October 27, 2005

10/27: Win, Lose Or Withdraw

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

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

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

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

THE EX-MIERS NOMINATION: You Better Reax Somebody

Reax to Miers' withdrawal from the right:

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

Reax from the left:

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

More related to Miers' withdrawal:

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

Prior to the announcement:

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

PLAMEGATE: Patience, Patience ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Meeting In The Aisle

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

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

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

Posted by at October 27, 2005 12:27 PM