« 7/7: Tonite Let's All Survive In London | Main | 7/11: The Blame For Plame Falls Mainly On 'Fair Game'? »

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."


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 demands an apology from Senate Jud. Cmte chair Arlen Specter (R-PA) for saying, inter alia: "[I]deology could come into play if it is very, very, very extreme, and we had the situation with Judge Bork." Confirm Them disputes Specter's take on Bork, adding: "Senator Specter, please stop acting like a demagoguing Democrat! How can you be trusted to treat nominees fairly, if you continue to distort plain and simple facts? How could an originalist like Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas or Robert Bork ever hope to get a fair hearing before your committee if they plainly state their views?"

Assuming the confirmation process is like going back "into campaign mode," conservative Patrick Ruffini makes a few given assumptions: "Complaining about ideological opposition to a nominee is about as effective as whining about your opponent running a negative campaign." And: "Lauding a judge's qualifications is a soporific exercise. On paper, John Kerry was "qualified" to be President. But he was dead wrong on everything that mattered, and he was hammered relentlessly for it.

Referring to the Drudge-reported retelling of Sen. Chuck Schumer's (D-NY) "war" comments (see 7/7 Blogometer), Family Research Council pres. Tony Perkins "called Shumer's comment 'against the process of judicial honor and shameful,'" according to CAP's Think Progress, which points out: "Which is, to put it mildly, deeply ironic. After all, on the very day that Justice O'Connor announced her retirement, FRC put out a release claiming Americans (and, in particular, their grassroots activists) were 'primed for the fight' over the next nominee."

Posted by at July 8, 2005 12:28 PM



Copyright 2007 by National Journal Group Inc.
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.