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 October 13, 2005 12:37 PM