October 28, 2005

10/28: Season's Greetings

Merry Fitzmas! Or is it?

At deadline today, this much we knew: VP Cheney CoS Scooter Libby will be indicted for giving false statements to the grand jury -- rather than for violating the Intel Identities Protection Act or even the Espionage Act. Meanwhile, WH dep. CoS Karl Rove will not be indicted "today," but the investigation will apparently continue. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has scheduled a presser for 2:00 p.m. EDT. He is also releasing documents related to the case at noon (after our deadline, but before we publish; in case you've misplaced the URL for Fitzgerald's DoJ website, it's right here).

Liberal bloggers are crowing over Libby's impending indictment, whereas most conservative bloggers are a bit more circumspect. A few had speculated that the left-blogosphere wouldn't be satisfied with a mere Libby indictment, but as yet that does not seem to be the case. Not to mention, the lack of closure in the Rove investigation more or less forecloses on any celebrating they might have done.

Even without Plamegate, it was hardly slow going in the blogosphere already: VA GOV candidate Tim Kaine's (D) pulling of an ad from a controversial lefty blog is attracting MSM attention; Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) reached out to righty bloggers in a conf. call on 10/27; recriminations are still unfolding in the failed SCOTUS nod of Harriet Miers, and rumors are already floating around about who will be named in her stead.

PLAMEGATE: The Nightmare Before Fitzmas

Latest-breaking pre-presser comments, all from the left:

• Duncan "Atrios" Black, on the scheduled conf.: "The moment we've all been waiting for."
• Pandagon: "The lying Scooter will be indicted; it sounds like Karl remains in the crosshairs but will not be swept up in this round."
• Kevin Drum: "Apparently Patrick Fitzgerald has a press conference scheduled for 2 pm Eastern, giving him a comfortable margin of 180 minutes before the grand jury expires. That's time management!"
• Republic of T: "On the First Day of Fitzmas... Fitzgerald gave to me, an indictment for Scooter Libby."
• AMERICAblog: "Ann Coulter says this is the worst case scenario An indictment AND a continuing investigation. See... not so bad after all. If Ann is pissed, can things be that bad?"

And what the blogs were saying before the presser was announced:

By far the most-linked story of the morning had been New York Times' Johnston and Stevenson reporting in the 10/28 edition (released on the web late 10/27), according to "people briefed officially about the case," Libby is "likely" to be indicted on obstruction charges on 10/28, and that Rove will not be charged, but will "remain under investigation."

In general, the left wouldn't count on its Red Ryder 200-shot BB gun until all the presents were unwrapped: Daily Kos' Hunter weighs conflicting reports: Contrary to the Times version, the Washington Post says Fitzgerald "does not plan to take that route and will wrap up the case today." The AP's version resembles the NYT's, where as the Los Angeles Times is less conclusive. He summarizes: "So everything's still clear as mud." Booman Tribune: "I don't want to be overly optimistic, and tomorrow may only reveal a little piece of the overall case, but [the WH is] getting reamed and they know it."

Some on the right speculated that the left might be disappointed without a Rove indictment: Power Line writes, if "correct, it will be a major disappointment" for the Dems, and an "embarrassment" for them as well if there are no charges re: the "original 'offense,' the supposed 'outing'" of Plame. Kevin Aylward agrees: "[T]his Fitzmas Eve the New York Times is throwing lumps of charcoal in liberal bloggers stockings, since I don't think they're going to be happy with a single indictment" of Libby." The Politburo Diktat's Commissar hands lefties "Kos, Atrios, Gilliard, Billmon" a lump of coal himself.

The Moderate Voice: "Perhaps it means the goods aren't there yet to make an iron clad case (good news for Rove). Or the prosecutor is making sure the noose inescapably tight (bad news for Rove)." JustOneMinute adds, "folks who remember Giuliani's Wall Street investigations from the 80's will remember that no one was ever exonerated except by a 'not guilty' verdict -- once an investigation was announced, the Feds did not follow-up with an announcement that the investigation was over. That is probably all that is happening here." Decision '08: "Those fond of parsing might have a little fun speculating on who 'people briefed officially about the case' might be. I suspect the lawyers of Libby and Rove are the sources, each for their own reasons -- Libby's lawyer to lesson the blow by leaking it early, and Rove's to get the word out that, for now, his man is clean..."

In a slight break from earlier patience, some wondered what was taking so long: Kevin Drum: "I hope this isn't turning into a Ken Starr-style fishing expedition. As much as I'd like to see Karl Rove frog marched out of the West Wing, I have to say that if Fitzgerald hasn't been able to make a case against him in two years, it might be time to call it a day." His commenters are not pleased (the first says: "Cool! Now we know that any crime we can stonewall for two years will be given a free pass!") as they weren't when Drum made similar comments 2 weeks ago (see 10/14 Blogometer). Picking up from Drum, Josh Marshall asks: "You'd assume [Fitzgerald has] as many facts as he's going to get. So why he's waiting? Does he need more facts? More time to think about it? Or is there some process of negotiation going on? Is there something else Fitzgerald expects will soon break free?" TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt raises the possibility that Rove may have struck a deal.

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "I agree that at first blush, if Rove isn't indicted on Friday, it could appear a victory for Rove to the public, and I'd be lying if I said I'm not disappointed" -- although he holds out hope for the future. This is what bothers righty Jonah Goldberg, who writes that a Rove indictment "might have had the positive benefit of ripping the band-aid right off. Rove would have been replaced, the White House could get a fresh start, etc etc. This situation (if it is the situation) brings no closure of any kind."

Re: the actual substance of the investigation, Political Animal points out separate CNN appearances by ex-CIA official Larry Johnson and Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward, wherein the former claims the CIA did a "post mortem" and he hears that "serious damage" did occur as a result of Bob Novak's Plame column, and the latter mentioned a post mortem, but showed there was "no significant damage." Crooks and Liars has video of Johnson's appearance.

Atrios: "Rumors and speculation are fun, but with the endgame here I'm not too inclined to believe anything in the press. Tomorrow we will know."

VIRGINIA GOVERNOR: When Worldviews Collide

The same day that African-American MD LG Michael Steele (R) officially kicked off his SEN Bid, liberal African-American blogger Steve Gilliard described Steele as a "Simple Sambo" for having brushed off MD Gov. Bob Ehrlich's July fundraiser at the Elkridge Country Club, which has no black members. Sometime thereafter, VA LG/GOV candidate Tim Kaine's (D) camp became aware of Gilliard's post, and terminated their advertising relationship with him. (The Kaine campaign has been running a series of blogads across the liberal blogs for weeks, featuring MI Gov. Jennifer Granholm, ret. Gen. Wesley Clark and others.) Gilliard responded by posting the letter, a photo of Kaine captioned "Black people should shut their mouths," and a defense of his Steele critique. Gilliard spent much of the post attacking African-American conservative Robert George (who has tangled with Gilliard on a handful of prior occasions (see 9/28 Blogometer), and had condemned the "Sambo" post the same day it went up) and his perception that George, like Steele, is unaware of the racism around him or unwilling to stand up to it. Addressing Kaine, Gilliard writes: "The ad wasn't all that important to me, but the gutlessness of the Kaine campaign is."

George replied: "Steve, grow up. ... You're passionate, prolific and have a way with words. Good, that's a gift. But, for the life of me, I can't understand why you choose to waste it by unloading juvenile racist schtick on black Republicans." MD-based conservatives The Hedgehog Report and Michelle Malkin commended Kaine for removing the ads. Balloon Juice judges it as a boxing match: "TKO. Gilliard knocks himself out with a left hook."

On 10/27, the controversy got picked up at Daily Kos (about which more below) where 756 comments piled up -- that's a lot, even for that very popular site. Both sides of the debate get ample airing; some argue Kaine is "spineless"; others call the move "defensible." VA-based Commonwealth Conservative highlights comments from Daily Kos and Gilliard's News Blog: "I have to say, this is the most bizarre thing I've ever seen. Kaine did the right thing by removing that ad, and I would have thought everyone would agree to that. But the hardcore base of the Democratic Party is killing him for it. Strange..."

Conservative VA-based One Man's Trash replied: "So in refusing to put money into the pocket of a cretin, Kaine is imposing a 'chilling effect' on bloggers? This is insane." The last we checked, pro-Kaine Raising Kaine had not mentioned the controversy. But VA Dem activist Waldo Jaquith summarizes the situation and concludes: "As a result, Daily Kos users shocked and outraged at Kaine campaign's refusal to support condescending racism. My head explodes."

At Swing State Project, Bob Brigham "Virginia gubernatorial candidate Tim Kaine is finishing his campaign as he started it: as a disgrace to Democrats. But it gets worse, one in five people in Virginia is African American and here's a quote -- from the Scripps Howard version of the story -- "that is going to be moving fast": "'I guess they have a problem with black people expressing themselves in print,' Gilliard said." Including multiple links to examples, Brigham adds: "While some might be surprised to see a campaign fuck up so much in a single day, it is par for the course for Tim Kaine's campaign."

On 10/28, the Baltimore Sun ran a story on Gilliard vs. Kaine, which includes additional comments from Gilliard and the campaigns of Steele and Kaine.

NETROOTS: Campaign Blog Advertising -- Benefit Or Liability?

In an earlier post, Brigham argues, the Gilliard kerfuffle "highlights a larger misconception about blogs, blogads, and netroots support" -- that "advertising on a blog doesn't mean the advertiser endorses the content of the site," just that "the advertiser is interested in individuals who may read a particular blog. Likewise, a blog running an ad doesn't mean that the blogger(s) endorse the product being advertised. This shouldn't be a hard concept to grasp." Markos Moulitsas makes the same argument, adding: "Because every time a campaign freaks out at a blogger and pulls their ads, we're going to raise a stink about it and inevitably make that campaign look bad. So they should think long and hard before putting money into a Blogad campaign. The last thing any of us need are bloggers afraid to be themselves lest they lose out on ad money. And that's what this sort of shit creates. It's a chilling effect."

Ad-focused Media Girl (not to be confused with liberal DC Media Girl): "Advertisers pull ads from publications and broadcasts all the time, for all sorts of reasons, and I really don't think the blogger is well served by fretting publicly about it. That's life in the media big leagues." Frequent Moulitsas critic Tim Russo: "I think most of these blogs are starting to find out that relying on political ads is not really much of a business model, which is why the bloggers are taking paid positions with campaigns, and the politicians are starting to realize that there is too much down side risk involved in advertising on blogs."

Check back on Monday, 10/31, when the Blogometer will have more on the ethical and practical considerations of campaigns, blogs, blog advertising and consulting.

SCOTUS: The O'Connor Vacancy (Again)

RedState's Erick Erickson: "On another front, look for a Supreme Court nominee soon. Though not related to wanting to drown out this news, the nominee list has been shorted and the White House already has a pretty good idea of who it wants. The President desires a quick time table on this one. Also look for one or two departures from the White House over the next 180 days. They'll be "going to the private sector," but rest assured that this nomination blunder encouraged that move." He adds in a later post: "There is a rumor circulating inside and outside the White House that Judge [Samuel] Alito is the next [SCOTUS] justice ... Folks, it is all rumor -- in fact it is Joy Clement buzz level right now." He then updates again: "Source of Sources called and said not to discount [Michael] Luttig, but if I had to place a bet, bet on Alito. Says the White House wants this done quickly and the best way to do it quickly is to go with an known quantity who is readily acceptable and will look very reasonable to the public at large." At Volokh Conspiracy, Orrin Kerr comments: "Alito is not a Scalia clone, contrary to what some news reports have claimed. Alito picked up the 'Scalito' nickname early on, but while clever it's not accurate. Judge Alito is much more of a process-oriented judicial-restraint type than Scalia." Plus, he "comes off as modest, quiet, and very thoughtful, but he also has a sharp sense of humor. If picked, I think he will be (and should be) a popular choice in the Senate."

Liberal Echidne of the Snakes, on a New York Times report that Bush may appoint a man this time: "And then we go back to a Supreme Court with one woman and eight men, a court which is to decide whether abortion remains legal in this country, a court which will use the assumed opinions of eighteenth century gentlemen to determine how women should live not only today but in the future, too. ... That the majority of Americans are not male or soon even not white (if not already) is neither here nor there, I guess."

Conservative PoliPundit writes, 2 possible picks "on the usual conservative lists that I would probably oppose" are Judge Michael McConnell, who "isn't partisan enough," and whose criticism of Bush v. Gore "alone should disqualify him," and the "brilliant conservative" atty Maureen Mahoney, who "supports racial discrimination in the name of affirmative action," and once said: "I'm a Republican, and there's a common misconception that all Republicans oppose affirmative action." Mickey Kaus argues, this is actually an argument for McConnell: "Doesn't this make McConnell a near-ideal post-Miers nominee? As proof McConnell's not a crony, Bush can point to the Bush v. Gore critique. When Dems argue McConnell represents a capitulation to the GOP's right wing, Bush can point to crude partisans like Polipundit who oppose him." Meanwhile at The Corner, Goldberg makes an argument for Mahoney: she "took a very strong anti-gender preferences position on Title IX arguing on behalf of Brown University. ... Taking an anti-Title IX position is, in some quarters, even more of a heresy than taking on racial quotas. In other quarters it's a close second." (In a separate post, Golberg's response to PoliPundit on McConnell is "C'mon, dude."

Interested in who conservatives would like to see nominated? See this ConfirmThem thread for lists of suggestions and debate.

THE EX-MIERS NOMINATION: Anatomy Of A Do-Over

Hugh Hewitt has an op-ed in the New York Times, "The right's embrace in the Miers nomination of tactics previously exclusive to the left - exaggeration, invective, anonymous sources, an unbroken stream of new charges, television advertisements paid for by secret sources -- will make it immeasurably harder to denounce and deflect such assaults when the Democrats make them the next time around." Captain's Quarters and Bench Memos' Jonathan Adler disagree with multiple points of Hewitt's analysis, including the tactics issue, the meaning of Miers '93 speech and how bad it would be for Sandra Day O'Connor to cast a few more votes. Legal XXX asks, "for all his talk that rejecting Miers would put the war in jeopardy, would cause Republicans to lose the Senate, would bring the very fabric of Republican existence crashing down, how does writing an op-ed in the New York freakin' Times that bashes conservatives do ANYTHING to help the GOP?" Right Side Redux, on the other hand, agrees with Hewitt: "The minute David Frum, Mona Charen and others raises $300,000 of anonymous money to oppose Miers we sank down with the liberals who took down Robert Bork."

At TNR's The Plank, Noam Scheiber argues, "The left can gripe all it wants about right-wing conspiracies, but it seems pretty clear that Miers's withdrawal, and the almost-certain nomination of a more conservative candidate, owes much to its own tactical stupidity. It's obvious to pretty much everyone in America other than employees of the Alliance for Justice, NARAL, Planned Parenthood et al that the right bases its assessment of someone's conservatism partly on the left's reaction to them. Had these groups commenced freaking out about ... this whole story might have shaken out a little differently, and the liberal interest groups might have gotten someone far better on their issues than they had any right to expect."

In The Corner, Byron York tells "how the last day of the Miers nomination played out": In the a.m. on 10/26, Bush met at the WH with Senate Maj. Leader Bill Frist, Maj. Whip Mitch McConnell, and others, "where they discussed the problems facing the nomination. There were staff conversations between" the WH and Frist's office through the day. Later Cheney and GOP strategists met to discuss the same, and "then in the early evening," Frist gave WH CoS Andy Card "a frank assessment of the nomination's prospects" by phone. Writes York: "Not long afterward, a final decision was made, and Miers called the president at 8:30 p.m. to say she would withdraw, and the formal announcement was set for this morning." Hotline On Call's Marc Ambinder reported much the same line of events, noting that "GOP Senators privately communicated to WH CoS Andy Card that unless they had access to hard evidence that Miers was conversant in constitutional issues, there was no way she would be confirmed."

Andrew Sullivan zeroes in on the passive voicing -- "a final decision was made" -- and asks: "Who made the decision? Cheney? Bush? Doesn't this strongly imply that the president or vice-president decided to pull the plug on Miers and then had Miers 'decide on her own' to withdraw?" At TAPPED, American Prospect editor Bob Kuttner goes further: "Why does the press play this choreography as if it were reality? Plainly, senior White House strategists assembled, decided that it was time to cut their losses, and yanked Miers. The pretense that this was her decision is preposterous."

SPENDING: Coburning Down The House (And Senate)

On 10/27, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) held a conf. call with a number of right-leaning bloggers, including those who have spearheaded the PorkBusters project.

As Tim Chapman at Capitol Report writes, Heritage's Mark Tapscott "encouraged" Coburn to introduce a bill requiring "appropriations bills to be posted on the Internet with their full text 48 hours before they are voting on." Coburn replied: "I can't even get them for me for 48 hours ...That's part of the problem. It's a great suggestion." Tapscott himself writes at Tapscott's Copy Desk: "The importance of the Porkbusters campaign is not limited to getting rid of wasteful federal spending. Coburn will be doing the Republic an immense public service if that is all he achieves, but there is much more to it. He knows getting the fat out requires far greater transparency in the legislative process, and indeed the entire government, as well as a new attitude of honesty in the budget process and the politics of the budget." Wizbang: "One of the the suggestions from the bloggers (Mark Tapscott) was that the Senator use the 'porkbuster' term. It was noted that the word "earmark," while technically accurate, didn't have the same resonance. He agreed to use the term."

Instapundit: "[I]t was clear that (1) the White House is beginning to feel the heat; and (2) this will be going on over the next year. It's a war of attrition, not a quick-hit. Ultimately, I think we need to move toward Open Source Legislation as a model, though as Sen. Coburn was quick to point out, the Congressional leadership will fight tooth-and-claw against that."Right Wing News : "Basically, I took his message to the blogosphere to be: 'Those of us in the Senate who want to cut spending need the blogosphere's help to make it happen.' So, if you're a blogger looking to hammer away on government spending, hit it hard! It'll help Senators like Tom Coburn get the job done." RedState, which participated, affectionately calls Coburn Senator Trainwreck; an explanation can be found here.

Coburn's response to the PorkBusters effort had him listed as "Negative" prior to the Coburn Amendment (see our previous coverage), but TTLB's N.Z. Bear tells us it will be updated as "Positive" this weekend. Bear adds, the updated page "will be specifically focusing on Coburn's offset package amendment and which senators are signing on to support it."

THE MARCH OF BLOGS: Blogger Of The House?

Earlier this week, Speaker Denny Hastert's office announced the launch of the Speaker's Journal, a blog to be dictated by Hastert to his staff. Spokesperson Ron Bonjean told Roll Call's Pershing this week: "The Speaker will deliver a message, and we will transcribe it. Bloggers want to know that they are talking to real people [and] to know that they will have a direct connection to him."

Though 1st reported on 10/24, the blog actually went up late in the a.m. on 10/27. He begins: "This is Denny Hastert and welcome to my blog. This is new to me. I can't say I'm much of a techie. I guess you could say my office is teaching the old guy new tricks. But I'm excited. This is the future. And it is a new way for us to get our message out. Most of you know me as a coach by nature so I hope this gives you some inside access to the Republican playbook." He concludes: "Well, there you have it folks. I've outlined some of our priorities: fiscal responsibility and energy. I'm going to keep updating this from time to time. It's not that bad. Looks like this old guy can still learn a thing or two."

Conservative Don Singleton observes: "He may call it a blog, but about the only characteristic it has to a blog is that it appears to have permalinks. I say appears, because there is only one entry, but it does have a unique URL. But there does not appear to be an RSS feed, a comment area, or trackbacks, all of which blogs normally have."

Slashdot editor Jon "CowboyNeal" Pater started a thread about it last p.m., and from the few responses we saw, the response is rather positive. Comments one /.er: "I believe they are his words ... and I also believe he (and the Republicans) believe its a channel by which they can reach young (tech savvy) Americans. It's a good idea. Thank goodness he doesn't have a 'talkback' feature." Some criticize the lack of comments as being "one-way" communication; another disagrees, saying politicians shouldn't "great unwashed masses." Wonkette's Holly Martins calls Speaker's Journal "definitive proof that the GOP is in serious trouble."

IRAQ: You've Got A Right To Fight For "Party"?

On 10/27, ex-KE'04 aide/Salon blogwatcher Peter Daou critized Michelle Malkin, Little Green Footballs and milblogger Blackfive for describing the anti-war/anti-U.S. (this is a matter of contention) "vigils" as "parties": "I find this rash of posts suggesting that anti-war activists 'celebrate' the deaths of American soldiers to be both tragic and telling. Tragic, because it represents a descent into depraved, gutter-level slander as a form of argumentation, and it is a profoundly un-American approach to a most American of activities: dissent. Telling, because it means these bloggers have nothing left to justify the deaths of Americans in Iraq but desperate and transparent attacks on those who want our troops home. ... Bottom line: If Malkin, LGF, and Blackfive think opponents of the Iraq war are "celebrating" the deaths of American troops, let them answer the basic paradox of their position, namely, how is it that wanting our troops NOT to die is worse than wanting them to remain in the line of fire?"

Blackfive's Matt responds: "Typical of the far left. According to them, I don't get to have an opinion, either. Note to Peter: I'm dissenting, too. Dissenting against the bull@#$% of the anti-war movement. Using the deaths of my friends as an excuse to spout socialistic and anarchistic drivel is not acceptable to me." At LGF, Charles Johnson points readers toward a photo essay of a 10/26 vigil in San Francisco, courtesy of Zombie Time. In most of the pictures, attendees seem to be enjoying themselves.

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: From The Mixed-Up Files ...

On 10/26, Michael Petrelis was the 1st to note that incoming CBS News pres. Sean McManus donated $250 to BC'04 (along with $1K to Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT); E&P picked up on the story and credited it to him. Then on 10/27, Rush Limbaugh read the report live on his radio show, starting: "This is from Editor and Publisher, which is a left-wing website that chronicles the great left-wing work of the media..." Petrelis follows up, defending E&P from accusations of partisanship, adding: "I'm happy he's giving attention to the fact that McManus made a donation to Bush/Cheney last year. You can be sure that if McManus had instead donated to the Democratic loser from Boston, Rush's lips would be flapping nonstop about his political leanings and that doom awaits CBS News."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Moving Without Getting Anywhere?

Personal Democracy Forum's Micah Sifry writes there and also at TPM Cafe that MoveOn.org, by continuing to communicate with their volunteers via the "crappy" ActionForums.com, which are like "giant focus groups where MoveOn's leaders sit behind the one-way mirror," rather than harnessing "thousands of lateral conversations and connections," is "missing a huge opportunity" to be effective in "local and state politics." He suggests: "What if MoveOn were to invite its members to form state-, county- and city-level MoveOn spinoffs, give them a wide tether to self-organize and invent new forms for engaging each other and the issues, and then see what happens?"

LEST WE FORGET: Dog Days

Years ago, it used to be said that on the Internet, no one knows you're a dog. But in this wiser and more tolerant era of the blogosphere, some Internet users being feel comfortable being open about their canine tendencies.

Posted by at October 28, 2005 12:45 PM