September 14, 2005
9/14: Not Just Hearing Things
As the Blogometer has noted in recent days, the SCOTUS hearings for John Roberts have nothing approaching a monopoly on this week's blogospheric discussion. There are a few reasons for this, among them: 1) The subject matter is largely esoteric, and the bloggers who have the expertise to discuss specific rulings are relatively few. 2) It can be difficult to meaningfully live-blog an event that is already on TV. 3) There isn't much suspense as to the likely outcome. That said, it's still our top story, and there does seem to be more debate than yesterday.
There's another reason why the SCOTUS confirmation isn't a bigger deal: fallout from Hurricane Katrina, and most recently Pres. Bush's admission that he is responsible for the lackluster fed'l response. Conservatives praise him for being so candid, but wonder if it will help or hurt. The liberal response is less uniform. Meanwhile, a report that DHS Sec. Michael Chertoff may bear more responsibility for FEMA's mistakes is a big topic, so far just on the left.
In other news, blogs on either end of the spectrum have little good to say about the NYT's looming subscription service, which will remove the columnists (particularly liberal favorite Paul Krugman) from free access. Michael Kinsley's departure from the LAT generates some buzz, and so does an accusation of sensationalism he recently leveled against CNN.
Beyond that we have reactions to the NYC Dem mayoral primary, concerns about the Flight 93 memorial design, and -- wait for it -- more!
ROBERTS HEARINGS I: Are Senators As Interested In Blogs As Bloggers Are Interested In Them?
On 9/12, Volokh Conspiracy contributor Jim Lindgren offered an extended version of Roberts' "umpire" analogy, namely that there are 3 types of ump-judges. 1 says: "Some are balls and some are strikes, and I call them as they are"; he 2nd says "I call them as I see 'em"; and the 3rd says "they ain't nothin' 'til I call 'em." On 9/13, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) referenced this and mentioned having found it on a blogs, and asked Roberts what he thought. Back at the blog, Lindgren rates Roberts' reply: "As I suggested he might yesterday, Roberts today adopted the second approach, that of a traditional judge in a liberal democratic society, believing in truth but recognizing the difficulty of perceiving it." Betsy's Page: "How cool is it that Senator Cornyn reads blogs and that he reads [UCLA prof Eugene] Volokh's blog in particular."
Sen. Pat Leahy's (D-VT) staff is maintaining a blog, Heard At The Hearing, at his Senate site. It lacks permalinks but has includes a date stamp, and is clearly meant to be a blog. A few entry headers from this a.m.:
- "11:07 a.m. Senator Kennedy is questioning Judge Roberts about the Voting Rights Act."
- "10:46 a.m. Senator Hatch is questioning Judge Roberts about the Voting Rights Act and civil rights."
- "10:30 a.m. Senator Leahy is questioning Judge Roberts about capital punishment."
- "10:24 a.m. Senator Leahy is questioning Judge Roberts about media access."
It's not the Leahy office's 1st blogging endeavor -- there is also More from the Floor, written by his legis. staff.
Balloon Juice's John Cole: "My goodness these hearings are boring. Can't someone find a pubic hair on a coke can or something?" He derides the intelligence of Cmte members both Dem and GOP, concluding: "If I were a Senator on the Judiciary Committee, I would do everything I could to make these hearings as short as possible to keep the public from finding out how stupid our elected leaders really are..."
Blogs for Bush's Matt Margolis: "The Democrats were shameless today... Politicizing Katrina... Gross mischaracterizations... Asking questions they knew Roberts wasn't going to answer (per the Ginsburg Precedent) but still asked repeatedly and insisted he answer. ... They want to say over and over again that he wasn't going answer certain questions so they can accuse him of dodging. I don't expect any of the Democrats on the committee to vote for him. Never did, and nothing was going to change that."
At Bench Memos, Jonathan Adler writes, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) repeatedly referred to Wickard v. Filburn, an "infamous New Deal-era case" as a "foundational and fundamental case of constitutional law, on a par with Griswold or Brown. This is just silly. Wickard is now -- and has long been seen -- as a fringe decision ... It is also not the case (contrary to Sen. Schumer's claims) that [the ruling] established Congress' authority to regulate intrastate economic activity. My first year ConLaw students get this, but somehow Senator Schumer does not."
Liberal Capitol Buzz flips out over Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) saying he "can relate" to Roberts' having "argued different positions" because he was "paid to." Capitol Buzz: "What the f--- can Graham relate to? Is he saying that people pay him to sponsor bills and that's what he does?" Although this gets an approving nod from Atrios, commenters quickly move to point out Graham was surely referring to his time as an atty in private practice.
Wizbang guest-blogger Mary Katherine Ham keeps a running tally of how many times Dems and GOPers each mention Hurricane Katrina. Day One -- Dems: 4; GOP: 0. Day Two -- Dems: 4; GOP: 0.
ROBERTS HEARINGS II: Wake Us When He's Confirmed
Univ. of Madison-WI law prof Ann Althouse, who is TiVo-blogging (a new (?) variation on live-blogging) the hearings and trying to resist the urge to fast-forward through parts: "Hey, it's grueling listening through all of this. It must be hard on John Roberts. It's just weird to have to sit there and be grilled all day long. Ah, but he'll have to work long and hard on the Court. Why not test his stamina?"
Think Progress lists the "25 Ways To Not Answer The Question," all direct quotes from Roberts at the 9/13 hearings: #1: "I feel the need to stay away from a discussion of specific cases." #25: "Well, that's an issue that is before the court in particular cases, and I can't comment on a case that's coming before the court."
At Daily Kos, Armando is curious about why there isn't more outcry -- from one side, the other, or both -- about Roberts' answers re: a right to privacy in the Constitution.
Criminal law-focused Prawfsblawg's Douglas Berman had predicted that criminal issues would be little-addressed in the hearings, and so far seems to be proved right: "I am not surprised about the short shrift given to criminal justice issues in the Senators' questions, though it is a notable (and telling) omission given that a significant portion of the Supreme Court's docket involves criminal law issues."
BUSH: From Slow Response To Relatively Quick Acceptance Of Responsibility?
At PoliPundit, Lorie Byrd comments on Bush's 9/13 acknowledgment of blame for the fed'l gov't's poor Katrina response: "It is entirely appropriate that he take responsibility for the actions of the federal government which he has under his control -- the 'buck stops here,' and all that." However, Byrd recalls the pressers "that largely consisted of reporters trying to get President Bush to admit that he had made mistakes in Iraq" and so admits she "cringed" when Bush made the admission. She writes: "It will be interesting to see the response of those on the Left to this acceptance of responsibility. Will it be mischaracterized as an admission that the federal government is the one to blame for any and all deficiencies in the response?"
>> Conservative Don Surber: "That is the way it should be. Presidents should take responsibility for the actions -- or, in this case, inactions -- of their administrations. His speech on Thursday should be enlightening. Equally enlightening will be the left's reaction. The political pendulum could swing back their way, provided they give some scintilla of an appearance of putting the national interest ahead of personal ambition. We shall see."
>> Liberal Demagogue: "I hate to be cynical, I want to congratulate the president for owning up to his responsibility, but I can't help but wonder if this new tactic of taking responsibility has been either focused grouped or if it was an off-the-cuff moment that won't be repeated." Less-trafficked lefty blog Byzantium's Shores, simply writes: "Good for him." And yet, this from a Daily Kos diarist: "Now that Bush has taken responsibility, he must resign. He has pleaded guilty. He has admitted that he was complicit in the deaths of thousands of people. ... If that chimp thinks that he can get off the hook by saying, 'my bad,' then he is mistaken. The media had better milk this story for all it is worth."
>> The Political Teen's Ian Schwartz hosts vide of a presser where N.O. Mayor Ray Nagin "accepts blame" for the handling of Katrina, and comments: "President Bush accepts blame, Mayor Nagin accepts blame, when will you Governor Blanco?"
The presser where Bush accepted responsibility for the Katrina response was actually convened for visiting Iraqi interim Pres. Jalal Talabani. The Anchoress quotes from Talabani's statement: "In the name of Iraqi people, I say to you, Mr. President, and to the glorious American people, thank you, thank you. Thank you, because you liberated us from the worst kind of dictatorship." She observes: "Try to find some coverage of this on the television -- you won't see more than 30 seconds of it, and it's all about the press playing 'gotcha' with President Bush. ... Not a single question to Talabani. This is sick, sick, SICK."
Conservative Decision '08 is not particularly surprised by a Washington Post poll (as highlighted by the Post's Dan Froomkin) showing a majority of blacks and a 3rd of all respondents agreeing with Kanye West's assessment of Bush's interest in African-Americans' well-being: "The Democratic Party and a good chunk of the media have been selling the notion that Republicans are racist (the party of Lincoln, mind you) for decades. ... Thus, it is not surprising at all that 1 out of 3 Americans thinks such a ridiculous thing."
Washington Post's E.J. Dionne is getting a fair amount of attention for his 9/13 column titled "End of the Bush Era." In it, Dionne notes Bush's plethora of political problems, and observes: "The Bush Era is over. The sooner politicians in both parties realize that, the better for them -- and the country." Conservatives disagree, and even some liberals are skeptical. 
Left-leaning Michael Stickings alliteratively appraises it as "provocative, but perhaps premature." Right-leaning Travelling Shoes: "Here's a never fail rule of thumb, if E.J. Dionne says it's so, you can be certain it ain't." Conservative Hugh Hewitt: "The great news about the left is that its capacity for self-delusion is undiminished by the electoral losses of the past few years. It remains eager to believe what it wants to believe, in this case that President Bush is in deep political trouble." Liberal Marc Cooper is one of the few we saw who agrees; in fact, he'd written essentially the same thing for the L.A. Weekly recently. He titles the post: "Bushism R.I.P. 9/11/2001 - 9/02/05" "Impeach Bush", a favorite search term on Technorati, was #1 when we last checked.
KATRINA: Take Your Chertoff!
Header at The Left Coaster: "The Smoking Gun: Memo Shows Chertoff Didn't Act For 36 Hours Even With Authority To Go Around State Officials" Under it, Steve Soto credits KRT for scooping the New York Times and Washington Post by finding and reporting on documents that show DHS Sec. Chertoff had the authority to mobilize FEMA and didn't designate ex-FEMA dir. Michael Brown with those powers until 8/30: "In short ... Chertoff abdicated his existing responsibility to activate federal forces without waiting for any request from Governor Blanco, and wasted at least 36 hours of critical time before empowering FEMA to act. And the system wasn't the problem, it was the White House." The news report quotes ex-Clinton and ex-Reagan FEMA officials as criticizing Chertoff's response. One says of documents uncovered: "It shows that the president is running the disaster, the White House is running it as opposed to Brown or Chertoff." Plenty of other liberal bloggers take note, although there isn't much to add except exasperation with Bush and Chertoff: Josh Marshall writes, "Chertoff 'may have been confused about his lead role in disaster response and that of his department' under the National Response Plan promulgated by the administration earlier this year. There's a lot of stuff in this piece. And the leaks behind the story suggest much afoot." Political Animal, on FEMA's indecision on how many buses to order for evacuees: "So FEMA didn't request any buses at all until two days after the hurricane hit, then puttered around a bit, and finally settled on a firm number on Saturday. Saturday? I don't know if the state of Louisiana was primarily responsible for buses or not, but even if they were, how could it have taken until Saturday for FEMA to finally figure out what was going on and how many buses it needed?" Needlenose: "I can't prove this, but I get the feeling that Knight Ridder waited until after renowned FEMA incompetent Michael Brown had been officially scapegoated for the post-Hurricane Katrina blundering to point the finger of blame higher up the totem pole..."
Meanwhile, the debate over whether sunken N.O. school buses could have been used to evacuate residents isn't over. Think Progress attempts to "debunk" claims that they could have been; Bill Hobbs offers a lengthy rebuttal to their charges. Likewise, liberal Media Matters defends the city from these accusations; conservative Junkyard Blog takes issue with them.
ABC News' Jake Tapper reports that on 9/2, Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) used the Nat'l Guard to "check on his property and rescue his personal belongings," and starting 9/13, conservative bloggers are bringing it more attention. Among them are Captain's Quarters and Michelle Malkin, who ties the story to previous reports that people inside the disaster zone have had their guns confiscated: "Hmmm. Wonder if the National Guardsmen whom this Democratic congressman used as personal escorts to his New Orleans house were allowed to carry fully-loaded weapons?"
NC-based John Hawkins alerts readers that his Right Wing News blog may go dark for a few days if Hurricane Ophelia knocks out his power, as Gov. Mike Easley (D-NC) has warned: "Ophelia has been upgraded to a category 1 hurricane and it's moving like it has drawn a bead on my location. They've even done mandatory evacuations of some of the nearby areas that are on the beach front. ... If my power is out for 2-3 days, I blame FEMA, Chimpy McBushHitler, and Halliburton! Furthermore, for every hour that my power is out, I demand that a new FEMA employee be fired or else I'll be forced to start looting TVs, stereos, and other essentials to survive!"
BLOGS VS. THE MSM I: It's Kinsley's World, We're Just Reading About It
Constant LAT critic Kausfiles, on ex-LAT editorial editor Michael Kinsley's decampment to Washington Post: "The hope Kinsley brought to Los Angeles wasn't that he'd improve the Times. It was that by improving the Times he'd help give L.A. the lively, East-coast style political culture it desperately needs -- a culture the city's stolid monopoly newspaper has suffocated for decades. The idea that Kinsley could do this by leveraging the Times' unfindable and largely unread editorial pages was always a longshot. But to have any hope of success in a bloated GM-like institution filled with stuffy veteran editors who'd have to lose their current positions (but who have families and mortgages) Kinsley would need solid long-term backing -- no, more like actual encouragement -- from the top. It's now obvious he didn't have this." Hugh Hewitt posts the internal memo from LAT publisher Jeff Johnson to staff that Andreas Martinez will assume control of the op-ed pages.
Earlier this week, Kinsley suggested in his LAT column that CNN was telling guests to "get angry" on the air; Kinsley cited an anonymous LAT colleague as his source. Many blogs took interest, inferring that CNN execs (including blog pariah Jonathan Klein) were betting that the emotion showed by anchors (chiefly Anderson Cooper) in the early days after Katrina could generate (or sustain) viewer interest.
TV Newser -- a blog read by many in the TV news biz -- has apparently caught wind of a Klein memo urging exec. producers to do just that. In a one-sentence post, last a.m., TV Newser's Brian Stelter asks: "Does anyone have Jon Klein's memo to EP's about harnessing CNN's 'voice?'"
At CBS's Public Eye blog, ex-CJRer Brian Montopoli fingers LAT's Jon Healy (who recently appeared on "Paula Zahn Now") as the Kinsley colleague in question. Healy confirmed this to Montopoli, who reports: "Healy says he replied that he was willing to reflect the ... content [of an unsigned LAT editorial on the slow Katrina response] -- he characterized it as 'a combination of mystification and anger' -- but that he wouldn't express more anger than he otherwise would have. 'I'm a news guy ... I'm not an actor. If they ask me a question, I'll answer it.'"
Conservative News Busters took issue with Montopoli's post, arguing that in addition to "being a flack for CNN, Montopoli decided to be a spokesperson for a liberal editorial writer [Healy] as well." NRO's Media Blog disagrees.
CNN's Cooper doesn't escape without criticism; Power Line writes: "Without experiencing the death of a loved-one, Cooper has managed to become the Cindy Sheehan of Hurricane Katrina. Because he saw dead bodies, he asserts the "moral authority" to dish out blame without analysis and without rejoinder."
BLOGS VS. THE MSM II: Get With The Times? Most Say They Will Not
In a letter, New York Times makes known that its previously-announced TimesSelect program will go into effect on 9/19. Among other things, the Times will be taking its op-ed columnists behind a subscription firewall. This was a big story when the plan was unveiled in May (see 5/17, 5/23 and 5/31 Blogometers) and it's generating a great deal of interest once again. What's more, it's one of those rare issues that unites the left and right blogospheres -- against the Times.
A few headers:
- Simian Brain: "Mike Kinsley Heads to WaPo. Me too."
- Radams Ad Nauseum: "$50 a year for Maureen Dowd?"
- WMET Talk Back Blog: "NYT: America, please stop reading our paper"
Some responses:
- Lying in Ponds's Ken Waight, who tracks the relative and absolute partisanship of MSM columnists, is "opposed in principle and practice" to paying for the service, "given the extremely low-budget nature of my efforts." He asks if readers will chip in to defray the cost.
- Atari Democrat senses a harbinger: "The move may start a trend; as more and more newspaper readers move on line and as print subscriptions falls providing free online may be less attractive to publishers."
- Jupiter Research's David Card goes the other way, suggesting a death pool for the fledgling service.
- At NRO's Media Blog, Stephen Spruiell announces: "I'll continue to track Dowd, Krugman, Rich and company through a new feature on the Media Blog called TimesReject. TimesReject will keep an eye on these factually-challenged NYT columnists so you don't have to."
NEW YORK MAYOR '05: Everybody Loves Nobody
Prior to the late-breaking news that Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) is withdrawing from the NYC Mayor's race, here's what was being said:
Liberal Doug Ireland: "I've participated in as a campaign manager, and subsequently covered as a journalist, more electoral campaigns than I care to remember -- but in my lifetime there hasn't been a New York City mayoral election that was such a snooze-a-thon as this one." On the possibility of a runoff: "And it's not impossible that Weiner could beat [Dem Freddie] Ferrer in a low-turnout runoff -- I never underestimate the racism of the average white New York voter -- especially if Sharpton and his support for Ferrer again become an issue in the runoff, as they were four years ago."
Arbitrary ChuckJerry: "Personally, I voted for Weiner and I hope he forces a runoff. Also I hope he wins the runoff and runs against [GOP Mayor Mike] Bloomberg. Ferrer has absolutely zero chance of winning against Bloomberg. Truth be told, Weiner doesn't have much of a shot either, but if he comes out of nowhere to win the Democratic nod, he'll definitely hit the ground running. Also Ferrer kinda sucks. Incidentally, this is the first time that I'm certain my vote actually meant something."
Conservative Mark Kilmer: "I'm not certain if a runoff at this point would help or hurt city Dems. There's the 'divisive skirmish' argument, but more important, I think, is the free publicity it would gave the eventual nominee. Remember, the eventual selection will be running against a Bloomberg who has all their issues and is hugely popular."
MIDTERMS '06: Could The GOP Be Hammered With The Hammer?
The indictment of 2 House Maj. Leader Tom DeLay associates in TX brings little joy to DeLay critic Jeralyn Merritt at TalkLeft, as she notes a Roll Call story suggesting the recent meeting between DeLay and prosecutor Ronnie Earle suggests it is "unlikely" DeLay will himself be indicted.
A Left In The West contributor notes some good poll numbers for MT SEN candidate Jon Tester (D). Left in the West's founder (who is not the author of the post linked) is a Tester consultant.
9/11 MEMORIAL: Crescent Country
The controversy over the Shanksville, PA memorial to Flight 93 (see 9/12 Blogometer) continues to simmer. Conservative columnist Mark Steyn has weighed in on 9/13 with a column criticizing the planned memorial: "'The Crescent of Embrace' looks more like the embrace of the Crescent -- ie, Islam. After all, what better way to demonstrate your willingness to 'embrace' your enemies than by erecting a giant Islamic crescent at the site of the day's most unambiguous episode of American heroism?" He adds, " all that's needed in that field: the kind of simple dignified memorial you see on small-town commons saluting Civil war veterans, a granite block with the names of the passengers and the words 'LET'S ROLL.'"
Sissy Willis is one of a few right-leaning bloggers who disagrees with the prevailing wisdom on the memorial's interpretation, quoting the architect's response to such criticisms. She also disagrees with Steyn's aesthetics, writing: "The large scale demands large landscape gestures."
Brainster observes, the Shanksville memorial "might never have become an issue without the anti-American exhibit proposed for the WTC site." The reference is to the blog-based Take Back The Memorial campaign; for background see the 6/27 Blogometer.
THE MARCH OF BLOGS: Bananas About Pajamas
The news service/ad agency project as yet still known as Pajamas Media (see 8/29 Blogometer) continues to roll out profiles of its contributors. Among them: Slate's Eric Umansky, Daily PunditBill Quick and Baldilocks' Juliette Ochieng. The participants tend to be right-leaning and CA-based, as are founders Charles Johnson and Roger L. Simon (who may better be described as right-trending).
The most recent profilee is anonyblogger Grim's Hall, who writes: "I've read Althouse's critique of PJM, but she and I are coming at if from different perspectives. She is considering what's best for the individual blogger. What matters to me is the effect on the MSM, and looking past that, toward society and particularly to the Republic." He also notes that CA journalist Jill Stewart wrote his profile.
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: As If We Needed More Proof That Garrison Keillor Lacks A Sense Of Humor
MNspeak announces that it is being sued by Garrison Keillor for selling T-shirts with the phrase "A Prairie Ho Companion" -- for the NPR-impaired, that's a reference to Keillor's series, "A Prairie Home Companion." MNspeak (which by the way appropriates more Keillor phrases in this blog post) contacted Keillor's atty, arguing that the suit was groundless and, as he quotes himself, would "make your client look extremely out of touch. I'll even write the headline for you: 'Liberal Comedian Sues Blogger.' Do you really want that?" A week later, the atty called back to confirm that Keillor wanted to move forward with the suit. MNspeak: "So what now? I've temporarily honored the cease and desist, but haven't decided how to proceed. Since there were only about 10 shirts left (and I had no plans on reprinting new ones), there's no real economic reason to pursue this. And besides, let's be clear about the scope of what we're actually talking about: a fairly stupid t-shirt with four words on it. In an age of much bigger problems, is this really worth fighting for? But here's the thing: it annoys the living hell out of me that Garrison Keillor thinks he can bully me. And not only that, he incorrectly invokes our legal system to do it."
LEST WE FORGET: If Only Roberts Hailed From Nantucket ...
From the right, Protein Wisdom's Jeff Goldstein locates "Ted Kennedy's SCOTUS confirmation hearings crib notes." Among his questions for Roberts: "Do you think my head is huge? Some people think it is. But I think it's just right. Thoughts?" The crib notes are written on a pink "Labyrinth" notepad.
From the left, Mad Kane shares a couple Roberts-related limericks. Here's one:
Judge John Roberts is smooth and quite smart.
Unlike Bork, he's not testy or tart.
But we still do not know
What he'll do about Roe.
He's declined to his viewpoint impart.
Posted by at September 14, 2005 12:27 PM
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
