October 03, 2005

10/3: Stealth Bombing

Announcement: Today The Hotline is launching a blog: Hotline On Call. Whereas the Blogometer "takes the temperature of the political blogosphere," Hotline On Call offers "evolving wisdom from the editors of the Hotline." Please stop by.

If you can find a conservative blogger enthusiastic about Pres. Bush's pick of WH counsel Harriet Miers for the open SCOTUS seat, you'll have to let us know -- we can't find it. The initial reaction was one of shock and outright hostility; as the morning has worn on, a few have voiced fairly reluctant support. Liberal bloggers, already unlikely to support whatever the pick would have been, focus on the "cronyism" and "inexperience" angles -- even Bush's Guard service.

Last p.m., Volokh Conspiracy noted that Judge [Michael] Luttig had "taken a sudden jump and lead" at online betting site Tradesports. This morning at around 7 a.m., we stopped by the site to find Judge Karen Williams leading with an "offer" rating of 24.7, Luttig not far behind with 20.0, and AG Alberto Gonzales the only other possibility in double-digits, at 11.8. Minutes later, the AP reported Bush's choice would be Miers. The bid price shot up from single digits to 75 and probably higher; no offer price was listed. Williams fell hardest, while Luttig and Gonzales kept their places. A few minutes later, Tradesports called a halt to all trading on the question.

SCOTUS: Thank You For Being A Friend ... Traveled Down The Road And Back Again

>> At first, some wondered whether this wasn't another "head fake." But within the half hour, it was confirmed -- NRO's K.J. Lopez, at Bench Memos: "I just got something from the White House press office on Miers, so it's the real deal."

>> On 9/30, Right Wing News asked a number of prominent conservative bloggers to list the candidate they expected Bush would pick, the candidates they wished he would pick, and those they hoped he wouldn't. Only The Anchoress expected Miers; no one hoped for her, and a few specifically hoped she wouldn't be the pick. This a.m., RWN's John Hawkins follows up under the header "Disaster, Thy Name Is Harriet Miers": "Miers is a Bush crony with no real conservative credentials, who leapfrogged legions of more deserving judges just because she was Bush's pal. ... To merely describe Miers as a terrible pick is to underestimate her sheer awfulness as a selection."

>> Rumors flew for a few minutes that the Miers-affil. Exodus religious group was the one that claims to turn gays straight. Among those initially confused or mistaken were Wonkette, Andrew Sullivan and the forums at Fark. Law Dork quickly set the record, er, straight: "Instead, it would most likely appear to have been a reference to this Dallas-based Exodus Ministries, which "seeks to encourage ex-offenders, to reunite them with their families, and to empower them to become self-sustaining, productive, Christ-centered members of society."

>> SCOTUSblog's Tom Goldstein analyzes the pick: The Miers nod "creates a very interesting political dynamic -- one that places the nomination in peril." Conservatives "would prefer Miers to be rejected in the hope -- misguided, I think -- that the President would then nominate, for example, Janice Rogers Brown. Moderate Republicans have no substantial incentive to support Miers, and the President seems to have somewhat less capital to invest here." And even if Dems "aren't truly gravely concerned, they will see this as an opportunity to damage the President."

>> Conservative journalist Tim Carney: "In 1993, after the ABA had voted to adopt a pro-choice stance, the State Bar of Texas, under Miers' leadership, fought to have the issue put to a vote of the full ABA membership. She said: 'If we were going to take a position on this divisive issue, the members should have been able to vote.' In favor of democracy on the issue of abortion? Let's hope she carries that through." Political donation watchdog News Meat quickly went up with info showing that while Miers' political donations have gone mostly to GOPers, some have gone to Dems, including then-Sen. Al Gore's WH'88 campaign. Philadelphia Daily News' Attytood writes, Miers -- who was hired by BC'00 to investigate the issue of Bush's TANG service records -- knows "better than just about anyone else where the bodies are buried." More: "At roughly the same time all of this was happening, Miers was also the Bush-named chair of the scandal-plagued Texas Lottery Commission. The biggest issue before Miers and the commission was whether to retain lottery operator Gtech, which had been implicated in a bribery scandal. Gtech's main lobbyist in Texas in the mid-1990s? None other than that same Ben Barnes who had the goods on how Bush got into the Guard and avoided Vietnam." Christian World Views' Marvin Olasky, who talked with Miers' pastor recently, points out that Miers' mother is 93 years old.

Right reax:

• Instapundit: "Perhaps they'll change my mind, but so far I'm underwhelmed."
• RedState's Erick Erickson, the repeater of many DC GOP rumors -- and who last week discounted the Miers "trial balloon" -- upon the announcement: "We've all heard the rumors, but not a one could believe the President would do that. Where is our Scalia/Thomas. I think I'll let the President fight this battle himself, for now."
• Captain's Quarters: "Not only does Harriet Miers not look like the best candidate for the job, she doesn't even look like the best female candidate for the job. If judicial experience is a liability, why not Maureen Mahoney, who is younger, has argued" before the SCOTUS, worked in the dep. Solicitor's office, and clerked for Rehnquist.
• John Podhoretz, at The Corner: "This may be the strangest fight he's ever decided to wage, because he's entirely out on his own on this one."
• Cut on the Bias: "I see no reason to assume she'll be a mediocre member of the Court, although I also see no reason to think she'll show a sudden propensity for intense legal scholarship. It's a risk."
• PoliPundit: "I'm not thrilled with this pick, but can live with it. Miers is 60, which is a little too old in the ghoulish calculus of SCOTUS nominations; I'd have preferred someone in their 40s or 50s. On the plus side, she's got no paper trail, since she's never been a judge; so Senate Democrats will be hard-pressed to stop her."
• At his NRO blog, ex-Bush speechwriter David Frum calls it "an unforced error."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker calls the pick a "disappointment," but keeps an open mind: "[U]ntil we see something to the contrary, I'll take it on faith that she will be a principled strict constructionist on the Court."
• Conservative Iowa Voice: "To put it bluntly, this has to be one of the biggest disappointments of the Bush Presidency. And that's saying a lot."
• Southern Appeal's Steve Dillard: "I am done with President Bush."

Left reax:

• AMERICAblog: "Just exactly who the hell is Harriet Miers?"
• Demagogue: "Nice job, Mr. President. How good of you to nominate someone with even less of a record than John Roberts."
• Jerome Armstrong is reminded of now-DNC chair Howard Dean saying that Bush told him the religious conservatives were "nuts": "Bush and Rove are beyond caring about what the public thinks, including the cons. It's obvious that Miers isn't a movement conservative ... If she turns out to be a true conservative, it won't come out until after the next mid-term; let the damage be done."
• Happy Furry Puppy Story Time's Norbizness and Pam's House Blend focus on the recent Frum comment: "In the White House that hero worshipped the president, Miers was distinguished by the intensity of her zeal: She once told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met." Norbizness jokes that this means he should be suited up for the Astros' NLDS game on 10/05.
• Talking Points Memo: "[N]ot being a judge, in itself, doesn't seem like that big a deal to me. Many law profs who get nominated to the bench have never been judges. And more relevant to this case, there's been a reasonably broad bipartisan call in recent years to get 'a politician' on the Court."
• The Heretik: "Like Roberts, Miers would serve for life. Whether the Democrats have enough life in them to question her rigorously is still unknown."

ROVE-PLAME-MILLER-LIBBY: What Does Stephanopolous Know, And When Did He Know It?

On Sunday's "This Week," host George Stephanopolous said of the CIA leak investigation: "Definitely a political problem but I wonder, George Will, do you think it's a manageable one for the White House especially if we don't know whether [Patrick] Fitzgerald is going to write a report or have indictments but if he is able to show as a source close to this told me this week, that" Bush and VP Cheney "were actually involved in some of these discussions." Crooks & Liars has video, in WMV and QT formats. CAP's Judd Legum: "This would explain why Bush spent more than an hour answering questions from special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. It would also fundamentally change the dynamics of the scandal. President Bush could no longer claim he was merely a bystander who wants to 'get to the bottom of it.'" Lefty Juan Cole: "The whole point of Bushism is to punish dissidence within the ranks immediately and ruthlessly. ... Everyone always underestimates the malevolence of the Bushes of Connecticut."

Noting the Michael Isikoff report where Libby's atty says Libby never talked to Novak about Plame, atty Jeralyn Merritt writes at TalkLeft: "I think the signs point to no indictments for leaking Plame's identity but possible indictments for perjury, making false statements to federal officials, obstruction of justice and some kind of conspiracy charge." Conservative Mark Coffey is a bit more circumspect: "Well, that's Libby's side of the story, then; did the grand jury hear different from someone else?"

FireDogLake's Jane Hamsher wonders how the Times got a copy of the letter from Scooter Libby to Judith Miller; she wonders if the New York Times coerced Miller to turn it over (assuming that the NYT was paying her legal fees). According to Hamsher, Arianna Huffington says Miller is "seriously pissed" that the NYT published the letter. Mickey Kaus notes that Power Line has the letter, too -- and has posted scans of each page. Kaus tries to figure out where the letter came from: "OK, so they got them from Libby, right? But why would Libby want to gratuitously anger Miller on the very day she was giving testimony that might or might not cause his criminal indictment?" He rests his current speculation on Fitzgerald's office.

BLOGS VS. THE FEC: Where There's Fired Up There's ...

More Soft Money Hard Law reports, CFR advocacy orgs. CRP, Democracy 21 and the CLC "have objected to favorable consideration" of Fired Up America's "request to the FEC for legal clearance of a political website." While the blog "produces news reporting and commentary" of a "politically progressive ... nature," they contend "that the request is too 'hypothetical,' but argue also that if the FEC proceeds to the merits, it should find the purposes too 'partisan' to qualify for the media exemption." At Skeptic's Eye, ex-FEC atty Allison Hayward writes: "Of course, Fired Up! promises no such thing -- but Fired Up! ISN'T owned or controlled by a candidate, political committee, or party. Now, perhaps the reform lobby think Fired Up! SHOULD be a political committee (given its overtly political posture), and they hint at that possibility." Perkins Coie atty Brian Svoboda has written a reply criticizing the comments, which Hayward excerpts at length. A sample: "If there is any logic to be discerned in the commenters' analysis of the media exemption, that logic should be very frightening to the Daily Kos, RedState.org, and the many others like them. If you have 'an overtly partisan purpose,' if you do not 'provide a function identical or similar to classic media activities,' and if you take in or spend more than $1,000, then you are a political committee, and you must register with the FEC. The comment tries to evade this conclusion. This is why it falsely claims that Fired Up 'poses a hypothetical question' and is free to engage in its proposed activities notwithstanding the media exemption."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Not Another Zombie Picture

This weekend the New York Times editorial page included a letter from Gail Collins and a substantial correction of an 8/26 Paul Krugman column concerning the hypothetical results of unconducted WH'00 FL recounts. Conservative blogs disputed his claim, Krugman issued a series of web-only corrections, and as the Blogometer noted on 9/19, eventually public editor Byron Calame weighed in, criticizing Krugman as well as the Times editorial board for its inadequate correction policy. Conservative Decision '08 calls it "The Most Painful Correction Of All Time": "Apparently, wringing a correction out of Krugman is so heinously difficult that it requires a full-fledged intervention by ... Collins in the form of a spotlight editorial -- an editorial that manages to work in a cheap shot at [ex-FEMA dir./FEMA adviser] Michael Brown in the course of describing how the Times will handle 'minor' misstatements of fact." Patterico's Pontifications: "This language is utterly false, as the new correction makes clear — yet these columns are still running with this false and uncorrected language. Unbelievable!"

When the San Francisco Chroniclepublished a photo of the 9/24 anti-war rally on its website, it used a tightly-cropped photo of a young woman as its lead teaser photo. Conservative SF-based website Zombie Time, which had covered the rally as well, noticed that they had almost the same photo -- along with many others that show the protest as being more radical in nature than the Chronicle depicted. The report was picked up by Chronicle critic ChronWatch and others, and on 10/2, the Chronicle's reader rep. Dick Rogers wrote a column addressing the matter, defending the paper's decisions while conceding the basic point. ChronWatch, Power Line and Hugh Hewitt have more.

At a media discussion panel last week, CBS News pres. Andrew Heyward criticized the MSM's longstanding reliance on "the illusion of omniscience": "A lot of television news is based around the notion that there is one truth the reporter gets to. The public has to accept the notion of ambiguity ... and we have to be bold enough to acknowledge that there is more than one answer." BuzzMachine's Jeff Jarvis, who live-blogged it: "That, I believe, was a big moment, reflecting a cultural change in mainstream news." Participant Jay Rosen wrote later: "'That's the way it is' journalism isn't credible anymore ... Therefore point-of-view has started to become more acceptable because it seems more inevitable."

DEMOCRATS: With All Due Respect, Senator ...

As we mentioned last week, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) posted a diary to Daily Kos criticizing many liberal activists for their stridency and criticism of Dem sens. such as Pat Leahy (D-VT), who supported Roberts. Salon blogwatcher Peter Daou writes a response to Obama in the form of a follow-up to his "Triangle" essay (see 9/20 Blogometer) titled: "The Triangle: Obama's Diary & Netroots Disenchantment." Contra Obama's claim that the netroots see the Dems as too weak, Daou writes: "[T]he root deficiency of Democrats with respect to message is not that Democrats don't match Republicans blow for blow ... It's that they fail to project core convictions." He also argues that Obama is wrong to think Dems must "tailor their approach" to the country's beliefs, arguing, "working within the triangle of netroots and media, can change those beliefs." He concludes: "Stop listening so hard to what people tell you they think and teach them how and what to think. Don't sit back while the right creates conventional wisdom and then fashion your policies around it, use the netroots and the media to build a triangle that reshapes conventional wisdom." Back at Daily Kos, Armando disagrees that the netroots demanded a filibuster, and wonders why Obama doesn't make a point of having voted against Roberts himself.

At Daily Kos, Hunter takes a stab at coming up with a statement on what the Dem Party stands for: "Strong Families. Strong Communities. Strong Nation." He explains: "If it sounds 'Republican,' it shouldn't. ... Strong, viable families build strong communities. Strong communities build strong economies, and strong states, and support the basic framework of American resilience, competitiveness, and high quality of life. Those, in turn, build a strong, prosperous, well protected, well respected nation."

WHITE HOUSE '08: Wrong Side Of History?

In the latest New York Times Magazine, Matt Bai writes of Sen Hillary Clinton's (D-NY) place in the party. Swing State Project's Bob Brigham comments: "This article seems to back up those of us who have questioned Hillary's political instincts. As far as internal [party] politics go, it appears Hillary is trying to bridge old divides that no longer exist and in the way she is going about doing so, has put herself on what will inevitably be the losing side of the current debate" in the Dem Party. More: "The Clintons may have allowed us to go to where we are, but they didn't join us. And we aren't waiting for them to catch up, because we are too busy following their example and pushing on."

BALI: 9/10 All Over Again?

On 10/1, 3 bombs exploded in tourist areas of Bali, Indonesia, killing 19 and wounding 130+. Liberal hawk Roger L. Simon commented: "The religious psychotics strike again in the name of Allah. Who knows where it will end?" He later updates: "A sign that we are all becoming inured to this kind of thing is that it doesn't even appear on the Drudge Report at this hour (10:21AM)." Belle Waring, at Crooked Timber: "Bali's economy, so dependent on tourism, was only now beginning to make a full recovery from the 2002 bombing; everyone I spoke to said that things were better, but not back up to pre-bombing levels. This second blow may cripple Bali for a long time." Michelle Malkin has a round-up of news reports and blog commentary.

BLOGGERS VS. BLOGGERS: Just So Long As You're Civil About It

Last week at Blogs for Bush, Mark Noonan wrote a post titled "Do the Democrats Want a Civil War?" As we noted on 9/30, the post drew immediate criticism from Daily Kos. Later that p.m., Blogs for Bush co-blogger Matt Margolis posted text of an e-mail sent to his site host, claiming they were "posting libelous and illegal material, such as calling for the killing of politically-oriented parties as well as libelous material against individuals." Ascribing the e-mails to Kossacks, Margolis wrote: "These people are so threatened by conservative views that they cannot engage in reasoned debate..." Very late that p.m., Air America radio host Mike Malloy praised the Daily Kos response, saying, "beat the crap out of them. If you can do it with the pen, fine. If you need to do it with the sword, that's ok, too... uhhh... you know it's said that the pen is mightier than the sword." Margolis posts the audio. On 10/2, lefty Billmon asked: "So what I really want to know is this: If Patrick Fitzgerald does end up indicting a passel of senior Cheney administration officials for conspiracy -- or perjury or obstruction of justice or whatever else he can think up -- will Blogs for Bush declare civil war?"

[Update: Earlier we failed to point out 2 posts that were a part of the controversy. On 9/30, Noonan posted some "lovely" -- i.e. expletive-filled -- "missives from the Kossacks." A Daily Kos diary asserted that he had fabricated the quotes, as those comments did not appear on Daily Kos, plus the usernames listed in Noonan's post do not exist. Noonan later updated to clarify that they had come to him in e-mails, and that they were not comments posted to Daily Kos.]

Ace of Spades HQ calls attention -- "Quick, before it gets deleted" -- to a diary from Daily Kos, which states extreme frustration with the direction of the country.: "Nothing will change. Not unless it comes in the form of something akin to the French Revolution. We need terror. We need horror. We need the streets running awash in rivers of blood of these thugs and criminals and zealots." Noonan also points it up as an answer to his initial question.

Last week we noted a contretemps between members of RedState and ex-RedStater Josh Trevino over DeLay and whether to defend him. Today National Journal's Beltway Blogroll has a more in-depth overview.

ABRAMOFF: Refresher Course

Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall recaps last week's developments in the Jack Abramoff case: 3 men have been charged in the 2/01 murder of FL businessman Gus Boulis, whom Abramoff and business partner Adam Kidan have been indicted for fraudulently inducing Boulis to sell them his Sun Cruz line. Sometime after Boulis' murder, Kidan paid about $250K to 1 of the accused murderers, "for no clear reason." He adds: "Articles on this subject almost always throw in a line to the effect that no one suspects Abramoff himself of knowledge or involvement in Boulis's death. And I know of little tangible to contradict that. But he was the co-owner" of Sun Cruz then, "the company which made the tainted payments. And Abramoff and Kidan were in pretty close and regular contact in how they used Sun Cruz's money for the DC lobbying operations." At the very leas, "the a priori blanket exoneration does seem a bit more total than journalists would normally grant in such cases."

KATRINA AFTERMATH: Such A Nag(In)

Wizbang's N.O.-based Paul criticizes Mayor Ray Nagin for telling a group of residents from mostly-white Lakeview, hat he "wouldn't attend" their meeting because, as the Times-Picayune reports, "Lakeview was unsafe. When organizers made clear that the meeting would be in Metairie," Nagin e-mailed them: "I am not interested in meeting in Metairie with New Orleans residents. If you want me there, find a location in New Orleans." Paul: "Mayor Nagin, who already purchased a house in Dallas f---ing Texas, can't be bothered to cross the 17th street canal to meet his fellow New Orleanians. ... He didn't even RENT a house, in Dallas, he BOUGHT a house in Dallas f---ing Texas." More: "New Orleans is at a cross roads. It's success is far from assured. And so far Nagin is doing everything he can to piss of the people who will rebuild the city."

INTRODUCING: Two Can Play At This Game

Blogs for Bush's Margolis unveils a new website, NoAgenda.org, a new blog "at exposes the Democrats' ethics hypocrisy, corruption, illegal activities, and more." He explains: "This site is my response to the Democrat Party's hypocritical campaign to oust House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. While they wave about charges of wrongdoing, many in their own party are guilty of the same -- and worse." Contributors include fellow blogger for Bush Noonan and Generation Why?'s Jason Smith.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Have The Dems And GOPers Stepped Into That Machine From "The Fly"?

Kausfiles: "Let me make sure I've got the competing party lines down correctly -- Liberal position: Racist neglect caused poor New Orleans residents to suffer from the unspeakable things that only a racist would assume actually happened! Conservative position: A fatherless underclass culture caused poor New Orleans residents to do the unspeakable things the anti-Bush MSM falsely reported they did!"

LEST WE FORGET: A Less-Than-Perfect Storm

The Bald Heretic says look out for ex-House Maj. Leader/Rep. Tom DeLay:

WTFZ25 WNSSC290700
SHITSTORM TOMMY FORECAST/ADVISORY 2A
NATIONAL POLITICAL WEATHER CENTER WASHINGTON DC
TPS FORM 20001
0700Z THU SEP 29 2005 ...

A POLITICAL FALLOUT WARNING HAS BEEN DECLARED FOR AN AREA
WITHIN 50 REPRESENTATIVES TO EITHER SIDE OF TOMMY WHICH
COULD MAKE LANDFALL IN HUNTSVILLE TX IN THE NEXT 24 TO 48 WEEKS.
... REPUBLICAN INTERESTS ARE ADVISED TO SEEK SHELTER ON THE MORAL
HIGH GROUND IF THEY CAN FIND ANY. ...  AS WITH MOST SHITSTORMS
IN THE 2001-2005 CYCLE, TOMMY MAY BE SHORT-LIVED DUE TO THE
ABSENCE OF SUSTAINED DEMOCRATIC PRESSURE..."

Posted by at October 3, 2005 12:53 PM