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 October 12, 2005 12:31 PM