October 31, 2005

10/31: Alito? GOP Says, Neato! Dems Cry, We Must Defeato!

While all attention this a.m. is on SCOTUS nominee/3rd circuit court judge Samuel Alito, the weekend spotlight was on Pres. Bush, VP Cheney, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, ex-Cheney CoS Scooter Libby, and still-WH dep. CoS Karl Rove. It's unclear which way the focus will go once the Alito splash subsides. But chances are the right will leave Plamegate to the left as they get behind Alito; the left will divide their attention among opposing Alito and sustaining criticism of Bush, Cheney and Rove and speculation about Fitzgerald and Libby. Lefty sites including Huffington Post have become known as places for Plamegate discussion, the fledgling Firedoglake seems to have made its name on it, and deep-reading conservative JustOneMinute has been another go-to place for explicating the case. As for the SCOTUS fight, the right has a handful of blogs already focused on fighting that battle. The left certainly trails in this respect. Will CAP bring back its Supreme Court Extra? Will TPM Cafe or Daily Kos pick up the slack? Will another blogger step forward? We're watching.

First up, what the blogs are saying about the pick SCOTUS:

INITIAL REAX: Everything's Back To Normal

AmSpec Blog's Washington Prowler and RedState's Erick Erickson both heard that Alito would be the pick last p.m. Goldstein & Howe's SCOTUSblog stuck with what the MSM had, that it would be Alito or judge Michael Luttig. In the Erickson post, commenter SouthernGent hears that Luttig "has little patience for those who he deems less intellectually rigorous than himself," adding: "I have conflicting reports on his ability to keep it under control ... in his meeting with W."

Conservative Power Line: "Alito is a solid choice. [NY Dem Sen] Chuck Schumer and [Senate Min. Leader] Harry Reid have already come out against him; another good sign. ... We're about to get the fight over Constitutional principles that conservatives have looked forward to for years."

Liberal Chris Bowers: "[F]or the third nominee in a row, Bush has selected someone with ties to a previous" GOP WH admins: "Scalito worked in the SG office during the Reagan administration. This means another argument over documents that should be released. This time, failure to comply should result in Democrats invoking real consequences."

Conservative K.J. Lopez: "I just got the White House talking points on Alito. Nowhere in them does it say that he is one of the best male lawyers in New Jersey."

Duncan "Atrios" Black: "I think it would've been quite nice if Judge Alito had stopped by to pay respects to Rosa Parks... yesterday. The idea that they're going to parade him in front of her casket after his nomination is truly demented" considering some of his rulings.

Over the weekend, Right Wing News posted results of an informal poll of conservative bloggers, asking about their most- and least-desired nominees. Janice Rogers Brown and Michael Luttig tied for "most"; Alberto Gonzales owned the "least" title. Alito finished 4th on the "most" side. In a previous post, RWN's John Hawkins -- who wanted Miers' name withdrawn before most -- had named Alito the judge he most wanted to see named to the SCOTUS.

Think Progress and Daily Kos draw attention to a quote by Georgetown law prof Jonathan Turley, on "Today" this a.m.: "There will be no one to the right of Sam Alito on this Court. This is a pretty hardcore fellow on abortion issues." Daily Kos' Armando: "Senate is gonna have to ask him about 'super stare decisis.'" (See below for more on "super stare decisis.")

Patridiot Watch jokes, "assuming Alito passes the Senate, two out of 9 Supreme Court Justices will be from Trenton, NJ" -- the other being Scalia -- not to mention one in a line of NJ GOPers to be appointed by Bush (including ex-EPA admin. Christie Todd Whitman, DHS Sec. Michael Chertoff and incoming Fed chair Ben Bernanke). "The odds against such an eventuality are so long that it can only be the result of close-to-the-chest, demonic strategery."

Donklephant's Justin Gardner, a centrist who supported Roberts, writes that Planned Parenthood v. Casey "troubles me."

Wikipedia already has a brief entry devoted to the Alito nomination; it's sure to grow longer before the day is out.

THE FIGHT: Apocalypse Now?

Whereas the left didn't quite know what to make of Harriet Miers or John Roberts, this time their reaction is sure and united against him.

Via a Washington Post report, liberal AMERICAblog focuses on a case of conflict of interest involving Alito: "Hundreds of thousands of dollars and it didn't raise ethical concerns for him. So how much did he have to have invested with Vanguard before it became a conflict-of-interest? This should get an enormous amount of scrutiny." In their 1st post on Alito, the headline includes: "It's War." Pandagon: "If there was any doubt, particularly among the moderates in his party, where this President turns to when he's got his tail between his legs, there isn't now." The Carpetbagger Report: "Bush wants -- maybe even needs -- a knock-down, drag-out fight over the Court. Looks like he'll get one."

The most popular set of talking points against Alito are at CAP's Think Progress, which posts oppo under the header "Samuel Alito's America," summarized with headers such as "ALITO WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE," "ALITO WOULD ALLOW RACE-BASED DISCRIMINATION," and "ALITO HOSTILE TOWARD IMMIGRANTS."

A number of liberal bloggers are already citing his Casey dissent as a reason to oppose him -- The People's Republic of Seabrook: "If there had been any doubt about the state of Our Glorious Leader's war on women, rest assured that it appears that the war is alive and well and moving full speed ahead. Time to turn back the clock, y'all..." Tennessee Guerilla Women writes, Alito "thinks women should be forced by law to ask husbands for permission to terminate a pregnancy," before later updating, "okay, okay, it's called 'notification,' rather than 'permission;' yet, clearly, for many women there is no distinction." Liberal Oasis also focuses on Casey, which calls "hostility to equality" Alito's "trademark." So does The Mahablog, which adds: "Other Alito rulings have made it easier for employers to practice race and sex discriminate. What a guy. No wonder the Right loves him."

And indeed, they do seem to. Already Hugh Hewitt is back on the same page as his fellow conservatives: "Judge Alito is a great nominee, and as a result a great political battle lies ahead."

As for the looming battle, Hewitt writes, "the best way to preempt a filibuster" is for the 9 GOPers "thought lukewarm or hostile to the constitutional option to announce" that they will vote for it if Dems "attempt a filibuster based upon ideology." Sen Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has already done so; he posts Senate contact info for the other 8. Blogs for Bush's Matt Margolis, who was lukewarm on Miers, has already put together a banner reading "Confirm Alito Coalition, Est. October 31, 2005."

PoliPundit counts 50-54 votes in favor of confirming Alito. He counts just 1 Dem who will likely vote for -- NE's Ben Nelson, but among GOPers he expects no votes from Lincoln Chafee, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, Ted Stevens and John Warner. He also weighs a few close calls, including Senate Jud Cmte chair Arlen Specter. Captain's Quarters predicts a 65-35 win: "I expect that the Democrats will get 30-35 votes in favor of a filibuster once Alito gets out of committee. If they do consider a filibuster, too many of them will realize that Stevens might get replaced during this term," and they "need that potential stop on Senate business to protect a genuinely liberal seat..." RedState's Adam C calls Alito "ordinary in a good way," and argues that his "unanimous confirmation in 1990 shows that he is in the mainstream of legal philosophies." Conservative Yeah, Right, Whatever, on the possibility of "the F-bomb," in this case, the filibuster: "[I]f they threaten it, I want to see Schumer and Kennedy and Reid and Kerry and DiFi and Boxer on the Senate floor at 3am, reading the Complete Works of Shakespeare." Conservative Power Pundit: "Threaten the Democrats will, but it's all talk."

On 10/30, Ideoblog's Larry Ribstein focused on Alito "Scrutiny will no doubt focus on his dissent in Casey. But, by my count ... Alito has also written 243 majority opinions." He briefly considers a dozen of them, noting that Alito shows "sensitivity to the value of free markets and the problems firms face from litigation and regulation." Anticipating Dem criticisms, Patrick "Patterico" Frey defends the Casey dissent. Conservative PoliBlog: "Indeed, after 'Scalito' the word that we will all hear the most of over the next several weeks is 'Casey.'" Center-right Althouse, on the term "Scalito": "'Alito: refer to him as Scalito.' That is an entry that belongs in a modern "Dictionary of Received Ideas." A side benefit of his nomination would be that people might -- eventually -- get over that mental tic."

Left-leaning Taegan Goddard observes, "with the Bush administration operating in crisis mode -- and midterm elections just one year away -- it's not clear Bush has much ability to force fence sitters to vote for Alito."

ROE V. WADE: A Tough Roe To Hoe

Jeffrey Rosen asks in the New York Times, "So, Do You Believe in 'Superprecedent'?"

Lefty Stirling Newberry: "Legal theory is gradually embracing the notion of an unwritten constitution, that some decisions are 'super-precedents.' This has been true in practice for two centuries, where key Marshall decisions were treated as super-precedents, including Marbury v. Madison, McCullough v. Maryland and Barron v. Baltimore."

Univ. of WI-Madison law prof Ann Althouse digs through Lexis-Nexis and finds not one occurrence of the word "superprecedent" in any federal court case, and only just 1 of its alternative name, "super stare decisis." That person was judge Michael Luttig, who had been on the shortlist for the SCOTUS nod. Moreover, she argues: "Quite clearly, Luttig is not saying that there is a such thing as super-stare decisis." Manhattan Institute's Walter Olson agrees. Rosen does discuss the Luttig quote, but Pejman Yousefzadeh says it doesn't mean what Rosen thinks it means.

Liberal Yale prof Jack Balkin calls the term "misleading," and lists 3 criteria for when a precedent "is (or should be) safe from overruling": "(1) the result of a protracted struggle where one side has given up (at least for the time being); (2) essential to preserving a large body of law that is (at least in part) valuable for other reasons; and (3) a widely recognized exemplar of how to do constitutional interpretation correctly." Brown meets all 3 criteria, but Roe does not meet the 3rd.

Liberal Kevin Drum: "I suspect you can't overturn Roe without also substantially overturning Griswold and significantly weakening the modern application of substantive due process at the same time. Rosen mentions this, and it seems like it's really the key issue: not whether Roe is a superprecedent, but whether Griswold's interpretation of substantive due process is a superprecedent."

FAMOUS LAST WORDS: Why Judges? Why Not Cabinet Members?

Just like Harriet Miers's Blog!!!, there is already a blogger purporting to be Alito himself, at The Right Honorable Samuel A. Alito, Jr, and which may or may not have some connection to the pseudonymous GOP-leaning Underneath Their Robes.

BUSH: Plame Duck? Consider It Unrovesolved

Conservative Don Surber headlines a post "They Wanted A Hog, But Got A Scooter," noting MSM columnists comparing Plamegate to Watergate: "Within two years and two months after the Watergate break-in, Nixon had resigned. Within a year of perjuring himself in a deposition, Clinton faced impeachment. This case is not just beginning. It is ending."

Dem strategist Lawrence O'Donnell, at Huffington Post: "'The White House dodged a bullet' is the single stupidest bit of nonstop echo punditry we've heard this weekend. ... What the White House desperately needed on Friday was Rove's resignation. As long as he keeps his White House pass, Rove is a cancer on the presidency."

Jeff Goldstein, on the indictment: "So essentially, the crux of this indictment is that Libby lied about the way he talked to the press ... to cover the original source (which for him seems to be Dick Cheney or another government official). Cheney and Libby did nothing wrong in talking about this, however, so Libby seems to have done lied for political reasons -- most likely to avoid the appearance of impropriety."

The Left Coaster: "The conventional wisdom from Beltway pros like David Gergen is that Bush can save himself by dumping his team and bringing in fresh blood and new ideas, like Reagan allegedly did after Iran-Contra. But such a move would require Bush to do something that he has rarely done: accept responsibility for his mistakes in governance, and admit error in his policies."

Neoliberal Mickey Kaus argues, contra some claims (such as the Wall Street Journal editorial page) that, Fitzgerald needs to use reporters as witnesses against Libby, he does not: "Fitzgerald has a simpler perjury charge that doesn't rely on a he said/she said with any member of the press. ... If Fitzgerald's case boils down to whether Russert told Wilson the information on Wilson's wife ... then it's really as trivial as the WSJ makes it out to be. But it won't boil down to that, from all appearances, because Fitzgerald can also nail Libby on Libby's implausible statement" to Fitzgerald and the grand jury "that he was surprised by Russert's info." At The Plank, Michael Crowley makes the case that Libby's call to Russert was to complain about Chris Matthews' analysis of Libby's actions on the 7/10/03 "Hardball."

Lefty Whiskey Bar's Billmon fears that Rove is in the clear: "I still believe Patrick Fitzgerald is on the straight and narrow, even if the emphasis is on the narrow. There may well be sound reasons behind his prosecutorial decisions. But those decisions could also have big consequences." Mike Isikoff's later report reinforces that interpretation, and lefty Hullabaloo asks: "Can someone tell me why Fitzgerald would go to President Bush's personal lawyer on Friday to tell him that Bush's 'closest aide wouldn't be charged'? Is it in any possible sense ethical for the prosecutor to be telling the president's lawyer information that isn't available to the public about members of the president's staff in the middle of an investigation?" Jane Hamsher doesn't buy it: "I mean, I know Luskin is out there spinning -- that's his job as Rove's attorney -- but the idea that any journalist would unquestioningly accept whatever he says as an objective statement of fact and then print it as such is really quite remarkable..."

On last a.m.'s "This Week," Senate Min. Leader Harry Reid called on Bush to apologize and Rove to resign. Crooks and Liars has video. Conservative John Cole agrees that an apology should be forthcoming "if for no other reasons than purely political," and writes: "I am of mixed minds on a Rove resignation. I don't necessarily agree with the opposition party getting to decide who works for the President. I also don't believe Rove in the White House is a good thing, and I don't know if I want him there anymore. From what I can tell, the WH has been rudderless for a while now, so a shake-up might get rid of some of the rot and provide some new blood and focus. Don't count on it though."

WILSON/PLAME: Got It Covered

At The Corner, righty Cliff May was not pleased with the "60 Minutes" ex-Amb. Joe Wilson interview last p.m.: "It was all from Wilson's perspective: Plame was exposed; it was done to exact revenge on Wilson, an honest whistle-blower; her career is over as a result; serious national security damage has taken place. That's the narrative they are selling. No alternative view was even entertained."

In the 3rd part of a series titled "Was Valerie Plame Covert?" conservative Tom Maguire takes issue with a report that the CIA won't produce a report on damage done by the leak until the trials are over: "Is that how it works when our national security is threatened and lives are on the line -- the CIA waits a few years until the trials are over, then assesses the damage? Come on, we see through this -- if the CIA prepared a formal report, it would be subpoenaed as evidence, and the jury would laugh out loud at the "no damage" assessment. So the CIA filed a criminal referral in 2003, got the White House tied up in a two year investigation, and now they are laughing out loud. Well played, especially if you like a spy service that shrugs off executive oversight by inventing crimes and playing dirty tricks."

CHENEY: Addington Station

On 10/30, National Journal's Waas and Singer did a profile of Cheney counsel David Addington, the "leading candidate" to replace Libby. Right-leaning Andrew Sullivan, on Addington: "Few people were as involved in making the United States a country that legally practises torture against military detainees than Addington." Left-leaning Laura Rozen: "Addington is the lawyer who advised Cheney and Libby to not cooperate with the Senate Select Intelligence committee in turning over documents related to bogus intelligence they tried to get into Powell's speech to the UN." MyDD's Scott Shields: "Addington is a hard core neocon. The White House, and Cheney's office in particular, is digging in for some serious fights over the remainder of the President's term. Let's prepare accordingly. "

GOP and the City quotes Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) saying on NY1: "Suppose I was to challenge the Vice President on your show and say if you're not mentally ill why don't you take a test and show the American people you're up to it...And guess what? He's been out of town ever since we said that." The video is here.

SPENDING: Don't Cross The Streams!

Truth Laid Bear debuts PorkBusters 2.0, with an interactive map. The page is now specifically devoted to supporting Sen. Tom Coburn's (R-OK) "'offset package' aimed at identifying budget cuts to pay for hurricane relief."

N.Z. Bear explains on the site's blog, noting: "Where just a month ago Tom Delay felt perfectly comfortable saying there was no fat left in federal budget after years of Republican rule, now, the political climate has changed, and there actually seems to be a real chance to change the culture of fiscal irresponsibility that has become the norm on Capitol Hill."

Coburn's co-sponsors are listed as supporting: John McCain (R-AZ), Sam Brownback (R-KS), John Ensign (R-NV), John Sununu (R-NH) Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Jim DeMint (R-SC). As yet, no sens. are listed as opposing.

Instapundit posts the new logo, adding: "Note that the pig is starting to look worried..."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Conflict Resolution

Dem strategist Dan Carol at Huffington Post: "Okay, so it's weird enough to see Tim Russert acting as prosecutor and witness-in-waiting in the CIA Leak case, but I think it's time to ask former Bush 41 DOD chief press flack Pete Williams to take a bow out from actively covering the story which involves his old boss Dick Cheney and former DOD colleague Scooter Libby."

At TPM Cafe, Plame friend/ex-CIA officer Larry Johnson cites a couple of Bob Woodward stories he thinks Libby might have been the source for, and writes, "Woodward's vain attempt to downplay" the Plame leak "sure smacks of someone trying to protect his sources." On "This Week," Cokie Roberts said much the same thing. Crooks and Liars sees this as "a vested interest by the MSM to turn the public's attention away from the main allegation."

WMD INTEL: A Series Of Unfortunate Events

At Talking Points Memo, Josh Marshall delves deep into what he calls "The Italian Connection," in the "first of a series of installments" collecting all his info on the Niger forgeries.

VIRGINIA GOVERNOR: Don't Believe Everything You Read In The Newspaper

According to the Washington Post, DavidNYC writes at pro-Dem Swing State Project, sine VA Dems "are saying that Kaine has to be up at least 5 in the polls by election day in order to win. They point out that Mark Warner was up by 10 points in many polls right before he was elected in 2001, but only won by 5. I decided to check this claim out, and it's only sorta true." He produces a table of last-month polling from '01, with Warner up by as little as +3 and as much as +13.

MIDTERMS '06: Will The Son Rise To The Bait?

Conservative Baseball Crank: "If the national Democratic party wants to make Judge Alito out to be a right-wing nutcase over finding that [Dem ex-PA Gov.] Bob Casey didn't violate the Constitution" in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, "sooner or later someone is going to ask his son" -- Treas. Bob Casey (D-PA) -- if he agrees." Considering that Casey is now challenging PA Sen. Rick Santorum (R), "that's gonna be a question that will put him in an awfully bad position. And Karl Rove will smile."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: It Is Halloween, After All ...

La Shawn Barber asks: "This may be a strange question, but have you bloggers made arrangements for your blog when you die? Is there someone you trust with the password to carry out your wishes? For instance, if this site is still in operation at the time of my death, I've made arrangements to have it shut down completely. It will live forever in Google's cache, of course, but [the blog] will cease to be, just like me." One such case is Uppity Negro, maintained by Aaron Hawkins until his suicide in the fall of '04. Blogger Heather Bare, aka Momma Bear/Church Mouse passed away just weeks ago; tributes to her can be found at Laughing Wolf and Gray Monk.

LEST WE FORGET: The Way Things Work

Coffeegrounds has now 2 installments in a "how-to" series of dubious usefulness, titled "How to Run for Public Office." Here's the 1st installment; And the 2nd is "Our Friend the Campaign Brochure."

NOTES AND ERRATA: Rescheduling

On 10/28 we promised this edition would contain a brief meditation on the last week's troubles in OH SEN and VA GOV. Breaking events overtook, and now you'll see it tomorrow.

Posted by at 12:47 PM

October 28, 2005

10/28: Season's Greetings

Merry Fitzmas! Or is it?

At deadline today, this much we knew: VP Cheney CoS Scooter Libby will be indicted for giving false statements to the grand jury -- rather than for violating the Intel Identities Protection Act or even the Espionage Act. Meanwhile, WH dep. CoS Karl Rove will not be indicted "today," but the investigation will apparently continue. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has scheduled a presser for 2:00 p.m. EDT. He is also releasing documents related to the case at noon (after our deadline, but before we publish; in case you've misplaced the URL for Fitzgerald's DoJ website, it's right here).

Liberal bloggers are crowing over Libby's impending indictment, whereas most conservative bloggers are a bit more circumspect. A few had speculated that the left-blogosphere wouldn't be satisfied with a mere Libby indictment, but as yet that does not seem to be the case. Not to mention, the lack of closure in the Rove investigation more or less forecloses on any celebrating they might have done.

Even without Plamegate, it was hardly slow going in the blogosphere already: VA GOV candidate Tim Kaine's (D) pulling of an ad from a controversial lefty blog is attracting MSM attention; Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) reached out to righty bloggers in a conf. call on 10/27; recriminations are still unfolding in the failed SCOTUS nod of Harriet Miers, and rumors are already floating around about who will be named in her stead.

PLAMEGATE: The Nightmare Before Fitzmas

Latest-breaking pre-presser comments, all from the left:

• Duncan "Atrios" Black, on the scheduled conf.: "The moment we've all been waiting for."
• Pandagon: "The lying Scooter will be indicted; it sounds like Karl remains in the crosshairs but will not be swept up in this round."
• Kevin Drum: "Apparently Patrick Fitzgerald has a press conference scheduled for 2 pm Eastern, giving him a comfortable margin of 180 minutes before the grand jury expires. That's time management!"
• Republic of T: "On the First Day of Fitzmas... Fitzgerald gave to me, an indictment for Scooter Libby."
• AMERICAblog: "Ann Coulter says this is the worst case scenario An indictment AND a continuing investigation. See... not so bad after all. If Ann is pissed, can things be that bad?"

And what the blogs were saying before the presser was announced:

By far the most-linked story of the morning had been New York Times' Johnston and Stevenson reporting in the 10/28 edition (released on the web late 10/27), according to "people briefed officially about the case," Libby is "likely" to be indicted on obstruction charges on 10/28, and that Rove will not be charged, but will "remain under investigation."

In general, the left wouldn't count on its Red Ryder 200-shot BB gun until all the presents were unwrapped: Daily Kos' Hunter weighs conflicting reports: Contrary to the Times version, the Washington Post says Fitzgerald "does not plan to take that route and will wrap up the case today." The AP's version resembles the NYT's, where as the Los Angeles Times is less conclusive. He summarizes: "So everything's still clear as mud." Booman Tribune: "I don't want to be overly optimistic, and tomorrow may only reveal a little piece of the overall case, but [the WH is] getting reamed and they know it."

Some on the right speculated that the left might be disappointed without a Rove indictment: Power Line writes, if "correct, it will be a major disappointment" for the Dems, and an "embarrassment" for them as well if there are no charges re: the "original 'offense,' the supposed 'outing'" of Plame. Kevin Aylward agrees: "[T]his Fitzmas Eve the New York Times is throwing lumps of charcoal in liberal bloggers stockings, since I don't think they're going to be happy with a single indictment" of Libby." The Politburo Diktat's Commissar hands lefties "Kos, Atrios, Gilliard, Billmon" a lump of coal himself.

The Moderate Voice: "Perhaps it means the goods aren't there yet to make an iron clad case (good news for Rove). Or the prosecutor is making sure the noose inescapably tight (bad news for Rove)." JustOneMinute adds, "folks who remember Giuliani's Wall Street investigations from the 80's will remember that no one was ever exonerated except by a 'not guilty' verdict -- once an investigation was announced, the Feds did not follow-up with an announcement that the investigation was over. That is probably all that is happening here." Decision '08: "Those fond of parsing might have a little fun speculating on who 'people briefed officially about the case' might be. I suspect the lawyers of Libby and Rove are the sources, each for their own reasons -- Libby's lawyer to lesson the blow by leaking it early, and Rove's to get the word out that, for now, his man is clean..."

In a slight break from earlier patience, some wondered what was taking so long: Kevin Drum: "I hope this isn't turning into a Ken Starr-style fishing expedition. As much as I'd like to see Karl Rove frog marched out of the West Wing, I have to say that if Fitzgerald hasn't been able to make a case against him in two years, it might be time to call it a day." His commenters are not pleased (the first says: "Cool! Now we know that any crime we can stonewall for two years will be given a free pass!") as they weren't when Drum made similar comments 2 weeks ago (see 10/14 Blogometer). Picking up from Drum, Josh Marshall asks: "You'd assume [Fitzgerald has] as many facts as he's going to get. So why he's waiting? Does he need more facts? More time to think about it? Or is there some process of negotiation going on? Is there something else Fitzgerald expects will soon break free?" TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt raises the possibility that Rove may have struck a deal.

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "I agree that at first blush, if Rove isn't indicted on Friday, it could appear a victory for Rove to the public, and I'd be lying if I said I'm not disappointed" -- although he holds out hope for the future. This is what bothers righty Jonah Goldberg, who writes that a Rove indictment "might have had the positive benefit of ripping the band-aid right off. Rove would have been replaced, the White House could get a fresh start, etc etc. This situation (if it is the situation) brings no closure of any kind."

Re: the actual substance of the investigation, Political Animal points out separate CNN appearances by ex-CIA official Larry Johnson and Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward, wherein the former claims the CIA did a "post mortem" and he hears that "serious damage" did occur as a result of Bob Novak's Plame column, and the latter mentioned a post mortem, but showed there was "no significant damage." Crooks and Liars has video of Johnson's appearance.

Atrios: "Rumors and speculation are fun, but with the endgame here I'm not too inclined to believe anything in the press. Tomorrow we will know."

VIRGINIA GOVERNOR: When Worldviews Collide

The same day that African-American MD LG Michael Steele (R) officially kicked off his SEN Bid, liberal African-American blogger Steve Gilliard described Steele as a "Simple Sambo" for having brushed off MD Gov. Bob Ehrlich's July fundraiser at the Elkridge Country Club, which has no black members. Sometime thereafter, VA LG/GOV candidate Tim Kaine's (D) camp became aware of Gilliard's post, and terminated their advertising relationship with him. (The Kaine campaign has been running a series of blogads across the liberal blogs for weeks, featuring MI Gov. Jennifer Granholm, ret. Gen. Wesley Clark and others.) Gilliard responded by posting the letter, a photo of Kaine captioned "Black people should shut their mouths," and a defense of his Steele critique. Gilliard spent much of the post attacking African-American conservative Robert George (who has tangled with Gilliard on a handful of prior occasions (see 9/28 Blogometer), and had condemned the "Sambo" post the same day it went up) and his perception that George, like Steele, is unaware of the racism around him or unwilling to stand up to it. Addressing Kaine, Gilliard writes: "The ad wasn't all that important to me, but the gutlessness of the Kaine campaign is."

George replied: "Steve, grow up. ... You're passionate, prolific and have a way with words. Good, that's a gift. But, for the life of me, I can't understand why you choose to waste it by unloading juvenile racist schtick on black Republicans." MD-based conservatives The Hedgehog Report and Michelle Malkin commended Kaine for removing the ads. Balloon Juice judges it as a boxing match: "TKO. Gilliard knocks himself out with a left hook."

On 10/27, the controversy got picked up at Daily Kos (about which more below) where 756 comments piled up -- that's a lot, even for that very popular site. Both sides of the debate get ample airing; some argue Kaine is "spineless"; others call the move "defensible." VA-based Commonwealth Conservative highlights comments from Daily Kos and Gilliard's News Blog: "I have to say, this is the most bizarre thing I've ever seen. Kaine did the right thing by removing that ad, and I would have thought everyone would agree to that. But the hardcore base of the Democratic Party is killing him for it. Strange..."

Conservative VA-based One Man's Trash replied: "So in refusing to put money into the pocket of a cretin, Kaine is imposing a 'chilling effect' on bloggers? This is insane." The last we checked, pro-Kaine Raising Kaine had not mentioned the controversy. But VA Dem activist Waldo Jaquith summarizes the situation and concludes: "As a result, Daily Kos users shocked and outraged at Kaine campaign's refusal to support condescending racism. My head explodes."

At Swing State Project, Bob Brigham "Virginia gubernatorial candidate Tim Kaine is finishing his campaign as he started it: as a disgrace to Democrats. But it gets worse, one in five people in Virginia is African American and here's a quote -- from the Scripps Howard version of the story -- "that is going to be moving fast": "'I guess they have a problem with black people expressing themselves in print,' Gilliard said." Including multiple links to examples, Brigham adds: "While some might be surprised to see a campaign fuck up so much in a single day, it is par for the course for Tim Kaine's campaign."

On 10/28, the Baltimore Sun ran a story on Gilliard vs. Kaine, which includes additional comments from Gilliard and the campaigns of Steele and Kaine.

NETROOTS: Campaign Blog Advertising -- Benefit Or Liability?

In an earlier post, Brigham argues, the Gilliard kerfuffle "highlights a larger misconception about blogs, blogads, and netroots support" -- that "advertising on a blog doesn't mean the advertiser endorses the content of the site," just that "the advertiser is interested in individuals who may read a particular blog. Likewise, a blog running an ad doesn't mean that the blogger(s) endorse the product being advertised. This shouldn't be a hard concept to grasp." Markos Moulitsas makes the same argument, adding: "Because every time a campaign freaks out at a blogger and pulls their ads, we're going to raise a stink about it and inevitably make that campaign look bad. So they should think long and hard before putting money into a Blogad campaign. The last thing any of us need are bloggers afraid to be themselves lest they lose out on ad money. And that's what this sort of shit creates. It's a chilling effect."

Ad-focused Media Girl (not to be confused with liberal DC Media Girl): "Advertisers pull ads from publications and broadcasts all the time, for all sorts of reasons, and I really don't think the blogger is well served by fretting publicly about it. That's life in the media big leagues." Frequent Moulitsas critic Tim Russo: "I think most of these blogs are starting to find out that relying on political ads is not really much of a business model, which is why the bloggers are taking paid positions with campaigns, and the politicians are starting to realize that there is too much down side risk involved in advertising on blogs."

Check back on Monday, 10/31, when the Blogometer will have more on the ethical and practical considerations of campaigns, blogs, blog advertising and consulting.

SCOTUS: The O'Connor Vacancy (Again)

RedState's Erick Erickson: "On another front, look for a Supreme Court nominee soon. Though not related to wanting to drown out this news, the nominee list has been shorted and the White House already has a pretty good idea of who it wants. The President desires a quick time table on this one. Also look for one or two departures from the White House over the next 180 days. They'll be "going to the private sector," but rest assured that this nomination blunder encouraged that move." He adds in a later post: "There is a rumor circulating inside and outside the White House that Judge [Samuel] Alito is the next [SCOTUS] justice ... Folks, it is all rumor -- in fact it is Joy Clement buzz level right now." He then updates again: "Source of Sources called and said not to discount [Michael] Luttig, but if I had to place a bet, bet on Alito. Says the White House wants this done quickly and the best way to do it quickly is to go with an known quantity who is readily acceptable and will look very reasonable to the public at large." At Volokh Conspiracy, Orrin Kerr comments: "Alito is not a Scalia clone, contrary to what some news reports have claimed. Alito picked up the 'Scalito' nickname early on, but while clever it's not accurate. Judge Alito is much more of a process-oriented judicial-restraint type than Scalia." Plus, he "comes off as modest, quiet, and very thoughtful, but he also has a sharp sense of humor. If picked, I think he will be (and should be) a popular choice in the Senate."

Liberal Echidne of the Snakes, on a New York Times report that Bush may appoint a man this time: "And then we go back to a Supreme Court with one woman and eight men, a court which is to decide whether abortion remains legal in this country, a court which will use the assumed opinions of eighteenth century gentlemen to determine how women should live not only today but in the future, too. ... That the majority of Americans are not male or soon even not white (if not already) is neither here nor there, I guess."

Conservative PoliPundit writes, 2 possible picks "on the usual conservative lists that I would probably oppose" are Judge Michael McConnell, who "isn't partisan enough," and whose criticism of Bush v. Gore "alone should disqualify him," and the "brilliant conservative" atty Maureen Mahoney, who "supports racial discrimination in the name of affirmative action," and once said: "I'm a Republican, and there's a common misconception that all Republicans oppose affirmative action." Mickey Kaus argues, this is actually an argument for McConnell: "Doesn't this make McConnell a near-ideal post-Miers nominee? As proof McConnell's not a crony, Bush can point to the Bush v. Gore critique. When Dems argue McConnell represents a capitulation to the GOP's right wing, Bush can point to crude partisans like Polipundit who oppose him." Meanwhile at The Corner, Goldberg makes an argument for Mahoney: she "took a very strong anti-gender preferences position on Title IX arguing on behalf of Brown University. ... Taking an anti-Title IX position is, in some quarters, even more of a heresy than taking on racial quotas. In other quarters it's a close second." (In a separate post, Golberg's response to PoliPundit on McConnell is "C'mon, dude."

Interested in who conservatives would like to see nominated? See this ConfirmThem thread for lists of suggestions and debate.

THE EX-MIERS NOMINATION: Anatomy Of A Do-Over

Hugh Hewitt has an op-ed in the New York Times, "The right's embrace in the Miers nomination of tactics previously exclusive to the left - exaggeration, invective, anonymous sources, an unbroken stream of new charges, television advertisements paid for by secret sources -- will make it immeasurably harder to denounce and deflect such assaults when the Democrats make them the next time around." Captain's Quarters and Bench Memos' Jonathan Adler disagree with multiple points of Hewitt's analysis, including the tactics issue, the meaning of Miers '93 speech and how bad it would be for Sandra Day O'Connor to cast a few more votes. Legal XXX asks, "for all his talk that rejecting Miers would put the war in jeopardy, would cause Republicans to lose the Senate, would bring the very fabric of Republican existence crashing down, how does writing an op-ed in the New York freakin' Times that bashes conservatives do ANYTHING to help the GOP?" Right Side Redux, on the other hand, agrees with Hewitt: "The minute David Frum, Mona Charen and others raises $300,000 of anonymous money to oppose Miers we sank down with the liberals who took down Robert Bork."

At TNR's The Plank, Noam Scheiber argues, "The left can gripe all it wants about right-wing conspiracies, but it seems pretty clear that Miers's withdrawal, and the almost-certain nomination of a more conservative candidate, owes much to its own tactical stupidity. It's obvious to pretty much everyone in America other than employees of the Alliance for Justice, NARAL, Planned Parenthood et al that the right bases its assessment of someone's conservatism partly on the left's reaction to them. Had these groups commenced freaking out about ... this whole story might have shaken out a little differently, and the liberal interest groups might have gotten someone far better on their issues than they had any right to expect."

In The Corner, Byron York tells "how the last day of the Miers nomination played out": In the a.m. on 10/26, Bush met at the WH with Senate Maj. Leader Bill Frist, Maj. Whip Mitch McConnell, and others, "where they discussed the problems facing the nomination. There were staff conversations between" the WH and Frist's office through the day. Later Cheney and GOP strategists met to discuss the same, and "then in the early evening," Frist gave WH CoS Andy Card "a frank assessment of the nomination's prospects" by phone. Writes York: "Not long afterward, a final decision was made, and Miers called the president at 8:30 p.m. to say she would withdraw, and the formal announcement was set for this morning." Hotline On Call's Marc Ambinder reported much the same line of events, noting that "GOP Senators privately communicated to WH CoS Andy Card that unless they had access to hard evidence that Miers was conversant in constitutional issues, there was no way she would be confirmed."

Andrew Sullivan zeroes in on the passive voicing -- "a final decision was made" -- and asks: "Who made the decision? Cheney? Bush? Doesn't this strongly imply that the president or vice-president decided to pull the plug on Miers and then had Miers 'decide on her own' to withdraw?" At TAPPED, American Prospect editor Bob Kuttner goes further: "Why does the press play this choreography as if it were reality? Plainly, senior White House strategists assembled, decided that it was time to cut their losses, and yanked Miers. The pretense that this was her decision is preposterous."

SPENDING: Coburning Down The House (And Senate)

On 10/27, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) held a conf. call with a number of right-leaning bloggers, including those who have spearheaded the PorkBusters project.

As Tim Chapman at Capitol Report writes, Heritage's Mark Tapscott "encouraged" Coburn to introduce a bill requiring "appropriations bills to be posted on the Internet with their full text 48 hours before they are voting on." Coburn replied: "I can't even get them for me for 48 hours ...That's part of the problem. It's a great suggestion." Tapscott himself writes at Tapscott's Copy Desk: "The importance of the Porkbusters campaign is not limited to getting rid of wasteful federal spending. Coburn will be doing the Republic an immense public service if that is all he achieves, but there is much more to it. He knows getting the fat out requires far greater transparency in the legislative process, and indeed the entire government, as well as a new attitude of honesty in the budget process and the politics of the budget." Wizbang: "One of the the suggestions from the bloggers (Mark Tapscott) was that the Senator use the 'porkbuster' term. It was noted that the word "earmark," while technically accurate, didn't have the same resonance. He agreed to use the term."

Instapundit: "[I]t was clear that (1) the White House is beginning to feel the heat; and (2) this will be going on over the next year. It's a war of attrition, not a quick-hit. Ultimately, I think we need to move toward Open Source Legislation as a model, though as Sen. Coburn was quick to point out, the Congressional leadership will fight tooth-and-claw against that."Right Wing News : "Basically, I took his message to the blogosphere to be: 'Those of us in the Senate who want to cut spending need the blogosphere's help to make it happen.' So, if you're a blogger looking to hammer away on government spending, hit it hard! It'll help Senators like Tom Coburn get the job done." RedState, which participated, affectionately calls Coburn Senator Trainwreck; an explanation can be found here.

Coburn's response to the PorkBusters effort had him listed as "Negative" prior to the Coburn Amendment (see our previous coverage), but TTLB's N.Z. Bear tells us it will be updated as "Positive" this weekend. Bear adds, the updated page "will be specifically focusing on Coburn's offset package amendment and which senators are signing on to support it."

THE MARCH OF BLOGS: Blogger Of The House?

Earlier this week, Speaker Denny Hastert's office announced the launch of the Speaker's Journal, a blog to be dictated by Hastert to his staff. Spokesperson Ron Bonjean told Roll Call's Pershing this week: "The Speaker will deliver a message, and we will transcribe it. Bloggers want to know that they are talking to real people [and] to know that they will have a direct connection to him."

Though 1st reported on 10/24, the blog actually went up late in the a.m. on 10/27. He begins: "This is Denny Hastert and welcome to my blog. This is new to me. I can't say I'm much of a techie. I guess you could say my office is teaching the old guy new tricks. But I'm excited. This is the future. And it is a new way for us to get our message out. Most of you know me as a coach by nature so I hope this gives you some inside access to the Republican playbook." He concludes: "Well, there you have it folks. I've outlined some of our priorities: fiscal responsibility and energy. I'm going to keep updating this from time to time. It's not that bad. Looks like this old guy can still learn a thing or two."

Conservative Don Singleton observes: "He may call it a blog, but about the only characteristic it has to a blog is that it appears to have permalinks. I say appears, because there is only one entry, but it does have a unique URL. But there does not appear to be an RSS feed, a comment area, or trackbacks, all of which blogs normally have."

Slashdot editor Jon "CowboyNeal" Pater started a thread about it last p.m., and from the few responses we saw, the response is rather positive. Comments one /.er: "I believe they are his words ... and I also believe he (and the Republicans) believe its a channel by which they can reach young (tech savvy) Americans. It's a good idea. Thank goodness he doesn't have a 'talkback' feature." Some criticize the lack of comments as being "one-way" communication; another disagrees, saying politicians shouldn't "great unwashed masses." Wonkette's Holly Martins calls Speaker's Journal "definitive proof that the GOP is in serious trouble."

IRAQ: You've Got A Right To Fight For "Party"?

On 10/27, ex-KE'04 aide/Salon blogwatcher Peter Daou critized Michelle Malkin, Little Green Footballs and milblogger Blackfive for describing the anti-war/anti-U.S. (this is a matter of contention) "vigils" as "parties": "I find this rash of posts suggesting that anti-war activists 'celebrate' the deaths of American soldiers to be both tragic and telling. Tragic, because it represents a descent into depraved, gutter-level slander as a form of argumentation, and it is a profoundly un-American approach to a most American of activities: dissent. Telling, because it means these bloggers have nothing left to justify the deaths of Americans in Iraq but desperate and transparent attacks on those who want our troops home. ... Bottom line: If Malkin, LGF, and Blackfive think opponents of the Iraq war are "celebrating" the deaths of American troops, let them answer the basic paradox of their position, namely, how is it that wanting our troops NOT to die is worse than wanting them to remain in the line of fire?"

Blackfive's Matt responds: "Typical of the far left. According to them, I don't get to have an opinion, either. Note to Peter: I'm dissenting, too. Dissenting against the bull@#$% of the anti-war movement. Using the deaths of my friends as an excuse to spout socialistic and anarchistic drivel is not acceptable to me." At LGF, Charles Johnson points readers toward a photo essay of a 10/26 vigil in San Francisco, courtesy of Zombie Time. In most of the pictures, attendees seem to be enjoying themselves.

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: From The Mixed-Up Files ...

On 10/26, Michael Petrelis was the 1st to note that incoming CBS News pres. Sean McManus donated $250 to BC'04 (along with $1K to Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT); E&P picked up on the story and credited it to him. Then on 10/27, Rush Limbaugh read the report live on his radio show, starting: "This is from Editor and Publisher, which is a left-wing website that chronicles the great left-wing work of the media..." Petrelis follows up, defending E&P from accusations of partisanship, adding: "I'm happy he's giving attention to the fact that McManus made a donation to Bush/Cheney last year. You can be sure that if McManus had instead donated to the Democratic loser from Boston, Rush's lips would be flapping nonstop about his political leanings and that doom awaits CBS News."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Moving Without Getting Anywhere?

Personal Democracy Forum's Micah Sifry writes there and also at TPM Cafe that MoveOn.org, by continuing to communicate with their volunteers via the "crappy" ActionForums.com, which are like "giant focus groups where MoveOn's leaders sit behind the one-way mirror," rather than harnessing "thousands of lateral conversations and connections," is "missing a huge opportunity" to be effective in "local and state politics." He suggests: "What if MoveOn were to invite its members to form state-, county- and city-level MoveOn spinoffs, give them a wide tether to self-organize and invent new forms for engaging each other and the issues, and then see what happens?"

LEST WE FORGET: Dog Days

Years ago, it used to be said that on the Internet, no one knows you're a dog. But in this wiser and more tolerant era of the blogosphere, some Internet users being feel comfortable being open about their canine tendencies.

Posted by at 12:45 PM

October 27, 2005

10/27: Win, Lose Or Withdraw

When it was noted by earlier this year that the coming SCOTUS vacancies would be the 1st of the blog era, few thought it would go anything like this. Both sides geared up for Armageddon, but now-CJ John Roberts proved to be extremely popular, difficult to oppose, and so the fight was postponed.

Then, with a 2nd seat still open, a strange thing happened: Pres. Bush's selection of WH counsel Harriet Miers inflamed not partisans of the left, but of the right. Since the nod was made on 10/3 (see our coverage that day) the prevailing sentiment among conservative bloggers has been to oppose her. And as the weeks went on, many more fence-sitters moved toward opposition than they did toward support. Within the past few days, Truth Laid Bear asked bloggers from across the spectrum to report their position on the nomination. Mostly conservatives weighed in, and the final tally showed 281 blogs against her, with just 58 for her. Senate hearings seemed highly unlikely to change that. And now the WH has "reluctantly" accepted her withdrawal.

It's difficult to say how much influence the blogosphere had in all this. By most accounts, the GOP had not realized how strong the negative reaction to Miers' nod would be. But it did come at a time when the GOP realized it had to reach out to conservative bloggers, and did so re: not just Miers but also, post-Katrina, renewed concerns about cong. spending. In recent weeks the RNC (see 10/13 Blogometer) and House GOP conf. (see 10/20 Blogometer) have met with their constituent bloggers. And at least some WH staffers were in contact with the pro-GOP 527 RedState (and its SCOTUS-focused subsidiary Confirm Them), whose general opposition was apparent since the morning Miers got the nod. Bloggers were far from the only conservatives with serious questions about Miers' qualifications for the court, but certainly their resolve helped bolster the lobbyists, opinion-makers and decision-makers who kept the pressure on Bush and Miers throughout this process. Will there be stories forthcoming about how the CW in the right blogosphere helped reinforce skepticism about Miers? We wouldn't be surprised.

Meanwhile, another surprise is that the surprise the lefty bloggers had been anticipating most -- indictments in the Plamegate leak case -- doesn't seem to be coming today, and perhaps not even for another week. And there are other stories from the past 24 hours discussed below, but they're all on hold for now.

THE EX-MIERS NOMINATION: You Better Reax Somebody

Reax to Miers' withdrawal from the right:

• Hugh Hewitt, by far her most prominent and most vigorous defender: "I think Ms. Miers has been unfairly treated by many who have for years urged fair treatment of judicial nominees. She deserves great thanks for her significant service to the country. She and the president deserved much better from his allies."
• John Hawkins: "I cannot even begin to tell you how happy this makes me. In fact, I actually whooped so hard when I heard she withdrew that I scared the dog. ... I mean they say you can't fight City Hall? Well, conservatives just fought the White House and won!"
• At The Corner, Jonah Goldberg calls it "Brilliantly Roviean": "Indictments will erase the Miers withdrawal kerfuffle. Then new Scotus nominee will rally base and change the debate once indictments are out (assuming it's only [Scooter] Libby, I can't imagine that even the appointment of Ann Coulter could crowd out the sound of champaigne corks in Democratic land and the MSM if [Karl] Rove were indicted)." A few minutes later, K.J. Lopez adds: "Fitzgerald is not working with the Rovian strategy here. CNN says no announcements today on 'leaks' case."
• Michelle Malkin: "What a relief."
• At RedState's Confirm Them, Mike Krempasky notes that they had an editorial board call for Miers to withdraw all set to go. But for now he says: "Okay everyone -- back to the barracks, let's get ready to get behind a nominee we can support."
• Miers supporter Don Surber, to his readers: "Okay, I was wrong. You were right. Hey, was it worth killing the Bush presidency? Prediction: Democratic Congress in 2006. That means winning 24 of 33 Senate seats. They will do it. Happy?" Brainster's Blog, another stated supporter: "Okay, glad that's over."
• Outside The Beltway: "It looks like the Krauthammer-Morrissey option was indeed invoked." The argument, as Krauthammer argued On 10/21, relied on the "irreconcilable differences over documents" -- Miers' only record on constitutional issues involved her work at the WH, which sens. would need to see, and which Bush would not give up: "That creates a classic conflict, not of personality, not of competence, not of ideology, but of simple constitutional prerogatives: The Senate cannot confirm her unless it has this information. And the White House cannot allow release of this information lest it jeopardize executive privilege." For his part, Ed Morrissey gives the credit to Washington Post's Krauthammer, as well as Sens. Lindsey Graham and Sam Brownback, who had recently pushed this argument as well. In The Agora: "It's over! Charles Krauthammer must be smiling." Libertarian Julian Sanchez, at Hit & Run: "Looks like they're using as cover the combination of the White House's refusal to hand over internal documents ... Which may be a sign that, unlike Trent Lott, the White House does read blogs, since that's more or less the exit strategy the conservative blogs have been pitching."
• QandO: "I have to believe that the vigorous opposition in the blogosphere played a large part in the outcome of this nomination -- if not by actually changing minds in the White House, at least by building and fanning the flame of dissent among those on the Right. As powerful as the George Will and Charles Krauthammer columns were, I'm not sure that the pre-blogosphere punditocracy could have created such a furor."
• NRO's Bench Memos posts PFAW's release, titled "MIERS, WHITE HOUSE SURRENDER TO ULTRACONSERVATIVES." The Bench Memos header: "Neas, In Awe of Principled Effectiveness"
• At Confirm Them, Steve "Feddie" Dillard suggests 11th Circuit judge William Pryor for SCOTUS.
• Real Clear Politics' Tom Bevan writes, one "speculative interpretation of the timing of the withdrawal is that the President knows there are indictments coming down tomorrow and needs to have his base support consolidated."
• Instapundit: "She's to be commended for doing this. The White House made a dreadful error in nominating her, which it compounded by its ham-handed efforts in support of her candidacy ... That Miers wasn't up to [SCOTUS] standards is no discredit to her, as very few lawyers are. But it is a discredit to the White House, which nominated her. Now it's a do-over, and they'd be well-advised not to blow it."
• Coldheartedtruth: "While I had 'lukewarm' support for Harriet Miers... I know that there are much better choices out there and I hope for everyone's sake that the President picks one."
• John Cole: "Personally, I am mad at the White House for this nomination. It was a stupid pick, it was arrogant, and it was unfair to Harriet Miers."
• Llama Butchers: "Woo, Ah say, Woo-Hoo!"

Reax from the left:

• Armando's header at Daily Kos: "Wingnuts Win, Miers Withdraws"
• 1115.org: "Harriet Miers Borked!"
• Header at Democratic Veteran: "Awww, Harriet, say it ain't so..."
• Yale law prof Jack Balkin: "The lesson of the Miers nomination is that stealth candidates must be widely perceived to have sterling credentials. President Bush was determined not to have another Souter, and he got his wish: Unlike Souter, Miers was perceived as insufficiently qualified. That made lack of clarity about her positions fatal to her nomination."
• The Mahablog asks, "would it have been smarter for the White House to hold off on this announcement until ten minutes after any Fitzgerald announcement? I guess that depends on whatever it is that Fitzgerald announces..."
• Bark Bark Woof Woof: "The big question, of course, is who do they have waiting in the wings? Is it going to be a real red-meat conservative to make the tightie-righties happy, inflame the moderates and set the Senate up for a nuclear war (i.e. filibuster)?"
• Liberal Oasis: "While the Right loves to claim that liberals have a Roe litmus test, Miers inability to assure the Right on Roe clearly was the last straw. Furthermore, the stated reason for withdrawl -- a refusal to release private memos -- is a bogus excuse previously suggested by right-wing columnist Charles Krauthammer. John Roberts had memos they kept secret, and they pushed him through."
• Pam Spaulding, for Pandagon: "She puts herself out of her misery. The wingers really took her out, though that first questionnaire gave both the left and the right enough ammo to make hearings a complete disaster for the Admin. ... Next up: the Chimp is going to probably push one of the Right's shining stars of AmTalibannery."
• Cernig's NewsHog: "After the kerfuffle settles down and Bush nominates another candidate... then is when it will get interesting. The question is really can Humpty Bush put his party together again after so many of his former cheerleaders washed their hands of him and his administration?"
• Happy Furry Puppy Story Time imagines the conversation between Bush and Miers. Norbizness has her saying: "I regret that I have only one nomination to give for the benefit of a corrupt administration seeking to deflect from high-level indictments that are about to be handed down."
• TBogg: "In order to spend more time with Karen Hughes' family, Harriet Miers withdrew from consideration for the Most Totally Bitchin' Supreme Court evah this morning, which will now allow George W. Bush to select someone who is qualified (and will overturn Roe) in place of Miers who was unqualified (and would overturn Roe.) ... Dr James Dobson has accepted the offer."

More related to Miers' withdrawal:

• How the news broke, at a couple different news sites -- Drudge Report: "MIERS WITHDRAWS"; Sploid: "MIERS WITHDRAWN"; BuzzFlash: "Harriet Miers has withdrawn as a nominee to the Supreme Court. Bush Backs Down, Unprecented. Sign That He is Deep Doo-Doo." A few sites, including Myopic Zeal and Jossip, chided Drudge Report for being a few minutes late: "And, more significantly, at 9:03am, Matt Drudge has yet to report it."
• This past weekend, Election Law's Rick Hasen had noted that if Miers is withdrawn, Gonzales would be an unlikely replacement, as once again many crucial papers would fall under exec. privilege. Kausfiles commented: "A twofer for the right. Maybe that was Krauthammer's plan all along." Hasen also wrote then: "If Bush is smart and wants a strong conservative who will actually be confirmed, he should nominate Judge [Michael] McConnell. But it is not clear whether Bush really wants a strong conservative on the Court."
• The excitable, empinked Harriet Miers's Blog!!! has turned black with mourning and become "Harriet Miers's Blog..." The latest post shows an animated GIF of a candle. The header: "WIP (WITHDRAW IN PEACE), ME, NOMINEE 10/3/05 - 10/27/05" Apparently on 10/26, a blog purporting to be written by once-considered judge Edith Clement blog quietly went up, campaigning for her to be the next chosen.
• SCOTUSblog posts text of Bush's statement.

Prior to the announcement:

• Townhall's Tim Chapman had noted: "According to Senate staff, the updated Miers questionnaire that was supposed to be given" to the Jud Cmte by 6:00 p.m., but had not been. He added: "Add this to the list of blunders with this nomination."
• Miers' '93 speech to the Executive Women of Dallas (available from the Washington Post in PDF) had finally convinced Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey: "I'm off the fence for good now. I oppose the Miers nomination." In recent days, multiple contributors to Bench Memos had stated their opposition, including Matthew Franck, Ed Whelan and Roger Clegg.
• Pro-Miers conservative Hugh Hewitt had disagreed: "Even if Miers was wrong about some important things in 1992-1993, that doesn't mean she is wrong now. Politics can change people. War can change them as well, in dramatic ways. Years with W and his team can change them."
• Patterico's Pontifications summarized Hewitt on his 10/26 radio show as saying that Miers, at her hearings, would have to "stand firm and not answer questions about how she will rule," and "tell Senators she will observe a conservative judicial philosophy." Patrick "Patterico" Frey adds: "She will, of course, do both -- so really, for Hugh, the hearings are irrelevant. He will support her no matter what."
• This a.m., Morrissey saw the likely end of her nod in news reports, including the Washington Times on Leonard Leo's resignation from the confirmation team.
• Weekly Standard contributor/Soxblogger Dean Barnett expected her withdrawal: "Thanks partly to the efforts of the conservative media of which I am and remain a proud part, we'll probably get a better Supreme Court justice than Harriet Miers. But if the price for that winds up being a longer lifespan for the boy-optometrist dictator in Syria and his murderous cronies, that will turn out to be a high price to have paid indeed."

PLAMEGATE: Patience, Patience ...

Bloggers following the CIA leak case have been looking for any telling details that might predict when the indictments would come down. Although many had expected special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald would announce indictments this week, some have resigned themselves to the possibility that he will instead extend the grand jury and "Fitzmas" will take a little longer to arrive.

Late last p.m., Steve Clemons reported at The Washington Note: "Fitzgerald is expanding not only into a new website -- but also into more office space. Fitzgerald's office is at 1400 New York Avenue, NW, 9th Floor in Washington. What I have learned is that the Office of the Special Counsel has signed a lease this week for expanded office space across the street at 1401 New York Avenue, NW. Another coincidence? More office space needed to shut down the operation?"

Update: Clemons' source withdrew the above claim on 10/27.

At TPM Cafe, ex-Clinton adviser Paul Begala tells what it's like to work in a WH inundated by scandal: "When a White House is under siege, no one wants to talk to anyone. Literally, anything you say can and will be used against you. When you're in a meeting and you see one of your colleagues taking notes, you start to wonder how long it will be before you're interrogated based on her notes. Maybe she's doodling. Or maybe she's digging your grave." He concludes: "If the waiting is as painful for the Bushies as I suspect it is, it's only because they know how terrible the toll will be when the truth comes out."

After speaking with 2 Wilson/Plame neighbors, Byron York reports at The Corner, "they both said that the visit they got from investigators on Monday was the first time they had ever been contacted by anyone from the Fitzgerald investigation. Both men seemed surprised that it had taken Fitzgerald so long to come calling ... The bottom line, however, is that both men said they did not know that Mrs. Wilson worked for the CIA. They said they were friends with the Wilsons, but did not have a clue about her true employment.

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "I think nobody knows what's going to happen, so take all predictions with a grain of salt, even this one. I hate to throw cold water on everyone's expectations for tomorrow, but even amidst the hearty speculation we like to engage in around here we also like to ground things in reality. And the reality is if Fitzgerald is still pursuing an investigation, he's probably going to want some time to use that info in his "come to Jesus" talks with the perps."

Since its original posting, the New York Times' Tenet-told-Cheney-who-told-Libby story has met some with some skepticism. Kausfiles is one, asking: "If Tenet was such a key figure, wouldn't he have testified before the actual grand jury?" And: "Would Libby really have been dumb enough to contradict his own notes (which the prosecutor has had from the start) under oath? ... If the Times story falls apart, will reporters Johnston, Stevenson and Jehl get fired like so many people think Judith Miller should be fired (given that her WMD stories fell apart)?"

Even if no indictments are handed down, Andrew Sullivan argues, Bush should "clean house for real": "By that, I mean firing Cheney as veep and replacing him with Condi Rice, regardless of what Fitzgerald discloses. Cheney's role in the Plamegate mess is just the latest in a long string of screw-ups and misjudgments. If Bush cannot see that now, he is fooling himself. I also mean getting rid of Rumsfeld, replacing Card, withdrawing the Miers nomination, and shaking his cabinet to its roots. ... We have a war to win. We cannot afford to have a reeling vacancy in the Oval Office."

SHEEHAN: First Katrina, Now Harriet -- What Cindy Needs Is Another August

Anti-war mom Cindy Sheehan reappeared on the scene again on 10/26, staging a "die-in" outside the WH and getting arrested for a 2nd time (see 9/28 Blogometer). Michelle Malkin, last p.m: "Readers are sending word that the woman who fashions herself the Rosa Parks of the anti-war movement was arrested tonight outside the White House." The Political Pitbull posted a few pictures of Sheehan in Lafayette Park, talking on a cell phone. He writes: "I was amazed by what I saw next. Not only was Sheehan not tied to an inanimate object, she was wireless!" In a 10/26 Huffington Post entry titled "Grim Milestone," Sheehan announced her intentions. California High School Conservative: "I think that President Bush should order his police to ignore these folks. They love getting attention from being arrested. If they are not causing any harm, let them be and eventually they will go away."

With the exception of websites like HuffPo that publish her writings, fewer liberal blogs are following Sheehan. A few that are: A diary by Susanhu on Booman Tribune, letting others know Sheehan will be speaking at the Nat'l Press Club on 10/28; in passing, a rant by The Rude Pundit directed at Malkin; AMERICAblog does link to a New York Times story on Sheehan imploring voters to oppose Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) based on her supprot for the war-- the commenters are divided on this point, but most seem to agree with her.

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: First Microsoft Word, Now Adobe Photoshop?

On 10/26 we mentioned a post by Michelle Malkin, asking why USA Today had altered an image of Sec/State Condoleezza Rice to give her eyes an otherworldly, arguably demonic look. Since her post went up, USA Today has replaced the photo on accompanying the story, which now carries this "Editor's note": "The photo of Condoleezza Rice that originally accompanied this story was altered in a manner that did not meet USA TODAY's editorial standards. The photo has been replaced by a properly adjusted copy. Photos published online are routinely cropped for size and adjusted for brightness and sharpness to optimize their appearance. In this case, after sharpening the photo for clarity, the editor brightened a portion of Rice's face, giving her eyes an unnatural appearance. This resulted in a distortion of the original not in keeping with our editorial standards." E&P's Strupp reports on USA Today's reversal. Malkin follows up; plenty of her readers -- some of them photo editors -- are unsatisfied with USA Today's response. One writes: "The 'retraction' claimed that they sharpened the image and adjusted the brightness, they did not. The eyes were pencilled in at the pixel level by hand. (VERY sloppy, I might add.) Their 'retraction' is nothing short of complete bullshine." According to Little Green Footballs, the discrepancy was 1st discovered by FromThePen.com, which has an animated GIF juxtaposing the 2 pictures in a manner reminsicent of LGF's animated CBS memo from 9/04. Crooks and Liars has some fun with the incident, at the extent of the "worked up" conservative bloggers.

BLOGS VS. THE BELTWAY: Busters Of A Different Pork Product

Post-Katrina, liberal journalist Josh Marshall campaigned against Bush's suspension of the Davis-Bacon act in hurricane-ravaged areas (see 9/21 and 9/23 Blogometers). The Bush admin. primarily argued it would reduce costs and speed recovery; Marshall and other critics argued it would result in lower wages -- hence his term, the "Gulf Coast Wage Cut." On 10/26, the Bush admin. suspended its suspension. As Marshall puts it: "Rep. George Miller (D-CA) played a pivotal role in organizing cosponsors for a bill to overturn the president's Gulf Coast Wage Cut. Later, he found a way to force a vote on the legislation. Unwilling to face that prospect, today the White House caved in and revoked the wage cut on their own." Miller takes a victory lap at Marshall's TPM Cafe. Matt Yglesias, who sided with Marshall, writes: "[I]nsofar as suspending Davis-Bacon would, in fact, reduce building costs it would do so by offering workers lower pay. That's the whole idea."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Meeting In The Aisle

Addressing Dem consultant Jerome Armstrong's decision to suspend blogging through WH'08, GOP consultant Erick Erickson writes at RedState: "It's rather sad that Jerome Armstrong feels the need to stop blogging because of all the conspiracy theories, etc. out there. This, as Kos rightly says, sets bad precedent. That anyone can come up with an insane theory and hound someone like Jerome or others over it because of who he consults for is pitiful. The views I express are my own. They do not reflect on my employer. They do not reflect on my legal clients. They most certainly do not reflect on my political clients. While my political clients tend to share my views as I tend to align myself with similar people, they do not necessarily share my views on all issues and sometimes flat out disagree with me. I am positive, without even knowing him or talking to him, that Jerome is in the same boat. We obviously disagree on most every political topic. And let us add one non-political topic -- I disagree with Jerome that he should stop blogging. Again, as Kos says, who better to blog about campaigns and politics than someone who actually works in campaigns and politics."

LEST WE FORGET: How To Succeed In Blogging Without Really Trying

Earlier this month, AOL bought entrepreneur Jason Calacanis' Weblogs, Inc. blog empire -- 100+ narrowcasted blogs including the popular Engagdet, Joyqstiq and AutoBlog. Estimates put the deal at somewhere between $25M and $40M. Based on those numbers, programmer Tristan Louis put together a chart showing what each blog would be worth, according to the number of inbound links counted by Technorati. Building on that, the Business Opportunities Weblog put together a handy feature which will tell you how much your blog is worth, according to AOL's math. Apparently the Blogometer is worth $124,198.80. If only it were so.

Posted by at 12:27 PM

October 26, 2005

10/26: Fitzgerald's Game

In the past 24 hours, pretty much everything took a back seat to the Plamegate investigation and the anticipation that senior WH members will be indicted, perhaps as soon as today. A handful of bloggers claim to have advance info from inside sources, and while no one knows exactly what's going to happen, the consensus seems to be that indictments have been prepared.

In related news, liberal bloggers discuss new questions about pre-war WMD intel from Italy, conservative bloggers push back against media focus on the 2K soldiers killed in Iraq. The Harriet Miers nomination continues to simmer; more conservative bloggers take sides, and most oppose. And liberal blogfather Jerome Armstrong hangs up his blogging hat. Plus, we bring you a brief history of this month's hottest neologism, "Fitzmas."

PLAMEGATE: All The Gossip That's Fit To Print

Liberal think-tanker Steve Clemons writes, an "uber-insider source," and then another source of unknown uber-insiderness, says to expect the following: "1. 1-5 indictments are being issued. The source feels that it will be towards the higher end"; "2. The targets of indictment have already received their letters"; "3. The indictments will be sealed indictments and 'filed' tomorrow"; "4. A press conference is being scheduled for Thursday." The rumor spread fast, getting linked in at least 225 blog posts since then -- that's bigger than this weekend's George Will column, that's bigger than the New York Times' bombshell story on VP Cheney yesterday (at least, at deadline yesterday; now it's up to 342 links).

Plugged-in GOP consultant Erick Erickson writes: "Don't believe the rumor mill on this until" special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald "or one of the indicted actually speaks. Some people are using this as an opportunity to settle scores in the confusion." That said, he shares the gossip as he hears it -- the WH itself is facing 2 indictments, although a WH source dismisses that as "office talk." Meanwhile, some "feel confident" that Cheney CoS Scooter Libby and Cheney aide John Hannah will be indicted. The "rumor mill" has implicated NSA Stephen Hadley and conservative commentator Michael Ledeen have been mentioned. Erickson adds: "I hate to disappoint the left, but if the rumor mill is to be believed, Karl Rove, yet again, gets off."

Meanwhile, Clemons also floats a rumor that Sen. John McCain has been "approached about serving as VP if Cheney has 'health problems' or otherwise steps down. Beyond that, speculation that Miers will step down to be replaced by a Bork-like sub (even better, Bork himself ... ). In other words, Cheney takes a bullet, a titanic battle over SCOTUS ensued to change the subject." MyDD's Scott Shields, on what happens if Cheney steps down: "Rather than naming a Vice President as a way of anointing a 2008 pick," Pres. Bush is "far more likely to name someone whom he either knows doesn't want the nomination or whom he doesn't want to have the nomination. The obvious pick is Condoleezza Rice." Andrew Sullivan: "I'm beginning to understand, for example, why Bush told Andy Card to inform Dick Cheney about the Miers nomination. Bush was already insulating himself from Cheney and the legal trap Cheney might have signified."

Left-leaning Taegan Goddard writes, an ex-"high level" Bush admin. official tells him "that 'people are turning on each other' at the White House. Lawrence Wilkerson is likely just the first to come out publicly against the administration."

CAP's Think Progress posts a transcription of CBS's Roberts reporting that Rove and Libby are "secondary players, that it was an unidentified Mr. X who actually gave the name of CIA agent Valerie Plame to reporters. Fitzgerald knows who Mr. X is," indications are that he is outside the WH, "and if he isn't indicted, there's no way Rove or Libby should be." Liberal Hullabaloo: "But, there are a bunch of other people who know who Mr X is, aren't there? They are called 'reporters' -- the ones to whom Mr X allegedly leaked in the first place."

According to the Drudge Report, ABC News told the WH that it had "double sourced" a report that Libby had been indicted in an apparent attempt to bluff the WH into revealing more info. The report runs with a flat denial from ABC News spokesperson Jeff Schneider. Conservative Power Pundit's Rick Edwards: "Scooter Libby was indicted, then he wasn't. Drudge had a headline that he had been indicted, and has now removed it. Go figure." Liberal Oliver Willis: "Looks like Drudge is making up tales again..."

Roll Call's Akers reports -- though several bloggers get their version via Raw Story -- that on 10/25 Fitzgerald "was spotted ... at the law offices of Patton Boggs paying a visit" to Rove atty Robert Luskin. Among those noting it are Basie!, Daily Kos and Suburban Guerilla. TalkLeft guesses: "Fitz was probably interviewing the cooperative Rove one more time -- and didn't want to have Rove seen at his office or where the grand jury meets.

Conservative PoliBlog's Steven Taylor probably speaks for many on both sides: "I hope something happens one way or another soon, as I would like to have some actual information to deal with, rather than endless speculation and leaks of partial information."

PLAMEGATE II: In Their Opinionation

Under the header "Better To Be Wrong Than Gutless," JustOneMinute's final predictions: "Karl Rove walks -- no indictment, nada. ... John Hannah had CIA links, so he can't convincingly plead ignorance about Ms. Plame's status. He gets a wrist slap for misuse of classified information. ... David Wurmser also has CIA links, and he gets a wrist slap for leaking to Walter Pincus of the WaPo. ... Libby goes to trial. The good news with this scenario is that otherwise, we will never know what the heck happened."

According to a corrected version of the New York Times big Cheney story, Cheney was not under oath when interviewed by Fitzgerald. But in the comment section at Firedoglake, TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt writes: "I don't think the oath matters. If he wasn't under oath, it's a false statement charge. If he was, it's a perjury charge. But both have the same penalty -- 5 years."

Balloon Juice expects nothing more than perjury/obstruction charges of Libby and maybe Rove, adding: "If I am wrong, and they get charged with more serious crimes, I say screw 'em. I have no use for people that actually leak secrets or put agents in danger. I just don't think (and I certainly have not seen any evidence -- just rumors and allegations) that that is what happened here."

Arianna Huffington posts a "cheat sheet" summarizing "all the lies we've been told": "I'm not saying that Plamegate is the same as Watergate. I'm saying it's worse. Much, much worse. No one died as a result of Watergate, but 2,000 American soldiers have now been killed and thousands more wounded to rid the world of an imminent threat that wasn't."

In a post apparently since removed moved from the front page to the diaries, RedState's Blanton advises Bush to pardon any indicted aides: "If President Clinton can pardon Mark Rich after receiving campaign contributions from Rich's ex-wife, this President can pardon White House staffers for doing their job well and zealously defending this administration against a never ending leftwing attack."

WMD INTEL: Mambo Italiano

First La Repubblica [Ital. req.] and now the AP report that Italian security agency SISMI chief Nicolo Pollari met with then-dep. NSA Stephen Hadley prior to the 1st reports surfacing of records indicating a Niger-Iraq uranium transaction, later shown to be forged. War and Piece's Laura Rozen elaborates: "The meeting could help explain why despite numerous attempts by the CIA to get the White House to take out the Niger yellowcake claims from its speeches, the claims made their way back into Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech. The unusual meeting may also help explain the seemingly hysterical overreaction" to ex-Amb. Joe Wilson's "pushback" to the WH's assertions. TPM Cafe's Andy Vance, working from a Babelfish translation before the AP published its story, attempts a summary: "The gist of the story, from what I can decipher, is that SISMI chief Nicolo Pollari created a secret channel to the White House and Office of Special Plans. Michael Ledeen's involved somehow." Josh Marshall points readers toward an English-language Italian report stating PM Silvio Berlusconi's gov't has issued a "carefully worded quasi-denial of complicity" in the "Niger forgeries hoax."

NETROOTS: A Farewell To Blogs

Following a week of criticism, largely by bloggers supporting OH SEN's Paul Hackett (D), Rep. Sherrod Brown (D) consultant Jerome Armstrong announces at MyDD: "I'm not going to be posting or blogging here any longer while working campaigns. There's no upside and the downside of posting personal opinions, where it's easy to mark it as a political ploy by the opposition, is plenty. If you do see me blogging, it will be with the campaigns or committees sites or blogs I'm working." He reiterates that he is no longer a business partner of Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas, adding: "I'm still working campaigns, with a contracting staff of usually 6 others, at least into '08. Though I thought I could personally blog my opinions while openly disclosing my work-related interests, that seems unrealistic given the competitive situation. So, see you on down the road." Commenters are disappointed but understand; pro-Hackett blogger Chris Baker writes: "I think that the problem only really manifests itself during primaries and recounts. Then people have to watch out. ... Personally, I want to spend my time focused on defeating Republicans. These days it feels like I'm fighting a rear guard action against some of the most powerful voices in the liberal blogosphere." But this isn't enough for Democracy Guy's Tim Russo: "He thinks this solves his conflict of interest problem... but presumably, he still owns the site, still collects money from its advertising, and still exerts editorial control over its content." Netroots activist Bob Brigham writes in an e-mail: "Jerome Armstrong is known as the Blogfather for a reason, he has inspired many people -- myself included -- to find their voice online and use blogs. While Jerome took a break from blogging during Howard Dean's campaign, I can't imagine not being able to read his thoughts on politics and specific races for three full years." For a good backgrounder on Armstrong's importance to the liberal blogosphere, see this 6/05 AlterNet interview.

THE MIERS NOMINATION: Hey, Did "The Colbert Report" Steal "QuagMiers" From Us? Ah, Maybe Not ...

Hugh Hewitt argues, on behalf of Miers: "If there is no clear and convincing evidence that Harriett Miers is not qualified for SCOTUS -- and thus far there is nothing remotely approaching a persuasive case for a 'no' vote -- any GOP senator that votes against her will be asking for the same treatment at the polls as Miers received from him or her. ... Notice how the folks who voted to confirm Justice Souter are not blamed for Justice Souter's record, but the first President Bush is? ... If Miers does well at the hearings, it will be political suicide to vote against her if the nomination is defeated."

Replying to an earlier Hewitt post calling upon GOPers' loyalty to Bush, right-leaning QandO comments: "Loyalty, as everyone who has served in the military knows, is a reciprocal obligation. The loyalty of supporters to leaders must be matched by a congruent loyalty from leaders to supporters."

In a post 1st for Confirm Them and now at Townhall's C-Log, Quin Hillyer promotes ex-Rep./SEC chair Chris Cox for SCOTUS.

Truth Laid Bear continues to add blogs to his list of bloggers' support/oppose/neither positions on the Miers nod. The latest tally:

            Total     %age
Opposed      255     70.6%
Neutral       55     15.2
Support       51     14.1

IRAQ: And They Would Walk 2000 Milestones, And They Would Walk 2000 More ...

On 10/24, we pointed out that liberal bloggers were looking ahead to this week's 2000th U.S. soldier killed in Iraq. They are still mentioning it, but at the same time, so were conservative bloggers pushing back against the expected coverage. Little Green Footballs has been maintaining a "Grim Milestone Watch," noting each time an MSM outlet describes the 2K Iraq deaths as either "grim," a "milestone," or both at once. The 6th of 7 so far features a graphic from MSNBC.com titled "Grim Milestone." Swanky Conservative posts photoshopped "grim milestones" from individual WWII battles, all of which had higher death counts. The Political Teen posts screen shots from MSM websites, which list the news above other stories, most notably about the passage of the Iraqi constitution. Contemplating the lefty response to the 2K figure, Faces from the Front asked U.S. soldiers in Al Anbar how they would want their death to be received, and would they sign up again if they had it to do over? The answer: "They did not want their death to be used as a prop and they would make the same decision all over again. These young Lance Corporals and Non-Commissioned Officers volunteered to join the Marines, many with the intent of coming to Iraq. And while few would say they like war, they all recognize the necessity of it."

SPENDING: Can They Keep This Alive Long Enough For The Miers/Plamegate Stories To Recede?

Instapundit posts an e-mail from Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) counting hundreds of in-state and out-of-state constituent calls in support of the Coburn amendment (with no calls opposing it); he also includes correspondence from readers who have had some success getting pork-related responses from their GOP reps.

Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) posts to RedState, addressing cong. spending. Noting that Dems are testing out a new slogan, he suggests another: "TAX OR SPEND? For Democrat's The Answer Is Yes." In the 50+ comments that follow, many don't think the GOP has done enough to differentiate itself: "I think the best the Repubs can claim now is, 'At least we're not as fiscally irresponsible as you!'"

Conservative PoliPundit's Jayson Javitz notes, the Senate Finance Cmte voted to "reduce federal outlays on Medicare and Medicaid roughly" by $10B over 5 years, on a 11-9 party-line vote. He adds: "Haven't the MediaCrats been ranting and raving about the deficit for the past several years? Yet despite all that posturing when it came time actually to vote on a deficit-reduction bill literally 100% of their members on the Senate Finance Committee said 'non?!' I'm shocked."

MISCELLANY: Stories Our Invisible Assistant Somehow Failed To Write Up

• Owing largely to a New York Times, Wal-Mart is coming under fire from liberal bloggers, just as the company had made a few moves to rehabilitate its image. See: Nathan Newman; Wal-Mart Watch; The Carpetbagger Report; Economist's View.
• Based on a Senate Cmte report [PDF], conservative bloggers are speculating that far-left British MP George Galloway perjured himself during his feisty appearance before the cmte earlier this year (see 5/18 Blogometer). See: Slate's non-blogger/arguable non-conservative Christopher Hitchens; Seixon; Austin Bay Blog; Begging to Differ; TigerHawk.
• Michelle Malkin calls attention to USA Today's manipulation of a photograph of Sec/State Rice, which has the effect of "demonizing" her -- i.e., she looks evil.
• The unexpected end of NRO's The Buzz blog continues to resonate around the conservative blogosphere, with Ankle Biting Pundits and Daly's Thoughts both sorry to see it go, and encouraging readers to write into NRO about it.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: On The Origins Of Fitzmas

Although the portmanteau "Fitzmas" is barely a few weeks old, it has spread across the web with surprising quickness. Search Google for the term, and already it returns 156K results. So where did it come from?

As of 10/6, Daily Kos's Moulitsas was already anticipating indictments, and said: "I hope I wake up to good news. This makes me feel like the night before Christmas." Directly inspired by the comment, liberal Attaturk at Rising Hegemon. The word then percolated through the liberal blogosphere and on message boards such as Democratic Underground, before resurfacing in a diary at Daily Kos on 10/18. The same day, known Daily Kos reader Byron York then posted excerpts to NRO's The Corner, whereupon the contributors repeated the phrase again and again. The 1st appearance in the Lexis-Nexis database is a tie between the Washington Post's Dan Froomkin and your humble Blogometer. But the 1st actual appearance of "Fitzmas" as a word seems to be in the 12/8/97 Rocky Mountain News, which points readers toward an Arizona Staraffil. website with a series of e-cards that, 8 years later, is somehow still online. Although we're not sure what it means, here's the Star wishing you a "Merry Fitzmas!"

LEST WE FORGET: Ye Olde Photoshoppe

As we noted yesterday, liberal bloggers are having a merry time photoshopping Cheney into criminal situations. By the same token, they have started photoshopping Santa hats onto Fitzgerald -- see here and here. If that isn't enough, Wonkette last week and Backup Brain this week both have Fitzmas Bingo cards.

In the interests of equal time, here is video of Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) falling asleep on the floor of the Senate yesterday.

Posted by at 12:22 PM

October 25, 2005

10/25: Big Time News

Although the CIA leak investigation/Plamegate and the Harriet Miers SCOTUS nod have been splitting time as the hot topic of discussion, Plamegate clearly dominates the blogs this a.m. Meanwhile, Paul Hackett officially announces for OH SEN as netroots infighting continues, and for once in a good long while, Pres. Bush gets some bipartisan praise for his choice of Ben Bernanke as the next Fed chair.

PLAMEGATE I: There Are Bombshells, And Then There Are Bombshells

New York Times' Johnston, Stevenson and Jehl report that VP Cheney was the one who told his CoS Scooter Libby about CIA officer Valerie Plame, and that this appears to "differ from Mr. Libby's testimony to a federal grand jury that he initially learned about" her from journalists. More: "The notes do not show that Mr. Cheney knew the name" Iraq war critic/ex-Amb. Joe Wilson's "wife. But they do show that Mr. Cheney did know and told Mr. Libby that Ms. Wilson was employed by the Central Intelligence Agency and that she may have helped arrange her husband's trip." More still: "Mr. Cheney was interviewed under oath" by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald last year. It is not known what the vice president told Mr. Fitzgerald about the conversation with Mr. Libby or when Mr. Fitzgerald first learned of it." While it's an essential link for any left-leaning blogger last p.m. or this a.m., it is widely discussed on conservative blogs. The right tends to think Libby is looking at an obstruction of justice charge, though others will be spared; the left more or less takes Libby's indictment as a given, and at least this a.m., zeroes in on possible charges against Cheney more than Karl Rove. Some bloggers even speculate the leak of this story came from Rove's attys.

>> From the left -- Ex-CIA officer Larry Johnson, at TPM Cafe: "Although the NY Times story reports that Libby's notes indicate that George Tenet told Cheney about Plame, there are some intriguing unanswered questions. For starters it is highly unlikely that George Tenet showed up at the White House and just happened to know the name of Valerie Plame. Someone at the White House asked for it first. Tenet clearly came prepared to respond to a White House request." More: "I also doubt that Tenet used the name 'Plame,'" which by then she did not use. More: "Someone introduced 'Plame' into the equation. ... Look for other names to emerge in coming days that will reveal who helped work out the 'background' info on Valerie Wilson." Josh Marshall posts a "Meet the Press" transcript with Cheney on 9/14/03. Cheney among other things: "I don't know Mr. Wilson. I probably shouldn't judge him. I have no idea who hired him and it never came..." Marshall: "This would have been three and a half months after Cheney reportedly received a detailed briefing on just what had happened from George Tenet." Digby makes a similar point. Film producer Jane Hamsher argues: "What indication do we have that Cheney lied? Well, if Cheney he had told the truth when he was interviewed last year, i.e., that he was Scooter Libby's source, Fitzgerald would not have needed to threaten Judy Miller and Matt Cooper with jail in order to counter Scooter Libby's testimony that he first heard about Valerie Plame's identity from journalists." David Corn writes, "this new development raises the possibility of an orchestrated cover-up that reaches the vice president. Remember the "unindicted co-conspirators" of the Watergate days? Who would believe the waiting-for-indictments period could become more intense?" Whiskey Bar's Billmon writes, considering "the reports that both Hannah and Wurmser have been flipped, and it becomes increasingly plausible that the special prosecutor has the veep penciled in as the blue plate special on his indictment menu. Was Libby the final flip? And has he, in fact, flipped?" The Washington Note's Steve Clemons: "The entire charade of President Bush stating that he wanted to get to the bottom of who leaked Plame's name -- and who was involved -- is no longer believable at any level. Cheney would not have failed to disclose this to Bush, and Bush played along as if none of his staff were involved. They confessed nothing -- accepted no responsibility -- until forced by Fitzgerald." Markos Moulitsas: "I'm finding it increasingly hilarious how Rove and Libby kept falsely claiming it was reporters who gave them the Plame info. I mean, the news media carries the administration's water for four years, and this is how they get repaid -- getting blamed for the outing." Lean Left: "Plame's status as an employee of the CIA was certainly classified information, else the CIA would have had no grounds to go to the FBI in the first place, not to mention the fact that Libby was on a flight where Plame's identity was clearly marked in a memo as secret." Oliver Willis asks: "Even if no specific law was broken, shouldn't it be cause for removal or resignation if the vice president used the power of his office to uncover classified data as fuel for a political vendetta?"

>> From the right -- Wizbang's Kevin Aylward: "The Tenet connection is intriguing -- especially for any defense attorney -- because if the CIA was the source and the original complainant that could put them in a pretty awkward position. The more interesting question is where the information the Times reported came from? ... The information would seem to favor Rove by shifting additional focus to Libby, so it's not inconceivable that Libby is being, proverbially, thrown under the bus." James Joyner calls the story "pretty thin stuff" and writes: "The irony of the lawyers investigating the leaking of secret information to the press leaking secret evidence to the press is rich, indeed. It amazes me that there never seem to be prosecutions for this action, which are clearly intended to poison the water for those under investigation and which taint the jury pool and harm people's reputations regardless of the disposition of the case." Decision '08's Mark Coffey: "I know many of my readers think there is no case, and there will be no indictments... I would gladly be wrong on this one, believe me. However, the totality of the circumstances, given what we know, suggest that at the bare minimum Libby will be indicted (I am much more hopeful about Rove). Of course, I freely admit that what we know is information that has been leaked, and leakers always have a purpose." JunkYardBlog: "This is probably going to be an ugly week. That whatever happens all stems from a nepotistic and unserious mission to Niger about which Joseph Wilson spun lie after lie -- though not under oath, so he has never faced any legal jeopardy -- is very likely to be lost in the din. It's not the non-crime that gets you -- it's the cover up, if indeed there was one." The National Debate notices that the Times story states that Plame's "identity was made public and her undercover status was disclosed in a syndicated column" by Bob Novak, and comments: "This is a good example of the games played by reporters and editors and the Times in advancing liberal myths. ... It has since come out that Plame had an official cover (i.e., public) as a CIA operative on weapons of mass destruction AND a covert status. What Novak wrote was entirely consistent with Plame's official cover at the CIA." Protein Wisdom's Jeff Goldstein: "Three questions: Did Libby intentionally mislead the inquiry? And if so, why? -- particularly if Cheney hadn't done anything illegal by revealing Plame's CIA affiliation. And did Cheney share this information with Fitzgerald when he was interviewed under oath last year? Because if not, he, too, could be open to perjury and obstruction charges. Of course, another thing to keep in mind is that this leak could be wrong." The Political Teen: "I don't know about you, but I'm waiting until Fitzgerald comes out with the results of the investigation before I believe anything I hear."

>> Prior to this story's posting, Raw Story is reporting that Cheney aide David Wurmser is the one who "told Libby that Plame set up the Wilson trip," and with then-NSA Condoleezza Rice and then-dep. NSA Stephen Hadley. Libby meanwhile passed that info to Rove, and soon after, the sources say, "executives" in the VP's office told Wurmser "to leak her name to a specific group of reporters in an effort to muzzle" Wilson. This "amplification" comes at the end: "They were unaware if Wurmser told Cheney about Plame or if that information was passed to Cheney by Libby. They did say that all three of them met and at the time of their meeting Wurmser told Libby about Plame." The story got linked at Think Progress, Firedoglake, The Sideshow and others. TalkLeft: "If true, it sounds like Wurmser, as previously reported, flipped on Cheney, Libby and Hadley. So, who's providing this new Wurmser information? It doesn't sound like it's Wurmser. It sounds like it's someone who is very angry at him. How this story stacks up against the Times report isn't clear, but there's no question that the Times report is being taken more seriously. Raw Story articles are typically picked up by the left only; it's a rare story that gets attention on both sides, and this isn't one. Since the Times piece went up, we've seem nary a reference to this story.

PLAMEGATE II: The Feast Of St. Fitz

Besides Cheney, there is a great deal of Plamegate discussion out there; the left is considering new, little-reported aspects of the case, and the right is coming toward collective agreement that Fitzgerald's integrity should not be attacked.

UCLA prof Mark Kleiman makes a point about Fitzgerald's new website (see 10/24 Blogometer): "Surely, we hear, Fitzgerald wouldn't open up a website just so he could post a 'never mind' notice. Well, actually, he might. Unless Fitzgerald has his case already in the can -- possible, but not certain -- he's trying to get some potential defendants to plead guilty and testify against other potential defendants. Their incentive to do so depends entirely on their belief that Fitzgerald will indict them if they don't cooperate. Anything Fitzgerald can do to make indictments seem more likely rather than less likely therefore improves his bargaining position."

Marshall introduces an interesting twist -- UPI's Martin Walker reports that Fitzgerald has requested and received "the full, and as yet unpublished report of the Italian parliamentary inquiry into" documents which purported to show evidence of a yellowcake transaction between the gov'ts of Niger and Iraq. Marshall asks: "But what's in it? What might Fitzgerald have discovered? My reporting on this from Italian sources has always suggested that the Italian government had been much, much less than aggressive in its pursuit of the facts in this story." Walker writes that the development suggests that Fitzgerald has "widened to embrace part of the broader question about the way the Iraq war was justified," but Kleiman disagrees, writing that this is "contradicted by Fitzgerald's terms of reference. Fitzgerald may well want to bring in the Yellowcake Road story to show motive for whatever crimes he charges, but the charges themselves will have to be limited to blowing Plame's cover and covering it up." Drum offers the theory that the WH went after Wilson because they "probably figured Wilson still had friends in the State Department who had told him the documents had been debunked long before the SOTU. And if Wilson knew that, maybe he knew about the source of the forged documents as well. Or was on the trail of it. Or something. And that's what scared them: the possibility that someone was about to expose the story behind the forged documents. ... And that's why Fitzgerald wanted to see the Italian report. He figures it might explain the original motivation for the whole affair, and knowing the motivation might help him make his case."

Linking to a Washington Post "cast of characters" feature from last week, Tom Maguire writes, the MSM "probably has some very well-informed guesses as to who did what; over at the WaPo, for instance, Walter Pincus certainly knows who leaked to him. So, for example, when the WaPo does *not* include [ex-interim DCI John] McLaughlin or Tenet on the list of characters, that may be a hint that these CIA bigs were incidental to the leak."

AMERICAblog links back to a 7/8/03 New York Times report wherein the WH "acknowledged" that Bush's so-called "16 words" relied on "incomplete and perhaps inaccurate information from American intelligence agencies," and comments: "The MSM is proving bizarrely insistent on ignoring the single most important fact surrounding RoveGate, the one fact that explains why the White House went to such extremes to scorch-earth Joe Wilson for coming forward. What's that fact? Joe Wilson spoke the truth and Bush admitted it."

Crooks and Liars points out (with video) that Mort Kondracke used "the I-word," i.e. impeachment, on the 10/24 broadcast, saying the left was seriously talking about it. Anchor Brit Hume "sniffed his derision, and said 'That's it for the panel. Shut up!' Then he laughs and says stay tuned ..."

John Hawkins writes: "As far as I'm concerned, [GOP TX Sen.] Kay Bailey Hutchison was out of line ... Anyone who works in the White House should know better than to lie under oath or get involved in a cover-up, and if they did something that foolish, then they should expect to be charged with a crime." At The Corner, Andy McCarthy as well defends Fitzgerald from conservatives who have written to him suggesting "that my friend Pat Fitzgerald may not be as apolitical as his press clippings indicate": " Pat is at least as apolitical as his press clippings suggest. And just because Senator Schumer says something doesn't make it wrong. Pat Fitzgerald is the best prosecutor I have ever seen. By a mile. He is also the straightest shooter I have ever seen -- by at least that much. And most importantly, he is a good man." RedState's Blanton and Pejman Yousefzadeh at A Chequer-Board of Nights and Days concur.

THE MIERS NOMINATION: Well, So Much For Hewitt As A Compromise Candidate ...

To "to the extent that members of the Senate bother to listen to constructive suggestions," Dafydd ab Hugh at Big Lizards asks readers and fellow bloggers to suggest cases to ask Miers about. So far he has posted a half-dozen. Captain's Quarters suggests a handful of specific questions for sens. to ask Miers, including one tipped toward Senate Jud Cmte Arlen Specter's "superprecedent" line of thinking: "Do you think that stare decisis should drive the overall judgment process of the Supreme Court, given the social disruption that overturning precedent can cause? Do you believe in the concept of 'superprecedents'? Please explain Brown against Plessy to illustrate your answer."

At TAPPED, Ezra Klein comments on Miers getting 10x market value for a piece of land in a ruling by a judge who had received significant campaign contributions from Miers' firm: "It's one of the peculiarities of American politics that small but tangible scandals like this can be much more dangerous to a nominee than a simple lack of qualifications, ability, or excellence. There's no reason to believe that a sweetheart land deal actually impairs Miers ability to function as a justice, while her inability to write clearly and her unfamiliarity with constitutional law clearly do. Nevertheless, this is a story the press can seize on, the pundits can harp on, and her nomination can sink on."

Hugh Hewitt responds point-by-point to his critics at NRO's The Corner (see 10/24 Blogometer), including McCarthy, Jonah Goldberg and Rich Lowry. He concludes: "Question: Well into his second term, mired in scandal and obvious unending lies and deepening crisis, did any senior Democrat turn on Bill Clinton? One year into his second term, and days after a huge and historically significant election in Iraq and a month after yet another unfair savaging at the hands of the MSM over Katrina, George Bush surveys his allegedly supportive pundits and the GOP Senate majority that he made, and he finds what? Is the GOP incapable of governing as a majority?"

At TKS, Jim Geraghty writes, "I'm sure Hugh Hewitt feels like NRO has just decided to gang-tackle him lately, so I feel bad for piling on." But re: Hewitt's "Question:" quoted above, he writes: "Is the Democratic Party's steadfast refusal to hold Clinton accountable for anything really the role model that the GOP wants to emulate? When your party's leader has made a lousy choice, there ought to be no shame in calling 'em as you see 'em." In similar fashion, Confirm Them's Paul Zummo writes that he likes Hewitt, but is nevertheless compelled to rebut Hewitt's previous post.

NRO's David Frum has opened up a new site with a few other conservative columnists, Americans for Better Justice, to host his anti-Miers petition. Starting 10/26 they will be running ads on FNC. While the site is not a blog, it does link to several, and the board includes ex-Reason editor/Dynamist Blogger Virginia Postrel.

BROWN V. HACKETT: The Curtain Rises

As Cillizza at Washington Post's The Fix notes Iraq vet/OH 02 special candidate Paul Hackett's 10/24 campaign announcement, where he said: he would "fight to take back our government from the career politicians and their special interest support groups who have hijacked our government." Cillizza observes, "That remark seems easily read as a shot at Brown, who has held public office since 1974." Interviewed by Cillizza on 10/24, likely OH SEN candidate/Rep. Sherrod Brown said: "Paul is new enough to public office that he doesn't understand that no one is entitled to a Senate nomination."

Shortly after his announcement, Hackett posted a diary to Daily Kos asking for more than financial contributions: "In this race, I need more from you, I also need your ideas. How can I best convey why we need real change in Washington, DC? How can we use our unique media potential refocus politics on what matters most? What does matter most to you? What is mostly not talked about that matters to you? How can we facilitate getting more people to serve and participate in our democracy? Our founding fathers started a tradition of the citizen legislator, how can we work together to renew this tradition and get more people involved in politics?"

In a diary at Daily Kos, Armando takes on charges from Buckeye Senate's Pounder, who had argued that Moulitsas had withdrawn support from Hackett for financial reasons (perhaps because Brown was about to make the big blogad buy). Writes Armando: "It was a vile act by him. Am I saying that Pounder should have refrained from criticizing Markos out of loyalty? F--- no. I am saying that before you attack his character, the very least you could do is understand and know the facts on which you wish to base your opinion. And then, when you have that, give kos a chance to explain to you what might be going on, indeed if there is even anything to explain. Pounder didn't do any of that. Instead he ran off and attacked Markos' integrity with lies. When confronted with those lies, he shuffled and ducked, changing his story. It was a despicable performance." In the comments to the same diary, Armando writes: "Pounder lied and said Markos was sharing in [Brown consultant] Jerome [Armstrong]'s revenues for working with Brown. It was a lie, a vile lie, a smearing lie. Disgraceful and despicable." But he also says of Armstrong: "Jerome is playing with fire a bit by blogging and consulting at the same time. The disclosure needs to come early and prominently."

In e-mails with the Blogometer on 10/24, Moulitsas stated that the Armstrong-Zuniga, LLC consulting firm is no longer active, and he has no financial relationship with Armstrong aside from the book they are writing. Likewise, he has never worked for Brown in a paid or voluntary capacity. He also reiterated that whereas he personally "preferred" Hackett in general, he has no "preference" in a head-to-head match-up. He adds: "Ultimately, I think this primary will be great preparation for what should be a nasty general election contest."

In a diary for MyDD, pro-Hackett Bob Brigham argues that Hackett "gets" blogs, whereas Brown does not: "Blogs aren't like political organizations, getting the support of a blogger doesn't mean you have the support of the readers. Blogs operate from the bottom up, not top down. The true story is how this is shaping up between an politician trying to take a top-down, talk-at-you-with-ads approach to the blogosphere vs. an outsider who inspired netroots activists one at a time to have a vast bottom-up movement. That is the story that should be written."

Democracy Guy, who had previously stated his support for Brown, now lists himself as undecided. In particular he cites Armstrong's involvement as a negative factor: "Sherrod lost my support with this nonsense. ... I'm officially checking out Paul Hackett. Nice work, Jerome... never thought anyone could get me to consider voting for a newcomer over Sherrod Brown, but you pulled it off.

SPENDING: Show Them The Money

Michelle Malkin reports, she got a message from Sen. Tom Coburn's (R-OK) office informing her that later today Coburn will chair a subcmte hearing titled "Guns and Butter: Setting Priorities in Federal Spending in the Context of Natural Disaster, Deficits and War." Tim Chapman reports that a group of sens. including Coburn, John McCain and Sam Brownback will sponsor a Senate version of "Operation Offset" (see 9/26 Blogometer) to unveil a "savings package."

FED CHAIR: You Can Bernanke On It

By and large, Bush's appointment of CEA chair Bernanke to replace retiring Fed chair Alan Greenspan is proving popular. A brief round-up of what econ. profs from the left and right are saying:

• Liberal economist Max Sawicky: "Given the likely possibilities, putting Ben Bernanke in charge of the Fed is much the preferable outcome. He is well-qualified, and he has managed to sail through his brief tenure in the Bush Administration with minimal resort to demagogy, in contrast to predecessor Glenn Hubbard."
• Left-leaning Univ. of OR econ. prof Mark Thoma: "I do not believe Bernanke will politicize the job as much as Greenspan did. My worry is the opposite, that he will not speak forcefully enough on issues such as the budget deficit that impact monetary policy."
• Conservative Dartmouth econ. prof Andrew Samwick: "Bernanke is an excellent choice. ... I am particularly pleased that someone with such a talent and insight for research will be at the head of the Fed's staff of professional economists. I suspect that plenty of his former students are already there."
• Liberal Berkeley econ. prof Brad DeLong also supports Bernanke, and criticizes Fred Barnes' Wall Street Journal [sub. req.] explanation of the pick as being "completely impervious to Bernanke's elementary textbook point" about the importance of deficit reduction, and Bush for passing over Hubbard because he reportedly "talked down" to him.
• Right-leaning GMU econ. prof Tyler Cowen, at Marginal Revolution lists 5 contributions he sees Bernanke having made to the field, adding: "I met him once and had lunch. He came across as a nice guy; most importantly, he listened to everyone at the table (or at least seemed to!), no matter what their academic status. In the profession he is popular."
• Liberal Kash at Angry Bear, who studied under "Bernanke is a superb macroeconomist, a nice guy, and, despite his current position as chair of the CEA ... he is not a sharply partisan or ideological person."
• Conservative Suitably Flip, on the coming hearings: "Let's just hope no media-hungry Senators make the mistake of unduly forestalling his nomination solely for sake of combat. I'm sure the resulting debate would be amusingly one-sided, but not quite worth the injurious effect on the process."

IN THE STATES: When Anonyblogging Isn't

Since 7/04, the anonymous Minnesota Democrats Exposed blogger "has been taking pot shots at the" MN DFL while claiming the blog "is not created, endorsed, sponsored, or authorized by any political party, candidate, or candidate's committee." However, center-ish Eva Young at Lloydletta's Nooz and Comments posts evidence that ex-MN GOP comm./research dir. Michael Brodkorb "is at least one of the authors behind" MDE. When posting one entry via e-mail, Brodkorb apparently left his e-mail signature in, which included his name and cell phone number. Although the error "was quickly corrected," but a reader checked Safari browser "downloads the RSS [feeds] as they come in"; Young posts a Flickr-hosted screen shot of Safari's RSS page for the site. Indeed it shows Brodkorb's name and telephone number. On Young's site, MDE is now linked under the name "Michael Brodkorb."

INTRODUCING/ENDTRODUCING: I Say Hello, And You Say Goodbye

As of 10/24, The New Republic has a new blog, The Plank. The primary contributors are Michael Crowley, Franklin Foer, and Jason Zengerle. This also marks the end of TNR's 3-year-old &c. blog. TNR also previously published Gregg Easterbrook's Easterblogg and Spencer Ackerman's Iraq'd, now both defunct.

10/24 also marked the end of NRO's The Buzz, which launched in early '05. K.J. Lopez broke the news in The Corner: "NRO has always been a little experimental. Try things out, see how they go, try different things." So they started The Buzz, with a little Beltway and a little 2008 and a little more. Eric Pfeiffer, a promising young journalist ... has been manning The Buzz admirably since its start--work for which everyone here is grateful. Today, however, marks The Buzz's last day." She adds, "post-Buzz, look for him elsewhere on the site. RedState's Erick Erickson notes the blog's closing, as well as Pfeiffer's reporting on Cindy Sheehan's vigil/protest in Crawford, TX.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Separated At Birth?

Arianna Huffington writes, "Plamegate has brought together" Bush and New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr -- "Two guys who, to borrow a phrase from Pete Hamill, were born on third base but think they hit a triple. And who are now busy trashing the stadium." Both currently "find themselves in deep trouble at the moment, plagued by charges of incompetence and cronyism. This got me thinking: what else do W and Pinch have in common? Turns out quite a bit." Huffington posts 15 questions. Here's 3:

1. "Which of these men had a father who was considered stupid but is now thought to be a genius compared to his son?"
2. "Which of these men is currently on the defensive about his support for an incompetent woman in his office?"
3. "Which of these men may have to ask for the resignation of a subordinate because of a mounting scandal?"

LEST WE FORGET: Working On The Cheney Gang

In recent weeks, lefty bloggers have been photoshopping ex-House Maj. Leader/Rep. Tom DeLay into various photos and situations, and now Cheney is getting the same treatment. The Heretik puts Cheney into the DeNiro-as-Capone movie poster for "The Untouchables." Meanwhile, Billmon puts Cheney, Libby and Miller into a scene from "I Am a Fugitive From a Chain Gang."

We'd also like to note, the above header marks 11th time The Hotline has used that awful pun since its 1st use on 7/19/93.

Posted by at 12:53 PM

October 24, 2005

10/24: World To End This Week, Bloggers Hardest Hit?

While television and newspapers have been giving top billing to Hurricane Wilma, the political blogosphere has been kept occupied by several already-major stories that stand to intensify this week. Although bloggers were ahead of the curve on Katrina (see our 8/29 edition), the top-tier bloggers have much bigger things going on than the now-forgotten antiwar mom Cindy Sheehan. Even the perp walk of ex-House Maj. Leader/Rep. Tom DeLay and ex-NSA Brent Scowcroft's publicly detailed break with current WH officials barely register. The big stories on the political blogs right now are:

• The conservative infighting over Harriet Miers continues, with some of the criticisms getting more heated and more personal. If a lasting split between certain factions of the right is indeed coming, then we saw glimpses of it over the weekend.
• Not as big in terms of sheer numbers discussing the matter, but quite big in the implications, is the OH SEN Dem primary, which has broken out into open and angry disagreements between supporters of each candidate, and some bloggers are seeing possible backroom conspiracies.
• Late on 10/21 p.m., special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald launched a website at doj.gov, and to most this is a sign that indictments of persons yet unknown will come down before Fitzgerald's grand jury expires this week. News that Bob Novak did indeed cooperate with Fitzgerald, and other new twists, gain attention.
• Meanwhile, Judy Miller's tenure at the New York Times appears to be even more troubled than Miers' SCOTUS appointment, as she faces withering criticisms by the public editor, columnist Maureen Dowd, and exec. editor Bill Keller.

This is not the longest Blogometer ever -- that distinction belongs to a post-Katrina edition on 9/6 -- but it's up there.

THE MIERS NOMINATION I: The Political Gets Personal

George Will's column this weekend had been highly anticipated by conservatives. Rumor had it that the piece would be devastating to her supporters. Instead, the reaction is somewhat mixed. Miers opponents agree; Miers supporters think it is over the top. Regardless, it's much-discussed, as Technorati counts 160 blogs linking to the column.

Will opens: "Such is the perfect perversity of the nomination of Harriet Miers that it discredits, and even degrades, all who toil at justifying it." And closes: "Finally, any Republican senator who supinely acquiesces in President Bush's reckless abuse of presidential discretion -- or who does not recognize the Miers nomination as such -- can never be considered presidential material." It includes this memorable bit: "Miers's advocates tried the incense defense: Miers is pious. But that is irrelevant to her aptitude for constitutional reasoning. The crude people who crudely invoked it probably were sending a crude signal to conservatives who, the invokers evidently believe, are so crudely obsessed with abortion that they have an anti-constitutional willingness to overturn Roe v. Wade with an unreasoned act of judicial willfulness as raw as the 1973 decision itself."

Hugh Hewitt replies: "George Will has a lot of opinions about the SCOTUS, and he expresses them well. He makes sense. George Will is certainly no ConLaw scholar, nor even a professor of a different branch of the law, or even a lawyer. He is, rather, a bright, hard-working, indeed superb craftsman of language. George Will could serve ably on SCOTUS. But so too can and will Harriett Miers ... I have to note that Will allowed his love of language to cripple his argument. 'Incense defense' sounds wonderful, but is so bizarre in the context of an evangelical nominee as to raise the question of whether Will intentionally set out to offend. But so do his missiles about 'crude' people. Who are they? James Dobson, Chuck Colson, Jay Sekulow, Lino Graglia, Ken Starr? Four out of five are evangelicals. Does Will equate evangelical faith with crudeness?"

Conservative Dafydd Ab Hugh is not impressed with Will's argument, calling the column "sloppy," and confusing Miers sherpa Ed Gillespie's charge that her opponents are "sexist" with the claim that they are "snobs." He criticizes Will's "meticulous retailing of yawn-inducing epithets," although he also writes: "I am astonished that Will did not openly campaign for John Kerry, they are so much alike. Perhaps Will was put off by Kerry's overemphasis on athletics: except for baseball, which Will sees as 'contemplative,' a form of meditation, perhaps, he seems uncomfortable with exhibitions of manhood." Power Line's John Hinderaker sides with D. Hugh: "Far be it from me to slight George Will's contributions to the conservative movement, but it's time to recognize, I think, that the torch has passed to a new generation. ... Judge for yourself who is arguing, and who is too tired to do anything but sneer."

A front-page post at RedState by the pseudonymous Blanton is about as upset with Hewitt as D. Hugh is with Will: "Hugh Hewitt has jumped the shark. I do not know that I will ever be able to entertain an argument of his seriously again. ... Thus far, Hugh has managed to cast aspersions on arguments George Will, Judge Bork, and most of National Review. While I can certainly give credence to the idea that we should wait for the hearings to make up our minds, Hugh has gone beyond that and in so doing has lost credibility on the subject." For calling Hewitt a "pimp" and a "jackass, " the post gets criticized by some in the comments. Interestingly, Blanton had been introduced as a new RedState editor only just this weekend.

Hewitt also argues her set-asides were not a matter of law, but the preference (so to speak) of a private law firm. But at The Corner Jonah Goldberg -- who had previously announced his opposition earlier in the weekend -- argues "If reports are to be believed Miers argued ... that the White House shouldn't oppose racial quotas aggressively" in the Grutter v. Bollinger case. To his knowledge, the WH "has not attempted even once to dispute it." Goldberg adds, "Hugh is telling us not to worry about her private political views, they are meaningless ... Meanwhile, Miers' supporters have been arguing for two weeks that Miers is privately opposed to abortion and that should be good enough indication about how she'd vote on Roe. So which is it? Why should we believe Hewitt that Miers will keep her private views to herself (even though she hasn't in the past) on race, but she'll take her private views on abortion to the bank?" Stanley Kurtz and Andy McCarthy are fellow Cornerites in agreement with Goldberg. Writes Kurtz: "Hugh's argument is a claim that only a highly educated legal elite is qualified to judge Miers on that issue. Without knowledge of Brentwood or the state action doctrine, Hugh says, you can't draw conclusions from her passionate support for quotas in a private case. That's just not credible, but it does show that Hewitt is willing to turn to 'elitist' arguments when pressed."

Law prof Ann Althouse -- who also just announced her opposition -- asks: "[W]hat will happen at those hearings? The Democratic senators will need to behave in a way that is proportional to the way they treated Roberts. If not, they'll look like hypocrites (and we bloggers will point it out). If so, it will, in all likelihood, be a humiliating experience for Miers -- and Bush will deserve all the blame for his abysmal choice." Patterico's Pontifications points out that Hewitt had used Althouse as an example of openness to Miers in the past.

Don Surber is one who supports Miers, and says of Will: "He raises one good point about reversing Roe as judicial activism. But Miers is silent on Roe as every judicial nominee must be. It comes down to trusting Bush. I say let the antis rant and watch some football this afternoon."

THE MIERS NOMINATION II: Setting A Timeline For Withdrawal?

Chief SCOTUS rumor scout Erick Erickson, this a.m.: "RedState is able to report this morning that, very quietly, certain third parties have begun going back through the list of potential judicial nominees at the behest of the White House. Sources tell RedState that while the White House intends to make a public display of moving the Miers nomination forward, the reality of the situation has been conveyed to the President -- namely that it is increasingly likely that Harriet Miers will meet a bipartisan effort to block her nomination."

Think tanker Judd Legum points out that Miers had her law licenses in DC and in TX suspended for failure to pay dues, tax liens placed on her property in TX for "non-payment of fines and fees," and via KRT, she "received 10 times the market value for a small piece of land she controlled from the state of Texas, awarded by a panel stacked with friends and allies. A mediator ordered Miers to repay" $26K but so far "has failed to do so." He comments: "These incidents take on added significant because -- since Miers doesn't have any judicial experience -- Bush is selling Miers's nomination to the court, in large part, on her'character.'"

Jonathan Adler, at NRO's Bench Memos: "Senators from both parties are demanding the release of documents from the White House Counsel's office, according to" the Los Angeles Times. "If this impasse is not resolved, can Miers be confirmed? As Charles Krauthammer suggested last week, this issue could provide Miers an opportunity to save face were she to withdraw, as she would be protecting the White House from an unprecedented disclosure of internal material."

Liberal AMERICAblog is one of many on the left and right to note a Washington Times piece reporting that a GOP consultant claims WH aide Sara Taylor solicited his opinion on how her nod could be withdrawn. Asks AMERICAblog: "A strategic trial balloon or just wishful thinking by the right wingers? Reverend Moon's paper is the paper of record for the wingers. And, they do name the names of the WH staffers." Conservative Balloon Juice: "The story presents an interesting problem as to who to believe -- the White House, or the Washington Times?"

Steve "Feddie" Dillard from Southern Appeal, at Confirm Them: "If a Republican wants my support in the '06 or '08 elections, here's what you can and must do: Pressure the president to withdraw Miss Miers's nomination, or vote against her (should it come to that). Otherwise, I'd just as soon wreck the ship. The Constitution is more important than the Republican Party."

N.Z. Bear of Truth Laid Bear is keeping track of bloggers who have declared their support, opposition, or neutrality re: Harriet Miers. The latest tally shows: 178 oppose, 33 are neutral, and 33 support her.

BROWN VS. HACKETT I: Paid And Switch

Last week the Blogometer reported on expected OH SEN candidate/Rep. Sherrod Brown's (D) just-begun 4-week buy of blogads; at the time, the ad featured Brown alone and linked to an "open letter to the blogosphere," which appeared to set the stage for his entrance to the race. Brown's camp told us that the same image would remain for the duration of the buy.

But on 10/21 the ads changed: The ads now feature a smiling Iraq vet/'05 House special election candidate/likely OH SEN candidate Paul Hackett (D) digitally placed next to him. The image of Hackett is such that he is looking toward Brown, while the same picture of Brown smiles toward the reader. The ads now point toward an ActBlue page raising funds for the general election. (According to liberal Buckeye Senate, the ads pointed for a short time to a Brown sign-up page, although this appears to have been a glitch.)

Brown cong. spokesperson Joanna Kuebler tells the Blogometer that the switch was made in the interests of keeping the ads fresh. Some bloggers have raised doubts about whether Brown's camp asked for Hackett's permission to be in the ad; Kuebler confirms that the Brown camp did not approach Hackett, but pointed out that neither are candidates asked when negative ads are run about them. She added that the Brown camp did not believe Hackett "would be concerned" about the ad, adding: "This is actually a positive" ad campaign. Kuebler also points out that helping Dems across the state and the country is something Brown has done often before, such as when he sent his consultants, MyDD founder Jerome Armstrong and Swing State Project contributor Tim Tagaris, to assist Hackett in the OH 02 special earlier this year. Brown's blogad strategy is primarily overseen by Armstrong, a consultant to Brown. The Blogometer could not get a response from Hackett manager David Woodruff at press time.

Duncan "Atrios" Black: "Brown shifted his ad (see top left) to direct people to ActBlue's general election fund. The money will go to whoever wins the primary and not to any particular candidate's primary fund. That's a class move." Pandagon's Jedmunds agrees, as does Daily Kos' Armando. In the comments at Democracy Guy, Buckeye Senate's Pounder sees different motives: "[T]he issue is the duplicitous nature of the Brown ad buy -- using Hackett's image to try and get netroots dollars he would otherwise not get -- in the hope he wins the primary, and at the same time, siphon off net roots dollars that would go directly to Hackett (folks don't have deep pockets)."

ActBlue's Benjamin Rahn weighs in -- at several blogs, including Ohio 2nd and Democracy Guy and Buckeye Senate -- to say that ActBlue is not taking sides, and will facilitate fundraising for both. Democracy Guy's Tim Russo is not persuaded: "This all seems remarkably well coordinated ... in the span of less than 24 hours," the ad changes, Atrios and Armando both promote it, and "you turn up here to defend it." Rahn replies, saying there was "no conspiracy": "Heck, I was thinking we'd get criticized for not replying faster! ... I think what you're seeing here is the result of a lot of people reading and blogging 24/7."

Meanwhile, Hackett's position on the Iraq war is coming under fire from some lefty activist bloggers, and the bloggers doing so are themselves coming under fire from their lefty blogger allies, who disagree and are upset that Dems are doing oppo that could benefit the GOP. Dem strategist David Sirota writes at his blog, Hackett has "has dispatched his staffers to attack" Brown for "supposedly not talking straight" about whether he would get into OH SEN, but Hackett himself "continues to change his position on the Iraq War whenever it appears politically opportune." Sirota cites a few examples, with Hackett saying "We can't cut and run" but in his letter for DFA (see 10/20 Blogometer) calling for (in Sirota's words) "full withdrawal." His readers are not happy with the post at all. Some complain that he's doing "opposition research" on a Dem; another -- Marsblog -- claims Sirota is misrepresenting Hackett's statements. At Left in the West, Matt Singer -- who works with Sirota -- argues that all they are doing is "coming to Sherrod Brown's defense." He cites a quote from Hackett manager Woodruff, saying that the primary will "get nasty." In an update, he writes: "Okay, I've been reading more and Brown has apparently also been saying some nasty things. Both these guys need to knock this crap off." Back at Sirota's post Marsblog and Singer debate the ethics involved, as well as the possibility that Singer's writing could later cause problems for the candidates and orgs. he works for. Meanwhile, Brown consultant Jerome Armstrong front-pages a MyDD diary by contributor Paleo, which largely reposts Sirota's point. The post picks up 150+ comments, including one from pro-Hackett Ohio 2nd editor Chris Baker: "Wow... Sirota's really pulled out all the stops. Does he think that this barrage is going to work? Why so hard so fast? I'm trying to figure out what the goal is." On 10/22, Sirota then posts a follow-up, making his point more forcefully: "Hackett said this summer 'We're there now... We can't cut and run.' Now, Hackett says we need a timetable for a full withdrawal. That's a major reversal of positions." Baker argues back, debating Sirota and others in the comments, saying that these "attacks" can only benefit DeWine. Sirota maintains, these aren't attacks, this is just politics.

On 10/21, Russo floated the rumor that UAW would back Hackett, which could be bad news for the labor-reliant Brown. Back at Ohio 2nd, Baker writes, writes: "Maybe this would explain Sherrod Brown hit man David Sirota going postal today. I can see no logical reason for someone connected like Sherrod Brown who's sitting on 2 mill to go so negative so fast otherwise."

Swing State Project's Bob Brigham, a Hackett supporter, suggests Brown may decline to compete in the primary. In an e-mail Brigham circulates to a group including some in the press, he points out that Brown has postponed his announcement, and offers this take on the ad: Because the money will go to the primary winner, Brown "can now test his fundraising potential and keep the money in the senate race if he were to pull out." As of 10/23, however, the Cincinnati Enquirer reports that Brown has already filed his "declaration of candidacy," which Kuebler confirmed to the Blogometer.

On a related note, Hackett's campaign site -- Hackett for Ohio -- is now up. Although it doesn't have a blog (at least not yet) there is a sign-up page for bloggers who want to get involved to contact the campaign. Hackett's formal announcement that he will enter the race takes place today.

BROWN VS. HACKETT II: Blogola Or Bologna?

Russo and Pounder both express suspicions of how Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas decided to get behind Brown. On 10/3, as the rumor 1st came that Brown might run, Moulitsas leaned toward Hackett, writing then, "give me an Iraq vet over a career politician, even one with Brown's excellent pedigree." On 10/4, Armstrong said he hoped Brown would run (noting his being "on Brown's team" in the post). But by 10/6 he had apparently changed his mind, writing, "It might be a good idea for Hackett to stand down." Buckeye Senate's Pounder: "The next thing you know Brown has Blogads littered all over the leftblogs via the Blogads bidness," which he says have "ties to Armstrong and Kos." Moulitsas doesn't seem to have written about the race since then. The ad is running on Let's Go Tribe, one of a network of sports blogs owned by Moulitsas. The primary author explained on 10/18, when it was still the Brown-only ad: "Today I approved a political ad. This should not taken as an endorsement of the candidate or party by me or by anyone else connected with this site. Any political candidate or party is free to submit an ad to this site, and will not rejected on the basis of party affiliation." Russo asks: "Is Kos raising money from both sides of this primary, through ActBlue, which then buys ads from his network? I wonder how Paul Hackett feels about his face being used to raise money for a PAC which then buys ads at every blog opposing his candidacy, including one that's actually on his opponent's payroll," i.e. Armstrong. Armando, in the comments at Daily Kos, on questions posed by Pounder: "Lying scandalous slanderous loser." And follow this thread for a lengthy debate on the allegations. Ohio 2nd, on the whole thing: "I'm having a hard time figuring it out."

Michael Meckler, author of Red-State.com (not to be confused with RedState.org) writes in the 10/24 Columbus Dispatch: "Critics contend that Brown is attempting to buy off the liberal blogosphere and stifle its anti-establishment tone. This criticism is most sharply directed at Jerome Armstrong ... The ubiquity of the ads has startled even jaded observers, and the budget of the first two weeks of this advertising campaign seems to be somewhere near $10,000 at published rates. Debates have raged among progressives whether Brown and Armstrong are trying to buy the primary election by spending so much money on blog ads so early."

PLAMEGATE: Waiting To Exhale

Fitzgerald's website went up late on 10/21, with little fanfare. Over the weekend it got a bit of MSM coverage, and a number of blogs linked it, including Blogs of War, The Next Hurrah, Curmudgeonly Crab, Firedoglake, and Peter Daou's blogwatch for Salon. But as it is mostly empty, there just isn't much to say about it yet. But they'll be watching.

Washington Post reports that a "critical early success" for Fitzgerald was when Bob Novak -- who wrote the column that started this all -- "avoided a fight and quietly helped the special counsel's inquiry, although neither the columnist nor his attorney have said so publicly." At Eschaton, Duncan Black asks those "praising those journalists who refused to testify" -- "why aren't you condemning those who did? Who did do the right thing, and why?" Noting a Wall Street Journal report that Novak's source could be indicted, as well as various reports confirming that his source does not work at the WH, TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt writes: "Normally that would lead me to believe Novak's source was a CIA official," but she wonders if Novak "misspoke when he labeled his source 'non-partisan.' Maybe he was someone on the Defense Policy Board or the Office of Special Plans or in the State Department."

Crooks and Liars posts video of Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) saying: "I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality..." Lefty Moxie Grrrl: "Kay, perjury charges can lead to 5 years in prison, which is a f---load more than anyone got for the $50 million dress Ken Starr paid for, you little twit." Think tank NDN Blog makes the same point, less stridently. Late 10/23, Michelle Malkin weighs in, calling Hutchison's comments a "blunder": "Um, has anyone suggested that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is a 'gotcha' kind of guy who would throw away his good reputation by pursuing 'technicalities' instead of 'real' crimes? I haven't heard anyone on our side suggest anything of the kind."

In the event that WH dep. CoS Karl Rove is indicted and does need to step down from the WH, conservative Mark Kilmer suggests Reagan's "architect," Michael Deaver.

Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall considers rumors that "Fitzgerald has either cooperated with, received critical information from or even taken over" U.S. Atty for VA Paul McNulty's AIPAC/Larry Franklin investigation, amid rumors that Bush will appoint McNulty to the DoJ dep. position which Jack Abramoff-embroiled official Tim Flanigan was temporarily nominated. Marshall: "[T]hese are very strange times -- most anything is possible. But there's something here that doesn't fit."

The involvement of NBC's Tim Russert is still unclear, and bloggers including Huffington on the left and Tom Maguire on the right have raised questions about what he knows. Hullabaloo's Digby comments on the 10/23 "Meet the Press": "Surprise, surprise. Nobody asked (and he didn't offer) an explanation about his own role in the Plame affair this morning despite discussing it in great depth during the program. ... I'm beginning to wonder if he's covering somebody's ass other than his own."

MILLER: Does Someone Need To Register An Account At JournalismJobs.com?

It was a big weekend for the New York Times' relationship with Plamegate-involved reporter Judy Miller, with 3 big articles coming out from the Times -- 1 memo, 1 column, and 1 assessment from the public editor (to which Miller then replies). For whatever reason, the vast majority of commentary comes from left-leaning bloggers; perhaps this is best explained by the fact that Miller's WMD reporting angered the left more than the right -- but conservatives are not known for giving the Times a wide berth. Perhaps as well the Miers nod has them occupied.

Coming 1st was an internal memo by exec. editor Bill Keller, which leaked and by late 10/21 was posted to Romenesko, Crooks and Liars, and E&P. Keller admits he should have dealt with the Times' botched WMD reporting earlier, explaining: "I was trying to get my arms around a huge new job, appoint my team, get the paper fully back to normal, and I feared the WMD issue could become a crippling distraction." Lefty DC Media Girl argues, for letting it go so long as he did, "Keller needs to go. Immediately." Liberal Whiskey Bar calls it "The New Pravda's Lost Year" and severely criticizes Keller's inaction, though allows him this: "What Keller is admitting, of course, is that when it came to the WMD story ... he was powerless in the face of his publisher's passionate dedication to [Miller] and her mission." On the other hand, right-leaning Andrew Sullivan likes the memo: "I find it impressively honest and appropriately self-critical. I see no reason to doubt Keller's sincerity, but he also clearly screwed up."

Times columnists have been slowly breaking what appeared to be a self-imposed silence during the months when Miller was imprisoned. Frank Rich was the 1st last weekend; now Maureen Dowd is the 2nd -- a free version is available at Truthout.org -- criticizing her character and all but calling for her to be fired: "Judy told The Times that she plans to write a book and intends to return to the newsroom, hoping to cover "the same thing I've always covered -- threats to our country." If that were to happen, the institution most in danger would be the newspaper in your hands." She appears to some to make further allegations about Miller's propriety, as noted on the left by both The News Blog's Steve Gilliard and Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher. BuzzMachine's centrist Jeff Jarvis -- a consultant to the Times -- calls Miller the "Times' Dan Rather," arguing that Miller, "like Rather, had the support of her editors and her institution -- and no small proportion of her profession -- and it is that blind, deaf, and dumb stubborn support that now must cause them to change their worldview, their relationship with the public, their pressthink." TPM's Marshall calls on the Times to reconsider running stories based on leaks where the gov't "itself decides to put out a story, but does so through leaks rather than officially." He writes, Miller's "WMD fiasco isn't the only mess the Times has found itself in the last decade. And I think this broader institutional problem for elite news outlets -- being the recipients for 'official' leaks -- deserves more attention." Marc Cooper, at his newly re-designed blog: "Maureen could have saved herself 750 words and boiled the whole riff down to one thrifty sentence. Something like: 'Judy's an imperious, lying bitch.'" Conservative Ed Morrissey singles out this line -- "Sorely in need of a tight editorial leash, Judy Miller was kept on no leash at all, and that has hurt this paper and its trust with readers" -- and replies: "Excuse me, but Maureen Dowd wrote this about Judy Miller? With Dowd's deliberate and chronic quote-mangling and irrelevancies, it hardly stretches the imagination that a reader could easily substitute Dowd for Miller in that sentence -- and probably improve its accuracy."

Also ending their silence on the matter is public editor Byron Calame, who writes that Miller's version of events, as written in the Times last weekend, "raises clear issues of trust and credibility." Among several problems with Miller he cites, one "troubling ethical issue that I haven't yet been able to nail down is whether Ms. Miller holds a government security clearance -- something that could restrict her ability to share with editors the information she gathers." The Next Hurrah has more questions that Calame didn't answer: "What was Judy's status in May through July 2003? She wasn't writing independently, not until after Keller was named executive editor on July 15. Why wasn't she writing? Was the newspaper already trying to stem its losses over Judy's reporting? Is that why she didn't write an article on Plame? And why did NYT release her to write on her own again?" Arianna Huffington: "I'm assuming that Judy Miller has written her last story for the New York Times. ... I'm assuming that neither [the Keller] memo -- nor Calame's critique -- will put this story to bed. Not by a long shot. I'm assuming, as I've been saying for months, that this ends up going all the way to Sulzberger." Late last p.m., Miller responded to Calame in a message posted on the public editor's site; previously, Keller posted a memo to the site, and Miller had responded to that as well. In the reply to Calame, Miller mentions Jill Abramson as the editor who disallowed her from writing about Plame, contrary her previous silence. FishbowlNY has a summary of Miller's rejoinder, in which she primarily denies various insinuations and charges. Conservative Decision '08: "The self-destruction of the NY Times is a thing of beauty to behold; in case you missed it, Bill Keller and Judy Miller are playing dueling accusations... if you're a conservative, head over for a laugh... a little good cheer may come in handy this week as Fitzgerald prepares to indict."

DELAY: The Walkin' Dude

Majikthise's Lindsay Beyerstein was present for Rep. DeLay's "perp walk" in Austin, and she posts a number of photos from the event.

Amanda Marcotte writes on being present outside the courthouse: "I mostly ended up hanging outside and gawking at the crowd, which was mostly media folks but there were a few goofballs hanging around for the sole purpose of mocking Tom DeLay. For obvious reasons, DeLay is not well-liked in Austin and these people were determined to get that message across to the media."

Charles Kuffner comments on DeLay atty Dick DeGuerin's incorrect claim that MoveOn, which presiding judge Bob Perkins has donated money to, was selling shirts with DeLay's mug shot on it: "I have to ask: Is DeGuerin always this profligate with the BS, or is this case somehow exceptional? I know that the PR was is at least as important as the courtroom battle, but outright falsehoods are usually a bad idea. Kudos to the Chron for linking directly to the response; usually, all one gets is a summary or a one-sentence quote."

IRAQ: Millennial Fever

At The Washington Note, liberal Steve Clemons calls attention to a New Yorker story by Jeffrey Goldberg, wherein ex-Bush 41 NSA Brent Scowcroft discusses the specifics of his disagreements with 43. Clemons posts excerpts. Among many stark comments, Scowcroft says: "I consider Cheney a good friend -- I've known him for thirty years. But Dick Cheney I don't know anymore."

At TPM Cafe, Matt Yglesias argues that Scowcroft and ex-Colin Powell aide Lawrence Wilkerson should have said these things earlier: "Everything they say could have been said 12-18 months ago when it would have made a difference for the future of the country. But that would have meant taking fire from the then-intact conservative attack machine, and gotten them labeled as bad party men." Daily Kos' Armando argues that Scowcroft actually did so, back in '02. At The Moderate Voice, center-left Michael Stickings writes: "Not that Matt's wrong, however. Republicans are known for their blind loyalty, but there isn't much left to which to be loyal -- and now the smart ones ... are abandoning ship."

Liberal Barbara O'Brien: "Before I forget -- we are about to reach the 2000 mark -- 2,000 U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq. We may have reached it already, but as I keyboard the most recent information says we're at 1,996, ten of which have not yet been confirmed by the Department of Defense. United for Peace and Justice and other organizations are calling for an antiwar action the day after the U.S. announces the 2,000th death. You can follow the link to see if anything is being organized near you." Angry Bear's Kash hopes "that this week's milestone helps inspire some reflection, some debate, some questions, and that it does not passed unmarked."

SPENDING: Still Being Talked About, A Bit

New Orleans Times-Picayune reports on PorkBusters, the Coburn Amendment, and mentions how late last week the movement briefly crossed over from being a conservative issue to enjoying the support of Daily Kos' Moulitsas (see 10/21 Blogometer for details on all). Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds is quoted in the story: "I'm one of the more cheerful people in the blogosphere because my expectations are low. I don't think Katrina is going to give us a 'Mr. Smith Goes to Washington' moment, but at least it's given a shot in the arm to Porkbusters and the Republican leadership has reversed itself."

Townhall.com's Tim Chapman reports that John McCain will address the Heritage Institute on 10/26 at an event titled "Can Lawmakers Reign in Federal Spending?" Chapman comments: "As the efforts of fiscal conservatives on the House side have taken off, McCain's anti-pork style has ingratiated him with movement fiscal conservatives who are looking for pols willing to fight the fiscal fight. In my estimation, Wednesday's speech at the Heritage Foundation is an effort by McCain to further solidify this budding relationship in advance of the 2008 Presidential primaries."

WILMA: After The Bam Bam, Will FL Be Reduced To Pebbles?

For coverage of Hurricane Wilma, your best bets are Brendan Loy's The Irish Trojan's Blog, and the blogs of Weather Underground's Jeff Masters and Steve Gregory.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Maybe EPIC 2014 Was Being Too Optimistic ...

At the right-leaning blog side of Truth Laid Bear, N.Z. Bear points out that while the Times boasted in a release that for the month of 9/05, their site "achieved record traffic of 21.3 million unique visitors worldwide, a 49% increase" over 9/04. But Bear points out, Daily Kos had 20.4M unique visitors during 9/04: "I don't know about you, but 'NYTimes.com: we're slightly more popular than that Kos guy!' doesn't strike me as a huge boast for a $3.3B media company." In the comments, Ambient Irony's Pixy Misa asks whether the Times' "visitors" is markedly different from "visits"; Bear doesn't think so.

LEST WE FORGET: How Bush Can Get His 2nd Term Agenda Back On Track

In a recent installment of his "Killer Fact!" series of posts, Chase me, ladies, I'm in the cavalry's Harry Hutton lists "history's top ten conquerors, in square miles"; Bush is listed at #10. Hutton: "If Bush invades Canada, as I believe he should, he will overtake Alexander the Great, but still be a Napoleon short of Genghis Khan."

Posted by at 01:31 PM

October 21, 2005

10/21: Live From Blog Row

House GOPers met 10/20 with conservative bloggers on Capitol Hill, the first event of its kind for the House caucus. It was the 2nd officially sanctioned GOP blog event since the '04 convo in NYC, following last week's RNC conf. call with Ken Mehlman (see 10/13 Blogometer). This event was both an attempt to make a connection with friendly bloggers, call attention to fiscal matters and, not least, make sure both the MSM and bloggers know that they're doing so.

The event was suggested in a GOP leadership cmte meeting last week, where different methods of blogger outreach was discussed. David All, spokesperson for Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA), suggested inviting bloggers to the event for a "radio row"-style event, which they dubbed "Blog Row." Logistics were handled by House GOP Conf. media coord. Kathryn Staczek, who worked with Office of the Maj. Leader spokesperson Ben Porritt, RNC eCommunications dir. Patrick Ruffini and others to make it happen. Asked whether the TTLB/Instapundit PorkBusters project (see previous coverage) directly inspired the event, Staczek tells the Blogometer: "Yes and no. We were aware of the growing attention the blogosphere was giving to fiscal issues, but equally aware it is difficult to get mainstream media to focus the same attention."

The Blogometer attended, along with Justin Hart of Right Side Redux, Ian Schwartz of The Political Teen, Matt Margolis of Blogs for Bush, Eric Pfeiffer of NRO's The Buzz, Matthew Sheffield of MRC's News Busters, Tim Chapman and Mary Katherine Ham of Townhall.com (representing the Capitol Report and C-Log blogs, respectively), Pat Cleary and David Kralik from lobby org. NAM, writing for their Manufacturers' Blog and also representing RedState, Kevin Aylward of Wizbang, and the presumably pseudonymous Flip of Suitably Flip.

After being assembled at the House GOP Conf. office at the Cannon HOB, the bloggers were led across the street to a room in the Capitol. Ethernet access, comfortable chairs and snacks were provided. At 11 a.m., Louie Gohmert (TX) presented himself as "the first victim." And on the issue of Harriet Miers, he somewhat was. A former TX judge himself, Gohmert expressed support for Miers' nod, but in slow, carefully-worded sentences, sticking to talking points about her character, leaving the impression that his support was less than enthusiastic.

The GOPers who followed: Mike Pence (IN), Deborah Pryce (OH), Kevin Brady (TX), David Dreier (CA), Mario Diaz-Balart (FL), Kingston, Phil Gingrey (GA), Steve Pearce (NM), Scott Garrett (NJ), Chris Chocola (IN), Trent Franks (AZ), Dan Lungren (CA), Mark Kennedy (MN), Marsha Blackburn (TN), Katherine Harris (FL), Chris Cannon (UT), Bob Inglis (SC), Joe Wilson (SC), Jeb Hensarling (TX), John Carter (TX), Mike Conaway (TX), and Eric Cantor (VA).

The agenda -- allow us to quote from the official release -- included the House GOP "record of successful economic policies, their commitment to fiscal responsibility, and the details of the historic proposed budget amendment." And indeed there was much talk of spending regarded as pork. PorkBusters itself was not mentioned until 1:03 p.m. -- after the planned ending point. (The meeting went 45 minutes over.) But the topic itself came up very early. Margolis asked, "Why did it take Katrina to make people aware of government pork?" The growth of gov't spending is an ever-present complaint of libertarians and economic conservatives, but if Katrina changed anything for the GOP, it has been renewed awareness of spending priorities. But there was considerable concern that awareness would not produce anything, and several reps. insisted they would see that something be changed. As chair of the GOP Study Cmte, which has seized the initiative on calling for more fiscal discipline from within the House, Pence said he was "encouraged but not satisfied." And what happened to Pres. Bush's Soc Sec plans, one blogger asked? It's "elective surgery," came the answer. During the meeting, word came down that the Coburn Amendment -- which would move funds from 2 AK bridges, including the so-called "bridge to nowhere" (see 10/20 Blogometer) to rebuild the main bridge across Ponchartrain in New Orleans -- was defeated on the Senate floor. Few reps. expressed enthusiasm about the project, spearheaded by Rep. Don Young (R-AK), who did not attend the blogger meeting. One said, "I don't know the rationale for building that project, but I am highly committed to" reducing spending.

When asked whether they read blogs or not, members generally indicated that discussion from blogs came to them in clips from staff along with traditional media reports. Harris declared herself an enthusiastic reader: "I love the bloggers!" She said sometimes she'll "just go on Google" and start clicking around. She also added that she doesn't just read the "good guys, I go read the crazies, too." Kennedy expressed his preference for Kennedy V. Machine, run by an avid supporter of his SEN bid back in MN. Pearce also said he keeps tabs on a local blog, that of NM journalist Joe Monahan; he also said he planned to do online town hall meetings (which sounded to us more like a live chat). Cannon said he did read blogs, but struggled to recall their names. Garrett volunteered: "I go both ways" -- pause for comic effect -- "Power Line and RedState." Blackburn mentioned her blogging at RedState (see 9/26 and 9/29 Blogometers). Chocola confessed: "I cannot say I am regular blog reader... of course I read you all every day." More than once a rep. told the bloggers assembled: "You guys are the future." Pence, who noted that the New York Times had recognized him as the 1st member of Congress to blog, announced without prompting: "I am delighted to be among fellow bloggers."

House GOP spokespersons said they plan to start sending "feeds" to bloggers -- not just talking points, but audio and video tape as well. To demonstrate the last point, they passed around a video iPod (drawing a few oohs and ahs) playing video from a recent presser featuring Speaker Denny Hastert. (We couldn't help poking around to see what kind of music was on the House GOP iPod. The answer: Music from "The Lion King," Michael/Janet Jackson's "Scream," Smash Mouth, Dave Matthews Band ... likely all preset music from Apple.)

Events such as these highlight the blurring lines of journalism. It was aimed at amateur bloggers, but they weren't the only ones invited: Pfeiffer from National Review, Ham and Chapman from Town Hall, which started as a collection of conservative opinion columns before expanding to include Chapman's Capitol Report and Ham's C-Log. But at least they're in media to begin with. The presence of Cleary and Kralik complicate things more. All bloggers come with an agenda. But of those present, only NAM came with clients. Just as interacting with blogs is an alternate way for politicians to reach constituents, so too is blogging an alternative method for interest groups to influence the political process. Just as the NRA has moved into online radio, these individuals and orgs. are just the first few through the gates. The old media universe has been declared dead time already, but it probably won't be time to affix the toe tag until their colleagues follow suit.

Whether intended or not, the nature of the event likely had a disarming affect on the bloggers present. Not just the procession of luminaries and the swank digs (with a great view down the Mall, as GOP handlers pointed out more than once), but also the parade of news cameras and MSM journalists who attended the middle stretch. Add to that, the caucus also filmed and photographed the event for its own purposes. While the interest in forging ties with amateur bloggers seemed genuine, it was also a rolling photo-op -- for the benefit of not just the MSM, but the blogosphere as well.

Most of the bloggers present live-blogged the event as it went on. While several made multiple entries throughout the day, we've provided just their 1st post each: Blogs for Bush, Manufacturers' Blog; RedState; C-Log; Capitol Report; Right Side Redux; The Buzz; Suitably Flip; The Political Teen; Wizbang.

SPENDING: Burning Bridges

On 10/20 a series of proposed amendments to the transportation bill, put forth by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), failed to gain much support in the Senate. But in the blogosphere, it had support from both the left and right. It's been awhile since an issue that both sides agreed on animated prominent bloggers of the left and right. Perhaps the last was when the FEC held hearings about whether to change campaign finance rules that would affect bloggers. What's also notable is that this debate has conservative bloggers criticizing GOPers, and liberal bloggers criticizing Dems, both over their unwillingness to change their spending priorities. Starting here, Andrew Roth at the Club for Growth live-blogged through the whole day; to get a sense of the twists and turns of the day, as well as lists of which sens. voted for different amendments of the bill, see Roth's posts from 10/20.

As we noted yesterday, on 10/19 RedState's Mike Krempasky called the bridge-related amendment "A Hill to Die On." Krempasky and fellow RedState board member Augustine were watching and blogging as the Senate went to vote 10/20, where Senate Commerce Cmte chair/ex-Appropriations chair Ted Stevens (R-AK) threatened to resign if the amendments went forward. They write, tag-teaming in stacked updates: "Ted Stevens is having a fit on the floor right now. ... Presumably, according to Ted Stevens and Lisa Murkowski [(R-AK)], these bridges are also capable of ending world hunger. ... If only politicians like Stevens were willing to defend things that actually mattered with such passion and gusto. But nooooo -- just don't touch his pork. Disgusting." Power Line's John Hinderaker goes after Stevens, too, writing, "And when Stevens talks about 'taking money from' Alaska, he means deciding not to spend $220 million to build a bridge for the benefit of 50 people. This statement, by a Republican Senator, is analogous to claims by liberals that when taxes are cut, the federal government is giving money to the rich." PoliPundit's Jayson Javitz suggests: "Tom Coburn For Senate Majority Leader." Instapundit posts a reader e-mail asking about the same possibility.

Lefty Markos Moulitsas, at Daily Kos: "Honestly, there's no reason for any Democrat to vote against this amendment." One of Coburn's amendments gained only 1 Dem vote. Kos grouses: "It's embarrassing that Feingold was the only Democrat voting for it. What a great way to show the country that Democrats are the party of fiscal responsibility." Dem Sens. Mary Landrieu (LA), Kent Conrad (ND) and Evan Bayh (IN) joined Feingold in supporting the bridge-specific amendment, but it too went down to defeat. More from Kos: "A $223 million bridge serving 50 people was more important to these people than rebuilding storm-battered New Orleans. Simply unconscionable. Those who voted against these amendments have zero credibility on issues of fiscal responsibility. Zero." In a previous post, Moulitsas cited RedState's "Hill to Die On" post, noting his agreement, "strange bedfellows and all."

Liberal MyDD's Scott Shields notes that all the '08 contenders but Feingold and Bayh voted against it, including John McCain, "who's built a career in the Senate slamming pork barrel spending." Conservative Alpha Patriot: "As the citizen outcry grows, somewhere in heaven Reagan is smiling. Get this started by writing your Senator. Now." Heritage's Mark Tapscott, on why the move is so unprecedented: "Members just don't challenge each other's pork barrel projects, no matter what. It's... just... not... done. You go along to get along. The Doctor from Oklahoma is the first to stand up and say 'No' to another Member's favored pork barrel." Radioblogger posts the transcript of Coburn's appearance on the Hugh Hewitt radio show, guest-hosted by ex-Defense Undersec. Jed Babbin.

MIDTERMS '06: Swinging From Neutral To Hackett?

The 10/19 Blogometer notes a "letter to the blogosphere" released by OH SEN candidate/Rep. Sherrod Brown (D), which calls attention to fundraising done by the blog he sponsors, Grow Ohio, on behalf of OH SEN candidate/ex-House special election nominee Paul Hackett (D) in Hackett's 8/05 surprise near-win. Now AP reports, Brown said: "The blogs were here for Hackett, and here for me ... Now, they're even and that was the only place he had any advantage before."

Dem netroots activist/Hackett supporter Bob Brigham writes in an e-mail he circulated to a BCC'd list of recipients: "The problem is, Sherrod has a handful of supporters and he thinks this means he has the support of their readers. But it doesn't work like that online, it is bottom up, not top down." He cites a recent Daily Kos poll where just shy of 2K voters prefer Hackett to Brown, 84% to 15%. Pro-Hackett Steve Gilliard responds: "Brown has been missing in action for months, and didn't have the balls to run when it was [GOP OH Sen. Mike] DeWine alone. He got cold feet." Pro-Brown Democracy Guy responds to Gilliard, and calls Hackett's rise the result of "blog payola": "If you think Hackett was some spontaneuous outgrowth of grassroots purity, you're dreaming." Separate from the above debate, conservative Gerry Daly cites the same AP story and comments: "I suspect Hackett, and his true believers, are in for a rather rude awakening."

Worth noting: Brigham co-blogs with Tim Tagaris at Swing State Project; Tagaris is also the lead blogger at Grow Ohio. The arguments made in this e-mail are not posted to the site; and SSP is currently being kept neutral. However, Tagaris announced in a post at Grow Ohio late last p.m. that he will be leaving the site in Nov. to work for the DNC. Along with coordinating DNC-netroots relations, Tagaris explains, "I will be working directly with state parties across the country to tap into local blogospheres and implement "best practices" while developing strategies for increased participation and teamwork between the two."

We couldn't reach Tagaris by deadline, but Brigham tells the Blogometer that he expects the DNC will keep Tagaris busy, and his SSP blogging will cease. Assuming that happens, the site will be left to Brigham and DavidNYC, who are both unambiguously pro-Hackett. So expect SSP to become a pro-Hackett blog in a few weeks' time.

Brigham also tells us that Hackett has hired ex-Dean'04 staffer/Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) manager Karl Frisch to be his comm. dir. (We talked to Frisch on 7/14 about Slaughter's "Send Karl Rove His Pink Slip!" blogad campaign.)

THE MIERS NOMINATION: Comma Comma Comma Comma Comma Machiavellian

Righty Patterico reads Miers' comments in a Washington Post to mean that Miers thinks "the Equal Protection Clause requires that members of protected classes be represented on legislative bodies in numbers corresponding to their proportion in the general population." He adds: "If that is indeed what she is saying, it is just stunningly wrong." He writes: "If you need me this morning, I'll be out on the window ledge. Because it is becoming clearer and clearer that we are headed towards the confirmation of a Supreme Court justice who has no idea what the Constitution says."

Conservative Michelle Malkin notes that even liberal U. Chicago law prof Cass Sunstein is "surprised and puzzled" that Miers wrote: "While I was an at-large member of the Dallas City Council, I dealt with issues that involved constitutional questions. For instance, when addressing a lawsuit under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the council had to be sure to comply with the proportional representation requirement of the Equal Protection Clause." Malkin: "As a non-elite, non-lawyer, non-Beltway pundit might put it: 'What the...?!?' If this bizarre gaffe is supposed to demonstrate Miers' sharp legal mind and painstaking attention to detail, God help us all."

Volokh Conspiracy's Jim Lindgren calls attention to this questionnaire response: "My experience on the City Council helps me understand the interplay between serving on a policy making board and serving as a judge. An example, of this distinction can be seen in a vote of the council to ban flag burning. The Council was free to state its policy position, we were against flag burning. The Supreme Court's role was to determine whether our Constitution allows such a ban. The City Council was anxious to encourage minority and women-owned businesses, but our processes had to conform to equal protection requirements, as well. My City Council service and working in economic development activities afforded me with special insight into the importance of a stable, respected, and fair judiciary in which the public can have confidence." Lindgren comments: "Reading this excerpt is depressing. ... Everyone makes mistakes in writing (I certainly do) and nobody is perfect. But in reading Miers' writing, I keep looking for a spark. Where is the good stuff? Where are the passages that show a bright, analytical mind -- or failing that, a basic competence in placing commas?"

Baseball Crank Dan McLaughlin, previously undecided on Miers, has now decided against. The questions he asked himself:

"A. Do I believe Miers would be a good Justice in terms of things like legal skill, proper attention to relevant detail, and understanding of the need for clarity?
B. Do I believe Miers would be acceptable to me as a conservative, in terms both of following an acceptable method of deciding cases and generally acceptable results?
C. How certain do I need to be of #1 and #2 to support the nominee?"

He concludes: "Miers simply does not meet the minimal standards for confirmation to the Court. And as a practicing lawyer who will have to live with the consequences of this nominee if she is confirmed, I can't support that, no matter what the judge's party affiliation or her presumed ideology. President Bush should withdraw this nomination. And if he doesn't, the Senate should vote NO." In an e-mail, he calls his conclusion the "view of one conservative Republican lawyer in private practice who has been skeptical but on the fence until now (which, hopefully, should satisfy Hugh Hewitt's request for an example of a private practitioner opposing confirmation of Miers)."

PLAMEGATE: On The Record

Murray Waas' latest report for National Journal on Judy Miller's role in the case states that she didn't mention the June '03 meetings with Cheney CoS Scooter Libby until shown WH logs recording her visits, and neither did Libby. JustOneMinute's Tom Maguire predicts: "Karl Rove's problems with the Matt Cooper phone call are trivial, and [special prosecutor Patrick] Fitzgerald will only hit Rove with that if he is desperate to charge Rove with something and is prepared to lose at trial. Libby, on the other hand, seems to have a serious disclosure problem." ReddHedd at Firedoglake adds: "Judy is on a very, very short leash. If Fitz finds out that she has lied about anything else, held back anything, tried to cover for anyone else's ass, she's toast."

Maguire has been keeping an eye on the indictment line at Tradesports, reporting in the same post above that on 10/20, "Rove is trading at a 52% chance of indictment; Libby is at 77%." (As of this a.m., Rove was up to 60%, Libby ticked upward to 78%.)

Liberal Yale law prof Jack Balkin writes at Balkinization, "just remember that the President always has the means to stop judicial proceedings of his closest political associates from going any further. He can simply pardon persons indicted for a crime, or even those who have not yet been indicted." More: "Some might argue that the President simply wouldn't dare; others will insist that he would be impeached if he tries it. But what the President is likely to do depends on the alternatives if he doesn't act, and remember, the Congress is controlled by members of his own party ... This president has a knack for self-preservation; and if the pardon power is the best alternative he has, you can be sure that he will use it."

Slate's Mickey Kaus objects to ABC's The Note endorsing the notion that the story here is not "about a leak" but rather "about how Bush pushed our country into a war." Kaus responds: "But this is a case about a leak! It's not about whether the Iraq war was justified or whether there were weapons of mass destruction or even whether Saddam tried to buy yellowcake in Niger. (Sorry, Arianna!) Cheney, Libby, Rove et al could have quite easily manipulated intelligence about Iraq and pushed the country into war without violating the U.S. Criminal Code. The point of a prosecution would be that they didn't." And although Dems "can refight Iraq anytime, and they should," The Note is telling Dems, "in classic, media-consultant fashion, that instead of basing their pitch on the reality of the case (the leak) they should base it on BS..."

Activist/blogger Michael Petrelis asks: "Where is Judy Miller's mug shot? I can't believe one of the world's most famous ex-prisoners, who supposedly went to the slammer for the public's right to know, is enjoying the pleasure of having done time and not having her must broadcast and printed, far and wide." Petrelis posts the text of his just-mailed FOIA request for Miller's mugshots.

DELAY: If A Conservative Is A Liberal Who's Been Mugged By Reality, What's A Conservative Who's Posed For A Mugshot?

Daily Kos: "Wow, great job by Republicans to make sure" ex-House Maj. Leader/Rep. Tom DeLay's "booking photo looked as little as possible like a booking photo, even if he does come off as the happiest accused felon in our nation's history." Power Line mocks Dems who "thought they had scored a coup when Tom DeLay was required to submit to fingerprinting and a mug shot" with the header "Curses, Foiled Again!"

Lefty Atrios posts a tower-shaped banner ad DeLay's campaign cmte has posted around the Internet. It's an animated GIF featuring Ronnie Earle, and asks: "Will it soon be a crime to be a conservative?" Atrios: "If the shoe fits."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Or Is It The End Of The Beginning?

At TPM Cafe, Reed Hundt criticizes a Wall Street Journal [sub. req.] report on how Bush's Soc/Sec plans fell apart. Argues Hundt: "First, she neglects huge role played by blogworld, which every moment eagle-eyed every distortion, misrepresentation, confusion, and unanswered question embedded in the White House campaign against defined benefits for retirees. Second, she fails to note that if the White House had proposed add-on private accounts coupled with a modest tax increase for the very rich they would have been able to sell a deal on the Hill. Third, and most important, this political failure has proved to be the beginning of the unravelling of the entire Second Term."

LEST WE FORGET: The Complete Idiot's Guide To Blogging For Dummies

IowaHawk is schooling newbie bloggers in his patented BloggoNetrix™ method for "how to blog good." His latest installment is geared toward helping them "build a personal reader base to secure [their] financial freedom." An excerpt:

"In today's go-go-go world, readers need their opinions now. They need them fast and to the point. Remember rule number one: do everything within your power to increase the economical verbal tersity of your posts, because what is increasingly certain in this increasingly time-strapped blog market in which we blog in, it is the growing situation in which John and/or Mary Q. BlogPublic will not stand for some endlessly meandering blog entry, all 'gussied up' in some flowery punctuation, blithering and yammering on and on and on and on, never -- or frequently seldom ever -- getting to the crux of the point that the blogger (or group blog, or web diarist, or whoever) is arguing in favor, or possibly against, of, which frequently creates a frustrating situation for those many, many readers who have increasingly decreased time to keep wading through a seemingly endless -- and often redundant -- yammering and blithering post by a blogger that keeps repeating himself and/or herself without her or him or them ever finally getting to the original objective point of their article, or post.

"To demonstrate the power of pith, let's look at the example of top blogger Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit. When he links to a story with his famous 'HEH,' readers instantly recognize that this is shorthand for 'here is a thing that somebody emailed me that sounded mildly amusing. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to resume ogling the hot coeds walking by my office window.'"

NOTES AND ERRATA: Sorry, We Were Distracted By A Beth Horton Orton Song ...

In the 10/19 Blogometer, we misspelled the name of Air America prod. Josh Orton. And on 10/20, we left an "e" out of Agonist blogger Sean-Paul Kelley's name. Anybody want to guess which one?

Posted by at 12:53 PM

October 20, 2005

10/20: The Vice Squad

The Plamegate rumor mill is churning overtime, with not one but two aides to VP Cheney said to have been flipped by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. But that's just the surface. An e-mail circulating among lefty bloggers contends that ex-Sec/State Colin Powell shoots the smoking gun linking Cheney to the whole affair. It is greeted with considerable skepticism, but also considerable interest.

Meanwhile, members of the House GOP meet today with conservative bloggers to discuss spending issues; in the wake of Katrina, a number of bloggers on the right organized to pressure Congress to cut spending. Is this a sign they've had an impact?

Plus, you'll be kicking yourself if you miss our latest Blogger Spotlight.

PLAMEGATE I: Hannah Storm

One day after reporting that Cheney aide John Hannah is cooperating with the Fitzgerald probe, Raw Story now reports that "those close to the investigation say" Cheney aide David Wurmser "has agreed to provide the prosecution with evidence that the leak" of CIA operative Valerie Plame's name "was a coordinated effort by Cheney's office to discredit" ex-Amb. Joe Wilson. Like Hannah, Wuermser came to the WH on loan from the State Dept., where they both worked for now-UN Amb. John Bolton. Wurmser "likely cooperated because he faced criminal charges." Raw Story's "sources say that Hannah and Wurmser were given orders by senior officials in Cheney's office in June 2003 to leak Plame's covert status and identity in an attempt to muzzle Wilson." Also of note, Hannah apparently "was not given immunity, but was likely offered a 'deal'" in exchange for testimony. Left in the West's Matt Singer: "Let's just look at it this way, two of Cheney's aides are cutting a deal and not for immunity either. That means they were in serious trouble. It also means that they have information worth letting them off the hook. This doesn't all add up to no story." Liberal Booman Tribune collects information on Wurmser and also on onetime Cheney spokesperson Cathie Martin, now an aide to Pres. Bush, and wife of FCC commis. Kevin Martin. Conservative Tom Maguire keeps an open mind -- especially because of the Bolton connection -- but adds: "My advice to excitable lefties -- take a breath. One might perfectly well headline a story screaming that [Cheney CoS Scooter] Libby and [WH dep. Cos Karl] Rove are cooperating with the investigation, since they have been."

PLAMEGATE II: Let's Be DeFrank About This

New York Daily News's Tom DeFrank reported 10/19 that Bush knew of Rove's involvement in the Plame matter 2 years ago, and that he "rebuked" him. Said a "presidential counselor": "He made his displeasure known to Karl. He made his life miserable about this." Right-leaning Bloggledygook: "Yes, but he didn't fire him, although he said publicly that he would fire anybody who had participated in the CIA leak." More: "Going after Joseph Wilson's credibility isn't against the law. Doing it by 'outing' Plame may or may not be illegal, but it certainly was stupid. And not very effective." In an entry at Huffington Post, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) gets Watergate-esque, asking: "When Was the President Told?" Conyers points out: "Yet, just last year on June 11, 2004, the President responded affirmatively when asked if he would 'fire anyone found to' have leaked the agent's name." Josh Marshall suggests the story is probably worth buying a) because DeFrank has been close to previous GOP admins, and so has "unique" access, and b) DeFrank's relationships to these GOPers may have become "more strained or perhaps attenuated" recently. AMERICAblog's John Aravosis lays out a res ipsa loquitor case all in the header: "Bush knew Rove was the leaker in 2003. Lied in 2004 when he said he didn't know who leaked. Obstruction of Justice." Conservative Say Anything calls it "just another rumor to add to the growing list surrounding the Plame investigation ... These are all interesting to talk about, but I wish Fitzgerald would wrap things up already."

CAP's Think Progress notes that in the televised 10/19 briefing, WH spokesperson Scott McClellan wouldn't reaffirm what sounded like an earlier denial at the non-televised gaggle earlier in the day. For a transcript of McClellan haggling with reporters over whether he disputed the Daily News story's accuracy, see Talking Points Memo.

In recent days, NRO's The Buzz had floated rumors going around that ex-RNC chair Ed Gillespie would be a possible replacement for Rove, should he be indicted. But now a source tells Buzzer Eric Pfeiffer that he won't be: "He made a financial sacrifice to run the RNC. The partners in his new contract made an exception to allow him to temporarily return to the White House to assist in the Miers nomination. But his contract won't allow him to remain ... Besides, he is anxious to get back to the private sector."

PLAMEGATE III: Believe It ... Or Not!

Liberal Agonist Sean-Paul Kelley writes about the email going around the liberal blogosphere that "supposedly came from Wall Street," detailing the extent to which Plamegate may result in "the biggest White House shakeup since the Iran-Contra scandal." It claims that Powell confided to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) his impression that Cheney is at the heart of the leak. Kelley: "I want to state that while I think the email is probably incorrect in most, if not all the particulars, it's general thrust is [eminently] 'plausible.'" Read on for the details.

Andrew Sullivan: "The rumors are now swirling. ... If that pans out, we could be about to hit Plamegate pay-dirt; and the Bush administration could be headed into a political Katrina. But this is still just Capitol Hill buzz; and my sourcing is still light."

Lefty Billmon calls it a "very detailed but almost certainly very fake e-mail," and writes: "The idea that Powell would spill his guts -- and his grand jury testimony -- to a loose cannon like John McCain is about as farfetched as the claim that Hillary murdered Foster and then stashed his body in a secret White House safe house." He adds: "And since all of us on the left -- even the animal lovers -- badly want to believe that the beast is down on its knees ... it's easy to see why the bogus tale is getting so much attention." And if Cheney is indicted: "Well, I guess that's when we'll find out if the dagger in the veep's back really does have the initials C.P. on it."

PLAMEGATE IV: The Leaks Continue ... And Other Minutiae

Last a.m., the New York Times concluded a story on the investigation: "Officials who testified or were questioned by investigators also included John Hannah, Mr. Cheney's principal deputy national security adviser." Tom Maguire: "Did they randomly mention this name from amongst multitudes of witnesses? Presumably not. Do they hint at *why* they mentioned this name? No."

Based on this morning's new AP report, Carpetbagger Report wonders: "Is Rove hanging Libby out to dry?" More: "(D)etails about Rove's latest grand jury testimony, which were probably leaked by his lawyers, seem to focus around the idea that Rove knew about Plame, but only because Libby talked to him about it. A desperate attempt to save Rove's butt and hang Libby out to dry?" John Cole writes: "If this story is true, things ARE going to get real ugly within the WH."

Greg at The Talent Show attempts to reconcile a report in National Journal by Murray Waas that Rove lied to Bush with this report, which suggests he lied to Fitzgerald and not Bush. "A single saved email along these lines and some fibbing by the President about what he knew and when he knew it could be all the rope Fitzgerald needs to hang Bush out to dry."

WMD INTEL: Cabal Cabal, How Could They Know?

On 10/19, ex-Powell aide Lawrence Wilkerson spoke at the New America Foundation, where he delivered a speech excoriating the WH's pre-war decision-making: "What I saw was a cabal between" Cheney and Defense Sec. Don Rumsfeld, "on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made." As the Financial Times reports, Wilkerson "said his decision to go public had led to a personal falling out" with Powell, though Wilkerson still said: "I admire this in him, he is the world's most loyal soldier." Most bloggers pick it up from the Financial Times, which also posted a transcript, via Drudge Report or Political Wire. Video is available from the New America Foundation. NAF's Steve Clemons, author of The Washington Note, promises readers: "It blows the roof off of the White House." Among the top-tier bloggers mentuioning it, Brad DeLong, Kevin Drum, and Josh Marshall all post excerpts without much comment -- so do many others below their threshhold. GWU prof Henry Farrell, at Crooked Timber: "I suspect we'll be seeing a lot more score-settling speeches like this as message discipline among former administration types breaks down irrevocably." Tim Dunlop, at The Road to Surfdom: "As much as I'm happy to see these high-level people coming out and calling a spade a spade in regard to the Bush administration, it would've been nice if they'd had the decency to spill the beans a couple of years back, back when it really mattered."

American Prospect's Laura Rozen writes at War and Piece: "Off and on the past couple months, I have been talking to staff" on the Senate Select Cmte on Intel (SSCI), GOPers and Dems, "trying to figure out what's really happened with the promised Phase II SSCI report, that was supposed to examine US government officials' use of the intelligence." She has learned that SSCI chair Pat Roberts (R-KS) "has literally been coordinating" with Senate Maj. Leader Bill Frist and Cheney's office "very closely on many aspects" of the cmte's "supposed investigation of the intelligence, and in particular, working closely with Cheney's office on crafting the language defining the terms for the as-yet unfinished Phase II report." Although it is "hardly is surprising that Cheney took a big interest" in the investigation, she notes, when "Congress is in cahoots with the administration in stifling oversight, who can investigate the investigators? Unfortunately, it's not in Fitzgerald's mandate."

SPENDING: Northern Exposure

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) has introduced an amendment to HR 3058 -- the heavily-criticized bill that allocated funds for the building of a bridge in AK -- and redirect said funds to rebuild the Twin Spans Bridge connecting New Orleans to Slidell. PDFs of the amendment and and Coburn's letter to colleagues are available via Instapundit. GOP activist Mike Krempasky, at RedState: "Make NO mistake -- the establishment Republicans are terrified of this bill. The chutzpah of the little people demanding an end to one of the most immoral acts of Congress -- earmarked pork spending -- has got some in quite the tizzy. Word is that some are trying to stop the Coburn Amendment from even reaching the floor for a vote." Power Line: "The Coburn Amendment may prove to be a historic rallying point for the forces of limited government and fiscal sanity. Then again, it may not. But it's a good place to start." Mark Tapscott titles his related post: "Mr. Smith is back in Washington, and his name is Tom Coburn."

The amendment comes at a particularly interesting time -- in the aftermath of the right-blogosphere's anti-pork uprising, the Porkbusters effort, created by Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds and The Truth Laid Bear's N.Z. Bear. It also comes as House GOPers prepare to meet today on Capitol Hill with conservative bloggers; because that meeting has been called specifically to discuss econ. issues and spending, the sense around the blogosphere is that it is a direct response to that effort.

Instapundit suggests: "Perhaps tomorrow at the big Capital blog event would be a good time to ask some questions?" Blogs For Bush's Matt Margolis, who is traveling down from Boston for the meeting, has been accepting questions from readers for him to ask at the meeting. TTLB has created a page that will track posts by bloggers attending the event. The Blogometer will be there, too; we'll post our coverage in this space tomorrow.

THE MIERS NOMINATION: A Second Chance (Or Is It A Third? We're Losing Track) For A First Impression

The major dirt relates to reports that the Senate Judiciary Cmte is asking Harriet Miers to resubmit her questionnaire because her responses "inadequate," "insufficient" and "insulting." PoliBlog's Steven Taylor quips: "Funny, that largely sums up my overall view of the Miers' nomination." James Joyner at Outside The Beltway points out, however that "These questionnaires are often fishing expeditions. Given that nominees have ... been instructed by the appointing administration to be as vague as possible, they are unlikely to elicit much in the way of useful." NRO's Jonathan Adler at Bench Memos adds that it should be "put in perspective. First, and perhaps most important, no nominee's questionnaire is complete and error-free. ... Second, it is likely that Senators (and others) are going over Miers's answers more critically than they reviewed [now Chief Justice] Roberts's answers. Of course the reason for this is that there are more questions about Miers's qualifications. No one doubted that John Roberts was qualified." Blogenlust writes: "At first, I thought it would be worth breaking up the GOP alliance for the Democrats to quietly oppose, but not block, Miers' nomination ... . But with each passing day, it's becoming obvious that this woman is not even close to being qualified for the job."

Hugh Hewitt responds to Judge Robert Bork's OpinionJournal op-ed (see 10/19 Blogometer) in a lengthy blog post -- cutting time out of his vacation to do so -- calling it "an intemperate essay, quite extraordinary and unpersuasive. But like most of the arrows being fired at Miers now, it was not intended to persuade anyone at all but rather to inflame the anti-Miers crowd into a great frenzy of head-nodding murmuring." More Hewitt: "I prefer the anti-Olympian Judge Bork, the one who would not be dismissive of careers as distinguished though non-judicial as Harriet Miers' or as contemptuous of her faith as the Wall Street Journal essay clearly is."

Weekly Standard's Jonathan Last writes at Galley Slaves: "Those who voted for George W. Bush were promised a mind like Scalia's for the Supreme Court. Instead, they've been given a mind like George W. Bush's."

Ann Althouse starts a list of reasons why some people might support the "embarrassing selection" of Miers. A brief rundown: "Some folks must just love Bush, the man. They're fans!"; "Some people think it serves the overall good of the country" to support the pres.; "Some people think it serves the good of their party to support the nominee" -- both GOP and Dem; "Maybe some people just don't think the Supreme Court matters very much and, when a slot opens, it can be filled with just about anybody"; "Some people think the Court matters a lot, but they want the conservative side de-fanged"; "Some people feel sympathetic toward Miers, the woman."

DELAY: Warrants Little Attention In The 'Sphere

DeLay-critical org. PCAF's Daily DeLay blog posts the image of ex-House Maj. Leader/Rep. Tom DeLay's arrest warrant. Swing State Project posts a "Wanted Poster" of its own.

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: The Passion Of The Crisis

Liberal magazine journalist Matt Yglesias: "Remember the Social Security crisis? Isn't it a bit, um, interesting that the president suddeny stopped thinking it was critical to do something about the program once it became clear that his preferred changes weren't going to be adopted? But let's leave Bush out of it -- he's got plenty of his own problems. What happened to all the media hecklers? You know the ones. The ones slamming the Democrats for "irresponsibly" refusing to negotiate with Bush unless he took privatization off the table. That was, supposedy, irresponsible because of the looming crisis. ... Funny how not only Bush, but huge swathes of the press, suddenly lose interest in this purported crisis if it can't be "solved" in a way that redistributes wealth upward. I'm just saying."

Slate's Mickey Kaus: "The essential mistake was thinking you could replace a centralized, dictatorial regime with a looser decentralized regime and not have old power centers rise up and sow mischief and chaos -- resulting in something close to civil war. ... But I've written enough about the New York Times under Bill Keller."

ABLE DANGER: Careful, They Might Just Hold You To That

Syndie columnist Michelle Malkin: "Watching C-SPAN right now. Rep. Curt Weldon [(R-PA)] is on the House floor blasting the Defense Intelligence Agency and vigorously defending Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer. He says he will resign from Congress if it refuses to investigate the government's smear tactics against Able Danger whistleblowers." Political Teen has audio.

Possible whistleblower Shaffer, says Weldon received boxes of his personal items in through the mail from DIA; he box contained classified documents, which is considered a felony. According to Weldon, the DIA has "'conducted a deliberate campaign of character assassination' against" Shaffer. Captain's Quarters asks: "How inept has the DIA been in its campaign against Shaffer? They have hung up his clearance over a series of offenses that go back to his teenage years, events that had to have already been reviewed for clearance renewals over and over again. ... If the DIA really has resorted to these tactics, then it only demonstrates even more that they fear Shaffer and the rest of the Able Danger revelations. What has them so afraid?"

MIDTERMS '06: Will Dean Face More Complaints Over DFA's Activities?

Democracy GuyTim Russo points out that OH SEN candidate Paul Hackett (D) has posted a message to the Democracy for America website asking readers "to only support candidates who" oppose the war and call for a "responsible exit plan." Russo asks: "Does that rule out Sherrod Brown?" He adds: "DFA is Howard Dean's operation, lock stock and barrell. His brother runs it. Dean himself is listed as "founder." Does that mean Howard Dean, the CHAIRMAN OF THE DNC, endorses Paul Hackett in a contested US Senate primary?"

REDISTRICTING: When You Work Out Where To Draw The Line ...

Charging RINOJeremy Dibbell posts a brief e-mail interview with moderate TN Dem Rep. John Tanner, the chief sponsor of a bill to reform the how CDs are "drawn by implementing an independent commission system in each state rather than the partisan processes we see in most states today." Tanner, on how the commis. would be chosen: "The commission would be appointed in a bipartisan way. A commissioner could not have been recently involved with a political party and could not run for Congressional office in the state until after the next redistricting cycle, 10 years later. There are other things we spell out, but that's the jist of it." From Dibbell's conclusion: "Obviously I wasn't out to trip him up, and I'm not going to disguise the fact that I am a strong proponent of the bill. I make no claims whatsoever of objectivity, but I certainly appreciate the Congressman's efforts and his willingness to share his views."

BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: Ann Is In The Althouse

Today the Blogometer talks to Univ. of WI-Madison law prof Ann Althouse, who writes Althouse.

What is your full name?

Ann Althouse. Well, Ann Adair Althouse, really. I never use that, somewhat to my regret.

What is your age?

Since I'm constantly revealing my age by remembering things from the Sixties, I'll admit to it: I'm 54.

Where did you grow up?

I was born in Wilmington, Delaware, and lived there until I was 13. Then, I lived in Wayne, New Jersey, until I went away to college (in Ann Arbor, Michigan).

Where do you live now?

I've lived in Madison, Wisconsin, since 1984, after ten years living in New York City.

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

I'm a professor at the University of Wisconsin Law School. I've never worked on a political campaign or in mainstream media.

When did you start blogging and why?

I started blogging on January 14, 2004, purely out of a desire for personal expression. I wanted to live freely in writing.

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

My favorite post is "Tattoos remind you of death."

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

I write several pages a day, usually 5 to 10 posts. I sit down with my newspaper and my laptop every morning and blog as I read the paper. I might have several other points in the day when I'm inspired to write something, and sometimes there's a special event, like the recent hearings on John Roberts, that I'll follow along in close to real time.

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

Political: Instapundit. Nonpolitical: About Last Night.

Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?

Christopher Hitchens

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

"Meet the Press"

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

New York Times, Washington Post, CNN.com, BBC.com.

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

Instapundit, About Last Night, Volokh Conspiracy, Metafilter, Throwing Things, Richard Lawrence Cohen, The Other Side of the Ocean, The Conglomerate, Kausfiles.

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

I have the paper NYT delivered to my house, and I read it every day.

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

I think we'll be less antagonistic. They will get used to being monitored and criticized, and we will come to terms with how much we rely on them for material.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Maybe Baker Is His Godfather?

Marshall Wittman suggests "that it may soon be consigliere time." ... "This is a time of crisis for a Bush. And who comes to the rescue when the family gets in trouble? James Addison Baker III, that's who. ... If stuff happens (in the immortal words of Rummy), whatever the direct role of the consigliere, expect that the hand of 41 will be at the rudder for the remainder of 43's term. It will be decided in Kennebunkport that the boy can't handle it -- he's in over his head."

LEST WE FORGET: The Powerball And The Glory

Lotto fever may have subsided, now that an as-yet unknown individual in OR won the Powerball jackpot of gazillion-dollars or so, but even the political blogosphere was not immune to its effects. A few of the dreamers:

Balloon Juice's John Cole makes a preemptory announcement to his readers: "If this is the last post ever at Balloon Juice, it is because I defied everything I ever learned in math and statistics courses and went ahead and bought some lottery tickets for the $300+ million powerball. So, if you never hear from me again, it is because I am on a beach somewhere in the Carribean, where my only worries are booking flights to my other beach house when hurricanes ... might come too close to my primary beach house. Oh -- and folks at the lottery commission -- I refuse to do any press conferences. I don't want criminals to know what my newly rich ass looks like." Later, he updates: "I didn't win. Press conferences remain a non-existent worry."

Liberteaser's Greg Newburn: "I blew it today, and failed to get tickets for tonight's $340 million powerball jackpot. Since I can't buy a ticket, I'll post the numbers I would have played. If they win, you can find me at my apartment. I'll be the guy with the shotgun in his hand, lying lifeless next to four hungry animals. Please feed them for me." (Newburn didn't win, either.)

NRO's Jonah Goldberg might need that shotgun: "Outrageous!!!! I did not win Powerball! Clearly the fix is in. The bad news is I've already spent half the money."

NOTES AND ERRATA

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

Posted by at 01:24 PM

October 19, 2005

10/19: Hannah And His Brothers

The blogosphere's in a holding pattern, at least topically: the CIA leak probe and Harriet Miers SCOTUS nod continue to dominate the landscape -- Especially the leak investigation. Anticipation is running high all around, from those on the left, who are eager enough for indictments that they've been studying the sentencing statutes, to those on the right, who just want the whole thing over with.

In today's edition, we also bring you the latest installment in our occasional series on political blog ads, "Political Money Blog."

And for those of you keeping score at home, today we retire our "Rove-Plame-Miller-Libby" slug. It's been good to us, just as "Rove-Plame-Miller" did for awhile, not to mention "Rove-Plame" before that, and very early on, simply "Rove." Instead we go back to the old standby, "Plamegate." Which is probably what we should have stuck with in the first place.

PLAMEGATE I: Bear Bryant Would Be So Disappointed

Lefty news site Raw Story reported last p.m., "Individuals familiar with" special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's case say ex-aide to now-UN Amb. John Bolton at State/VP Cheney dep. CoS John Hannah "was told in recent weeks that he could face imminent indictment for his role in leaking [Valerie] Plame-Wilson's name to reporters unless he cooperated with the investigation. Others close to the probe say that if Hannah is cooperating with the special prosecutor then he was likely going to be charged as a co-conspirator and may have cut a deal." More: "Hannah's involvement will not come as a surprise. Wilson pointed to Hannah as a possible leaker" in his book, naming him along with fellow VP office official David Wurmser. As of 7:00 a.m. EST, Drudge Report had nothing on the Hannah story. Left-leaning War and Piece posts an excerpt from DC's insider Nelson Report, saying the "hot gossip" is that Fitzgerald "may have sent" a target letter to Hannah. "According to sources which have been right from time to time, Hannah has told associates he has been forced to cut a deal, and that they think this includes testifying against" Libby. Josh Marshall, who also posts this excerpt, comments: " "A number of well-placed sources are now saying this. But there are logistical and inter-personal mysteries raised by Hannah's claimed cooperation that still make the whole picture appear murky to me."

Hannah's a big deal all right, such that when we last checked, "John Hannah" was the #1 search on Technorati. "Cheney" is in the top 10, and various Plamegate words (Rove, Miller) have been on the list throughout the week.

And even a few conservative bloggers are taking notice: JustOneMinute locates and summarizes a 12/15/03 Newsweek report that Hannah "was a conduit for intel from Ahmed Chalabi and the INC." He adds: "But so was Judy Miller! Might he be a source about whom Judy did not want to be questioned? ... One presumes that the possible connections between Hannah and Miller are endless." Righty Ace of Spades HQ: "I don't know enough about them, and their vague sourcing gives pause, but they weave a pretty good tale on how Hannah would tie in with" Miller's "curious" jail visitor, Bolton.

PLAMEGATE II: The '08 Switch?

One of the biggest stories on 10/18 p.m. was the U.S. News-floated rumor that Cheney would resign and Pres. Bush would appoint Sec/State Condoleezza Rice to VP. Via Radioblogger, U.S. News' Paul Bedard appeared on Hugh Hewitt's talk show with guest host/ex-Defense Undersec. Jed Babbin, where Bedard conceded there's "probably not a lot to it." Bloggers don, but more than a few are willing to weigh the consequences:

From the left -- Rook's Rant is one of the credulous few: "Ok, someone hit me with a bat. Seriously. ... Despite all the resulting pain and physical damage it would still be more pleasurable then having to think of Condi as Vice President. Honestly, could she even survive the 'who could have imagined' line about 9/11 being brought up in questioning during the Senate confirmation hearing?" Shakespeare's Sister: "The funny thing is that I've been predicting for a long time that Cheney would resign during the second term so they could set up Condi for an '08 run, but I always thought the excuse would be his literal bad heart, not his figurative one." Steve Gilliard: "Rice is an empty suit, and people keep wanting to push her, mainly because she's black and Republican. Promoting her would be like letting Donna Brazile run another campaign." Bow-tied Michael Froomkin: "My only contribution to this fest is this: Rather than ask, 'Will Cheney resign if indicted,' far better to ask, 'Will Cheney resign if named as an unindicted co-conspirator.'" Liberal MyDD: "This would make every Republican blogger's dream come true."

From the right -- The Political Teen: "Two things: (1) Just about everyone in DC has been affiliated with this now infamous garbage we call a 'leak.' Liberals need to pick and choose their arguments; they also need to pick and choose the people they smear. (2) Cheney is not stepping down. Bush needs Cheney and Cheney needs Bush." Professor Bainbridge, who is semi-credulous: "In which case, she becomes the frontrunner for 2008. Wouldn't that be the proverbial kick in the head? ... Anyway, while I admire the Secretary, she's too much of a Bushite on foreign policy and too liberal on social issues for my taste, but your mileage may vary. And I remain open to persuasion." Outside the Beltway: "Well, gee whiz. ... This thing has dragged on for years now and it seems that all we have is two senior White House advisors telling reporters that Joe Wilson got the job because his wife, a CIA officer, suggested he be hired. And for that we'll have a political shakeup of a level not seen since Watergate? I don't think so."

PLAMEGATE III: Keep The Salt Handy

Even without an Espionage Act indictment, liberal atty Jeralyn Merritt points out that sentences could be very steep: "I would guess anyone indicted in this case is looking at a minimum of hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees. Many will be tempted to cut their losses now, particularly if they can plead to a misdemeanor, rather risk a felony conviction and mortgage their families' future. ... This is the week that all of the subjects facing Indictment will be faced with their "come to Jesus" moment. Spouses will be telling them to cut their losses and think of the family. ... My experience tells me that only those who truly believe they are innocent -- and those whom Fitzgerald advises are looking at felonies and jail time even with a deal -- will hold out." On 10/7, lefty Velvet Revolution had looked at the statutes, and concluded life in prison would be possible for some.

Liberal film producer Jane Hamsher reports on the leaking of Libby's curious "aspens are turning" letter to Miller -- encouraging her to testify, but as many suspect, possibly also coaching her testimony -- which Fitzgerald "had in fact asked not to see," and so Libby probably "wrote his saccharine prose thinking that Fitzgerald would never lay eyes on it." But who leaked it? Hamsher had thought the Times had done so, "since the letters demonstrate that she did, in fact, seek a waiver from Libby, contrary" to what Libby atty Tate was saying. But now, "a source" at the Times confirms to her that the letter, and a couple related ones, "did in fact come to them via an outside leak. According to the person who wishes to remain anonymous, the documents were in circulation and available to 'journalists working on the story' as early" as 9/29, the day of Miller's release from jail. She writes: "Who leaked the letters? Nobody who knows is telling." But one plausible theory is that "when Bennett received Libby's letter he realized he had a hot potato in his lap. If he didn't turn it over to Fitzgerald, his client might be looking at serious obstruction charges if it was ever discovered."

Conservative Mark Kilmer writes, the Washington Post reports that Fitzgerald "has assembled evidence that suggests Cheney's long-standing tensions with the CIA contributed to the unmasking of operative Valerie Plame." Writes Kilmer: "This contradicts Joe Wilson's assertion that it was all about him," but it suggests Cheney had Libby "leak the name of a CIA desk-jockey to enact revenge against an agency for which he didn't care." However, considering that Libby got her specific job wrong, he likely "did not know that Plame was classified." He concludes: "I almost feel bad for these folks. Someone give them a decent scandal."

A contributor to liberal TPM Cafe writes: "I don't have access to Lexis-Nexis, but someone or ones with access should start compiling all the 1998 quotes from conservatives arguing that perjury is a high crime -- and why." Publius at lefty Legal Fiction thinks this is a mistake: "The problem, though, is that Republicans can play that game too. They will pull out quotes from Democrats from the same time period saying that perjury isn't that bad. ... The point being that Democrats are hypocrites. ... Under the hypothetical above, I think the Republicans get it wrong both times. And the reason is context. Perjury -- like all things -- must be viewed in context." The Debate Link adds: "It's the whole 'which is worse, lying about sex or selling weapons to terrorists in Nicaragua' point. ... We should not tolerate attempts to equate the two."

Following a round-up of the latest speculation, The Moderate Voice offers a "CAUTIONARY NOTE TO READERS: The reality is, no one knows a THING until the Special Prosecutor announces his intentions. The worlds of journalism and blogs are littered with logical-sounding predictions and worst/best case scenarios that never happened."

Considering the fiasco this whole thing has been, Wizbang's Kevin Aylward suggests: "Perhaps it's time to look seriously at changing the Presidency to a single 6 year term. You have to go all the way back to the Eisenhower administration to find a two term Presidency that didn't go to hell ... in the final years of their second term. Sure we'd have to live with future Jimmy Carters for a couple extra years, but it might be a gamble worth taking..."

PLAMEGATE IV: It's Beginning To Look A Lot Like Fitzmas ...

Via Memeorandum, we see that a particular Daily Kos diary has attracted some comment from the right. The post, "Dealing With Fitzmas," is positively exuberant at the possibility of indictments: "Doesn't it feel like the hap-happiest time of the year?? And...and...don't 'cha just feel like you're going to exploooooooooooode?" At The Corner, Byron York points out that the Christmastime theme has been raised at Daily Kos before. Conservative Balloon Juice: "I am now beginning to worry that absent indictments in the Plame affair, our friends on the left are going to do bodily damage to themselves our of rage/agony." Later at the same blog, non-Brat Packer Andy McCarthy jokees: "I knew Pat Fitzgerald before he was a holiday, so hopefully I'm safe. If not, I'll just stay in The Bronx -- Krugman and Kristof will never come for me there!"

However, New York Times reports that not only will Fitzgerald not make an announcement re: whether to indict this week -- there will be no final report. The Left Coaster: "That is an all-or-nothing proposition that frankly has me concerned, given this late date just before the conclusion of this grand jury. Yet the Times correctly points out that even a special prosecutor is limited in what he or she can release publicly if it is the result of secret grand jury deliberations ... The down side of course, as the Times also noted, is that we may never know the full story of the Administration's misbehavior."

THE MIERS NOMINATION: Good Thing For Her This Isn't A Popularity Concert

RedState's Erick Erickson reports: "'We are not in denial. Miers is going to be confirmed,' a White House contact told me. The emphasis in the voice and on 'not' were the emphasis of one who has to believe it true, whether or not it is. ... Privately, some Republican senators are thinking this may just be the time to go on the offensive against the White House. One Senate aide tells me the White House acts like it is in a bunker, oblivious to the reality going on outside. ... Perhaps once Fitzgerald hands down his indictments, should there be any, the staff can regroup and reassess. Right now there is a growing sense among low level staff and others outside the White House that the wheels are starting to slip from the axle of the Miers bandwagon."

As Washington Post's Campaign for the Court relays the AP report about a newly-surfaced '89 TXans United for Life questionnaire where Miers states her support for anti-abortion legis. Ex-Bush speechwriter David Frum, a leader of the anti-Miers conservatives, is troubled that some conservatives -- Hugh Hewitt, a leader of the pro-Miers conservatives, among them -- count this as an argument in her favor: "To the extent that the proponents of the Miers nomination offer any case at all for their nominee, they argue that her religion and her personal views on abortion be treated as relevant information, indeed as decisive information. But if this information is relevant to all judges. In other words, the example of this nomination invites senators" of both the Dem and GOP persuasion "to quiz every Catholic nominee, every Evangelical nominee about their faith and their personal views of morality." Centrist Dinocrat: "That seems to us the worst of all possible worlds: for conservatives, it says nothing about whether she would overturn Roe as a judicial matter; for the Left, it provides an absolutely valid and legitimate opening to question" that she cannot avoid. Right Wing-er John Hawkins: "Note that Souter, who was also a stealth nominee, had a CONSIDERABLY more reassuring resume than Harriet Miers does." On the other hand, there's this from Althouse: "[O]ne of the questions was: 'If Congress passes a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution that would prohibit abortion except when it was necessary to prohibit the death of the mother, would you actively support its ratification by the Texas Legislature?' She answered yes. That shows more than a personal view about abortion. She supported ending the right to abortion. "

Judge/ex-SCOTUS nominee/original Borkee Robert Bork is getting some attention from the right for his Wall Street Journal op-ed on the Miers nod: "With a single stroke ... the president has damaged the prospects for reform of a left-leaning and imperialistic Supreme Court, taken the heart out of a rising generation of constitutional scholars, and widened the fissures within the conservative movement." Ed Morrissey calls it a "scathing denunciation" of Bush's SCOTUS approach, "arguing that Bush could hardly have damaged the conservative movement more with the Miers nomination than if he intended to do so -- and Bork more than implies that Bush may well have had just that in mind." Houston's Clear Thinkers, which agrees with Bork, snarks: "But Mr. Bork, what do you really think about the Miers nomination?"

REPUBLICANS: Infight Club

New York Times reported on 10/18, conservative econ. analyst Bruce Bartlett was "dismissed" from the Dallas-based Nat'l Center for Policy Analysis after the center's dir. received a manuscript of Bartlett's forthcoming book, "The Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy." Fellow excommunicated conservative Andrew Sullivan: "I cannot say I'm surprised. Bruce Bartlett is an actual fiscal conservative. ... If I were him, I'd be delighted to be fired for dissent. It's good publicity for his book; and a sign of his integrity. Memo to Bruce: get a blog." Conservative Greg Ransom: "Funny, the NCPA has yet to take down Bartlett's bio page, which still lists him as a 'Senior Fellow.' Bartlett is one of the best in the business, and it would be poetic justice if folks responded to this action by ordering a copy of Bruce's book."

Liberal Matt Yglesias points out that Bush's still-falling poll numbers are from ever-more-dissatisfied Dems and indies, not conservatives, as has been suggested. He adds: "Not only is the rank-and-file still loyal to Bush, but dare I say that the pundits who matter are. Fox News and the talk radio hosts with big audiences are still in his corner. ... If Rupert Murdoch decides to turn on the GOP leadership someday, then that would spell huge trouble for them, but there's no indication that's happening." NYC conservative Karol Sheinin doesn't believe a "conservative crack-up" is in the making, explaining: "Bush haters make people like me Bush lovers. While we have our problems with the man, the unserious left makes sure that we are constantly on the defensive about him. A Republican will say 'I don't like the Miers pick' or 'I think his spending has gotten completely out of hand.' A Bush-hater will reply 'yeah, that's what you get for voting for that idiot chimp, who went to war to profit his Halliburton buddies and take away our Democracy'. So, of course Republicans start defending him against these idiotic attacks and disregard the fact that there is so much they dislike about the Bush presidency."

POLITICAL MONEY BLOG: What Sherrod's Department Has In Store

The latest installment in our long-dormant series covering political blogads:

All-but-announced OH SEN candidate/Rep. Sherrod Brown (D) has bought a series of blogads on a dozen-plus left-leaning blogs, including Eschaton, MyDD and TAPPED. The ad links back to Brown's official non-House site, where he has posted "Open Letter to the Blogosphere". In the letter, Brown lists a number of recent accomplishments by cong. Dems, such as: "We have stopped and probably killed Social Security privatization." Toward the end of the letter: "I will officially kick off my campaign for the United States Senate" sometime before the end of 11/05."

The letter also calls attention to the activist blog he sponsors, Grow Ohio, which provided assistance to ex-House special election candidate Paul Hackett (D-OH). Hackett is now Brown's primary opponent. (For previous coverage on the liberal blogs' split between the 2 candidates, see the 10/6 and 10/7 Blogometers. Once the bloggers supporting/working for the 2 candidates made their decisions, no one has spoken much about it.)

Brown's blogads went up on 10/16; the spot will stay in circulation for approx. 4 weeks. As yet, they don't have an estimate of how much the buy will cost, as the list of blogs being advertised -- where rates run from 100s to 1000s of dollars -- continues to grow. According to Brown spokesperson Joanna Kuebler, blog ads and the blogosphere in general "will be a substantive part of the overall communication's strategy."

For previous installments of this series, see here, here, here and here.

VIRGINIA GOVERNOR: So What If He's Happy?

Lefty Pam Spaulding calls out Dem Tim Kaine's campaign for alleged gay-baiting in its latest radio ad, which calls GOPer Jerry Kilgore "too weak to lead" VA, and includes the line: "Jerry Kilgore is not being straight." Spaulding: "The Kaine campaign in my mind is crossing the line. If you have some factual information about Kilgore being a gay hypocrite and not just a homo-bigot with a sissy-boy voice, then out the guy. If you want to just point-blank ask the man if he's gay, do it. Don't do bush-league crap like this. ... Also, what about openly gay candidates that run? Is it OK for an opponent to run ads saying someone is 'weak' if they are effeminate? What about dyke-baiting? Is that OK to do if you're a purportedly pro-gay Dem?"

MIDTERMS '06: Behind Enemy Lines

As Swing State Project points out, Air America producer Josh Orton has created a Fighting Dems page to promote Iraq war vets running for Congress, including OH SEN candidate Paul Hackett, plus House candidates David Ashe (VA), Bryan Lentz (PA) and Patrick Murphy (PA). For coverage of Murphy's appearance at the 1st annual convo of Eschatonians, see the 9/9 Blogometer.

IRAQ: Saddam On The Docket

Power Line's John Hinderaker asked last a.m.: "Is it just me, or has there been astonishingly little interest in the trial of Saddam Hussein, which is scheduled to start tomorrow?" This a.m. when the trial opened, the news nets and bloggers both gave it a fair amount of coverage: In The Bullpen: "Whew. The trial of Saddam Hussein started today and from reports I've read, it was a real doozey. He actually plead 'not guilty' and then court was adjourned until November." Blogs for Bush's Matt Margolis: "I caught some of the coverage of Saddam Hussein's trial this morning... And I began wondering if Saddam Hussein is going to be the next Mumia for the radical left." Michelle Malkin points readers toward MRC's NewsBusters for a "good rundown of Saddam-friendly coverage from the networks." NewsBusters header: "ABC Gives Saddam Hussein Balanced Coverage, Cite Worries He'll Not Get Fair Trial."

DELAY: Big Boxed In?

The Wal-Mart Watch blog points out that Wal-Mart cut a check to ex-House Maj. Leader/Rep. Tom DeLay's cong. cmte in late Sept., around the same time he was indicted by Earle. According to the Wal-Mart PAC's "monthly filing, the transaction with DeLay occurred" on 9/23, but according to Delay's filing, the "check was received" on 9/30 -- after his 9/28 indictment. They ask: "When did Wal-Mart write their check to 'the Hammer'? When did the 'exchange' occur? Did the world's largest corporation have any qualms about funding criminal politicians?"

THE MARCH OF BLOGS: Everybody's Talking

Marshall's Talking Points Memo underwent a redesign last night: at "just shy of five years old... this is either the third or fourth major redesign of the site, this time to put "more real estate on the page" and "incorporate more of what's going on over" at the community site Marshall debuted in early '05, TPMCafe. More changes are on the way, including a TPM Cafe re-design. Just for kicks, he throws in a link to what the Talking Points Memo looked like in late '00.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: No Fair! She Can't Even Respond In Public

In his just-posted Pajamas Media profile, Aussie journalist Tim Blair, by way of a dig on New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, explains the overlooked strengths of blogging: "People wrongly think the benefit of writing online is that you have infinite room to go on, but the true benefit of not being locked into a word count per page is that the writing can be as brief as you can make it. A lot of mainstream journalists could benefit from that. Maureen Dowd, for instance, whose columns I think run to about 850 words, could easily pare her columns down to ten, fifteen or even five words, and that includes the byline."

LEST WE FORGET: Brief Interviews With Hideous Men

Protein Wisdom's Jeff Goldstein is given to brief conversations with the inanimate objects that populate his life, such as his Cherry Coke, sometimes even with horribly deformed historical figures/movie characters, among other recurring series. One of his latest:

"a short conversation with my fourth double martini"

me: 'Man, could I go for some Supertramp right now.'
fourth double martini:
me: 'Or some Styx...'
fourth double martini:
me:
fourth double martini:
me: '... 'Oh Mama I'm in fear for my life from the long arm of the law --''
fourth double martini: '-- Uh huh. Time to go to bed, brother.'

Don't miss the follow-up: "a short conversation with my hangover"

Posted by at 12:34 PM

October 18, 2005

10/18: The Usual Suspicions

Questions of the Day: What did VP Cheney know and when did he know it? What did Cheney CoS Scooter Libby not know about Valerie Plame and why didn't he know it? What did SCOTUS nominee Harriet Miers say about Griswold v. Connecticut and how did she say it? What do we make of Pres. Bush's latest poll numbers, and which way are they going next? What did the Wall Street Journal accomplish with its OU bombing story, and why did they do it? What's up with the Iraq vote totals, and what's going to come of it? Why did prosecutor Ronnie Earle try to cut a deal with Tom DeLay, and will that hurt the case? Which ex-blogger is coming under fire in KY gov't, and what did the Herald-Leader write about him? Plus, who's the subject of our latest Blogger Spotlight, and does he seriously read that many blogs?

CHENEY: Spiro Cheney?

Washington Post's Jim VandeHei and Walter Pincus report this a.m., special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald "has zeroed in on the role of ... Cheney's office" in the CIA leak investigation, specifically on "what Cheney may have known about the effort to push back against" ex-Amb./Iraq war critic Joe Wilson. New York Daily News has a similar report.

The lefty blogs are all over it: DC think tanker Steve Clemons: "Who cares at this point where Libby got the information. He was discussing a CIA agent with members of the press. Karl Rove did the same -- exactly the same. ... It is inconceivable that their respective bosses were not aware all along. Or did they construct some byzantine system of plausible deniability? If so, then that is worse because it implies Presidential awareness of their misbehavior and recklessly illegal acts." Ex-Washington Monthly journalist Josh Marshall notes, the piece contains "a lot of information about" ex-Cheney spokesperson Jennifer Millerwise, who spoke to investigators in '03, but not the grand jury. She now works at the CIA. He adds: "What it means I do not know. But, in articles like these, threads like those are usually meant to be pulled." Then again, Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum writes, the Post report "turns out to have no actual new information about Cheney being a target ... In fact, it quotes a former Cheney aide saying that "it is 'implausible' that Cheney himself was involved in the leaking of Plame's name because he rarely, if ever, involved himself in press strategy." Daily News reports -- as Raw Story reported they would report -- that a source who has been questioned by Fitzgerald says there is a "senior cooperating witness -- - someone who is giving them" inside info. Blogenlust makes a guess: "I predict it's Ari Fleischer. He's facing serious charges, is no longer in the administration, and by some accounts, wasn't and isn't apart of the inner circle of Bush loyalists." Whiskey Bar's Billmon compares the report to the "swarm of microquakes jostled the Cascade foothills" of Mt. St. Helens in the spring of '80. Header at Firedoglake, above a picture of Cheney: "Going Doooooooowwwwnnnnn......"

Meanwhile, the report has so far received scant attention from conservatives -- JustOneMinute mentions it, but at the bottom of a related post, without much commentary. Instead he focuses on the likelihood of indictments for Rove and Libby, and mocks the Post's Howard Kurtz who, "apparently seriously, tells us that passion in the Judy Miller debacle leak case is fueled by the war in Iraq. Do tell."

ROVE-PLAME-MILLER-LIBBY: Was Judy Miller A Secret Agent, Too?

Ex-GOPer Marshall Wittmann, on what happens if Rove is indicted: "If he indicts, nothing else will matter to the GOP smear team than sullying the reputation of the special counsel. Hopefully, he has no unpaid parking tickets, has never jaywalked or removed a label from a mattress. If he has committed these misdeeds, we will see them advertised as a screaming headline on Drudge. They will do a 'South Carolina' number on Fitzgerald."

In a 10/16 letter to the Poynter Institute's Romenesko forum, ex-CBS corr. Bill Lynch writes: "There is one enormous journalism scandal hidden" in Miller's 10/16 piece on the first person article about the (perhaps lesser) CIA leak scandal. And that is Ms. Miller's revelation that she was granted a DoD security clearance while embedded with the WMD search team in Iraq in 2003. This is as close as one can get to government licensing of journalists and the New York Times (if it knew) should never have allowed her to become so compromised. In a report late 10/17, NBC's Jim Miklaszewski reports, CIA, DIA and Pentagon officials "say they have no idea what" Miller was talking about. Conservative Sisyphean Musings doesn't see where the scandal is: "Does Lynch equate Miller's "terms of her accreditation to report" to "a DoD security clearance"? Is there a difference in the deals journalists make to gain access to information, or be embedded with a military unit, and a DoD security clearance? Why does Lynch assume Miller was given a DoD security clearance?"

AP reports, though Libby told Miller that Plame worked for WINPAC -- but it turns out that Libby was mistaken. Center-right Bloggledygook considers the implications: "The thinking, I guess, is that if there was this misinformation that Plame wasn't covert, then Libby would be off the hook." On the other hand: "I'm still inclined toward the more obvious conclusion. Miller is a hack that hasn't gotten anything right in years." Poli sci prof Steven Taylor: "What struck me most about the entire story was this line: 'It is unclear how the discrepancy might affect the investigation. 'That should be the slogan for this entire affair..."

Needlenose writes, an "unfortunate side effect" of the "two-year echo chamber of minutiae being debated and pieced together in endless combinations -- is that some guesswork has been prematurely (or wrongly, IMO) elevated to the status of accepted universal wisdom." One, per an '03 Daily Kos diary, held that the "six journalists" reportedly tipped by the WH to the "identity and occupation of Wilson's wife." On account of Fitzgerald's investigation, those 6 were assumed to be Miller, Pincus, Bob Novak, Tim Russert, Matt Cooper, Glenn Kessler. But maybe not: "In fact, Libby and Rove appear to have only originated leaks to one reporter apiece," Miller and Cooper. "Not coincidentally, these were the two whose testimony was subjected to the most protracted legal wrangling, as Rove and Libby declined to provide the same personal waivers of confidentiality that Libby had given to Kessler, Pincus, and Russert."

Conservative Matt Murphy at Brothers Judd, on the AP story titled "Karl Rove's Garage Proves to Be Typical": "Betcha didn't know that the AP and The Onion have merged operations."

THE MIERS NOMINATION: No Word On Her Stance In The Landmark Case Of Griswold V. Wally World

The quickly retracted 10/17 revelation from Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) that Miers had said she agreed with the SCOTUS's Griswold v. Connecticut decision -- a precedent upon which Roe v. Wade is based -- caused plenty of heartburn on the right while it was out there. Counting this report along with the fact that TX judges brought by the WH to DC to support Miers couldn't vouch for her conservative credentials, Captain's Quarters summarized the relaunch of her nod in this header: "Miers 2.0: Same Bugs, Less Features." Confirm Them's Andrew Hyman writes that he had been able to "keep an open mind" up to this point, but "no longer": "The issue, of course, is not whether contraceptives should be legal or not. Of course they should be. The issue is who has the power under our Constitution to make that decision." In the '6 Griswold decision, the SCOTUS "announced that the decision was theirs to make, and ever since then the Court has been using that decision as a wedge, to pry its way into making all kinds of decisions for the American people, even decisions that have accorded rights to groups of citizens at the expense of others." But then, Washington Post's Campaign for the Court relates, Specter's office later "rescinded" this characterization. Libertarian Bill Quick, considering Specter's later statement that he'd misunderstood her, and a new CNN-Gallup poll showing 36% of Americans want her to withdraw: "Yeah. He misunderstood that he owes his re-election and position as Chair of the Judiciary committee to GWB. I wonder what Bush will do when more than half of Americans want Miers to hang it up?"

Liberal Casey Morris at Democracy Cell Project: "Yesterday, was the unveiling, and yesterday their efforts to manipulate the media fell as flat as their efforts to manipulate the media did last week. Meet the new Harriet Miers. The same as the old Harriet Miers."

Libertarian-leaning Univ. of TN prof/Instapundit Glenn Reynolds writes in an op-ed for the sub. req. Wall Street Journal: "The tendency in recent years to nominate judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court has led to a certain amount of politicking and positioning by appellate judges who think they have a shot. That's bad, but surely it would be far worse if future White House counsels started letting hopes of a court nomination distort advice they offer the president."

Contra recent assertions that Miers has made it known she would overturn Roe v. Wade, AP reports, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said "Miers told him she had not shared her views" on the decision with anyone. Daily Kos: "Okay, what kind of person, especially one working in politics, goes her entire life without sharing her opinion on Roe or abortion? ... That's just simply bizarre."

Law prof Ann Althouse on speculation that participants from James Dobson's 10/3 conf. call could be subpoenaed: "It's one thing to grill Miers about the Roe v. Wade. ... It's quite another thing to make the [conf. call] the object of an intense investigation, with the participants subpoenaed and expected to hold up to grilling -- under oath -- about what was said. It seems to me that the decision to do that would be tantamount to an open demand that the nomination be withdrawn."

Last week, ex-Bush speechwriter David Frum posted an online petition for conservatives opposing the Miers nod (see 10/13 Blogometer). As of late this a.m., 4,466 have signed up.

BUSH: Gotta Get Himself Connected, The Writing's On The Wall ...

Conservative PoliPundit writes, although "anyone could have predicted the opposition to Miers" from the right, Bush and "his team underestimated the level of conservative opposition they would face." It's not a matter of ideology -- Bush's "heart is in the right place. Only a true conservative would quixotically try to reform Social Security, as the president did earlier this year. But he needs a better liaison with the conservative base. He needs to get back in touch with us and understand our concerns. Right now, he seems to be living in a cocoon where the First Lady's choice of Supreme Court nominee counts more than that of the entire conservative movement. That must change."

Liberal Chris Bowers posts the latest Bush fav/unfav polls, most of which show him hovering around 38% approval; Fox News/Opinion Dynamics has him at 40%. Bowers comments: "I believe all six of these are record lows. You know Bush is really in trouble when Fox and Gallup aren't propping him up anymore. And forget the 40% floor--the new goal is 60% disapproval." Matthew Gross: "It just isn't fair. How are we lefty bloggers supposed to keep finding clever new ways to say that Bush has tanked, or gone through the floor, when he is tanking and plummeting and going into the basement with such alacrity?" Conservative Don Surber spins it around back the other way, asking, "how happy can Bush be with the nation? What a bunch of whiners. Some of you liberals still haven't gotten over the 2000 election. Here's your ball, you crybaby losers. Take it and go home. ... And what about some of you conservatives flying off the handle on Harriet Miers? Suddenly you cannot trust the president? Suddenly, you favor ideological litmus tests?"

DELAY: Backfiring Results In Firing Back?

Conservative Coldheardedtruth comments on the report that Travis Co. DA Earle offered a deal to ex-House Maj. Leader/Rep. DeLay so he could avoid indictment: "The only deal offered was for DeLay to accept a misdemeanor, not conspiracy ... and the deal was turned down, not accepted. This also would 'suggest' that the DeLay hand is a bit stronger than perhaps we even thought, and that the indictment may have been forced by the supposed threat associated with the original deal. Once a deal was offered that suggested charges if DeLay didn't agree, Earle was more/less obligated to come up with something or look like a fool." Righty Matthew Hoy, on Earle's revelation that he "doesn't have the smoking gun list of candidates and money amounts that are at the heart of his indictment": "Earle makes the Keystone Kops look like CSI: Texas."

Austin-based liberal Amanda Marcotte: "I'm not holding out a lot of hope that this will end in justice. ... [T]hey've apparently been blanketing our airwaves with anti-Earle commercials in an attempt to get a jury that tosses out the case because they think it's a partisan witch hunt and people don't like those, even if the target is an odious a person as Tom DeLay."

Power Line's John Hinderaker posts reproductions DeLay atty Dick DeGuerin's latest filings, which seek to have the indictments quashed/dismissed. A sample, as highlighted by Media Lies: "You were wrong about the law and the facts. The first indictment charged a conspiracy to violate the Election Code, yet no such crime existed in 2002. The Election Code covers all election-related offenses, yet you have wrongly charged a Penal Code violation. The Election Code would place venue in Tom DeLay's home county, Fort Bend, yet you contrived to bring the indictment in Travis County." Hinderaker observes: "The judge who will hear DeLay's motions is a MoveOn.org supporter. But Ronnie Earle will have to come up with some answers if he wants to keep his prosecution of Tom DeLay alive."

IRAQ: Consider The Vote Rocked

As the New York Times reports, questions are being raised about the legitimacy of the Iraqi vote in some provinces, where the yes-votes are as high as 99%. Radical centrist Andrew Sullivan is somewhat concerned: "These voting numbers are eerily close to the days of Saddam. You might expect overwhelming majorities in favor of the new charter in Shiite and Kurdish provinces, but this still looks fishy. Again: we need to wait to see the full vote count before we can say anything more." Liberal News Hog is as well, but adds: "Somehow though, I am singularly unsurprised by this. ... The Iraqi power-players have proven adept students of the Bush/DeLay method of government after all - right the way down to their ability to steal their own country blind whilst in positions of power." At NRO's The Corner, John Podhoretz writes, although concerned by the "lurid quality of the Times's pessimism on Iraq," he is encouraged "that Iraqis themselves are taking seriously the possibility of vote fraud. The Times is not responsible for the discovery of the suspiciously high vote totals..." Right-leaning Balloon Juice: "Looks like the Daley family has been responsible for the voter education process in Iraq."

Ron K at The Next Hurrah reports, at a 10/11 fundraiser for Rep. Jim McDermott's (D-WA) Legal Expense Trust in Seattle, ex-House Min. Leader Dick Gephardt (D-MO) said of his support for the Iraq war: "It was a mistake ... I was wrong." And: "We never comprehended the complexity of the undertaking. I didn't. None of us did." Asked about troop withdrawal, he said: "Until very recently, I thought we would pull out in time for the 2006 elections. Now it doesn't look like we will." Gephardt praised Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE), but said of otherwise: "I've lost all faith in the integrity of Moderate Republicans. ... Why are they so pathetically weak that they can't stand up to him [DeLay]? Does he have them hypnotized? ... Is he holding their children hostage? ... I don't get it! Democrats in power would not -- and could not -- exercise that kind of discipline."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Just Say No

Conservative bloggers aren't done yet with the Wall Street Journal's take (see 10/17 Blogometer) on the bombing suicide of OU student Joel Hinrichs, which they suspect may have been an act of terrorism gone wrong, but which the WSJ reported as a case of blogger speculation gone astray. Last p.m., Michelle Malkin recounts her interaction with reporter Joe Hagan: "Several times, Hagan asked leading questions about the blogosphere's 'conspiracy theories' regarding Joel Hinrichs. Several times, I stated clearly that I did not subscribe to any conspiracy theories--and that most of the blogs covering the story didn't either." More: "There are a few folks out there who are absolutely convinced that Hinrichs was part of an organized terrorist plot. I made crystal-clear to Hagan I was not one of them. I don't know what the truth is. ... What I stressed to Hagan was that several freelance Islamists have committed acts of violence in the U.S. -- the LAX El Al Muslim gunman Hesham Hadayet, for example, and the Beltway snipers--and the MSM has done a lousy job of exploring their Islamist influences." She adds a lot more, with links to other bloggers covering the OU case and the WSJ's report. While the original story never gained traction in the liberal blogosphere, lefty blogger/non-News Corp exec Roger Ailes has been ridiculing the conservative bloggers for pursuing the story, as he does here and again most recently here.

In a diary for RedState, Nick Danger, on AP stories and ex-Pres. Carter son/NV SEN candidate Jack Carter (D): "Whether any particular story makes it into your local newspaper is a local decision made by local editors. Watch this, courtesy of Google News" -- a 10/16 AP story headlined "Carter's Son Aims Barbs at Bush" was picked up by 43 papers, whereas 10/14's "Carter admits past drug use led to Navy discharge" was picked up by just 2, including the Las Vegas Sun.

In a direct challenge to the Blogometer, New York Times has compiled a list of quotes from blogs about the Miller case (we're kidding about that first clause). Media blogger Jeff Jarvis comments: "This is a good step. The Times is now linking out to those linking in; the Washington Post has been doing likewise with Technorati help. That finally starts to get papers into the conversation, including conversations critical of them." He adds, "the next step in this trend in linking should be to link to the stories a paper is not covering. That is the real value of the connected world."

NEW JERSEY GOVERNOR: What's This, Political Payback In Jersey? Well, Now We've Seen Everything!

PoliticsNJ editors write at the Inside Edge: "Insiders are wondering whether" Bergen Co. Dem chair Joseph Ferriero will take "revenge" on NJ GOV candidate/Sen. Jon Corzine (D) "by keeping his army of field workers on the sidelines between now and Election Day." (Corzine had backed a successful candidate Ferriero opposed in a state Senate race.) Writes Edge, "A Bergen source now report"s that Bergen Dem volunteers "are being instructed to make phone calls only on behalf" of 2 local Dem incumbents -- "Corzine's name has apparently been cut from the script."

THE MARCH OF BLOGS: Hmmm... The Circumstances Of The 1st Graf Don't Bode Well For The Subject Of The 2nd ...

Lexington Herald-Leader reports, the admin. of Gov. Ernie Fletcher (R-KY) "has scrapped plans for a new office that would have looked for political bias in merit job recommendations, to be led by a partisan Republican who attacked Democrats on his personal Web site." The Herald-Leader describes the site as mixing "lengthy essays about his favorite fantasy novels and science-fiction movies ('If I were a character in The Lord of the Rings, I would be Legolas, Elf, a son of the King of Mirkwood.') with caustic attacks on Democrats, feminists, environmentalists, anti-war protesters and others he referred to as 'lefties' or 'chicoms,' which is short for Chinese Communists." That GOPer turns out to be C. Dodd Harris IV -- better known in the blogosphere as Ipse Dixit. As noted in the Blogometer on 7/6, Harris shut down the blog and removed his archives, writing: "it's time for me to retire. I don't particularly want to, but it seems I pretty much have to. I'd very much like to explain why here but, unfortunately, I cannot. My friends are welcome to email and I will explain in private. Perhaps some of you can even help. Suffice it to say that there have been some ... not-so-nice ... articles about blogs in the papers lately and I do not wish to be used in anyone's campaign of personal destruction. Given the current climate, I am seriously starting to believe that anonymity may be the only way to blog about politics." The Herald-Leader 1st reported pn Harris' former site on 10/15: "Personnel Secretary Erwin Roberts knew that Harris had published a Web log, or blog, Aragon said last night. But she said Roberts never read the blog and was unaware that Harris regularly praised Republicans, jeered Democrats and published his opinions on the evils of gun control, taxes and government."

On 10/15, Pandagon founder Jesse Taylor announced his immediate departure from the blog, on account of becoming online comm. dir. for the OH GOV campaign of Ted Strickland (D). In doing so, he turns over the blog to co-blogger Marcotte and new guest-blogger Jedmunds. Taylor had previously shared blogging duties with Ezra Klein, who left to establish the wonkier Ezra Klein -- and more recently, began contributing to The American Prospect's TAPPED. During the '04 Dem convo, Taylor and Klein were included in the New York Times Magazine's report [sub. req.] on political blogging; one of the relevant paragraphs is available at the blog of Daniel Drezner. Signing off, Taylor writes: "I've enjoyed the past three-plus years here, but it's time for a new challenge, and it's also time for me to take on a more serious challenge than daily ranting."

BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: Drum Line

Today the Blogometer talks to liberal Kevin Drum, who currently blogs for the Washington Monthly's Political Animal, and first drew a following at Calpundit.

What is your full name?

Kevin Dale Drum. The middle name comes from my father, who was named Dale because he was born shortly after his parents saw the Douglas Fairbanks production of Robin Hood.

What is your age?

46

Where did you grow up?

Garden Grove, California

Where do you live now?

Irvine, California

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

Currently, I'm a full-time blogger for the Washington Monthly. Before that, I was VP of Marketing for a software company in Irvine. I've never worked on a political campaign and I've never worked for the mainstream media -- though, ironically, I did major in journalism in college.

When did you start blogging and why?

I started blogging in August 2002. I discovered blogs via links from Kausfiles and started a blog almost immediately. It was like it was the medium I'd been waiting for all my life.

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

My favorite story has been the Bush National Guard story. It was a lot of fun, and I did some original reporting that moved the story forward, even if, in the end, nothing ever panned out. (And probably never will, thanks to Dan Rather and Mary Mapes.)

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

Since I'm on the West Coast, I start blogging immediately in the morning and usually keep going until about noon. I blog intermittently during the afternoon, and then again for a couple of hours between 9-11 p.m. I generally write half a dozen posts a day.

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

At the risk of swelling his young head, I guess my favorite political blogger is Matt Yglesias. He provides both quantity and quality, a winning combination.

Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?

Jon Chait

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

I don't watch much TV news, though I've long had a sort of a guilty fascination with Capitol Gang. Aside from that, the only political show I watch is the Daily Show.

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

Lots of 'em. I think most bloggers take way too little advantage of the fact that they can now read accounts of the same event on half a dozen sites in only a few minutes. My regular reads include the LA Times, New York Times, Washington Post, The Guardian, The Telegraph, CNN, Wall Street Journal, Knight Ridder, BBC, National Review, The New Republic, Weekly Standard, Mother Jones, Slate, The Nation, and probably a few others I'm forgetting.

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

I have over a hundred blogs that I read regularly. My daily reads include: Instapundit, Eschaton, Talking Points Memo, TPM Cafe, TalkLeft, Tapped, Mark Kleiman, Dan Drezner, Chris Mooney, Shakespeare's Sister, Outside the Beltway, OxBlog, MaxSpeak, Informed Comment, Brad DeLong, Crooked Timber, Matt Yglesias, Daily Howler, Asymmetrical Information, New Donkey, Body and Soul, Brad Plumer, Joanne Jacobs, Crooks and Liars, Daily Kos, Ezra Klein, Hullabaloo, AmericaBlog, Kausfiles, Marc Cooper, Matt Welch, MoJo Blog, Majikthise, Professor Bainbridge, Volokh Conspiracy, Chris Nolan, Obsidian Wings, Abu Aardvark, Andrew Sullivan, Suburban Guerrilla, Andrew Tobias, Brendan Nyhan, Bull Moose, Carpetbagger Report, Pacific Views, CJR Daily, Democracy Arsenal, Liberals Against Terrorism, Marginal Revolution, Pandagon, The Corner, Laura Rozen, The Sideshow, Belgravia Dispatch, Angry Bear, Begging to Differ, Fafblog, Just One Minute, The Oil Drum, Legal Fiction, Uncertain Principles, Unfogged, Unqualified Offerings, Ann Althouse, Julie Saltman.

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

I read the LA Times every morning before I begin blogging, just like I have for the past three decades. I love the internet, but you can still get a lot from reading a real newspaper cover to cover.

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

Amateur blogs will always be around. It's too much fun and the barriers to entry are too low. However, just as large corporations dominate the web, I suspect that major news/entertainment organizations will dominate the blogosphere five years from now. The fact is, the world of mainstream journalism is full to bursting with writers who are way better than almost anyone currently working in the blogosphere, and the only reason they aren't blogging today is because there's not enough money in it. Once there is, and mainstream organizations loosen up enough to allow them to write without editors, they'll take over.

Of course, it might turn out that there's never any money in blogging. If that's the case, then the blogosphere will remain an amateur affair.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Is Credit Due?

In an interview with Evan Thomas, as reported by Wonkette, John McCain said: "Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan would fight all day and then he'd come down and it'd be two Irishmen telling corny jokes over drinks... We need more of that today." Liberal blogger Terry McMahon compares this to a line in David Gergen's "Eyewitness to Power": "Reagan and Tip O'Neill scrapped like tigers during the day, but after 5:00 P.M., they were two Irishmen topping each other with jokes." He asks: "Fighting during the day? 'Two Irishmen'? Telling 'jokes'? Did McCain (or Wonkette) plagiarize? Am I crazy ... or is this a Neil Kinnock moment?"

Meanwhile, lefty activist Michael Petrelis notes similarities between a '99 book about the Sulzberger family, "The Trust," and a 6/04 Franklin Foer New York story. Petrelis compares passages, summarizing: "I don't see an exact match here, but it certainly seems Foer got some of his information from "The Trust," cribbed the gist of the Miller-related page in the book, slightly reworked sentences written by Tifft and Jones on drinking at Duke Zeibert's and Pinch and Judy sharing a summer house in Maryland. At minimum, Foer should have given due credit to the reporting in "The Trust" and I'm curious why editors and fact-checkers at New York magazine didn't insist Foer acknowledge" it.

LEST WE FORGET: What's This About Owls?

Taxprof Blog's Paul Caron calls attention to a paper on the NBER website (PDF) which illustrates -- what he calls -- "The Hooters Effect." From the abstract: "This study develops theory and uses a door-to-door fundraising field experiment to explore the economics of charity. ... Interestingly, we find that a one standard deviation increase in female solicitor physical attractiveness is similar to that of the lottery incentive." Ace from Ace of Spades HQ is shocked, shocked: "Another million-dollar study finds that cute chicks get less speeding tickets than smelly dudes wearing Queensryche t-shirts and Spock ears. (Believe me, I know whereof I speak.)"

Posted by at 12:35 PM

October 17, 2005

10/17: All The News That's Fit To Hint

Undoubtedly the most-read and most-discussed news articles from this weekend are the New York Times' twin pieces on reporter Judy Miller's involvement in the long-running CIA leak investigation into the possibly illegal disclosure of CIA official Valerie Plame's name: "The Miller Case: A Notebook, a Cause, a Jail Cell and a Deal" by Don Van Natta, Adam Liptak and Clifford Levy, and "My Four Hours Testifying in the Federal Grand Jury Room" by Miller herself. The 1st is full of admissions of questionable decisions on the Times' part, and most seem to find it honest, if incomplete. Miller's account, however, is widely questioned, even ridiculed. Meanwhile, others focus on the probability of indictments for various admin. officials, including VP Cheney.

The 2nd-most discussed story this weekend was the Iraqi constitutional referendum. Violence was less than expected, turnout was high as predicted, and as most believed would be the case, it appears the constitution has been approved. On the whole, conservative bloggers are pleased, whereas some liberals find reason to be skeptical that much good will come of it.

Meanwhile, Pres. Bush's much-derided teleconf. interview with troops in Iraq remains timely, as one of the soldiers involved defends how it was conducted, while another participating troop is revealed to be a PR officer.

These events seem to have crowded out debate about WH counsel/SCOTUS nominee Harriet Miers, but as the Bush admin. retools its approach to selling her nod, it shouldn't be crowded out much longer.

MILLER: Flame On

Among many passages being viewed skeptically, there is this from Miller's account: "On one page of my interview notes, for example, I wrote the name 'Valerie Flame.' Yet, as I told" special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, "I simply could not recall where that came from, when I wrote it or why the name was misspelled." Many in the blogosphere conclude that this person could only have been Cheney CoS Scooter Libby, as the same notebook was used to record her conversations with him.

At Seeing the Forest, liberal Dave Johnson writes of Miller couching her statements with phrases like "may have" and "could not recall": "This is a person being evasive to a grand jury, and providing cover stories for a person she obviously knows committed a crime. She is committing the crime of obstructing justice, but has been carefully coached on how to avoid indictment herself." Arianna Huffington:, on Miller being unable to recall who gave her the name "Valerie Flame": "This is as believable as Woodward and Bernstein not recalling who Deep Throat was. It also means that Judy went to jail to protect a source she can't recall." Josh Marshall points out that, in a Washington Post follow-up, onetime Miller atty Floyd Abrams comes "pretty close to calling Miller a liar, twice." In the Post story, Abrams "declined to endorse Miller's account that Libby did not want her to testify unless she was going to exonerate him," and also cast doubt on Miller's assertion that she didn't hear "Flame" from Libby. Marshall notes, at the very least Abrams "is taking it upon himself to contradict her account publicly.

In addition to the "Flame" notation, Miller's notes also refer to her as "Victoria Wilson." As JustOneMinute's conservative Tom Maguire notes, on 10/05/03, Duncan "Atrios" Black complained: "Someone really needs to tell the people at Newsweek that her name is Valerie. [Reporter Michael] Isikoff just called her Vickie. Do they know something we don't?" At the time, Isikoff was appearing on CNN's "Reliable Sources." Maguire adds: "Did these reporters share one droll source, did they gossip with each other, did they have Group Brainfreeze, or what? And if Miller is lying to her own diary, why not pick a code name, like 'Diana Smith'?"

In the same post linked above, Huffington also points out apparent discrepancies between the Times' account -- From the Times: "Philip Taubman ... asked Ms. Miller and other Times reporters whether they were among the six. Ms. Miller denied it." Huffington wonders if Miller misled the Times: "If she denied it falsely, is there any journalistic institution in the United States that would keep on a reporter who is dishonest to her editors?" -- Huffington also notes that when interviewed by the Times, Miller said "she made a strong recommendation that a story be pursued on [Plame husband] Joe Wilson, but that her editor rejected it. Problem is, Miller refuses to identify the editor. [Then-DC bureau chief] Jill Abramson ... says it was not her. So who was it? And why is Miller refusing to supply the name of the editor? ... What journalistic rules is she abiding by?"

Mickey Kaus asks, "Did Judy's lawyer scam the special prosecutor?" Per the Times, Miller atty Bennett, having reviewed Miller's notes, "assured Mr. Fitzgerald that Ms. Miller had only one meaningful source. Mr. Fitzgerald agreed to limit his questions to Mr. Libby and the Wilson matter." Kaus argues, "But a key question is who told Miller the name 'Valerie Plame' ... Miller says she's not sure it was Libby. Therefore ... she might well have had another very 'meaningful' source..." Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher makes a similar argument, except she thinks Miller was "punking" Bennett"; Hamsher contends that Miller was "engaged in screwing over everyone she ever touched in this walking disaster."

At the all-Miller-all-the-time Huffington Post, ex-KE'04 aide Ari Melber comments on how Miller "agreed to deliberately deceive her readers by describing [Libby] as a 'former Hill staffer,'" pointing out, "This misleading sourcing violates the New York Times official guidelines, a key fact the Times article ignored." He adds, it also helped "advance the White House's smear campaign" against Wilson. Going the opposite direction, NRO's Andy McCarthy argues: "It is not a crime in the United States for political partisans to join together in a plan to discredit their political adversaries. It is something that is done everyday."

TalkLeft's "For anyone who still thinks she is going to be indicted, please understand that her lawyers would have carefully vetted this article before they allowed her to send it in to the Times. If Miller was in jeopardy from Fitzgerald, there would have been no article."

BUSH ADMIN: Nervous Yet?

Maguire assesses Fitzgerald's case: "Fitzgerald will have a hard time getting [WH dep. CoS] Karl Rove for perjury/obstruction on his Matt Cooper testimony, but he is almost certainly weighing charges of mishandling classified information." He puts Rove's likelihood of indictment at 50%. Libby's primary vulnerability seems to be perjury and obstruction of justice for his failure to disclose his June 23 conversation with Judy Miller," as well as "mishandling of classified information. Probability of indictment -- 70%."

A Bloomberg report this a.m. suggests that Cheney may also be a target in the probe, and that Wilson and Plame may sue Bush/Cheney and others "for the alleged harm done to Plame's career." Liberal CAP's Judd Legum notes that this would confirm what ABC's George Stephanopolous floated earlier this month, that Bush and Cheney "were actually involved in some of these discussions" about Plame/Wilson (see 10/3 Blogometer). A Rathergate, conservative Mark Kilmer writes, the Bloomberg reporter "concedes that while Fitzgerald might not seek to indict the Veep, he can write nasty things about him in a report. It sounds to me as if the Bloomberg reporter decided that Fitzgerald was talking to a lot of people who knew Dick Cheney and decided that wouldn't it be kewl of Cheney were a subject of the probe?"

Liberal econ prof Brad DeLong writes, "If Cheney and Bush had been taking care that the laws be faithfully executed, they would have told Libby to turn himself in more than two years ago. They didn't."

NEW YORK TIMES: Pinch In A Pinch?

While the Times claims Miller "cooperated," the report itself notes that Miller "generally would not discuss her interactions with editors, elaborate on the written account of her grand jury testimony or allow reporters to review her notes." NYU's Jay Rosen wrote to Times spokesperson Catherine Mathis asking for a clarification; she replied: "While Judy put limits on what she would discuss, the fact that she did sit for interviews and wrote her own account of her testimony certainly represents cooperation." Rosen comments: "I guarantee you Times journalists did not see her 'limits' as reasonable or as cooperation."

Decision '08's Mark Coffey writes, publisher Arthur Sulzberger "appears to ride roughshod over Gail Collins... perhaps I should start ridiculing him more often for the horrible editorial page of the Times."

Kaus notices that Frank Rich's column on Miller and Plamegate was not restricted to TimesSelect readers. He quotes Just One Minute's Maguire writing: "Maybe TimesSelect is only for the unimportant pieces." Kaus asks in a separate post: "Isn't this a major blow against testimonial immunity for reporters, in practice?" He writes: "The message sent to every prosecutor in the country is 'Don't believe journalists who say they will never testify. A bit of hard time and they just might find a reason to change their minds. Judy Miller did.' ... More journalists will now go to jail, quite possibly, than if Miller had just cut a deal right away, before taking her stand on 'principle.'"

BUSH: Stage Two

Sgt. Ron Long, one of the soldiers interviewed by Bush in his controversial teleconf. with troops, writes at his blog, They Call Us, "Doc". He strongly objects to the notion that the event was "staged": "First of all, we were told that we would be speaking with" the POTUS, "so I believe that it would have been totally irresponsible for us NOT to prepare some ideas, facts or comments that we wanted to share with the President. ... We had an idea as to who we thought should answer what types of questions, unless President Bush called on one of us specifically." Conservative Don Surber adds: "That's it. A couple of NCOs and the like get to meet the Man himself. They try not to muck it up. And the press goes to town with this as a 'staged' event." The Moderate Voice's Joe Gandelman comments: "The only problem is: the White House had told reporters it would be freewheeling with no screening. That's WHY this story was done."

Village Voice's Bush Beat reports that another of the soldiers in the teleconf., Master Sgt. Corine Lombardo, "was actually a flack herself, though she didn't reveal it during the regime's 24-minute infomercial." An image is provided, partially captioned: "Arrow denotes flack." Liberal MediaCitizen quotes from other MSM reporting on Iraq, pointing out that "she hasn't always been identified in her role." He adds: "Lombardo's job is to make the handover to Iraqi forces look good." In a later post, he calls attention to 1st Lt. Gregg Murphy, whose "pro-Bush rhetoric is sprinkled throughout the media in articles dating back to 2003. This begs the question: how could one soldier get so much face time?"

Liberal ex-journalist Joe Scott recounts Bush's recent string PR missteps, going back to Katrina, adding, "presidents often begin to self-destruct in their fifth year. Bush's unwavering reliance on a tiny inner circle of loyalists has put him in harm's way."

In what might have been an amusing but otherwise unnoteworthy event, a 10/14 "Today" show segment featuring NBC reporter Michelle Kosinski in a canoe in Wayne, NJ, which has experienced flooding on account of last week's heavy rains. Except the water was only about 6 inches deep, as was made clear when 2 men walked past the camera. MRC's News Busters hosts video, with an explanation tying it to the Bush teleconf. According to TV Newser, Kosinski and her prod. "told higher-ups that the water wasn't deep -- but that fact was apparently irrelevant" More TV Newser: Remember 'think big'? 'Today' staffers are being pushed to come up with 'stunts' to pump the program's ratings. Let's start to keep track of these stunts...

IRAQ: A History Of Violence

Andrew Sullivan cites the quotation of an Iraqi man in the New York Times: "I voted then, for Saddam, of course, because I was afraid ... But this time, I came here by my own choice. I am not afraid anymore. I am a free man." Sullivan comments: "This, of course, is bigger news than Judy Miller's pathetic self-defense. If the turnout reaches 65 percent, this will have been a real triumph for the forces of sanity and self-government."

At RedState, Pejman Yousefzadeh writes, Sunni participation was high, "though laughably, this was noted as a bad thing on ABC's This Week program today since increased Sunni participation would lead to increased resistance which would somehow lead to a civil war. Note that these Cassandras are the same people who tried to find doom and gloom in the January 30th elections because there was a lack of Sunni participation. You just can't please some people, I guess)." Armando at Daily Kos disagrees: "Sunnis voted overwhelmingly against the Constitution. But despite this ... the Constitution will be ratified anyway. Thus, high Sunni participation demonstrated that they lack any political power. ... Does one expect that the [Sunni] insurgency will now LOSE support in those areas? How absurd." In this post and another, he calls it the "Myth of the Blue Fingers," after the purple-blue dye used to mark that a person has voted. In the follow-up he notes that some Sunni leaders are claiming fraud: "Was there fraud? Who knows? I doubt there was a need. But it doesn't matter what I think. It matters what the Sunni think."

AMERICAblog: "Oh the drama, the 'constitution' that is lacking any substance seems to have passed, only to put the real fight off for another few months when the details are actually put in to the document. Expect the normal hype out of the WH, just like we did after the first vote but don't expect any results."

THE MIERS NOMINATION: Overturn Of The Screw

John Fund's 10/17 column has been attracting notice for reporting that 2 judges "close to Miers," including Nathan Hecht, privately assured Focus on the Family's James Dobson that "she had indicated she would vote to overturn" Roe v. Wade. Crooks and Liars recalls Dobson's opposition to PA Sen. Arlen Specter as Jud Cmte Chair, opining, "If this is true, Dobson lied to everyone about his Karl Rove conversations and methinks Arlen Specter will have his revenge on Dobson when the time comes."

Time reports, the WH is reportedly set to "relaunch" Miers' nod, moving from a "biographical" to an "accomplishment phase." Conservative Ed Morrissey, who is guardedly pro-Miers, on the WH's "do-over": "My prediction will be that the administration will talk more about some of the work she did for her clients ... but conservatives will expect something more significant than just client work." He is somewhat impressed that Sec/State Condoleezza Rice is speaking out in Miers' favor: "If Rice goes on the offense for Miers, it will take some of the steam out of the anti-Miers momentum."

Patrick Frey at Patterico's Pontifications goes through the much talked about Miers-Bush correspondence, available at The Smoking Gun, reproducing a few choice lines. He writes, "It's a little tough not to wince" as one reads it. A typical note goes: "Keep up all the great work. The state is in great hands." In fact, the word "great" shows up so often, he boldfaces each occurrence to draw attention to its alleged overuse.

TERRORISM: Everything's OK?

In a 10/14 article -- "Student's Suicide Sets Off Explosion Of Theories by Blogs" -- the Wall Street Journal sets out to debunk the speculation that Joel Hinrichs, a Univ. of OK student who blew himself up outside the Sooners football game on 10/1 (see previous Blogometer coverage). The WSJ writes, "blogs and local Oklahoma TV stations added several apparent inaccuracies, including: that Mr. Hinrichs was a Muslim and visited the mosque frequently; that he tried to enter the stadium twice but was rebuffed; that he had a one-way airplane ticket to Algeria; that there were nails in the bomb and that Islamic extremist literature was found in his apartment." CBS News' Public Eye had been following the case, in particular the MSM's previous lack of interest, and is now satisfied by the WSJ story, writing, "it's a step toward putting much of the conspiracy talk to rest. And an example of how MSM organizations have more to gain in engaging such stories than ignoring them and letting them fester."

But most conservative bloggers who raised the questions are hardly persuaded. The Jawa Report, on the article: "No new facts are cited to dispute reasonable questions that Hinrichs was a terrorist--and they are just that, questions. They simply cite [ex-Sen./Univ. of OK pres.] David Boren's assurances that it was not terrorism -- statements he began to make before the investigation had even begun -- the protests of Hinrichs' father that his son was not a Muslim, and a single FBI statement in an ongoing investigation." Power Line's John Hinderaker writes, the WSJ "seems to be making a logical leap ... It is very likely true that Hinrichs had no connection to any terrorist or extremist organization ... But the question whether Hinrichs was part of a terrorist cell is entirely different from the question whether he intended mass murder." On the other hand, NE-based conservative Ryne McClaren is appalled at the misreporting in the blogosphere: "What's even worse is how many blogs -- this one included -- took the information presented at face value. Always a dicey proposition when the MSM is involved, of course. But I'm still not buying the guy committing suicide with a bomb."

The existence of an apparent suicide note was reported by the Daily Oklahoman on 10/16; Heritage's Mark Tapscott asks: "Why did the FBI and Joint Task Force on Terrorism insist virtually from the outset that Hinrichs was a lone suicide, but then waited nearly two weeks before disclosing the existence of the message allegedly left by Hinrichs on his computer?"

REDISTRICTING: The Spirit Of 77

Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum is one of many CA Dems deliberating GOP Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's redistricting measures. As he puts it: "The argument in favor is that somebody has to do it first, so why not set a good example and hope that other states follow? The argument against asks why we should be the wide-eyed naifs who cheerfully set up a neutral system in a big blue state while Tom DeLay and his pals are busily gerrymandering big red states?" But most important is whether it "truly sets up a neutral system." Liberal Brad Plumer argues it will benefit the GOP: "Under [Prop 77's] guidelines, the judges drawing the boundaries will end up packing the majority of urban voters into a few concentrated, ultra-Democratic districts. ... If you wanted more electoral competition, then you'd try to create a bunch of districts that, say, combined parts of "blue" urban areas with parts of "red" suburbs. But Schwarzenegger's plan does the exact opposite." Markos Moulitsas will be voting in favor, and writes that he's "blown away by the rampant misinformation floating around on this issue, particularly the fiction that Arnold would pick the redistricting panel himself."

FARRAKHAN: Is It All A Farra-con?

DC-based liberal Oliver Willis, on the "Millions More" march on the Nat'l Mall, organizer Louis Farrakhan, and key participants Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton: "I think it's past time for there to be a changing of the guard in black leadership in America. ... There are hundreds of black leaders who believe in improving the lives of black Americans, and America in general, but the media keeps giving time to the Axis of Irrelevancy."

Conservative Gateway Pundit live-blogs the march via C-SPAN, commenting: "Wow! This guy, Farrakhan, like Castro and Chavez knows how to give a long-winded speech. He just got through urging blacks to take up Castro on his offers. Next he talked about Mao Tse Tung and what a hero he was..." He writes, "But, once again the American public will be snookered by the media... Erin Texiera, from the AP shamelessly does not mention any of the deranged communist talk from today!"

And Republic of T calls attention to the fact that gay black activist Keith Boykin was denied the chance to speak at the event, after having already been invited. He comments on the snub and posts the speech he would have given at his website.

WHITE HOUSE '08: His Hopes Aren't Dasched?

Rapid City Journal's Mount Blogmore interviewed ex-Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) manager Steve Hildebrand, who "makes clear that he has definite plans for 2008." Currently, Hildebrand is still in Daschle's employ. According to the post, Hildebrand says of Daschle's possible WH "ambitions," he "sounds a lot like Newt Gingrich did this past week."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Bloggerdammerung?

Technorati's David Sifry unveils his latest "State of the Blogosphere" report, summarizing:

• As of 10/05, "Technorati is now tracking" 19.6M weblogs
• "The total number of weblogs tracked continues to double about every 5 months"
• "The blogosphere is now over 30 times as big as it was 3 years ago, with no signs of letup in growth"
• About 70K new weblogs "are created every day"
• "About a new weblog is created each second"

But more and more in recent months, bloggers have criticized Technorati and related services for allowing through too many "spam blogs," rendering their search services less valuable. Jeff Jarvis writes: "Is it time for tough love: Should PubSub, IceRocket, Technorati, et al refuse to index Blogspot blogs until Google does something? Google, after all, should be the very best placed company in the world to deal with spam sites. Funny how the similar ego search on Google blogsearch turns up no spam. Google needs to both fix Blogspot and share its secrets for ignoring blogspam."

LEST WE FORGET: The Biggio They Are ...

On account of the Houston's 2-1 win over St. Louis last night, veteran Astros 2B Craig Biggio will have at least a few more games this season in which to get beaned at the plate. And Plunk Biggio will be keeping track -- as the name implies, the blog is devoted to Biggio's "(probably unintentional) quest to break the all time major league career record for getting hit by pitches." At 273 drillings career-to-date, Biggio trails only early 20th-cent. Hall of Famer Hughie Jennings, who earned 287.

Scrolling text in the sidebar gives credit to those who "made this site made possible, among them "...David Wells, Kip Wells, Turk Wendell, Jake Westbrook, Gabe White, Bob Wickman, David Williams, Dontrelle Willis, Paul Wilson, Matt Wise, Jay Witasick, Randy Wolf, Kerry Wood..."

NOTES AND ERRATA: We Apologize For Any Pain We May Have Caused

A couple of corrections to make from the las week:

On 10/11, we indicated that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor had dissented in the case of Grutter v. Bollinger. In fact, she sided with the majority in that ruling; what we meant was Kelo v. New London.

On 10/12, we wrote that New York Times' Doug Jehl was in charge of the Times' reporting on the Times' involvement of the Miller case; while Jehl did cover the Miller story as it unfolded, managing ed. Jon Landman oversaw the team that produced this weekend's coverage.

Posted by at 12:43 PM

October 14, 2005

10/14: All The World's A Stage

The ongoing controversies over the Harriet Miers nod and CIA leak investigation have been temporarily overtaken by debate about what happened before, and during, Pres. Bush's live teleconf./interview with troops stationed in Iraq. The left is outraged, charging that Bush is using the troops as props for his own political benefit. They note, with some schadenfreude, that the press appears to have turned against him, reporting behind-the-scenes details about how the event was set up. Meanwhile, the right is outraged about this exact same point, and argue that what an AP report calls a "staged" interview was routine who-goes-first-who-goes-next arrangements, adding that there's no evidence the troops were coached on their answers. While the furor over the teleconference itself will likely pass into yesterday's news over the weekend, the question of whether the press a) has finally woken up to reality or b) is vindictively out to get the Bush admin. (pick one) has grown louder in recent weeks, and is likely to stick around for awhile.

BUSH: Staged Fright?

AP's Deb Riechmann delights liberals and infuriates conservatives with her report titled "Bush Teleconference With Soldiers Staged."

Documentary filmmaker Bryan Young points out that NPR played a segment of audio prior to the interview, with handler Allison Barber giving "very specific instructions to the troops about what to do in case Bush goes off script. She then goes through a list of questions Bush is going to ask and rehearses the answers with the troops, coaching them along the way." Pam Spaulding calls the soldiers "props for the Chimperor," and notes: "The sorry state of affairs for the President-now-without-a-mandate is such that even the coverage of the event points out the fact that the whole event is a sham." The Carpetbagger Report: "Needless to say, this comes as a surprise to absolutely no one. ... My question is: did the Bush gang assume they could just lie and no one would notice? Or are they past the point of caring?" The Agonist's Sean-Paul Kelly: "So at last it seems we have come to that point in the life of one George W. Bush when everything 'W' has tried to do fails, and miserably at that. In the past he had Daddy's friends or connections in the oil business or the SEC or somewhere to come bail him out. Today, however, he is alone. No one can solve his problems for him. We all sit, mute, and watch the disaster unfold in slow motion. And we all will be made to suffer for it." A few liberal blogs, including Talking Points Memo, quote a section from the 10/13 press briefing where WH spokesperson Scott McClellan denies the soldiers' answers were "pre-screened." Crooks and Liars has video.

On the other hand, conservative Dafydd Ab Hugh thinks the coverage badly missed the mark: "Aren't the questions always choreographed? During an interview, for example, the interviewer always knows in advance the major questions he will ask, the order he will ask them ... Often the subject also knows, to allow him to do whatever research is necessary to come up with a more detailed answer. Typically, major questions spawn follow-up questions; we have no clue from the AP story whether this happened this time, even though that would reveal much about the charge of being 'staged.'" He also disputes the notion that the troops were "coached," arguing that Barber didn't change a soldier's response or "give him any feedback whatsoever." Lorie Byrd agrees, noting that "Special Report" showed how "at the end of the actual event with the President, he asked the Iraqi soldier a question that was not prepared and the Iraqi soldier's answer was quite positive." Little Green Footballs' Charles Johnson argues, "if any 'staging' took place, it happened right in front of the reporters who were covering the event. No one hid anything. The main beef seems to be that the producers of the event took questions and comments only from soldiers who supported the Iraq effort. So what?" Countercolumn: "I have an agenda, distributed in advance, listing what I want to talk about when I hold a company level training meeting. These guys understand that. I understand that. The AP, apparently, doesn't. I guess none of their reporters ever interviewed a source and told them what they were interested in discussing."

NBC anchor Brian Williams writes at his Daily Nightly blog: "While this kind of thing gets reported when germane, it's ... part of politics and both parties have made it something of an art form. In this case, however, the advance billing and final execution were at odds." He adds, "McClellan has since admitted to our own Kelly O'Donnell that he did NOT know the extent of the situation and how it played on television when he answered reporters' questions about it today from the podium."

THE MIERS NOMINATION I: The Pros And Cons Of Pros And Cons

Early last p.m., righty radio talker Hugh Hewitt writes: "I spoke to Karl Rove an hour ago. His support for the Miers nomination is not merely enthusiastic, but adamant and even vehement. The judicial philosophy question? She has been a member of the White House's judicial selection committee for three years, not the one I had thought ... her participation in the process described discredits any idea that her core philosophy is unknown to the president or other senior aides. It defies common sense to imagine three years of such meetings leaving other senior staff and the president in the dark about her commitment to originalism." Conservative Ankle Biting Pundits comments: "No offense to Rove or Hugh, but this defense is lame. ... In her job at the White House screening judges, she was simply acting in the best interests of [Bush], and thus her work there tells us nothing about her own judicial philosophy."

Also early last p.m., Wall Street Journal blogger/columnist James Taranto posted a lengthy commentary on Miers' testimony from the '89 voting-rights case Williams v. Dallas, wherein the city was successfully sued for having at-large members (of which Miers was then one), which the plaintiffs argued diluted minority representation. Reviewing her testimony, Taranto says she comes across as a "left-leaning centrist, not a conservative." Miers, in one passage he quotes: "I have strongly advocated the restoration of the $200,000 dental program as a model program in terms of public partnership. I have supported the maternal nurse care that was eliminated, be restored. The day-care money that was deleted I have asked be restored because they principally benefit women and minorities in my view." She also testifies to having "cast the deciding vote in favor of spending taxpayer money, purely for symbolic purposes, on something the city 'really could get for free.'" Taranto opines, "in the absence of a record on issues of constitutional law, it's understandable that one might look at her approach as a politician and worry that she, like fellow ex-politician O'Connor, may be inclined to put politics above principle in interpreting the Constitution." David Cohen at conservative Brothers Judd argues: "In this sort of suit," the examining atty "will want to show that she doesn't represent the minority community and Ms. Miers will want to show that she does. In other words, without calling into question her truthfulness under oath, Ms. Miers every legitimate interest as a witness and as a councilor at-large was to show that she was a legitimate representative of the entire city. Thus, Taranto, in poking fun at her for testifying that 'I do intend to vote based on the best interests of the entire community' completely misses the point."

Meanwhile, the Drudge Report also notes that Miers testified "that she would not join the 'politically charged' Federalist Society," though she was then a member of the "Democratic Progressive Voters League," plus Miers said she did not consider the NAACP to be "politically charged." A Confirm Them commenter, in her defense: "Remember the context of her comments. If you're a pseudo-defendant ... in a voting rights case, wouldn't you try to sound a little left of center -- hence the view that the NAACP is not overtly political." Expecting that Miers' position on the NAACP would outrage GOPers, liberal Matt Yglesias is a bit disappointed: "So far ... I haven't seen any conniptions. Let me help out! Here's a sampling of press releases from the apolitical NAACP" -- he lists a few, such as "NAACP Chairman Calls Bush Judicial Nominees Anti-Civil Rights."

THE MIERS NOMINATION II: The Write Stuff

David Brooks' 10/12 10/13 New York Times column argues that Miers "quality of thought and writing," as evidenced by a Texas Bar Journal column she wrote in the early '90s "doesn't even rise to the level of pedestrian." A sample from her "relentless march of vapid abstractions": "An organization must also implement programs to fulfill strategies established through its goals and mission. Methods for evaluation of these strategies are a necessity. With the framework of mission, goals, strategies, programs, and methods for evaluation in place, a meaningful budgeting process can begin." For a column hidden behind a notoriously unpopular subscription wall, much has been made of it -- enough that "David Brooks" was the top search on Technorati (where Times column-seekers go to find bootlegs) for most of this a.m. It even made the Times' top 5 on its much-vaunted most e-mailed list, a rarity for post-TimesSelect op-ed columns. Conservative Lump On A Blog wonders if Miers supporters "will argue that having someone on the high court incapable of offering a coherent argument and communicating thoughtfully would be refreshing and representative of an often ignored section of the American populace." WisPolitics' The Xoff Files: "If you doubt him, use this link to read the columns she wrote as president of the State Bar of Texas. But you were warned -- it's deadly stuff." Noting the column, Instapundit affixes an asterisk to Brooks' name, leading to this footnote: "* Brooks writes a column for a private, subscription-only website."

RedState's Confirm Them rumor scout Erick Erickson: "The rumor is that several senators have begun attempts to send the message to the WH that Miers should be withdrawn. They are bypassing Andy Card. Also, the senior Senator from South Carolina [Lindsey Graham] is rumored to have started up the Karen Williams drumbeat as a replacement candidate." Over at RedState's RedHot, he posts a blind item: "Which very public supporter of Harriet Miers is contemplating a very public break off of that support?"

Earlier in the week, Ashland Univ. prof Robert Alt quoted FNC's Brit Hume on the 10/9 "FNS" explaining why Judge Alice Batchelder was cut from the list: "She was very, very closely vetted. And you know what they found? They found all kinds of evidence of activism in her record. And they were quite surprised and not pleased to find that." Alt writes, when Bill Kristol "questioned this new smear tactic, Brit incredulously suggested that this is something he found on his own. But, as Brit's first statement makes clear," the original source seems to have been the WH. Conservative Jonathan Adler at Bench Memos: "If the White House was the source of this charge ... it is very troubling. As Alt observes, smearing qualified candidates for the court is no way for this administration to win back the trust and loyalty of the conservative base. Liberal Armando at Daily Kos: "How very freaking rich of them. Tsk Tsk-ing smears from the White House. Shocked to find out they do that are you NRO?"

World Class Federalists in Paradise posts the image of a trendline of the Tradesports line on confirmation/rejection -- while it still predicts confirmation, the numbers came down hard in the early hours after her announcement, and have sunk a bit more since. The current asking price is just under 65. Professor Bainbridge notes, "it would be interesting if we could go back and find the price on Roberts at a comparable point in his process. According to my archives, on September 5, the contract for his confirmation had an ask price of 97.7."

Having trouble keeping track of all the arguments being made by conservatives for and against Miers? Right Side Redux has done a pretty damned good job of rounding up quotes from official records, MSM columnists and blog commentators.

ROVE-PLAME-MILLER-LIBBY I: Abjured Or Perjured?

"If you're keeping score at home," UCLA public policy prof Mark Kleiman rounds up the pros and cons of the so-called "Mousetrap Theory," which seeks to explain New York Times reporter Judy Miller's recently surfaced notes. In short, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald knew Miller and VP Cheney CoS Scooter Libby had spoken in 6/03, Miller did not disclose this to him (as Libby apparently did not), Fitzgerald caught her lying about this, and induced her to turn over the notes, and possibly testify against others. Kleiman's mostly in favor of the theory, listing arguments for it: "Apparently Miller didn't mention the June meeting with Libby in her earlier testimony. It's hardly conceivable that the questioning was so sloppy as to not have required her to disclose such a meeting." And Fitzgerald "lifted the contempt citation against Miller after today's testimony, but hadn't lifted it after last week's testimony," perhaps because he knew of the notes last week. And via Arianna Huffington, "by turning over the notes and testifying about the June conversation, Miller went way beyond the scope of her waiver letter from Libby," plus "Miller and her colleagues, triumphant after last week's testimony, were much less so after today's." Against the theory: "Miller's testimony lasted only 75 minutes ... unless Fitzgerald wants to issue a new subpoena and fight it back up through the courts, she's done as a witness until it's time to start impanelling trial juries." Tom Maguire isn't so sure Fitzgerald knew that Miller and Libby spoke in June until the notes surfaced, quoting from a Washington Post article saying so. Maguire: "So, here is an alternative to the perjury theory -- Ms. Miller testified to something vague, such as 'I may have met with Libby earlier and had a discussion relevant to the inquiry of this grand jury; I would need to check my notes, which have not been subpoenaed.' No perjury there. But afterwards, Fitzgerald will surely ask for the notes. And since his subpoena called for notes relevant to the July conversations, and since the July conversations *may* have been a follow-up to the June conversation, those June notes are, arguably, covered by the subpoena as well. ... The upshot -- cooperation, but no perjury."

The Left Coaster's eRiposte is aghast that Miller, "one of the top liar-propagandists for a criminal administration," will be accepting a First Amendment Award from the SPJ at their '05 convo in Las Vegas on 10/18: "What the hell is wrong with these people? What has this country come to?" eRiposte advises, "if anyone lives in or near Las Vegas or Cal State Fullerton [where Miller has another scheduled public appearance], please consider making an appearance there to voice your disagreement."

A New York Times header this a.m. reads: "Jitters at the White House Over the Leak Inquiry." Conservative Mark Coffey turns this around for a header at Decision '08: "Nervous Times as PlameGate Investigation Nears Its End"

ROVE-PLAME-MILLER-LIBBY II: Cohen Balls And Strikes As He Sees Them

Liberal Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen drew some attention for his 10/13 column arguing that Fitzgerald should "go home" without filing charges -- mostly negative from the left, and somewhat positive from the right. Lefty Atrios names him "Wanker of the Day": "It's all there. The insider's anger at being kept out of the loop. The Beltway class's belief that they are above the law. Clinging to the fantasy that this case is about press freedom. The pundit's arrogance that he knows what's best for Washington..." Steve Gilliard: "Judy Miller's own colleagues don't believe this has to do with the press. Nor do any of the reporters who testified before the grand jury, including Bob Novak. This is about the security of the United States and those who help provide it." Righty Don Surber agrees with Cohen, adding: "Will someone please tell news side this ain't a scandal?" On the other hand, conservative The Anchoress thinks Cohen is just concerned now that "some on the left might get flamed over Valerie Plame": "As usual, Cohen is utterly dishonest in writing about this issue -- he again hauls out the tired old lie that President Bush lied about the 'Niger yellowcake' story -- hello! Britain STILL stands behind that intelligence to this day! The whole damn 'scandal' is manufactured! Hello!"

One of the more controversial Cohen passages is: "In the Plame case, it might technically be one, but it was not the intent of anyone to out a CIA agent and have her assassinated (which happened once) but to assassinate the character of her husband. This is an entirely different thing. She got hit by a ricochet." Democracy Cell Project advises, "please give up the mind-reading act as well. You have no way of knowing what anyone's intent was in identifying Valerie Plame to the media. As the administration so often reminds us, we are engaged in a global war on terrorism. Identifying and revealing the names of covert agents is not the same as, say, identifying and naming who's gay and who's not in homophobic" GOP-controlled DC.

Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum opines: "I think Cohen is fundamentally wrong to treat the outing of a covert agent in the same way that he treats the nonstop revelation of minor secrets that practically defines official Washington. Outing an agent represents a far more serious kind of breach ... That said, though, I'm on his side when it comes to charges. ... Like Cohen, I really don't want to see him hand down indictments solely for tangential perjury or conspiracy charges or some other consolation prize." Drum's own readers reacted negatively, filling up the comment section with 400+ comments (compared to 40-ish comments for the posts immediately above and below). He updated again: "Well, this is going to go down in history as one of my most unpopular posts ever. All I can say is: Let's wait and see what Fitzgerald comes up with. If he hands down serious charges, great. If they're fundamentally trivial, like the stuff that Ken Starr brought against Bill Clinton, not so great."

IRAQ: In This Case, Do Shoot The Messenger

The purported letter from Zawahiri to Zarqawi, released on the web by Centcom with commentary, has been touted by conservative bloggers as an example of how al Qaeda is concerned that its Iraq strategy has been a mistake. Among the many, Secular Blasphemy writes: "While the letter reveals al-Qaeda's grand strategic goals, Zawahiri is obviously worried that the extreme brutality of Zarqawi's jihad in Iraq is causing a backlash among sympathisers, and also risks drawing hostile action from Iran. ... The relationship between Iran and al-Qaeda is one of "the enemy of my enemy" but sooner or later the Iranian leadership may start worrying who is their worst enemy."

But it also has been been criticized by some on the left as a likely forgery (see 10/12 Blogometer). And according to the AP, an al Qaeda-affil. website calls the letter a fake. Power Line comments, "It's easy to see why they don't want to stand behind Zawahiri's exposition of al Qaeda's strategy ... It will be interesting to see whether American liberals, embarrassed by the contents of Zawahiri's correspondence, will join with al Qaeda in claiming that the U.S. military faked the letter."

Liberal Nitpicker cites a Reuters version of the story, which quotes an in-House (i.e. Congress) terrorism expert who has doubts about its authenticity. Writes Nitpicker: "Look, you can't help but question these guys. Their intelligence is too often either wrong or made up. Are those words too harsh for you? Then how about 'inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading' as Colin Powell put it?" AMERICAblog's John Aravosis adds: "[T]his smacks of something they -- or more aptly, the Bush DOD folks -- would create out of thin air, a forgery. And now, surprise surprise, questions are being raised."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Going Nucular

On 10/12, NAM VP Pat Cleary -- cross-posting to RedState -- criticized ABC News for a report on univ.-based nuclear research facilities, titled "Loose Nukes," which essentially consisted of getting a tour of the facilities, bringing in hidden cameras, and "bombarding their hosts with questions about security." The facility owners then contacted the authorities. He follows up on 10/13, calling it the "Dan Rather-ization of ABC," and points out if you "go to Google News and type in 'Loose Nukes' and -- like Rather, at the end -- the first or second choice is our highly critical piece on this bogus story." NEI Notes, a group blog featuring nuclear engineers and experts, posts snail mail contact info for ABC execs, encouraging readers to write in. TV Newser picks up on the controversy, noting "some interest groups are raising red flags about the report."

POLLS: A Ten Percenter?

On 10/12, Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey wrote, Washington Post online columnist Dan Froomkin "wrote a breathless column" today "that should have been pulled." The column highlighted a WSJ/NBC poll showing Bush with just a 2% approval rating among blacks; problem is, the figure comes from just 89 black respondents out of a poll of 807, a fact which Froomkin does mention. Morrissey cites a recent Pew poll putting the number at 12%. More: A "CQ reader ... just saw Conan O'Brian use the 2% polling number on his show. Welcome to the birth of an urban legend, yet another one from the fertile womb of Katrina." Froomkin later updated his column with the same included Pew numbers also cited by Captain's Quarters; Morrissey argues the low sample size in the WSJ/NBC poll and comparison to Pew should have been enough for the column to be held back. Black GOPer Robert George notes the low sample size, but asks, "ultimately, who cares? The fact that a Republican president is polling low among black people isn't exactly a man-bites-dog story." George adds that he too disapproves, and though his reasons "are generally going to be a lot different than" black liberals, "we are going to be listed as part of the 88/98 of black disapproval."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: What's The Near Opposite Of Double-Secret Probation?

Slate's Mickey Kaus: "If Congress does grant special First Amendment rights (i.e. protection from testifying) to professional journalists, but not to amateur citizen-journalists, can the amateurs sue under the Equal Protection Clause? That seems to me the interesting question. If Congress said professional reporters had more votes than ordinary citizens, after all, it would be struck down instantly. What's different about speech? ... I know, I know. The press professionals are doing it for our benefit! But you could say the same about, say, giving more votes to the more educated. They'd be doing it for the rest of us. Did someone add a Condescension Clause to the Constitution when I wasn't looking? ... Anyway, we're blogging for their benefit. Who do you think reads blogs? Reporters! That means we should be double super privileged!"

LEST WE FORGET: Where The Elite Meet To Bleat

The highly (highly) unofficial Harriet Miers' Blog!!! finally gets around to something important in a post titled: "DISCLAIMER -- LETS PRETEND I PUT THIS UP AT THE BEGINNING." And tweaks a passage that should be familiar to anyone who has received an e-mail from a law firm account:

****************************
This communication, is for the exclusive use of reader and may contain proprietary, confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended reader, any use, copying, disclosure, dissemination or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended reader, please notify the blogger immediately by e-mail or comments, delete this communication and destroy all copies.
****************************

Adds "Harriet Miers": "I forgot to put that up on Oct 3 ('cut me some slack' people, I'd just been nominated to the SUPREME COURT!!), but this applies to the whole blog not just from now on."

Posted by at 12:36 PM

October 13, 2005

10/13: Call Of The Riled

On 10/12, the Blogometer listened in as the RNC held its 1st blogger-specific conf. call to discuss the Harriet Miers SCOTUS nod. The call was organized by BC'04 webmaster/semi-retired blogger Patrick Ruffini and featuring RNC chair Ken Mehlman. It has been noted recently (see 10/7 and 10/11 Blogometers) that the RNC's blogger outreach has lagged behind the DNC's. Some attribute the shift to the recent hire of Ruffini as the RNC's eCommunications dir., and it will likely help; we'd also argue that Ruffini's hire itself was a symptom of the shift, not necessarily the cause -- albeit a few weeks too late.

Indeed, the WH and the RNC appear to be caught off-guard at the overwhelmingly negative response to the Miers pick. Mehlman was caught a bit flat-footed at times; on several questions, he could do little more than reiterate that she would explain herself at the hearings, that her "philosophy" and "character" were sound, and that they had to trust Pres. Bush's decision. When asked why conservatives should trust Bush in light of past broken promises -- particularly the McCain-Feingold bill, which he signed after promising he wouldn't -- Mehlman argued, without specifics, that the bill had changed substantially between the campaign promise and presidential signature. Later in the call, UCLA prof Stephen Bainbridge pointed out that if Miers followed the so-called "Ginsburg precedent" then this time it would be conservatives, rather than liberals, who would be troubled by her lack of answers. Mehlman sought to quell those concerns by promising that she would "lay out her philosophy."

If nothing else, it was interesting to hear Mehlman spin its own blog constituency; while the RNC was wise to reach out to conservative bloggers at this time, they might've had an easier time of it if they had done so earlier. Reactions below:

>>While everyone was grateful that the RNC has started these conf. calls, few were moved: Bainbridge, who live-blogged the call, concluded: "My mind is unchanged. It was a lot of assurances but not a lot of facts. And facts are what we need." Erick Erickson agreed: "It is great that they have started these. Today's was a disappointment. Apparently, the strategy is to say 'Harriet Miers has a conservative judicial philosophy and the character to avoid changing over time' repeatedly." Ankle Biting Pundits: "And please, 'waiting for the hearings' is something you say when you've got nothing else in your arsenal. Lame Ken, very lame. ... I'm tired of HOPING a nominee will end up being conservative over time. Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt." Mark Coffey's "mind was not changed," but added: I did find my support for the nomination strengthening, however." In Coffey's comments, Gerry Daly of Daly Thoughts writes: "I was not really satisfied with the answer to the McCain-Feingold question ... Yes, some details in it changed. By and large though it was the same bill with the same constitutional problems. Simply put, I think Bush broke his promise on it, and it is a concern that makes me waver in if I want to just trust Bush on his nominee." Captain's Quarters: "I'm a little concerned about the use of statistics as evidence of widespread conservative support for Miers. The GOP wants us to believe that outside of the punditry, the base loves Miers, and they used the Pew polling as an example. However, the Pew poll shows something quite different; only 54% of self-described conservatives support her confirmation, and the numbers get worse as one crosses the spectrum." Instapundit: "They should have done this the day of the announcement, not the following week."

>> Mark Kilmer didn't listen in, but if he had, he "would have asked who was prepping her for the hearings. And since her religion is so important to her, I'd like to know exactly why her congregation in Texas decided to splinter, and why she is attending one of the offshoots holding services in a hotel. What was the dispute?" The Political Teen's Ian Schwartz would have asked "if the President was planning to release more information about her background nor will we have to wait for the Left Wing Smear Machine to hear more about her?"

>> Others who wrote about the call: Lorie Byrd, Thomas Lifson at The American Thinker, Hotline On Call, NRO's Eric Pfeiffer, and Joshua Claybourn. CNN's blog reporters listened in; The Political Teen hosts video of their coverage.

ROVE-PLAME-MILLER-LIBBY: Nobody Knows Nothin'

Responding to a 10/11 National Journal report that VP Cheney CoS Scooter Libby "withheld key information" from investigators, Think Progress' Pete Bogs guesses that "Libby will be the fall guy," offered up "in exchange for no more indictments within the administration ... of course, it sounds like Fitzgerald doesn't cut deals." Anonymous Liberal: "Libby's only defense to a perjury charge would be that he genuinely forgot about the prior conversation ... but it's not a defense I'd want to rely on in court." California Yankee adds: "The interesting part of [the National Journal] article concerns the disclosure that Fitzgerald has recently 'expressed significant interest in whether Libby may have sought to discourage [New York Times's Judy] Miller ... from testifying.' ... Can you say obstruction of justice?"

Touching on WH dep. CoS Karl Rove, liberal journalist David Corn writes that it's "been interesting" watching Rove's defense "evolve." When news of the leak first broke, the WH signaled "that it had no worries about its uber-strategist." After learning that Time's Matt Cooper had spoken to Rove about Amb. Joe Wilson, Rove's atty said he "did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA," a point which itself was also undermined. His current defense -- "that he did not circulate the Plame name to punish Wilson" -- would mean he "engaged in insubordination." And Bush "said that he wanted to know the truth and that anyone with information should 'come forward and speak out.' Did Rove do that? No."

At midday on 10/12, the subhead to an online CNN report indicated that Miller told the grand jury that "she had more than one source," igniting a wave of speculation. Contacting CNN, Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher learned the subhead "was an error they are going to correct." TalkLeft notes that the text was changed to "Times reporter details previously undisclosed conversation." Re: what actually happened on Day 2, Arianna Huffington compares the circus after Miller's 1st appearance, positing that "the hour Miller spent testifying this morning was not an easy one." first draft wonders, despite all the stories about Plame, "not one story mentions Robert Novak except in passing while providing background on the case."

At PressThink Jay Rosen offers his "armchair speculation" on what's going on with the New York Times, which has not written about what's going on: "The ... Times is in a suspended state, editorially speaking. In fact, the entire organization -- with the exception of a few lawyers, a few top executives, a few top editors, plus Jon Landman and his crew -- is in the dark about Miller, uncertain of what a full investigation will find, unwilling to speak in the absence of knowledge now being gathered, fearful that the emerging story could be devastating to" their reputation for "independence and honesty," the "stand on high principle" that put Miller behind bars, the positions of the editors and publisher who backed her, "whole portions of the Times news coverage," reader confidence, and "their own illusions about the New York Times as pillar of a free press." Aske Rosen: "Which of these will be toppled by the end of the month? Which will be standing? No one knows. Any or all could be in ruins when the facts come out. Or none. This creates anxiety."

THE MIERS NOMINATION: Don't Give Us Any Of That Old Time Religion

• The AP reported 10/12 that Bush said, people "want to know Harriet Miers' background. They want to know as much as they possibly can before they form opinions. And part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion." The Moderate Voice: "If Roe v. Wade is conservatives' prime concern, Bush's statement will quell the furor. If it isn't -- if issues of competence, a paper trail, cronyism actually DO matter -- then Bush's statement won't help and could even make things worse..." Attytood's Will Bunch writes that Bush "committed at least one 'high crime' and two 'misdemeanors'": "In using religion as a key basis for offering Miers a job," Bush seems to have "violated the spirit, if not the letter," of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which "prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." The 2nd "misdemeanor" is an almost identical statute in the '78 Civil Service Reform Act, and the "high crime" is "also the area where it's hardest to argue" that Bush didn't "cross the line. We are referring to Article VI, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which states that 'no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.'" Daily Kos: "It is unbelievable that the President of the United States has chosen to apply a religious litmus test to the Supreme Court. While no one should be excluded from public office because of their religious views, no one should be chosen for public office, especially for the Supreme Court, BECAUSE of their religious views." Balloon Juice: "Before today, all the President's men were doing this through vague reassurances, winks and nods, and references to her religious beliefs, but we now have the President himself stating that a main reason for her selection is her religious beliefs."
• One line from the latest Howard Fineman column strikes a nerve with some top conservative bloggers: "I expect that any GOP 2008 hopeful who wants evangelical support -- people like Sam Brownback, Rick Santorum and maybe even George Allen -- will vote against Miers's confirmation in the Senate." Radio talker Hugh Hewitt: "That is simply wrong. To vote against Miers because the Bos-Wash Axis of Elitism is against her is not the way to gain Evangelical favor. The opposite, in fact." Atty John Hinderaker: "With all due respect to Mr. Fineman, this is the dumbest bit of political analysis I've seen in a long time. I am not aware of a single religious leader who has in any way objected to the Miers nomination or called it an 'affront' to religious people. I know a great many religious conservatives, and not a single one of them adopts this view."
• A few conservatives are getting active in the process, either to oppose her or quantify what blog-reading conservatives really think: At NRO, ex-Bush speechwriter David Frum posts a petition that begins: "We are Republicans and conservatives who supported the election of George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. Today, we respectfully urge that the nomination of Harriet Miers to the United States Supreme Court be withdrawn." He posted a draft petition on 10/11, and made available the final version in a posting on 10/12. Meanwhile, Instapundit hosts an unscientific poll on the Miers nod. With 12K+ participating, the results:
  
  "Should the Harriet Miers nomination be withdrawn?"

  Yes       54%
  No        46
  

  "Will the Miers nomination help the Republicans or hurt them?"

  Hurt      48%
  Neither   36
  Help      16

  And the more-vigorously opposed Professor Bainbridge is hosting a poll of his own, where results so far show 70% of the participants are "against" the nod.
• Contra reports that the considered female nominees withdrew their names, The Buzz's Eric Pfeiffer reports, a source close to the 4th Circuit tells him that Karen Williams was not among the judges who withdrew their names from consideration "'Her name was in the running up until Miers was selected. She did NOT withdraw her name.'"
• PoliPundit corrects a frequently-cited argument in Miers' favor: "In the presidential sound bites that were used on the cable shows yesterday, the president said Harriet Miers had been named one of the 'top 50 women lawyers in America.' That's not entirely accurate. She was named one of the 50 most influential women lawyers in 1998, in large part because of her closeness" to then-Gov. Bush.

REPUBLICANS: Cracking Up Is Hard To Do

Center-left Michael Stickings: "The Miers nomination is The Big One, the GOP's 'Vietnam.' ... In the end, it wasn't Iraq or Katrina or the economy or terrorism or moral values that brought the coalition down, it was a sad excuse for a nomination to the Supreme Court. Yes, years from now historians will point to Harriet Miers as the right's Yoko Ono." Right Wing News' John Hawkins sees it differently: "I have actually had a couple of pro-Miers bloggers I'm friendly with, who've seen my reaction to this nomination, ask me if I'm mad at them for supporting Miers. The answer to that is, 'no.' Nor should other conservatives bear any ill will toward their brethren on either side of the debate. The Miers nomination brawl will not last forever. In fact, it may be over sooner than many people think if, as I expect, her nomination is withdrawn. Conservatives on both sides of this fight should keep that in mind lest they say things they'll grow to regret in the coming weeks." Along the same lines, Hewitt receives an e-mail from a reader disappointed with National Review's opposition to Miers, and who says he will not renew his subscription. Hewitt says this is precisely the wrong attitude: "In fact, now is the best time to subscribe if you are pro-Miers. ... And then drop them an e-mail on the need to rethink their opposition." Ace of Spades HQ thinks differently: "There's bad blood boiling in the blogosphere, and I have to think that's pretty much what's going on in the rest of politically-attuned Red State America. It's bad now and it's likely to get worse."

FRIST: Any Publicity Is Good Publicity ... Right?

Liberal Josh Marshall, on Frist being subpoenaed by the SEC, "aka the Martha police": "Actually, you know what he's thinking: If I knew this was gonna happen I never would have had to demean myself in front of those Justice Sunday whackjobs!" Duncan "Atrios" Black has been joking about putting champagne in the fridge to celebrate hoped-for indictments of major GOP figures: "I'd better put bottle #4 in the fringe. We now have bottles named Scooter, Turd Blossom, Big Time, and Kitty Kevorkian. I'm hoping that by the middle of next week there might be one in there named 'Ari.'" Conservative Balloon Juice: "I think there is much less to this than will be made of it, actually. In the case of DeLay, I think he is a crook, but I don't know if the indictments will hold. Any way you look at it, though, it isn't good for Republicans and will be yet another distraction. Considering what Congress has been up to lately, that night be a good thing."

Meanwhile, Frist has just launched a blog at his VOLPAC website; posts are listed as being written by the "VOLPAC Web Team" or by "Bill Frist, M.D." Current subjects include a Frist visit to TX and the recently intercepted al-Qaeda letter in Iraq.

MIDTERMS '06: Blue Angels

Swing State Project reports that, following rumors that ex-Rep. Bob McEwen (R-OH) might challenge Sen. Mike DeWine in the '06 GOP primary, someone registered BobMcEwenforSenate.com on 10/12, although it remains as yet undeveloped. The curious can join the McEwen e-mail list at info@bobmcewenforsenate.com.

Lefty blog-oriented fundraising org. ActBlue is polling its netroots constituency to determine which 4 states they will target in '06. ActBlue's Ben Rahn explained their goals in a 9/22 diary at MyDD. Results so far, with 12K+ votes counted:

OH        39.4%
PA        10.4
MT         7.1
FL         6.5

Why each? Blogometer suggests: OH's GOP is deeply unpopular after a series of scandals, has both a GOV and SEN race, and a possible Dem primary fight between netroots fan Rep. Sherrod Brown and netroots creation Paul Hackett; PA too has a GOV and SEN race, particularly where Treas. Bob Casey (D) already leads Rick Santorum (R) by double digits, not to mention the state includes lefty-blogger mecca Philly; netroots-backed MT farmer/State Senate Pres. Jon Tester (D) is among the candidates challenging potentially vulnerable Sen. Conrad Burns (R); and FL is an always-important swing state -- albeit one leaning more GOP -- with both GOV and SEN races in '06.

Daily Kos draws attention to GOPer Leo Giacometto, ex-CoS to Burns, "linked to [disgraced lobbyist Jack] Abramoff, and a lobbyist. So why do we care about yet another sleazy, corrupt Republican? Because he is now doing fundraisers" for Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT). More: "Keep that shit on their side of the aisle. It's hard to talk "culture of corruption" when our own side starts fraternizing with their sleaziest characters."

WHITE HOUSE '08: Gored To Death

MyDD's Chris Bowers notes that in the recent spate of articles floating the possibility of an ex-VP Gore bid, "the actual focus of the story seems to be as much about stopping Hillary Clinton as anything else. That isn't the only connection" -- they are in some way "fueled" by or connected to GOPers: "Is it too much of a stretch to therefore argue that these rumors on Gore are just part of a larger anti-Hillary rumor mill?"

SPENDING: What's This, Dubya's The Next Sam Houston?

Posted at Reason's Hit and Run by Nick Gillespie -- and picked up by Andrew Sullivan and Talking Points Memo -- is a simple chart showing the 2nd-term spending trend of recent POTUSes who got a 2nd term:

LBJ:      +25.2%
Nixon:    -16.5
Reagan:   +11.9
Clinton:   -8.2
Bush:     +35.2

Gillespie: "When it comes to inflation-adjusted increases in discretionary spending ... Dubya beats LBJ like Sam Houston beat Santa Anna at the Battle of San Jacinto."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Blogs Are From Mars, MSM Is From Venus?

Starting this week, Yahoo's News Search includes the option of searching through blogs and similar indie/amateur media websites. Dan Gillmor writes at Bayosphere: "Note that the blog results are boxed off to the right, not included with the other news sources ... I asked why the separation, and the answer was, basically, 'It's beta, maybe we'll change that.'" Jeff Jarvis is quoted in a Reuters story that he himself posts to his blog, where he complains about the same boxing-off. National Journal's Danny Glover disagrees: "I'm sorry guys, but I don't get the griping. And I don't say that as an MSMer/wannabe blogger; I say it as a news consumer. I personally don't want to search on a term like 'Harriet Miers' and have to sort through hundreds of irrelevant blog entries to find the needle in the haystack you seem to want Yahoo to build. What you see as a patronizing slap against bloggers, treating them as "secondary news sources," strikes me instead as Yahoo's attempt to serve a diverse audience. Those of us who love blogs too often forget that not everybody does."

LEST WE FORGET: Maybe Brick Tamland Made The Miers Pick ...

Liberal Fafblog "interviews" Bush re: his selection of Miers. An excerpt:

BUSH: "Like all judicial nominees, Harriet Miers is covered under executive privilege, Fafnir. The president needs the freedom to appoint his Supreme Court in complete privacy. Ms. Miers will remain bagged, sealed and classified until her confirmation by the United States Senate."
FB: "And yet we know so much about her! Her name... her church ... her name. You've been pretty generous with information so far, Mr. President."
BUSH: "It's my dedication to openness and transparency, Fafnir."
FB: "And we appreciate it. Now, how'd you make the pick?
BUSH: I just looked around an' picked the most qualified justice I could find. There was the coffee mug, the stapler, an' Harriet Miers, and in the end I just had to go with the candidate I felt was the strongest."
FB: "Wow, and that was your 'World's Best President' mug, too!"

Update to last week's item on Harriet Miers's Blog!!! hosts an unscientific online poll, asking readers whether they would vote to confirm her. Unfortunately for "Miers," less than 30% of the 800+ non-senators responding would vote her to the high court.

Posted by at 12:37 PM

October 12, 2005

10/12: Two For The Show

Two stories this week seem to be developing rapidly, dominating the debate on the blogs: 1st of all is the Harriet Miers nod, which most on the right oppose; since yesterday's edition, rumor has had it that Miers was not Pres. Bush's 1st choice, and First Lady Laura Bush has been the target of criticism for saying sexism "possibly" explained some objections to Miers. 2nd is the CIA leak investigation, which after months of dormancy now seems to be in its denouement; the drip-drip has sped up considerably, and bloggers have been working overtime to fill in the gaps between information. A not-so-distant 3rd is concerns over terrorism. One element the Miers and leak stories share is the possible involvement of WH CoS Andy Card, especially as a possible behind-the-scenes opponent of WH dep. CoS Karl Rove. Of course, the other thing they have in common is that neither are good news for the WH.

ROVE-PLAME-MILLER-LIBBY: Almost Time To Add "-Cheney" To The Slug?

Last p.m., Huffington Post reported: "The Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg are working on stories that point to [Cheney] as the target of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation into the leaking of CIA operative Valerie Plame's name." The Wall Street Journal [sub. req.] reports this a.m.: "Fitzgerald's pursuit now suggests he might be investigating not a narrow case on the leaking of the agent's name, but perhaps a broader conspiracy." Plus, attys familiar with the case say they believe Fitzgerald is focusing on the WH Iraq Group, which "likely would have played a significant role in responding to" ex-Amb. Joe Wilson, who contends that the WH misstated its claim that Saddam Hussein sought yellowcake uranium in Niger. However, the article does not specifically mention Cheney. Raw Story carries excerpts from the WSJ report. Liberal Talking Points Memo: "If Karl Rove goes down in this investigation it'll be a disaster for the president, both in terms of the damage occasioned by such a high-level White House indictment and, frankly, because he needs the guy like most of us need legs. But this WHIG thing is a whole 'nother level of hurt."

Daily Kos contributor Kid Oakland notes the latest round of reporting, including Murray Waas reporting on 10/11 in the National Journal that Libby had not told Fitzgerald about his 6/03 conversation with Miller, and Fitzgerald might be investigating whether Cheney CoS Scooter Libby encouraged her not to comply with his subpoenas. There is also a E&P report that Miller, after meeting with special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald again on 10/11, also "must" testify 10/12.

Last night on "Hardball," host Chris Matthews said: "You believe that the fight between those who may be headed toward indictment, the vice president's chief of staff, Karl Rove, there is a war between them and the people who are going to survive them, Andy Card, et cetera." Howard Fineman: "Yes." AMERICAblog has an extended excerpt. Whiskey Bar's Billmon: "If Howard Fineman is right, and Andrew Card really is making a move to topple Karl Rove, then this country could be in a heap of trouble. Rove, at least, is smart, even if it is a feral, devious brand of intelligence. Card, on the other hand, is as dense as a truck load of gravel -- a half-full truck load of gravel." Billmon, who as a journalist in the '80s dealt with Card on occasion, recounts his own dim impressions of the man.

In a piece for Huffington Post, Jane Hamsher points out that on 10/1, two days after Miller cut her deal with Fitzgerald, the Times' Doug Jehl (who is in charge of investigating the Miller case for the Times) and others reported that her 1st meeting with Libby was on 7/8/03 -- although we know now that they spoke in June. Hamsher asks, "who is the source for the statements about when Miller and Libby "first" spoke? Well, there are only two people (presumably) who were party to that conversation, Judy and Scooter. Scooter's career of talking to reporters has been tragically truncated, and he now speaks through his lawyer." Hamsher continues to suspect collusion between Libby and Miller, and concludes: "For those who want to argue that Miller just 'remembered' a bunch of previously forgotten documents outside the scope of the subpoena that she (or the New York Times) simply willingly offered up -- you're going to have to work a little harder to convince my inner novelist." TalkLeft founder Jeralyn Merritt sums up Hamsher's speculation: "In exchange for Fitzgerald's agreement to limit Miller's grand jury questioning to her conversations with Libby about Wilson and Plame, and let her off the hook on her sources for and conversations about Iraq's attempts to acquire uranium, Miller had to agree to forego the time limitation of July 6 to 13 contained in her grand jury subpoena." Merritt considers other possibilities: "But, wouldn't that indicate that Fitzgerald had information about earlier pertinent conversations between Miller and Libby before asking for such an agreement? Otherwise, why extend the time period? ... It still seems more likely to me that Miller disclosed the June conversation spontaneously in response to another question, and then agreed to look for notes about it. That's a pretty ordinary occurrence. But, if Fitzgerald and Miller really did get down to the nitty-gritty during their jailhouse talk, then perhaps Jane is right."

THE MIERS NOMINATION: Card Trick?

RedState's Erick Erickson writes, a number of conservative WH staffers tell him that WH CoS Andy Card "really and truly was the person pushing Miers," that when now-AG Alberto Gonzales left in '02, he took with him the "well trained staff ... and Miers was left to fill a definite void with some lesser experienced staff. Those who mentioned Roberts praised Miers handling of Roberts and commented that Miers went to bat for Roberts right out of the gate with a game plan in place, but no one was there to do the same for Miers. An independent source tells me that Miers begged for more time," but the WH "demanded" that 10/3 "be the day." Plus, a "very credible" rumor has it that they insisted on 10/3 "because the intended nominee to be announced backed out over the weekend. Yes, it is a very credible rumor." Focus on the Family's James Dobson lends some credence to the idea in his 10/12 radio broadcast (the transcript was released 10/11). Seeking to explain what things he had known but "couldn't talk about": "Well, what Karl told me is that some of those individuals took themselves off that list and they would not allow their names to be considered, because the process has become so vicious and so vitriolic and so bitter, that they didn't want to subject themselves or the members of their families to it." Crooks and Liars calls it a "lame response," adding: "I have a question. Aren't you breaking your code by revealing that you had a conversation with Rove in the first place?" Ramesh Ponnuru writes at The Corner, he had heard that conservatives should be "'very happy' with the pick" -- but when it turned out to be Miers, he assumed either the WH had "badly misunderstood conservatives," someone had "dropped out or been discarded at the last minute," or some conservatives had "misinterpreted a command as a prediction. Erickson lends some support" to the 2nd. In a subsequent Corner post, John Podhoretz doesn't buy it: "Everybody on the relatively short list has been there for months and months. The idea that somebody would drop at the last minute rather than keep his or her name out of contention at an earlier phase seems a tad far-fetched." In the post linked above, Erickson adds: "One outside source who has a good ear to the ground tells me that the White House most likely has nothing else to offer in Miers' favor, but will just recycle previous sound bites," and that the "vetting process was so poorly done that much of what is now coming out about Miers was unknown before her nomination."

On 10/10, Right Wing News released results of a poll of 79 right-leaning blogs, asking for their take on the Miers nod. Just 9% said Bush made a "good or excellent decision" in selecting her, whereas 49% said "bad or terrible." The rest split about evenly on whether it was "so-so" or hadn't decided. Likewise, 53% said it made them view Bush "less favorably." Yet 41% wanted Bush to "continue to support" her, 34% wanted him to withdraw the nod, with 25% undecided. And respondents split almost evenly at 33-34% on whether GOP sens. should vote to confirm, vote against, or were undecided.

Neo-Neocon responds to conservatives who are angry enough with the GOP to consign the party to defeat in WH'08, asking, "is all that really more important to you than the war against Islamofascism? That's a real question, not just a rhetorical one, by the way. And yes, of course Bush has made mistakes in the conduct of the war. The important issue is whether you think the Democrats would do better. So, do you prefer to stick it to Bush and allow the Democrats to handle that, and let the chips fall where they may?"

Centrist Mickey Kaus suggests: "How about appointing Miers to a federal appeals court? She's qualified. Bush could say that while he knows Miers he understands others' doubts -- and he knows she will prove over a couple of years what a first-rate judge she is. Then he hopes to be able to promote her. Semi-humiliating, but less humiliating than the alternatives."

REPUBLICANS: You Know It's Bad When Even Laura's Getting Smacked Around

First Lady Laura Bush's comments that "sexism" was "possibly" one reason why conservatives have opposed Miers' nod did not go over well with much of the right-blogosphere. The Political Teen has video of L. Bush's remarks. Michelle Malkin: "Did the White House not inform Mrs. Bush that some of the most vocal criticism and questioning of the nomination comes from conservative women? Or does she buy into the Left's conservative-women-are-self-loathing-traitors-to-their-gender line, too?" Peaktalk's Pieter Dorsman: "The conservative campaign to elevate Janice Rogers Brown to the Supreme Court should be more than sufficient to put the notion of 'sexism' to rest, but somehow the White House is losing its grip on the media process..." Betsy Newmark: "Admittedly, a lot of people felt that a woman shouldn't be nominated just for the sake of nominating a woman. Just like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, we felt that it depended on which woman was nominated."

But sometime Captain's Quarters contributor Dafydd ab Hugh argues at his new group blog, Big Lizards: "Despite the newest charge sweeping the blogosphere, Laura Bush did not call Miers opponents 'sexist.'" He writes, it was NBC's Matt Lauer who used the word "sexism," and takes issue with the ellipses added to L. Bush's remarks, when in fact "Lauer asked the question and paused; Mrs. Bush started to answer and was cut off by Lauer, who finished asking the question." He adds: "Listening to the audio, it is clear that she was not agreeing with or even emphasizing the point. In fact, she was brushing it off." Patrick Frey disagrees: "Dafydd's argument is based entirely on his hearing a break in the sentence: 'I think that's possible.' But I just don't hear it. The sentence is unbroken. Also, I think that even if Dafydd is right (and I don't think he is), it's a distinction without a difference"

TERRORISM: How Sinister?

As reported last p.m. by CNN and others, the warning that led to the heightened alert on the NYC subway last week was most likely a hoax. Responses break down neatly along the typical Iraq war support/non-support fault line. Conservative Stop the ACLU: "Propaganda war I guess, but I still say better safe than sorry. I don't think we can ever be too careful in this war." The Moderate Voice's Joe Gandelman, who supported the war, notes, "several books on terrorism note that one way terrorists can function is to spread false info that creates a climate of panic. There are no easy answers in any of these dilemmas... because the stakes are too high." The Left Coaster: "A local TV news station had the information on Tuesday, the 4th, but held it at the request of federal officials until Thursday. I'd like to think that the federal officials wanted the story held until they could check it out, but with the sorry track record of this administration in manipulating terror threats for political advantage, who knows why the threat was held until after a string of bad political news came out last week? Bloomberg, in the middle of a reelection campaign, went with the information." Crooks and Liars is 1 of a number of left-leaning blogs giving a boost to MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, who on the 10/12 show "will take a look at the terror alerts that have been issued by the government over the past several years. It will include a look at the political climate at the time of each alert ... viewers will be given the context of those alerts and can determine for themselves if any or all of them were politically motivated."

Pre$$titutes calls attention to the recent discovery of an al Qaeda letter -- a seemingly common occurrence -- which it thinks is probably bogus: "It doesn't take a terrorism expert to know how unlikely it is that terrorist masterminds are exchanging long letters critiquing one another, complaining about strategic failures, and detailing long-term objectives. But true to form, our gullible press is hyperventilating over this 'intercepted' letter."

TownHall's Mary Katherine Ham provides a round-up of stories which have caught the attention of the right as of late: Classical Values wondering why the bomb at Ga. Tech recieved nat'l coverage, but the OU "suicide bomber" did not, and B Relevant follows the strange tale of an airplane stolen over the weekend and landed in GA.

DELAY: Texas Hold 'Em

Power Line posts excerpts from a letter to Travis Co. DA Ronnie Earle from Dick DeGuerin, atty for ex-House Maj. Leader/Rep. Tom DeLay, notifying him and his staff of subpoenas relating to the 5-day period between Earle's 1st indictment of DeLay, and subsquent re-indictment. John Hinderaker comments: "The cover of the current issue of Newsweek headlines an article about purported corruption in the [GOP], with photos of DeLay and Bill Frist. If, as I expect, the two phony indictments of DeLay are dismissed, it will be interesting to see whether Newsweek puts a smiling Tom DeLay on its cover, with an article about the Majority Leader's vindication." The Houston Conservative: "The Left has picked a fight with a guy who will not lay down for it and they are getting ready find that out...in spades. Earle is a light weight when it comes to politics as a contact sport." Left-leaning Tufts Democrats: "DeLay's attempt to wiggle out of it through the subpoena of Earle shows a complete disrespect for the law -- not to mention the disrespect that he had shown it by participating in illegal activities to begin with." Right-leaning Pundit Guy: "Heh. Like two little kids on the playground."

WHITE HOUSE '08: The Death Knell Of A Gore Candidacy?

Arianna Huffington reports, even as Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) comes to L.A. for a major Hollywood fundraiser, "more and more, the Hollywood buzz is centering" on ex-VP Gore. Writes Huffington: "The idea of Gore vs Clinton in 2008 certainly presents a wealth of delicious story lines: The former Number 2 running against his Number 1's wife. Gore taking down Hillary as payback for the pall Monicagate cast over 2000. Gore as 'the new New Nixon' ... Automaton Al remaking himself as progressive firebrand. Passion vs. polling."

VIRGINIA GOV: Doesn't This Same Argument Work For Blue State GOPers On Abortion?

On 10/11, AP reported that VA SEN candidate/AG Jerry Kilgore (R) is going up with a new ad hitting LG Tim Kaine (D) for remarks Kaine apparently made, saying that his opposition to the death penalty would extend to Hitler, Idi Amin, etc. In the AP story, Kaine responds: "What I said was I will carry out the law ... as governor, I'll carry out death sentences handed down by Virginia juries because that's the law." Pro-Kaine Raising Kaine argues, this "is not enough for the Kilgore campaign to unleash the smear campaign against a good, moral, Christian man named Tim Kaine. Unfortunately, the Kilgore campaign was getting desperate. They could feel it all slipping away from them, all that hard work at sliming Tim Kaine over the past year. And that was unacceptable. So, they didn't just go negative. They went Adolph Hitler negative." Pro-Kilgore Commonwealth Conservative: "Kaine did not refute the comments, nor did he firmly say that Hitler deserved the death penalty." And even the "prosecutor they brought out to defend Kaine only gave him lukewarm support, at best. He sounded dejected, as well. This is devastating and marks the end of the Kaine campaign. This game is over."

MIDTERMS '06: In This Case At Least, Not As Good As The Real Thing

On 10/10, conservative news site News Max reported: "Teaming up with the legendary rock group U2 for a one-night only appearance will be" Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), at the Wachovia Center in Philly. An organizer is quoted as saying: "It's truly appropriate for U2, a band with a purpose, to be involved in a fund-raiser with Senator Rick Santorum, a politician with a purpose. Both men are passionate about what they believe and their faith is very important to them." Ex-Dean manager Joe Trippi posts to his blog a release from a Bono-headed org. saying U2 had no involvement, adding: "As I have learned, it is a private luxury box at the arena and not an exclusive concert in the entire Wachovia Center in Philadelphia." Anti-Santorum Santorum Exposed: "That's just a little bit different than U2 'teaming up' with Rick Santorum."

IRAQ: Let's Make A Deal

Power Line: "Good news from Iraq: A deal has been reached among Shia, Sunni and Kurdish leaders on a final draft of the new Constitution to be voted on on Saturday. Not surprisingly, negotiations continued until more or less the last minute. As a result of the compromise, at least one Sunni group has announced that it will support the Constitution in Saturday's balloting." The Fourth Rail's Bill Roggio: "This constitutional compromise can drive a stake through the heart of al Qaeda's "hearts and minds" approach in Iraq. Al Qaeda's short-term goals of establishing a base of operations in Iraq and striking out at the greater Middle East may have to be pushed back to a mid or long term goal." OxBlog's David Adesnik is a bit less optimistic: "It's possible that the constitution will fail in spite of the Sunni endorsement. Sunni public opinion may simply be against it. Or those who support the constitution may be afraid to vote, while those against it may have less to fear from Ba'athist insurgents (although not the foreign fighters). But now I have my fingers crossed. The insurgency may find it much harder to operate without even the pretense of Sunni support."

Kevin Drum, one of the few liberals commenting on the story, notes it takes 9 paragraphs before the Washington Post's version explains what the deal entails. It is: "The major concession from Tuesday's talks was agreement by the Shiites and Kurds that a committee be created early next year to consider amendments to the constitution....Any changes recommended by the committee would have to be ratified by a two-thirds vote of parliament and a national referendum." Drum is skeptical: "That's it? A committee will 'consider' amendments? ... I'm all in favor of anything that makes a peaceful transition in Iraq more likely, but I've read half a dozen stories about this agreement and every one of them makes it sound like at least some Sunnis are ecstatic over this deal. Conversely, none of them mention that it's essentially meaningless. What am I missing?"

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: The Harder They Fall

Using the BlogPulse trend tool, Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas posts a PNG image showing how often the names of New York Times columnists Paul Krugman, Tom Friedman and David Brooks have appeared in blog posts since the paper moved their columns behind its TimesSelect subscription wall. Although Krugman had one notable spike in late Sept., there is an unmistakable drop-off in mentions in the past month. Not surprisingly, there is little sympathy for the Times. Says one commenter: "I've seen all the Krugman columns, they are often linked here and on Buzzflash, so the NYT can just go on charging anything they want, I'll never pay them anything." And another takes issue with the TimesSelect name: "I think TimesElite would have been a more appropriate choice."

BLOGS VS. THE FEC: Slashdot And Burn

A participant on the tech message board Slashdot -- which actually predates the blogosphere by several years -- notes a Washington Post editorial "criticizing a little-noticed bill" moving through Congress "that would allow unlimited and unreported campaign contributions by corporations and individuals as long as it was confined to internet advertising and publicity buys. While internet spending was only $14 million last year it is growing at a rate of 30 fold over four years poising it to overtake conventional media spending." The 1st Slashdotter adds: "Now all of Europe's going to be completely overwhelmed with advertisements for political parties they cannot even vote for." Another comments: "I don't think that we're going to find billions dumped into internet advertising, why? Because internet campaigning isn't going to be growing at 30 fold forever." Others debate the free speech restrictions. Yet another, a self-described liberal, calls it a matter of free speech: "How the "liberals" got caught up in this illiberal crusade is beyond me. It smacks more of anti-Republicanism than anything else." Still another disagrees: "I would draw the line when it comes to giving other people enough money for them to repeat their mantra loudly enough and often enough that it drowns out the dissenting voices."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Win One For The Gipper?

Commenting on Ed Morrissey's Washington Post op-ed on the 3 types of conservative reactions to Miers' nod (see 10/11 Blogometer), Big Lizards' Dafydd Ab Hugh realizes there is a 4th type, and that it explains why Bush chose Miers in the first place: "I talked about the fourth class of conservatives, what I called the Cowboys. These are intelligent but non-intellectual (even anti-intellectual) folks who don't try to articulate their conservativeness... they simply live it. I noted that Bush belongs to this class, rather than to the Loyalist Army, the Rebel Alliance, or the Trench-Dwelling Dogfaces, all of whom at least have pretensions to being intellectuals. The Cowboys very much distrust intellectuals because they believe those eggheads can talk themselves into believing anything. ... In contrast, there is a very special kind of person found almost exclusively among the Cowboys. For want of a better word, I'll call this sort a Gipper. A Gipper (Ronald Reagan is the prototypical example) is a person who doesn't need to logically reason his way to rightness, because he has an instantaneous intuitive understanding of right and wrong. ... George Bush sees Miers as a female Ronald Reagan: to him, she is a Gipper."

LEST WE FORGET: Taking Unsmurfiness To New Levels

If you're a bit late to the Unicef-bombs-the-Smurfs party like we are, Bareknuckle Politics hosts the video. The Telegraph report on the Belgian ad campaign which produced the video. The Jawa Report comments: "In the time it took to write this post, Richard Perle and other prominent Neo-Smurf Zionist smurfs at the Defense Policy Smurf, planned to smurf Smurf children with thousand pound smurfs. Meanwhile, smurfs at Halliburton grow richer off the smurfs of dead smurfs. All we are saying, is give smurf a chance!" Plus, this is as good as time as any to point out that the Smurfs might be communists.

NOTES AND ERRATA: What The Blogometer Didn't Tell You

Every so often, the Blogometer wanders into a debate where the participants don't see eye-to-eye about the facts of the matter. We don't always have the time to get to the bottom of them, but what we can do is provide links for further reading. The latest concerns the circumstances which resulted in members of RedState suspending the posting privileges of The Strata-Sphere's AJ Strata. Debates over Miers at RedState grew heated over the past week, with some complaining about the diminished civility, and others apologizing for their part in it. RedState contends that Strata was intended to get himself banned, and took the debate too far. We encourage readers to make up their own minds. Along similar lines, Strata follows-up here with a bit more from his side.

Posted by at 12:31 PM

October 11, 2005

10/11: Glass Warfare

One week after Pres. Bush nominated WH counsel Harriet Miers for SCOTUS, her nod has become a half-empty/half-full situation, with her critics calling it "mostly empty," and her supporters "mostly full." Her opponents, generally more strident, don't seem as though they could be persuaded by hearings. Meanwhile, arguments in her favor are generally of the "we-don't-know-yet" variety.

Among conservative bloggers who focus on the political outcome of her opinions, there is more opposition, not less. Among those who focus on her background, there are more questions about her qualifications, not less. Only among those asking what sort of legal mind it takes to be a successful justice is there a noticeable thaw.

Most agree that there is not much known about her current or past views on specific policy issues, let alone constitutional questions. Searching for hints in anecdotal evidence of her background in TX, several conservatives have found cause to question her conservative credentials. Meanwhile, the pro-Miers crowd is unpersuaded by those taking a wait-and-see approach. The anti-Miers contingent also challenges her qualifications, whereas the pro-Miers section charges the former with elitism and fear a "civil war" on the right.

What does the left have to say about this? They too are somewhat divided on Miers, but are not anywhere near as consumed by the debate. More interesting to them: The CIA leak investigation and the recently-surfaced June '03 notes by New York Times' Judy Miller. Nobody knows what's in them, but there are some spy novel-quality theories floating around. Not only that, but also Sen. Joe Lieberman's attendance at last week's National Review party.

THE MIERS NOMINATION: Meltdown Or Thaw?

In a post titled "A Miers Meltdown?" libertarian-conservative Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds assesses the state of the Miers nod: "More and more, I have to wonder what the White House was thinking with this. First of all, when you're already under fire for cronyism, and you nominate someone who's, well, a crony, you ought to be locked-and-loaded in terms of response. They weren't. Second of all, they seem to have managed to convince a lot of people on the social right that she's too liberal, while people on the libertarian-right worry that she's too much a fan of government power. Third, their response to critics and complaints has been slow and weak. I realize that the White House is busy ... with a lot of war and foreign-policy questions. But if so, isn't that more reason to go with a safe pick of the Michael McConnell variety?" Reynolds opens up the post for commenting -- something he does very rarely -- and as of this a.m. there are well over 100 comments.

Last week the anonymous PoliPundit, founder of the popular GOP group blog PoliPundit, supported the Miers nod (see 10/6 Blogometer). But after reconsidering, PoliPundit now oppposes: "On Roe v. Wade, I have no doubt that Miers is a rock-solid pro-lifer. If this were the only issue that mattered, then Miers would have my full support. But there are any number of other issues before the Court, foremost among them the racial discrimination that goes on in the name of affirmative action. ... Miers says she didn't join the FedSoc 'or other 'politically charged' groups because they 'seem to color your view one way or another.'' Doesn't the liberal ABA count? In the White House, Miers argued for every judicial nomination to be vetted by the ABA. Miers just doesn't seem to understand who the friends and enemies of modern conservatism are. Such ignorance is dangerous." JustOneMinute's Tom Maguire is opposed as well: "If Hillary nominated her best friend from college, I would not care what her qualifications were, and I feel the same way about Miers. I don't want a merely a reliable vote - I want a solid conservative judge who can articulate the issues and do us proud." Patterico's Ponitifications points out another reason for conservatives to be skeptical of Miers, in a Dallas Morning News article reporting that, during her time as a Dallas city council member, she supported the "Implementation of Fire Department Affirmative Action Plan," which was specifically intended to help women get promoted within the fire dept. Patterico's dismissive take on this position: "Because we don't mind short, weak, nearsighted firefighters, as long as we get enough women in the process." Protein Wisdom's Jeff Goldstein is also concerned about reports that Miers encouraged Bush to take the pro-affirmative action position in Grutter v. Bollinger: "Sandra Day O'Connor, you'll remember, wrote a stinging dissent in that case. Which means that, if Miers truly does mirror the political philosophy of the President, the new Court might actually be taking a step backwards." James Taranto, who has stepped back from initial support, found Antonin Scalia's non-comment on Miers -- Never having met her, I have no impression of her" itself rather telling: "The gregarious Scalia is a fixture on Washington's social circuit, especially among conservative lawyers. If Miers has never met him, that is an indication of how much of an outsider she is, and it helps explain why [conservatives] are so demoralized and angry at the selection."

Center-right law prof Ann Althouse is warming up to Miers: "If you are going to devote your life to the subject of constitutional law, as an academic subject, you are probably the sort of person who is attracted to abstractions, theories, and larger patterns and aspirations. You are going to tend to approve of jurists who have a similar frame of mind, a large capacity for theory, that makes you and the people you surround yourself with so impressive. Now, who is this Harriet Miers, this practicing lawyer, who presumes to go on the Court and write the opinions we must spend our lives reading and analyzing? ... Thinking about it that way has begun to thaw my opposition to Miers. Why is it not a good thing to have one person on the Court who approaches constitutional decisionmaking the way a lawyer would deal with the next legal problem that comes across the desk?" Miers supporter William Dyer of BeldarBlog argues that Miers' critics seem to believe "that you have to keep writing law review articles month after month and year after year in order to have a powerful intellect." Dyer argues the opposite, "that the Court badly needs someone with the perspective of a practicing lawyer with trial-court experience. This is not an argument in favor of mediocrity. This is an argument in favor of adding some different kinds of smarts to the Court." That Dyer post included a list of her credentials, meant to rebut Charles Krauthammer's complaint that nothing distinguishes her from the "1,084,504" other attys in the U.S. But The Politburo Diktat scoffs at his summary, putting the "purely puffery modifiers in bold type," adding: "You know what I want? I want even Chuck Schumer to describe a SCOTUS nominee as 'one of the most brilliant legal minds of the decade.' That's what I want. None of this 'good student' stuff." Hugh Hewitt is one of the few Miers supporters who focuses on the outcome of her decisions: "When Bush said [he would appoint justices] 'like Scalia or Thomas' many people heard many things. I think it is very safe to say that the vast majority of American voters did not hear 'justices committed to a particular theory ... of textualism or originalism.' I think they heard "'justices who aren't making stuff up' ... I think they heard 'results,' and if I am right, Bush has not only not broken his promise, he may be well on his way to fulfilling it twice and hopefully more times over."

On Hewitt's 10/7 radio show, Taranto's Wall Street Journal colleague John Fund said: "[W]e are going to see six or seven surprises come down the road the next few days, about Harriet Miers. Now all of them are sustainable individually. The problem is because the White House was completely unprepared for this, they're doing a disservice to you and her supporters." One such story will be about the TX Lottery Commis., the "various contracts that were allocated, how they were allocated, and Harriet Miers' role in them." A full transcript is available at Radio Blogger. Fund had been initially open to the Miers nod, but as he wrote on 10/10, after looking into her background, "I came away convinced that questions about Ms. Miers should be raised now -- and loudly -- because she has spent her entire life avoiding giving a clear picture of herself." Blogs for Bush's Mark Noonan responds to the Fund column: "I still don't get the opposition to Miers. I understand the burning desire to get to know Miers' views better -- I want to know them as well; but I can't see the knee-jerk opposition we've witnessed before the nominee has had a chance to present herself in committee. Could be that she ends up being a clunker -- but maybe she dazzles. Why don't we wait and see?"

REPUBLICANS: Spare A Moment For The Dog-Faced Boy

On 10/9, conservative Ed Morrissey of Captain's Quarters had an op-ed published in the Washington Post, titled "How Harriet Unleashed a Storm on the Right." In it, he summarizes how the GOP has split, identifying 3 camps: pro-Miers "Loyalist Army," anti-Miers "Rebel Alliance," and the grudgingly supportive "Trench-Dwelling Dogfaces." Centrist Joe Gandelman summarizes: "Morrissey and other Republicans are basically saying they don't want to wink anymore. They'll oppose the selection, or go along with it and be honest about it, but they're NOT going to wink and pretend this nomination is anything but what it is -- the President appointing a close friend and his personal lawyer to a slot that could have been filled with a jurist or lawyer who has a discernible record of deep thought and written decisions. In essence, Republicans are demanding a more above-board form of politics than this White House wants to practice." The Anchoress: "I don't know if I fully fault Bush for 'splitting' [conservatives]. Some of this split has an element of (I am sorry to say it) elitist dismissiveness to it. ... We commoners expect insulting condescension from folks on the left who, in their 'tolerant' sophistication, openly disdain the hicks. It has been an unpleasant surprise to see that same disdain from some on the right."

Right-leaning A.J. Strata, who supports the Miers nod, announces that he has been banned from the GOP community blog RedState: "Key folks at Redstate have been pushing for a civil war in the republican party, and the broader conservative movement, over the Miers nomination. ... I decided to test their mettle. I wanted to know if, beyond their flimsy claims, they had what it took to make this fight real. They don't. I was banned because I called the anti-Miers crowd 'extremists' and 'fanatics'." ... I was testing the envelope (and their buttons - especially Leon H) to see if they could handle the intensity of infighting they were calling for. ... All I can say folks is: do not run to oust Miers if you expect folks like those at Redstate to back you. They had no good responses, and in the end hid behind silencing the voices they could not deal with." One of the key discussion threads in question starts here, in the comments of another post related to Morrissey's op-ed. In it, RedState regulars Leon H and Thomas warn him to cut out the "ad hominems" lest he lose his privileges, which he since has. Thomas also follows up with a RedState diary fisking Strata, i.e. reposting the original message and rebutting it line-by-line in a typically sarcastic manner.

Even the moderates are split amongst themselves: Environmental Republican hosts this week's "Carnival of the RINOs," a self-contributed collection of recent posts by moderate conservatives. He summarizes, the Miers nod has "split the elephants. I tend to take a wait and see approach, but first impressions are not exactly instilling any great feeling toward her." Don Surber argues, this isn't about Miers, it's about Bush: "Conservatives are fed up with him, and their list of particulars is credible, such as signing McCain Feingold, invading Iraq on the premise of WMD "rather than democratizing the place," the budget deficit, and so on. He adds: "Republican congressmen under Bush are in the same spot Democratic congressmen were under Jimmy Carter. Next time I see Robert Byrd, I might ask him the Miltonian question of whether it is better to be minority leader under Reagan than it is to be majority leader under Carter." On the other hand,