October 07, 2005

10/7: All You Need Is Rove

Note: Because Hotline isn't publishing on Columbus Day, the Blogometer will return on 10/11.

The blogosphere is abuzz with speculation about WH dep. CoS Karl Rove going back to testify before special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's grand jury. The expectation of many on the left is that Rove will be indicted. Bloggers from both sides are a bit surprised to see that Fitzgerald may be looking at charges under the Espionage Act, not the IIPA. During the summer, many on the right argued that IIPA was inapplicable (see 7/14 Blogometer). As far as we know, the MSM didn't mention this until just today. Meanwhile, things aren't getting any easier for WH counsel Harriet Miers. Her comment on her favorite SCOTUS justice ("Warren") raises a few eyebrows, and one conservative blog is reporting that Dems may call Focus on the Family's James Dobson to testify. Pres. Bush's nat'l security speech doesn't draw a great deal of comment, but the same-day terrorism alert for the NYC subway system does.

ROVE-PLAME-MILLER-LIBBY: Target Practice

Liberal journalist Murray Waas explains what questions Rove is likely to be asked: Rove will be pressed about issues as to why his accounts to the FBI and grand jury have changed, or evolved, over time. He will also be questioned regarding contacts with other senior" officials, including then-dep. NSA Stephen Hadley and VP Cheney CoS Scooter Libby "in the critical week before the publication" of Bob Novak's infamous 7/14/03 column outing CIA "operative" Valerie Plame. More: "Rove is also likely to be asked more detailed questions about his conversation" with Time's Matt Cooper on 7/1//03 -- "Rove's previous grand jury appearances had occurred prior to Cooper's own testimony to the grand jury."

AP reports Rove atty Robert Luskin denied that Rove is a "target": "I can say categorically that Karl has not received a target letter from the special counsel. The special counsel has confirmed that he has not made any charging decisions in respect to Karl." Talking Points Memo: "Here Luskin appears to be availing himself of the transitive property of hyper-parsification. To any reasonable person Luskin's statement should settle the matter of whether Rove is a target. But Luskin's own record of slithery parsification forces us to assume that these words are carefully chosen to conceal rather than elucidate. ... Luskin's second sentence means nothing. Being a target may mean you're likely to get indicted. But it doesn't mean that the prosecutor has decided that in fact you will be indicted. So that's just a showy statement that means nothing."

MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell, who broke the news that Karl Rove was the source Cooper was protecting (see 7/6 Blogometer), "What this means is Rove's lawyer ... believes his client is definitely going to be indicted. ... So, Luskin is sending Rove back into the grand jury to try to get around the prosecutor and sell his innocence directly to the grand jurors. Legal defense work doesn't get more desperate than this." Also, O'Donnell speculates: "If ... Fitzgerald has a weak case against, say, Scooter Libby, imagine how much Rove's cooperation might strengthen that case."

Noting a Times report that Fitzgerald may file charges not under the IIPA but under "Chapter 37 of the federal espionage and censorship law," Tom Maguire doffs his hat to "psychic blogger" Mark A.R. Kleiman, who "pounded the table on this statute for months," and to Baseball Crank, who gave a thorough explanation of that law. Liberal Blue Mass Group: "But the Espionage Act is the real thing: it would mean charging Rove (or whoever) with the crime of illegally disclosing Valerie Plame's status as a covert CIA operative. Think about it: Karl Rove charged with espionage. Couldn't happen to a more deserving guy."

Conservative Macsmind has a much different take: "My bet is that Rove has never been a target, but quite possibly a prosecution witness. Again, Cooper began to flap his gums back in July, but has shut his trap of recent. My bet, that Miller tipped Cooper who 'bated' Rove as part of a design instigated by Democratic party operatives, thus a 'scam' from the get go. ... Fitz at this point knows one thing -- that Cooper did not ONLY hear from Rove about Valerie Plame, indeed, the evidence is that Cooper knew who she was before he called Rove. The question is where did he learn it from, and why did he attempt to set up Rove in the process. That is what Fitzgerald is pursuing now."

Arianna Huffington wonders how useful the Times' coming (this Sun.) explanatory report on the Miller case will be. She likens it to the explanatory report post-Jayson Blair, and wonders: "And how will this 'full account' be fact-checked? Will it be told exclusively from Miller's perspective or will the Times reporters vet her claims by speaking with other sources?"

Conservative Balloon Juice "[H]ey, if they are guilty, my attitude remains 'nail their asses to the wall.'"

MIERS: The Warren Report

Ankle Biting Pundits reports: "Will Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena James Dobson during the Harriet Miers confirmation hearings? The subject has been discussed in the halls of Democrat power, according to a source who works on Capitol Hill. As issue are Dr. Dobson's recent cryptic remarks that his endorsement of Ms. Miers was founded on 'confidential' information he was 'privy to' but which he was 'not at liberty to talk about.'"

Mystery Pollster's Mark Blumenthal posts CBS polling data on Miers compared with John Roberts, Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork. Although they're not quite apples-to-apples numbers, Miers is about as popular as Bork, and below the others: "Again, it's early. However, these results show that most Americans remain inattentive to the Supreme Court nominees even toward the end of high profile fights like those over the Thomas and Bork nominations. Considering that, the fact that early reactions for Miers look more like Bork than Thomas or Roberts does not bode well."

Washington Post reports, Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT) asked Miers "to name her favorite" SCOTUS justices. "Miers responded with 'Warren' -- which led Leahy to ask her whether she meant ... liberal icon Earl Warren or Warren Burger, "a conservative who voted for Roe v. Wade. Miers said she meant Warren Burger." Volokh Conspiracy's Jim Lindgren comments: "I find this story disturbing on many levels. Perhaps Miers couldn't think of anyone appropriate off the top of her head and thought that Leahy would like it if she said Earl Warren, but then caught herself when she realized that (rightly or wrongly) he was the poster boy for judicial activism. A second possibility is that she really does admire Earl Warren the most, but was unwilling to admit it to Leahy. That would seem a reasonable choice for a Democratic nominee, but not for a Republican. Further, to try to hide her choice from Leahy would show both cravenness and a lack of candor. The third possibility is that she genuinely admires Chief Justice Warren Burger more than any other Justice that she could think of. If so, one wonders about the quality of Miers' judgment or whether she has read enough Supreme Court cases to form a reasonable opinion. ... In any event, her answer does not instill confidence." New World Man "And before you start, I would much prefer a nominee -- particularly one for whom the perception of ill-preparedness for the Court is the major obstacle she'll need to overcome -- say Chief Justice Warren was her favorite than Burger. I'd rather a presidential candidate say his favorite President was FDR than Gerald Ford, too, same reason." UNC law professor Eric Muller: "What an absurd answer. On every level. It is absurd to think that she typically refers to Supreme Court justices by their first names." Confirm Them's Ryan K recalls the Roberts "recusal rumor" and so remains skeptical, but comments: "I'm surprised an experience trial lawyer would utter an answer to a sensitive question without significant prior reflection... she should have said, 'I don't have one' or 'I haven't given it enough thought.'" In fact, at Bench Memos, K.J. Lopez says sources tell her the reporting was shaded: "Miers was asked about Justices she admired. She responded that she admired different Justices for different reasons, including Warren -- interrupted by Senator Leahy -- Burger for his administrative skills. Reasonable people could ask whether Burger was a great administrator, but the comment is taken out of context by the Washington Post. Miers didn't express admiration for his jurisprudence."

Conservative John Hawkins lists a number of pro-Miers arguments and rebuts each. As for her being an evangelical, "wink wink," he writes: "The way Harriet Miers' Christianity is being used as a primary selling point for her nomination is reminiscent of how John Kerry kept incessantly reminding everyone that he fought in Vietnam. It was great that Kerry fought in Vietnam and it's fantastic that Harriet Miers is said to be a devout Evangelical Christian. But, the fact that Miers goes to church is being touted so heavily tells you that she doesn't have much else going for her."

Pro-Miers Hugh Hewitt responds to calls for Miers to withdraw, the latest coming from Charles Krauthammer, arguing: "Such a move would be disastrous to the president, the right's equivalent to the left's demand that the president meet with Cindy Sheehan." Also pro-Miers BeldarBlog: "Apparently some conservatives" -- Bob Novak and Peggy Noonan, at least -- are suggesting with a perfectly straight face that the explanation for, and the real point of, the Miers nomination was for Dubya to demonstrate his contempt for his base -- to get in a bit of payback against those who've been bashing his buddy [AG] Alberto Gonzales ... Oh, please. This theory amounts to disappointed conservatives clutching their hands to their breasts and sobbing: 'It's all about MEEEEeeeeeee!!!'"

REPUBLICANS: Purification Rite For The Right?

Mark Finkelstein, at MRC's News Busters: "Can you recall the last time the Today show invited a major conservative commentator on to opine on the issues of the day? Neither can I. But there was Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol this morning, under Today's 'hopeful' graphic 'Is Bush Losing His Base?' being treated deferentially by David Gregory. Why? It's the old MSM maxim: conservatives are only welcome when they're willing to take shots at fellow conservatives/Republicans."

Hewitt addresses his conservative critics, writing: "'Shill,' 'toady,' 'kool-aid drinker,' and -- yes -- W's 'Joe Conason' -- the unkindest cut of all -- have all been attributed to me by colleagues on the center-right. Actually, there are even worse descriptions, but I maintain a PG blog. Fine, all around. Let fly, friends, you owe me nothing except your candid opinions. But you might owe the president more." Quoting Disraeli, he defends being a "party man."

Ed Morrissey is one of many conservatives who, despite being deeply disappointed with the Miers nod, does not directly oppose her, writing GOPers "can't afford" an intraparty war "at this time ... However, if war comes to the GOP, we will all know who started it -- and how Bush let a historic opportunity to bolster conservative scholarship on the court slip through his fingers while doing so."

At Power Line, Paul Mirengoff calls Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) his "least favorite" GOP sen., "by a decent margin." On 10/6, he told conservative Miers critics "to 'shut up,' and claimed that their opposition ... is just an effort to obtain 15 minutes of fame." Adds Mirengoff: "Graham seems to get off on 'standing up to conservatives' but unwilling or unable to engage their arguments."

Sister Toldjah, who is ambivalent: "I haven't seen this much hyperventilating in the conservative blogosphere about an issue in a long time. I think it's good that conservatives are voicing their differences about it ... but some of it is just so over the top you'd think the President had either just nominated Bill Clinton" for SCOTUS.

Professor Bainbridge: "I have the distinct impression that the Democratic Party sees the liberal blogosphere as being inside the tent, while the Republican Party views the conservative blogosphere as being somewhere between an irrelevance and a minor nuisance. Maybe this is true, at least in part, because many prominent "conservative" bloggers ... are not exactly stalwart Republican party loyalists but rather libertarians (or whatever) who put routinely put their principles ahead of party interests. Alternatively, maybe the Democrats have just decided to follow Lyndon Johnson's advice about keeping your critics inside the tent peeing out rather than outside the tent peeing in."

BUSH: Dyslexics Marvel At His Astonishing 73% Approval!

According to CBS's polling, Bush's approval rating has dropped to 37%, the lowest recorded in their polling, and close to his lowest-ever (recorded by ARG in 8/05, at 36%). Lefty bloggers feel vindication: Rising Hegemon: "Katrina exposed to the general public, what those of us who have been disturbed by this guy have long known -- he has no damned idea what he is doing, none." Daily Kos: "As we predicted, Miers has caused Bush's floor of 39-40 percent to break." All Spin Zone: "I still think it's possible that George will pull down some single digit approvals before this is over." The Moderate Voice's Joe Gandelman observes: "The question for Bush: how much further is it to the bottom of the basement? If there are major twists and turns in the [Miers nod], or indictments of bigname White House bigwigs in the Plamegate scandal, we may find out fairly soon."

TERRORISM I: My, My Metrocard

ABC News reports: "According to sources in intelligence, emergency services and police headquarters, when three Iraqi insurgents were arrested several days ago during a raid by a joint FBI-CIA team, one of those caught disclosed the threat. Because it slipped out during the arrest, the plot was deemed credible." Confederate Yankee: "A joint task force of the FBI and CIA caught the terrorists. Working together. It makes you wonder what these joint agency teams might have prevented if it wasn't for Jamie Gorelick's 'wall of separation,' which prevented these agencies from working together to thwart terrorist attacks in the past." Baseball Crank scratches his head: "I'm a little confused here -- were FBI agents in Iraq? If this 'source' was arrested in the U.S., why refer to him as an 'Iraqi insurgent'?" Crooks & Liars, on the NYC subway threat: "I hope this pans out to be nothing and you know I'm not into conspiracy theories, but isn't it interesting after the news breaks on Rove that we have another terror alert. Tom Ridge admitted that he had been pressured by the CIA to raise the threat level without sufficient cause in the past. I'm just saying." Ex-Hotliner Vaughn Ververs, at CBS's Public Eye: "Whatever the truth, the public should give the news media more running room to critically question the motivation and timing of these alerts. Yet there is a sense among many in the news profession that doing so would open them up to attack. At least in the first wave of coverage of these announcements, the news reports tend to be as breathless and ominous as the politicians delivering them. "

In Bush's 10/6 nat'l security speech, he mentioned L.A.'s Library Tower/U.S. Bank Tower was known as an al Qaeda target in '02. Brendan Loy wonders why the Los Angeles Times failed to mention it: "It's good that the Times isn't accepting the government's claims at face-value. But it's downright bizarre that the Times ... does not mention the Library Tower at all in its article! Not even a passing reference!" Mickey Kaus follpws up: "New L.A. Times editor Dean Baquet is quoted in Ken Auletta's New Yorker piece saying 'we haven't mastered making the paper feel like it is edited in Los Angeles.' Uh... yeah!"

TERRORISM II: More On The Strange Case Of The "Sooner Boomer"

Heritage's Mark Tapscott does some original reporting, noting that as of last p.m., Hinrichs' car had not been impounded: "Tapscott's Copy Desk has also learned that a tree near where Hinrichs' bomb detonated displays a number of small round holes and some areas of a metallic substance. The holes and substance are only on the side facing the bench on which Hinrichs was seated when the bomb detonated. The holes appear to be about the size of the head of 16 penny nail." Gateway Pundit notes that the 7/7 bombings in London were packed with nails. Tapscott also has a statement from the last person to see Hinrichs before he detonated himself. Explicitly Ambiguous: "Hinrichs did have a ticket to the game and attempted to get into the stadium at two different entrances. He was refused at each entrance because he refused to let them search his backpack. ... The report also said that 5 others were 'involved.' They didn't know if they were involved with the bombing or involved with removing things from the apartment." The American Thinker's Steve Washawsky: "[I]n the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, anyone who blows himself up in public near large crowds of people should be presumed to be a terrorist, not a bizarrely suicidal college student." A statement from ex-Sen./OU pres. David Boren is here. TN conservative Bill Hobbs is flabbergasted at the lack of coverage outside of OK: "Was there a Muslim suicide bombing in Oklahoma over the weekend? I watched a lot of news in recent days, and have seen nothing on it." Classical Values considers 2 extremes of approaching the news: the "Knight Ridder school of not reporting the story at all," and the World Net Daily/NEIN "rumor-mongering and conspiracy theorizing," and the MSM's self-congratulating for doing the latter re: New Orleans/Katrina but so far treating Hinrichs according to the former: "There seem to be no rules. At least, if there are, I cannot discern them. Why did New Orleans qualify for what I called 'rumor laundering' ... and yet the case of Joel Hinrichs does not?"

MIDTERMS '06: Axl Will Provide The Soundtrack

Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas weighs in on the coming OH SEN Dem primary between netroots favorites Rep. Sherrod Brown and Iraq war vet/ex-OH 02 candidate Paul Hackett: "[I]n this case, it might be a good idea for Hackett to stand down. It pains me to say that. I think Hackett would be a far more exciting candidate ... On the other hand, Hackett still hasn't had a year-long political campaign under his belt," Brown's operation "lent Hackett their netroots guru (Tim Tagaris) and their field guy for his special election," and "Hackett hasn't proven an ability to raise money. And no," the $500K "the netroots raised for him doesn't count, because he'll need" $15M for a SEN bid.

At Swing State Project, DavidNYC gives a pretty comprehensive backgrounder on how Paul Hackett rose to prominence among the election-minded lefty bloggers, up to the complication of Brown entering the race: "At that point, almost instantly, battle lines were drawn. Now, brother is pit against brother, more or less. Alright, so I'm making it sound like a melodramatic Civil War miniseries, only with fewer guns. But the dynamics are pretty fascinating."

Among the 4 best-known bloggers in the MyDD/SSP camp, support breaks down as: MyDD's Armstrong, working for Brown and openly pro-Brown; MyDD's Bowers, undecided; SSP's Brigham, openly pro-Hackett; SSP's Tagaris, already employed by Brown and as yet not commenting.

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Fashionably Late?

Conservative Michelle Malkin is pleased to see that the New York Times, as of 10/6, has finally covered the story about DSCC staffers apparently-illegally obtaining MD LG Michael Steele's (R) credit report. She is not so pleased at the tenor of the piece: "National Republicans, who face an uphill battle in their efforts to capture the open United States Senate seat in heavily Democratic Maryland next year, are trying to exploit potential legal problems that Democrats are now suddenly facing in that race." Malkin adds: "The article fails to mention exactly how [Katie] Barge and underling Lauren Weiner obtained ... Steele's credit report -- by abusing his Social Security number in order to obtain the report under false premises. The article fails to mention that Barge and Weiner's employer, Sen. Charles Schumer, has ironically fashioned himself a champion of privacy and defender against identity theft.

GORE: At Least He's Having A Better Week Than Bush

Earlier this week, ex-VP Gore delivered a speech on the media and democracy at the We Media conf. in NYC. The response hasn't been so good. PaidContent's Rafat Ali, on response to ex-VP Gore's address at the We Media conf. "[N]ow we know he never won: he is boring as hell. Here's another one I heard: Gore to Web: TV rocks; Web to Gore: Drop Dead." Left-leaning Brendan Nyhan focuses on this excerpt: "The present executive branch has made it a practice to try and control and intimidate news organizations: from PBS to CBS to Newsweek. They placed a former male escort in the White House press pool to pose as a reporter -- and then called upon him to give the president a hand at crucial moments. They paid actors to make phony video press releases and paid cash to some reporters who were willing to take it in return for positive stories. And every day they unleash squadrons of digital brownshirts to harass and hector any journalist who is critical of the President." Contra Gore, Nyhan points out that Jeff Gannon was not paid by the WH, those journalists were actually pundits, and argues Gore is mischaracterizing standard "pushback" against negative coverage. He adds: "I have worked to expose the dishonest tactics of the White House PR operation for more than four years. I share much of Gore's outrage, but this sort of partisan attack will obscure, rather than clarify, the fundamental democratic issues that are at stake." Full ext of Gore's speech is here. Little Green Footballs: "I started to read Al Gore's latest weird rant about digital brownshirts who have too much free speech, an attempt to reassure the media elites that he’ll save them from the unregulated, unwashed blogosphere with his new TV venture, but my eyes glazed over and my head began to drop after the first paragraph."

X-FILES: Is How We've Decided To Slug Conspiracyish Stories ... Such As This One

Last week ABC News and Washington Post both published reports on the mysterious triggering of biohazard sensors on the Mall during the anti-war protests. The germ in question was once known to be tested for MoxieGrrrl reports that a reader who attended got sick -- the "kind of sick that puts you in the hospital for 3 days." She writes: "Very creepy. I would recommend spreading the word that if anyone who went to DC got sick afterwards, send them to get antibiotics right away." A few days prior, Kausfiles wondered if this had anything to do with a "mysterious, only semi-explained stench" in the L.A. area: "Does it sometimes feel as if someone (perhaps our own government) is testing something in our big cities? Just asking!"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Drop The Zero And Get With The Hero

NYU J-prof/Press Think blogger Jay Rosen has decided that, at least for him, the New York Times is no longer the nation's best paper -- the Washington Post is. He begins to explain: "It was a long time in the making, this change in my half-conscious rankings of the great players in news. The Web has a lot to do with it, for the Post has been bolder, more willing to experiment online, less hung up. ... TimesSelect has something to do with it, too, for the reasons I explored in an earlier post. The breakdown in controls in reporting Weapons of Mass Destruction is, of course a factor -- along with earlier episodes: Jayson Blair, Wen Ho Lee, Paul Krugman's correction trauma. It's an accumulation of things; the Post is just more agile, better able to adjust to a changing world, and to the exploding marketplace in news and views."

LEST WE FORGET: And This Is Different From Other Episodes How?

WuzzaDem puts MSNBC's Chris Matthews on the road in a reprise of his College Tour: "I'm Chris Matthews, let's play Hardball. I had a fantastic time during the Hardball College Tour back in 2004, and tonight we're visiting a school that's near and dear to my heart -- it's my alma mater, Melton Elementary School."

Posted by at October 7, 2005 12:29 PM