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."