet the Press" -- attracted plenty of attention, mostly from left-of-center bloggers:
  
  

  >> "Billmon" calls attention to Cooper's report that Rove concluded the call by saying: "I've already said too much." Billmon interprets: "It's nice of Cooper to try to help out his phone buddy with that bit about [Rove perhaps just] being 'late for a meeting,' but I think it's pretty obvious what Karl meant. He was telling Cooper: 'See what a juicy tidbit I just gave you? Now be a good little doggie and go put it in your magazine.'" · Univ. MI prof Juan Cole notices Cooper saying on NBC: "When [Rove] said things would be declassified soon, was that itself impermissible? I don't know." Cole comments: "We may also conclude that Karl Rove knew that he was discussing classified information with Mr. Cooper. Why otherwise promise that the information would be declassified? I know that Mr. Rove has alleged that he heard about Valerie Plame from a reporter. But you have to be very careful with Mr. Rove's statements." · The Heretik invokes Dirty Harry. · Video of Cooper's appearance is available at Crooks and Liars.
  

  >> On the right, Captain's Quarters was one of the few conservative blogs to comment: "No one except the darkest paranoid conspiracy theorists could believe that Rove or [Scooter] Libby deliberately sat around, knowing Cooper would call and eventually get around to asking about [Joe] Wilson, and then use that opportunity to wreak revenge for Wilson's serial lies ... Rove and Libby both performed the traditional background role (for which the media insists it needs anonymous sources) to warn Cooper that Wilson's version had seriously distorted the record." · NRO's Mark Levin, on Cooper writing that he may have learned Plame's actual name from Google: "If he got it from Google, that would mean it was on the Internet for the entire world to see. Isn't this worth pressing Cooper about a little harder?"
  

  >> More: TalkLeft; Political Animal; Think Progress; Susie Madrak; Andrew Sullivan; War and Piece.




• It's not that conservative blogs didn't swarm around any Rove-related MSM coverage. The popular link on the starboard side this weekend was to conservative favorite Mark Steyn's Chicago Sun-Times column, "Plame security breach? It just ain't so, Joe":
  

  >> Power Line: "Steyn does not pursue the 'Black Sox' analogy suggested in the headline. Playing off Wilson's condemnation of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, however, he declares that 'the only lying sonafabitch turned out to be Yellowcake Joe.'"
  

  >> More: Instapundit; Jay Currie; The Discerning Texan; Blog Idaho; Ed Driscoll; Outside The Beltway.

ROVE: Roving Reporters By Now Pretty Much Reduced To Rove Reporters

Cooper said on "Meet the Press" on 7/17: "So did Rove leak Plame's name to me, or tell me she was covert? No. Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and may have been responsible for sending him? Yes. Did Rove say that she worked at the 'agency' on 'WMD'? Yes."

Conservative John Podhoretz: "Translation: Did Karl Rove break any laws? No. Did he do anything wrong? No -- because saying someone worked for the CIA on WMD is not in any way wrong." Blogs for Bush: "It's over, folks -- there is no scandal involving Rove; and there never was. This thing was made up out of whole cloth by Joe Wilson, who also made up a story about not finding any evidence of attempted uranium purchases by Saddam."

But lefty Matt Yglesias says it isn't over: "[L]et's say Rove is telling the truth, he only confirmed Plame's identity. Then, as Mark Kleiman points out this goes to show that Rove has violated Executive Order 12958 and his commitments under the 'Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement' (SF-312) that he's signed. I don't believe such violations would rise to the level of criminal conduct, but they certainly tend to suggest that the guilty party is no longer fit for White House employment."

RedState, on an AP report on Rove e-mailing then-dep. NSA Stephen Hadley about his conversation with Cooper: "Despite the hysterics of our counterparts, it appears that Rove followed procedure as it regards the 'Plame Affair.'" Liberal Yowling from the Fencepost asks: "If Rove was only following procedure, wouldn't he have said something a long time ago?"

Ex-CIA agent/Plame acquaintance Larry Johnson, a recent TPM Cafe contributor, shares a statement he and 3 other agency employees gave to Congress in '03: "Beyond supporting Mrs. Wilson with our moral support and prayers we want to send a clear message to the political operatives responsible for this. You are a traitor and you are our enemy. You should lose your job and probably should go to jail for blowing the cover of a clandestine intelligence officer."

Daily Kos continues to be Rove central, putting up relevant posts over the weekend here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, plus a lengthy summation by Markos Moulitsas. In another post, Armando writes, "it matters not whether Rove heard it from an aide or a reporter, if he knew it was classified info, he could not leak it to Cooper. The whole line of defense is nonsense anyway. And yet, in order to not open a new legal exposure, Rove is trying to dance away from the categorical denial because that exposes him to perjury charges."

At liberal TPM Cafe, Josh Marshall and Brookings scholar Ivo Daalder cite the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) report showing no uranium activity in Iraq as trumping the British Butler report and Senate Intel Cmte's reports on the matter. Marshall also writes, the "Butler Report and the Senate intel report are political documents. From start to finish." Reacting to the 2 posts, righty Gregory Djerejian calls the ISG report "besides the point vis-a-vis establishing" Bush's honesty re: WMDs, and follows up Marshall's "start to finish" comment: "That's quite a statement, and it well showcases Josh's abject hackery on this issue. ... Josh has pretty much been forced to piss all over the SSCI and Butler reports because they simply don't support the narrative he peddled assiduously for months last year."

NRO's Media Blog: "Why shouldn't the White House stonewall this press? We have an investigator doing his job. Presumably, his report will come close to telling us what actually happened. In the meantime, the press has resembled a leaky washing machine on a spin cycle. Why should the White House enable something like that?"

Andrew Sullivan comments on the grand jury: "The somewhat aggressive Grand Jury also seems to consist of many African-American women -- not exactly Rove's base."

Since 7/13, liberal MaxSpeak, You Listen! has been holding a dead pool for Rove: "You guess when Rove either resigns, is arrested, is indicted, or contracts a very serious disease, whichever comes first."

SANTORUM: It's Spreading

At Raw Story-affil. PageOneQ, gay activist Mike Rogers outs Sen. Santorum's spokesperson, Robert Traynham, as gay. In the piece, Traynham defends himself and his boss: "Senator Santorum is a man of principle, he is a man who sticks up for what he believes in, I strongly do support Senator Santorum."

California Conservative responds: "Obviously, not the answer they were looking for. So, what do homosexual activists do? They attack." Blogs for Bush: "Whoever outed this aide is, well, someone deserving of a rather severe beating. Seriously. This is disgusting -- and, unfortunately, it happens quite often. A person's sexual proclivities, provided maintained between consenting adults, are no one's business at all. ... I'd like to think that everyone on the left would denounce this sort of thing... but I'm not holding my breath." K.J. Lopez, at The Corner: "Santorum has issued a statement praising the staffer, clearly furious that one of his people has been targetted in such a rotten way. Is that the "news" too? Maybe people are shocked Rick Santorum doesn't actually hate gays?"

Liberal Norwegianity: "Like everything else in the narcissistic world of Republican opportunism, hypocrisy is only outable when they are offended (and, as we all know, no one is more easily offended than a holier than thou wingnut)." Lefty Steve Gilliard, himself African-American: "You know, black people tend to be both judgmental and forgiving. You could be a Republican, You could be gay. But both? That's pretty f---ing crazy. I mean, you don't choose to be gay, but what about the racist, deeply homophobic GOP could possibly be appealing?"

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: White Men Can't Jump To Conclusions ABout Being Picked For The Court

A 6/15 Los Angeles Times story on the SCOTUS vacancy by reporter David Savage included the following sentence re: potential replacements for Chief Justice William Rehnquist: "The leading candidates were all white men." Anonymous L.A. Co. prosecutor "Patterico" comments: "This is an entirely fictional account, as anyone who has been following the process well knows." He quotes from several relevant news stories to illustrate the point, and adds: "The paper has issued no correction of this error. However, if you click on the link for yesterday's front-page story, you'll see that the 'white men' claim has been altered to remove the word 'white.'" "Patterico" even posts a photo of the print edition. He asks: "Did someone realize that the assertion was incorrect, and have the word airbrushed from the Web version? It's hard to imagine any other explanation. This hardly seems consistent with the claim made in the recently issued ethics code: 'When we make mistakes, we quickly and forthrightly correct the record.' There's nothing 'forthright' about this at all."

Lefty Marc Cooper comments on Los Angeles Times editor Jon Carroll's new ethics guidelines for reporters: "I am as opposed as Carroll is to conflicts of interest and am in favor of upholding high standards. But to ban people from all partisan politics is, well, absolutely akin to demanding celibacy from priests. In the latter case, ok, these are after all representatives of God. But, Mr. Carroll, the latter are just ink-stained wretches. If they want to march for or against abortion or put on a Kerry or Bush bumpersticker, then why don't you just let them be (so long as they are not actively covering any of the above)? ... The demand for ideological celibacy by Carroll goes beyond any limit. So even if a Times staffer finds the time (no pun) to start a blog, his Big Brother Employer still wants to set the rules. He even wants to regulate what you say on the blogs of others."

BLOGGERS VS. BLOGGERS: The Better Button War

Ex-BC'04 web adviser Patrick Ruffini announces a set of buttons that pro-Bush bloggers can add to their sidebars. They read: "Proud Member of the Electoral-Based Community -- Est. Nov. 2, 2004." The line is principally a reference to a Weekly Standard online article on the Dem blogosphere by article by Soxblog writer Dean Barnett, and 2ndarily a response to liberal bloggers, many of whom term themselves part of the "reality-based community." Elsewhere, Hugh Hewitt and INDC Journal comment on the Barnett piece.

An Oliver Willis header from 7/14: "Why Is The Republican Party Promoting A Hate Site?" Wills comments on the RNC's new blog: "On the RNC's list of blogs it recommends reading are some of the usual suspects, including Patrick Ruffini, Powerline, Trey Jackson, Blogs for Bush, and others. But one site sticks out -- Little Green Footballs (LGF), operated by Charles Johnson, is notorious for being a promoter of and haven for some of the most virulent anti-Muslim and anti-Islam hate speech on the web." The site's rhetoric "would seem to be in stark contrast to President Bush's repeated proclamations that 'Islam is peace.'" Willis lists a number of outlandish comments from the site, press-release style. In a response at LGF, Johnson calls the outcry "a big yawn," reiterates his open comments policy, and accuses the official DNC blog of linking to "foul-mouthed far-left fanatics."

MISCELLANY: If It's News To Bloggers, It's In The Washington Post

• On 7/17 the Washington Post magazine profiled liberal Barbara O'Brien from The Mahablog and conservative Betsy Newmark, who writes Betsy's Page. Among highlights of the article, the 2 debate the Iraq war at the Nat'l Air and Space Museum, while tourists gather around. On a side note, David Von Drehle mistakes the term "Instalanche" as "Instalaunch."
• AfterDowningStreet.org e-mails bloggers to let them know about their "amazing 9-minute recreation thereof that uses the exact words of the 'Downing Street Memo,'" with actors (including Ed Asner) reading the parts. To stream the audio, click here.
• Righty Ed Morrissey, on Rep. Frank LoBiondo's (R-NJ) comments calling Gitmo detainees "worse than Hitler": "If you are an elected official, and the word "Nazi" starts to escape your lips, please please PLEASE squeeze them shut."
• At DailyKos, "pamindurham" explores why some African-Americans are switching to the GOP -- social issues including gay rights and abortion loom large.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Maybe There's Hope For The "Online Magazine" Movement After All

The Blog Herald: "More interesting research, this time from Nielsen//Netratings that found that a decent sized portion of blog readers don't actually realize they are reading blogs, and not only that, they don't even know what a blog is. The survey found that 13% of people who visited blogs didn't know what a blog was, and more incredibly 66% of people visiting a blog didn't realize they were visiting a blog, basically they just thought it was another web site. Whether this is bad I don't know. I'm sure people here would work it out: the 'blog' in the 'Blog Herald' would probably give it away, but the question remains, is it really a bad thing that the majority of blog readers don't actually realize they are reading blogs? If they did would they think less of the sites?"

LEST WE FORGET: A Kos By Any Other Name

Right-leaning Gay Orbit posts a cellphone snapshot of a Mercedes Benz with the license plate "KOS"; at Daily Kos, Markos "Kos" Moulitsas replies: "This isn't my car. I don't drive a Mercedes. I drive a Subaru. ... For the curious, 'kos' also means 'c---' in Farsi, and is a Greek island in the Aegean Sea. Both good reasons for someone to stick 'kos' on a license plate. ... Per the comments, 'kos' also means the Jugoslav secret police, 'kill on sight' in gamer's parlance, and 'blackbird' in Serbian. Oh, and in India, it's a 'variable measure of distance, usually estimated at two miles.'"

°   °   °   °   °

BLOGOMETER SPECIAL: Vacant, Indeed

What the blogosphere is saying about the SCOTUS vacancy:

Fred Barbash, from the Washington Post's Campaign for the Supreme Court blog: " The consensus of opinion ... is that [Chief Justice] William Rehnquist's decision to stay as long as his health permits at once simplifies and complicates the task for the White House. Pres. Bush has only one choice to make now. But it will be harder for him to satisfy all the various constituencies with a single nomination. I suspect that view is too short-term. It is still a strong probability, as many have written, that Bush will have other vacancies to fill during his presidency. Therefore, the White House can legitimately see the first appointment as one in a series and act accordingly. From the standpoint of vote groupings on the court, Rehnquist's departure and replacement by an equally conservative justice would have not changed the direction of the court. The [Sandra Day] O'Connor vacancy mattered more and still does."

At Bench Memos, NRO's Ed Whelan writes that a "good" SCOTUS pick would not rely on "foreign and international legal decisions and other legal materials to construe the meaning of the U.S. Constitution," as 6 SCOTUS members have done in "recent years."

GOP-leaning Confirm Them: "Maybe the most significant thing on the Sunday talk shows was Senator [Arlen] Specter saying that if Bush wants a 'dignified' hearing, he'd better nominate a moderate like O'Connor. Specter added that the moderate nominee should also be 'somebody who's been out in the world and has a more varied background.' Senator Specter ought to guarantee a 'dignified' proceeding no matter who is nominated."

Posted by at 12:42 PM

July 15, 2005

7/15: As Good As It Gets?

After a week of increasingly hypothetical hyperactivity surrounding Karl Rove's involvement in the Valerie Plame case, the story takes a bit of a turn today on a New York Times story indicating that Bob Novak actually 1st mentioned Plame to Rove, not the other way around. While the left blogosphere has taken the lead on playing up and picking apart various reports this past week, today the right blogosphere pushes this story to the top. In addition, the right is pretty sure once again that Plame was not a "covert" agent at the time Novak's column was published -- that is, she had not worked overseas within 5 years of '03. Meanwhile, the conservative "dump Rove" meme we noticed at midweek seems to have faded decisively.

ROVE: It's Not What You'd Call A "Good Day" But He'll Take It

• John Podhoretz comments on the Novak-told-Rove NYT story: "Simple fairness says that an official called by a journalist who volunteers a piece of gossip and then responds, 'I heard that too,' is not retailing a piece of incendiary information intended to destroy lives and place CIA assets in harm's way. ... Anybody who says different has an agenda..."
• Lefty Atrios: "Uh, I can't decipher the narrative or the tangled sourcing in this article. Anyone want to try?"
• Conservative RedState is a bit cautious, noting that "the story is so filled with misplaced modifiers and awkward mutilations of the English language that it's difficult to determine what the heck the Times authors are intending to say."
• Liberal atty Jeralyn Merritt doesn't buy it: "The key clue that it is spin? Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, isn't endorsing it. Which, to me, says it's a public relations ploy, coming from one of Rove's lawyer/p.r. friends who thinks he or she is helping Rove by this disclosure. ... Is this source a government lawyer or employee of one, and is he or she violating the law by disclosing matters that occurred before the grand jury?" Merritt updates the post several times as versions of the report appear from the AP and Washington Post. A reader writes in to suggest the leaker in this case is Luskin, but Merritt doesn't buy it.
• The Left Coaster directs speculation toward what RNC chair Ken Mehlman knew, and when he knew it.
• Daily Kos header: "Rove Confirmed That Plame Was CIA Operative to Novak."
• On 7/14 the Blogometer mentioned UCLA prof Mark Kleiman's assertion that Rove could be charged under the Espionage Act of 1917. Conservative Baseball Crank doesn't buy it, but Tom Maguire and RedState take it seriously enough to suggest a MSM journalist ask an atty (which Kleiman is not) for their interpretation.
• NRO's The Buzz attended a MoveOn-led protest outside the WH, and snapped a few pictures.

MyDD's "Rove Meter" tracks the number of Rove-related stories on Google News this week:

     Saturday:      49
     Sunday:        77
     Monday:       639
     Tuesday:    1,150
     Wednesday:  1,200
     Thursday:   1,230

Conservative James Lileks, who spent part of his early journalism career in DC: "O to be in Washington today; this is when the town is fun. This is the sort of thing that makes the smallest journalist feel Important and Part of Something. Of course, most people don't care, but that just proves your point: you're part of the Beltway herd, and we got us a stammmpede! Yee Hah!"

WILSON: How Much Does This All Hinge On His Credibility?

Appearing on "Wolf Blitzer Reports" last p.m., Joe Wilson said: "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity." Podhoretz comments: "Now reflect on the fact that there has been an ongoing investigation FOR TWO YEARS conducted, we were breathlessly and rather constantly told in the weeks surrounding the initial controversy, on the basis that the White House and reporters OUTED A CLANDESTINE AGENT. Now we know. She wasn't. Not then."

WSJ's James Taranto: "All the Democrats who are braying for Karl Rove's head can't be very confident that he's committed a crime. If they were, they would wait for an indictment, which would be a genuine embarrassment to the administration."

Meanwhile, Talking Points Memo still refers to her as a covert agent, writing that conservatives' "arguments now amount to excuses, like those of a small child caught stealing cookies: Joe Wilson's a liar. Plame's covert status wasn't protected well by the CIA. It was just a short phone call. Rove really wanted to speak about welfare reform. ... The salient point is not that each of these claims is false. The point is that they're irrelevant. ... No presidential advisor should ever disclose the identity of a covert agent at the CIA. That doesn't require elaboration. ... Rove (and, though we're not supposed to say it yet, several of his colleagues) did something obviously wrong and reckless. And they probably broke several laws by the time it was all done."

Liberal Seeing the Forest criticizes Daily Howler's Bob Somerby for taking an especially harsh stance against Joe Wilson and his defenders: "Bob is actually focusing on two trees. One tree is the infamous sixteen words in Bush's SOTU speech. The second tree is Joe Wilson's N.Y. Times editorial. Bob ignores thousands of acres of surrounding forest. He takes a very technical look at the sixteen words in Bush's speech and concludes that it is impossible for Joe Wilson to know to an absolute certainty that President Bush was lying to the American people."

• At Volokh Conspiracy, Jim Lindgren makes the case against Wilson.
• On 7/13 Raw Story interviewed Wilson.

FITZGERALD: Not To Be Stereotypical, But He's A Real Fighter

Liberal Whiskey Bar interviews an old investigative journalist friend who relays a former editor's take on prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald: "If he can't make the case he started with, he'll figure out what you did do and hit you with that. He's relentless, and he doesn't give a flying fuck about the press or the First Amendment. He'd throw us all in jail if it would help him make his case."

SENATE: Amend For The Hell Of It

Last p.m. Senate Dems and GOPers offered competing amendments that have would limited various individuals' security clearance had either passed, which they didn't. David Corn calls the Dems' version, which came 1st, the "Karl Rove Memorial Act": "No federal employee who discloses, or has disclosed, classified information, including the identity of a covert agent of the Central Intelligence Agency, to a person not authorized to receive such information shall be permitted to hold a security clearance for access to such information." From the GOP amendment: "Any federal officeholder who makes reference to a classified Federal Bureau of Investigation report on the floor of the United States Senate, or any federal officeholder that makes a statement based on a FBI agent's comments which is used as propaganda by terrorist organizations thereby putting our servicemen and women at risk, shall not be permitted access to such information or to hold a security clearance for access to such information." Talking Points Memo "In other words, the law is targeted at Sen. Durbin, making it against the law to say what he said a month ago."

Lefty David Sirota observes, under the GOP amendment, "every Senator who participated in an Armed Services Committee hearing on Gitmo yesterday might lose their clearance because the FBI agents comments were discussed." Righty Captain's Quarters adds: "None of Reid's caucus can apparently wait for the results of an independent investigation, one on which they themselves insisted, to determine whether a crime had been committed at all, and if so who did it. This is yet another example of Harry Reid going off half-cocked."

Center-right Charging RINO inaugurates a "'Governed by Children' Watch."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Indictment Of Television News #472,035

Confederate Yankee writes, U.S. citizen Ali Al-Timimi "was given a life sentence for treason-related charges yesterday, but you probably won't find that on the front page of your favorite news web site. ... You might think that the conviction of a man calling for holy war against the United States from just outside our nation's capitol might merit some discussion." Confederate Yankee surveys several major news sites to see how, or if, they covered the story:

     ABC News            nothing
     Fox News            nothing
     Google News         nothing
     NY Post             nothing
     Washington Times    nothing
     Drudge Report       nothing
     Washington Post     Metro section
     New York Times      main page, below the fold
     CBS News            main page, below the fold

BLOGGERS VS. BLOGGERS: Howl

Right Wing Howler writes: "Some English youths must not have liked what happened on 7-7. Yesterday they killed a Muslim man in Nottingham. Oh, well. ... [T]his will be nothing more than another excuse for MOOS-lims to stay at home, strike, protest, kill more people---whatever. It's time to play 'cowboys and muslims' for real and end this crap." Right Wing News tears the RWH a new one: "I don't like to tear into other conservative bloggers. After all, there are already hordes of liberal bloggers out there and that's their shtick. But when I read something as bigoted, offensive, and just plain ignorant as this post at the Right Wing Howler, I feel compelled to step up and say something." He does.

TERRORISM: Our Bad?

A report from ABC News raises the possibility that the U.S. threat elevation during the '04 Dem convo may have actually helped the London bombers. AMERICAblog writes: "The alert was raised because of information found on [Naeem Noor Khan]'s computer ... In its effort to either prove that the alert was serious, or to try and scare people during the Dem Convention, the administration gave the press too much information about WHY they raised the alert. This put the media on the trail of Khan -- they found him, and they published his name." More at Daily Kos. Right-leaning Balloon Juice: "I also remember something about someone in the ISI in Pakistan outing Khan, but I don't know what is going on. I am so spinned out by everyone and everything it is hard to make heads or tails of events anymore. If it is true this administration blew his cover, and these folks that bombed London were part of the same crew, not good. Again, buyer beware until this is sorted out."

A number of conservative blogs, and even some liberal ones, highlight a Pew Research [PDF] survey showing that support for suicide bombings and for Osama bin Laden are significantly lower than in '02 across several Muslim countries. Liberal Political Animal points out that in Morocco, Indonesia, and Turkey -- each of which suffered major al Qaeda attacks since '02 -- "support for suicide bombing is down to 15% or less ... and, even more dramatically, confidence in Osama bin Laden has been cut nearly in half. Attacking Muslim countries appears to have backfired badly on al-Qaeda." Additionally, "Lebanon appears to be a big success story." Conservative Power Line: "It seems obvious that as mass murder moves from fantasy to reality, it will become less popular. No one really wants to live in a world in which boarding a subway means risking random death."

GITMO: Postcards From The Edge

Andrew Sullivan looks at the gov't report on abuses at Gitmo, as led by Lt. Gen. Randall Schmidt, and comments in one of several posts on the matter: "One great merit of the Schmidt report -- which is otherwise riddled with worrying euphemisms, dismissal of troubling facts, exoneration of almost all commanders -- is that we now know that almost every one of the Abu Ghraib techniques was practised and innovated at Guantanamo." He adds, "those hoodlums didn't get their ideas from thin air. They got them from the Pentagon and the White House."

Vodkapundit reacts to a follow-up Sullivan post: "I read earlier this week that, at 42, Andrew has now spent exactly half of his life in America. Maybe by the time he's 63, he'll get it. ... [W]hen he claims that our rough treatment of rough characters 'is not the America it once was,' he's displaying an almost-willful misunderstanding of America's wartime mores."

CUNNINGHAM: More Whisper Than Bang

In a 7/14 presser, embattled (see 6/28 and 7/6 Blogometers) Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-CA) announced he would not seek re-election. Josh Marshall, arguably Cunningham's chief pursuer in the blogosphere, noted it last p.m.: "Duke Cunningham out. Won't seek reelection."

NYC MAYOR: No Contest

New York Observer's Politicker "has learned that after" the '04 election and before running for the DNC chair, Howard Dean "spoke to associates about running for Mayor of New York."

At his Ragged Thots blog, New York Post's Robert George writes, "so much for the New York City mayor's 'race.'" Despite losing the Olympics and the West Side stadium, Mayor Mike Bloomberg (R) is "completely dominating the political scene. When District 37, the Big Apple's biggest municipal workers union endorses the GOP mayor nearly four months before the general election, this thing is just about over. ... Given the way this race is shaping up, the city would be better off scrapping the election and spending the money on something that people care about. The mayor's race ain't it."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Your Blog Of Blogs

Dawn Summers: "On Tuesday Hugh Hewitt talked about how much of the mainstream media was finally getting on board with blogging. He cited the Washington Post's latest 'Supreme Court' blog. The very next day I read an article about CBS starting a blog about its news coverage. My first reaction was 'great, maybe I can apply for a job blogging for a big news outlet!" But I changed my mind very quickly. The fun of blogging is the snark. The mercilessly brutal criticism of, well, everything and anything! So, if I were CBS what I'd do is start up a blog about ABC or NBC."

LEST WE FORGET: Okay, Even The Freepers

Unscrewing The Inscrutable, a blog which disappeared some time back, returned this week at a new address. The post announcing its return begins: "Pharynguloids, Dispatchers, High Ranking Politburo Members, Kossacks, Redstaters, Aliens from across the Cosmos, Pundits of all flavors, Godless Atheists, Self-aware Intelligent Machines and sentient energy or exotic matter constructs, inter-dimensional travelers, religious lunatics, and rational or irrational humans of every stripe ... WELCOME!!!! We're not angry, we just don't agree with you ...

In the comments below, site co-founder Brent Rasmussen writes: "You forgot Freepers" -- i.e. denizens of FreeRepublic.com. Co-founder "DarkSyde," author of the quoted post replies: "won't pick on freepers for no reason ... but I can't bring myself to say they're welcome"

°   °   °   °   °

BLOGOMETER SPECIAL: Ganging Up

What the blogosphere is saying about the SCOTUS vacancy:

REHNQUIST: Cooling Down

There are a few sighs of relief from conservatives in the blogosphere, who today (perhaps surprisingly) express relief that Chief Justice William Rehnquist will not step down.

Power Line's John Hinderaker: "I think it is a good thing for him to stay on the Court for a while. If President Bush were in the position of naming two Supreme Court nominees at once, I'd guess the Democrats could get away with blocking one of them."

In the 6/30 Blogometer, RedState's Josh Trevino made the following prediction, based on info from a source: "[T]he Rehnquist rumor [about him retiring] is pure bunk. He is dead set on being the longest-serving Chief Justice in history: 'dead set' as in he'll die in office if necessary. Also, it appears that O'Connor has just had her offices renovated for her husband's sake, so take that as you will."

GANG OF 14: Overserved?

From a New York Times piece on the Gang of 14's influence: "If the gang sticks together, it could become a powerful force -- so powerful that some of its members ... have insisted that the group steer clear of issues beyond the judiciary, for fear of becoming a kind of shadow leadership." Right-leaning Decision '08 admonishes the writers for being overly enthusiastic: "[G]et a grip. It was a legislative compromise, not the Manhattan Project."

TAPPED's Sam Rosenfeld writes, the "Hardball" interview with Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH) "illustrated the degree to which the Gang's nuclear option deal has successfully come to be framed in the last two months as an agreement that delegitimized filibusters rather than the nuclear option." The agreement has been a "disaster" for Dems, giving DeWine and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) "free rein to frame the Supreme Court debate in a hard-line partisan fashion that is indistinguishable from the one peddled by their GOP colleagues but that benefits from the Gang's warm bipartisan glow."

Conservative MN blog The First Ring wants Senate Maj. Leader Bill Frist to step aside: "Now that Rehnquist has denied he plans to resign, for now, it's time for conservatives to breath a collective sigh of relief. It's possible that Sen. Frist may be able to handle taking point on filling Justice O'Connor's seat, but it's doubtful that he could've filled two seats." More: "What we saw in early 2005 was just the Democratic leadership testing the resolve of Majority Leader Frist. What they found was that Frist didn't have the guts to use the nuclear option, for one; he didn't have the votes, and two; he was too busy plotting a run for the White House. ... Frist should step down as Majority Leader; he just doesn't have it in him. ... If the Dems filibuster, the new Majority Leader needs the 'nuclear option' to remind the Democrats that they're the minority party in America."

ROE V. WADE: Not So Private

Liberal Daily Kos writes about the "Right Wing insistence that Roe is not threatened" by O'Connor's retirement: "Vote counts from Casey are provided. It will be 5-4 to uphold Roe we are told. And the nominees being discussed are described by the Right as NOT anti-Roe. ... Here's what I glean [from the GOP arguments]: The right to choose, as embodied in Roe and affirmed in Casey, is a WINNING political issue for Dems. Dems should embrace the right to choose as a core value. We don't need to dress it up under the right to privacy (which has a separate political potency all its own) rubric. Indeed, that weakens its political potency."

GROUPS: JUSTICE! Justice! Justice... SUNDAY! Sunday! Sunday...

Washington Monthly's Amy Sullivan: "If you didn't get enough of Justice Sunday, hold onto your hats, because Justice Sunday II is on the way. Seriously. Crazy Zell Miller is already signed up to headline -- no word on whether Bill Frist will make a return appearance."

Posted by at 12:29 PM

July 14, 2005

7/14: The Spy Who Came In From The Cold And The Adviser Who Came In For Some Heat

If the Blogometer swore off publishing speculation, then we wouldn't have much to write about. Indeed, it is almost all speculation today. On the left and right, interested observers are poring over transcripts, interviews, books, plus newspaper and magazine articles both new and old, looking for a new angle that may help illuminate the truth behind you-know-which ongoing investigation and explain what it all means. Here are just a few of the theories to surface, either for the 1st time or with renewed significance, in recent days:

• WH dep. CoS Karl Rove could face espionage charges rather than mere indictment under intelligence protection statues.
• Ex-Amb. Joe Wilson may have leaked wife Valerie Plame's role in his Niger trip to friends in the Washington press.
• New York Times' Judy Miller may have leaked the Wilson/Plame gossip to the WH.
• Or, Miller and the Times may be protecting another source, one unsympathetic to the WH.
• Ex-WH spokesperson Ari Fleischer may have leaked Plame's name.

All are covered below, plus a greatly diminished amount of other news, a report on Rep. Louise Slaughter's (D-NY) blogad campaign -- and, our latest Blogger Spotlight, with Eric Alterman.

TRACKBACKS: Is Karl Rove The Next Mark Felt?

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

• The 7/13 Wall Street Journal editorial "Karl Rove, Whistleblower" comes in for a major drubbing by the left. Some on the right take note as well, but fewer add substantial commentary.
  
  

  >> From the left -- Hullabaloo: "Yeah. ... Rove was an interepid whistleblower, putting himself on the line exposing government wrongdoing when he outed Plame. He is the Daniel Ellsberg of the Bush administration bravely risking all to let the people know what its government was doing. My head hurts." · Obsidian Wings calls it "The Oliver North Effect": "I don't know whether Rove committed a crime in l'affair Plame. (In fact, I rather suspect that he didn't.) But this defense of Rove in The Wall Street Journal is ridiculous." · World O' Crap: "[L]et's take a brief look at today's unsigned Wall Street Journal editorial which also tells why Karl is the real victim here. (Okay, the piece is unsigned, but I'm betting it was penned by James Taranto -- the 'kerfuffle' always gives him away)..." · Fafblog, in jest: "As the Wall Street Journal points out today, the true tragedy in the Plame affair has been the burning of Karl Rove. Indeed, if there is any integrity left in Time Magazine, it must fire Matt Cooper. By outing Karl Rove as the man who outed an undercover CIA agent, Matt Cooper has selfishly, recklessly, and amorally endangered a top administration official, exposing Rove and those he works with to threat from political opponents, news organizations and the Justice Department, to say nothing of the damage done to Rove's career as one of America's hard-working partisan hacks. With his identity revealed, how will Rove effectively leak the leaks and spread the rumors necessary to serve his party? Such shameless and reckless abuse of partisan security cannot be tolerated. Matt Cooper must go."
  

  >> From the right -- Vodkapundit: "Finally, my thoughts come down to this. Republicans have complained since 1975 that Congress gutted our human intelligence -- and it's a fair cop. Between Congressional meddling and Clinton rule-making, Republicans are right when they say our human intelligence resources have been gutted. But those complaints seem less justified -- and more hypocritical -- when a high-ranking Republican treats an agent's identity with anything less than perfect circumspection." · Others take note of the editorial, but don't add much in the way of commentary: Wizbang, Ed Driscoll, Volokh Conspiracy.
  
  

  >> From the center -- Joe Gandelman calls Rove "a modern day political untouchable."

ROVE I: Miller's Crossing

At NRO's The Corner, John Podhoretz wote on 7/12, a "vital detail" in Byron York's widely-discussed 7/12 NRO piece -- that Cooper "called Rove to talk about something else" before switching to Wilson/Plame. He writes, "This is important, because it suggests Rove wasn't 'retailing' the information about Wilson and Plame ... but was rather a passive source." More: "It means that clearly information was circulating around Washington about the identity of Wilson's CIA operative wife Valerie Plame." Considering that Wilson was "cozy" with DC journalists, what if Miller discovered Plame's role from Wilson, and what if Miller "let it all slip and ... was the original source of the 'Plame's in the CIA' info?" In a follow-up post on 7/13, he speculated further that perhaps "Plame's identity as a CIA operative came not from White House sources eager to out her, but from those eager to bolster Wilson's case against the White House (like, say, Wilson himself)."

Righty JunkYardBlog asks, "Who is Miller sitting in jail to protect? Most likely, herself. Most of upper crust DC knew who Plame was and that she worked for the CIA before Novak's story ever hit. ... And therefore she knew of Wilson's connection to Plame without having to hear it obliquely from Karl Rove. And Wilson's connection to Plame, about which he lied repeatedly to the press when he denied her role, was and is very much relevant to the story because it addresses his credibility as a fact-finder. ... The job wasn't sanctioned by anyone higher than Plame's immediate colleagues. The press hasn't bothered to ask why Plame and her little clique did this?"

At liberal TPM Cafe, Mark Schmitt tries to sort out the theory, which he says doesn't "make a bit of sense." Going off the version posted to RedState, he begins: "First, since the New York Times is liberal, and also called for a special prosecutor on the Plame case, it doesn't make sense that they would be defending Miller's refusal to testify if Miller were protecting Rove or another White House official, so perhaps she's protecting a Democrat..." Schmitt: "I love the old 'Can it be...?' method of empirical inquiry. Especially when the answer is, 'Ummmm, No.'" (On a tangential point, Schmitt writes that RedState is "still the best conservative blog, because at least they have comments" -- a comment similar to ones we've seen on other liberal blogs.)

ROVE II: Not Just Sabotage, But Espionage?

Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum writes, prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald "is sure acting like a guy who has the goods on this whole affair, and if he starts delivering indictments it's going to make the Greek chorus singing Rove's praises look pretty silly. Oh, it was six reporters? Over the course of three days? And some of the calls were from Air Force One? Um... Frankly, smart Republicans would be well advised to hedge their bets. As Mark Kleiman explains, the legal case against the leakers is probably stronger than most people believe, and if Fitzgerald decides any of these guys lied to his investigators he's going to throw that into the mix as well. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor."

In the above-linked post, UCLA prof Kleiman writes: "Rove's conduct certainly meets the far less demanding elements of the Espionage Act: (1) possession of (2) information (3) relating to the national defense (4) which the person possessing it has reason to know could be used to damage the United States or aid a foreign nation and (5) wilful communication of that information to (6) a person not entitled to receive it. Under the Espionage Act, the person doing the communicating need not actually know that revelation could be damaging; he needs only 'reason to know.'"

Liberal Whiskey Bar's "Billmon": "In my wildest, my most delightful dreams, I could not imagine that the guy who just three weeks ago was equating liberals with traitors could soon be facing trial as a ... traitor. I mean, I wouldn't dare put something like that on my Christmas list. Gluttony is one of the seven deadly sins."

Right-leaning QandO goes to the relevant section of code, and disagrees: "Again, questions follow. Was Ms. Plame's status with the agency classified at the time the information was released? If so, did Mr. Rove know it to be classified? Again, this gets us into a very murky area. If Ms. Plame was, in fact, going to work every day at CIA Headquarters in Langley, then her employment with the CIA can hardly have been classified, since she could be observed working there daily."

At conservative PoliPundit, Lorie Byrd writes "Perhaps it would be easier for me to believe" Dems and reporters such as David Gregory and Terry Moran "when they get all worked up about the national security implications of the Valerie Plame matter, if their concerns were not so recently born." She lists reasons why she doesn't buy it: "1. Senator Patrick Leahy's history of leaking"; "2. Former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger's theft of documents"; "3. Eight years of the Clinton White House." On the last point, asks rhetorically: "When Bill Clinton gave a young intern enough blackmail ammunition (through hours of phone sex and cigar handling) to sell to any enemy of the U.S. for enough money to let her live like a queen for life, did we hear any concern for the national security implications?"

ROVE III: Fleischer, With The Lead Pipe, In The Front Of The Plane

CAP's ThinkProgress raises the question: was ex-WH spokesperson Fleischer the 1st leaker? In 2/04, Fitzgerald focused on the WH comm. staff, subpoenaed Fleischer and AF1 phone records, and at least at one point Fitzgerald suspected those records would reveal the leaker's identity. Fleishcher was "on a presidential trip to Africa, where he might have had access to the classified State Department document brought aboard" by then-Sec/State Colin Powell "that likely tipped administration officials off to Plame's true identity."

ROVE IV: From The Cheney Gang To The Chain Gang?

The Left Coaster's "eriposte" responds to GOP arguments that Wilson had falsely claimed VP Cheney had sent him to Niger in an extended entry under 3 headers. The 1st: "A. Does the GOP's Talking Points For Treason(TM) offer evidence for their claim against Joseph Wilson? Short Answer: NO" 2nd: "B. Did Joseph Wilson Make Such a Claim (about Cheney)? SHORT ANSWER: It depends on what the claim is." 3rd: "C. CONCLUSION: Is there any merit to the GOP's assertion? SHORT ANSWER: NO" On the 2nd point, eriposte writes: "If the claim is that "Cheney sent him" there is evidence (above) that Wilson said the opposite. If the claim is that Cheney's office was somehow involved in his trip to Niger, then yes Wilson had said something to that effect. But this does not prove the GOP's case ... Indeed, the GOP ... provides a quote by Dick Cheney issuing a denial on 9/14/03. When all it takes to correct an inaccuracy is to state what is accurate, there is no explanation on earth that can justify the need to expose Valerie Plame's identity to make the same point."

ROVE V: For The Record

Nation corr. David Corn, in his 7/13 column, cross-posted to his personal blog, writes: Rove did pass classified information to Cooper," even if "unwittingly," assuming he didn't know Plame's "employment status at the CIA was classified information. But he and his posse cannot say the information he slipped to Cooper was not classified. The Intelligence Identities Protection Act makes it a crime to identify 'a covert agent'" of the U.S., and defines the term, "in part, as 'a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information.'" He adds: "Not all wrongdoing is a crime. But leaking classified information is always serious business."

Just One Minute's righty Tom Maguire: "We seem to be approaching agreement on the issue of whether Ms. Plame was involved in the selection of her husband to go to Niger." Dems have argued, as Wilson wrote in his book, that "Valerie had had nothing to do with" his going to Niger. But ex-CIA agent Larry Johnson wrote at TPM Cafe on 7/13 (see 7/13 Blogometer) that "it is true she recommended her husband to do the job." Maguire adds: "We have no idea why Larry Johnson has abandoned [Wilson] on this point. Other than common sense."

Under the header "Day 3: What Did the President Know, and When Did He Know It?" Daily Kos' "Hunter" asks: "When did the President first learn of Karl Rove's involvement in this case?" He adds: "That's not a question President George W. Bush is going to be able to dodge forever. The longer the White House refuses to answer, the more media reports will begin to dig for the answer on their own."

Conservative Villainous Company posts an amusing photo of John Kerry in an almost-goldenrod biking outfit, and comments on John Kerry's "Karl Rove must go" petition: "Poor John Kerry. Is there any doubt that we've entered the doldrums of Washington's annual silly season? If so, a visit to the Senator's web site will soon dispel it. Having recently failed to re-take Capitol Hill in a manner reminiscent of Genghis Khan, the junior legislator from Massachusetts is reduced to circulating petitions on the Internet. But thank God for small favors... intrepid KerryWatchers should be grateful he's not flogging those horrid canary yellow bike outfits he wears on the Home Shopping Network.

Liberal Daily Howler's Bob Somerby points out (2nd item) that Wilson is a "shaky messenger" re: Nigerian yellowcake -- indeed, the report he filed actually supported the report that Iraq had sought yellowcake uranium in Niger, though Wilson's later statements downplayed this finding. Somerby takes "liberals and Dems" to task for getting behind Wilson in the first place. He concludes, "some libs have now caught a virus from the kooky talk-show right." Additionally, he puts readers on notice for the "ridiculous up-is-down lie" that Cheney sent Wilson to Niger, adding: "[Y]ou'll want to keep an eye out for gullible reporters who parrot it."

Along with his readers, Balloon Juice's John Cole has been working step-by-step through a list of statements on the Rove/Plame case, trying to ascertain what everyone can agree on about the case. 4 statements have been agreed to, 2 more are under debate, and Cole opened debate on statement #7 starting yesterday.

At Reason's Hit and Run, libertarian Jeff Taylor makes 2 points: "One, let's be adult about this, Rove was not "out to get" Joe Wilson or his wife. He was attempting to make the minor, but still valid, rhetorical point that Wilson could not be described as an internal critic of the Bush administration and was not vetted by the White House inner circle for his trip to Niger. ... Second, the White House and official GOPdom is fast approaching unsustainable, Clintonian 'depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is' territory by insisting that Rove somehow did not 'name' Plame. Of course he did. And course Bush should fire Rove or else be judged a hypocrite on his pledge to fire any leakers involved in the matter.

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: If Rove Throws The Medal Over A Capitol Hill Fence, At Least He Can Go Pick It Up Later

On 7/12, FNC's John Gibson said on his show: "I say give Karl Rove a medal, even if Bush has to fire him. Why? Because Valerie Plame should have been outed by somebody, and nobody else had the cajones to do it." Crooked Timber's Ted Barlow: "This is idiotic. Even if I were to grant Gibson every element of his argument ... all I'm granting is that Plame used bad judgement in suggesting her husband. Gibson is forced to argue that a covert CIA agent who shows bad judgement in a personnel suggestion should be exposed, rather than (say) ignored, reprimanded or even fired."

On 7/13 the New York Times editorialized against gov't "officials peddl[ing] disinformation for propaganda purposes or to harm a political adversary." Power Line's John Hinderaker opines: "Yes, we certainly agree with that. That's why our opinion of Joe Wilson is so low. He leaked the contents of his own report to the CIA -- in the pages of the New York Times! -- only he lied about his own report. He 'peddled disinformation,' falsely claiming to have found no evidence of an Iraqi effort to buy uranium from Niger, in order to 'harm a political adversary,' President Bush. The Times didn't mind that particular disinformation, however, since it fit the paper's political agenda." He adds that not only has the Times issued no correction, but they linked to the '03 Wilson op-ed in said editorial.

POLITICAL MONEY BLOG: Under The Pink

With a hat tip to PoliticalMoneyLine and Michael Lewis' Moneyball, we present our 2nd report on political blog advertising:

Yesterday the Blogometer spoke to ex-Dean staffer/Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) manager Karl Frisch about Slaughter's "Send Karl Rove His Pink Slip!" Blogad campaign. When readers click on the blogad, they are taken to a page on Slaughter's official re-elect site, VoteLouise.com. The campaign asks interested readers to sign a petition and fill in their own reason why Rove should be fired.

Frisch said the campaign is aiming for 100K participants and will keep it online as long as it needs to do so -- perhaps longer if the goal is met quickly. Required fields include 1st and last names, e-mail address and zip code, but one needn't give a reason why Rove should be fired. Online petitions raise awareness for a subject the sponsor cares about, and also builds an e-mail list for future use.

Through the campaign, Frisch bought 42 out of the 74 adstrips from BlogAds' Advertise Liberally network, mostly on blogs with high traffic and those he knew from having read blogs for a few years. The ads started running on 7/12. As of about 10:30 a.m. this morning, Frisch reported 17,709 petitions had been signed.

Another note: Slaughter's re-election website is surprisingly complete and active for a rep. with a clear path to re-election. In addition to the blog and the Rove campaign, she even has profiles on Friendster and MySpace. Frisch wouldn't take credit for the decision, saying only that Slaughter wants to be involved at every level of the Internet -- but the Blogometer isn't currently aware of any other members of Congress with a page on MySpace, nor one who claims "South Park" as a favorite TV show.

Note: For our 1st report on political blog advertising, see the 6/17 Blogometer.

DELAY: Hang A Lampson On Your Problem

TX-based lefty Charles Kuffner writes, House candidate Nick Lampson (D-TX) "had himself a fine fundraising quarter for the period" ending 6/30, raising $500K in 8 weeks. Lampson is challenging House Maj. Leader Tom DeLay, who has raised $1.3M. More Kuffner: "Fine by me if GOP incumbents are giving extra cash to DeLay. As many of us observed last year, the more money and time that DeLay has to spend on his own reelection, the less he can spend helping his buddies. I'm happy for him to be a drain on national campaign resources instead of a pump."

MISCELLANY: More Fuel For The GOP-Is-No-Longer-The-Party-Of-Fiscal-Responsibility Fire

• Power Line's Scott Johnson congratulates fellow MN blogger Ed Morrissey of Captain's Quarters on joining the Weekly Standard as a contributing editor to the online Daily Standard. His first article went up yesterday.
• The NV Young GOPers is $25K in the red after their nat'l convo, and chapter chair Nathan Taylor is blasting GOPers Sen. John Ensign and Reps. Jim Gibbons and Jon Porter because the state party didn't help defray costs. GOP blogger Balloon Juice: "Fabulous. Get this man a job at the CBO." Lefty Atrios snarks: "I hear the military is offering good signing bonuses now."
• At David Horowitz's FrontPage magazine, Alan Dershowitz comments on a charge of academic plagiarism against longtime adversary/Columbia prof Rashid Khalidi. The charge was 1st leveled by right-leaning Jewish blogger Martin Solomon. Khalidi later told HNN that he was not the author.
• Martin Kramer criticizes fellow blogger Juan Cole for suggesting that 9/11 was motivated "in some large part" by U.S. support for Ariel Sharon's policies: "Did Cole read the same 9/11 report as the rest of us? There's not a single passage in the 9/11 report mentioning Sharon's (or Israel's) policies, and I challenge him to produce one. Cole just made it up. And in point of fact, the report's narrative definitively contradicts him.

BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: Altered States

Today the Blogometer talks to lefty journalist, author and blogger Eric Alterman, who writes Altercation for MSNBC.com.

What is your full name?

Eric Ross Alterman

What is your age?

45

Where did you grow up?

Queens, New York, and then Westchester

Where do you live now?

Upper West Side, Manhattan

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

I'm a columnist, a professor, an author, a think-tank guy, and a blogger. I volunteered for various campaigns as a student. I was the stringer for The Boston Globe at Yale for two years. I have freelanced for most major magazines and newspapers at one time or another but never on staff, unless you include Rolling Stone, where I did politics for a couple of years.

When did you start blogging and why?

My bosses at MSNBC.com requested that I replace the column I was doing for them with a weblog. We began it in May, 2002 and I don't think we've missed more than a couple of days in the past three years.

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

I guess I am proudest of the contributors I've managed to corral, Tom Sawyer-style, into writing for for Altercation for free. That would include Charles Perce, Major Bob Bateman, Eric Rauchway, Siva Vaidhyanthan, my music reviewer, Sal, and others. I also feel like we've created a kind of virtual community among readers and letter-writers and I'm proud of that, too.

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

I wake up early, put on the coffee, and get to work while the rest of the family is asleep. Then I send everybody off to school and work and try to finish up by ten a.m. or so, and wait to see 'The Note' before sending it off to my editor, usually by eleven. We do a little back and forth and it goes up. Then I check for mistakes, which sometimes come to me in the form of angry emails, passed through my assistant. (I stopped reading them both because of time constraints but also because of the viciousness of the tone that characterized many of them. Now I read only those that are passed along to me.) It's a lot of words per day, more than a thousand--sometimes, even more than that -- but I don't write all or necessarily even most of them.

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

It changes regularly. People have streaks. I think those kids at TAPPED are terrific, particularly Matt Yglesias. Josh Marshall is obviously great, too, as is Atrios in a much different way. I like academic blogs, like Siva's [Sivacracy], Left2Right, HNN, and Michael Berube. I like having Andy around because he gives me so much material; it's almost worth being called a self-hating Jewish traitor by a goyish foreigner.

Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?

Does Garry Trudeau count? Truthfully, this changes too, or more accurately, rotates between, Rick Hertzberg, Mike Kinsley, E.J. Dionne and Frank Rich. (I admire Krugman, but he is not a stylist. I think Richard Cohen is a great columnist, but his thinking gets fuzzy sometimes.) Wile we're on this topic, let us note for the record that none of these people appear on television. That may be because, a) genuine liberals are not invited to be on television, or b) going on television regularly ruins you as a writer. (Want to know my least favorite? It's a tie between Bob Novak and Alex Cockburn. In a just society -- or a punditocracy that was not dominated by right-wingers -- they would be equally obscure, instead of just Alex being obscure and Novak being whatever it is he is. (And is it just a coincidence they agree completely about Israel?))

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

(Unless you are including Charlie Rose) Jon Stewart is literally the only one I can stomach.

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

MSNBC.com, the Guardian, NYT, WP, LAT, WSJ, Slate, The Note, and Le Monde when I'm feeling ambitious.

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

What non-MSM websites (i.e. blogs) do you visit on a daily basis? Lemme see, daily? If I'm not teaching that day, usually, Romensko, Salon, TAPPED, Center for American Progress, ThinkProgress, Arts and Letters Daily, Atrios, Josh, Arianna, Media Matters, Wonkette, History News Network, H-Diplo, and I suppose Andy. I read my boss, Katrina vanden Heuvel's blog too. I try to avoid Drudge, but he keeps sucking me back in.

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

I get the Times and the WSJ delivered, but I'd read the WSJ online if it were me paying for it. I also get the Forward, which I think is great. I don't think I could live without the Times on paper in the morning, however much it infuriates me sometimes.

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

Hey, this is an essay question. No fair.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY:

Stakes Is High

National Journal's Danny Glover writes at Beltway Blogroll that the DCCC "sees an opportunity to trim" the GOP House majority by taking the OH seat vacated by U.S. Trade Rep. Rob Portman. DCCC's Stephen Yellin wrote at The Stakeholder: "Can we raise $25,000 in two weeks to get [Dem candidate] Paul Hackett elected? We did it in 2004 with Ginny Schrader in a week, and this race is no less important. And when I threw the first pebble into Ginny's wave of money, I knew that her race mattered. So does Paul Hackett's."

LEST WE FORGET: Caddyshack 3

BuzzMachine blogger/Entertainment Weekly founder/New York Times consultant/MSNBC contributor Jeff Jarvis goes golfing on vacation.

NOTES AND ERRATA: The Coffee Cop-Out

The Blogometer wrote yesterday's "Backlog" post about Mediacrity's tangle with the New York Times and its public editor, Barney Calame, before we had our coffee yesterday. Although the item was, as Mediacrityput it, opaque, we thought it was worth mentioning that we agree -- it does appear that the Times did lift the info from his blog without attribution.

°   °   °   °   °

BLOGOMETER SPECIAL: The Old Man And The Sea Of Rumors

What the blogosphere is saying about the SCOTUS vacancy:

Conservative UCLA law prof Stephen Bainbridge wrote on 7/12: "I got an email today from a reliable source opining that Justice John Paul Stevens will retire this summer if, but only if, CJ [William] Rehnquist steps down. The theory is that Stevens will be willing to let Bush fill his slot only if there are so many spots available that [Pres.] Bush will feel free and/or pressure to nominate at least one moderate. If true, my guess is that the three slots would go to: Alberto Gonzales, probably as Chief, since he's Bush's closest judicial friend and Bush seems so eager to appoint the first Hispanic; Edith Jones (or possibly Janice Rogers Brown) so that a woman replaces O'Connor; and Michael McConnell to make both business and social conservatives happy. Let's see Tradesports figure out a contract for that one!"

Right-leaning T. Longren comments: "I don't really believe any of this. Sure, there's a chance it could happen, but I could also be killed right now from a poopsicle falling from a jetliner. I don't know why I should trust this guy's source ... I'll stay skeptical."

RedState's Erick Erickson shares more rumors on the SCOTUS front: "Three-quarters of Washington says the Stevens rumor is garbage. The other quarter is right."

More Erickson: "Even prior to his hospitalization, the White House is moving forward with its judicial picks to find someone to replace the Chief Justice. Michael Luttig and John Roberts are both getting a thorough review. The White House wants to make sure the Chief knows his Court will be left in good hands, should the Chief want to go on and get off the bench." Yet more: "John Cornyn looks to be a favored compromise pick. His name has circulated privately between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats want to fight like hell against any nominee, but doing so against a Cornyn pick would further break down collegiality between the Republican majority and Democratic minority in the Senate. Several folks in the White House have started mulling this idea with some seriousness."

GANG OF 14: Fat Lot Of Good

Captain's Quarters, on what the Gang of 14 compromise means to the SCOTUS confirmation process: "What this shows is that the Memorandum of Understanding signed by the Gang did nothing but kick the can down the road. Democratic Party leaders have continued to ratchet up the rhetoric and their demands, with Schumer claiming that the President owes them a list of people for the minority party to vet. Even McCain had to speak out after that, scolding Democrats for ignoring the elections that put them clearly in the minority. In the end, we will face the same fight, only months later and probably with the same harried vote-counting that preceded the MOU. The only gain made was to the egos of 14 Senators who got the best press coverage of their lives. And that, sadly, was probably all that mattered to them in the first place."

A Byrd In The Hand ... Or On The Blog

GOP-leaning Jackson's Junction quotes, and posts video of, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) saying: "[Bush] called me today and I said to him, I am shouting your name from the steeple tops for reaching out, reaching across the aisle." Trey Jackson comments: "So -- if you ever hear someone on the left complaining about the President not 'reaching out' -- direct them to Senator Byrd's statement on the issue!"

Posted by at 12:34 PM

July 13, 2005

7/13: Parse Included, Some Assembly Required

One frustrating aspect of the labyrinthine, serpentine, even Byzantine Novak/Rove/Plame/Wilson/Cooper/Miller/Fitzgerald/Luskin/McClellan case is that many questions that were asked 2 years ago remain unresolved, even in light of new information. One that gets plenty of attention today is: Was Plame actually undercover at the time Bob Novak filed his column? The left tends to say "yes," and most think Rove should be fired even if he didn't break the law; liberal bloggers are more or less united on this point.

Likewise the right tends to say "no," and many support him. But more interestingly, several conservative bloggers are coming to the conclusion that Rove is either a) a liability for the admin., or b) committed a fireable offense whether he committed a crime or not. This meme bears watching over the coming days -- it may be squashed, or it may fester. If it's the latter, conservative outcry online could turn into conservative outcry offline. And while Pres. Bush is likely to keep or dump Rove for his own reasons, discontent within the base could further weaken the WH on other matters.

The Rove case also turns on anonymously sourced information from close to the Fitzgerald investigation suggesting that investigators are suspicious of Novak's version of events. More on that below.

Also in this edition -- the MetaBank "scandal" takes an ironic turn, the RNC finally launches a blog of its own, and the New York Times' new public editor starts earning his paycheck.

TRACKBACKS: The Grand Old Duke Of York

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

• According to a report by National Review's Byron York, Rove atty Robert Luskin is now saying that Cooper "burned" Rove after a conversation concerning Plame and her role in arranging a Wilson's Niger mission. There seems to be a discrepancy between what Rove said to Cooper and how Cooper later characterized that info in a subsequent article. In an 'internal Time e-mail,' Cooper wrote: "Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation." The story itself asks if the Bush admin. has 'declared war' on Wilson.
  
  

  >> From the left -- Hullabaloo's "Digby" comments: "It may not be the smartest thing in the world for Karl Rove's lawyer to be disparaging Matt Cooper on the day before he testifies, do you think? They only know what one e-mail says and they have no idea what Cooper is going to say. Bizarre." · The Mahablog: "In the Rightie Alternate Universe (RAU), it was Wilson and Plame who burned Karl Rove. The RAU is in perpetual spin cycle, of course, but they're workin' overtime today." · This Modern World: "Rove's lawyer has the lamest defense ever ... Good thing for Karl that the Intelligence Identities and Protection Act has a 'double super secret background' clause. It's right between the sections concerning 'my fingers were crossed' and 'just kidding.'" · Demagogue: "You really have to feel for Rove -- he's the victim here. Curse that nasty, nasty Matthew Cooper! What kind of a world is it where the president's top aide can't even attempt to discredit somebody by divulging damaging classified information to a reporter on double secret background without that reporter, two years later, burning him? Not the sort of world I want to live in!" · CAP's Think Progress: "Oh, and by the way, Luskin added that Fitzgerald told him Rove is a 'subject' of the investigation. When will Rove stop attacking others and start taking responsibility for his own actions."
  
  

  >> From the right -- Betsy Newmark: "Of course, if the situation were reversed and this was a Clinton White House and the scandal was revolving around one of his political advisors, you know that the GOP and Democrats would be on the opposite side of where they are now. When you realize something like that, you know that this really is a 'partisan food fight.'" · After reading the piece, QandO's neo-libertarian Dale Franks looks carefully at Title 50 USC, Sec 421, under which Rove could potentially be charged. Noting that all 5 conditions must be met for successful conviction, Franks argues it is "extraordinarily difficult" to claim that Rove knew Plame was "covert": "Indeed, if Valerie Plame was driving to work at Langley every morning, it's problematic to argue that she was, at the time, a covert agent at all, though she may have been one in the past. Driving through the main gate at CIA headquarters every workday at 7:30 is kind of a giveaway that you work for the CIA." · Shot in the Dark: "Of course, it's Washington; you never know who's telling the truth, if any."
  
  

  >> War and Piece; Talking Points Memo; Andrew Sullivan; Whiskey Bar; The Stakeholder; TalkLeft; Pros and Cons; Tough Enough.

ROVE I: Novak Moves Back To The Fore?

American Prospect contributor/Whatever Already! blogger Murray Waas reports on Novak at his personal blog, using the MSM-style inverted-pyramid: "Columnist Robert Novak provided detailed accounts to federal prosecutors of his conversations with Bush administration officials who were sources for his controversial July 11, 2003 column identifying Valerie Plame as a clandestine CIA officer, according to attorneys familiar with the matter. ... Federal investigators have been skeptical of Novak's assertions that he referred to Plame as a CIA 'operative' due to his own error, instead of having been explicitly told that was the case by his sources, according to attorneys familiar with the criminal probe. That skepticism has been one of several reasons that the special prosecutor has pressed so hard for the testimony of Time magazine's Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller." Additionally, Waas reports, "a U.S. government official questioned by investigators said Novak specifically asked him whether Plame had some covert status with the CIA. The official told investigators that Novak appeared uncertain whether she was undercover or not."

The liberal blogs are all over it. Talking Points Memo: "They're right to be skeptical of Novak's mendacious claim. ... Novak has a history of being careful and precise when he uses the term 'operative' in a CIA or intelligence context. A review of Novak's earlier columns shows he only uses it to refer to clandestine or covert agents. To suggest that in this one case he simply lapsed into a colloquialism ... as he has repeatedly claimed, just doesn't pass the laugh test."

Political Animal's Kevin Drum highlights a passage from the Washington Post quoting a senior admin. official saying 2 top WH officials called 6 reporters about the "identity and occupation of Wilson's wife." Drum: "This wasn't just a single offhand comment at the end of a phone call with Matt Cooper about welfare reform. It was Karl Rove and someone else systematically making sure they mentioned Plame to every reporter they talked to." Reading the York piece, he adds in another post: "Karl Rove and at least two other Bush administration officials? In other words, at least three White House officials were involved in the campaign to out Plame? That's the first time I've heard that."

Lefty journalist Doug Ireland writes, "if Novak and Rove cooked up their cover story in a series of telephone conversations (the White House record-keeping system would require Rove's calls to be logged in, of course, so there's a paper trail), that would expose both of them to charges of perjury and conspiracy to obstruct justice."

ROVE II: Was She Or Wasn't She?

Daily Howler's Bob Somerby is one lefty who isn't quite sure of Plame's official status: "Under terms of the most relevant statute, it isn't clear that Plame really was such an agent. (Under terms of this statute, a "covert" agent is someone "who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States." It isn't clear that Plame qualifies.)" Daily Kos' "Armando" disagrees: "Seems a simple enough question. ... Served overseas? Check. In the last five years? Well, the CIA would know that one hopes. And the CIA referred the case to Justice. My application of common sense tells me that the answer is probably yes."

Daily Kos' Hunter quotes ex-RNC chair Ed Gillespie agreeing that revealing the name of an "undercover CIA operative" would be "worse than Watergate" on a 9/30/03 "Hardball." Gillespie: "Yeah, I suppose in terms of the real world implications of it. It's not just politics." Hunter: "I guess that statement is no longer operative."

Ex-CIA agent Larry Johnson writes of his time in the CIA with Plame at TPM Cafe: "We had official cover. That means we had a black passport -- i.e., a diplomatic passport. If we were caught overseas engaged in espionage activity the black passport was a get out of jail free card. A few of my classmates, and Valerie was one of these, became a non-official cover officer. That meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed. The lies by people like Victoria Toensing, Representative Peter King, and P.J. O'Rourke insist that Valerie was nothing, just a desk jockey. Yet, until Robert Novak betrayed her she was still undercover and the company that was her front was still a secret to the world."

ROVE II: Rumblings On The Right

Conservative Eyes is dismayed to see a couple of conservative bloggers turn on Rove. One is from The Jawa Report: "[I]t's time for Rove to go. Last time I checked we were in a f*cking shooting war and the last thing the Commander-in-Chief needs is a low-life political opportunist in his inner circle." The other is from Decision '08's "teetering" Mark Coffey: "I'm not quite ready to call for his resignation; it's still a little early... but I'm starting to lean that way. Could anything make me lean back? I think it's time for Rove to issue a statement to the press..." Conservative Eyes replies: "I don't think the fallout from leaking a name is a matter that will threaten national security by way of Democrats appeasing the enemies of the United States. ... Firing Rove or him resigning would be an admission of guilt that would bring even more grief and scandal to the White House that is not needed and is not justified."

Vodkapundit's Stephen Green: "Even if Rove didn't give out Valerie Plame's name (which appears, for now, to be the case), it also looks like he pointed a pretty bold arrow her way. That kind of leak is breaking the rules, and that's a bad thing. Now, as I understand the law regarding intelligence officers, Karl Rove didn't do anything illegal. But was he right to leak? ... My gut tells me no..."

ROVE: Who's Stonewalling? "Operative" Is "No Longer Operative"?

Liberal David Corn: "It's going to be tough for White House reporters to sustain the level of intense distrust they have displayed at yesterday and today's White House press briefings." On 7/12, McClellan stuck with his "ongoing investigation" "mantra," while reporters asked the "same questions" with the "same disgust." However, "This stonewalling may work. There were fewer questions about the Rove scandal at Tuesday's session than Monday's ... Eventually either the reporters will tire of hitting their head against McClellan's brick wall or some other story will emerge ... that will demand their attention. At the White House, aides are probably saying to each other -- and to McClellan -- just make it through one day at a time. One day at a time. The sun will come out tomorrow."

Conservative RedState's Nick Danger: "Why would the New York Times stonewall the special prosecutor they themselves asked for, to the point that Judith Miller would go to jail before revealing who told her about Wilson, Plame, and the CIA? Judith Miller never even wrote an article; what the New York Times ran was an op-ed written by Wilson himself. Can it be that the person she talked to wasn't an 'Administration Official' at all, but a Democratic political operative setting up a 'media hit' on Bush?"

Left-leaning RockThrower notes, Rove etc. are probably "wishing they had paid more attention to Nixon's advice" WH spokesperson Ron Zeigler. "According to Ziegler's obituary in Editor and Publisher, Nixon once admonished Ziegler 'that anyone in the White House who talked to Time (magazine) reporters 'should have their resignations requested within one minute.''"

SENATE '06: In-Tenn-Sity!

Team GOP, on the TN SEN GOP primary: "I am already sick and tired of the Ed [Bryant] people trying to 'out conservative' the Van [Hilleary] people or the Van people trying to 'out conservative' the Ed people. Fighting is good if it pushes the rock up the hill, but fighting because there is nothing else to do is not only a waste of time, but it demonstrates political stupidity. ... The fact remains that Ed and Van are not the enemies of conservative and moderate Republicans in this state, the enemy is [GOP ex-Chattanooga Mayor] Bob Corker. 'Sponge Bob' and his band of blue-blooded supporters are laughing all the way to the bank -- the financial disclosures released this week will prove that assertion."

THUNE: So Basically, SD Is To Bloggers As NJ Is To Consultants

Over the weekend, the Rapid City Journal's Kevin Wooster wrote a story on the "permanent campaign" in SD being waged by ex-staffers of ex-Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) against Sen. John Thune (R-SD). In particular, ex-Daschle staffer Chad Schuldt runs Clean Cut Kid -- CCK 1st started reporting on the MetaBank case, which the Blogometer picked up starting 7/1. (Had we clicked over to the FAQ and found this info at the time, it would have been duly noted. Consider it noted.) Another is Jeremy Funk, who runs Don't Worry About The Government, where he has promoted "F--- Thune" T-shirts.

Ex-Daschle manager Steve Hildebrand, to the RCJ: "What he does on his own time is just that. He's not being paid by anybody to write that Web site." But according to Thune's office, Funk works for Hildebrand's firm -- and Hildebrand gets "money each month from both" Daschle's '04 SEN fund and DASHPAC -- so the "effect" is "the same." Daschle "said by e-mail" on 7/8 "that he hadn't visited Funk's Web site and hadn't seen the controversial T-shirts." Daschle added: "But I would say anything that uses profane language is inappropriate."

Meanwhile, the conservative bloggers at SD Politics point out that initial reports on the MetaBank loan were erroneous. Nelson had $23M in assets, not $6M, and while the pro-Daschle bloggers "insinuated" that Thune "made possible" the loans, in fact "MetaBank was loaning money to Nelson for at least 8 years, long before Thune was on the board." Plus, the $28M loss to MetaBank was "wrong" -- Nelson owes $6.8M to MetaBank and the rest to other creditors. Adds SDP: "So the insinuations of the former Daschle staffers about a sweetheart deal don't make much sense." Note: SDP's Jon Lauck (who did not write the above post) was himself paid to blog on Thune's behalf, news that didn't come out until after Thune had defeated Daschle.

IRAQ: Do You Want The Bad News First, Or The Bad News?

Liberal Think Progress' Nico Pitney notes that DoD had until 7/11 to come up with benchmarks to measure Iraq's "stability and security" -- but didn't: "The deadline came and went yesterday without a peep from DoD. Today, a Pentagon spokesperson told me that those Iraq indicators have indeed been 'delayed' and that there is currently no specific date set for their release. Apparently the administration is willing to do just about anything -- including violate the law -- to avoid giving Americans a detailed assessment of our progress (or lack thereof) in Iraq."

This week a number of conservative bloggers chastised the BBC for removing the word "terrorist" from their news stories on the London bombings. Today conservative Hugh Hewitt criticizes the Washington Post for suggesting that British Muslims were "inflamed by Britain's participation in the Iraq war," even though, Hewitt writes, there is "no evidence offered for this astonishing assertion that the Iraq war has anything to do with the massacre. Zero! And none is needed for the true-believers in the MSM."

INTRODUCING: Turk-ish Delight

At the nat'l level, the DNC currently leads the RNC in terms of blog quality/participation. The DCCC's Stakeholder is lively and updated several-times daily, whereas the NRCC's blog leaves much to be desired. Closing the gap a bit today, the RNC launched an official blog at GOP.com/Blog last p.m. with an introductory post by eCampaign dir. Michael Turk; this a.m. a few new entries have been added, including one by RNC co-chair Jo Ann Davidson. Post categories (as yet unused) include "Route '06/Grassroots Report," "Dems Gone Wild," and "GOP Stuff." The blog also allows for comments by registered users. So far it appears to be on equal footing with the Dems' official blog.

MISCELLANY: Even When It's Not About Rove ... It's Still About Rove. Unless It's About Iraq

• According to conservative CNS News, Sen. Dick Durbin's (D-IL) "office is trying to silence" conservative org. Move America Forward, "the group says, by hinting" to the Crystal Lake Northwest Herald that the IRS "should audit Move America Forward." Power Line writes, the Dems are "no stranger to strong-arm tactics, obviously, but if this report is correct, Durbin's effort to insulate himself against criticism is over the top."
• The Moderate Voice calls the likelihood of a recess appointment for U.N. Amb.-designate John Bolton "yet another sign, though, of this White House's no-compromise style. There is no yielding once a firm position is taken (in other words, Democrats: Don't hold your breath that Karl Rove will resign, no matter what emerges or doesn't emerge)."
• At TAPPED, Matthew Yglesias finds incredulous the suggestion by Weekly Standard's Stephen Schwartz that the "answer to the crime of London will come in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and other countries where Islamist extremism perverts the Muslim mind, and it will come through force no less than reason." Yglesias responds: "Now, to Schwartz's credit, unlike Iran and Syria, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are actually related to the Al-Qaeda problem in a comprehensible way. On the other hand, you've really got to wonder if people mean this stuff. Saudi Arabia has about the same population as Iraq. Pakistan's population is about 6.2 times Iraq's. Who, exactly, is going to invade and occupy these countries?"
• RedState's Josh Trevino: "[I]t's fairly clear by now that the bombers were all British Muslims. If, as is hypothesized, al Qaeda is transforming itself into a sort of global insurgency based in local Muslim communities (obviating the need, as with 9/11, to import terrorists from abroad), then the question of what to do with those communities moves to the fore. At the moment, the West is reacting as the West typically does: with forebearance and tolerance and denial."

BACKLOG: Hyper Mediacrity, Uh Huh, That's Right

Earlier this month, right-leaning media watchdog Mediacrity noticed that the New York Times had used information the Mediacrity blog first brought to light about the $152K salary paid to the Poynter Institute's Jim Romenesko, moderator of the aptly-named Romenesko. As of last week, the Timesagreed to run a correction if the anonymous author, "Mediacrity," would reveal his (we presume) name, which Mediacrity refused to do. Then in a post on 7/8, Mediacrity posts an e-mail from Times public editor Barney Calame, who explains that the reporter found the info himself. Mediacrity replies: "Are you simply relaying the position of Times editors, or stating your own position?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Like The IMDb, But For Constituent Letters

Douglas Ott from A Dusty Life posts a letter he received from Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), and comments: "It's rather fun getting an automated response from your elected official. An idea I've had ever since I've gotten to DC is for there to be a repository of letters from all Senators on all issues. I will have to look into this, because it'd be very easy and informative: all Senators have to respond to correspondence."

LEST WE FORGET: Forget Harry Crumb, Who's Harry Hutton?

For awhile now the Blogometer has been meaning to draw your attention to the blog of one UK-based Harry Hutton, called Chase me ladies, I'm in the cavalry. It's hard to do justice to the blog without just showing it to you, but recent post headers include "Non-kinky sex is a waste of time"; "My iPod is a glorified herd of cows"; "American women are a pain in the arse"; and "Which Spice Girl would you eat first?" And the top of the righthand sidebar implores the reader: "URGENT! Please send 300 kilos of white mice. No time to explain."

°   °   °   °   °

BLOGOMETER SPECIAL: In The Air

What the blogosphere is saying about the SCOTUS vacancy:

REHNQUIST: No Evidence? Run With It!

NRO's Ed Whelan writes: "One theory is that [William] Rehnquist has already communicated to the White House that he will resign soon and that he has agreed to defer his formal resignation until the president is ready to nominate his and [Sandra Day] O'Connor's successors. There is no real evidence to support this theory, but it would ... explain the third-hand rumors" floating around. "A competing theory is that Rehnquist has decided to continue for at least another year. Under this theory, his health would be stronger than some have reported, and he would have figured that two vacancies at the same time disserves the interests of the Court."

McCAIN: Fair-Weather Fans

NRO's Bench Memos and Dummocrats both approvingly quote John McCain saying Bush would "appoint judges who will strictly interpret the constitution" and that "elections have consequences..."

DEMOGRAPHICS: Any African-Scandanavian Women Judges On The List?

PrawfsBlawg responds to an "interesting" Baltimore Sun op-ed by Univ. MD law prof Sherrilyn Ifill, writing that the view she adopts is the "non-starter view that President Bush should appoint a liberal ... to fill O'Connor's seat ... here buttressed by a facially plausible but ultimately unpersuasive attempt to base that view on a racial footing. Since this just won't happen (although Bush might nominate a pragmatist or moderate), and since it's pretty clear that Ifill thinks that the right diverse nominee will never be a diverse right nominee, so to speak, I am left wondering what the point of the op-ed really was."

Conservative Kay Daly finds the notion that O'Connor should be replaced by a woman "a bit silly," adding: "I suppose those of Swedish descent should be eagerly looking to Rehnquist's retirement with great anticipation. According to historical record, Rehnquist is one of only two folks of Scandanavian descent to serve on the Court. So. Scandanavian Americans, this is your chance!"

HINOJOSA: Reverse Psychology?

Conservative Confirm Them: "Who knows much about [Ricardo] Hinojosa? The Dem senators actually mentioned him this morning as being 'acceptable' to them. Reagan appointed him to the district court in 1983. He went to Harvard Law. [Pres.] Bush named him head of the US Sentencing Commission. In short, he sounds (very much on the surface) like a decent prospect -- but why would the Dems push him?" The Dem endorsement makes one commenter "wary." Another adds: "Maybe that's why the dems said he'd be okay: to make the base, and the White House, wary of appointing him."

THE ODDS: Does This Really Work As Well As Election-Related Markets?

Supreme Court Nomination Blog highlights the U.S. Supreme Court Futures Market, a project of UNC Chapel Hill prof Kevin McGuire. When the post went up early in the p.m. on 7/12, the highest-rated judges were: AG Alberto Gonzales, Emilio Garza, Michael Luttig, and Miguel Estrada. As of this a.m. the field has changed slightly -- Gonzales and Garza still in front, but Harvie Wilkinson and Janice Rogers Brown fill out slots 3 and 4. However, "None of these" is still the highest-rated choice.

Meanwhile, Dublin-based trading site Tradesports lists Garza, Edith Jones, Priscilla Owen and Edith Clement in the lead. As SCNB notes, the favorites of each respective site don't do very well on the others -- excepting Garza.

Posted by at 12:14 PM

July 12, 2005

7/12: When Was The Last Time Liberals Were This Giddy?

The Hotline's Blogometer takes the daily temperature of the blogosphere.

The hot pursuit of WH dep. CoS Karl Rove is getting hotter. Last week the story had to compete with the SCOTUS vacancy and the London bombings for attention. This week, as those events fade for lack of new info, the investigation into the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame has the blogs (and newspapers) virtually to itself, at least as a domestic story. Plus, the increased focus on high-profile liberal bete noire Rove makes it seem possible that others in the WH could be caught up.

In a way, that's already happened. As if the complicated and incomplete story didn't have enough characters, yesterday the blogosphere's focus fell upon yet another individual: WH spokesperson Scott McClellan, who faced pointed questioning from the WH press corps. about what the WH knew of Rove's conversations with Time's Matt Cooper. Liberal bloggers had been clamoring for the press corps to do just that since last week. More on that in "Trackbacks" as well as the coverage below.

Also in today's edition: rumors of an early US/UK withdrawal from Iraq, the latest in a possible scandal threatening to ensnare Sen. John Thune (R-SD), more on the SCOTUS vacancy, and our latest Blogger Spotlight. Today we interview conservative radio talker Hugh Hewitt.

TRACKBACKS: Answer -- The Last Time Liberals Were This Giddy Was Election Day '04 About 3pm

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

• Which MSM stories about Rove are getting the most links? Memeorandum counts, in order, reports from the 7/12 New York Times, 7/11 New York Times and the WH transcript. The liberal bloggers are driving this story -- conservative bloggers are just along for the ride.
  
  

  >> Reax from the left: New Donkey's Ed Kilgore asks, "could it be possible that the man who has raised dirty tricks, political intimidation, and character assassination to the highest levels of geopolitical strategy could be laid low by a cheap act of personal spite aimed at an obscure former diplomat who threw a minor monkey wrench into the run-up to the war in Iraq? Could the top operative in a leak-proof White House be brought down by a leak?" · Header at AMERICAblog: "Tell me this doesn't sound like Watergate" · Taegan Goddard notes that John Kerry says Rove "has to go." · Rising Hegemon isn't the only one comparing McClellan to Nixon spokesperson Ron Ziegler. · Mark A.R. Kleiman: "The most striking thing about the [Times' 7/12] story isn't the content, is that it's running (apparently on Page 1) and that it isn't about Judith Miller. ... Having downplayed the story for two years (seemingly to protect Judith Miller) perhaps now the Times will start acting like a newspaper again."
  

  >> From the right: Michelle Malkin: "I actually have no problem with McClellan getting justifiably barked at during his daily briefings ... But isn't it funny how Beltway reporters who get all prissy and whiny about one Fox News Channel reporter asking the DNC chairman one mildly aggressive question have no problem turning pack-rabid on McClellan?" · JustOneMinute's Tom Maguire pits "David Corn 2005" vs. "David Corn 2003" -- in '03, Corn wrote that Plame's mention was incidental. Maguire suggests that Plame husband Joe Wilson was merely a pawn in "an ongoing tussle between the CIA and the neocons." · Header at Brothers Judd: "QUIT NOW AND GET IT OVER WITH"
  

  >> More reax: King of Zembla; Huffington Post; Romenesko; Machination; David Sirota; Peking Duck; PoliPundit; NewsHog; BushTracker.

THE PLAME GAME I: Not-So-Great Scott!

At least for the moment, lefty bloggers are mostly satisfied with the WH reporters' performance yesterday. "Atrios": "Well, it took a week, but apparently the gaggling gang finally got around to asking Scotty about Rove." CAP's Think Progress: "McClellan hid behind the assertion that the special prosecutor had requested that he not speak from the podium on the matter. A careful reading of McClellan's talking point demonstrates that he was under no specific orders not to speak by the prosecutor." Liberal Josh Marshall writes, Bush probably knew Rove mentioned Plame to Cooper in '03, and "pretty clearly he didn't want Rove held to any account. Indeed, he's gone to great lengths to prevent this from happening." Crooks and Liars has video of the press briefing, plus a round-up of commentary by liberal bloggers.

Some bloggers build on yesterday's news, digging for more info: Whiskey Bar's "Billmon," on McClellan's inability to say "exactly when the White House was asked to take a vow of silence," when questioned on that matter by WH reporters. Billmon goes looking: "As it turns out, the silent treatment predates the combustion of Karl Rove's alibi. Scotty's actually been using variations of his 'ongoing investigation' line since early 2004. ... Of course, in the first few weeks after the Justice Department announced its original probe, you could hardly get McClellan to shut up about what an all around great American Karl Rove was." Daily Kos' "Armando" seizes on the following '03 McClellan statement: "If someone in this administration leaked classified information, they will no longer be a part of this administration, because that's not the way this White House operates." Writes Armando: "It can not be disputed now that Karl Rove did indeed 'leak classified information.' McClellan denied this fact two years ago. Who told McClellan to tell this lie to the American people? Was it Rove and/or Bush?"

Marshall Wittman speculates at TPM Cafe: "Rove also understands internal GOP politics. It is likely he gave the speech a couple of weeks ago attacking liberals to cement his relationship with the right as he enters this difficult time with the Plame prosecutor."

THE PLAME GAME II: Er, See, You Wouldn't Know Him. That's Bob Mosbacher. He Was Secretary Of ...

A MyDD contributor links to the Bust Bob Novak site, which points out that Rove was fired from the '92 Bush campaign "for allegedly leaking a negative story about Bush loyalist/fundraiser Robert Mosbacher to Novak." Back at MyDD, it's noted that Bush 43 "promised to fire whoever was responsible for the leak." In an unrelated post, Captain's Quarters guest-blogger Dafydd ab Hugh writes: "The Democrats have been flogging this promise to fire anyone who was even remotely or tangentially connected to any affairs Valerie Plame may have had in order to demand the summary discharge and frog-marching of Karl Rove into the nearest calabooza." He quotes from Bush's 9/30/03 statement, emphasizing: "And if a person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of.

Some on the right are more interested in other, currently less-popular tangents in the case: NRO's Media Blog: "Is Miller refusing to testify because she herself outed Plame? Who knows? One thing is for sure: the press wants to have it both ways -- attacking Scott McClellan today for not answering questions about Rove's involvement, but reserving a place of honor for Miller, who has done more to obstruct the investigation of this incident than McClellan has." Wizbang guest blogger Rob Port: "You want a matter that is about national security? How about a supposedly undercover CIA operative sending her own husband to Niger to dredge up fake facts in an attempt to smear a sitting President?"

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Blog Calling The Keller Black?

On 7/11, New York Times exec. ed. Bill Keller responded to Los Angeles Times op-ed ed. Mike Kinsley's "clever" offer to debate Judith Miller on press freedom (Kinsley argued in his 7/8 column that Miller should have revealed her source) at Romenesko: "Sadly, Judy is not on a fellowship at some writers' colony. She is in JAIL. ... Mike's contrarian intellectualizing on the subject of reporters and the law was more amusing when it was all hypothetical." OxBlog's Josh Chafetz calls Keller self-centered, adding that "somehow, the jailing of one of [Keller's] reporters for refusing to obey a court order makes any debate on the merits "perversely remote" from the real world."

IRAQ: Symptoms Of Withdrawal?

Steve Soto is just one of many left-of-center blogs to ruminate on the leaked UK memo indicating that the U.S. and Britain will withdraw from Iraq starting in '06: "And when all is said and done, it appears that Bush will ditch Iraq so that the GOP doesn't get bludgeoned in the 2006 midterms. Yes, as I said a couple of weeks ago, we should bring the troops home, as they have accomplished the toppling of Saddam. But Bush will leave just enough troops over there for them to get killed without there being enough of them to really protect themselves. And as I said, the above-mentioned failures resulted from this disastrous foreign policy, while we are no safer from terrorism." MyDD adds: "Make no mistake: if Republicans become the party of withdrawal before Democrats are able to do so, they will comfortably sweep the 2006 midterms."

Univ. of MI prof Juan Cole notes that Moqtada al-Sadr has collected 400K signatures calling on the U.S. to withdraw: "It should not be thought that only radical Shiites of the Sadrist variety are eager to have foreign troops out. Virtually all Arab Iraqis want them out on a short timetable. It is only the new political elite that wants them to stick around for a while, aware that they might well all be assassinated otherwise.

WHITE HOUSE '08: This Blog Hearts Huckabees

Mike Huckabee President 2008 links to a report by NPR Little Rock affil., which notes that while AR Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) -- who becomes NGA chair this week -- "downplays the possibility" of a WH '08 bid, "he 'carefully avoids ruling out any such campaign.'"

THUNE: No Scandal Here? Daschle Feud Continues?

Ex-TV anchor/Dem blogger Todd Epp from S.D. Watch spoke with "a former employee of Dan Nelson Automotive" who is familiar with the situation surrounding Sen. John Thune (R-SD), ex-Thune manager/bankrupt auto dealer Dan Nelson and MetaBank, on whose board Thune recently sat and to whom Nelson has defaulted on loans (see 7/1 Blogometer). Before launching into it, he adds: "And sure, go ahead, hammer me on the use of unnamed sources. You all know who I am and my record of reliability." The source tells Epp, Thune and Nelson "speak and have spoken on a daily basis (and some times several times a day)" while Nelson received the bank loans and was under investigation by the IA AG. "My source said that Thune does not make a move without contacting Nelson," that "the important contact here is not John Thune to MetaBank but Dan Nelson to MetaBank CEO Tyler Haahr," and that Thune "has hung out his friend Dan Nelson in this situation and could do more to come to his defense and support him." Clean Cut Kid, who reported the 1st details, comments, "this whole MetaBank episode in the Thune Era lacks a smoking gun to this point, but there is enough out there ... to make the whole thing stink. And certainly enough out there to warrant further digging."

MISCELLANY: A Very Merry Unblogiversary To You (And You)

• Lefty Skippy the Bush Kangaroo's 3-year blogiversary was 7/10, and to commemorate the date, "Skippy" asked for help for reaching 1M hits by that date. He didn't get it, so the "Million Hit March Skippy-A-Thon" is now on an "Extended Tour." Liberal bloggers including Jeralyn Merritt, Elayne Riggs, Loaded Mouth and even conservative Instapundit help.
• BC'04 blog maven Patrick Ruffini's 4-year blogiversary was on 7/9, and he re-posts his 1st post, on what's now called the "Arnold Amendment."
• Liberal Joshua Holland at the Gadflyer's Fly Trap: "I don't go around calling people fascists or Nazis. Never called Bush a Nazi ... Having said that, the National Review's John Derbyshireis a friggin' Nazi." He explains.
• Conservative Galley Slaves' Jon Last, who usually sides with Mickey Kaus against Andrew Sullivan, writes that Kaus has crossed a line "that even I won't cross."
• Volokh Conspiracy's Jim Lindgren asks: "Were the London attacks suicide bombings?" He writes: "I considered blogging it at the time, but" the sometimes-unreliable Debkafile's suggestion of it "was so different from what most were saying ... that I thought that I'd wait to see if anything checked out. Now some of Debka's more unusual ideas are being echoed in a few other stories." Lindgren provides examples from mostly British and Israeli papers.
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins shares the hate mail he gets.
• Lefty Duncan "Atrios" Black disagrees vehemently with GWU prof Carol Darr's take on bloggers' political activity, as quoted in the Washington Post; Black and Darr both testified at FEC hearings (see 6/30 Blogometer). Swing State Project posts contact info for GWU pres. Joel Trachtenberg and encourages readers to contact him and recommend that Darr "move on."
• Citing the Washington Times as well as an eyewitness, righty Power Line posts a story about an unprovoked outburst on the part of John McCain toward FEC commis. Bradley Smith (R).

BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: Hugh's The Boss

Today the Blogometer talks to conservative radio talker Hugh Hewitt, who blogs at HughHewitt.com.

What is your full name?

Hugh Hewitt

What is your age?

49

Where did you grow up?

Warren, Ohio

Where do you live now?

Orange County, California

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

I am a law professor and host of a nationally syndicated radio show for the Salem Radio Network, heard on 70 stations M-F from 3 to 6 PM, Pacific. I am also an author and columnist. My most recent book is "Blog: Understanding the Information Reformation That Is Changing Your World" and a new book, "Painting The Map Red" will be out in early 2006. I write weekly for World Magazine and WeeklyStandard.com.

When did you start blogging and why?

I began blogging in early 2002 as a service to the radio show listeners who would always e-mail and ask for links to stories I had referenced on the program. I discovered that a daily blog has an audience as large as most columnists achieve, and that blogging can move stories as well as sell books, generate ad revenue, and prove an addictive hobby that is much cheaper than golf.

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

The story of blogging itself. I enjoy bringing other bloggers to the attention of the public, helping them develop an audience and thus strengthening the new media reach and influence.

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

I do radio show prep from 5:30 AM to 7 most mornings, and then blog about key stories/posts I have found. Later, in the hour before broadcast, I will usually ad a post, and perhaps during the show as well. When a story has legs -- like Dick Durbin's asinine remarks about Gitmo being comparable to the Nazis, the Stalinist and Pol Pot, I will post more frequently. On huge news days -- election day, for example -- I post as news arrives. I had a quarter million visitors on election day, though that might have been one obsessive reader or 250,000 semi-interested ones.

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

My friends at the Northern Alliance of Blogs are all must reads, every day, except for the Fraters gang, who ought to be in jail. MarkDRoberts.com is my favorite non-political blogger.

Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?

A three way tie between Fred Barnes, Michael Barone, and Mark Steyn. Each combines real reporting with great writing.

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

"Special Report with Brit Hume."

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

In this order, every morning: Wall Street Journal, OpinionJournal.com, Washington Post, Washington Times, New York Times, Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times, WeeklyStandard.com, and The New Republic.

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

In addition to those listed above, and in no particular order except that I start with Glenn: Instapundit, Daily Kos, the blogs at NationalReview.com, Talking Points Memo, Andrew Sullivan, PoliPundit, Galley Slaves, Albert Mohler, Evangelical Outpost, Roman Catholic Blog, John Mark Reynolds, Roger L. Simon, Little Green Footballs, Mudville Gazette, Major K, Blackfive, Infinte Monkeys, Betsy's Page, Ethos, BuzzMachine, Press Think.

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

I touch the sports page, but only if I cannot get the Cleveland Plain Dealer's and the Akron Beacon Journal's online reports on the Indians and Browns. Tery Pluto of Ohio.com is the best sportswriter in the nation. You didn't ask, but the country deserves to know.

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

Old media is hollowed out, its circulation numbers hiding a deep drop in actual "touches." I expect newspaper and television advertising revenues to drop significantly and magazine and especially radio ad and blog ad revenues to rise dramatically in the next five years as advertisers realize they are paying for an audience that is not there, that circulation numbers mask a precipitous decline in actual readers/viewers, and as "quality" audience -- high income, high education "influencers" -- substitute reliable new media for biased and discredited old media.

BACKLOG: Just Doing OurDD

Note: Haven't seen this particular subhead here before? Neither have we. Starting today this will be a repository for interesting stories and arguments from the blogs that the Blogometer missed the first time around. Until we have omniscience, we'll always have our "Backlog."

On 7/7, MyDD's Chris Bowers announced "Conservative Blog Sprawl Is A Serious Threat To Progressive Blogosphere Dominance." Using BlogAds traffic ranking, Bowers calculates that among the top 250 trafficked ad-supported blogs, 103 lean left and 147 lean right. While liberal blogs occupy 6 of the top 10 and receive more overall traffic, conservative blogs are more abundant further down the long tail, and because smaller blogs tend to be locally-focused, conservative bloggers may have the edge in local and statewide political influence. Bowers sums up: "It is almost as though Democratic electoral problems with suburbs and exurbs are being repeated in the blogosphere. We dominate the big cities, but are getting whacked outside of them. If we are truly going to build a better blogosphere, progressives must respond to rapidly expanding conservative blog sprawl." For more Bowers blog surveys, see Blogometers for 6/8 and 6/14.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Tell Us More

NRO's The Buzz: "One additional line that deserves special attention from today's New York Times piece on Hillary Clinton's campaign website: When the Times spoke with Clinton's advisers about the shift of emphasis on her views, they noted, 'Mrs. Clinton's own advisers have privately conceded that she must win re-election decisively -- not merely eke out a victory -- in order to seriously pursue any national candidacy.' For political junkies, the initial reaction is 'duh.' But for Clinton's people to reveal such information somewhat openly is telling."

LEST WE FORGET: Great Taste, Less Fillings

At the Huffington Post, Sidney son/Nation contributor Max Blumenthal posts text from 2 e-mails: from NY Dem activist Reba Shimansky to MSNBC chief Rick Kaplan and Christopher Hitchens, and a reply from Hitchens (who has a long history with the elder Blumenthal, and recently tangled with the younger (see 5/31 Blogometer)).

Shimansky: "I strongly object to the constant use of Christopher Hitchens as a so called pundit. He is a repugnant individual. On the 7/8 program 'Connected-Coast-Coast' Mr. Hitchens said that England would not withdraw from Iraq because of 4 small bombs. Well tell that to the families who lost loved ones and those who are seriously injured." Hitchens, in reply: "You are idiotic even in your own limited terms when you invite me to "tell that" to the victims and their families. I am obviously doing so, and have done so additionally in print in the London press. Do you imagine that I am talking only to you when I appear on TV? You probably do. Check your fillings."

°   °   °   °   °

BLOGOMETER SPECIAL: Gonzo Journalism

With no new retirements, nominations, or rumors to discuss, the blogosphere doesn't have much to say about the SCOTUS vacancy today. But there's always something:

THE FIGHT: Viral Marketing Just Sounds All Wrong, You Know?

This a.m. GOP-leaning 527 PFA held a conf. call with undisclosed participants to promote advertisements available at its UporDownVote.com website, including a new feature posted to the site during the call -- the Rage Gauge, tracking Dem statements PFA finds egregious. The flashy gaphics on the main page lead one to think there's an interactive script or otherwise animated "gauge" on the inside -- instead, it's just a list of quotations from liberal groups such as PFAW, MoveOn and the Alliance for Justice. During the call, PFA pres. Brian McCabe said PFA had sent messages to about "300 bloggers" to spread their television ads on the net via viral marketing.

Meanwhile, pro-Pres. Bush blog Confirm Them argues, what the WH "really ought to understand" is that not just the "'social' right" is opposed to AG Alberto Gonzales, whom they dub "Gonzo": "The problem with Gonzo is that he has shown no inclination to be a strict constitutionalist ... in ANY sense. ... Free-market conservatives don't believe Gonzales would have ruled correctly, for instance, on the Kelo eminent domain case."

Conservative Lifelike Pundits fisks Sen. Chuck Schumer's (D-NY) op-ed in the New York Daily News. Wrote Schumer: "After two exceedingly divisive presidential elections and a season of bitter partisanship, Americans want the President and the Senate to unite rather than divide the nation." Lifelike Pundits: "This would have made sense after the 2000 election." But in '04, "Bush WON, clearly, and Republican Senators picked up 5 seats. That means Bush gets to choose. But 'divisive election" really means 'elections Democrats lost.'"

ROE V. WADE: Ever Notice That's An Anagram For "Rove Awed"? Spooky

Liberal Daily Kos contributor "acbonin" excerpts an op-ed by former adviser/Amherst prof Hadley Arkes from the 7/11 NRO: "Either one of the Ediths" -- short-listers Jones and Clement -- "would guarantee" reversal of the abortion ruling in Stenberg v. Carhart, "and in my own reckoning, such a decision on partial-birth abortion would virtually bring to an end the Roe v. Wade regime." Acbonin responds: "Scared? Understand this: Prof. Arkes is the leading academic champion of the pro-life cause, and a good friend of Sen. Santorum, 'Nino' (as he always referred to him to me) and others across the aisle. He knows what he's talking about. Welcome to the slippery slope of what happens when women's reproductive rights don't come first."

Posted by at 12:27 PM

July 11, 2005

7/11: The Blame For Plame Falls Mainly On 'Fair Game'?

In today's edition: More Plamegate coverage than you bargained for; debate over Daily Kos' role in the conservative blogosphere; bad news for both of NY's senators, reactions to Oliver Stone's next movie; Andrew Sullivan defends himself; and, belatedly, a little bit about overrated songs. Let's go:

TRACKBACKS: Is Double Super-Secret Background Related to Double Secret Probation?

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

• Without question, the most-followed story this weekend was Michael Isikoff's "Matt Cooper's Source" in Newsweek, wherein a few details are released from Cooper's e-mails to Time editors about his "double super secret background" interview with WH dep. CoS Karl Rove. Isikoff: "Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by 'DCIA' -- CIA Director George Tenet -- or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, 'it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip.'" There seems to be general agreement across the right and left 'spheres that the truth remains elusive, but is clearer than before. One key dispute persists: liberals contend CIA agent Valerie Plame was exposed to intimidate husband Joe Wilson, while conservatives contend it was merely done to explain away Wilson's Niger trip.
  
  

  >> Liberal blogs were quick to respond to the Isikoff piece -- "Roger Ailes": "The only possible issue left is whether Rove knew Plame was a covert agent. The e-mail is silent on the matter -- although the fact that Rove didn't want his name connected to the leak strongly suggests his guilt in that regard." "Digby": "I think we may be getting close to a time where Karl Rove is going to decide to spend more time with his family. [Pres.] Bush is too politically weak to finesse this and the story comes awfully close to the Iraq lies to try to brazen it out." Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) offers commentary at the Huffington Post. Daily Kos' "Hunter," under the header "Rove Lied": "Rove claimed to the FBI that he only found out Wilson's wife was CIA from reading [Bob] Novak's column, and called reporters only after that point. Novak published on the 14th. Busted." (Hunter backtracks later, citing a scenario where Rove would have seen Novak's story before it went to print). Think Progress notices the time frame, too. Arthur Silber header: "CONTEMPTIBLE TRAITORS: GET THEM OUT OF GOVERNMENT -- NOW"
  

  >> Captain's Quarters was the 1st major conservative blog with a response: "Rove did not reveal Plame's name, nor did he tell Cooper that she was on a NOC list or performing any kind of covert work. Moreover, he told Cooper the truth, as the Senate Intelligence Committee found out. ... Patrick Fitzgerald has done nothing but embarrass himself by jailing a reporter and turning her into a martyr over something that probably doesn't amount to a prosecutable crime in the first place." Power Line: "The media feeding frenzy will, indeed, be massive. But absent a serious claim of a statutory violation or perjury, it's questionable whether anyone apart from liberal bloggers and other pre-existing Bush haters will partake in the media's dog food. This isn't a top presidential aide accepting an expensive gift, or engaging in lewd sexual conduct. It's a top aide providing truthful information to journalists in response to lies told to embarrass the administration and our government."
  

  >> A number of lefty bloggers linked to Nation DC corr. David Corn at his personal blog, who was tipped to the story's existence before it was published: "Even if it turns out Rove did not break the law regarding the naming of intelligence officials, this new disclosure could prove Rove guilty of leaking a national security secret to a reporter for political ends. What would George W. Bush do about that?" Cross-posted to Huffington Post. Kausfiles quibbles: "Corn got anticipatorily overexcited about the Newsweek story, arguing it offers 'proof that the Bush White House was using any information it could gather on Joseph Wilson -- even classified information related to national security -- to pursue a vendetta against Wilson, a White House critic.'... I would say it shows the Bush White House was using what it thought was relevant information -- but what it may not have known was possibly illegal information to disclose! -- in order to discredit (or spin) Wilson's report."
  

  >> Liberal Stirling Newberry at BopNews offers a complicated theory: "It is my belief that Plame was first made as 'chickenfeed' -- trading of off the record information between reporters and sources - and not for the purpose of vengeance, but before, when the White House was trying to establish a 'Niger connection' for the 'yellowcake' story." The Mahablog: "Frankly, I think the question of who authorized Wilson's trip is a lot less interesting than this indisputable fact: The White House was wrong and Wilson was right about the uranium." Laura Rozen, at War and Piece: "I find it fascinating that Rove was not only campaigning to discredit Wilson, but that he was pushing so hard to legitimate the bogus Iraq-Niger uranium information, just days before the administration capitulated and said it shouldn't have used that language in Bush's SOTU."
  

  >> Left-leaning Kevin Drum concedes, "much is still murky." Right-leaning Tom Maguire, in a typically lengthy post discussing MSM reports and blogger reactions, concurs with Drum's pronouncement, adding: "This Newsweek revelation may create some political heat for Karl, but it is far from clear that ... Rove had the intent and knowledge that are also elements of a crime under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act."
  

  >> More reax: Andrew Sullivan; Hugh Hewitt; Suburban Guerilla; The American Street; Eschaton; Wizbang; Moon of Alabama; Rising Hegemon; Skippy the Bush Kangaroo; BadPolitiks; Doug Petch; The Left Coaster.

LEFT VS. RIGHT: The Daily Kos Show

Last week we noted that whereas conservative blogs enjoy citing the more controversial statements from the comments on lefty blogs, liberal blogs don't do the same very much. Later that afternoon, lefty MyDD did exactly that, collecting comments from Little Green Footballs, where comment threads typically run into the hundreds. One: "Can we eradicate Islam now, please?" Another: "It is now time to force muslims to make a choice: Live peacefully or die. I prefer the latter." MyDD's Chris Bowers explains why many conservative blogs lack comments: "There is a concerted effort on the part of the right to prevent this sort of overt racism and fascism on the right from being given any sunshine." (Note: Some of Bowers' examples come from TBogg, who had posted on 7/7.)

• Little Green Footballs responds: "This is a great example of how far the left has devolved; London suffers the worst terrorist attack in her history ... and people like Chris Bowers are just horrified that anyone would react to such an atrocity with rage. In other words, react like human beings."
• We also missed righty Dean Esmay's post from 7/7, "Left-Wing Hate," which is also directed primarily at Daily Kos.
• Over the weekend, "Hunter" at Daily Kos noticed conservatives linking to the site: "When Democrats want to know what Democrats are thinking, they come to Daily Kos. When Republicans want to know what Democrats are thinking... they come here too."
• Conservative Balloon Juice recommends Daily Kos as the go-to blog for "what the other side is thinking."
• INDC Journal disagrees, saying the "analysis and ... judgment" there is "terrible" -- he recommends Josh Marshall and Matthew Yglesias instead.

On 7/8, Markos Moulitsas announced at Daily Kos: "Today I did something I've never done before (not even during the Fraudster mess), and wish I'd never had to do. I made a mass banning of people perpetuating a series of bizarre, off-the-wall, unsupported and frankly embarrassing conspiracy theories. ... You know the ones -- Bush and Blair conspired to bomb London in order to take the heat off their respective political problems. I can't imagine what f---ing world these people live in, but it sure ain't the Reality Based Community."

• Michelle Malkin is one of a few conservative bloggers to commend him, although she notes that "the purge did not last long," as "Kos" later updated to re-instate some accounts: "But good on Kos for finally drawing a line and publicly castigating the crackpots. For now. Wouldn't it be something if the Democrat Party took a hint and tried draining its own fever swamps, too?"

WHITE HOUSE '08: Finding A Winner

Ex-Spinsanity co-editor Brendan Nyhan analyzes Sen. Hillary Clinton's fav/unfav numbers using National Journal's Poll Track. He charts her progress, and summarizes: "The poll results suggest that perceptions of Hillary have improved since 2003, but only back to the levels of 2000-2001. Moreover, she remains highly polarizing, with unfavorable perceptions at or above 40 percent in most national polls." Coupled with perceptions of a "liberal track record," these numbers are "likely to be devastating to her chances" in '08.

Re: Dem strategy for '08, Western Democrat's Leo Brown looks at NV, CO and IA, noting, "the winning presidential candidate has always carried at least" 2 of the 3. All "have a balanced mix of urban and rural voters. Gay marriage and gun control are unpopular. Environmental issues could play well in these states. They have minorities, notably Hispanics in the West, but are they are not dominated by minorities. This suggests the following strategy: 1. Find a candidate who is from or who strongly appeals to this geography. 2. Find a moderate candidate who is comfortable in a mixed urban-rural environment and who is not vulnerable on the three G's (guns, God, and gays). Every 'dry land' Western Democrat Governor or Senator fits these two criteria. Now find a candidate who has a good record in office and proven campaign skills, and we have a winner."

SENATE '06: Will Schumer Hide This Progress Report From His Parents?

Swing State Project's Bob Brigham: "Well into the season for candidate recruitment, it appears that the DSCC under Sen. Chuck Schumer's leadership is doing a miserable job. Failing." He goes through the list: OH, NV, IN, ME, VA, MO, PA. Only in MT do the Dems have a "dream candidate." More: "Watching the DSCC flail and fail at candidate recruitment, I think it is clear that the top-down, Washington based days of candidate recruitment are over. It is time for the grassroots to run candidates..."

MO GOPer John Hilton speculates that IA AG Jay Nixon (D) pressured state Sen. Chuck Graham (D) to drop his '06 bid against Sen. Jim Talent (R) so '04 GOV nominee Claire McCaskill (D) will run for SEN and not GOV again -- so Nixon "won't have to worry about" her when he challenges Gov. Matt Blunt (R) in '06.

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Building A Better Anonymous Trap

Last week, Eschaton announced a new daily feature: the "Ridiculous Anonymous Source of the Day," highlighting news stories where sources are "granted anonymity so that they can, under cover, push the administration message." Recent awards have gone to the Washington Post and New York Times.

Right-leaning Instapundit: "This is old news to most blog readers, but the Washington Post has a lengthy article on how London has become a haven for radical Islamists." Crooked Timber's Maria Farrell notes a similar story in the New York Times, and comments: "After the 2001 terrorist attacks, people who tried to blame the US for attacks against it were rightly condemned. So let's have a little equal treatment, please, a little respect. At least till the bodies are buried."

CULTURE WARS: Let He Who Is Not A Castro Chum Throw The First Stone

Center-ish bloggers Roger L. Simon, Mickey Kaus, Glenn Reynolds, Jeff Jarvis and Joe Gandelman all agree that Oliver Stone is the wrong person to direct a 9/11 movie, generally agreeing this is evidence that Hollywood is even further out of touch than they thought before.

• Vanity Fair's James Wolcott defends Hollywood and Stone, too: "Oliver Stone may be many bad things -- a bad friend, a bad tipper, a bad drinker, a bad dancer -- whatever George Costanza rollcall you want to make -- but one thing he is not is a bad filmmaker."
• Lefty Steve Gilliard agrees, and compares Vietnam vet Stone with bloggers: "You know they don't give out Bronze Stars for pithy comments."
• Jarvis responds to Wolcott, saying his concern is for "talent and taste and the truth," not politics. He calls Wolcott's post a "eulogy for ... Stone's career."
• Blogs for Bush thinks it could be a "cool thing" if Stone leaves his politics out of it.

BLOGGERS VS. BLOGGERS: Does The "Flypaper Theory" Explain Andrew Sullivan?

Centrist Andrew Sullivan, the recipient of much criticism from the left and right, responds to each side in back-to-back statements. Addressing his right flank, he distances himself from '02 comment appearing to tolerate prisoner abuse (something he has since crusaded against): "This was the Bush administration, people I trusted. I had no idea -- and perhaps I should be held responsible for my naivete -- that memos were being written allowing for torture and abuse to occur under the legal cover of a president's wartime authority." Addressing the left, he distances himself from his promotion of the so-called "flypaper theory" (see 7/8 Blogometer): "I'm not prepared to dismiss it out of hand; but the evidence against its efficacy also seems to me to have accumulated over the past couple of years."

Lefty The Poor Man does another Power Line parody -- calling it the "Power Tools Blog." It begins: "American journalist-hero Brit Hume is taking flack from terror-loving, success-hating liberals for admitting that the first thing he thought when he heard of the terrorist attack in London was that now would be a good time to buy futures. Of course, the first thing to cross the so-called 'minds' of hypocritical liberals was probably 'I hope no terrorists got hurt', but try getting the MSM to cover that story."

THE ECONOMY: Bad Like Good, Or Bad Like Bad?

Conservative Outside The Beltway on the BLS report of 146K new jobs (establishment survey) and 163K new jobs (household survey) in June: "Granted, the good news is diminished in comparison with even better forecasts. But a 5.0 unemployment rate is historically quite terrific." Liberal Econbrowser: "The primary concern seems to be that, although the unemployment rate has come down nicely from its peak during the last recession, the fraction of the population that is employed has failed to return to its values of 2000."

MISCELLANY: Collect 'Em All!

• The London attack has mostly fallen off the list of hot searches on Technorati. Meanwhile, "Overrated Songs" was in 1st at noon on 7/10. Shortly before our deadline today, it's in 2nd. The meme originated at BlogCritics, where contributor Robert Burke compiled a list of 13 such songs with the help of other contributors. The #1 overrated song, in their estimation, is 'American Pie.'" The choice was submitted by Thus Spake Drake, who makes his case against the song at his own blog.
• Lefty Oliver Willis announces his "new podcast (aka talk show)," "The America Show." Link for iTunes users; link for others.
• Atrios posts a lengthy excerpt from a Washington Post column by military historian Eliot Cohen, whose son is going to Iraq. Atrios comments: "I find it rather odd that the reason [to oppose the war] which was probably the most derided at the time -- the 'this gang can't shoot straight' reason -- appears to be the one which, over 2 years later, seems to be the most frequently cited 'I should have known' reason."
• Daily Kos announces that its 1st annual convo will be held June 8-11, 2006.
• On 7/19 the Electronic Frontier Foundation is sponsoring the "BayFF on Bloggers' Rights" conf. in San Francisco.
• Micro Persuasion links to a beta version of Yahoo's upcoming dedicated blog search. Yahoo! pulled its site offline a short time later. Here's a screenshot from before.
• Belmont Club's "Wretchard" sheds his anonymity: "Since the model of anonymity is failing, I'll disclose the boring details. My name is Richard Fernandez, of Filipino birth and Australian citizenship. My interest in history probably began at Harvard, from which I graduated with a Masters in Public Policy. Wretchard is the name of an imaginary cat, the symbol of that entire race of stoic, yet somewhat foolish creatures. Belmont is the name of a suburb I roomed in while at Cambridge, Mass."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Cut Him Off

NYU J-prof Jay Rosen: "I, for one, have had it with Robert Novak. And if all the journalists who are talking today about 'chilling effects' and individual conscience mean what they say, they will, as a matter of conscience and pride, start giving Novak himself the big chill. That means if you're a Washington columnist maybe you don't go on CNN with him -- until he explains. If you're a newspaper editor you consider suspending his column until he explains. ... If Novak says he can't talk until the case is over, then he shouldn't be allowed to publish or opine on the air until the case is over. He should know the rage some of his colleagues feel. Claiming to be 'baffled' by Novak's behavior may have been plausible for a while. With reporter Judith Miller now sitting in jail, and possibly facing criminal charges later, 'baffled' is sounding lame."

LEST WE FORGET: Toilet Humor

More fake news from Scrappleface's Scott Ott: "Law enforcement authorities in major U.S. cities put riot police on high alert today after recently-jailed journalist Judith Miller complained that prison guards had desecrated her copy of The New York Times. 'We know that journalists worship the Times,' said one deputy police chief, 'If they take to the streets in protest, things could get ugly fast.' Ms. Miller, who works for the Times' counter-intelligence department, told an unnamed visitor that her copy of the revered 'Gray Lady' had been carelessly tossed on the floor, handled by a conservative Republican jailer (who she called 'an infidel') and may have been used as a lining for a cat's litter box. 'They did everything but flush it down the toilet,' she said. 'They have no respect for the 'paper of record', may it publish forever, nor for the wise and powerful ones who create this daily miracle.'"

°   °   °   °   °

BLOGOMETER SPECIAL: Tired Of Retirement?

Last Friday, the retirement of Chief Justice William Rehnquist was widely believed to be a done deal, and the announcement was only a matter of time. Today it may still be a done deal, or not, and there has been no announcement. This means some backtracking is due from those who covered it most closely:

SCOTUSblog posted an 2 items claiming there would be no retirement. That post was subsequently removed, and an update from Tom Goldstein followed: "We removed [the posts] saying that Rehnquist wouldn't retire today. We may have a further post on why we did that, but I just wanted to put up a post to make sure that no one thought that we were trying to 'rewrite history.' I can say personally that the information I was able to gather throughout the day was that the rumors were inaccurate. And I'm not aware of people on the blog having contrary information."

This a.m., Erick Erickson of RedState writes: "What I am hearing is that some people really do think Rehnquist retired or intended to retire on Friday. Others, as you can imagine, do not believe it. A friend of mine close to the White House tells me that though the White House had no notice of a retirement, they had a good enough idea of who Novak's source was to believe it accurate. I'm also told that the White House has zipped up as many lips as possible regarding this discussion. Likewise, [Bob] Novak today is silent on the issue."

REHNQUIST: So You're Telling Me There's A Chance!

Ex-Sen./short-lived Dem '72 VP nominee Thomas Eagleton makes a "1000 to 1" prediction at Missourians Fired Up!: "I smell a deal being hatched. Chief Justice William Rehnquist can't seriously consider himself competent to serve as Chief Justice in his condition. But by delaying his resignation and giving the appearance that he might continue in office, he has some leverage with the White House about the appointment, not only of his successor, but perhaps also O'Connor's. ... I suspect that somewhere in Washington there is lurking a 'Deep Broker' who is the link between Rehnquist and the White House. That way, negotiations can be conducted discreetly and with deniability preserved for all. The question is: What kind of replacement would Rehnquist want? He is known to have a deep and abiding concern for the reputation, institutional well being, and status of the Court. He has written its history and would naturally be interested in his legacy. I think that argues for him to prefer a responsible conservative to lead the court as Chief, rather than one of the 'wackos.' That could be Roberts or maybe Gonzales. ... He will announce his resignation when the deal is made or, if there is no deal, he may be stubborn enough to try to continue."

LUTTIG: Stealth Moderate?

Centrist bloggers react to a Chicago Tribune piece on Michael Luttig, an "ardent conservative" known for his "independence," who stresses "intellectual honesty" and writes "crisp and clear" opinions.

• Althouse: "Can't filibuster that, can they? I mean, the filibuster compromisers can't legitimately say "extraordinary circumstances" here, can they?"
• AmbivaBlog: "[S]ounds unBorkable, and trustworthy, to me."
• Fearing that Luttig would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, center-left The Reaction suggests Luttig might be "an acceptable replacement for a conservative justice like Rehnquist -- as long as he's twinned with a relative moderate like Gonzales to replace the relatively moderate O'Connor."

McCONNELL: Even Better Than Even Better Than The Real Thing?

Power Line's Scott Johnson defends judge Michael McConnell against his conservative critics: "Simply put: Michael McConnell would be the best defender of religious liberty against the power of government that the Supreme Court has ever known."

STEVENS: What Constitutes "Credible And Real" In The Blogosphere?

RedState's Erickson: "I am told that the rumor on John Paul Stevens is credible and real. I am told that as of last week there was nothing on the horizon, but in the last week all has changed. Supposedly Justice Stevens has recently taken steps to make arrangements for his personal affairs in such a way that those close to him think he is retiring. I'm also told that his health has begun to deteriorate."

ROE V. WADE: It Wouldn't Be Prudent At This Juncture

Yale prof Jack Balkin: "Liberals and Democrats alike are worried that the President will nominate someone who will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. They needn't worry. That's not likely to happen. In fact, the only litmus test the President is likely to employ is whether a candidate promises *not* to overturn Roe. Here's why. Bush must decide if he wants to overturn Roe or preserve the Republicans as the majority party. With Roe gone, the pro-choice movement will be energized and Republican politicians will have to state on the record whether they want to criminalize abortion. Women, libertarians, and moderates may bolt the party, destroying Bush's winning coalition. Republicans may dislike Roe, but they may dislike losing elections even more." Supreme Court Nomination Blog finds his argument persuasive.

RedState, on the partial-birth/late-term abortion act's striking down being upheld by the 8th circuit: "The ruling in question apparently leans heavily on the Supreme Court's 2000 Stenberg v. Carhart decision as a matter of precedent. It is worth noting that Sandra Day O'Connor, as she often did, provided the majority vote for the liberals on this occasion, making her successor the likely deciding vote when and if this issue reaches the SCOTUS in the upcoming term."

THE FIGHT: Let's Get It Dionne

Washington Post's E.J. Dionne, on the SCOTUS nominations: "Should a temporary majority of 50.7 percent have control over the entire United States government? Should 49.3 percent of Americans have no influence over the nation's trajectory for the next generation?" Red Stater Randy Robinson replies: "Elections have meaning, and what they mean right now is that the Democrats are in a precarious position when it comes to filling Supreme Court vacancies. And deservedly so." So does NRO's Ed Whelan at Bench Memos: "The basic question Dionne ought to be asking, of course, is of a very different nature: Should five justices be free to invent 'rights' that have no legitimate basis in the text or structure of the Constitution and to deprive 300 million Americans of their constitutional power to set policy on those invented rights?"

FAMOUS LAST WORDS: Who Am I? What's My Name?

Veteran blogger Jeff Cooper, on 7/8: "I could have sworn that I read this morning that Chief Justice Rehnquist had resigned. Not that he was planning to resign, but that he had actually submitted his resignation letter. The memory is specific enough that I recall seeing an excerpt from the letter. And yet none of that has happened. Is it possible that the British beef I ate two decades ago is coming back to haunt me?"

Posted by at 12:26 PM

July 08, 2005

7/8: Never Mind The Bombings, Here's The Blog Swarm

Last night we looked at the Technorati front page to see what the "Top Searches This Hour" were. They were:

1. London 2. 'London Explosion' 3. 'London Bomb' 4. 'London Blast' 5. 'London Bombing' 6. Londres 7. 'London Attack' 8. 'Judith Miller' 9. 'Overrated Songs' 10. Francoeur

About 12 hours later, they are:

1. London 2. 'London Explosion' 3. 'London Bombing' 4. 'London Bomb' 5. Londres 6. 'London Blast' 7. Francoeur 8. 'Judith Miller' 9. 'Overrated Songs' 10. 'London Terror'

It's an oversimplification to say this is the only thing going on right now, but it is the only subject to unite virtually all the politically-oriented blogs. (Somehow we missed the hubbub concerning overrated songs.) Technorati reports that it recorded a 30% upsurge in blog activity after the attacks, which helps explain the error message we got during one search last night: "Sorry, we couldn't complete your search because we're experiencing a high volume of requests right now." Despite certain problems the Blogometer has had with Technorati (Making Light and BuzzMachine, too) this was something else entirely.

Like with the Asian tsunami last year, when the television news can only provide so much information, the blogosphere becomes a million (or ten) news channels. But they're also more of a resource, as people shared everything from updates on family and friends to photographs from those trapped inside the tube. While it's sometimes too easy to get carried away with technolust (as some do in the coverage below), if the blogosphere finds participation rates across society on the level of the good old television set, it will fundamentally change the way we experience these world events. In the meantime, Technorati has a dedicated page for the 7/7 London bombing.

More of that, and more of other stuff we haven't mentioned yet below:

TRACKBACKS: Jacked Up

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

• Liberal blogs -- chief among them Daily Kos -- post links to a handful of Media Matters alerts (here and here) calling out FNC's Brit Hume for saying his "first thought" on the London bombings was: "Hmmm, time to buy," and FNC's Brian Kilmeade for saying: "I think that works to our advantage, in the Western world's advantage, for people to experience something like this together, just 500 miles from where the attacks have happened." Both instances get a lot of attention, particularly the Kilmeade one. Some blogger reax, with an assist from Memeorandum:
  
  

  >> Liberal Rising Hegemon quotes Kilmeade saying: "And that was the first time since 9-11 when they should know, and they do know now, that terrorism should be Number 1" and responds: "Yes, the 'Blitz'; decades of the IRA; and the nail bombs of the late 90s, those Brits never experienced the terror of bombing -- except those times." The Mahablog: "Brilliant. If we continue to fight terrorism the righties' way, in five to eight years we'll all be living in caves." David Sirota: "Remember, these people are using the public's airwaves to spew out this bile. To call these people nauseating is an insult to nausea." Pacific Views: "The bombings were enough of a horror. And then there was FOX, just piling on the grotesquery."
  

  >> A few conservatives weigh in to defend the comments: Daly Thoughts: "[W]hat Kilmeade said is exactly that our enemies made a mistake today. Today, the enemy killed some of our extended family. Our prayers and sympathies and condolences go out to them. But the enemy made a mistake. Our enemies' mistakes will lead to their demise. Our enemies' demise will be a very good thing for America and our allies." Outside The Beltway: "[H]e's saying something that is almost universally true: Being attacked by one's enemies often unites a country. The London Blitz had that affect. So did the 9-11 attacks."



• Just days after U.S. Independence Day, the Union Jack is very popular with American bloggers, particularly the conservative/pro-war ones. This list is by no means definitive, but in surfing the web, here's a few we found:
  

  >> The Bleat; Power Line; Galley Slaves; Michelle Malkin; Blogging for Bryant; Andrew Sullivan; Patrick Ruffini [Update, 7/8: Shape of Days has a list far superior to our own.]

LONDON BOMBINGS I: What's It All About, Alfie?

Lefty Eric Alterman: "We don't have remotely enough information about what took place in London or who did it to engage in sensible speculation about why it happened or what ought to be done as a result. Speed is the enemy of sensibility in such situations. (So let's all try to resist the urge to exploit the tragedy to demonstrate how right we were about everything in the first place and just show some respect, and compassion, for its victims.)"

In a lengthy post, libertarian Vodkapundit's Stephen Green fisks liberal Josh Marshall's response to the London bombing, criticizing it graf by graf; Green disagrees vehemently with Marshall's assessment of how Iraq fits into the larger war on terrorism. He concludes: "Today, I didn't write a single word about Iraq. I didn't use today's deaths to further my chickenhawk agenda. Today, my thoughts and words were with my friends -- and with millions of strangers -- in London. Joshua Micah Marshall took a different path. Even though on many issues I'm as lefty a liberal as he is, right now Josh has me wondering if 'good liberal' isn't an oxymoron after all."

The Moderate Voice's Joe Gandelman follows a debate among several blogs including Daily Kos and the Huffington Post about the so-called "flypaper theory," i.e. that the U.S. military is purposefully drawing jihadists into Iraq in order to kill them. The left sees the London bombings as evidence that the theory is wrong. Gandelman, who supported the Iraq war, is more cautious: "The problem ... if you totally divorce yourself from left or right thinking is this: there really is no proof that the bombs in London would not have gone off if the U.S. was now out of Iraq. And even if terrorists are gaining recruits in Iraq, if the U.S. wasn't in Iraq they would likely get their recruits elsewhere since the Al Qaeda philosophy reportedly appeals to some Muslim youths for reasons apart from the Iraq war."

Righty Instapundit writes, "Arianna Huffington exercises a bit too much Internet triumphalism regarding speedy coverage of the London bombing. The NYT's website was on the story fast. But the first mention I could find on the HuffPo's newspage was from 9:17 a.m." Huffington had posted an image of the 7/7 New York Times A section, which carried news of London being awarded the '12 Olympics. Meanwhile back at the Huffington Post, contributor Greg Gutfeld mocks Huffington's point: "[T]he ham radio delivers news fast too! -- right from the mouths of real people who happen to own ham radios! Truly, this is more proof of the ascendancy of ham radio!"

LONDON BOMBINGS II: Nutjobs, Wingnuts And Moonbats, Oh My!

Center-right Balloon Juice observes that anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists have already started theorizing conspiratorially about the London bombings. "For those of you wondering why this story received any traction whatsoever, the genesis is this AP report, with the blaring headline that "Netanyahu Changed Plans," a story which was wrong, but the AP seems not to have corrected. The Jerusalem Post does that.

Meanwhile, conservative Power Line finds similar thoughts from the message board Democratic Undergound, such as: "I am so cynical... That all I can think is 'how convenient' that this happened to take the light off Karl Rove." Galley Slaves pulls multiple quotes of a like nature from Daily Kos' extensive comments. Speaking of Daily Kos, right-leaning Democracy Guy says he posted comments to the site, arguing with "the haters," and had all 6 comments removed by a moderator.

Highlighting intemperate remarks from left-wing message boards is a pretty common activity on conservative blogs, especially around events such as these. If there's a comparable, widespread activity of this kind on the left, we've missed it.

Wizbang and Instapundit post an unconfirmed report from a website, http://www.homelandsecurity.us, that claims 1 of the London bombers was recently released from Guantanamo Bay. Both are highly skeptical.

At Daily Kos, left-wing British PM George Galloway draws praise for the following statement: "We argued, as did the security services in this country, that the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq would increase the threat of terrorist attack in Britain. Tragically Londoners have now paid the price of the Government ignoring such warnings."

LONDON BOMBINGS III: Blogs As Coping Mechanism?

UK-based HungBunny: "Heated debate over at John B's place about whether it's too early to crack jokes about this morning's explosions. Not here it's not. As John rightly points out, 'In the Blitz, our ancestors joked as the bombs fell'. I'd go so far as to say it's our duty to make light of events as soon as possible. Without our black humour we're just Americans with less annoying accents. So, has anyone got any good ones?" Not that many suggestions come in, so HungBunny adds in the comments: "At least it's a palindromic date this time. Al-Qaida must have chosen it especially so the Americans can't say it the wrong way around."

U.S.-based Pandagon's Amanda Marcotte writes a letter to London: "London, I am reminded of a line put in the mouth of a dying character in a play written by one of your most celebrated residents: 'A plague o' both your houses!' Romeo lashed out and ended up killing himself and the light of his life because of it. London, you have been around a lot longer than a 15-year-old newlywed, and you have the battle scars to prove it. The news is that your residents have already begun to pull themselves together and persevere in the manner that they no doubt view as their birthright. It's just one more reason I love you, albeit from afar -- I don't love you for cheap reasons, for coltish, awkward youthfulness but instead for maturity, for your aged beauty."

In a widely-linked post hawkish liberal Norm Geras counts 18 ways in which the terrorists are the "enemies of democracy."

London News Review writes an open letter to the terrorists: "This is London. We've dealt with your sort before. You don't try and pull this on us."

THE PLAME GAME I: What Do We Know And When Will We Understand That We Know It?

While most bloggers' attention turned to the terrorist bombings in London, a dedicated few stuck with the ongoing saga of superdad/Time's Matt Cooper, WMD-hunter/New York Times' Judy Miller, Illinoisan/special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, WH dep. CoS/Bush "brain" Karl Rove and CIA agent/Vanity Fair model Valerie Plame. Are we leaving anyone out?

Kausfiles attempts to make sense of several statements Rove atty Robert Luskin made in a 7/6 Newsweek web-only report, the 7/7 New York Times and 7/7 Washington Post. He nominates the Times' Adam Liptak [Correction 7/8: Not Nagourney -- that's our poor reading comprehension]; the for "Buried Lede of the Year" -- Liptak mentions in paragraphs 22 and 23 of his 7/7 story that Cooper's "decision to drop his refusal to testify followed discussions on Wednesday morning among lawyers representing Mr. Cooper and Karl Rove." This seems to contradict what Luskin told the Post, and Kaus chides him for "excessive cleverness" for insisting to Newsweek that Rove "'did not call Cooper,'" while Luskin "would make no other comments, including whether there had been any other form of communications between Cooper and Rove."

Law prof Mark A.R. Kleiman argues that many observers are looking at the controlling statutes incorrectly, and contends that a crime may well have been committed. He finds some support in a quote from presiding Judge Thomas Hogan, who said: "It's a case in which the information she was given and her potential use of it was a crime. ... This is very different than a whistle-blower outing government misconduct." Kleiman: "With Cooper talking, it looks to me as if at least one person with White House mess privileges is going down, hard."

Tom Maguire replies: "Very good. But I will see your Hogan and raise you two Fitzgeralds -- the NY Times gives us two angst-filled quotes from the Special Counsel," wherein Fitzgerald says: "We're doing our honest best to get to the bottom of whether a crime has been committed."

Along the same lines, conservative Captain's Quarters notes that Newsweek's Jon Meacham apparently passed one of his anonymous sources along to colleague Juliet Chung. Captain's Quarters gets a statement from Newsweek's media relations dept. dismissing the case, which CQ finds "wholly inadequate."

THE PLAME GAME II: The Best Of Times And The Worst Of Times

On 7/7, the New York Times defended Miller, editorializing that "she acted in the great tradition of civil disobedience that began with this nation's founding, which holds that the common good is best served in some instances by private citizens who are willing to defy a legal, but unjust or unwise, order. This tradition stretches from the Boston Tea Party to the Underground Railroad, to the Americans who defied the McCarthy inquisitions and to the civil rights movement. It has called forth ordinary citizens, like Rosa Parks; government officials, like Daniel Ellsberg and Mark Felt; and statesmen, like Martin Luther King."

Matthew Yglesias at TAPPED calls the editorial defending Miller "self-aggrandizing," "truly appalling" and "offensive in the extreme" for comparing Miller to icons such as Parks. WSJ's James Taranto objects as well: "C'mon, is Miller really on the same level as Dr. King? Also, isn't Mark Felt's name out of place there? He might have done the nation a service as 'Deep Throat,' but his was not an act of civil disobedience -- which is to say, he did not violate an unjust law openly and accept the punishment."

On the other hand, "Armando" at Daily Kos -- like Yglesias, typically no fan of Miller on account of her erroneous pre-war WMD reporting -- liked the editorial and commends her: "Is she doing it for that? I can't look into Judith Miller's heart, but the practical effect is the same -- she is standing for a free press."

DEAN: Dean And Bloggers, Meet Tree, Forest And No One Around

Liberal Raw Story's John Byrne reports on a DCCC-arranged conf. call DNC chair Howard Dean held with a few liberal bloggers on 7/6 in the p.m.: "Dean said a new DNC and DCCC ad buy targeting six Republican districts is 'the beginning of a campaign to focus on the culture of corruption in Washington.' He invoked the 'culture of corruption' phrase repeatedly." He also said Dems "intend to file ethics complaints targeting" GOP members, and "said he was 'surprised to find that Karl Rove has emerged [as suspect in the Plame case]... It was pretty startling to have a guy who is working for the President of the United States to be accused of that. Once people who start to get corrupted and they get away with it, it continues to happen more and more."

Seeing the Forest participated in the call, and promises to write more about it soon: "I was on my cellphone, at the side of the road, coming home from getting a crown... Just got home, have to go to a business meeting. I'll write about it soon." Dohiyi Mir talks about it in a podcast.

BOLTON: August And Everything Before

Under the header "The Case for Giving John Bolton a Recess Appointment," Power Line's Paul Mirengoff writes: "The Washington Post cheerfully reports that acting U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Anne Peterson is winning high marks from the people who work for that organization. A former senior adviser to Kofi Annan is among the admirers. Peterson, a career diplomat, receives special praise for her 'pragmatism.' A senior U.N. official states that 'there are plenty of people who would like to see Bolton delayed indefinitely.' No doubt."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Greenfield Vs. Collins, Eh? Will This Be On PPV?

Re: the addition of incorrect sentences to blogger/atty/soldier Phil Carter's op-ed in the 7/5 New York Times, and the subsequent inadequate correction (see 7/7 Blogometer), U.S. News' Michael Barone sends an e-mail to Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds: "I have one or two unanswered questions about the New York Times opinion editor adding two sentences to Phil Carter's opinion article. (1) Is the editor still working at the Times? (2) If so, why? Adding these sentences is totally irresponsible journalism. ... I worked on the editorial page at the Washington Post under Meg Greenfield. She also edited the opinion pages. I have a fairly good idea of what she would have thought of this. But perhaps Gail Collins has different standards."

SENATE '06: What's Old Becomes New

Objectivist Simply I picks up on a story from the Arkansas Democrat Gazette re: Rep. Harold Ford Jr.'s (D-TN) fundraising/spending. Oddly enough, 2ndQ reports are nigh -- the reports must be postmarked by 7/15. Yet the article here focuses on Ford's impressive spending in his 1stQ FEC numbers. Considering the spending, Simply I is skeptical of this statement by Ford: "I wish that we could do this fund-raising through public financing."

• GOP-leaning Blogging for Bryant carries it from there, listing a number of Ford's expenditures, including $10.3K and $8.9K to private jet companies and much more for hotels, snarking: "Whether it's partying with Playboy bunnies or chillin' poolside in Miami, everyone knows Hollywood Harold Ford Jr. knows how to have a good time. Hollywood Harold is the most well-traveled Member of Congress, hitting such hot-spots as Martha's Vineyard and the Virgin Islands. This guy gets around."

NRO's The Buzz isn't impressed with a Dem poll showing Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) close behind Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH) in a hypothetical match-up: "First and foremost, partisan polls showing their own preferred candidate losing by close to 10 points is not generally considered an illuminating indicator of future success. Second, all politicians tested in the Feldman poll have low approval ratings. With the exception of Governor Taft, this signals a more general lack of content with government than outrage over any one politician such as DeWine." The Buzz's Eric Pfeiffer updates a bit later: "The Mike DeWine emails have been pouring in to The Buzz fast and furious today. All are critical, but most are reasoned ... Most readers from Ohio today have indicated DeWine's best hope is that Republicans vote to end judicial filibusters or that at least the president's Supreme Court nominee is approved without a filibuster."

CAFTA: No, Seriously -- CAFTA!

Slate's Daniel Gross writes at his personal blog that the Washington Post's Jonathan Weisman "buries the lede" in his 7/7 story on CAFTA. From "deep in the article": "Dozens of Republicans in districts dependent on the textile industry, the sugar growers or small manufacturers have already said they will vote against the bill." Gross comments: "That's dozens. Not a dozen, but dozens. At least 10 percent of the House Republican caucus. In the Senate, only 11 Republican Senators voted no on CAFTA -- which means 20 percent of the Republican Senate caucus abandoned the party and its President.

Dan Drezner gets an e-mail (verbatim) from Gross: "unless you're a really, really, passionate free trader--which few congressional members, republican or democrat, are -- why would you vote for CAFTA?" Drezner gives 3 reasons, adding: "There are many things I don't like about this agreement -- but there are even more things I don't like about the policy environment for trade if CAFTA goes down."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Coloring Outside The Lines?

Weekly Standard's David Skinner, from Galley Slaves: "A new pet peeve of mine is the use of the phrase 'first person' by editors looking for a new name for profiles and interviews. The Washington Post magazine has a 'first person' feature, in which the first person, the subject of the article, does not actually write the piece. Yes, "first person" written by someone else. And now the phoney new lifestyle magazine Washington D.C. Style calls its short profile of 16-year-old soccer phenom Freddy Adu a 'first person' piece, though it is written by one Robert Strauss. I would like to read a history of decorative type in which words and punctuation and intentional misspelling are used for the sake of their debatable visual appeal as opposed to their actual functions. One would think that professional writers and editors would be the last to go along with this patent insult to the very knowledge they've presumably spent years and years acquiring."

LEST WE FORGET: Sorry, We Couldn't Resist

On 7/5, Gary Farber of Amygdala wrote: "F--- POLITICS. My heart goes out to James Lileks [link] for the death of his father..."The post contains some generous words for Mr. Lileks. Some time later, Farber returned to update the post. After "father," he breaks in: "[WHICH DIDN'T HAPPEN, AND I AM AN IDIOT; SEE BELOW.]"

Below, he adds: "ADDENDUM: I am an idiot, and I misread Lileks. His father didn't die. I am an idiot. Moron. A non-reader. It's a wedding. I took off on 'My dad loved,' because who would write in past tense about one's father at a ceremony that he didn't die at? A moron non-reading idiot, such as only myself. 8/*0 is what my keyboard just wrote by itself when it fell (knocked down by me), and that's what I'll keep. I am an idiot. My apologies to all for posting misinformation, and my particular apologies to James Lileks for my inability to read. I will now crawl off and die of embarrassment. ADDENDUM: This is now my top nominee for Most Embarrassing Post Ever."

We checked back later in the day. The entry now says: "DELETED. I've removed this post, because I'm just too embarrassed by it."

°   °   °   °   °

BLOGOMETER SPECIAL: Maybe He's Waiting For 5 O'Clock?

Much of the energy that might have gone toward speculation about the SCOTUS vacancy is now busy following the terrorist attacks in London. Nevertheless, rumor had it that Chief Justice William Rehnquist would step down from the court today. Needless to say, that had not happened at deadline.

REHNQUIST: Remember -- That's Quist, Not Quits

ACSBlog leads its coverage, "the sun rose today over a nominations landscape aflame with rumors that Chief Justice Rehnquist will announce his retirement today." RedState's Erick Erickson posted one of the 1st (if not the 1st) rumor to that effect after a conf. call late 7/7 a.m. He later wrote, in the site's last post of the evening: "Chief Justice William Rehnquist is set to retire tomorrow morning. That, my friends, is what I've been hearing all day. No one, however, can actually confirm it. 10am tomorrow is the rumor and the standard time it seems."

At Talking Points Memo, liberal Josh Marshall writes, "assuming that the rumors are true and that Chief Justice Rehnquist will announcement his retirement tomorrow, this seems like a good thing for the Dems, not a bad thing. ... I think it would be much easier for President Bush to push through one hard-right nominee now and another next spring or next summer than it will be for him to push twice at once." He sets up a discussion thread at TPM Cafe to collect feedback.

• Jeralyn Merritt from TalkLeft disagrees: "I think the best we can hope for is that the Dems will will mount a filibuster as to the most objectionable. In other words, one will be horrible and one not as bad. But I think both will be hard right. It's just another reason why Kerry not winning the election was a disaster for the next generation."

STEVENS: Come Again?

Citing a rumor from The Corner that Justice John Paul Stevens will retire as well, right-leaning Ace of Spades HQ proposes AG Alberto Gonzales "for O'Connor," a "real conservative" for Rehnquist, and a libertarian for Stevens. Left-leaning Tennessee Guerilla Woman comments on the same rumor: "I'm refusing to believe this one." Supreme Court Nomination Blog doesn't, either: "We're getting lots of calls about the possibility of Justice Stevens retiring. This is an annually recurring rumor. We do know for a fact that Justice Stevens this week interviewed a number of people for his 2006-2007 clerkships and soon thereafter starting making offers. So his retirement seems exceptionally unlikely.

GONZALES: Should Beelzebub Be Looking For A Nice, Warm Coat?

In an earlier post at RedState (like many SCOTUS-related entries, cross-posted to Confirm Them), Erickson shares another conversation with the source close to the process he's now calling "the digest." Among the points: "Alberto Gonzales has never been on the list. The list is generally considered to be Luttig, Roberts, Garza, McConnell, Edith Brown Clements, Edith Jones, Priscilla Owens, and very possibly [TX Sen.] John Cornyn. 'It'll be a cold day in hell before Gonzales gets it,' says the digest. Others agree completely. In fact, they all say that the only way Gonzales will get it is if he and the President sit down to review the list and the President just says, 'Al, I want you.'"

THE FIGHT: Snarlin' At Arlen

Confirm Them<