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 October 24, 2005 01:31 PM