September 15, 2005
9/15: Ten Blog Posts From Normal
Is the blogosphere back to normal (whatever that means)? After 2 months of obsession about anti-war mom Cindy Sheehan and reaction to the destruction wrought by Hurricane Katrina, there is no single story dominating the landscape. Whereas a few weeks ago non-political or friviolous stories were all but absent, there is more space to discuss other topics. How do we know? By taking another look at Technorati's fun and informative (if unscientific and imperfect) Top 10 Searches list. Here's what it looked like shortly before deadline:
1. 'Impeach Bush'
2. Katrina
3. Nokia 7710
4. 'Bush Bathroom'
5. Hitchens Galloway
6. 'Ipod Nano'
7. 'Pledge Of Allegiance'
8. Dreamhost
9. 'John Roberts'
10. Flock
What do we find? Liberal bogs, led in part by the Impeach Bush Coalition, have successfully pushed the phrase "Impeach Bush" to the top of the charts. Technology and consumer electronics, 2 topics all but nonexistent from the searches in Katrina's aftermath (see 9/1 Blogometer) are back. Katrina certainly remains a top story, and the SCOTUS hearings for John Roberts are up there, but also showing up today are stories we address below: an Iraq debate between 2 colorful, contentious figures; the court ruling against the Pledge of Allegiance; and an amusing photo that Pres. Bush probably was not expecting.
Also getting play today: the 9/11 memorial to Flight 93 is going to be redesigned, this after just a few days of outcry from the conservative blogs. Plus, we present our latest Blogger Spotlight.
ROBERTS HEARINGS: What's Not Happening
Right-leaning law prof Ann Althouse comments: "You know one Supreme Court case the Senators aren't grilling Roberts about? Despite all the talk about the Commerce Clause at the hearing, none of them wants to bring up Gonzales v. Raich, the medical marijuana case. Wouldn't you think the Democrats would want to champion the rights of the powerless, suffering cancer patient, oppressed by the government, with whom the heartless Supreme Court Justices could not empathize?" Explaining that the case turned on interpretation of the Commerce Clause, she writes, "If the Court was wrong, it was wrong because it found that Congress had too much power. The Senators don't want to push Roberts to say that they lack power."
Liberal law prof Jack Balkin writes at his Balkinization blog: "If you read Judge Roberts' testimony carefully, you will see that he states that Roe is settled precedent whose continuing authority is determined by another precedent, Casey, and its rules for when you are allowed or not allowed to overturn an existing precedent. This is not a representation that Roberts will never vote to overrule Roe. It is a statement that he will regard Roe as settled unless the precedent becomes vulnerable along the lines set forth by the Casey joint opinion ... As I've said before, this suggests that Roberts satisfied the 'reverse litmus test' that President Bush's nominees have to meet. And as I also said before, I think the new mainstream conservative position on abortion is going to be something like 'Roe is settled law, but we are going to read it very narrowly and chip away at it slowly.'"
Later at the same blog, Georgetown law prof Mark Tushnet isn't satisfied with Roberts' statement that "No one is above the law" re: Sen. Patrick Leahy's (D-VT) question about whether the POTUS can authorize extra-legal coercive interrogation: "I take little comfort from the proposition that Judge Roberts is (a) an advocate of judicial restraint and an opponent of judicial activism, who believes (b) that the Supreme Court properly enforces constitutional limitations on legislative power. All the interesting work happens in the space between (a) and (b)."
Daily Kos' Armando states that Roberts should not be confirmed: "The problem is Roberts has not said enough that proves him worthy of the position at this time in history. Roberts has said no more about his judicial philosophy, his decisionmaking process and how he sees the issues than did Clarence Thomas. Indeed, there are eerily striking similarities between the answers given by now-Justice Thomas during his confirmation hearings and those given by Judge Roberts the past two days."
THE REPLACEMENTS: Now More Than Ever?
Discourse.net's Michael Froomkin (Dan's brother) writes, some think "Bush's political weakness will result in a more moderate appointment" to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, but they "are deluding themselves. In fact, it's worse than wishful thinking: it's exactly backwards. The weaker Bush gets, the more certain it is that he (or Cheney or Rove) will appoint someone certain to reverse Roe v. Wade." Froomkin argues, such a move fits perfectly with the Rovian "fire-up-the-base" strategy: "While not guaranteeing a favorable result, this strategy plus a financial advantage at least creates a possibility of locking in GOP gains against what otherwise would be a renewed and nationally vigorous Democratic challenge."
KATRINA FALLOUT: Department Of Heightened Scrutiny
Stygius reiterates a point it made back on 9/5: "This whole notion that it's the state-and-locals' fault requires this operating premise: Hurricane Katrina was not an Incident of National Significance as defined" by DHS's National Response Plan. Noting the widespread attention to a KRT story on DHS Sec. Michael Chertoff's apparent culpability (see 9/14 Blogometer), Stygius writes, "We'll be seeing a lot more on that soon. 
Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum expresses some befuddlement at the New York Times' interview with Brown: "I don't really know what to make of it. Is he blaming Chertoff and Bush, even though he says he isn't? Does he realize that recounting his frantic -- and apparently futile -- efforts to get anyone to pay attention to him just makes him look like a doofus?" In a diary for Daily Kos, liberal gadfly Michael Petrelis makes the case that an acting DHS official, Matt Mayer, has a "puffed-up resume" just like ex-FEMA dir. Michael Brown. He writes, what "is of prime interest to me for what is not mentioned: Matt A. Mayer has a long involvement with the Colorado GOP and their redistricting efforts."
Conservative Protein Wisdom disagrees with Andrew Sullivan's argument that Bush's Katrina response "emboldened terrorists," particularly in Iran PW: "Did a federal response burdened by the unpreparedness of one of the three locales hit by Katrina embolden our enemies? Or did our thirst for sensationalism and controversy, coupled with the poisoned partisanship of our current political climate, conspire to convince our enemies (to the extent that it convinced them of anything at all) that we are less prepared than we actually are, and so to draw up their plans accordingly?" PW also writes: "But what is the message our enemy in the war on terror has received? What should happen in the event they attack a city? Panic. Divisiveness. Unpreparedness. Finger pointing -- the very things that Andrew helpfully points out are likely to embolden them." PW also calls into question whether Sullivan really is a conservative, noting how Sullivan seems to argue that the fed'l should have had "clairvoyance" to know all the problems and handled them all.
In a memorable 9/4 "Meet the Press" appearance, Jefferson Parish pres. Aaron Broussard told the story of a man whose mother "drowned Friday night" after having been assured help was on the way since the previous Tues. But WuzzaDem finds more details on the man Broussard spoke of -- Thomas Rodrigue -- who told "Dateline" that his mother died on 8/29. The New York Times corroborates this account. Asking "Why would he lie about such a thing?" WuzzaDem notes that Broussard is a Dem and may be deflecting criticism from the local level to the fed'l: "At best, I think Aaron Broussard is the political equivalent of a price gouger; taking advantage of a tragedy in order to gain political capital. He may very well be purposely trying to blame someone's death on an innocent party (or parties). Either way, it's despicable."
KATRINA INVESTIGATION: Indies Rocked
The Moderate Voice's Joe Gandelman wrote that he hoped to see the signs of a "post-Katrina presidency" in Bush's speech this p.m., but in an update he laments, the "political context for this speech is already contaminated by the Senate's decision yesterday to nix an independent commission." He notes that all voting GOP sens. opposed the commis., and sends readers over to liberal AMERICAblog, which has contact info for all the GOP sens. AMERICAblog calls these GOPers the "Dirty Bomb 54" and writes, they "don't want the truth, they want a whitewash. They don't want to protect America against Al Qaeda, they want to play politics with our lives." (AMERICAblog heads that post "Ask GOP Senators why they hate America?"; the question is a variation on a post-9/11 joke among lefty bloggers who saw conservative bloggers as claiming that liberals "hate America.")
The 1 GOPer to not vote on the measure was LA Sen. David Vitter. Liberal Crooks and Liars calls for his resignation: "If anyone should want an independent commission to sort out what happened it should be him because his people died. The fact that he failed to vote is just as powerful as voting against the measure.
9/11 MEMORIAL: The Blogosphere Gets Results?
AP reports this a.m. that the architect, Paul Murdoch, will "work to satisfy critics" of the design. Said Murdoch: "It's a disappointment there is a misinterpretation and a simplistic distortion of this, but if that is a public concern, then that is something we will look to resolve in a way that keeps the essential qualities."
Captain's Quarters: "Perhaps the intent did not exist -- although his defiance of the jury's request to rename the centerpiece makes it look otherwise -- but the use of a crescent that would naturally turn bright red every anniversary of the attack provides an unmistakable symbol of Islam, given the context of the attacks. Architects deal with symbolism as an integral part of their work, and the prominence of the "crescent" and its highlighting of a natural feature of the landscape in the most symbolic of all architectural projects, a memorial, cannot have come by accident." Mark In Mexico suggests the essence of the design can be saved if the crescent is reshaped to appear like a keyhole Joe's Dartblog points out a CAIR's release objecting to Rep. Tom Tancredo's (R-CO) inserting himself into the debate described the center of controversy as "a memorial to those aboard a plane that crashed in Pennsylvania on 9/11..." Joe Malchow asks rhetorically: "The important question: can CAIR still claim to represent American Muslims, when it insists not only on giving terrorists the benefit of the doubt, but on actively misleading in order to mitigate acts of terrorism?"
There aren't many liberal blogs weighing in here. Before the redesign was announced, one that did was Feministe, which derisively refers to a Flight 93 memorial post-changes it "Michelle Malkin's War Memorial": "The innocent passengers on Flight 93 didn't die fighting in a war. This is not a war memorial. I agree that it's important to immortalize the heroics of the people on that flight. But it's completely innappropriate to turn a memorial into a politicized 'let's kick some ass, yay war!' campaign."
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: If You Wonder How "Do-Gooder" Became A Slur, Consider Michael Newdow
The 9/14 ruling by fed'l district judge Lawrence Karlton that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional kicks up no small amount of debate. Most of the interest comes from the right. Opinions are divided, but several attys argue that Karlton is wrong simply on the merits.
Liberal Common Sense agrees with the ruling: "I don't have a problem with Congress having a chaplain or a prayer before convening. I can even overlook the Ten Commandments mural in the SCOTUS building. But how can you tell me legally requiring children to affirm the existence of God and his supremacy over our country everyday isn't establishing a national religion? That would be a clear violation of the 1st Amendment." Atty Howard Bashman calls the decision "really, really wrong": "Today's federal district court ruling cites precedents for the proposition that a court may reach the merits where the existence of prudential standing is especially difficult to resolve. But the district court's decision severely misapplies these precedents." UCLA law prof Eugene Volokh: "Now there'll almost certainly be an appeal, and a new Ninth Circuit panel will have to decide for itself whether it's bound by the prior panel's decision. I predict that the new panel will say that it's not bound (and thus disagree with Judge Karlton on this score). But, hey, I'd have predicted the same about Judge Karlton's decision, and I'd have been wrong."
- L.A. Co. prosecutor Patterico: "Judge Karlton failed to cite any cases that actually support his argument in a meaningful way."
- Damnum Absque Injuria calls Karlton "Moron Judge of the Day."
- Atheist God is for Suckers!: "Get ready for another wild ride ... the theocrats are already screaming."
- Header at The Sundries Shack: "Christmas Comes Early for Bush"
- Conservative Big Dog's Weblog: "I say we stop paying Judge Karlton. He works for the government and he gets money that reads 'In God We Trust' on it."
- For a list of links to comments from the right, see Stop the ACLU.
HITCHENS VS. GALLOWAY: And On The Undercard ...
Last p.m. Christopher Hitchens and British PM George Galloway debated the Iraq war in NYC, in an event coinciding with the start of Galloway's U.S. book tour. In May Galloway electrified the left-wing blogosphere with a hard-hitting performance before a Senate cmte, rhetorically dismantling Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN). Hitchens recently previewed the debate in a recent Slate column. C-SPAN 2 is set to air the event at 9:00 ET on 9/17.
Decision '08 live-blogged the event and nicknamed it "The Grapple In The Apple." TigerHawk, who saw it in person, nicknames it the same. OxBlog's Patrick Belton live-blogged it as well. Like Coffey, he gives the edge to Hitchens: "Hitchens's ability to deflate Galloway's points, and his greater variety and command of argument, made it rather more one-sided a contest to my mind than I would have hoped it to have been." At Winds of Change, Armed Liberal announces he will be "doing peaceful, informational leafleting" outside Galloway's L.A. appearance next week.
Liberal Majikthise guest-blogger Thad writes, the "nominal topic of the debate," Iraq, was "merely as a convenient mise en scène for the real main event -- a public pissing match between a pair of besotted narcissistic showboaters." Although Hitchens Watch missed it live, HW comments, as "as predicted the Jingosphere is screeching victory." One commenter reports that Hitchens made a series of faulty arguments, but Galloway let them "slip." Lefty journalist Greg Palast is no fan of Hitchens, but cautions fellow progressives against aligning with Galloway.
The event largely overshadowed another debate concerning U.S. foreign policy between National Review's Victor Davis Hanson and Huffington Post founder Arianna Huffington; this a.m. Technorati counted 703 results for Hitchens+Galloway, compared to 94 results for Huffington+Hanson. Conservative Mister Snitch!: "More evidence that better promotion is needed -- this should have been billed as the warm-up bout."
MIDTERMS '06: Prime Moves
Lefty activist David Sirota says of the on 9/13 Dem vs. Dem primary for St. Paul Mayor, challenger Chris Coleman's "ass-whooping" of Mayor Randy Kelly -- who endorsed Bush in '04 "could be a sign of things to come" in '06, and Coleman "pounded" him for it. Sirota: "The sheer margin of the challenger's victory over the incumbent is a sign that the Democratic base is really fired up, and that Bush could be an albatross around incumbent's necks. Stay tuned for the final battle between the two in November."
Re: House Maj. Leader Tom DeLay's comments that the "ongoing victory" against spending means there is (in the words of the Washington Times) "no fat left to cut" elicits this headline from Obsidian Wings' Hilzoy: "Tom Delay Has Gone Stark Raving Mad." NY Post's Robert George, at Ragged Thots: "Next? Re-naming the war against government waste. How about calling it a "Global Struggle Against Voracious Expenditures"? Call it G-SAVE!!! It's not like that's being used anymore..."
Outside The Beltway, on an ESPN report re: Steelers legend Lynn Swann (R) running for PA GOV: "One hopes that the day will come when a black man running for office, even as a Republican, will no longer be noteworthy. Swann has an opportunity to help make that day come a little faster."
Liberal Joe Scott writes, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) is "expected to announce his candidacy for re-election" on 9/16 "at another phony 'Ask Arnold' town hall" in the "W. rally formula: preach to cheering acolytes in the choir and create maximum excitement to rally the troops. ... His strategy: recreate the successful reform message from the 2003 recall race. The irony: his current low poll numbers are about where Gray Davis's were a year before he was recalled."
Colorado Pols reports, VP Cheney will visit C0's 7th CD on 10/24 to fundraise for candidate Rick O'Donnell (R).
BUSH: Passing Notes
A number of liberal blogs are linking to (and making hay of) a Reuters photo of Bush at the U.N. writing a note to Sec/State Condoleezza Rice that he "may need a bathroom break." Atrios: "I had no idea this was part of job of the Secretary of State." People's Republic of Seabrook is more forgiving than most: "I'm all for exposing the foibles and criminal prevarications of the most inept President in our nation's history, but if a man's gotta pee, a man's gotta pee." Conservative Michelle Malkin is not amused: "Stupidest. Media-manufactured. Non-scandalette. Possibly ever. If only these people had a fraction of the same outrage about the U.N. Oil for Food scandal as they do over the Bush administration's U.N. bathroom breaks..."
A bit more on the Impeach Bush Coalition: "The Blogosphere has erupted in activity around the mantra 'Impeach Bush,' making this phrase one of the top 5 searched items on Technorati (frequently at #1). The Impeach Bush Coalition was born on Thursday, September 8th, 2005, of which I am a proud Coalition supporter from the very first day. So is this just a bunch of crazy liberal moon bats that have fallen off their rockers, or will this effort actually gain traction? Can impeachment occur? In a word, yes it will gain traction (and already is), and impeachment can indeed occur." The post linked makes the case. The Coalition was founded by lefty bloggers Martian Anthropologist and Bulldog Manifesto.
BLOGS VS. THE BELTWAY: Let's Call The Whole Thing Off
Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas wrote in a comment to one of his own posts on 9/14: "I've laid off the DLC for the time being. The Katrina disaster has not only made this sort of intra-party fight a bit counterproductive at the moment, but it has refocused the allies and media I was going to engage in the campaign to the more important task of getting to the bottom of the disaster on the gulf coast. The window has closed for now." NRO's Byron York notices, titling a post at The Corner: "KATRINA SPARES THE DLC".
Newsweek's Howard Fineman writes in his latest MSNBC column about the brewing "civil war" between Beltway Dems and liberal activists based at such blogs as Daily Kos and Atrios' Eschaton. He interviews NDN's Simon Rosenberg (but no bloggers), who aims to bridge their differences. Most interesting, he picks up on the little-used term "Vichy Democrats," a left-blogosphere term for DLC/Beltway types. The Blogometer failed to mention in our post-EschaCon report last week that the term was used by at least one attendee during a panel discussion with representatives from the DNC and DCCC; DNC's Jesse Berney (not surprisingly) made a special point to indicate his dislike of the term.
Center-left Jonathan Singer Basie! has an interview with FEC commish David Mason (R) about possible regulation of blog activity. Singer: "Mason indicated that he -- along with his fellow FEC Commissioners -- was loath to regulate political activity on the Internet, though court cases have forced his hand on the matter. Although he arrived at this belief from conservative (or libertarian), rather than liberal perspective, it is a conclusion almost all liberal bloggers would agree with."
AIR AMERICA: Wise Up
Righty bloggers Brian Maloney and Michelle Malkin write at Malkin's site that while Air America distances itself from problems at Gloria Wise Girls & Boys Club and assigns all blame for any financial misdoings to ex-exec Evan Cohen, "Air America has failed to disclose ... that at least one other of its officials held a key job at Gloria Wise. Yesterday, we confirmed with Martta Rose of Rubenstein Public Relations, which is representing the Boys & Girls Club branch, that Air America's Vice President of Finance, Sinohe Terrero, worked at the inner-city charity as finance director from 2000-2002 under Cohen. Though he left Gloria Wise for Air America before the controversial loan scheme was initiated, it strains credulity to believe that Terrero was completely in the dark about what kinds of things Cohen and his former colleagues were doing."
THE MARCH OF BLOGS: Google Isn't Just A Verb, It's A Way Of Life
At long last, Google has unveiled the beta version of its blog search engine. It comes in 2 styles: like that of the regular Google search, plus the blue, orange and khaki of its Blogger service. AP has a version of the story; so does PC Mag. Tech blogger Robert Scoble praises its speed; Search Engine Lowdown has a round-up of tech blog reactions. The Blog Herald likes it so far, but notes its search "depth of numbers just isn't there." Technorati founder David Sifry welcomes the competition. Search Engine Watch has a long list of things that need to be clarified or changed.
Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey notes that Playboy names his site the "Best conservative blog" in their new issue. Matt Yglesias has the "Best liberal blog"; Low Culture is their "Funniest political blog"; Jeff Jarvis' BuzzMachine is the "Most influential blog"; Reason's Hit and Run is the "Best libertarian blog." Oddly enough, none of the others had mentioned the honor when we last checked, late this a.m.
INTRODUCING: Interactivity Or Inert Activity?
On 9/14 Patrick Ruffini announced ECorps, a new collaborative project for "conservative web geeks" to "harness tech talent from every corner of America"; his ECorps page includes a form for volunteers. Ruffini pitches: "Do you dabble in Flash, and wonder why everyone just like you seems like a Michael Moore-addled lefty? Tired of the liberal tilt on Slashdot? Then ECorps is perfect for you." At Talking Points Memo, Josh Marshall announces the TPM Reader Survey.
BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: The Outside Track
Today the Blogometer talks to conservative James Joyner, who blogs at Outside the Beltway.
What is your full name?
Dr. James H. Joyner, Jr.
What is your age?
39 (40 in November)
Where did you grow up?
All over. As an "Army brat," I was born in Virginia, moved to Germany as an infant; to Houston, Texas as a toddler; a year in Missouri (grade 4); three years in Germany (grades 5-7); El Paso, Texas (grade 8 and first half of 9); and Jacksonville, Alabama (9-graduation). I've moved many times since, including an overseas tour as an Army officer.
Where do you live now?
Just Outside the Beltway in D.C.'s Northern Virginia suburbs.
What is your occupation? Have you ever worked on a political campaign or for the mainstream media?
I'm a DoD contractor, after stints as an Army officer, political science professor, and in the publishing industry. Never worked a campaign or for the press, aside from a few freelance op-ed pieces.
When did you start blogging and why?
31 January 2003. To pontificate, mostly.
What has been your favorite post, or favorite story to write about, in that time?
Probably the 2004 presidential election, although the Iraq War has been the subject of the most posts and probably what got the site noticed in its early days.
Describe your typical blogging schedule. And what is your average output?
I blog whenever I can. Before work, sometimes at work, often after work, sometimes including weekends. I've averaged 10 posts a day since starting the site.
Who is your favorite political blogger? Favorite non-political blogger?
I've got lots of favorites but no one favorite. I don't really read much in the way of non-political blogs. Probably David Pinto's Baseball Musings.
Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?
Either George Will or Charles Krauthammer, depending on my mood. Mark Steyn and Christopher Hitchens are also quite good, even though I only agree with Hitch on every other column at most.
What is your favorite television news program, either network or cable?
"Special Report with Brit Hume" is the only one that I still watch with any regularity. I try to catch the Sunday shows ("Meet the Press," "Fox News Sunday," and "This Week") via TiVo but often don't get through them.
What MSM-produced websites (i.e. newspapers, magazines) do you visit on a daily basis?
NYT and WaPo are probably the only dailies, although I catch Slate and a few others several times a week.
What non-MSM websites (i.e. blogs) do you visit on a daily basis?
Perhaps twenty of them, with probably fifty multiple times a week. It depends on my schedule and who's showing up "hot" on the blogroll, which is sorted by last published.
How often, or do you ever, read a newspaper in its dead-tree (i.e. print) form?
Virtually never, unless I'm at an airport or in a hotel. I get the Sunday Washington Post, but tend to throw it away except for the supplements. I read the online version instead, as it's more conducive to blogging. These days, I read as a content provider rather than a consumer.
How do you see the new media and old media affecting and influencing each other in the next five years?
The old media will continue to dominate, simply because they've got the resources -- especially time -- to do it. The blogs will function mostly as fact checkers on the national stories. At the local level, though, blogs could wind up gaining equal footing, as almost all local papers are on a small budget with less-than-stellar staffs.
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Best "Christmas" Ever?
The Next Hurrah notes that on 9/14 the House unexpectedly passed a hate crimes bill to protect gays, lesbians, and the transgendered." GOP co-sponsors included Chris Shays (CT) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL). "The big question is will the Senate block a full vote on the amendment, whether this was just to help a few moderate Republican Congressmembers in tough reelection fights. If it does pass the Senate, would Bush dare to support 'special rights'? Would he use gays as a smokescreen or a scapegoat due to his other political woes?"
LEST WE FORGET: Kings Of Cartoons
Is every right-leaning humor blog doing SCOTUS confirmation comics/fake transcripts? No, but it seems like it. Here's Sean Gleeson and here's one from Hubris, another from Think Sink, and Ace of Spades HQ. From the left, Ezra Klein imagines the transcript if Univ. of TN law prof/Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds was named to the SCOTUS. His first 3 answers are "Heh" and "Indeed" and "Hugh Hewitt has more!"
Posted by at September 15, 2005 12:34 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.
