November 30, 2005

11/30: George Said, "Withdrawal In '06 Is Not The Same As Apathy"

It's a bit too early yet to grab much commentary on Pres. Bush's big Iraq speech, but we've included what we could find by deadline. Beyond the speech, Iraq was still the top subject of debate, owing in part to recent hostage-takings and an 11/29 op-ed by Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT). Other lively debates focus on govs. and the death penalty, a peculiar MoveOn ad, Senate Min. Leader Harry Reid on bin Laden, conflicting Plamegate stories, Jack Abramoff's acquaintances, torture/"torture," and Bill O'Reilly.

BUSH: But Is Withdrawal In Confidence The Same As Victory?

We'll have more tomorrow, but the initial post-speech reax we saw came mostly from the left:

• A handful of Think Progress counts 27 seconds as the time it took President Bush to reference September 11 in this morning's Iraq speech."
• The Mahablog live-blogged the speech, offering this comment: "Bottom line, he may have established some markers to enable some drawdown of troops, on the basis of improved Iraqi security forces, but he's clearly planning on staying until the 'terrorists' are defeated and Iraq is an established and stable democracy. He's trying to remarket the war as it is without actually changing policy."
• Patridiot Watch, sarcastically: "In a stunning move, the Bush administration hyped a speech by the President as a major announcement, held the speech in front of a military crowd, and delivered nothing new in the process."
• NRO's K.J. Lopez was underwhelmed by the speech, a reaction apparently contrary to many e-mails she's received late this a.m. She clarifies: "I said the speech was good and important, made great points about the war and the progress we made. What my depression was about was disappointment re: the speech dynamics, Bush's interaction with the audience -- but that doesn't mean as much to people who don't watch way too many Bush speeches."

Before the speech:

• Along with the speech, the WH put out a NSC report titled "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq" articulating "8 strategic pillars" for victory. Suitably Flip posts a cover shot of the NSC document, adding: "Bush-bashers thumbing through the plan will shortly be miffed to find it without a withdrawal timeline." There's more commentary from Mudville Gazette and TigerHawk, who along with Glenn Reynolds thinks it owes something to the "strategic overview" of the Iraq war by widely-read conservative blogger Steven Den Beste.
• Last p.m., RedState contributor Streiff pronounced the speech a failure in advance: "Tomorrow night Bush will either announce the conditions are being met that will allow a withdrawal of some American forces from Iraq in which case he will finally have bowed to the realism of Biden and Murtha ... or he will not announce anything that can be roughly attributed as laying the groundwork for a US withdrawal in which case Bush is still in the thrall of the neo-cons and is too stubborn to see that his party is deserting him over Iraq... or he will announce something that can be interpreted as portending US troops withdrawals but he will not pose the answer to a raft of thorny issues..."
• Based on a piece by Slate's Fred Kaplan, UC San Diego law prof Thomas Smith predicts "the new Democratic cry. The withdrawal is irresponsible! This would really be ironic, if the Dems and Republicans switch places." Based on the same Kaplan piece, lefty Kevin Drum writes, "given the history of this war, I hope his political team is kept far, far away from both the planning and the timing of the withdrawal. For that matter, I hope Donald Rumsfeld keeps his opinions to himself too. This time, let's set some serious military goals and then let the military figure out the rest, midterms be damned."

IRAQ: Let My People Stay

Sen. Lieberman's Wall Street Journal op-ed was titled "Our Troops Must Stay," and over the next 24 hours, it picked up plenty of comment.

Conservative Betsy Newmark: "Lieberman recognizes that this might be a politically damaging position to take, and it already resulted in damning whatever chance he might have had in the 2004 primaries." The Smoking Room's Greg Piper, a centrist: "As high-minded and principled as Lieberman's article is, it's clearly a direct attack on the line of thinking flogged by Rep. John Murtha (D-PA). Liberal Blah3 calls it "utterly delusional," and points out that the op-ed's "stats about cars and cell phones all come from published reports. ... Lieberman wants us to believe him because he just came back from Iraq, but virtually nothing in his piece depends on actually having been there." In the piece, Lieberman cites an unnamed Iraqi poll showing "a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now." Meanwhile at lefty Metacomments, Thersites cites a British military poll of Iraqis finding 82% re "'strongly opposed' to the presence of coalition troops" in their country. Roger L. Simon, on the Lieberman poll: "I hope the New York Times, CBS, the LAT and the rest run this poll as prominently as they trumpet the latest debacle on Bush's domestic war numbers."

CAP's Think Progress rolls out a series of talking points rebutting Bush's claim that there is "good progress" in Iraq, with headers such as "Approximately 100 Attacks Per Day; All-Time High," "Water, Electricity, Health Networks Are Below Prewar Levels," and "Insurgents in Iraq Have Kidnapped More Than 225 Foreigners." Left-libertarian Arthur Silber: "[N]o one doubts that many Americans in Iraq have done and are doing wonderful work, or that they have sometimes made a huge and positive difference in the lives of individual Iraqis. ... But that isn't the issue with regard to the strategic advisability of this war and occupation, or as to whether it was moral or just to invade a country that didn't threaten us, or with regard to the much more significant and longer-range results for Iraq itself."

The Jawa Report's Rusty Shackleford: "A hostage video has been released of the four Western peace activists taken hostage in Iraq. The Jawa Report has obtained a copy of the video." Shackleford posts them, as well as their names; only 1 had been known previously (see 11/29 Blogometer) Protein Wisdom asks: "Are we seeing a redoubling of efforts to recruit jihadists to fight the infidels? Or is something else happening here (say, for instance, the hostages are soon released with much fanfare as a sign of 'mercy' to those who don't wish to 'wage war with Islam') as part of a PR campaign?"

Los Angeles Times reports: "As part of an information offensive in Iraq, the U.S. military is secretly paying Iraqi newspapers to publish stories written by American troops in an effort to burnish the image of the U.S. mission in Iraq." The Mahablog: "Every day we do get more and more like the old Soviet Union, don't we?"

REID: Bin Laden Death Comment Greatly Exaggerated

On 11/29, WSJ's John Fund reported in the subscriber-only "Political Diary" that Senate Min. Leader Reid said on 11/23 to a NV NBC affil. about the recent Pakistan earthquake: "I heard that Osama bin Laden died in the earthquake, and if that's the case, I certainly wouldn't wish anyone harm, but if that's the case, that's good for the world." Local NBC affil. KRNV has the video. That section was reprinted at the RNC's GOP.com (as linked above) and conservative bloggers went with it, asking questions like this reader letter at Power Line: "What does Harry Reid know that we don't? If there is something to this, why is Harry Reid leaking sensitive national security information before our intelligence agencies have anything to say? If there isn't, why is Harry Reid spreading falsehoods and hearsay?" Conservative Varifrank posts a few "loose lips sink ships" type WWII-era posters. Betsy Newmark asks: "If senators can't be trusted with top secret information, they won't be able to perform their Constitutional obligations to oversight of the Executive branch. They must be trusted to keep their big yaps shut. And this guy goes off blabbing to the local news station!" Michelle Malkin has a roundup of reax, as does Pajamas Media.

Fact check: NV columnist Jon Ralston notes in his subscriber-only Flash: "By the way, all the senator said was that NPR had been reporting that Bin Laden may be dead and if so..." (11/29). Among the few liberal bloggers checking in with the story, Dave Weigel came closest: "Am I missing something? A lot of people were speculating that bin Laden died in the Pakistan earthquake. If you hear Reid's entire quote, it sounds like he was going off those speculations -- he actually said 'I heard today' that he may have died, which is a little less loaded than the 'had been informed just that day' James Bond spin John Fund takes on it."

DEATH PENALTY: He May Not Be Pro-Life, But Isn't Pro-Death Either

The death penalty is rarely discussed on political blogs. But right now, the topic has been brought closer to the front (if not all the way) by outgoing VA Gov. Mark Warner's (D) decision to commute 1 sentence on account of destroyed DNA evidence, and the pressure being applied to CA Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) to commute the sentence of Crips fonder Stanley "Tookie" Williams.

Washington Monthly's Amy Sullivan, on Warner: "Seems someone else will be the lucky one to oversee the 1000th execution since capital punishment was reinstated in 1976. This could be seen as Warner's last significant action as governor or first as presidential candidate. Compare with Bill Clinton and the execution of mentally ill Ricky Ray Rector. Something may be changing in American politics." VA resident James Joyner sees it as empty posturing: "While it's a shame that the evidence was destroyed, DNA testing was done on the implements before the trial a mere six years ago. The man has subsequently exhausted his appeals. The purpose of appellate review is to ensure due process was observed, not to retry the basic facts of a case. ... One wonders whether this decision would have been made had Lovitt been the 1003rd man slated for execution or Warner weren't running for president." Warner also gets thumbs-up from a TV exec. writing for Huffington Post. Offering a "dose of perspective," RedState's Leon H counters with facts and statistics related to abortion: "There are no stories for milestone abortion numbers, because they pile up so quickly that it's impossible to keep accurate track."

GOP VixenBridget Johnson reads Williams' "Protocol for Peace" and decides: "After reading these and other Tookie writings -- and reading between lines -- it leaves little doubt that he's used the same skills of manipulation that made him a successful gang leader to rally liberal activists to his cause." Black libertarian Michael Bowen: "The real problem here is how the most egregious of this reactionary nonsense, with a whiff of ideology perverts the judgement of otherwise reputable and solid citizens. And I'm not talking about Snoop Dogg. ... Every man's death diminishes me, but for Tookie, not much at all. God forgive me but some days I wish he could take his supporters with him."

Meanwhile, Harry Hutton offers up this "killer fact": "The annual execution rate for prisoners on death row in the US is 2%. The death rate for street-level drug sellers is 7%, so they would be safer on death row."

PENTAGON: Unlike Kerry, McCain Gets Others To Talk About His Service For Him

On 11/29, conservative news/commentary site Newsmax published an editorial arguing that where as Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) opposes "so-called 'torture' techniques allegedly used" by the U.S. gov't, "Nearly forty years ago, however -- when McCain was held captive in a North Vietnamese prison camp -- some of the same techniques were used on him. And -- as McCain has publicly admitted at least twice -- the torture worked!" The response was pretty much one of outrage, from Daimnation on the right and Middle Earth Journal on the left.

Andrew Sullivan makes it a "Malkin Award Nominee," his category for hysterical conservative commentary. Balloon Juice asks: "What kind of moral cretins are these Newsmax folks?" On the left, the issue gets linked at Eschaton, and Echidne of the Snakes writes: "If there is such a thing as true evil in the human beings then this is where it emerges. Osama bin Laden's greatest victory may well be in the fact that articles like the Newsmax one are now being seriously discussed." Among the few backing up the Newsmax piece is Ace of Ace of Spades HQ, who writes: "The fact that McCain broke under torture is no knock against him, and Newsmax didn't mean it as such. ... Almost everyone breaks, eventually. A soldier can consider himself to have survived torture with honor if he is merely successful in delaying giving up operational intelligence until the point at which it becomes stale, or mixing in enough lies with the truth to render his 'intelligence' all but useless."

WSJ's James Taranto reports, a U.S. Army captain known to him returned from Iraq recently, and caught the latest anti-war MoveOn ad, depicting U.S. soldiers in Iraq, separated from their families at Thanksgiving. But the captain notices: "These are not your normal everyday U.S. soldiers though. If you look at the frame they are actually British soldiers." He adds, MoveOn "pretend[s] to argue on my behalf and bash the president in the name of my crying wife, and they don't even know what an American soldier looks like!" GOP and College points out that MoveOn has since changed the ad on the website; in the original (and in the ad) one soldier wears shorts; on the website, the image has now been doctored to show him wearing long pants. Mark in Mexico: "How much does do the MoveOn people pay for these ads? Too much at any price, I'd say."

PLAMEGATE: A New Mitchell Effect?

Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake and John Amato at Crooks and Liars both noticed that NBC's Andrea Mitchell, MSNBC's Tucker Carlson and Washington Post's Bob Woodward all giving somewhat different accounts of a supposed CIA investigation into what kind of damage the Plame leak caused; C&L posts video and audio of all 3, and asks: "I mean really, what the hell are these people talking about? Didn't they read in the [10/28] Washington Post that the CIA never did an investigation? I understand that you guys are carrying so much water for the administration that you need an oxygen tank to breath, but give me a break. ... Each time Mitchell talks about her role in the Plame case, she falls back in deeper and heaven only knows when she'll see the light of day." Hamsher highlights this quote from the 10/28 story: "Intelligence officials said they would never reveal the true extent of her contacts to protect the agency and its work." She adds: "Except, we are to believe, to a bunch of blabby right wing journalists.

ABRAMOFF: The Continuing Adventures Of Rubber And Glue

At No Agenda, conservative Matt Margolis writes: "Anytime a Republican's name is mentioned in connection to embattled lobbyist Jack Abramoff it becomes a story for the liberal media, and fodder for Democrats' smear campaign against the Republican Party." Margolis puts together a simple chart showing 10 current and former House Dems, including House Min. Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Min. Harry Reid, who have received Abramoff or Abramoff-related funds.

Meanwhile, liberal Bradford Plumer considers the $5K Abramoff had tribal clients send to Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND): "Dorgan was paid to write the letter -- but it might just be that Dorgan was going to write the letter anyway, seeing as how he's always done a lot of work for Native Americans, and Abramoff knew this, and so he had the tribe send some money to make it look like his lobbying efforts were worthwhile, even though Abramoff had done nothing." Previously, Mark Schmitt made a similar point at The Decembrist, calling it a "smear." Conservative ND-based Say Anything wants this angle investigated, and wants Dorgan to step down from his role in the Abramoff investigation.

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Jane Fonda, Daniel Schorr, Jack Anderson... Hey, This Is Richard Nixon's Enemies List! You Just Crossed Out His Name And Put Yours!

A few weeks back we noted an ongoing feud between FNC's Bill O'Reilly and a number of liberal websites and blogs; at the time, O'Reilly promised to post a list of the "smear sites" (see 11/15 Blogometer); now he has posted to BillOReilly.com something a bit different -- a list of media orgs. who have "regularly helped distribute defamation and false information supplied by far left websites." He lists just the New York Daily News, St. Petersburg Times and MSNBC. More O'Reilly: "These are the worst offenders. In the months to come, we expect to add more names to this list. We recommend that you do not patronize these operations and that advertisers do the same. They are dishonest and not worth your time and money." As of this a.m., the list made the top headlines at liberal Huffington Post. Lefty Brad Friedman "regrets not making O'Reilly's list, but promises readers that we will endeavor to continue our accurate reporting on well-paid media character assassins like O'Reilly in hopes of some day rating the honor of being on such a list."

DEMOCRATS: The Dean Of The DNC

On 11/28, Markos Moulitsas noted the approx. 1-year anniv. of the DNC chair race, and declares that the "[Howard] Dean Doomsday Scenario" -- "the notion that Dean would be a boon to Republican propaganda efforts has completely fallen flat." He notes that GOPers don't attack Dean so much anymore: "And while those early attacks on Dean fell flat with the general American public, Dean supporters responded with cash. Every attack on Dean suddenly became an impromptu DNC fundraiser worth tens of thousands in the bank."

BLOGGERS VS. BLOGGERS: Whoa, Amyloid Plaque? Now You've Gone Too Far!

Steve at Hog on Ice: "The thing the PJM defenders don't realize -- one of many things -- is that the Blogosphere worked well not in spite of being disorganized, but because it was disorganized." More specifically, the blogosphere "organizes itself in response to stories, in a very natural way. It organizes itself just fine, sort of like independent white corpuscles attacking an infection. What it doesn't do is make Glenn Reynolds, Charles Johnson, and Roger Simon into serious media players. So they're trying to force it to do that, and they are damaging the system in the process." For the medically-inclined: "The Internet is almost a common consciousness. And PJM is an amyloid plaque."

The 11/30 edition of the Christian Science Monitor covers the PJM launch and the controversy after; the piece quotes the founders as well as critics.

Law prof Daniel Solove writes at Concurring Opinions: "Pajamas Media needs to tap into the wisdom of the blogosphere in order to reform itself. In other words, instead of a top-down model of editors picking things, perhaps it should work more in wiki fashion, with folks appending to the site various snippets and links from blogs across the blogosphere. Editors can help keep the wiki running smoothly, but a bottom-up approach is more in the spirit of the blogosphere."

On 11/27, The Jawa Report accused Running Scared of hating conservatives. Now on 11/29, Running Scared accuses The Jawa Report (or at least the commenters there) of hating liberals.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: From Raed To Jack

Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) may not be the 1st U.S. rep. to blog, as he does on a page at his House website, but he may be the 1st to blog from Iraq. He has been writing there as well as cross-posting to RedState. From his latest: "In Baghdad, General Webster tells me that 50 percent of the security is being done by the Iraqi people, and in Mozul they tell me that 25 percent of the security is being done by the Iraqi's. These numbers are significant. In the coming year I think we will reduce the number of troops in Iraq. And in the next six months, rather than leave, I think our soldiers will be able to take a step-back and let the Iraqi troops stand forward to defend their country with our help."

LEST WE FORGET: Nothing Wrong With A Little Healthy Competition

In the latest of several Pajamas Media parodies, The Commissar of The Politburo Diktat announces he is creating "Flannels Media," aka, "FLM" -- and offers a number of ways to get involved. The 1st "flogjam" -- taking off on a PJM's "blogjam" feature and in particular a much-criticized installment where PJM bloggers considered the project's direction -- is up at Wuzzadem.

Posted by at 12:37 PM

November 29, 2005

11/29: Duke's Hazard

All afternoon and last night, the big topic of discussion was the guilty plea and resignation of ex-Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-CA). While the scandal's developments drew attention through the summer (see our previous coverage), it never became a major event of the sort it temporarily is. By far, most of the work following the case was done by Josh Marshall, veteran reporter-blogger at Talking Points Memo and recent founder of TPM Cafe. There hasn't been much to say about him since then, even as bigger news events dominated the early fall. In today's edition, Marshall picks up where he left off, and many others join in.

There was actually 1 other major story in the last 24 hours -- the no-confidence vote of Canadian PM Paul Martin. Because Hotline follow U.S. politics and events that may impact U.S. politics (which we do not expect of this), we don't have any specific coverage of the events to our north. If you're interested, Memeorandum is the best place to go for reax.

Also in today's edition, Iraq withdrawal plans remain the subject of heated debate, Pres. Bush's immigration speech is widely panned, and a few dedicated Plamegate watchers offer their best guesses about what's going on. We also take a look at what we believe is the 1st campaign wiki, and we have our latest Blogger Spotlight.

CUNNINGHAM: Just A Good Ol' Boy ... Never Meaning No Harm?

Cunningham's resignation affords liberal bloggers a chance to ponder just how effective the corruption charge against the GOP could be in '06, or even in the likely special election to fill Cunningham's seat. Conservative bloggers all but throw him overboard, with a few pausing to recognize his military service. Crooks and Liars has video of the speech.

>> Center-left Bull Moose Blog: "Cunningham's tearful admission of guilt was useful for his Republican colleagues. As the Abramoff Congress comes to grip with their manifold sins, Duke was a role model of how to accept responsibility for the outcomes of the culture of corruption. 'The truth is, I broke the law, concealed my conduct and disgraced my office." Those may be the watchwords of ten years of Republican rule." Josh Marshall writes, the "Co-conspirator #2" mentioned in the Cunningham indictment was Mitchell Wade, until recently CEO of MZM. Marshall points out that Wade had been a key fundraiser as well for Reps. Katherine Harris (R-FL) and Virgil Goode (R-VA), the latter sponsoring a bill that created more business for MZM. Marshall adds: "But there's no evidence, to the best of my knowledge, that Goode was personally enriched in any by Wade. Personally enriched, that is, as opposed to getting lots of money in campaign contributions." Steve Clemons points out that Cunningham was also "involved as well in the old Tailhook scandal."

>> Conservative Donald Sensing calls it an "admission of corruption of a most serious kind," but also points out: "The dogfight in which he scored his fifth aerial victory has become a classic study of air combat and was recently featured in The History Channel's documentary, 'Greatest Air Battles.'" Belmont Club devotes a little more space to Cunningham's aerial heroism. At Outside the Beltway, the pseudonymous Leopold Stotch acknowledges he is "prone to hyperbole," calls him a "traitor": "I don't care what this guy did in the Vietnam war, this erases that. He should be boycotted in the original sense of the word: before he's put behind bars, no one should even speak to him." RedState's Moe Lane: "Upon rereading that, I feel that I must add: to heck with the trust of your friends and family. It's the trust of the citizens of the United States of America that's of real issue here." Right-leaning Marc Danziger excoriates Cunningham's "betrayal" of the military: "Do you really believe that the soldiers who depend on whatever the hell it is that MZM and ADCS make got the best that could be bought?" K.J. Lopez, at The Corner: "The press is piling this scandal in with DeLay and Frist, which isn't quite fair. But the culture of Michael Scanlon and Jack Abramoff, yes. Get clean or meet your electoral doom, guys."

>> Re: the possible CA 50 special: Swing State Project: "Two tugging forces will likely decide how Schwarzenegger acts: On the one hand, Arnold was widely criticized for wasting state money by calling a special election for this fall. If he waits just 10 days, he can save money by consolidating the special election. On the flipside, some in the GOP might be calculating that a low-turnout special election is better for their chances, especially since CA Dems appear to be energized." With a 45-30 GOP advantage, MyDD's Chris Bowers forecasts the district as "Solid Republican, but not so solid that victory following a big scandal is hard to imagine."

>> Hit and Run's Tim Cavanaugh jokes: "Against that grim bill of goods, I'll just point out that Randy Cunningham took the Eagles to the NFC playoffs five times, something most of his accusers haven't even done once."

IRAQ: The Plan Keeps Coming Up Again

On 11/27, Washington Post's Broder wrote, Dems are finally approaching a "sensible" Iraq policy -- one reducing "troop commitment while shifting security responsibilities to the Iraqis," thereby requiring "a significant acceleration in the training of Iraqi security forces and in the civil reconstruction projects." Conservative QandO can hardly believe this analysis: "So, after 2 years of debating Iraq policy, the Democrats have decided that training Iraqi security forces to take over and reducing US deployments as they do -- 'as Iraq stands up, we will stand down' -- is the best course in Iraq? ... The Democrats have not come up with a new Iraq Policy. They've jumped onboard the Bush administration's existing policy, with the novel new suggestion that we stay the course... but try harder.

Liberal Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings points out that Sen. Joe Biden's (D-DE) WaPo op-ed withdrawal plan "calling for a timetable for Iraq yesterday, and today the White House not only endorsed Biden's plan, but" as per AFP, "claimed that it was actually Bush's." Hilzoy notes the conservative bloggers who scorned Biden's plan -- Captain's Quarters, Instapundit and Hugh Hewitt -- and asks: "Now: imagine for a moment that the bloggers I just quoted actually sat down and thought about Biden's plan, concluded that it was a bad idea, and that this reflection explains their posts. In that case, you'd expect them to respond to today's White House statement with horror and alarm."

• MN blogger Hammerswing75 reports that a family friend of his was among 4 hostages kidnapped in Iraq on 11/26.
• Justin Hart at Right Side Redux has started a page collecting anti-war arguments and rebuttals to them. He launches with a half-dozen argument/rebuttal entries, and invites readers to submit more.

IMMIGRATION: Border Crossing

Bush's immigration speech was largely overshadowed by Cunningham's resignation, and in the blogosphere by the Canadian no-confidence vote. But those who did weigh in don't have much complimentary to say:

A sarcastic Michelle Malkin live-blogged the speech: "Most ridiculous line so far: Introducing his temporary 'guest worker' plan by saying we need to 'bring workers out of the shadows and reject amnesty.'" More: "Here we go. Temporary worker platitudes. They do the jobs 'Americans will not do.' Tepid, tepid applause." California Yankee: "All I really wanted to hear the President say was that in order to be allowed to participate in the temporary worker program illegal aliens would have return to their homeland. Was that too much too ask?"

In a post titled "GOP Gives Up The Hispanic Vote," lefty Oliver Willis says he opposes guest-worker programs and wants both borders secured, but believes the conservative immigration focus is all about racism: "I see 2008 in the GOP being a race to prove who hates the brown-skinned folks the most." Uggabugga's Quiddity writes that Bush is ""still hiding behind the military," giving this latest speech at an Air Force base: "Bush has tended to give speeches about the Iraq War (and terrorism) at military facilities. But immigration?"

REPUBLICANS: Exile On Main Street

Michelle Malkin tells readers that she's received a letter from the Main Street Partnership accusing her of "libelous statements." She includes a link to the letter included. On 11/10, in a post about the "cave in" on ANWR drilling by Main Street GOPers, she wrote: "The group who succeeded in pressuring the GOP to cave in calls itself the 'Republican Main Street Partnership.'" Later that day she wrote: "Guess who is funding the 'Main Street' moderates? George Soros and friends."

In their letter to Malkin, the RMSP' attys say: "RMSP does not, nor ever has, accepted any financial support or assistance from Mr. Soros. Your statements to the contrary are false, misleading to the public, and damaging to RMSP's reputation." Malkin writes 11/28 that this is a "baseless legal threat." "Forgive me for spelling out the painfully obvious, but anyone who clicked on the link that I provided saw that I was pointing to the Soros donation to the Main Street Individual Fund, which funds 'Main Street' moderate Republicans, as well as to the Center's statement connecting MSIF with the Republican Main Street Partnership. ... Ms. Graham mistakenly believes that I asserted Soros gave the donation to the RMSP. Not true." She adds that Open Secrets "completely deleted the 2004 Soros donation from the entry."

PLAMEGATE: Not Only Is It Not The Same Novak, It's Not Even The Same Vivica ...

Confusion is still pretty much the order of the day when it comes to the latest in the Patrick Fitzgerald investigation, and what it means for Karl Rove.

On the right, pondering Fitzgerald's interview with Time magazine reporter Viveca Novak on conversations with Rove atty Robert Luskin, Aquarian Conspirators wonders if Fitzgerald might "be trying a prosecutorial Hail Mary... It would be nice to know that one day all Fitzgerald's mysteries will be revealed to the public. But at this time he is still generating more questions than answers about his not-yet-done investigation." Macsmind's Macranger believes that the one thing "I can tell you for absolute certainty is that Fitzgerald is in no way looking at anything close to a 'leak charge'. If anything (and that's a big 'IF'), additonal charges (if any) would be about the same as what was rendered at Libby. Anyone who is telling you something other than that is well, full of crap."

On the left, Atrios simply wonders, "Um, so Viveca Novak's been covering this story and she's friends with Rove's lawyer?" Needlenose's Swopa comments on a Washington Post story, saying that "if you can't wait to find out what stunning revelations Viveca Novak has to share with Fitz ('Luskin told me Karl was innocent!'), the Post reassures us that she 'is expected to write a firsthand account after she is deposed.'" The Anonymous Liberal ponders the Novakity of the situation: "Given that a reporter named Novak drew Rove into this mess, it would certainly be bizarre if another reporter named Novak got him out of it." Kevin Drum: "I'm not even going to try to speculate about what all this means. There's just not enough data. But one thing is clear: whatever's going on here, it sure doesn't appear to be good news for Karl Rove."

Tom Maguire stays on the case of whether NBC's Andrea Mitchell "had been contacted by Fitzgerald's investigation. Her current denial .... stands in stark opposition to her" 10/29/05 comment on Tim Russert's CNBC show. He asks: "Is she being deeply evasive and deceptive with her current answer?" Maguire provides 3 possibilities: She was mistaken then (as she contends), is now being "Clintonian," or is now lying.

WOODWARD: Blondes Really Do Have More Fun

At Huffington Post, filmmaker/ex-Carl Bernstein wife Nora Ephron comes to the defense of Woodward. She starts with "Truth #1: Bob is not a liar" on the important things, and she believes he did tell Walter Pincus that he knew of Plame's name early. She continues: "Truth #2: Bob has always had trouble seeing the forest for the trees. That's why people love to talk to him; he almost never puts the pieces together in a way that hurts his sources. And that's also why he has so much access: his sources can count on him to convey their version of events. When Bob says that when he was first told about Valerie Plame, he didn't think it was important, you're seeing the perfect confluence of Truth #1 and Truth #2." As for why Woodward "trashed" the Fitzgerald investigation, she offers an explanation: "If you don't talk to Woodward, you'll be sorry. I mention this not because it's precisely true ... but because it's an operating truth in official Washington." In a subseqent post, Arianna Huffington explores why Woodward missed the big story: "Some would say it's because he's carrying water for the Bushies. I disagree. I think it's because he's the dumb blonde of American journalism, so awed by his proximity to power that he buys whatever he's being sold."

CAMPAIGNS: Is There Going To Be An '08 Dark Horse With A Breakout Wiki?

By now, even many non-blog readers know that blogging is important to political campaigns. But what about the campaign wiki? For the uninitiated, a wiki is a website designed to be easily altered by anyone. The concept concept was popularized by Wikipedia, and was briefly attempted by the Michael Kinsley-era Los Angeles Times op-ed page (see previous coverage) Wikis keep track of all page edits, who made those edits, and typically support forum pages to hash out disagreements when they arise.

As far as we know, the 1st campaign wiki belongs to tech exec./UT SEN candidate Pete Ashdown (D), who has both a campaign blog and a campaign wiki. Ashdown's wiki allows participants to edit and extend his policy positions on a variety of issues and his message to voters explaining why he should be elected. The wiki also provides (modifiable) advice to potential volunteers.

From our brief perusal of the site earlier today, the issue-oriented pages would be interesting if it was clear Ashdown was paying close attention to them. If he's not, it's just an innovative timewaster. If he is, we wonder if that's not being a bit too responsive to supporters (even Howard Dean circa '03 never let his campaign volunteers write his plaform). But the strategy pages beneath the list of issues is definitely something interesting. There is not a great deal there now, but already it provides resources (and as noted, advice) for supporters that once might have been sent out in e-mails or posted to less-dynamic campaign web pages. There's a page for oppo, for advertising, fundraising, volunteer sign-up and more.

PENTAGON: Bringing A Whole New Meaning To The Word "BritPop"

Crooks and Liars' John Amato follows up on the "trophy" video depicting someone shooting at cars in Iraq, writing that he has "learned through sources close to the investigation that the man who is seen shooting vehicles on this video in Iraq was a South African employee of Aegis Victory team named Danny Heydenreycher. He served in the British military for 6 years. After the incident the Regional Director for Victory ROC tried to fire Heydenreycher, but the team threatened to resign if he did. Aegis held an 'inquiry' into it. A letter was sent by one of the members of Aegis up the chain after he quit. It was read by Lt Col Tim Spicer, a former Scots Guards officer, who is investigating this incident and interviewed the author. That was about 8 weeks ago and nothing has been done since. Our sources believes Spicer -- who appeared in this Telegraph story -- is covering up for Aegis at this point."

WHITE HOUSE '08: A Matter Of Course

In a post for The Moderate Voice, Justin Gardner is plenty pleased with outgoing VA GOV Mark Warner's (D) opposition to setting an Iraq withdrawal date: "Now, this position will certainly upset the KOSsacks, but who cares. We need to do the right thing in Iraq, and even though that doesn't seem to be lining up with the American public's opinion of what we should do, it doesn't matter. And I certainly give Warner credit for putting a stake in the ground and speaking truth to power." Indeed, head Kossack Markos Moulitsas finds nothing good to say about this: "I like Warner, but this position is untenable and increasingly obsolete. The debate has shifted from whether we should get out of Iraq to when and how we should get out. Even Bush has admitted as much."

MIDTERMS '06: This Buckeye Stops Here

Earlier this a.m. at Buckeye Politics, Tim Russo wrote: "We're hearing that Columbus Mayor Mike Coleman is dropping out of the governor's race today at 3pm. We're also hearing that State Senator Eric Fingerhut is getting into the governor's race. Not sure if the two are related. Stay tuned." Later in the a.m., the Columbus Dispatch posted a report confirming Coleman's forthcoming depature from the race.

Political Wire's Taegan Goddard puts the question to National Journal's Charlie Cook: "Are retirements a reliable leading indicator on forecasting a change in control of the House of Representatives?" Cook responds: "In and of themselves, the number of retirements that a party has is not a particularly good leading indicator of seat changes. But, a large number of retirements from incumbents in vulnerable seats can result in a large number of seat changes. ... Obviously, the current bleak political environment and the prospect of a bruising campaign may force some entrenched Republican incumbents to reconsider another term. But, where those retirements come from is still not clear."

BlogKC, on why Sen. Jim Talent (R-MO), "from the whitest suburbs of St. Louis," is visiting the "urban core" of Kansas City: "The answer is that he's shoring up support in the face of a strong challenge from Claire McCaskill. ... It looks like Senator Talent is following the game plan that's served his colleague Kit Bond well over the years. ... While urban core and black leaders in St. Louis are generally solid Democrats, their counterparts in KC are more open to schmoozing and generous helpings of tasty federal pork."

BLOGGERS VS. BLOGGERS: One Down...

Pajamas Media ed board member Tim Blair announces at his personal blog: "As of yesterday, Pajama Media's editorial board is missing one member. Me. Simple decision, really. PM needs people who can devote themselves full-time to rescuing the project after a launch that was, to say the least, problematic. It would be wrong for me to continue any involvement without being able to help to that extent. Hopefully PM will turn things around; I'd love to see it succeed." At Althouse, Pyjamas Media (note the spelling difference) and Right Wing Bob, there is detectable schadenfreude. Pajamas-affil. blogger Laurence Simon: "Baldilocks announced that she was taking on a new gig called 'Blogger Relations' at Pajamas Media on the 22nd. It is now the 29th. One week later. No email announcement. ... No sign of 'official' forums on the horizon. I have one word of advice to Baldilocks: cash the checks they send you quickly."

In an interview with Right Wing News, Michelle Malkin comments on the troubles: "I admire and respect a lot of the other bloggers (involved) and I think there has been an admission that they've made some errors, you know, with respect to at least the name. I think going back to Pajamas Media is a good idea. I never had a problem with it in the first place, I thought it was fun, it's easy to remember, and they had a good URL. So we'll see how things go from there."

BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: Anotherway Inefay Esmay Ou'veyay Ottengay Usway Intoway

Today the Blogometer talks to Dean Esmay, who blogs at Dean's World.

What is your full name?

Dean Esmay

What is your age?

I was born July 15, 1966.

Where did you grow up?

El Paso, Texas, Chicago Illinois (south side baby!) and the Tidewater area of Virginia one fine long summer as a child.

Where do you live now?

Near Ann Arbor, Michigan.

What is your occupation? Have you ever worked on a political campaign or for the mainstream media?

Network engineer and freelance writer. I have written for a number of publications. I have never worked professionally for any campaign.

When did you start blogging and why?

I first started in the late 1990s, before there was any such word as "blog." I had a series of essays I wrote that I pasted on my old domain syndicomm.com before I sold it to another company and took the pages down. I first started working with blog software in early 2002.

What has been your favorite post, or favorite story to write about, in that time?

My favorite post is "The Brainteaser that Changed My World." I have posted this a few times, the last time here. I love it because most people, even very bright people, get it wrong. It's a stumper that had me puzzled for a long time, and proved to me that sometimes no matter how sure you are about something you have to work it out empirically to get the right answer.

Describe your typical blogging schedule. And what is your average output?

I typically post about a half-dozen items in the early morning, then perhaps 2-3 later in the day. I use the timing feature of the Powerblogs software so that the things I wrote in the morning will appear at different times throughout the day, so you'll usually find new stuff constantly appearing on the site even if I'm not around.

Who is your favorite political blogger? Favorite non-political blogger?

My favorite political blogger is probably Bill Quick of Daily Pundit -- we disagree on many things but he's always interesting to read and to argue with.

My favorite non-political blogger is Professor Rudy Rummel at Democratic Peace -- it may seem cheating because he's a political scientist who occasionally discusses modern politics, but he's more a political science who writes about history and what is probably the most important scientific theory today: the Democratic Peace Theory.

Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?

James Taranto. The guy's a scream!

What is your favorite television news program, either network or cable?

"Special Report with Brit Hume."

What MSM-produced websites (i.e. newspapers, magazines) do you visit on a daily basis?

news.google.com

What non-MSM websites (i.e. blogs) do you visit on a daily basis?

But believe it or not there is no blog I visit daily but my own, and my wife Rosemary's blog at Queen of All Evil. Instead I pick random blogs off my own copious blogroll and just cruise around looking for something interesting.

How often, or do you ever, read a newspaper in its dead-tree (i.e. print) form?

At this point almost never. What's the point? Most of what's in a printed newspaper is out-of-date by the time it reaches the store. For lengthy in-depth features, what's online is as good as what's in print.

How do you see the new media and old media affecting and influencing each other in the next five years?

The "old media" is going to have to become a lot more like the blogosphere. Fewer and fewer people believe in the supposed "trained objectivity" of journalists. Reporters and news editors are going to need to become more honest about their own political views and prejudices, and instead of trying to get rid of those prejudices they should just admit them and pledge to try to be fair anyway. The "old media" also needs much greater transparency about how they persue a story and what they choose to put in and leave out of a story. The news needs to be far more of a two-way conversation than it traditionally has been. The news media also needs to be much quicker about acknowledging mistakes. Most people don't mind mistakes, but they do mind stonewalling and denial.

Bloggers will also have to remind themselves occasionally that there really is a difference between editorializing and reporting, and to remember that working journalists are just people doing a job, a job that is important and that most bloggers can't do themselves. Bloggers and journalists should see each other as natural allies. If they do, they can work magic together.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: TimesRecept?

Frequent TimesSelect critic Mickey Kaus compares the pay-website model to cable TV, suggesting the way to profitability may be bundling: "If you get the premium package you get dozens more. The potential revenue raising equivalent, for newspapers, would come if they banded together in some sort of consortium ... The goal would simply be to charge a low enough fee and feature enough content so that the vast majority of Web users would feel like they had to pay the fee or else they'd be out of it, Internet wise -- the same way most TV users now feel they have to at least subscribe to basic cable to be part of things. "

LEST WE FORGET: I, Kegbot

Whoever says drunk blogging is a bad idea obviously never had access to the Linux-powered Kegbot. If you're not persuaded yet, let The Inquirer and Gizmodo help.

Posted by at 12:35 PM

November 28, 2005

11/28: Foreign Objections

Bloggers have families like everyone else, and so last week blog-based debate slowed considerably. Returning from holiday, Iraq seems to be the focus for many. A LAT report this weekend suggesting the WH is caving to political pressures and moving toward troop reductions in '06, while the Washington Post reported a poll showing most Americans believe Dems criticize the war for partisan gain, rather than out of patriotism. Plamegate continues to develop, as Time's Viveca Novak has been called to testify, questions about Bob Woodward's journalistic ethics linger, Saddam's trial gets under way again, and another straw poll of conservative bloggers shows the WH '08 GOP field remains in a holding pattern. Meanwhile, several current topics originate with papers based in non-Thanksgiving-celebrating Britain, including controversies about whether Pres. Bush planned/joked about bombing Qatar-based satellite TV channel al Jazeera, whether private contractors have been shooting at cars on joyrides, and on the lighter side, Bruce Willis' planned pro-war film based on the writings of popular reporter-blogger Michael Yon.

IRAQ: Please Don't Go

On 11/26, Los Angeles Times reported, the "emerging of a convergence of opinion" on withdrawing from Iraq includes Sec/State Condoleezza Rice, and in an 11/30 speech, Bush is "expected to herald the improved readiness" of Iraqi forces.

>> Josh Marshall: "What we have is posturing and positioning over the political consequences of withdrawal. The White House and the president's partisans will lay down a wall of covering fire, calling anybody who considers withdrawal an appeaser, to allow the president to go about the business of drawing down the American presence in Iraq in time to game the 2006 elections." Think Progress: "Remember: bringing the troops home is only a bad idea if someone other than Bush suggests it."

>> Justin Gardner at centrist-Donklephant writes: "The Roveian way of doing things is to double the PR budget and forget about what's right or wrong, because history is written by the winners. My grave fear, though, is while we may seem like the winners to some right now, the Iraqis will end up losing so much."

>> Pro-war bloggers have a few different reactions. QandO thinks the LAT gives too much credit to anti-war advocates, writing, "it's not so much a convergence as it is a band-wagon effect, where those who would like to take credit for political reasons are now going to try to spin any troop removal as something pressure here at home helped to make happen. In actuality, it's all about politics... again." John Cole agrees politics are involved, but focuses on the admin: "Once again, it appears as if the Bush administration is going to do the wrong thing for purely political reasons."

Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum quotes ex-Iraq interim PM Allawi and a gov't-aligned Shiite leader as denouncing human rights abuses by the current Iraqi gov't, and concludes: "There is domestic politics involved in all this, of course, but the bottom line is that Ayad Allawi, who is no shrinking violet, is already horrified by the activities of the current Iraqi government. The most powerful unofficial member of the current government, however, says you ain't seen nothing yet."

On 11/26, Washington Post reported: "Just three of 10 adults accept that Democrats are leveling criticism because they believe this will help U.S. efforts in Iraq. A majority believes the motive is really to 'gain a partisan political advantage.'" Protein Wisdom's Jeff Goldstein writes, "if I'm reading this right, 70% of Americans believe that Democratic party criticism of the war is motivated by partisan political impulses -- a desire for power, to put it more forcefully -- rather than a desire to help the US win the war in Iraq." Ace of Spades HQ: "In fairness, the WaPo does report it, but only as a brief item in a news-roundup sort of article. The MSM won't be doing major analysis of the poll or running stories about past wars in which relentless negativism undermined troop morale."

Actor Bruce Willis is planning to make a movie based on the heroics of the Deuce Four Army battalion in Mosul as recorded by blogger Michael Yon. For an example of his reports, see here and here. Needless to say, the pro-war bloggers who make up Yon's fan base are pleased: Betsy Newmark: "Read all the details and you'll get what seems to be a much fuller picture of life for our soldiers in Iraq. In the hands of a good screenwriter, this could be a great movie and I wish Bruce Willis the best of luck." Roger L. Simon: "I'm placing a bet right now this movie will go through the roof, to the consternation of many of Willis' peers." Ed Morrissey notes that the story 1st reporting it is the Times of London: "Does this news come from the American media? No, we get to find out about it from the UK."

Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds appeared on "Reliable Sources" this weekend. He later recalled saying that Plamegate "was a reverse-Watergate, with the press, not the White House, keeping the important secrets about what happened. But looking at the transcript, I see that Iraq is also a reverse Vietnam ... In Vietnam, the brass talked happy-talk, the press talked to grunts and reported that the war was going worse than we were told. But now it's Americans who are talking to the grunts," and "getting a different picture of how the war is going."

IRAQ II: Terminate With Extreme Lack Of Prejudice?

London's Daily Mirror reported 11/22, according to a secret UK memo, British PM Tony Blair is said to have talked Bush out of bombing al Jazeera; others suggest he was joking or seeking a response. The WH has called the story "outlandish" and will not respond; so far only left-leaning bloggers are giving the story much attention. Also, the controversy draws some comparisons to the '04 docu about al Jazeera during the war, "Control Room"; in part, the film covers the accidental U.S. killing of Baghdad correspondent Tareq Ayoub. At The Moderate Voice, Joe Gandelman summarizes: "Call it the controversy that won't go away... the controversy that has gotten attention here in the United States but is snowballing in Great Britain." As Crooks and Liars points out, Britain has invoked the Official Secrets Act to dissuade the press from publishing related memos. At his blog, Conservative MP/London Spectator editor Boris Johnson promises to print the memo if he can, even if it means jail time. Univ. of MI prof Juan Cole: "Plotting to assassinate civilian journalists in a friendly country is certainly against the law, and if Bush is ever impeached, this charge will certainly figure in the trial." Lefty Steve Clemons criticizes foreign policy hawk Frank Gaffney, who has defended the idea of bombing al Jazeera as "enemy propaganda." UCLA prof Mark Kleiman: "Note that we aren't at war with Qatar, and that bombing Doha, the Qatari capital and Al-Jazeera HQ, would have been nothing less than mass murder. Remember, folks, that's our flag -- yours and mine -- that's being dishonored by the current occupant of the White House and his cronies." A blog purporting to be written by al Jazeera staffers has been set up on Blogspot, titled Don't Bomb Us. In a recent post they offer " 5 things you should know about Al Jazeera (especially if you landed here from LGF)": "George W. Bush has received approximately 500 hours of airtime, while Bin Laden has received about 5 hours of airtime." Little Green Footballs, which did link to DBA, on the controversy: "Al Jazeera is milking it like a prize Holstein, of course, and American moonbats are falling right in line."

According to the UK Telegraph, a "video appearing to show security guards in Baghdad randomly shooting Iraqi civilians has sparked two investigations after it was posted on the Internet." Daily Kos' Hunter comments: "For those with short memories, it was the alleged misconduct of armed contractors in Iraq that led to the killing and public display of four of them, hanging from a bridge... which led to two separate massive retaliatory assaults against Fallujah... which led to a widespread backlash in Iraq... which led to, among other things, a widened insurgency..." Crooks and Liars has what appears to be the video in question. AMERICAblog: "But hey, please don't let this jaundice your view of the war. We wouldn't want our troops to have bad morale while the Republicans leave them for sitting ducks."

WHITE HOUSE '08: Giuliani/Rice Still The Ticket That Sets GOP Blogger Hearts Aflutter

Last week righty radio talker Hugh Hewitt held the latest of the regular straw polls last week. Full results here. With 12.6K participating, ex-NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani wins the top slot again, taking 27% to the 20% showing by the next runner-up, VA Sen. George Allen. On the "fantasy ballot," Sec/State Rice cleans up again with 39%; next closest is Giuliani again, with 10%.

What does the center-left think of McCain's chances? At Slate, Mickey Kaus posted Sunday show commentary to the effect that conservatives are warming up to liberals, arguing: "Let's see. Conservatives are for McCain. Liberals like McCain. Centrists love McCain. Doesn't that mean McCain might, er, win?" Brendan Nyhan disagreed, writing, "prominent conservatives like David Keene and Grover Norquist still loathe McCain, and they are major players in the GOP nomination process." And a bit further left down the dial, Matt Yglesias concurs with Nyhan: "Under the current circumstances, it's very much in the interests of the Democratic Party and many liberal institutions to play up their points of agreement with the Senator. It's also in the interests of the White House to try and stay more-or-less on his good side. And McCain has always been adored by the press. As a result, he's very popular: People only hear good things about him. A real campaign would look very different." Meanwhile, McCain's fundraiser speech for George Wallace Jr. -- who has spoken before the controversial Council of Conservative Citizens -- drew a disapproving note at Eschaton.

MIDTERMS '06: Collaborators And Collaborations

In a related question on Hewitt's poll, see above, 89% of participants said the GOP cong. was "too collaborative" with Dems, whereas 5% found the balance "just right," and 2% said the GOP is "too confrontational." Hewitt adds in a follow-up post: "And with more than 12,300 votes cast as of this moment, Majority Leader Frist has received just 74!"

In recent weeks, Dem-supporting bloggers have discussed starting individual blogs to watch all 435 House races. Now District Blogs has been started to keep track of them all -- currently there are 31 listed. DavidNYC, a proponent of the blog plan, explains that the site it aggregates feeds from already-existing single-district blogs" and also "allows people who want to start their own district blogs to create one right away, hosted at DistrictBlogs. The combination of these two features means that DB has the potential to become a very powerful district-level tool."

TAPPED's Sam Rosenfeld: "The increasing likelihood of an indictment heading Ney's way for favors he did on Jack Abramoff's behalf makes this a good time for political junkies to start watching the race forming in his district more closely." Chillicothe Mayor Joe Sulzer (D) is the likely nominee, albeit with 2 challengers. Rosenfeld asks, "given the stream of awful legal news that Ney has endured over the past week: Do the Republicans have a candidate ready in wait in case Ney actually has to bow out?"

At MyDD, Jonathan Singer writes: "There is a common misconception among members of the Washington cognoscenti that there will not be enough Republican retirements in the House to offer the Democrats a real shot at recapturing the chamber next year." He notes that Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) announced his retirement, making that 5 so far. More Singer: "Republicans are quickly approaching the point at which they could lose the House just by failing to hold on to their open seats -- a situation even the Democrats did not face in 1994."

PLAMEGATE: Once Again, It's Foremost A Press Story

According to the New York Times, Time reporter Viveca Novak has been subpoenaed to discuss her interaction with Karl Rove atty Robert Luskin. TalkLeft: "She is not, by the way, related to Robert Novak." As usual, the left is on it 1st: With transcripts and quotations from old news stories, Booman Tribune delves into why prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald would call her in. The going assumption: "He's bringing in Ms. Novak because he is now investigating Rove's lawyer. He wants to know what Luskin was leaking to reporters." Firedoglake's ReddHedd thinks Fitzgerald is still trying to get to Rove: "While I do think that it is tenuous that a judge would allow Fitz to break that attorney/client relationship by forcing Luskin to become a witness against Rove, it is possible that this could be a tactic in terms of forcing Rove's hand." And as usual, the 1st conservative to weigh in is Tom Maguire, who notes that Time's "swift compliance does make quite a contrast with their previous position" -- i.e. Matt Cooper's fight to protect his source (Rove). Maguire: "And Time was criticized at the time for folding up, rather than making a stand for press freedom. So, has Time surrendered all notions of a free press, and does it now consider itself to be an arm of the Fitzgerald investigation?"

For months, Plamegate bloggers have questioned what NBC's Andrea Mitchell did and did not know about Valerie Plame before the scandal broke. Speaking on the air in 10/03, Mitchell said Plame's CIA employment was well-known. Now MSNBC's own Don Imus has asked her about it; Mitchell says she simply "messed up." At JustOneMinute, Maguire posts the transcript from her Imus appearance. Maguire figures her answers are confused at best and misleading at worst: "Is Andrea Mitchell sitting on a Bob Woodward style revelation that she had received an early leak that Ms. Plame was at the CIA?" At The Corner, conservative Cliff May asks: "Possible motive for her suddenly muddled memory: Who wants to be questioned by the FBI? Who wants a subpoena? Who wants to hire a lawyer and face a grand jury? Who wants to rat out a source or go to jail to protect one?" Liberal Jane Hamsher: "I live for those special moments when she, Tim Russert and Chris Matthews get together and "question" each other like they're all not up to their eyeballs in it."

WOODWARD: Tool Time

... The Washington Post had two more pieces about its own Bob Woodward, by media reporter Howard Kurtz and ombudsman Deborah Howell. Fishbowl DC's Garret Graff: "The Plamegate investigation seems to be beginning a cottage industry in newspapers writing profiles of their own writers. I mean how many times before Judy Miller did newspapers publish profiles of their own staff (at least while they're still alive)?" Graff calls the Kurtz piece "even handed" and writes: "Critical to history or tool of the elite? Kurtz reports, you decide."

Frequent Tim Russert critic Arianna Huffington highlights negative remarks by WaPo's Broder and Robinson on "MTP" 11/27: "It was a great opportunity for Tim to look at the broken conventions regarding confidential sources and the broken trust between the public and the press. But instead, Tim went right back to the old playbook," believing (as Huffington does not) that "the main problem" here is "how does the press repair the damage done between journalists and anonymous sources?" Liberal Sisyphus Shrugged writes: "Now journalists are part of the ... glittering world of Washington society, and a pundit is someone who knows someone who can get him or her on the teevee. The people in power aren't just subjects, they're friends, and the rules for interacting with your friends are very different than the rules for interacting with sources."

HUSSEIN: Trial By Firefight?

Some reaction to this a.m.'s proceedings in the Saddam Hussein trial:

Donklephant: "Hussein's posturing during the opening segment of the trial threaten to make a mockery of the rest of the proceedings. Maintaining the safety of the trial participants looks to be a challenge as well." Captain's Quarters: "Saddam complained about not having a pen, being guarded by foreigners, and a broken elevator as his latest contribution to his trial for mass murder, continuing to demonstrate that he still doesn't quite grasp the stakes involved. ... The professionalism of the Iraqi court stands in stark contrast."

Stop The ACLU highlights ex-AG Ramsey Clark's role as a Hussein atty. Power Line: "Clark is one of those lefties who never met a dictator he didn't suck up to." PoliPundit: "I know this is an awful thing to suggest, but I wonder how many people will be watching just to find out whether or not Ramsey Clark meets the same fate as some of Saddam's previous lawyers. Hopefully the violence surrounding the trial will not continue and the former leader of Iraq will receive a fair trial -- followed by a fair hanging." A Blog For All: "Clark wants the attention focused on himself, and couldn't care less about Saddam's victims, which is at the heart of this trial."

BLOGGERS VS. BLOGGERS: Trackbacks Of My Tears

As of this a.m., Pajamas Media is still hosted at the old osm.org site, but along with the name change (see 11/22 Blogometer) it has a new logo and is starting to host more content at their original URL. They are also still debating what the website is supposed to be. On 11/24, Pajamas Media held a blogjam featuring Reynolds and fellow advisory board members May, Adam Bellow and Tammy Bruce. Although it's the most open the company has been yet, most critics are unmoved. One is Jeff Jarvis: "Here's the challenge, folks: Stand back and see whether you can agree on just one thing. Finish this sentence in no more than 10 words: Pajamas Media is _________________. Until you can do that, there is no sense in arguing over logos, names, functionality, linking, comments, anything. What are you? Why do you exist? Until you can answer that, you shouldn't exist. You don't exist." Another is alienated PJM contributor Laurence Simon, who complains that he wasn't told ahead of time: "It's rather ironic that this is happening on Thanksgiving. On this day, across the land, families are being divided into 'Adults Table' and 'Kids Table.' Similarly, OSM/Pajamas Media is having the "Adult Conversation" in earshot of the kids, but the kids are not invited to participate because it is assumed they have nothing to learn from such discussions or contribute to such a debate." Simon, proprietor of the "Is Full of Crap" websites, has launched pajamasmedia.isfullofcrap.com as a discussion forum. A few of PJM's top bloggers are weighing in there, including Reynolds himself, who concedes a lot needs to change. John Cole is another: "I understand Roger and Charles are probably overwhelmed, but it just seems to me there needs to be, at the very least, a daily email to everyone involved. I am willing to to help them out, but I am so in the dark I just don't know how to help." Although not affil. with blogosphere death pool-organizer Simon, there is a death pool for Pajamas Media.

Truth Laid Bear's N.Z. Bear, recently decided to change his site's ranking system so as not to count "open trackback" posts, which can be used to artificially inflate one's rankings. A number of low to mid-level traffic bloggers are upset. Perhaps most upset is WV-based Daily Mail columnist Don Surber, who figured out the plan before implemented and confronted Bear about it; Surber posted the exchange, adding: "These people are acting very MSM of late. They have a little bit of power and they insulate themselves from their audiences and act as if they are better than everyone else."

MISCELLANY: Special [Error]-Wallace-Sheehan-Matthews Edition!

• [We've removed this item, about a Capitol Hill reporter who was alleged to be friends with a key figure in the Abramoff scandals. Because the factual validity of the item has since come into question, we figured we'd better take it down, pronto. Apologies to all involved.]
• Liberal Crooks and Liars targets FNC's Chris Wallace for pushing Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) on whether Bush ever linked Saddam to al Qaeda. "Wallace did everything he could to make it seem that Bush never linked the two. Is he kidding? Levin did a good job of fighting back."
• Power Line declares anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan's time as a celebrity "over," after her Thanksgiving vigil drew just 100; they post a wire photo of Sheehan waiting to sign books, with no one around but photographers. They praise the Washington Post for portraying it accurately, as The American Princess compliments the AP: "Cindy's lonely. And the Associated Press is being surprisingly honest about it."
• Early last week a handful of Canadian papers attributed remarks arguably complimentary of al Qaeda, to MSNBC's Chris Matthews. The comments were quickly taken up in the blogosphere, and on 11/22 Matthews sent a clarifying message to RedState, which posted it in full: "I don't know why the reporter chose to ignore my clear statement was the appropriate response to terorism, why he chose to skip to my strong belief that we need to get behind this massive hatred we're facing in the Muslim world. ... I was invited by the political science students. I'm pretty sure they taped it because that had an audi-visual person there putting on my microphone." Some of the commenters are amused: "Matthews gets his words twisted by the MSM? Oh, sweet poetic justice."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Not-So-Lonely Jew On Christmas?

As the calendar leans toward Christmas and concurrent end-of-year holidays, yuletide-blogging is starting up. This past week, presumably unbeknownst to the other, 2 Jewish bloggers weighed in -- both for and against the seasonal cheer. Conservative Ross Kaminsky: "Sure, it's nice and PC to call it the holiday season but walking down the street, despite the occasional token menorah or dreydel, it's obviously Christmas. And to be clear, I don't dislike Christmas. It just doesn't have any real meaning to me. Sometimes I do wish all the red and green lights would go up a week or two later. Is that so wrong?" Liberal Ezra Klein: "I'm heedless. Reckless. Rash and unthinking. I shopped, ignoring the warnings, on Black Friday. And despite all the folks complaining about Christmas music, I thought it was great. Mostly because of all the Christmas music. I, after all, spend all year waiting for Christmas music. ... I write this, though, because I seem to be the only one. Everyone else I know despises Christmas music and wants to go all Seattle-protestor on every retailer who plays it."

LEST WE FORGET: American Pamplona

At NAM's Manufacturer's Blog, Pat Cleary attempted to visit the post-TG "Black Friday" rush at a Fairfax Co. Wal-Mart, and returned with gritty details and photos: "Hemingway found Pamplona because, as he said, he went searching for something that would awaken his senses to both life and death. Emerging from Wal-Mart this morning, seeing even more police cars, the parking lot now closed off completely, the woman being loaded on the stretcher into the ambulance, we felt a special bond with Hemingway. Life and death indeed."

Posted by at 12:41 PM

November 22, 2005

11/22: F/X

Note: Thanks to Thanksgiving, the Blogometer has the rest of week off. Happy Turkey Day, and we'll see you next on 11/28.

Just in time for Thanksgiving, the flow of news has slowed to a trickle. The talk last p.m. and this a.m. centered mostly around televised appearances by VP Cheney and Washington Post editor Bob Woodward. In the latter case, an apparent glitch on CNN -- superimposing a large black "X" over Cheney's face -- drew more attention than the substance of his remarks, and arguably complemented Bush's door gaffe during his China visit. If there's any significance to the story, it's that the conservative bloggers who are usually quick to allege media bias rather quickly accepted that there was no partisan chicanery afoot. But the rumor mill continues to spin. Meanwhile, there are new developments in the Jack Abramoff case -- the plea bargain and coming cooperating testimony from ex-DeLay aide/Abramoff partner Michael Scanlon. For whatever reason, the Abramoff case has never attracted widespread speculation of the sort Plamegate did -- but those who mention it seem to understand that its repercussions could be far-reaching. And in other news, MSNBC's Chris Matthews is catching heat from the conservative blogosphere over remarks he recently made in Toronto.

CHENEY: Remind Us When Matt Drudge Last Broke A Legitimate Story?

VP Cheney's latest speech defending the Iraq war -- at AEI on 11/21 -- got more than a bit of comment last p.m. One was from conservative Ranting Profs, which called the Washington Post's report on the speech biased for discounting progress in Iraq. Another was liberal Matthew Gross, who opined: "Rewriting the history now will be a lot harder than it was to craft the fictions before the war, when only gut instinct could tell you that these men were lying. But now the reality-based community has one thing on their side that the illusionists don't possess: memories. And memories don't lie." Post header from MyDD's Scott Shields: "Cheney Attacks, Still No Victory Strategy." In the speech, Cheney said: "Although our coalition has not found WMD stockpiles in Iraq, I repeat that we never had the burden of proof; Saddam Hussein did." Blogs for Bush concurs: "Given, no doubt, in Cheney's rather flat speaking style, those few words clearly state why we went in and demonstrate the absurdity of the so-called 'anti-war' position."

But the speech really drew attention for the the suspicious "X" superimposed on the screen during a few moments of CNN's coverage. Drudge Report led the charge, and before long there was alleged video from CNN at The Political Teen. But right-leaning The Shape of Days -- which offers technical discussion of the frame-by-frame footage -- calls TPT's version bogus. Conservative Robot Guy begs to differ with Shape of Days; he also goes to frame-by-frame analysis, analyzing the formula that compares the slo-mo on TPT's video. Over the course of a few updates, readers persuade Michelle Malkin that the real one was indeed a glitch. Crooks and Liars: "Just another made up conspiracy by Drudge." The Political Teen's Ian Schwartz responds to critics: "I don't see how Drudge got owned, he just reported the facts. There was an 'X' over Cheney's head, correct? Like Drudge, I never claimed otherwise. I am just saying that when I posted the video I was being as impartial as I could. I did not give an opinion or claim that CNN was up to no good nor did I say the opposite." He also writes: "If there is an expectation for a retraction, there probably won't be one unless the video it self is fake. I am waiting to get the word from the source that sent me the video to explain what they want done." IntoxiNation thinks frames were dropped from Schwartz's video, and explains what the "X" was: "That is a cue in that appears before a show starts. Sometimes you will see the same thing on broadcast television. It is just telling the operator where to stop the video at so it is ready to go when its time. This should put to rest the Matt Drudge conspiracy theory that CNN was out to get Cheney."

TV Newser follows the story and reax. Conservative Pundit Guy isn't so sure: "CNN claims that the 'X' flash was made by a control room engineer, who happened to be operating an 'effects' board when a button was pushed by mistake. No word on how an effects button can be pushed 'by mistake' multiple times." This a.m., Drudge Report is now back with a follow-up, reporting there is a senior investigation underway: "A well-placed CNN insider claims a control room staffer "laughed" when the image appeared shortly after 11 am." At Hit and Run, libertarian Julian Sanchez is apoplectic at those calling this a subliminal message: "If you noticed it, it ain't subliminal. More importantly, though: Have we really reached the point where upon seeing an obvious technical glitch in a live TV broadcast, the first reaction of many people -- not folks living in mom's basement among stacks of old John Birch Society newsletters, mind you, but widely-read and well-remunerated pundits -- is 'subliminal brainwashing'? Really?"

Going back to the speech itself, David Corn calls it "both defiant and yielding." Re: his praise for Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), Corn says: "Clearly, the White House (maybe after polling) had concluded that it could not win a ground war against Murtha. It was waving a white flag." Marc Cooper: "After a week of dastardly attacks from the White House and its congressional supporters, openly suggesting that critics of the Iraqi war policy are aiding and abetting the enemy, Cheney extended an olive branch ... and then accused war dissenters of aiding and abetting the enemy!"

ABRAMOFF: If The Nays Have It, Does It Have Ney?

Josh Marshall: "A few days ago a fellow blogger sent me a post in which he incorrectly stated that Ney was not running for reelection. I pointed out the error -- he'd confused him with retiring Ohio Rep. Mike Oxley (R). But I told him not to feel bad since he was right. Ney is retiring too; he just doesn't know it yet." In somewhat related news, Marshall plans to launch a new site soon, TPMmuckracker.com -- probably a repository for interesting documents, a la the former TPM Documents page. Swing State Project's DavidNYC: "Ney is claiming he was an innocent dupe of Scanlon's, and also claims he's cooperating with the prosecutor. But Libby 'cooperated,' too, and the result was a perjury charge." Fired Up! Missouri ties the Scanlon story back to MO Gov. Matt Blunt (R). Guest-blogging at Political Animal, Carpetbagger Reporter Steve Benen recalls conservative activist Paul Weyrich recently saying to the Los Angeles Times about Scanlon: "That one has the potential for blowing into something far larger."

PLAMEGATE: Wired

Last p.m., Bob Woodward went to defend himself on "LKL." Did we learn much? Doesn't seem like it. Whether because conservatives just don't watch Larry King, or they just don't have much invested in Woodward, all the commentary we saw came from the left. AMERICAblog live-blogged the Woodward appearance, calling B.S. a time or two. CAP's Think Progress posts partial transcript and comment; they call it a "disingenuous attempt to rehabilitate himself." TV Newser has the transcript. Hullabaloo's Digby scoffs at Woodward's claim that he was critical of Pres. Bush's admin: "It's quite clear that Woodward doesn't understand why he is given all that access." Emptywheel at The Next Hurrah has been trying to determine "which journalist had been on the verge of publishing an article in late June 2003 naming Joe Wilson as the then-unnamed envoy to Niger." While still leaning toward Miller as being that journalist, Emptywheel describes a "plausible Woodward scenario."

CONGRESS: What's It To You, Bubp?

At Huffington Post, Max Blumenthal looks into the background of the Marine referenced by Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH) on the floor of Congress on 11/18: "A quick glance at" OH state Rep. Danny Bubp's "background reveals him to be a low-level right-wing operative who has spent more time in the past ten years engaged in symbolic Christian right crusades than he has battling terrorist evil-doers. And throughout his career, Bubp's destiny has been inextricably linked with Schmidt's. Bubp may be a Marine, but his view of Murtha as a 'coward' is colored by naked political ambition." Mark Kleiman piles on Schmidt. Think Progress quotes Bubp as saying he's never spoken out against Rep. Murtha specifically. Conservative James Joyner weighs in: "While we'll likely never know the exact details of the conversation in question, I tend to believe Bubp here -- especially given this obvious lie from Schmidt's office" that her speech was "never meant to disparage" Murtha.

PENTAGON: Doesn't White Phosphorous Help Fight Osteoporosis?

Think Progress: "A formerly classified 1995 Pentagon intelligence document titled 'Possible Use of Phosphorous Chemical' describes the use of white phosphorus by Saddam Hussein on Kurdish fighters" -- they quote from a '95 Pentagon report: "IRAQI FORCES LOYAL TO PRESIDENT SADDAM ((HUSSEIN)) MAY HAVE POSSIBLY USED WHITE PHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST KURDISH REBELS." Think Progress: "In other words, the Pentagon does refer to white phosphorus rounds as chemical weapons -- at least if they're used by our enemies." Daily Kos: "Saddam tortured, we torture. Saddam used WP chemical weapons against insurgents and civilians, we use WP chemical weapons against insurgents and civilians. Like torture, the apologists try to justify our use of such abhorrent techniques, oblivious to the fact that our moral standing is in tatters and our credibility beyond repair. We aren't just losing the war in Iraq, we are losing our credibility in the world." Protein Wisdom digs deeper into the Pentagon report, which states that after Halabja, Iraq used WP on Kurds instead of nerve gas "BECAUSE THEY WERE AFRAID OF POSSIBLE RETALIATION FROM THE UNITED STATES (U.S.) LED COALITION." He summarizes: "You'll note that the clear inference here is that Hussein was aware that the use of WP in artillery rounds or fired from helicopter gunships would NOT bring retaliation by the US-led coalition, whereas the use of nerve gas would have" -- and that whereas Saddam used them specifically on civilians, the U.S. used them on insurgents. John Cole: "When you make up claims and redefine what is and is not a chemical weapon in order to accuse our units of using 'chemical weapons' on civilians, you are smearing our guys."

MIDTERMS '06: Eliot ... Ouch

New York Observer's Politicker backs up a New York Post report that Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is backing Dem GOV candidate/Nassau Co. Exec Tom Suozzi over AG Eliot Spitzer (D): "The animosity dates back, at least, to Eliot's decision to prosecute Wall Street firms who are Schumer's fundraising base. The jostling over Chuck's possible run for Governor certainly didn't help. And here's an interesting little addition to that story that didn't surface at the time. Eliot knew as well as anybody how hard Chuck would have been to beat. And it's my understanding that Eliot would not have challenged Chuck for the gubernatorial nomination had Schumer decided to run."

BLOGGERS VS. BLOGGERS: Lysenko Acid Dramedy

At Crooked Timber, Univ. of AZ prof Kieran Healy catches GMU prof Todd Zywicki referring disparagingly to Univ. of MN prof P.Z. Myers as a Lysenkoist. After Healy first complained, Zywicki updated to remove the charge. Healy comments: "Your self-correcting blogosphere at work. At least he saw that the charge was indefensible, I suppose." At Volokh Conspiracy, Zywicki clarifies in a couple updates, stating: "I deleted the second paragraph of the original post in order to avoid spurring a debate that goes beyond what I was trying to raise here, and one that has been discussed extensively elsewhere."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: The Gospel According To Matthews

MSNBC's Chris Matthews is coming under fire for a speech that, as quoted by the Toronto Sun, has some thinking he meant al Qaeda merely has a "different perspective." Matthews: "The period between 9/11 and Iraq was not a good time for America. There wasn't a robust discussion of what we were doing. ... If we stop trying to figure out the other side, we've given up. The person on the other side is not evil -- they just have a different perspective. The smartest people understand the enemy's point of view, because they understand what's driving them." Damian Penny isn't sure whether to give Matthews benefit of the doubt, but at The Corner, Rich Lowry posts a letter arguing he did mean al Qaeda. Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "Matthews is basically adopting [ex-CIA officer/"Imperial Hubris" author] Michael Scheuer's line (see below) that the Bush administration needs to understand the enemy better. But Scheuer is more intellectually honest than Matthews because he at least admits that Bush has a theory, however misguided, about the enemy -- that it hates us for what we believe. Matthews, by contrast, smugly claims that Bush hasn't even tried to figure out the other side." Little Green Footballs posts about the controversy as well.

MISCELLANY: The Slow Courtship Of The Greens And Neocons

Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) posts to RedState a short entry touting a Frank Gaffney "op-ed touting my plan to help America realize its fuel independence by 2015 as the right plan for America's fuel independence."

PAJAMAS MEDIA: Step 1. Collect Pajamas ...

At OSM, Roger L. Simon and Charles Johnson announce, "We are re-assuming our identity as Pajamas Media ... the whole experience of being caught with our pajamas down has been a bit embarrassing, but in the end, when we realized we could get our beloved name back, we were overjoyed. So a warm, hearty thanks to all of you who expressed your displeasure with our phony identity. They explain: "Back at the beginning" the "suits ... decided that we should act like grownups, and being as yet somewhat immature -- at least as businesspeople -- we did as we were told. Which is how, one day, we ended up sitting around a conference table listening to representatives from a 'branding" company' What followed is still a bit of a nightmarish blur, but it involved a PowerPoint presentation on the history of names, and such probing questions as, 'If you were an animal, what animal would you be?' (Which is how we almost ended up as Jellyfish Media.)" They also announce Baldilocks' Juliette Ochieng will be their contact point with the blogosphere at large. Brendan from Open Source, the company whose name Simon and Johnson appropriated, is gracious: "What's nice, actually, is how all this got worked through. Other blogs picked up on the possibility of conflict before we did; other blogs offered advice, for the most part constructive, to both us and Pajamas Media. Lawyers were consulted, but not resorted to. This is a good thing; apart from being cheaper, it engenders trust and confirms that this system -- this infinite number of fact checkers -- works."

But the OSM debacle engendered enough criticism that even this step back isn't enough for everyone yet -- Arguing With Signposts dismisses the announcement as "PRspeak" and gives it a fisking. The Young Curmudgeon: "Their note about it makes them sound unserious and like they don't know what they're doing." OSM critic Ann Althouse: "Will the site fill up with exciting, interesting material? Because it's the lack of good stuff to read that has always been their main problem. Did the guys-in-suits make that happen?" Jeff Jarvis is more forgiving: "Yes, sometimes having money can cause more problems than not having it. If you can't afford a branding agency, then you trust yourself."

Otherwise, announcement should be welcome news to non-participant One-Handed Economist, who writes: "Pajamas Media was at least sort of catchy, and shared a sort of inside joke with the rest of the blogsphere. 'Open Source Media' is vague, makes me think of Linux, and tells me nothing about what they actually plan to do." It already is to participant La Shawn Barber: "We are the pajamahadeen and ought to say so." Instapundit: "About time: I liked that better anyway. As the Insta-Daughter said, 'Pajamas sounds cheerful. Open Source Media sounds... educational.'" TalkLeft: "I admire Pajamas for admitting their mistakes and getting back on the horse."

Another Pajamas Media profile has gone up -- Adam Bellow, possibly replacing Luke Ford (see 11/14 Blogometer).

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Early Warner

TNR's Michael Crowley writes at The Corner, a young Dem operative recently told him that outgoing VA Gov. Mark Warner (D) is the WH'08 candidate "all her friends want to work for, and that the buzz reminds her of how people felt about John Edwards back around 2001. That's only worth so much, of course. But it does suggest that Warner will probably have an easy time snapping up talented campaign workers," which might be one reasons for "political journalists to hype a candidate's early credibility."

LEST WE FORGET: Beware Of Steve

Is the current front page Orange County Register ad creepy or what? Note: It's not creepy unless you're seeing CA 48 special election candidate Steve Young.

NOTES AND ERRATA: Hawkins & Dove

In the 11/21 edition, we mistakenly attributed to John Hawkins of Right Wing News a sentence about Pentagon torture allegations that he certainly did not write. It has since been removed.

Posted by at 12:28 PM

November 21, 2005

11/21: The Doors Of Perception

While the weekend itself was on the quiet side, it followed a tumultuous Friday night in Congress and a crazy week in politics before that -- Rep. Jack Murtha's (D-PA) call for withdrawal from Iraq, Bob Woodward's Plamegate revelation, degenerating cross-party relations and even degenerating cross-blog relations. Now the House and Senate have left for Thanksgiving recess, but the blogosphere is right where it always was. They've been debating the issues mentioned above, as well as the possible death of al Qaeda's leader in Iraq, 2 of Pres. Bush's 1st-term officials who may have disclosed Valerie Plame's name to the press, the ongoing saga of Open Source Media, and even Bush's recent mishap with a door. Which by itself is a decent indicator that not much happened in the last 24 hours.

CONGRESS: Turning Straw Men Into Political Gold?

As reported by Hotline's own On Call, the GOP called a "Murtha vote" late 11/18 to put the House on record about the idea of withdrawing troops. Markos Moulitsas had suggested Dems "simply disappear for the vote. A 218-0 vote would be pretty useless as a political weapon for the GOP." Meanwhile, conservative Larry Kudlow warned the vote would be a mistake: "It is not serious. It demeans the House. It totally politicizes the debate. It is a ploy and a rather weak one at that." But the vote went forward, 403-3. Some Dems say they voted against the GOP resolution because it differed from Murtha's resolution, including Murtha. Brad Blog shows the 2 resolutions side-by-side. Captain's Quarters and No End But Victory are among those who live-blogged the unfolding mayhem.

Lefty Matt Yglesias is surprised but not at all displeased with the recent silence of pro-war Dems: "I suppose I shouldn't be complaining about this, but I'm a bit surprised by the reaction to John Murtha's call for withdrawal from Iraq. Where are the 'responsible' liberals lecturing him on how, whatever one thinks of George W. Bush's handling of the war or the decision to invade in the first place, we need to stay as long as it takes to stabilize the situation? Where's the Bull Moose? Where's Wes Clark? Where have you gone Joe Biden?" He adds: "Are people changing their minds? If so, they should say so. The war won't actually end unless people who want it to end speak up." On the other hand, righty Hugh Hewitt sees something else happening: "Many Democrats were emotionally undone by the exercise of having to confront their own rhetoric, and the anti-war left must be stunned this morning: Only three votes? All that work? All those marches? All those posts at the fever swamp bulletin board? For three votes?"

Conservative Lorie Byrd theorizes: "The more I think about it, the more I believe this is just a way to diminish any political goodwill that will accrue to the Bush administration when troops do begin leaving Iraq. I think the same can be said for the timetable Democrats wanted to impose in the Congress." Slate's Mickey Kaus asks: "Someone who works for Ralph Nader once described to me a brilliant technique of his: When he heard a rumor that the government was about to do something, he immediately called a press conference and demanded that it be done. Is that what Rep. Murtha has now done?" Liberal Marc Cooper called the GOP call for the vote "one of the most repellant political maneuvers in recent memory": "Instead of hearing the anguish of a majority of Americans who have soured on the Iraq war, instead of searching in good faith for some reasonable way forward -- or back -- the House Republicans turned instead to a game of playground double-dare." Conservative PoliPundit wishes more Dems would have voted to withdraw: "If Democrats want to be known as patriots, they must do what they think is right; they should vote for immediate withdrawal. Patriots do what they think is right for their country."

One of Murtha's chief critics on the floor was Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH); she is very familiar to lefty bloggers for beating current OH SEN candidate Paul Hackett in the 8/05 OH special (see 8/3 Blogometer). Jonathan Singer, the new weekend blogger for MyDD: "It took Jean Schmidt only three months in office to get publicly upbraided by the President, quite a feat even for a woman of her reputation. The Democrats ought not give her a pass next fall, especially in light of Friday's developments."

Conservative Euphoric Reality posts an e-mail from Murtha acquaintance David Truby, who writes: Have no idea where today's Jack Murtha is coming from and I question that sincerely. ... He has appeared on KDKA to repeat his anti-Bush, anti-Cheney and anti-war outbursts. He sounds quite emotionally wrung out, frankly." Conservative Pundit Guy jokes about Murtha's raise profile: "Knowing how things work, we'll probably see him on the cover of PEOPLE Magazine next week partying with Tara Reid." Crooks and Liars has video of Murtha on "Meet the Press" on 11/20.

IRAQ: Wishin' And Hopin'

One of the biggest weekend stories was one we won't be covering much: Whether al Qaeda's top terrorist in the region, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was killed in a blast during a firefight with U.S. forces. Many were willing to publicly state their hopes that it was true, but others were more circumspect, and at this point, most have accepted that the reports were likely erroneous. The Counterterrorism Blog reports on reports that Zarqawi is in fact not dead. The Jawa Report heads a post "Zarqawi Still Alive, The Left Celebrates." Jawa and others point to Armando at Daily Kos as one of those rejoicing, although in the post linked to, Armando writes that Zarqawi's death would be a "boon to the fight against terror," and would force Bush to confront the Iraq problem on "real terms." Power Line is one of numerous conservative blogs pointing out that Zarqawi's family has disowned him. To them it is more proof that "the war in Iraq is steadily being won."

PLAMEGATE: Unreliable Sources

Over the weekend, 2 competing theories emerged from the Times of London and Newsweek about the identity of Woodward's source. The former says NSA Stephen Hadley; the latter indicates it may be ex-State official Dick Armitage.

>> Considering Hadley -- Liberal Kevin Drum is skeptical: "I don't remember if this has been definitively reported before, but Hadley has almost certainly testified in this case previously. He was much too close to the action for Fitzgerald to have ignored him before now." Liberal Barbara O'Brien lists a few reasons why the Hadley scenario is believable. And conservative Mark Coffey is satisfied that it probably is Hadley: "So how big a deal is this for Hadley? No doubt he's all lawyered-up, but he needn't be too concerned at this point. ... After all, neither Libby or Rove was indicted for leaking Plame's name or status."

>> Considering Armitage -- Conservative Tom Maguire tries on the theory from a few angles: "And how about motive? Let's accept" the argument that Armitage had no "motive to discredit Wilson" -- State still "had a strong motive to discredit the CIA," and "the tidbit that Wilson was tapped for the trip by his wife may have been tossed in an amusing bit of supportive gossip intended to discredit the CIA, not Wilson." Liberal Jeralyn Merritt finds several parallels that work for her, too. Conservative Mark Noonan likes it even more, writing that Armitage is "liked by the MSM... and if he was the source, they'll drop this issue like a bad habit for fear of drying up the rest of their sources. We'll be back to leftwingers spinning bizarre conspiracy theories... and Joe Wilson won't be able to get in front of a camera if he stripped naked on Times Square."

Jonah Goldberg, on what he considers the failure of the Fitzgerald investigation: "There's been much handwringing about the chilling effect all of this will have on the press in the future. I don't buy it anymore. A year or two from now -- and certainly in the next administration -- we will see far more leaks. When people demand an investigation, the Fitzgerald inquiry will serve as a useful cautionary tale."

MIDTERMS '06: How The DSCC Got Its Groove Back

Recently Dem-leaning bloggers have called for a blog for every contested House race in the country (see 11/14 Blogometer); At Swing State Project's DavidNYC highlights a few, including Take 19 in Rep. Sue Kelly's (R-NY) district, Dump Mike about Rep. Mike Ferguson (R-NJ), and Say No To Pombo opposing Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA).

Noting a report that SEN '06 Dems have outraised '06 GOPers; a striking development considering that GOPers hold wide leads in nat'l cmte fundraising and House races, Hugh Hewitt speculates the cause is with "grassroots disgust with the Gang of 14 in the spring, and now the Alito delay, the [jud. nominee Bret] Kavanaugh deep freeze, and last week's meltdown over the Warner Amendment have crippled efforts to rally enthusiasm behind the 2006 Senate races in which the GOP holds an opening edge because of the map."

In These Times' Christopher Hayes reports, blogged-up OH SEN candidate Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) says of the "rhetorical hand grenades" lobbed at him from the blogosphere: "My wife says it's like when you have a cold sore, you keep running your tongue over it ... I keep telling her, 'Connie, stop reading the blogs!' But she can't help herself."

THE ALITO NOMINATION: Joe Blow

UCLA law prof Stephen Bainbridge argues that Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) "mischaracterizes" SCOTUS nominee Samuel Alito's views by bringing up the "one man-one vote" doctrine, which Bainbridge contends Alito did not do: "He questioned the reapportionment decisions. As I've explained before, it is entirely possible to endorse one-person/one-vote and still oppose the reapportionment decisions. In any case, I doubt whether the Gang of 14 will see the a one-liner about the reapportionment cases as a sufficient justification for supporting a filibuster ... and, if they do, they'll cave when the leadership threatens to invoke the nuclear option."

PENTAGON: I Can't Believe It's Not Torture!

The split over Pentagon treatment of detainees is far apart enough that critics have been calling this a debate about torture for sometime, whereas defenders generally put "torture" inside scare quotes. ABC News has released a list of harsh techniques used in military interrogations.

John Hawkins appraises the list and finds little of concern. He writes, "torture is smashing people's toes with hammer, hooking electrodes up to their nether regions, and sticking bamboo shoots under the fingernails. It's not 'making them cold' or giving them a 'pink belly.' While these interrogation techniques are undoubtedly unpleasant, none of them rises to the level of torture."

BUSH: And Behind Door #2 ...

Bush's door gaffe this weekend is a media event tailor-made for the Internet; it's short, funny, and captured on video. While we previously might have said the clip was tailor-made for TV, it's better now because viewers can call it up at any time they want. It finds a prominent position under the banner at conservative Drudge Report, and early this a.m. it was the very top item on the liberal Huffington Post: "I was trying to escape. Obviously, it didn't work." Crooks and Liars has video.

For a series of photos giving you the gist, see Eschaton. Conservative The Political Teen posts it, too: "Sometimes you just have to laugh."

AMERICAblog: "So this is how desperate Bush is to prop up support for his failed adventure. Sure, it's nice that Bush is visiting Mongolia but to try and make a splash in the news for a country that sent 120 people to Iraq tells me that this is a team eager to grab onto anything."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Beavis And Buckhead

Along with publication of a book on Memogate, ex-CBS prod. Mary Mapes is also pushing back against the bloggers involved by raising questions about their connections. In response, GA atty Harry MacDougald -- better known as Buckhead, the Free Republic participant who 1st questioned the CBS documents -- has set up a page explaining how he recognized so quickly that the documents were likely forgeries. He writes in one section: "So, how did I know? The short answer is that I am 47 years old and I am not a blithering idiot. A more elaborate answer" follows.

Neoliberal Mickey Kaus seconds conservatives critical of the Los Angeles Times' "embarrassing deception in the second paragraph of Friday's front-page, two-column-headline lead story, which seemingly proclaimed that 'no Democrat was a firmer ally'" of the war than Murtha, "when in fact Murtha had been a critic of the current Iraq war in 2002, before it started? Funny how those propagandistic mistakes in the news pages never get made in a pro-Bush direction, isn't it?"

In an essay for Strategy Page, Jim Dunnigan: "The troops can email back their experiences promptly, and this causes a disconnect in many people, between what they see in the news, and what they are hearing from people who are in the middle of it all."

BLOGGERS VS. BLOGGERS: Cracking The Source Code

It was a wild end to the week for the 11/16-launched blog company OSM/Open Source Media, which debuted to faint praise, tepid-to-hostile reviews, petty blog-fights and self-outings.

Among several problems with the OSM site, lefty Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas drew attention to the fact that the news feed on the front page displayed headlines from Xinhua, allowing Moulitsas to suggest that OSM is a "Chinese Communist Party mouthpiece." Sometime this a.m., the news feed disappeared entirely, before returning -- with a handful of Xinhua stories included. Crooks and Liars compares OSM's slow start to HuffPo's "65 posts" on day one: "I guess it must be hard to pat yourself on the back and type at the same time." One of the 1st new features to debut this a.m. is a round-up of commentary on pre-war intel edited Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds, titled "Look back, in pajamas."

David Corn: "I'm still waiting to see OSM straighten itself out. The debut was hardly that of a powerhouse site, and changes, I'm told, are in the works. I hope quickly in the works." Corn added that he'd given much input, and was waiting to see what next. Reynolds soon seconded his post. Participant Max Sawicky: "The site design is nice and clean and everything works. It's just that there has been so little of interest. If you want Glenn's links, you can get more at his site."

Jeff Jarvis: "I can't figure out what OSM think it is or will be in editorial, business, or blog terms. So tell us. Before you do, put it up as a wiki for your editorial board and members to edit ... Then put it out for the world to see." He advises they become a "conservative Huffington Post": "Thank your liberal tokens who were kind enough to join in and give you beard and come out and be right and be proud." Bill Ardolino is also confused: "I'm surprised that they didn't recruit and promote more bloggers to produce original newsgathering rather than straight pundits that rely on secondary material."

The major subplot involved OSM ex-participant/critic Dennis the Peasant made a poorly-received joke about shooting the Simon family dog and drew flak for that. Roger L. Simon, OSM co-founder, wrote: "Recently my OSM colleagues and I have been subjected to all kinds of criticism, much of it well intentioned and warranted. But a fair amount has been surprisingly personal, bordering on the abusive." In the comments, Simon's wife Sheryl (using the pseudonym "SJ") suggested that "Dennis" be outed. Instead, Dennis revealed his own identity as Columbus, OH CPA Kenton Kelly. He joked that his clients had fired him over the revelation, posted unflattering pictures of himself, and one of himself with OSM co-founder Charles Johnson. In a subsequent post, Kelly described his participation in-depth, explaining how he came to be involved in the project, how Simon changed plans without communicating, and announced the creation of Pajamas Media (see 5/2 Blogometer) without telling him. In a follow-up post, Simon confirmed some of Kelly's claims while rejecting his chief complaints, without much detail.

Another subplot involved Ann Althouse, whose latest post on the matter is linked. Dismayed by the gender-specific barbs from the LGF commenters, Althouse sought a defense on feminist grounds, without much success. Libertarian Cathy Young disagreed that the attacks were so gendered, and pointed out that Althouse had resorted to objectionable imagery first. Lefty Atrios is almost sympathetic: "The underlying issue is, of course, a real one. ... Still, the 'I can ignore it until it happens to me' game is annoying."

OSM does have its defenders: Non-member Sean Hackbarth at The American Mind is one. Member Pieter Dorsman at Peaktalk argues the financial backing bodes well -- "any content-based venture that is able to raise a significant amount of early stage financing in the post-internet boom world is pulling off a significant feat." But others agree with Althouse and Kelly, such as Dan Riehl at Riehl World View: "In the end, no one cares about Kelly -- if he is out, he's out. But you have started and are by design now the purported leader of a serious new venture. Might I suggest you start acting like one? Either get serious, or go back to playing around with a less than wealth enhancing blog like the rest of us. This is getting embarrassing for us -- and it isn't personal." Meanwhile LGC, a LGF-affil. site, has taken to diagnosing OSM's critics as suffering from ODS -- "OSM Derangement Syndrome."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Rockefellers, The Astors, The Dentons

Late last week, Huffington Post founder Arianna Huffington hosted a party to honor Gawker Media's Defamer -- apparently just for being a popular blog. Pictures went up at Huffington Post on 11/17; Defamer has more, too. Maybe it's the Huffington presence, maybe it's the Hollywood setting, and maybe it's just us, but are blog fetes looking more and more like the New York Social Diary?

LEST WE FORGET: It's A Beautiful Day In The Blogosphere, A Beautiful Day For A Blogger ...

With the blog company OSM under fire, Iowahawk offers a FAQ which manages to be both blunt and irreverent, useful to critics and supporters alike. Don't miss his description of the business model. Meanwhile, Riehl World View imagines an eerie, but still compelling, hybrid of OSM and "Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood."

NOTES AND ERRATA: In Other News, Thune May Seek The WH'08 Dem Nod ...

On 11/18 we wrote about Sen. John Thune's (R-SD) appearance at a pen-and-pad session for conservative bloggers with GOP sens. We wrote then: "Thune also noted that he had brought along a member of his Senate staff whom he'd hired from the Daschle v. Thune blog." The immediate following sentence should have read: "It's worth noting that those bloggers came under fire for receiving money from Thune at the time without disclosing it." Instead, we replaced Thune's name with that of his opponent, ex-Senate Dem leader Tom Daschle. In addition to being incorrect, it didn't make any sense. The error has been corrected in our online archives.

Posted by at 01:10 PM

November 18, 2005

11/18: They Say This Cat John Is A Bad Murtha -- Shut Your Mouth!

There is little question now that the wind is at the back of Iraq war opponents -- many of the most vocal being bloggers. From Pres. Bush getting sidetracked by the Cindy Sheehan protest, to his clumsy Katrina response, to the Dems' stepped-up challenges on Iraq, to the focus Plamegate put on the WH and pre-war intel, it is not hard to see how the public has become more skeptical of the Bush admin. over the past couple months. Now many on the left are touting Rep. Jack Murtha's (D-PA) House floor speech as a crystallizing moment in what they see as the American public's belated turn against the war.

That remains to be seen, but plenty of war supporters are nervous. While there is some hand-wringing going on among them, a number of them have moved quickly to discredit Murtha, bringing up earlier positions incongruous with his hawkish reputation. To call that an uphill battle would be an understatement; the media has him pegged as an Iraq war supporter until recently, and whether Dems follow Murtha's example is entirely out of their hands.

In other news, the FEC has ruled that bloggers are covered by the same campaign finance exemptions as MSM outlets. Although not all bloggers think of themselves as journalists, that's exactly how they'll be treated from here on out. Plus, the Senate GOP Conf. held a "blog row" event on Capitol Hill, much like the one the House held last month. The Blogometer was there to cover it, and our report is below.

IRAQ: Murtha, Murtha, Murtha!

As with the rest of the media last p.m. and this a.m., Murtha's floor speech is a big deal in the Beltway-focused media (blogs and MSM). All this a.m., Murtha was the top search on Technorati, with 1,481 searches. Crooks and Liars has video.

If there's an antiwar blogger who disagrees with Murtha, we couldn't find them. The more cautious war critics have called for timetables rather than immediate withdrawal, but Murtha's call bolsters their position as well. Kevin Drum predicts: "I think Republicans are about to crumble. Pressure is going to mount on the White House to use the December elections as an excuse to declare victory and go home, fueled by equal parts disgust over Dick Cheney's lobbying for the right to torture; unease even among Republicans that the president wasn't honest during the marketing of the war; lack of progress on the ground in Iraq; Congress reasserting its independence of the executive; a genuine belief that the American presence has become counterproductive; and raw electoral fear, what with midterm elections looming in less than a year."Lefty Matthew Yglesias applauds the statement: "Murtha, I think, points in the best direction for framing this in a politically viable way. The point that the military has accomplished the missions laid out for it at the beginning of the war is a key one. The war is unpopular at the moment, but defeatism has never been a winner at the polls." However, according to Memeorandum, there are far more conservative blogs commenting on this story than liberal ones.

Some war proponents are getting nervous -- Pro-war Andrew Sullivan: "We have a crisis of confidence in the war."In a much-cited post, NRO contributor Rod Dreher writes: "Don't know how many of you caught Rep. John Murtha's very angry, very moving speech ... as I listened to it, I could feel the ground shift. ... I'm sure there's going to be an anti-Murtha pile-on in the conservative blogosphere, but from where I sit, conservatives would be fools not to take this man seriously." Initial war supporting Dem Tim Russo agrees with Murtha: "John Murtha may have just blown the lid off of Democratic support for Iraq policy. ... America is going to pay dearly for the Bush administration's Iraq folly for a very, very long time. There is no good solution. We need to leave Iraq. It's going to go rapidly into the toilet. And the resulting chaos is going to come back to haunt us for decades. There is just no way around that. And it is solely the responsibility of George W. Bush." Russo also predicts that the debate will be fought most fiercely in the OH '06 midterm campaign.

But this is not to say that's the prevailing sentiment; many on the right aim to paint Murtha as something other than a strong military supporter : Jeff Goldstein: "Typical Dreher -- tells us all that the sky is falling, then tries to barricade himself against criticism for his flabby, defeatist attitude by predicting that criticism in advance." And Sullivan has long been discounted by a number of former allies (see 4/20 Blogometer), but centrist Donklephant backs him up. The Corner's K.J. Lopez points out a 5/6/04 Roll Call story with Murtha calling the war "unwinnable," adding: "This is an old note for him." She later points out that Murtha also supported Howard Dean for DNC chair.

In a post titled "Who is Jack Murtha?" a RedState contributor paints him as a pork-loving pol: "He is to the leadership on the war what Don Young is to highway safety: policy is secondary to keeping open the spigot from your wallet to his district." California Yankee : "It doesn't matter if no one else seconds Murtha's call for immediate withdrawal. The damage has been done. Bin Laden and Zarqawi and their followers can only be encouraged now that some of America's so-called leaders want to call it quits." Instapundit has a short round-up which may grow longer as the debate continues Mudville Gazette takes issue with other military-related claims by Murtha.

Then again, Speaker Denny Hastert's response -- "Murtha and Democratic leaders have adopted a policy of cut and run. They would prefer that the United States surrender to the terrorists who would harm innocent Americans" -- is getting a chilly reception from even some pro-war bloggers. One is OxBlog's David Adesnik: "That's low. There is a case to be made on the merits and that certainly isn't it." But neither does he agee with Murtha, adding, the "signal that our withdrawal will send is that terrorists can defeat a superpower." Another who disagrees with both Hastert and Murtha is James Joyner.

Meanwhile, the WH's reaction is coming under fire as well -- Daily Kos' Armando writes, McClellan "appears to have lost his sanity completely" for saying: "The eve of an historic democratic election in Iraq is not the time to surrender to the terrorists." Armando interprets: "He now accuses the majority of the American People of being traitors." In an earlier post, he struck much the same note, calling out Bush and Cheney, Washington Post's Hiatt, and Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds. Atrios' take on McClellan comparing Murtha to anti-Bush filmmaker Michael Moore: "We're All Michael Moore Now."

PLAMEGATE: Still On The Hot Seat

Arianna Huffington has "15 Questions for Bob Woodward." Among them: "If you didn't tell your editor, Len Downie, about the CIA leak because you were so afraid of being subpoenaed, why did you supposedly tell Walter Pincus? Did you trust Pincus but not Downie?"; "Why were you afraid of being subpoenaed in 2003? Subpoenas of reporters didn't begin until 2004"; "On October 27, you were on ["LKL"] saying you had no big scoop. Was that true or a lie?"

Contrary to some conservative comment in recent days, Power Line's John Hinderaker doesn't think Woodward's revelation changes the Scooter Libby case: "The subject matter of the alleged lie is how he learned about Plame's relationship with [ex-Amb.] Joe Wilson and her role at the CIA. I don't see how anything he did or didn't say to Woodward, or any conversation Woodward had with a third party, can help Libby."

In response to a Reuters story about how Wilson wants the Washington Post to probe Woodward, JunkYardBlog's Bryan Preston says that with Woodward's knowledge of Plame, "Wilson's allegations have finally been killed off, by one of the most famous and respected reporters in the world. The case against Libby is collapsing. Fitzmas has fizzled." Generation Why? questions Wilson, asking if "taking an advocacy position when he was a party to it" is "the standard for launching a full scale inquiry because of 'the appearance of a conflict of interest'? So sayeth the man who took an advocacy position about his own trip on which his own wife recommended him, then ... lied publicly about what he found on that trip and who sent him.'"

Though the New York Times has quoted a spokesperson denying the possibility, Jonah Goldberg asks at The Corner: "Anyone want to take odds that Colin Powell was the one who told Woodward about Valerie Plame?"

BLOGS VS. THE FEC: Your Blog Is A Temple

MO Dem consultant Roy Temple, proprietor of a handful of Fired Up! blogs -- and who this summer asked the FEC to determine whether his site was exempt from campaign finance laws (see 8/23 and 9/16 Blogometers) -- announced last a.m.: "By a unanimous vote, the FEC today issued Advisory Opinion 2005-16 [PDF] which concludes that the Fired Up! Network of blogs qualifies for the 'press exception' to federal campaign finance law. The Commission adopted the draft opinion without revision. ... This is a major victory for Internet free speech advocates." In part, the FEC writes: "Fired Up qualifies as a press entity. Its websites are both available to the general public and are the online equivalent of a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication as described in the Act and Commission regulations." Atty Adam Bonin cross-posts to both Daily Kos and RedState a summary of the ruling: "Any such site engaged in news, commentary and editorial can continue in such activities without fear of falling into FEC filing requirements turning groups into political committees or incorporated sites into outlaws." MyDD's Chris Bowers: "Great! I guess I am a journalist now. I suppose many of you all are journalists now too. While I am new to the profession, I intend to uphold its professional standards with the utmost care and respect." To that end, he calls upon his fellow colleagues to e-mail the New York Times' Bumiller and ask why her quotes from Dems in an 11/17 story came from an RNC website: "Please do so. Please do so several times if you have to." Skeptic's Eye: "Wow. No amendments? Interesting. Apparently those who would generally support a draft with less discussion of the particular facts (so as to make the draft more broadly applicable) and those would generally prefer to make the draft depend upon the unique facts of the case (to make it more narrowly applicable) didn't have the appetite for argument, or maybe the Counsel's office just struck the perfect balance. In any case, great!"

BLOG ROW: Is This Almost Routine By Now?

Early last p.m. the Senate GOP Conf. held its first "blog row" in the same spirit of the House GOP Conf. event (see 10/21 Blogometer). Much like that event, the GOP conf. invited right-of-center bloggers to the Capitol, provided wireless Internet and provided them with access to GOP sens for a pen-and-pad interview session. Whereas the 1st one was entirely organized by the party at the RNC and House caucus, this one was requested and promoted among bloggers by Tim Chapman of Town Hall and its Capitol Report blog. Unlike the House event, no print media nor non-blogger cameras were allowed into the room, and while the former had a fishbowl quality, this was definitely more like a private conversation.

There were 3 (arguably 4) WH'08 GOPers present in the sen. lineup, which went in this order: George Allen (VA), Saxby Chambliss (GA), John Thune (SD), Wayne Allard (CO), GOP Conf. chair Rick Santorum (PA), Craig Thomas (WY), Sam Brownback (KS), and Maj. Leader Bill Frist.

Allen was the 1st of several to mention what could be considered "blogger issues" -- his proposal to ban taxes on Internet access, pressuring China to open its Internet, etc. However, when time came for bloggers to ask questions, they focused more on Iraq, Alito, spending, border security and the marriage amendment. Allen was also among the few to come out in front of the podium; Frist came all the way up to the table where the bloggers sat.

Thune was perhaps the most quotable, saying: "The bloggers are where the freedom fighters are." And asked whether there were still earmarks in the bill that would supposedly defund the "bridge to nowhere," Thune got a bit Clintonian, even as he realized he was doing it: "I suppose it depends on how you define an earmark." At another point, he said the U.S. could be energy independent within 5 years; called on it, he changed his estimate to 10 years. Thune also noted that he had brought along a member of his Senate staff whom he'd hired from the Daschle v. Thune blog. It's worth noting that those bloggers came under fire for receiving money from Daschle Thune at the time without disclosing it. See 7/13 Blogometer and this 12/04 post at Personal Democracy Forum.

Santorum also spoke expansively, even taking as many as 3 questions more than what GOP conf. handlers allowed the bloggers. He started off by defending accomplishments of the Senate this year, showing how it fit into an overall picture of tort reform, and even complaining that "that we don't get much credit for [this] from the fiscal conservative world." When asked by GMU prof Orin Kerr about the casualties in Iraq, Santorum spent roughly 10 minutes emphasizing the "great sacrifice" of the troops, and his frustration that casualties make the news rather than accomplishments. Santorum: "Terrorists notice that every time someone dies, it's a headline in the paper." He eventually used this point about media bias as an explanation for the rise of the "alternative media," including talk radio and blogs. Asked about whether the U.S. would retain bases in Iraq, he said he hoped we could, but shrugged: "[Iraq] is a democracy."

Chapman live-blogged the event, adding updates to a single entry. Blogging at Hugh Hewitt's site, Mary Katherine Ham covers the "highlights/lowlights" of the Warner amendment on Iraq: "I noticed that the only Senators who admitted their phones were ringing off the hook about it were the ones who voted against both amendments, like Saxby Chambliss." NAM's Pat Cleary, author of the Manufacturers Blog, posted an entry for each sen. who came through. As energy is important to NAM's members, he made special notes of what each sen. said about the subject, such as in the Thune post; Suitably Flip covered the event in much the same way. TigerHawk has perhaps the most complete coverage. Ed Driscoll filed his report for OSM (about which more below) where he addressed the sens.' familiarity with their interrogators: "The senators had varying levels of knowledge of the blogosphere. Allen recognized several of the mostly conservative bloggers assembled by name -- or at least by the domain names on their pre-printed placeholders." Right Side Redux's Justin Hart posts video of Bill Frist answering a "Harry Potter"-related question joking about how his job as a surgeon is to replace "liberal bleeding hearts" with strong conservative ones. Also in attendance was Gerard Vanderleun of American Digest.

Once the event concluded, bloggers were invited back to the Hart Senate building for a tour of the GOP Conf. offices. Not everyone did, but those who did were asked what GOP conf. could do to help bloggers. There were several suggestions -- the providing of raw video from news shows, a private RSS feed with statements and reports before they hit the MSM, transcripts of events such as the blog rows, and -- most interestingly -- a "hot docs" page. That is to say, several of the bloggers present expressed frustration that often they would find a recently-released report referenced in an AP story, but could not track down a copy of it themselves. Could the GOP conf. help facilitate that? They said they'd work on it.

THE ALITO NOMINATION: The Spin Is In?

Matthew Franck at NRO's Bench Memos writes that ever since the Washington Times reported on judge Samuel Alito's '85 job application, "this has been a very strange week." By 11/16, Dem Sens. were saying Alito "had somehow backed away" from his stated opposition to Roe. He suspects that some of the sens. may be "recounting half-baked, 'personally' spun accounts of conversations they had with Judge Alito in private. Maybe they seek to box him in somehow to versions of those conversations that he is not in any position to contradict for the next several weeks." He adds: "It would be better all around if judicial nominees submitted to their own press interviews, before and during the Senate hearings."

Andrew at the pro-Alito Confirm Them asks: "It seems like every poll about Roe v. Wade has always ignored the fact that overturning that decision wouldn't necessarily make abortion illegal. Do you know if any poll has EVER asked anything like the following?" He proposes some new poll questions, which would include the stipulation that decisions on abortion then revert back to individual states. More: "IMHO, polling on this issue has been abysmal, and all sides are to blame." Commenters also have suggestions.

ANONYBLOGGING: Wide Lat-itude

It's now been 4 days since NJ dep. U.S. Atty David Lat revealed himself in a New Yorker story as the blogger behind the cult hit legal blog Underneath Their Robes, and 3 days since Lat removed the blog from the web. In that time, the story has broken wide into the print MSM: Newark Star-Ledger, Bergen ">Record, Washington Post, an AP story picked up by ABC News and others, and theNew York Times. Lat still seems to have his job, and isn't talking.

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: What Did You Lie About During The War, Daddy?

NRO's Goldberg made his debut as a Los Angeles Times columnist on 11/17, and made waves on the left by arguing that any lies Bush might have told are defensible in light of lies FDR told during WWII: "Even the most cursory reading of any presidential biography will tell you that statesmanship requires occasional duplicity." Clever Peasantry takes issue with his words: "The inclusion of the word 'moonbat' should immediately disqualify any writer from being taken seriously when said writer is a columnist for a major metropolitan newspaper." Daily Kos' Hunter makes a similar argument, and calls this a "shameful episode" for the LAT. Right-leaning Independent Sources finds it ironic that Daily Kos is "upset" with Goldberg for using a derogatory term to refer to his opponents. That is not the argument of others, such as Dadahead, who uses an arguably less savory term for Goldberg while objecting to his WWII analogy. Among others on the left going after Goldberg: Marc Cooper; Pandagon; Desert Rat Democrat; Hullabaloo; Martini Republic.

OPEN SOURCE MEDIA: Still An Open Question

The controversy surrounding the launch of Roger L. Simon and Charles Johnson's OSM/Open Source Media 11/17 Open Source prod. Mary McGrath has now written a letter to OSM [PDF], asking that they change their name "to something that doesn't include Open Source," and requesting a discussion so they can "avoid the necessity of legal action." For what it's worth, we spoke briefly to Ed Driscoll about the subject yesterday. He reiterated the point that the trademark applies to OSM and not to "Open Source Media." Whereas some have claimed that they didn't have an atty look into it, Driscoll said his wife, Nina Yablok had handled just this question -- and that the 4 of them (including Simon and Johnson) had been up at midnight on 11/16 preparing their response.

Former Simon business partner Dennis the Peasant shares more back story on the formation of the company, explaining why he doesn't think the venture will fly. In the comments at Protein Wisdom, retired blogger Allah comments on OSM criticism by Ann Althouse and Steven Den Beste: "I find myself torn between admiring Den Beste for giving his honest opinion about OSM and dismissing him ... There's something to be said for a guy who refuses to pull his punches, even when it comes to critiquing his pals. But when you've been linked and praised by someone literally dozens of times, maybe you want to think twice before automatically assuming the most cynical motives on their part."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Anonymize This

At How Appealing, Howard Bashman writes: "As I have earlier hinted, in 2004 I discovered that 'Article III Groupie' had sent me an email from a U.S. Department of Justice web server, using an otherwise anonymous Yahoo email account, promoting that new blog. At the time, I was amazed to contemplate that the author of [Underneath Their Robes] might be a USDOJ employee. ... I doubt whether anonymous blogging is possible. It surely isn't possible if the blogger conducts email correspondence with others and fails to mask his or her internet protocol address. Plus, even the act of logging on to a blogging service provider, such as TypePad or blogger, leaves electronic fingerprints, and I'd have to assume that 'UTR' had a TypePad subscription, enabling someone to subpoena the blog owner's identity and/or payment information. So, to you anonymous bloggers out there, have fun, but don't fool yourselves into thinking that simply by not providing your identity you are doing an effective job of remaining hidden."

LEST WE FORGET: I Sincerely Want To Vote The Taste Out Of Your Mouth -- Do You Relate?

At INDC Journal, Hubris shows what might have happened at Alito's meeting with Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), putting words into their mouths based on real photos. Not 2 panels go by before Kennedy brings up Prince. In another panel, Kennedy points out a plaque he won. You'll just have to click through to find out how he won it.

Posted by at 12:39 PM

November 17, 2005

11/17: The Sourcerers

The Wednesday a.m. swarm around Washington Post's Bob Woodward was just the beginning. Today, his revelations -- and speculation about their possible ramifications -- are all over the political blogs. On the left, the Judy Miller analogy is all but conventional wisdom. There are multiple guesses about who the source might be, but both sides are looking at VP Cheney most closely. It also raises frustration about the MSM's clubbiness and perceived lack of commitment to the profession. In the past few years, the Post has been arguably the least-criticized among its competitors, especially compared with the New York Times. Although some have recently argued that the Post is the new "paper of record," it isn't immune from criticism, either. On the other hand, the Times' problems have been widely perceived as going all the way to the top for some time; at least for now, the Post's editors and reporters have the sympathy of Woodward's critics.

Although details are slight, what we've got already is enough to keep the blogosphere's Plamegate kremlinologists occupied for awhile. Earlier reports that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald had secured more office space turned out to be erroneous, but now it seems possible that the investigation will have to ramp up, or in any case will not be a simple clean-up operation. Given another development or two, the Plamegate frenzy could be back in full effect.

But if there are 2 stories out there today, the other is most certainly the launch of Open Source Media (nee Pajamas Media); the fledgling company founded by Roger L. Simon and Charles Johnson. It launched at a gala event in NYC last a.m., and the buzz is loud. Unfortunately for OSM, the buzz is not so good. To begin with, longstanding questions about what exactly the company would do have not been satisfactorily answered by its portal site, which some find lacking. (For example, why are the "Top Stories" listed below the "Archives"? Beats us. And might we suggest a blog format for the site's front page?) The company has said it intends to sell advertising on member blogs, but nothing has been said about this recently. Moreover, many are questioning the trademark availability of the name.

The situation reminds the Blogometer a bit of the launch of Huffington Post back in May. That project drew plenty of pre-launch skepticism, but the site survived and by all appearances has flourished. Of course, it also did so by tweaking its format -- if Gwyneth Paltrow has made an appearance, we've missed it. Open Source Media is off to a rocky start, but can still succeed as well -- but it will have to change and adapt before it does.

Of course, plenty more happened in the past 24 hours, such as Cheney's pushback against war critics. But for now, we've just included a few odds and ends from other stories -- and our latest Blogger Spotlight.

LEAK INVESTIGATION: Second Place?

Liberal Needlenose quotes a "beautifully suggestive passage" from the New York Times' Purdum story wherein spokespersons for Pres. Bush, WH CoS Andy Card, counselor Dan Bartlett, ex-Sec/State Colin Powell, ex-DCI George Tenet, ex-interim DCI John McLaughlin and Karl Rove are said to have denied any of the above were Woodward's source, before adding: "Vice President Cheney did not join the parade of denials. A spokeswoman said he would have no comment on an ongoing investigation." Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum counts the denials by officials in the story. A few were not reached, a few (such as Tenet) denied it, but as yet on Cheney has "declined to comment." He concludes: "So: either Dick Cheney or else someone in the State Department. And no one in the State Department really seems to be a likely candidate to stick his neck out on Libby's behalf at this late date. In other words, they think it's Cheney, but they can't just say so."

Conservative Tom Maguire argues that if Cheney was the source, "he ought to be impeached. Not for any national security issues, or legal reasons -- he ought to be impeached for utter gutlessness." Stressing the "if" and adding that he doesn't think Cheney's actions would have been illegal, he writes, Cheney "should have stood up in October of 2003, following the criminal referral, and said so. Let the chips fall where they may." Earlier on, Maguire theorized, "in the court of public opinion, a Bush pardon [of Libby] in Jan 2009 becomes a lot less politically charged if earnest [GOPers] are convinced that the prosecution was deeply flawed."

AJ Strata: "I am convinced Novak talked to someone at the CIA. The Knight Ridder story which is very accurate for the time and refers to a CIA source. Now Woodward refers to a CIA source. A source who sounds spooked or concerned Woodward is about to drop a bombshell." TalkLeft: "Woodward's source is the State Department or CIA official mentioned in Paragraph 6 or 7 (and 33)of the Indictment against Libby. If it's the State Department official, it could be David Wurmser, John Hannah or Fred Fleitz. David Wurmser seems to me to be the most likely."

Steve Soto speculates that Woodward's source might have been NSA Stephen Hadley: "If Hadley was in fact the first administration official to talk to a member of the media about Plame's identity, and knowingly revealing that she was a possible covert operative due to her assignment in the Directorate of Operations, how plausible is it that his boss at the time didn't know about this either. You know, his boss, the current Secretary of State?"

Power Line: "The article makes it clear that the White House official was not Libby, and it doesn't appear to be Karl Rove either." Viking Pundit: "The only thing that's going to bring down Karl Rove now is kryptonite." American Prospect's Laura Rozen, at her personal blog: "There's a kind of agony play at hand now, and I think it demonstrates among other things how very much this administration was willing to manipulate the truth, the press, and ultimately the American public in some sort of never ending campaign that flickered at its most extreme and excessive into the orbit of something I can only describe somewhat ridiculously as fascism."

David Corn: "Just when it seemed the leak story was fading, here's another odd bounce. Does this indicate [special prosecutor Patrick] Fitzgerald is still hard at work, or is this a mopping-up task for him? Like so much of this sage, this episode yields more questions than answers." Josh Marshall thinks it's "silly for people to be claiming that the Woodward revelation demonstrates that Fitzgerald's investigation was somehow incomplete or flawed because he didn't find out about Woodward's role. My recollection is that Fitzgerald said quite clearly in his press conference that he'd been prevented from getting the whole story and that a key reason for this was Libby's perjury and obstruction."

WOODWARD: A Cancer On The Washington Post?

Informed Comment: "For Woodward to cover this leak up is no different from a reporter witnessing a burglary and covering that up. Arianna Huffington: "Hear that hissing noise? That's the sound of the air being let out of Woodward's reputation. Especially now that he's decided to challenge Pincus to a round of credibility one-on-one. My money's on Pincus, who was appropriately skeptical about the administration's WMD claims while Woodward was writing hagiography about the brave president and his fearless aides."

Steve Clemons: "In part, Woodward's story must be, at least in part, true because a source reporting to special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald brought it to the investigator's attention. This new theatre in the Plame case was seemingly not promulgated by Woodward."

Betsy Newmark asks, "if Woodward and Pincus both testify to different memories of their conversations, how is that different from Libby and Russert both testifying to different memories of their conversations? If we can believe that the great Bob Woodward is misremembering when he told someone something, isn't it possible that Tim Russert could misremember something, too? Or that Scooter Libby could?" Duncan "Atrios" Black: "Why would you grant confidentiality to something which is "almost gossip" and told to you in an 'offhand manner.' What ethical issue prevented you from telling the world that an administration source had given you that information as you could do so without revealing the identity of the source?"

Vaughn Ververs, at CBS News' Public Eye: "Whatever differences Woodward's testimony may make in the Plame investigation, it is further evidence of something gone terribly wrong with how reporters treat their sources. ... Don't think the discussion over sourcing will end anytime soon. Indications in the New York Times this morning are that Libby's defense team will seek testimony from journalists, including some not named in the indictment, and may want information that goes beyond agreements made between reporters and prosecutors. That could mean more battles ahead for reporters.

Captain's Quarters: "It doesn't exactly excuplate either, especially Libby of perjury and obstruction, but it does make the indictment look even more foolish if the CIA itself outed Plame to Woodward ... Woodward's story shows that the leak did not come from some back-door effort to punish Wilson or his wife for their efforts to discredit Bush and the war effort."

A commenter at The Carpetbagger Report sums up the frustration of some on the left: "IOKIYAR" -- that stands for "It's okay if you're a Republican."

If Memeorandum is to be believed, the most-linked story last p.m. was the report of Woodward's apology to the Post by the Post's Kurtz.

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Woodward Coulda, And Shoulda

At Attytood, Philly Daily News' Will Bunch admits that he got into journalism largely because of Woodstein: "I lost interest in Woodward a long time ago. As someone who grew up and later worked in New York for much of my life, he's always reminded me a lot of Mets' phenom pitcher Doc Gooden. Just like Woodward, Gooden burst on the scene with two Hall of Fame seasons. And then, April after April, I kept waiting for the Gooden of 1984 and 1985 to come back, until the grudging acknowledgement he never would." Digby: "After finding out that top reporters from The NY Times, The Washington Post and NBC all withheld information from the public about their leaders, I can only wonder what else they may be keeping back because of their cozy relationships, book deals, or political sympathies. This is a crisis in journalism." The Cunning Realist asks: "We seem to be in a 'tweener' period for the news media; the old guard has gone insider and abdicated for the veneer of personal and professional stability provided by corporate ownership, but nothing has quite stepped up to fill the role that is absolutely crucial to any democracy. Are blogs part of the answer?"

Bush critic/minor Memogate figure Paul Lukasiak points out in a letter to Romenesko: "Despite all the attention being paid to ethics questions regarding Bob Woodward's involvement in the Plame matter, his statement disclosing his testimony raises other significant journalistic ethics issues. Apparently, Woodward is in the habit of 'pre-clearing' his questions for upper-level government officials with subordinates."

Firedoglake is one of many who comes back to the Miller comparison: "Ah, Judy. You sure set a good standard, didn't you? Poor [Post editor Leonard] Downie and company were left to try and pick up the journalistic pieces, and salvage something of face at the back end -- with a colleague who has been sitting on a big scoop since June of 2003 because... well, why exactly?" Shakespeare's Sister recalls: "He went on Larry King arguing principle on behalf of Judith Miller, and saying he'd serve some of her jail time if the judge would allow it. (Maybe he just should have been serving some jail time of his own.)"

John Rosenberg at Discriminations thinks the Post's own VandeHei/Leonnig miss the point about Plame's status. They report both that she is an "analyst" and an "operative," whereas Woodward's statement makes clear: "I testified that according to my understanding an analyst in the CIA is not normally an undercover position."

OPEN SOURCE MEDIA: Open Fire

In the 11/16 edition we covered Open Source Media's morning events. It's also worth noting that Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) appeared via satellite. The text of Judy Miller's speech was supposed to be online by last p.m., but as of deadline we can't find it. (And the search function doesn't work, either.)

Yesterday's launch of Open Source Media was well-covered by bloggers in attendance -- La Shawn Barber live-blogged part of it and posted a few photos. She described the Miller speech: "Miller talked about the importance of journalists protecting their source. She briefly discussed being in jail in Alexandria, Virginia, and reading inaccurate articles and blog posts about herself with no ability to defend herself or set the record straight. Miller can't say much today, either, because she might be called as a witness in the Scooter Libby case." Pamela from Atlas Shrugs has several pictures, including her with Johnson, Simon and Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds. Ed Driscoll live-blogged consistently up until about noon. He quoted panelist/NYT writer Elizabeth Hayt, who said: "I hate blogs, I don't read them. I think they're for rich people with too much time on their hands to vent. And they said, "That's why we want you here. ... I politically very liberal, but right now, I feel like Ann Coulter in a room of lefties!" Dave Johnston live-blogged as well. Co-founder Roger L. Simon, at his eponymous personal blog: "I also thought Sen. Cornyn, who joined our lunch via satellite from Washington, was surprisingly blog-friendly in his remarks."

Because the majority of participating bloggers lean right, OSM bloggers from the left are having a tougher go of it -- Max Sawicky, one of the liberal bloggers signed up, explains/defended his participation, and noted his participation in a "BlogJam" -- a Crossfire-style debate panel -- posted to the site last a.m.: "I was told this was a test run, not for publication, but I stand by everything in it." Fellow participating lefty Marc Cooper: "The initiative for the blogomerate and advertising network definitely comes from the right-of-center but with a vow to be inclusive and pluralistic. So far there are a handful of us from the liberal/left side who are trying to make that a reality." His commenters immediately jump on him for being party to OSM, to which he replies: "I think what Ive said up till now is all that I will say for the time being about OSM as you critics are beating a dead horse. You havent said a single thing that I didnt know long before going into the project."

Among even a few non-participating attendees, there was a bit of skepticism -- RedState's Mike Krempasky, at his personal site: "It's a pretty flashy event -- but I don't think they've done much to explain their business to the attendees. ... But in the end -- even though many bloggers signed up for this new enterprise early on -- I think the bulk of those were motivated by trust in the influential priciples and a healthy competitive streak." Wizbang's Kevin Aylward: "The proceedings got off to an inauspicious debut when author/journalist Elizabeth Hayt slammed blogs as narcissistic meanderings of bored rich people, boring, and useless. ... I'm here and I still don't completely get it, but keep listening..." He updated later: "Charles and Roger are friends for whom I wish nothing but the best of luck in their new venture. As with any new project their are questions to be answered along the way, but based on what I saw today they appear to have a superior group of talented people working to build their (new) Open Source Media empire."

But further outside the circle, criticism became much more pronounced -- James Rummel at Chicago Boyz: "Like I said before, I hope that the whole thing is a big success. Nothing would please me more than to see OSM get to be so big that there's a repeat of the payola radio scandal, but with blogs this time around. I would certainly cry myself to sleep every night if Madison Ave. firms started dispatching vans full of high-class hookers and envelopes of cash all over the portion of the Blogosphere that OSM controls and we didn't sign up in time. Something tells me that it isn't about to happen, though." Right Wing News' John Hawkins asks "is OSM trying to be the Huffington Post, Blogads, the Associated Press, or something inbetween? The homepage for the site is -- in my opinion -- more than a little clunky compared to the The Huffington Post. So, if they're looking to turn OSM into a major portal, the page still needs work." Hawkins, who has an advisory position with BlogAds, continues: "On other hand, if they're looking to be the next Blogads, then again, their approach is a little puzzling. They did manage to capture about -- oh -- I'm going to say half, maybe a little more, maybe a little less than that -- of the conservative blog traffic out there. But, there are very few liberal and "other" types of blogs involved." Center-right law prof Ann Althouse arguably drew the most notice -- both positive and negative. In a post she updated throughout the day, she asked if the site's 1st lead story: "Is it fun to use and workable? I notice a lot of flabbiness in the writing. ... 'Has been received by the blogosphere with a far greater amount of skepticism than it has where the mainstream media are concerned'? You'd think they'd write their very first sentence crisply!" She updated later: "I'm told [Protein Wisdom] Jeff Goldstein wasn't even at the OSM launch, which surprises me, because I began reading it on the OSM home page under their heading 'live-blogging.' That's an awfully strange way to introduce people to their service. Aren't ordinary people being asked to trust the OSM portal?" In the post, Althouse had also made a pun on "Open Source Media" as "Open Sores Media," and made a bad joke about bodily fluids that some of her commenters called the "grossest thing Ann has written on this blog." Over at Little Green Footballs, Johnson reprinted the gross aside, and sarcastically concludes: "Classy." Libertarian Matt Welch picks up on the Althouse/Johnson kerfuffle, notes that Johnson's post was titled "The Epitome of Taste," adding: "Cue Johnson's famous commenters, who epitomize taste" with slurs such as "Ann Outhouse is a bile stool of the left." He concludes: "My favorite comment, though was this: 'When they have to stoop to insults, it's probably all they have left for their attacks.' Probably!" Liberal Scott Lemieux of Lawyers, Guns and Money, agreed with Althouse: "I really want to be able to write about what strikes me (if not any discernible audience) as being worth writing about, to not worry about what my be frontpaged or sold as other media, not to have to deal with centralized content restrictions. I don't want to have my ability to engage in snark to be defanged. It wouldn't work for me, and frankly I don't think it's a very good model for blog content."

And the OSM name and acronym itself quickly became an issue. Upon learning the name, Atrios wrote: "Don't anyone tell Chris Lydon. Something tells me his Open Source Media, Inc. isn't the same one..." Before long, Open Source -- a public radio show and blog, hosted by ex-NPR host Lydon -- weighed in: "Don't get us wrong; we didn't invent the idea of working with bloggers to make media, we certainly didn't invent the concept 'open source,' and there's plenty of room for everyone to do what we've been doing. But they chose the same name that we established in May and, seeing as how we work in the same industry, people might find that a little confusing. And that has us puzzled." In the comments, semi-retired blogger Steven den Beste counseled: "You guys would be well advised to consult an intellectual property lawyer. If you don't defend your trademark, you'll lose it." At his own site, which was down when we last checked, he argued forcefully that Simon and Johnson would lose to Lydon if challenged in court, and questioned the strategy of putting a number of blogs on one platform when the Internet itself was intended to have widely diffused points of entry; his point being, OSM is more vulnerable in various ways than all of the participants' sites put together. Conservative Pundit Guy: "Isn't it ironic? Bloggers, established bloggers, who have like, you know, used the Internet for a long time, who (in many cases) own their own domain names, seemingly forgot to simply 'Google' the name 'Open Source Media' before they registered osm.org and decided to brand themselves with a previously claimed identifier." While the commenters at their respective sites were largely laudatory, one asked at Simon's whether the OSM logo bears too much similarity to the Lucent logo, and another brought up the trademark issue. It also bounced around one of Johnson's threads as well. One commenter said: "If they actually [expletive deleted] this up and missed it, its a MAJOR legal faux pas and one or more lawyers are guilty of malpractice." The USPTO page for OSM's trademark application currently lists it as being under TBA.

This a.m., OSM posted an official statement to the front page of the site: "His URL is RADIOopensource, and he's given up opensourcemedia.net – which we and our lawyers confirmed before we chose our name. His trade name is Open Source -- and Open Source alone. He's filed a trademark application under Open Source alone, not Open Source Media. Our trade name is OSM, and please note that we have a TM after OSM, not after Open Source Media. We consider Open Source Media to be a description of what we are and do, not a trade name. ... We own opensourcemedia.com but we are not using that as our primary URL because we do not consider Open Source Media to be protectable name by anyone... which is why it's not our name."

Truth Laid Bear has a page devoted to blogs discussing OSM; currently the critics are currently listed at the top.

THE ALITO NOMINATION: Now, If Bush Had Named Guinier First, Maybe Harriet Miers As A Replacement Would Have Seemed Like The Second Coming Of Robert Bork!

On 11/16, Confirm Them's Carol Liebau argued that Senate GOPers disliked Ginsburg, but deferred to Clinton, and so should Dems defer to Bush on Alito now. Amygdala's Gary Farber thinks the comparison is inapt: "I suggest that a better analogy would be to substitute 'Lani Guinier' for 'Ruth Bader Ginsburg.' ... If President Clinton had submitted Guinier's name as SCOTUS nominee, rather than Ginsburg's, would the same Republican Senators who unhappily voted 'aye' for Ginsburg have equally cast their unhappy -- but submitting to the will of the President! -- votes for Justice Guinier?"

Circulated this a.m. among pro-Alito blogs is a weekend Omaha World-Herald op-ed by Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), urging an up-or-down vote. Marshall at Confirm Them: "Sen. Nelson's commitment to a fair up-or-down vote is all the more important now that some Democrats wants to raise the specter of a filibuster."

WHITE HOUSE '08: The Clinton Paradox

Mickey Kaus notices how ex-Pres. Clinton is criticizing the Iraq war while Sen. Hillary Clinton is standing by her vote. He observes: "The old Clintonism: One Clinton succeeds in making both sides think he agrees with them. The new Clintonism: One Clinton pitches to one side while the other assuages the other side." He predicts: "The new trick won't work. Hillary will come under added pressure because of her husband's remarks. ... The question is not just "Who has Hillary's ear." It's whether Hillary's ear or Bill's ear is the ear to have."

PENTAGON: Blame Whitey

Re: the controversy over whether and how the U.S. used the white phosphorous chemical against insurgents during a battle in Fallujah (see 11/10 Blogometer), centrist Random Fate notes that the Pentagon has confirmed the U.S. did use white phosphorous during a battle in Fallujah last year. While he notes the use was not illegal, he adds, "the use of this weapon in areas where there may be non-comabatants is not a way to make friends and influence people, and incorrectly claiming that we did not use weapons of this nature and then later saying we did does not enhance our already shaky credibility."

BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: Healy The World, Make It A Better Place, For You And For Me And For The Entire Crooked Timber Of Humanity ...

Today the Blogometer talks to lefty Univ. of AZ prof Kieran Healy, who contributes to the academic group blog Crooked Timber.

What is your full name?

Kieran Healy.

What is your age?

I'm 32.

Where did you grow up?

Born and raised in Cork city, in Ireland. I went to college there and later (in 1995) came to the U.S. for graduate school.

Where do you live now?

Tucson, Arizona.

What is your occupation? Have you ever worked on a political campaign or for the mainstream media?

I'm Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of Arizona, and a Research Fellow at the Australian National University's Research School of Social Sciences. I've never worked on a political campaign or for the mainstream media. I remain available for lucrative media deals.

When did you start blogging and why?

In May of 2002, partly out of an interest in the technology (I wanted to try it out) and partly in my capacity as a member of the chattering classes. In July of 2003 I co-founded Crooked Timber, a group blog, together with a bunch of other people.

What has been your favorite post, or favorite story to write about, in that time?

I am very bad at picking favorites in this way. I honestly couldn't tell you what my favorite color is. I usually find it easy to write about issues of the moment and I try to connect them to what I know about, but no specific story stands out. From a purely subjective point of view I find that funnier things (like "Books I Did Not Read This Year") or commentary on research (like this one) are often more enjoyable to sit and write than the political stuff, because I don't get all riled up about them.

Describe your typical blogging schedule. And what is your average output?

I don't have a schedule, but typically I'll post maybe once every other day on average, with occasional bursts and lulls. A perk of writing for a group blog is that it removes the oppressive feeling that you must post every day (or every hour) just to keep your readership.

Who is your favorite political blogger? Favorite non-political blogger?

Another "favorite" question. I like Mark Schmitt because I share his general orientation to politics, but he knows so much more about the U.S. system than me that I always learn a lot from reading him. In a complementary way, I like to read Jim Henley because his (libertarian) intuitions are different from mine and I find it productive to think through -- and sometimes against -- his political analysis. There are so many other really good people out there, though. I find that the sheer number of smart and well-informed people who offer up regular commentary (whether about politics or some area of research) is quite astonishing. Being able to engage with those people is easily the best thing about blogging. (The fact that you don't have to engage with the blowhards and nutters is the second best thing.) As for strictly personal blogs, I don't read those. But I find that some of the feminist bloggers --- like Bitch, PhD for instance --- are able to connect their personal life to broader features of society and politics in a very compelling way. In many ways that branch of the blogging world best exemplifies C. Wright Mills' "sociological imagination" -- the effort to "grasp history and biography, and the relations between the two within society."

Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?

I don't have a favorite. There are a few columnists I like, but I don't go out of my way to read them from week to week.

What is your favorite television news program, either network or cable?

I don't have a television. The one I used to own didn't survive the move to Arizona a few years ago, and I never got around to buying a new one. I can watch movies on my laptop and keep up with the news in print and online, so I mainly suffer by being unable to bluff my way in conversations about TV shows.

What MSM-produced websites (i.e. newspapers, magazines) do you visit on a daily basis?

BBC News and the New York Times.

What non-MSM websites (i.e. blogs) do you visit on a daily basis?

Brad DeLong, Kevin Drum , The Volokh Conspiracy, MaxSpeak. But like many people I also keep an eye on a lot of other blogs via the NetNewsWire RSS reader. An increasing number of academic journals publish their tables of contents via RSS feeds, too, so you can scan a very wide of stuff in a very convenient way.

How often, or do you ever, read a newspaper in its dead-tree (i.e. print) form?

Beyond glancing a the front pages in the coffee shop, maybe once or twice a week. Computers are mostly dead trees too, by the way -- just much, much older trees.

How do you see the new media and old media affecting and influencing each other in the next five years?

I don't have a clear view of it. I would like to see more print and broadcast news drawing on blogs for comment and analysis. Optimistically, I think academic blogs have a lot to contribute here, because there really is a lot of depth of expertise and range of views, pithily expressed. This would balance the stereotypical images of blogging as a purely reactive, solipsistic or parasitic enterprise. I'd also like to think that blogging shortens the distance between the ordinary punter and the big outlets --- that is, the number of hops needed for someone from the latter to learn about something relevant from the former. On the pessimistic side, though, I fear that the twin forces of homophily in networks (birds of a feather to flock together) and the fixed size of our attention space (the volume of content is exploding, but *you* can only pay attention to the same amount of it as before) are so strong that these opportunities won't be realized. Think of the way that many media stories about blogging end up profiling people who are already full-time or part-time journalists, for instance. The technology provides a lot of opportunity, but it doesn't guarantee its own success: to see that, you only have to go back and look at how people thought VCRs, cassettes, hand-held movie cameras, and indeed television itself were going to revolutionize civic participation and democracy for the better.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Freedom's Just Another Word For Nothing You Can't Use

In a diary for MyDD, Matt Stoller criticizes his own Dem party and some liberal interests for challenging fair use doctrine and seeking to restrict information: "You might have heard of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an organization that has worked on defending the internet's open model of information flow since 1990. They are fighting this fight, along with the Free Culture movement, and a great group called Public Knowledge. Boing Boing, the extraordinarily popular and awesome blog which many of you may read, is a leading proponent of progressive reform of copyright. The Democrats in Congress and good government groups like Common Cause are not. It's a common thread -- reformers in the campaign finance world are working to restrict freedom on the internet, because they don't really act as if individual freedom is a positive good, only that corporate corruption is a clear wrong. ... Democratics in Congress, with the exception of some fine leaders like Rick Boucher and Zoey Lofgren, are largely clueless or actively malicious in this battle. Until our elected leaders begin to understand that there is value in freedom, that the digital world is not some weird place where freedom of speech is entirely subservient to commercial interests, we will not be a progressive party."

LEST WE FORGET: Circular Logic

Sociology prof Jeremy Freese reappropriates an infamous PSA from the 1980s to create one that's a little more up-to-date with our postmodern, depressogenic society.

Posted by at 12:47 PM

November 16, 2005

11/16: And The Name Of The Star Is Called Woodward

The collection of controversies generally known as "Plamegate" had virtually disappeared as a big subject since the indictment of Scooter Libby, SCOTUS nomination of Samuel Alito and Dem offensive on pre-war WMD intel. Well, today the issue is back. Washington Post reports that Bob Woodward was "casually" told by about ex-Amb. Joe Wilson's wife being a "CIA analyst" on WMD "senior administration official" about a month before the fact was disclosed by reporter-columnist Bob Novak.

In other news, the company formerly known as Pajamas Media goes online today -- and is holding its launch event morning panel at deadline, conservative bloggers consider the Senate's vote to require reports on Iraq progress, the "bridge to nowhere" is defunded, and a VA GOV campaign manager fires off an angry e-mail to a would-be ally.

PLAMEGATE: The Man Who Fell To Earth?

The Post report, headed "Woodward Was Told of Plame More Than Two Years Ago," seems to have almost everyone's head spinning to some extent. Many simply link to the story, but don't add much comment. Others report their stunned state before saying more: Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "I can't begin to make sense of this. The only thing that's clear is that Mr. X must have had some reason to suddenly come clean, and that reason must have had something to do with [prosecutor Patrick] Fitzgerald's ongoing investigation. Perhaps Mr. X is a cooperating witness, or perhaps he's someone who started to feel some heat and decided to come forward because he got scared. Who knows?" The Anonymous Liberal: "It's hard to even put into words how strange a development this is."

>> More from the left, which as yet seems to have more to say about it -- The Note's Steve Clemons writes that "Woodward's celebrity-status has seriously blinded him and affected his judgment about quality journalism and his responsibilities to the public. He should never have been making such comments on television about the Plame case if he was, in fact, involved." War and Piece's Laura Rozen, who compares Woodward's freedom at the Post to Judy Miller's at the Times: "Several colleagues I discussed this with disparaged my comparison, telling me that Woodward had shown himself to be a far more consummate pro than Miller throughout the years. No doubt." But she recalls hearing about Woodward's book "Bush at War": "[I]t was full of highly classified information the Bush administration had apparently passed to Woodward, because they thought it would make Bush look good. Some Senators had actually tried to get this referred to the CIA for another leak investigation, but it didn't go anywhere, because the CIA recognized that someone very high up in the Bush administration had authorized these leaks to Woodward." Firedoglake makes the same comparison, calling him "Mr. Run Amok." Although not from the left per se, so does The Moderate Voice. Whiskey Bar's Billmon nicknames him "Judy Woodward," and Photoshops together a (truly hideous) representation of that concept. At BOPnews, Stirling Newberry just heads it: "Woodward Lied about Plamegate." The Left Coaster: "On the surface, this appears to be an effort by Libby and Cheney and the third senior administration official to undercut Fitzgerald by undermining a key claim in the indictment that Libby was the first government official to reveal Plame's identity to a reporter. But as the Post piece states, this does nothing to get Libby off the hook for the issues Fitzgerald indicted him for." Daily Kos' Armando quotes from the story, Woodward says he told Post reporter Walter Pincus about Plame, but Pincus "said he does not recall Woodward telling him that. In an interview, Pincus said he cannot imagine he would have forgotten such a conversation around the same time he was writing about Wilson. 'Are you kidding?' Pincus said. '"I certainly would have remembered that.'" Adds Armando: "Sorry Bob, your credibility is shot. Walter Pincus gets the nod in a big way here. Question is why are you making that part up? The gossip angle?" Pandagon: "The formerly-straight-shooting Woodward has been slagging prosecutor Fitzgerald and downplaying the significance of the leak all this time as a talking head, which amounts to propaganda for the Bush Administration. Now we know why he did it - it clearly wasn't in his best interest to spin it truthfully." The Next Hurrah's Emptywheel writes, "maybe the reason Fitzgerald didn't hit Libby with the full force of the Espionage Charges that are obviously just beneath the surface of Libby's perjury indictment is because he wanted to smoke out all the journalists that Libby would produce as evidence that, either he's an idiot, or he's an idiot."

>> From the right -- Betsy Newmark: "So, if Woodward and Pincus both testify to different memories of their conversations, how is that different from Libby and Russert both testifying to different memories of their conversations? If we can believe that the great Bob Woodward is misremembering when he told someone something, isn't it possible that Tim Russert could misremember something, too?" Power Line points out that Wilson's wife was, so far as the article says, "unnamed" to him. Captain's Quarters: So much for the covert status of Valerie Plame. Even the CIA didn't think she worked under cover -- a rather obvious conclusion, given that she went to work rather openly at the Langley facility. Someone will need to remind me why we've spent two years on this investigation, because at the moment it looks like a gigantic waste of time and money." Right-libertarian Bill Quick takes the same point of view: "This whole thing is as evanescent as Ted Kennedy's brain. Millions of dollars spent to investigate a "crime" ginned up by unpatriotic Democrats and their allies in the media, especially the NYT, who are hell-bent to destroy GWB for nothing more than their own political power, moreover, a "crime" those same Democrats knew at the time never happened." Like Power Line, Instapundit turns to conservative Plamegate expert Tom Maguire to make sense of it: "Tom Maguire, call your office! And don't miss the Pincus angle." At Just One Minute, Maguire has plenty: "Based on the Woodward story, we have clear indications that at least one reporter, Woodward, knew about a Wilson and wife connection and kept quiet. Is he the only one? If Fitzgerald lacks for names, we have some here: In addition to [Andrea] Mitchell, Martin Peretz, Hugh Sidey, Cliff May, and General [Paul] Vallely may be worth a chat. ... Fitzgerald blew it -- he had White House phone logs, he had sign in sheets, he had Libby's notes, he had testimony from many, many people, he had two years, and still, somehow, he did not include Bob Woodward on his contacts-of-interest list." Wizbang's Paul: "This has to be an embarrassment for Fitzgerald. It really makes him look like a bumbling Inspector Clouseau."

THE ALITO NOMINATION: Lies, Damned Lies And Job Applications

Think Progress notes that Alito is distancing himself from his '85 DoJ application, saying: "It was different then. I was an advocate seeking a job. It was a political job." Think Progress interprets: "Translation: those weren't my personal views, I was just lying to get a job." Conservative Robert George has a similar take: "I think the current environment makes principled individuals deny who they are. Alito is going to have to downplay his comments to get confirmed -- which means that, just like Clarence Thomas, you have someone who is essentially lying to get on the highest court in the land. ... Everyone swears to 'tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth' when they testify, yet members of highest court will say a blatant falsehood to get on it."

At Confirm Them, Carol Platt Liebau disagrees with Washington Post's Marcus, who asserts that justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is not "to liberal as Alito is to conservative." Marcus calls Ginsburg a "consensus choice," and cites Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT). Liebau points out that Hatch is the only example cited, and adds: "I was a Senate staffer at the time, in charge of nominations for the senator for whom I worked. And Marcus is just incorrect in suggesting that Republicans were relatively complacent about the nomination. They weren't. Almost every Republican senator knew what RBG stood for, knew how she would vote on the Court ... and was unhappy about it."

Captain's Quarters observes that the Alito app isn't making waves as some assumed it might have, noting: "This came out in the middle of the dogfight on the 'Bush lied!' meme that has sucked up most of the media oxygen on politics. The Senate vote yesterday on the Warner amendment took up the rest of it, and now the Woodward revelation on the Plame unscandal will probably overshadow Alito all the way to the confirmation hearings."

IRAQ: What We Need Is More Paperwork!

Many conservative bloggers are up in arms over the Senate's overwhelming vote to require the Bush admin to give regular updates on Iraq; as far as we can tell, the lefty bloggers didn't have nearly as much to say about it. Righty Martin's Musings: "Congratulations to the Senate Republicans on passing a resolution today that demonstrated no qualities of being resolute." Conservative Daily Pundit: "Those fools -- including those Republican fools -- who are hoping for a complete withdrawal of all American troops are objectively advocating surrender in the war on terrorism." Conservative Ankle Biting Pundits: "Once again, the Democrats are essentially running the Senate. And, sadly, this time it appears the Republicans have no interest in staying to fight." Conservative Power Line: "To the Democrats' cowardice the Republicans have added the stench of panic." Conservative Hugh Hewitt: "GOP Senators who wake up this morning to discover stacks of angry phone messages and e-mails have a stark choice: Keep their collective heads low and wait for the furor to pass, or quickly admit an enormous mistake was made, one which they regret and will not repeat."

But Captain's Quarters doesn't agree: "It doesn't have to be a net negative for Bush to come to the Senate to present his side of the story ... Given the frustration many in the GOP feel with the White House in communicating all the good that our intervention has created, it sounds like a very good idea indeed, one that might be cast as a long-overdue bullhorn." CQ updates to defend his position: "I am no great fan of the Senate GOP leadership, but when faced with an increasingly skeptical public, a more or less silent White House, and the Democratic initiative to force a timetable from Bush, this might be the best of a bad situation."

Moderate Joe Gandelman: "In reality, the message sent by the GOPers, in a bipartisan vote, amounted to the GOP leadership 'stealing the thunder' of the Democrats who had been pressing for just this."

Matt Singer at Sirotablog, on the failed vote for a specific timetable: "The move forced the GOP to put forward an alternative that still demands more accountability from the Administration, proving that even putting up a fight can result in far better policy." He notes that 39 Dems and Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) voted for it. "That makes Lincoln Chafee a better vote for responsible foreign policy than Democrats like Joe Lieberman." And, he adds: "Every single Democrat in the Senate eyeing a run for the Presidency voted correctly this morning."

More on '08 fallout from the previously cited Hugh Hewitt post: "This is also a moment of huge opportunity for Rudy Giuliani and Governor Mitt Romney: The vast majority of the Republican rank and file want a clear declaration of support for victory in the GWOT. Incredibly, and I suspect and hope fleetingly, Virginia Senator George Allen left himself open to being flanked on this issue."

BUSH: 43 Is The Loneliest Number

Washington Times' Insight reports in a header: "Bush rarely speaks to father, 'family is split.'" In a "flash" report, Matt Drudge reports that Bush "maintains daily contact with only four people": first lady Laura Bush, his mother Barbara Bush, Sec/State Condoleezza Rice and Undersec/State Karen Hughes. The sources also say that Mr. Bush has stopped talking with his father, except on family occasions." AMERICAblog: "So basically Bush is melting down. ... It honestly sounds like he's losing control. And he's in charge of our country. Not just worst president ever. But quickly becoming scariest president ever." Political Animal: "Needless to say, all of these stories are sourced anonymously and there's no telling if there's any truth to any of them. But who are these sources? At the very least, there seem to be a fair number of people who can be plausibly labeled "insiders" and who are gleefully passing along rumors of serious presidential angst. What's going on?" Daily Kos' Hunter: "This is a president who even in the best of times is insular, out of touch, and completely unwilling to have alternative points of view brought to him. Now, according to administration sources he's kicked out everyone else in his Oval Treehouse except for his mom, and three people who remind him of his mom?"

Conservative Brian Maloney, subbing for a book touring Michelle Malkin, asks: "Within the conservative movement, is there a growing sense of malaise? Or is it merely something the other side desperately wants us to feel?" Maloney offers reasons for feeling upbeat -- GOP fundraising is "clobbering" Dems'; if this is Bush's low point, better now than in '06; the '05 contests were "inconclusive; GOPers have "unrealistic expectations; Dems still "offer no clear reason why it deserves to be in power."

PENTAGON: Blogging About This Topic Must Be Torture, Because Even Andrew Sullivan Is Punting

Obsidian Wings follows up on Sen. Lindsey Graham's (R-SC) habeas corpus-restricting bill -- which passed 84-4 -- recapping: "What the hell happened? And what will it mean for the people in Guantanamo? No one seems to know. I mean that quite literally: I don't think there is a single person in the country who could tell you with any confidence what effect this bill will have. ... Most of the people who could make the best guess at what this will mean don't want to talk about it."

Marty Lederman, at SCOTUSblog: "I have not had time to review it carefully, let alone to consult with folks who know much more about these matters than I do. But my initial impression is that this bill, if amended, would still cut off numerous sorts of challenges to the Administration's detention policies and practices and GTMO, and would raise innumerable ambiguities and unanswered questions."

SPENDING: Terabithia Will Have A Real Bridge Before Don Young

Club for Growth's Andrew Roth writes this a.m.: "CNBC's Squawk Box is reporting that the “Bridget to Nowhere” has been officially defunded. However, this can only be seen as a small victory. The millions of dollars allocated for this pork project will go to the Alaska state government for them to spend as they see fit... instead of the money going to the Katrina relief effort... or, heaven forbid, back to federal taxpayers." But libertarian Radley Balko says "not so fast": "This is smoke and mirrors. It's a cheap stunt by the GOP to deflect public criticism that doesn't really change much of anything. All the conference committee did was remove the earmark for the bridges. Alaska will still be getting the same obscene amount of money from the federal government, it's just that the state won't be required to use it to build those two particular bridges."

IN THE STATES: You've Got Hate Mail

On 11/15, ex-VA GOV candidate Jerry Kilgore (R) manager Ken Hutcheson sent an angry e-mail to VA Club for Growth pres. Phil Rodokankis over Rodokankis' latest column at Bacon's Rebellion. In part, the column contended that Kilgore was not anti-tax enough. VA blogger Waldo Jaquith posts the Hutcheson e-mail in full, including this: "You see, it's people like [me] who actually get out there and roll up our sleeves and get our hands dirty and work the long hours for the cause while folks like yourself and plenty of others like to sit back and type away on your computers and BLOGS, but in reality, each of you is kind of sad and pathetic in your own right." And this: "P.S. Ignoring you and other nutjobs ... was perhaps one of the most rewarding aspects of this campaign. We may have lost in the end, but we did so with our dignity and pride intact and our principles firmly in place and by not selling out to you and your merry band of misfits, I am very much at peace with myself." Lefty Jaquith applauds the letter, but adds: "Two points to Ken Hutcheson for bad-ass-ness. Minus one point for bitching about blogs. Minus one point for me for being smacked down by Hutcheson for being 'sad and pathetic in [my] own right.'" Not Larry Sabato writes that Hutcheson has "humiliated himself and destroyed any hopes of ever being seen as credible again." Shaun Kenney: "Victory has a thousand fathers; defeat is always an orphan. And this will either mean war, or it should blow over soon. Given that this is Tuesday, expect the mainstream press to play this one up (as they rightly should)."

PAJAMAS MEDIA: Open For Business

Pajamas Media -- the long-awaited, today-launching blog news/advertising/TBA company started by Roger L. Simon and Charles Johnson -- is now Open Source Media. The full list of participating blogs is here. And AP has a story about it. Founder Roger L. Simon, blogging from NYC: "We are seek trademark on the initials OSM and our chances seem good. We tried for osm.com, but that was taken by the Oregon Steel Mills. Maybe osm.org is just as good anyway. We're lucky as it is." Balloon Juice: " I am a member. And nothing will change here, other than the advertising. I promise."

At the NYC launch event, Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds is speaking, as is "Pulitzer prize winner" Judy Miller. The event is available streaming over the net in WMV and Real Audio. Among others speaking at the event were Simon, Johnson, Internet impresario Andrew Breitbart and in the opening panel, shoe-blogger The Manolo. The 2nd panel included Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds, The Nation's David Corn, CNBC's Larry Kudlow, New York Post's John Podhoretz and WSJ's Claudia Rosett.

OSM skeptic Jeff Jarvis listens in, and writes: "I just tuned in from Munich to their Rockefeller Center event and they're into a panel about fashion. The first person says she doesn't blog and thinks blogging is absurd and never reads them and is liberal and feels like Ann Coulter in a room of Democrats. How is this going to be open source? What did they need $3.5 million for once the lunch is paid for? Oh, and by the way, are they paying Judy Miller to speak?" Among non-participants, this concern and confusion about Miller's participation is the general sentiment. Daniel Drezner writes, "this is not an auspicious beginning."

Pajamas Media partner-turned-critic Dennis the Peasant notes: "Someone call or email Christopher Lydon at the real Open Source Media and alert him to the possible trademark infringement by The New Media Formerly Known As Pajamas. Email me results."

Protein Wisdom's Jeff Goldstein, an OSM participating blogger, is pretending to live-blog his trip to NYC; in fact, he is not attending and is just pretending to blog it for fun. For a short while, Philly Inquirer's Blinq was fooled into thinking it genuine.

INTRODUCING: Vote Early And Often

Liberal OH-based Tim Russo of Democracy Guy today launches a new site, Buckeye Politics. He kicks things off with a post summarizing a number of rumors involving GOV candidate/Rep. Ted Strickland (D) and SEN candidate/Rep. Sherrod Brown (D), adding: "Bottom line, this is a lot of clumsy chicanery in a lot of places where Ted & Sherrod have no business sticking their noses, for a couple of guys who by no means are guaranteed to get out of their primaries. After more than a decade in the wilderness, you'd think top-of-the-ticket-wannabe Ohio Democrats would actually wait until they won something before they started playing power politics."

Redstate co-founder and Tacitus blogger Josh Trevino launches a new site: No End But Victory, a non-blog news site geared toward Iraq coverage. He manifests: "The calls for a cut-and-run from Iraq are growing stronger. On this very day, the Democrats and Republicans in the United States Senate have duelling amendments before that body which each, in their own way, fuel the political impulse to abandon Iraq to the murderous elements that would destroy it. This is not a partisan issue. This is not a left- or right-wing issue. This is an American and Iraqi issue, and all men of good faith must now come together to remind our leadership that whatever our politics, and whatever we thought of the decision to go to war, there can be only one end: Victory."

Open today for voting: the 2005 Weblog Awards.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Peer Pressure

Slate's Robert Boynton considers the perils of blogging as an untenured academic -- using as an example soon-to-be-ex-U. Chicago Daniel Drezner, whose blogging may have contributed to their decision not to tenure him. Boynton suggests that the academy's "current antipathy toward blogging may have something to do with the fact that universities have no tools for judging blogs." He suggests that blogs themselves be subject to peer review: "One can imagine a rating system in which visitors to a blog evaluate what they read and leave feedback -- the significance of which is weighted according to what kind of reputation and background they have. A physicist's views would carry more heft on a physicist's blog than on a sociologist's (and vice versa). Someone who has a reputation for leaving serious, informative comments will be ranked higher than the Web surfer who just glances at a few lines before jetting off to the next site."

LEST WE FORGET: Raise Your Hand If You Knew T.O.'s Middle Name Is "Eldorado" (Prior To Reading This Subhead)

Eric Pfeiffer, formerly of The Buzz and contributing to Wonkette, points out that Philly Eagles receiver Terrell Owens getting suspended for the season is just the start of his problems: "As if that weren't bad enough his chief defenders now are professional sports litigation experts Jesse Jackson and Ralph Nader. T.O. your season is so over. But Ralph wants to know if you're busy in 2008. With your combined record in big contests, you can't lose."

Posted by at 12:20 PM

November 15, 2005

11/15: Might Solve A Mystery, Or Rewrite History! Iraq Tales! Woooo-ooh!

Even more so than yesterday, the preponderance of bloggers' arguments concern Iraq and the wider war on terrorism. The latest development is a New York Times report that Senate GOPers will consider a bill calling for an exit strategy. Pretty much every liberal blog makes sure to note that by this, the GOP is moving toward -- some say stealing -- their position on Iraq. Across the 'sphere, most conservatives are anxious about their own party's resolve. Taking the cue from Pres. Bush, both sides are accusing the other of "rewriting history." And conservatives are raising questions about what Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) claims he told Syrian leaders about Bush's intentions prior to the '03 invasion. However, apart from the Rockefeller issue, the lefty bloggers are the ones on the offensive.

Meanwhile, the debate over Judge Samuel Alito's stated opposition to abortion remains a major topic, lefty bloggers pick up on a recent report questioning the alleged Oreo-throwing incident involving MD SEN candidate Michael Steele (R), blawggers (law bloggers) shake their heads as a prominent anonymous blogger reveals his/her identity in the New Yorker before disappearing from the web, and we present our latest Blogger Spotlight.

IRAQ I: Deserters?

New York Times' Hulse reports that Senate GOPers have introduced a "proposal that calls for Iraqi forces to take the lead next year in securing the nation and for the Bush administration to lay out its strategy for ending the war."

>> From the left -- Steve Soto's header: "Republicans Steal Democratic Plan For Iraq." AMERICAblog: "This action by the Senate completely undermines the current White House strategy of attack and smear opponents. If not, he has to also attack the Republicans in the Senate. MyDD's Scott Shields: "Like cockroaches from sunlight, Republicans are scrambling to get away from President Bush, who's driven the relatively young 'permanent Republican majority' right into a brick wall. ... This represents complete recognition that the Democratic ideas about Iraq ... are in line with the rest of the country. (These would be the non-existent ideas that the Democrats supposedly don't have.)" Sploid subheader: "Are they the enemies of freedom, too, Dubya?" War and Piece: "How much has changed. The administration doesn't have a choke hold any more on the system -- and what they're clutching to is pretty tenuous. [British PM Tony] Blair is talking about a pullout too."

>> Right Wing Nut House was among the 1st conservative blogs with a comment: "It isn't just that this is the absolute worst time for Senate Republicans to turn into jellyfish on the war. It is their pathetic belief that this will somehow shield them from criticism or lessen their association with the War in Iraq in any way. ... The Administration will shrug off this nonsense as well it should. But the damage done to Republican Senators will evidence itself next November." Hugh Hewitt: "Anger is growing over the sudden and stunning desertion by Senate Republicans of the president and the battle for Iraq. But don't e-mail me. E-mail and call the three people who can stop this nonsense." He provides phone and e-mail contact info for Senate Maj. Leader Bill Frist, Maj. Whip Mitch McConnell and Armed Services Cmte chair John Warner. He concludes: "Suddenly we are back where we were when the Congress turned on the Vietnam War. Hopefully some Republicans will emerge to lead the fight against this ill-advised and deeply defeatist onset of the shakes." But conservative Ed Morrissey sees it differently: "It doesn't have to be a net negative for Bush to come to the Senate to present his side of the story," which he could use to "correct many distortions of his record and the state of the effort in Iraq."

Liberal The Carpetbagger Report observes: "It's reasonable to say there is no 'Democratic position on Iraq.' I'm also fairly comfortable with the idea that there's no 'Republican position on Iraq' either. There's a fairly wide gulf between, say, Russ Feingold's position on Iraq and Joe Lieberman's, but isn't there an equally significant difference between Chuck Hagel and Donald Rumsfeld?"

IRAQ II: Historical Immaterialism

Blogs for Bush: "It's no different than the Patriot Act, and No Child Left Behind... Democrats and Republicans both supported these... until election season came around, and the Democrats had to make a choice. They chose to change their minds ... The Democrats will stop at nothing to rewrite history and divide America." Ex-FCC chair Reed Hundt: "I don't think Americans should underestimate the significance of the White House's effort to write the history of the invasion of Iraq. Like the attack on Social Security, a resolute defense and an effective counter-attack will be necessary for lovers of the truth, including one hopes the party-out-of-power."

Conservative Jay Caruso at Mr. Blonde's Garage does not think Dem '04 VP nominee John Edwards seriously meant to take responsibility for his Iraq vote in his Washington Post op-ed this weekend (see 11/14 Blogometer). Wrote Edwards: "The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda." Caruso calls it the "'I was duped!!!' defense. His mea culpa has nothing at all to do with him 'taking responsibility' for anything."

In a lengthy post for TPM Cafe, ex-CIA officer Larry Johnson writes: "The analysts believed, incorrectly, that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. But there were important caveats. First, Iraq would only have a nuke if left "unmolested" to develop such a capability. Did anyone see the words, 'therefore Mr. President, you must invade'?" He also notes, the analysts made their claims with "moderate confidence."

IRAQ III: My Dinner With Ahmad

In a lengthy post, Arianna Huffington writes about her "surrealistic four-hour dinner" with Ahmad Chalabi at a Japanese restaurant in Tribeca: "Chalabi looked downright laid-back in a multi-colored sweater that can only be described as Cosby-esque. ... Everything about him suggested a man in full: smart, articulate, and, above all, totally present." Huffington invited over actor John Cusack, whose movies Chalabi was quite familiar with. Despite his impressive mien, Huffington concludes, she doubts this time he can "square the circle and get what he wants. Because what he wants is an occupying army that no longer acts as an occupying army -- an army that fiercely protects Iraq from its neighbors while being the smiling cop on the beat in Iraq's explosive neighborhoods. ... There is no way he is going to get Rumsfeld and [VP] Cheney, steeped in the neocon 'you're either at the table or on the menu' ethos, to agree to limit the powers of the U.S. army." TalkLeft comments: "It sounds like his current meme is to protest he's being treated as a scapegoat of the CIA while declaring that human rights abuses, not WMD's, are why he made taking out Saddam his life mission. ... I'm not buying anything Mr. Chalabi has to sell, unless it's a speedy withdrawal of American troops."

PENTAGON: Lucky For Lincoln, There Weren't Bloggers When He Did This

Since last week, Obsidian Wings and Talk Left have been leading lefty opposition to a bill proposed by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) to bar Gitmo detainees from using habeas corpus protections in court. Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) has introduced an alternative amendment. This a.m.'s above-linked New York Times story on the Senate GOP call for an exit strategy also mentions the compromise version of the Graham bill. Liberal News Hog notices: "The New York Times is getting lazy, methinks. Today it squishes two stories into one and doesn't manage to ask the hard questions about either." So does conservative Ed Morrissey, who thinks the changed bill "does seem more like surrender," but adds: "I can see a point in making a distinction for those caught by the CIA and FBI.""

A backgrounder from Obsidian Wings, as linked above: "As best I can tell, it strips the courts of all power to hear any habeas motion from a detainee, or any other challenge to a detainee's detention, and that this applies to any cases that have already been brought and are now pending. This would be bad enough if we did not have any reason to distrust the administration. But now, when people have been held for years without any sort of trial or review, when there have been stories of abuse and mistreatment, and when the administration is asserting its right to do whatever it wants with detainees, bound by neither laws nor treaties, is the worst possible time to propose a bill like this."

In what is billed as the last post on the subject -- it may come to a vote today -- Katherine at Obsidian Wings asks: "Why on earth is this being pushed through on an appropriations bill, with no hearings, no debate, on the strength of arguments that are (deliberately or inadvertently) quite misleading? When the Senators providing the margin of victory seem unaware of some key facts and of the legal implications of what they're doing? We're talking about habeas corpus here." Talk Left pointed out 11/12 that there is "at least one online campaign" to support the Bingaman amendment to defeat the Graham amendment, called One Million Phone March to Save Habeas

Hilzoy of Obsidian Wings updated early this a.m. that Graham proposed an amendment to his own amendment, which "still cuts off habeas but it allows more judicial review" than a previous version. A new Bingaman amendment allows habeas, "but it cuts off lawsuits challenging the conditions of confinement." Hilzoy: "I should say, despite the negative tone of this post: the situation looks a lot better now than it looked Friday or last night. Thanks to everyone who linked or called their Senators."

ROCKEFELLER: Bennett Stops Short Of T-Word

At NRO, ex-Educ. Sec./author/radio talker Bill Bennett criticized Senate Intel Cmte ranking Dem Jay Rockefeller, who said on "FNS" (transcript here) that he told the heads of state of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria that he thought Bush "had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq." On 11/14, Captain's Quarters had already suggested he should "possibly stand trial for treason" (see 11/14 Blogometer). Conservative Betsy's Page: "Of course, this is the same Senator who got up on the Senate floor and gave a speech on the 'imminent threat' that Saddam Hussein represented to the United States, as statement that no one in the Bush administration made and which Bush was careful to reject explicitly." Power Line promotes the Bennett piece as well. But liberal Matthew Yglesias writes at TAPPED: "Investigating Rockefeller's trip to the Middle East ... will only shed light on the fact that the Bush administration decided to invade Iraq far earlier than it's been willing to publicly admit. That case is pathetically easy to prove, but hasn't gotten the public attention it deserves. You didn't need secret intelligence to figure it out, and the Syrian government didn't need a U.S. senator to tell them either."

Right-leaning Instapundit makes a cautious defense of Rockefeller: "This hardly reflects well on Rockefeller's judgment, and it may well have had some bad consequences, but in fact Senators, for better or worse (usually worse) do this sort of thing a lot. I don't think it's in a league with the [ex-Rep. David] Bonior/[Rep. Jim] McDermott lovefest with Saddam ... Rockefeller wasn't giving PR cover to the enemy."

THE ALITO NOMINATION: The Roe Must Go On

The statement quoted in the 11/14 Washington Times re: Alito's personal opposition to abortion is available from the Reagan Library in PDF, or in normal text as transcribed by Slinghsot.

Lefty Kevin Drum: "Question: In theory, the reason that Supreme Court nominees won't comment on specific cases is because it might "prejudge" future decisions in related cases before arguments had been heard. However, having stated in 1985 that he believed Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, Alito has already prejudged his view in future cases testing Roe. So: is it OK to ask him if he still holds this view? If not, why not?"

Righty Pejman Yousefzadeh argues this "doesn't necessarily state that he is opposed to abortion, only that he was proud to work on Justice Department cases regarding abortion. Given the Reagan Administration's stance on abortion, however, I am sure that a proper inference can be drawn." But he adds: "It is also good to respond to any charges that Judge Alito is a conservative by saying in pertinent part 'Darn tootin', he is!' Let's not have any attempts to try to pass the Judge off as some kind of moderate. Conservatives should be proud of their advocacy."

DLC's Bruce Reed at Slate's The Has Been: "Alito strained to touch every Meese button" in his application. But "like Roberts, Alito will try to maintain that youthful statements like "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion" were taken out of context. He was just telling his conservative bosses everything they wanted to hear so they'd give him a promotion. Judge Alito hasn't done that in at least two weeks."

Right-libertarian Ian Spencer at the Oregon Commentator zeroes in on the part of Alito's statement where he touts the "legitimacy of a government role in protecting traditional values," commenting: "I would certainly hope this last belief has changed sometime in the past twenty years. The government has no 'role in protecting traditional values,' it has a role in following the constitution, which as of yet has no mention of 'traditional values.'"

On another note entirely, NRO's K.J. Lopez jokes that with self-described National Review fan Alito up for a seat, CJ John Roberts a longtime subscriber, perhaps with Altio the SCOTUS will come to be known as the "National Review court."

MIDTERMS '06: C Is For Cookie ... And For Crock?

An 11/13 Baltimore Sun report casting doubt on SEN candidate/LG Michael Steele's (R-MD) claim that Dem opponents hurled Oreos at him is just beginning to catch notice. Independent Conservative goes to transcripts of Steele's comments on the matter (via Political Pit Bull) and decides the "discrepancy" is based on differing the memories of Gov. Bob Ehrlich's comm dir. and Steele himself. IC concludes: "It occurred as everyone was leaving. Afterwards the goons could have easily picked up the cookies they tossed in order to cover their tracks! If it had occurred before, then the cookies would have been crushed by people walking around during the debate." But the left considers Steele caught red-handed: Daily Kos: "Looks like the crowd treated Ehrlich and Steele harshly, but no Oreos were thrown. In fact, while Steele was interviewed several times after the debate he failed to mention what would've been a key point to make in the post-debate spin." Pam's House Blend: "If you had half a brain, you GOP dunces, you would have just hired some Freepers to show up posing as lefties and pelt the Oreos for a nice photo op." As far as we can tell, the 1st blogger to question the Oreo incident was Oliver Willis (see 11/3 Blogometer).

Noting via Hotline On Call that Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) -- who badly trails challenger Treas. Bob Casey (D) -- has challenged Casey to 10 debates, DavidNYC at Swing State Project searched Nexis for other instances of incumbents asking for debates with their challengers. He finds 2 recent cases: ex-L.A. mayor James Hahn, who sought debates with now-L.A. mayor Antonio Villaraigosa in '05, and MA state Rep. Rich Grucela in '00, who did hang on -- but just barely.

IN THE STATES: Tap Dancing

The Inside Edge reports, the "rumor making the rounds over the last 48 hours" is that Gov.-elect Jon Corzine will name ex-Newark councilor Cory Booker (D) to the open NJ Senate seat. Dem insiders point out Corzine would get to nominate the state's 1st black sen., and it would help Newark mayor Sharpe James "avoid a rematch" with Booker.

Meanwhile at Blue Jersey, Rep. Bob Mendendez (D-NJ) comm. dir. Matthew Miller makes "the case" for why his boss should be tapped for the seat. His argument is based on Menendez's "personal story" and what appointing him would say about NJ Dems, his "electability," "money in the bank, and the ability to raise more."

ANONYBLOGGING: David Lat Knew All There Was To Know About The Crying Game

New Yorker's Toobin reveals in a story posted to the web on 11/14 that the pseudonymous female law blogger Article III Groupie (A3G) at Underneath Their Robes -- which counts judge/blogger Richard Posner as a fan -- is really "thirty-year-old Newark-based assistant U.S. attorney named David Lat." Lat cooperated with the story. Letters of Marque finds it weird that Lat was cross-gender blogging; a similar debate is had at Volokh Conspiracy.

When we visited his site late last p.m., it was up and mentioned the piece. This a.m., it seems to be down. The Right Coast asks: "Come on, blawgers, you must be curious. I repeat, Underneath their Robes has gone under cover! Is this the FBI at work? Has Lat been fired for blogging? Just what is going on here? This is a story, isn't it? Can someone please email him and find out what is going on?" Among those curious about A3G's whereabouts: Washington Post's Campaign for the Supreme Court, Brendan Loy, and Wonkette.

Evan Schaefer posts a screen shot of Underneath Their Robes as it looked shortly before going offline. Blawg Review collects a few of A3G's postings, including the 1st one on 6/5/04 and one from 2/3/05 when Toobin 1st wrote in to say he was a fan -- an e-mail Lat posted.

At deadline, "David Lat" was the 7th most popular search on Technorati.

PAJAMAS MEDIA: Just For The Record, Are These The Kind Of Pajamas With The Little Booties On Them?

Pajamas Media announces via PR Newswire that it has "closed its first round of private financing in the amount" of $3.5M. ... The investor group is led by Aubrey Chernick, angel investor and technology entrepreneur, and also includes Jim Koshland, a leading member of the Silicon Valley venture capital and technology community, and a DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary venture capital investment partnership. Unaffil. with Pajamas Media is a Blogspot-hosted blog, PJ Media Unfiltered, which provides a "digest of RSS feeds" The latest profile added to the Pajamas Media site is of company co-founder Roger L. Simon himself.

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Enemies -- A Love Story

The feud between FNC's Bill O'Reilly and lefty blogs/media sites continued last p.m., as O'Reilly defended his "Coit Tower" comments (see 11/14 Blogometer) and indicated he would list on his website the names of the "smear sites" who are part of the "anti-military Internet crowd." CAP's Think Progress heads its post on the matter: "O'Reilly Resorts To McCarthyism, Plans To Publish Online Enemies List." Crooks and Liars -- which has video of the relevant O'Reilly segment -- beseeches readers to e-mail the site and have C&L added to the list (which as yet is not online).

MRC's News Busters calls attention to the fact that, late last week, CNN's Lin mistakenly referred to French teens of African descent "African-Americans." The author of the post, David Lanza, comments: "When the MSM seeks to use euphemisms to ignore the real issue, they run the risk of sounding stupid and bringing ridicule upon themselves." La Shawn Barber: "Some people are too PC for their own good."

On 11/14, New York Times' Carr criticized NYC gossip blogs Gawker and Jossip for their irreverent coverage of suspected rapist/NYC magazine writer Peter Braunstein. Jeff Jarvis complains that Carr's quotation of him gives the wrong impression of his thoughts on the matter, and fisks a substantial section of the column. Jossip responded: "We heart David Carr. We really, really do, even if he doesn't heart us back." Late 11/14, Gawker posted a respectful obit of media writer Brenda You.

BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: Nyhansanity

Today the Blogometer talks to centrist Brendan Nyhan, who writes an eponymous blog.

What is your full name?

Brendan James Nyhan

What is your age?

27

Where did you grow up?

Mountain View, California -- the heart of the Silicon Valley.

Where do you live now?

Durham, North Carolina

What is your occupation? Have you ever worked on a political campaign or for the mainstream media?

I'm a political science graduate student at Duke. I previously worked in two campaigns: Joe Hoeffel's PA-13 race in 1998 and Ed Bernstein's Senate campaign in Nevada in 2000. After that, I co-founded the non-partisan watchdog website Spinsanity with Ben Fritz and Bryan Keefer. Our work was syndicated on Salon and in the Philadelphia Inquirer, and our book "All the President's Spin" was a New York Times bestseller in 2004.

When did you start blogging and why?

At the end of 2004, we decided to stop publishing Spinsanity -- the strain of keeping the site up while working at full-time jobs had become too much. So I decided to start a blog where I could write about politics at a more leisurely pace.

What has been your favorite post, or favorite story to write about, in that time?

One of my favorite themes has been bashing pundits like Mickey Kaus and Ron Brownstein who are hyping Internet-based third party presidential candidacies. This is an area where political science has a lot to say -- the structural disadvantages faced by a third party candidate are nearly insurmountable.

Describe your typical blogging schedule. And what is your average output?

I tend to do my writing in the mornings before starting my real work -- maybe three posts per day on average.

Who is your favorite political blogger? Favorite non-political blogger?

Kevin Drum, Brad DeLong and Matthew Yglesias are my favorites. For non-political blogging: Gawker, Defamer and Overheard in New York.

Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?

Jon Chait of the Los Angeles Times/The New Republic is consistently excellent.

What is your favorite television news program, either network or cable?

"Meet the Press" is about the only show I ever watch.

What MSM-produced websites (i.e. newspapers, magazines) do you visit on a daily basis?

WashingtonPost.com and TNR Digital. Other than that, however, I tend to follow blog links to MSM content rather than going to their sites directly.

What non-MSM websites (i.e. blogs) do you visit on a daily basis?

Josh Marshall, Kevin Drum, Brad DeLong, Andrew Sullivan, Tapped, Instapundit, Matthew Yglesias, Crooked Timber, Daniel Drezner, Chris Mooney, Atrios, the Freakonomics blog and Marginal Revolution.

How often, or do you ever, read a newspaper in its dead-tree (i.e. print) form?

I get the New York Times delivered at home. Embarrassingly, I don't subscribe to any North Carolina papers, so I'm fairly ignorant of my local news.

How do you see the new media and old media affecting and influencing each other in the next five years?

The old media will learn that blogging well is a lot harder than it looks. And the new media will learn about the hard economic realities of trying to make a profit from content.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: When The New Media Is Old

Jeff Jarvis comments on Time and Andrew Sullivan agreeing to movie his blog to their site: "Good for Andrew. But they got it backwards. They should have left Sullivan right where we was and sold advertising there. That would have extended their reach to a new audience. They're thinking the old way: trying to draw people to their site and brand and buying content to do it. The new way would be to build your audience and brand and ad revenue all over the web, at all the best places, piggybacking on the audience and reputation that is already there."

LEST WE FORGET: Three Strikes Policy

Balls, Sticks & Stuff maintains that Alito is "unfit to hold a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States, a charge based solely on the fact that he is a Phillies fan." Now they've dug up more evidence: Alito's baseball card from Alito's from his attendance at a '94 fantasy camp. BS&S adds: "Now, remember who was on the Phillies roster in 1994?...I'm efforting to determine if Alito accepted financial advice from Lenny Dykstra..."

Posted by at 12:21 PM

November 14, 2005

11/14: Patriot Games

Several debates revolving around Iraq and the war on terrorism continue in the blogosphere, as they did on the Sunday shows and MSM editorial pages. The questions are many: Whether the U.S. practices torture, what intel Pres. Bush had vs. what Congress had, whether we should even be having this argument, what current U.S. sens. and potential WH candidates are saying about it, to what extent the left and right are acting patriotic or jingoistic, and so on. Meanwhile, the conversation over Judge Samuel Alito's SCOTUS nod cooled a bit last week, but it's about to heat back up following the Washington Times report that he stated his disagreement with Roe v. Wade in '85. Plus, don't miss the Google bombing of Bill O'Reilly, the smackdown of Mary Mapes, and a bit of controversy at Pajamas Media.

WMD INTEL: Has Anybody Here Seen My Old Vote, John?

In the 11/13 Washington Post, '04 Dem VP nominee John Edwards said his '02 vote to authorize the Iraq war was a mistake, and that he accepts the responsibility. AMERICAblog': "This is a very big deal. Edwards is saying what far too few Democrats are willing to say. They got tricked into voting for the war in Iraq, and now they regret it." A commenter at Think Progress thinks Edwards has the right strategy: "Most Americans will relate, because they made the same error of judgement. It will also put them in a much better light in comparison to an ever unapologetic President." Picking up on the argument from Political Animal, centrist Justin Gardner argues: "Congress didn't vote for a war, they voted for the President to use military force. Given that, Dems have wiggle room to say that they were told that war was simply a last resort and Bush didn't honor that promise."

On 11/13's "FNS," Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) said: "I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq..." Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey: "Now, what the hell was Rockefeller doing revealing his analysis of American foreign policy and the direction of war strategy to Bashar Assad?? If this is true, Rockefeller should get ejected from the Senate and possibly stand trial for treason." Wizbang's Jay Tea writes in, and Morrissey updates, that prosecution may be possible under the Logan Act.

Prodded by CBS's Schieffer about whether criticism of the war is "unpatriotic," Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said: "No, I think it's a very legitimate aspect of American life to criticize and to disagree and to debate. But I want to say I think it's a lie to say that the president lied to the American people." Instapundit focuses on the latter sentence: "I think the 'Bush lied us into war' meme is in trouble, and the GOP pushback seems to be a general effort, not a one-off. And I also think that the reason that so many antiwar people want to move from discussion of whether specific behavior is unpatriotic, to the straw man question of whether any criticism of the war is unpatriotic ... is because they know they're on weak ground on the specifics."

In the next segment, outgoing VA Gov./possible WH'08 candidate Mark Warner (D) said: "I think the Democratic Party ought to get over refighting how we got into the war and, again, continue to press the president on what he hopes to do in terms of how we will finish the job." Worldwide Standard's Daniel McKivergan points out that Warner did not answer how he would have voted, commenting: "Gov. Warner should be applauded" for the "get over" remark, "but shouldn't a 'Southern centrist' who aspires to be commander-in-chief tell us how he would have voted on the Iraq war authorization if he had been in Congress at the time?"

Centrist Jack Grant takes strong exception to Bush's criticism of Dems "rewriting history": "Given that the administration has 'rewritten history' in the reasons for the war in Iraq ... is it not more than a bit disingenuous to accuse others of rewriting history?" He adds: "I believe the administration saw what it wanted to see, and refused to listen to alternative viewpoints. I have seen this so often in my 15 year career in the high-tech industry that it is an old, boring story for me now. Hard data ignored, expert analysis discounted, the story is an old one not limited to governments nor to high-tech. Only the scope of the tragedies created highlight the differences in the indifference. So, who is rewriting history? Everyone."

Tom Maguire quotes Senate Min. Leader Harry Reid, "politician and ironist," responding to Bush's Veterans Day speech by saying: "Attacking those patriotic Americans who have raised serious questions about the case the Bush administration made to take our country to war does not provide us a plan for success that will bring our troops home..." Maguire adds: "Left unexplained -- how the Democrats unrelenting focus on the use of pre-war intelligence is going to substitute for a plan to resolve the situation in Iraq."

BUSH: Patrioter Familias

Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds: "The White House needs to go on the offensive here in a big way -- and Bush needs to be very plain that this is all about Democratic politicians pandering to the antiwar base, that it's deeply dishonest, and that it hurts our troops abroad. And yes, he should question their patriotism. Because they're acting unpatriotically." While certainly not a new argument, it's always a volatile one, and the post drew much debate. To Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum, Reynolds was applying the lack of patriotism charge to "Democrats who claim that George Bush misled us into war." Reynolds wrote him to say he only meant that Dems were "pandering" to anti-war activists who are unpatriotic. Reynolds' update strikes Drum as merely confirming his original interpretation, and he adds: "There's undoubtedly political calculation going on as well, but that happens on both sides of the street and is hardly evidence of non-patriotism." Balloon Juice's right-leaning John Cole: "Kevin appears to run in a crowd that is fond of calling the opposition liars at every opportunity, and it would be a refreshing and welcome change if Kevin himself would practice what he preaches and stop willfully distorting those he disagrees with." Ex-Navy SEAL Matthew Heidt bluntly heads a post "Liberals Are Unpatriotic." He adds: "Oh yeah, you read that correctly. All you liberals out there that would rather score political points against the President and Vice President than win this war hate your country."

Daily Kos' Armando calls Washington Post's Hiatt a "Bush media lackey of the first order" and a "despicable McCarthyite cretin" for asserting that Dems are scoring political points off Bush at the expense of winning the Iraq war. Armando calls on Hiatt to resign. Atrios: "Anyone know if Fred Hiatt has signed up to go to Iraq yet? Sure, he's 50, a bit past prime fighting age, but I'm sure he could find something useful to do." At RedState, Leon H defends Hiatt, and semi-ironically lists a few ways how Hiatt and McCarthy are the same: "First, in both cases, the basic substance of their claims was true. Second, the truthfulness of their claims led to overblown hysterical liberal screaming."

In the spirit of the popular Internet saying Godwin's Law -- "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1" -- Ain't No Bad Dude's Brian Linse proposes "Linse's Law": "As a debate between pro-war and anti-war pundits grows longer, the probability of the pro-war side accusing the anti-war side of being unpatriotic becomes 1."

THE ALITO NOMINATION: If All The Yalies Who Opposed Or Supported Alito Were Laid End To End, Nobody Would Be The Least Surprised

Washington Times' Sammon reports that when Alito applied to work for the Reagan admin., he made clear in writing his opposition to Roe v. Wade. Ed Morrissey notes: "Just when the anti-Alito forces began to cast their nets elsewhere in hope of landing an issue, it looks like abortion may come back to the center of the debate." He adds, the other issues "look like straw-grasping, and with this new document coming to light, expect them to fall off the radar screen altogether. The abortion game is afoot once more, Watson." So far, Morrissey seems to be right:

>> From the right -- Blogs for Bush: "I say this is good that it came out... I'd like to see this discussed during Alito's hearings." UCLA law prof Stephen Bainbridge: "I think this clearly vindicates those of us who led the anti-Miers fight." Conservative Patterico's Pontifications: "Fasten your seatbelts! The Alito rollercoaster may have been chugging slowly along without any excitement -- but that may have been merely the beginning of the ride. We're headed for that first hill, and it's a doozy." Brothers Judd heads a post "FOLKS'LL SAY ANYTHING TO GET A JOB..."

>> From the left -- Liberal Fired Up America saves the snark for the Times, which "actually breaks some news for a change..." Atrios: "It's the Moonie Times, but even it gets things right now and then." Pandagon: "Someone should let [Senate Jud Cmte chair Arlen] Specter know that he need not bother with the rationalizations about 'super-precedents' or whatever. Either sack up or stop pretending you give a shit about abortion rights. And that goes for every other member of the chamber, as well." Shakespeare's Sister: "I would have thought someone as smart as Scalito would have done more on his application than copy the entry for 'Activist Judge' out of the encyclopedia."

GWU law prof Daniel Solove considers an 11/13 New York Times piece which cites SCOTUS justice Clarence Thomas and almost-justice Robert Bork for having "betrayed" them by opposing their nods. Writes Solove: "I find the suggestion here rather odd. Is Yale Law School supposed to support every graduate nominated for the Supreme Court or running for political office? Is this a duty that a law school owes its alumni? I think not. The faculty and students of a law school should decide on the merits of the Alito nomination without putting a special thumb on the scale because he has a connection to the school." PrawfsBlawg's Rick Garnett, himself a Yale alum, writes that the school's faculty and students don't "owe" Alito their support, but "they should, in my view, support him -- or, at least, not oppose him -- because (a) they are smart enough to know that (b) whether or not they agree with him, Alito is obviously and overwhelmingly qualified and well-suited for the position to which he has been appointed." Crescat Sententia's Will Baude concurs, noting re: the Times, "it is a mystery why one should care what Yale students think of the Alito nomination, other than the fact that we are a bunch of more or less randomly chosen overachievers who aced the LSAT." Worth noting: Baude himself is a law student.

ROE V. WADE: Where Do We Roe From Here?

In the latest Atlantic, Ben Wittes makes the case that overturning Roe v. Wade would be a political boon to the Dems, and would not affect the availability of abortion much: "The day the Court overturns Roe, abortion will suddenly become a voting issue for millions of pro-choice voters who care about it but know today that the right is protected not by congressional politics but by the courts." At The American Scene, Ross Douthat argues: "Over the short term, I think all of these things are true. But the long-term impact on public opinion of moving the issue from the realm of 'constitutional rights' -- which hold a near-sacred position in American political discourse -- to the realm of issues-to-be-legislated shouldn't be under-estimated." Douthat quotes from Mirror of Justice's Greg Sisk, who writes: "As a constitutional right, and a fundamental right at that, abortion was inherently justified. Once Roe were removed as a precedent, those who advocate an abortion license could no longer simply cite the Supreme Court's ruling and regard that reference as obviating any need to discuss the morality of abortion or to consider the societal impact of hundreds of thousands of abortions performed annually." Douthat concurs: "Once you remove the whole constitutionality question from play and throw the actual issue open for debate, there's no telling exactly where public opinion would go next."

PENTAGON: If "Waterboarding" Is Anything Like Boogie Boarding, We Can't Wait To Try It

Over the weekend, the Wall Street Journal editorialized that "waterboarding" is not "anything close to 'torture.'" DC-based French journalist Pascal Richie writes at TPM Cafe: "At the beginning of the 21st century, an American daily newspaper comes out in favor of torture. It's neither The Weirdo Sun nor The Bozo Herald, but the Wall Street Journal." American Prospect's Laura Rozen wrote: "I wish I had 100 WSJ subscriptions to cancel. Appalling and history's scum. I will never post another WSJ story here. Ever. Even their website outreach guy sends me about 3 emails a day with their stories." By mid-afternoon of the next day, a commenter at Brainsnorkel noted that Rozen's post "seems to have been truncated. Only the first sentence remains." What appears to be the full post is still available at Brainsnorkel. With a nod to The Onion, Blogenlust puts together a "What Do You Think?" feature asking whether the U.S. should ban torture.

Andrew Sullivan links the WSJ with Pol Pot. In a separate post he wrote, based on WSJ's logic: "Notice that the gold-standard for American conduct is now set by Saddam Hussein!" Balkinization: "The editorial refers to the most extreme CIA-approved techniques -- expressly including waterboarding -- as 'psychological techniques.' ... I suppose I was being unimaginative in thinking of mock burial, and of the 'water cure,' as assaults, and sadistic threats of excruciating death." Right-leaning Joe's Dartblog: "The overarching point in the piece is a good one. But it overreacts to the overreaction of American liberals." The editorial's "crucial mistake": "it allows 'waterboarding' to be lumped in with other things deemed not even 'close to torture.'"

DEAN: His Bark Is Worse Than His Bite?

In the a.m. on 11/13, Matt Drudge reported: "Moments before taping was to begin with host Tim Russert, Mehlman asked Dean outside the NBC studio's green room: 'There's still time for us to go on together Governor.' Dean declined with a shrug of his shoulders and an uncomfortable cackle and then proceeded to walk away into the green room." For the alleged incident, Drudge nicknames him "Howard the Duck." Sometime Wizbang contributor Mary Katherine Ham quotes Dean saying the Dems will have "specific plans" by '06, adding: "No wonder Dean wouldn't go up against Mehlman. By his own admission, his party is leaving that whole, pesky idea thing for next year."

Meanwhile, liberal Oliver Willis finds a post on the Free Republic message board saying: "HOWARD DEAN IS A DANGEROUS AND DEMENTED SOCIALIST CROOK UNPATRIOTIC UNAMERICAN LIAR, ARREST HIM NOW." As Willis puts it: "The conservative movement is reacting to Bush's impotence with characteristic hysteria."

MIDTERMS '06: A Chicken In Every Pot, And A Blog In Every District

A diarist at Daily Kos starts a new blog to cover the IL 10 race, Tenth District Blog. The anonymous poster challenges others: "Let's have a blog for EVERY single congressional race in 2006." The idea is in keeping with the liberal netroots' desire for the DCCC to challenge every seat held by a GOPer. DavidNYC likes the idea: "I don't think this can really be a "project" per se - I don't think it would be fruitful to try to go around organizing 435 different blogs. Rather, I simply think that people should be encouraged to start up blogs on their home districts, especially if one does not already exist."

MEMOGATE: Mapesgoat Or Ma(ry)lefactor?

Hugh Hewitt, on ex-CBS prod. Mary Mapes' "Reliable Sources" interview: "Mapes also clung to her new narrative that those attacking the documents were 'anonymous.' This is completely bogus, given that Powerline led the charge and all three contributors there were and have always been public."

Power Line's Scott Johnson appeared on the show after Mapes. Later on 11/13, co-blogger John Hinderaker wrote: Mapes told Howard Kurtz that having the authenticity of the Bill Burkett documents questioned by us and others was "terrifying." In a sense, I can believe her. She took a huge risk in hopes of helping to elect John Kerry President."

Despite being "paid off by Viacom to leave and then given a book deal to explain her pathetic lies about a politician in hopes of undermining an election," Don Surber writes, on 11/11 the Washington Post "gave this pathological liar more space than the Afghanistan war yesterday. See here and here and here and here. She is not news."

THE MARCH OF BLOGS: You Have To Campaign To Blog Before You Can Blog To Campaign

In a diary for MyDD, ex-Jon Corzine GOV campaign blogger Matt Stoller writes: "Money is going to be much much less important in politics, because you won't have to buy TV time to talk to voters, though field will matter. Parties will gain in power, since a party will contain the social infrastructure to spread a candidate's message. However the parties themselves will look different and be much more transparent about how they operate, simply because they will need to be. And two, coalition politics will become essential. No longer will well funded candidates be able to stare down potential opposition, and no longer will politicians see 'being on message' as the be-all and end-all."

Andrew Sullivan announces that his long-running blog will soon move to the homepage of Time -- to which he frequently contributes -- in a deal similar to the one that brought Mickey Kaus' Kausfiles to Slate several years ago. He advises readers: "As for the deal, I can simply assure you that I have retained exactly the same editorial control as I have had since the beginning. This is a blog. I won't be running posts before any editors before they appear. I will continue to write simply what I believe or think, however misguided I may be. ... You will still like it for the same reasons or hate it for the same reasons; or, as many of you keep telling me, both."

Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall, who on 11/13 celebrated his 5th anniv. as a blogger; he has placed a special banner at the top of the site and, in the context of Sullivan's move to Time, mentions Kaus as the model for his site and discusses why he has remained independent.

Longtime Swing State Project co-blogger Tim Tagaris, who recently agreed to go work for the DNC, starts blogging for the party's official Kicking Ass blog today.

BLOGGERS VS. BLOGGERS: Have You Clicked On Luke Ford Lately?

On 11/16, Pajamas Media (PJM) officially launches, and has announced it will change its name. In recent weeks, it has met with some criticism (see 11/8 Blogometer), some of it from those who had originally planned to participate.

On 11/8 PJM critic -- and onetime PJM business partner -- Dennis the Peasant pointed out that one of the advisers, Luke Ford, blogs about the porn industry -- though not at the site we just linked. (When we mentioned his involvement on 11/8, we referred to him as the "Matt Drudge of porn," after a 7/98 OJR article about him.) Dennis: "I don't have a problem with pornography in its place... which isn't in the middle of a business venture I'm trying to sell to mainstream, middle-America advertisers. Can you imagine selling a $1,000,000 ad contract to, say, Dell Computer and then having them call you up one day because they have just found out one of your 'influencers' is associated with the porn industry?"

In an 11/9 comment to the DTP post, Ford himself wrote: "I've withdrawn from Pajamas Media. It was fun while it lasted. Meanwhile, I am now accepted ads for lukeford.net, my true home and my true self. Any other site is but a simulcrae of the Luke Ford blogging experience." Ford's profile has since disappeared from the PJM site.

On 11/10, Matt Welch provided more detail, including further comments from Ford, whom he is friends with. Welch concluds: "I just hope that Pajamas acted as it did because it somehow didn't realize that Luke was still writing about porn, which if true would just mean that they were remiss in not conducting basic due diligence, and that they have a prudish take on what is acceptable. Any other explanation I can think of (and I'll post 'em as I get 'em) suggests something considerably worse."

Tony Pierce -- well-known for his indifference to spelling and punctuation -- comments: "what hurts me the most is that it appears Charles Johnson, a man who ive respected for years, is allowing this to happen. yes he wont return my emails, yes many of his commenters are reactionary predictable flagwavers, but ive met the man and just like Luke, Charles is more complicated and real than people give him credit for being."

The Poor Man Institute rounds up some of these links and points readers toward others criticial of PJM.

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: The Google Factor

On 11/10, lefty watchdog Media Matters highlighted a quote from FNC's Bill O'Reilly on the 11/8 edition of his radio show. Criticizing SF for banning military recruiters from high school and college campuses, O'Reilly said: "And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead." On 11/12, Skippy the Bush Kangaroo suggested the idea of a "Google bombing" O'Reilly by linking to his website with the phrase "terrorist sympathizer" -- so when somebody searches Google with that term, O'Reilly's site would come up. A number of liberal blogs join in, appearing to denounce the practice -- while linking "terrorist sympathizer" to the site anyway.Richard at The Peking Duck, Why Now?, and Bark Bark Woof Woof. WTF Is It Now and a commenter at The Poor Man Institute participate without the snark. As of 11/14 a.m., the Google bomb has already succeeded.

On 11/11, Huffington Post founder Arianna Huffington announced: "We are selfishly delighted that the Los Angeles Times has made the shortsighted decision to cancel Bob Scheer's column after 12 years. The L.A. Times' loss is our gain. Starting next Wednesday morning, loyal readers of Bob Scheer's weekly column will now find it at the top of the Huffington Post homepage."

LANDSCAPE: By George, They've Done It Again

Jonathan Singer at Basie! interviewed WH'72 Dem nominee George McGovern, who says: "I have trouble remembering from one day to the next what 'blue' and 'red' mean. They used to call us Democrats 'reds' because they thought we were too liberal, too pink. I'm glad the Republicans have assumed that label now."

Michelle Malkin points to a Detroit Free Press story on the botched ballot-handling in the Detroit mayor's race: "If Republicans were in charge of Detroit's elections, this mass disenfranchisement would be front-page NYTimes news, the Congressional Black Caucus would be on red alert, and Louis Farrakhan and Howard Dean would be blaming Bush's racism for the debacle."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Commencing Commentary On The Commentariat

What responsibility should a blogger have for what is said in their comment sections? Liberal Frogs and Ravens defines the 2 extremes as "The World Exists to Serve Me" contingent and the "It's My Blog and I Can Do What I Want" crowd. The debate harkens back to the kerfuffle involving Bitch Ph.D., Info Theory's Paul Deignan and others (see 11/10 Blogometer). Daily Kos' Armando points toward more discussion of the matter.

LEST WE FORGET: Worst. Interview. Ever

The Mapes pile-on continues at WuzzaDem, where she is interviewed not by Howard Kurtz or Bill O'Reilly, but by the Comic Book Guy from "The Simpsons."

Posted by at 12:35 PM

November 11, 2005

11/11: America First?

Though int'l stories like the Jordan bombing and French rioting still draw some attention, today's focus is on, believe it or not, domestic policy. GOP leaders had already drawn the ire of conservatives for "caving" on ANWR drilling. Yesterday, they held off on votes on the entire budget bill itself [in the House], and on extending cap-gains tax cuts [in the Senate]. There's a mix of glee on the left and disgust on the right.

Also, questions persist another day about Judge Samuel Alito's stake in Vanguard, as the RNC hosts another blog conference call. John Edwards admits a mistake on the Iraq vote, and wins back some lefty bloggers (who maybe wish he'd done it in '04). Plus: some movement on the FEC front.

REPUBLICANS: Those Were The Days

Liberal Josh Marshall: "What we're seeing today are the cascading effects of the breakdown of Republican party discipline, beginning with the collapse of the president's popularity ... and echoing out from there. Blanton at Red State: "Let's be clear. This is a fight that the moderates cannot be allowed to win. For the first time in a decade, the House Republican majority is acting like the Contract of America majority we thought we sent to Congress." Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) writes at RedState: "This turn of events stinks about as badly as it gets. ... For weeks the Blue Dog Democrats have been saying we're spending too much and that they stand for fiscal responsibility and yet none of them came out to support these reductions in light of Minority Leader Pelosi making clear she wanted no Dem voting with us." Daily Kos calls the GOP "The gang that can't shoot straight," and writes: "GOoPers are suddenly running as far away from their leadership as they possibly can, so they can claim in 2006 that they aren't DeLay's rubber stamp. Alas, [acting Maj. Leader] Roy Blunt [(R)] is no Tom DeLay. He appears to be closer to the "Bill Frist" school of leadership mismanagement."

Michelle Malkin discovers that George Soros has been helping a 527 the benefits moderate GOPers. She also has a roundup of letters readers have been sending to GOP Reps. lamenting the demise of ANWR. Righty Ace of Spades HQ, on ANWR: "Why doesn't Bush speak to the nation about both reducing the deficit and drilling in Alaska? Make it simple: If you oppose this, you can blame yourselves for high oil prices and ever-increasing dependency on foreign sources of oil."

Conservative John Hinderaker says the budget bill "was bad enough," but the Senate Finance Cmte's pulling of a tax-cut extension bill "may have been even worse." More: "So the Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot once again. The national media are having a field day, recording the party's panic and disarray. What I want to know is, what is the source of the apparent malaise on the Republican side of the aisle?" Liberal Scott Shields writes: "The GOP is now in retreat, doing everything they can to stop the bleeding. Arrogant right wing Bush Republicanism has been repudiated." But his colleague Chris Bowers laments that moderate GOPers and not Dems get the credit. Liberal Max Sawicky documents how recent GOP woes haven't brought much change: "It's all fine to talk to yourselves, whip up the faithful. But look at the Congress. Look at the right-wing media colossus. It's still there."

BLOGS VS. THE FEC: Forget The Becker-Posner Blog, Where's The Shays-Meehan Blog?

More Soft Money Hard Law's Bob Bauer considers H.R. 4194, sponsored by Reps. Chris Shays (R-CT) and Marty Meehan (D-MA), and criticized by bloggers (see 11/10 Blogometer). On 11/10 Shays and Meehan defended their bill, "their alternative to a broad exemption for the Internet from the regulation of 'public communications.' They are concerned that their measure has given rise to 'misconceptions,' including misconceptions about their true purpose, which they claim to be a largely limited one of avoiding corporate paid advertising on the Internet. The threat of 'campaign ads on the Internet' is the principal 'soft money loophole' that Messrs. Shays and Meehan have found in the full exemption." Bauer writes, Shays and Meehan "did not approve of exempting 'many individual Internet political activities while continuing to regulated paid advertising...' This was not their program at all. It was -- as they were then, if not now, prepared to openly avow -- to ensure that 'this new technology... remains subject to the basic architecture of the federal campaign finance laws.'" At Skeptic's Eye, Allison Hayward posts the text of the Shays-Meehan letter, gives it a fisking, and calls it the "latest screed from Reps. ShayMe purporting to 'respond' to the joint letter circulated" by Redstate's Mike Krempasky and Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas.

The FEC has released a draft advisory [PDF] re: MO Dem consultant Roy Temple's inquiry about whether his blog may qualify as a media entity (see previous coverage). From the opinion: "An examination of Fired Up's websites reveals that a primary function of the websites is to provide news and information to readers through Fired Up's commentary on, quotes from, summaries of, and hyperlinks to news articles appearing on other entities' websites and through Fired Up's original reporting. ... The Commission notes that an entity otherwise eligible for the press exception would not lose its eligibility merely because of a lack of objectivity in a news story, commentary, or editorial, even if the news story, commentary, or editorial expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate for Federal office." At Fired Up America, Temple posts the excerpt and solicits comments.

THE ALITO NOMINATION: On Guard

Suitably Flip and Decision '08 have a good roundups of the 11/10 RNC's latest conference call on Alito, which included RNC chair Ken Mehlman and ex-RNC chair/WH SCOTUS adviser Ed Gillespie. Here's a some of the reaction:

John Hawkins says: "The key thing they were trying to accomplish was to knock down the latest Democratic line of attack on Alito, which is that he may have done something unethical by ruling on cases involving Smith Barney and Vanguard." ProfessorBainbridge says that the WH "did not offer an effective response" to the Dem position. "They need a better set of talking points." Captain's Quarters: "Even if one concludes that Alito should have recused himself from Vanguard on the basis of his earlier promise if not the requirements of the law, he reached the correct rulings as a matter of law, rulings later upheld on a rehearing by other jurists.

Lefty bloggers continue to focus on the Vanguard issue, and Alito's defense. Patridiot Watch: "He made promises to get confirmed, then broke the promises. That's the Alito Record, and it is in writing and in the Official Permanent Record." Crooks and Liars: "He's using a technicality to justify his actions. If you're a judge you can't even hint at the possibility of something like this." AMERICAblog: "How can any Senator trust a single thing Alito now says during his confirmation? Sure, Alito said the other day that he has "great respect" for the precedent of Roe v. Wade. But just wait until after he's confirmed."

Captain's Quarters separately noted the New York Times's description of a subdued tone at the Federalist Society's convo, and opines: "I think the mood is appropriate to the occasion. After all, despite what appears to have been two very successful nominations (sandwiching a mystifying third, failed attempt for a political operative), the truth is that Bush has mostly played on home turf with the Supreme Court."

IRAQ: Johnny Come Lately

Edwards is getting some important street creds from the lefty blogosphere for admitting he voted the wrong way on Iraq, led by Daily Kos. MyDD's Chris Bowers: "Kudos to Senator Edwards. I could definitely support him in a primary now (not that I am saying I will)."

Liberal Oliver Willis made a prediction about Bush's speech: "If it's anything like the other 3,422,612 speeches he's given on Iraq I don't expect anything new or substantive."

A number of blogs, mostly on the right, point to this new Web site, "The Other Iraq," which includes an ad thanking the U.S. and U.K. for what it has done.

IN THE STATES: Looking Back, Looking Forward

A mix of '05 reflection with '06 speculation today.

Daily Kos writes about talk of the DSCC looking at VA in '06. "While we could argue that Dems should've been thinking about targeting Virginia's Allen next year before Tuesday, let's just be happy that they're thinking about it now." He notes somewhat excitedly that James Webb (D?) "wasn't just a Secretary of the Navy, but served under Ronald Reagan."

Conservative Hugh Hewitt reads this LAT story on a possible CA GOV bid by Warren Beatty and titles his post: "Please, God." At PoliPundit, Jayson blames low turnout in GOP areas for Gov. Schwarzenegger's defeat. "For Pete's sake in Iraq they got 60-plus percent turnout."

Swing State Project looks at sinking poll numbers for Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and says: "I would not be at all surprised if the Republican Party is looking to 'pull a Torricelli' here and replace Santorum with a more likeable candidate."

Josh Marshall takes a "just in case Dems still lose" approach: "We're still virtually guaranteed twelve months of watching Republicans furiously working to find ways to stab each other in the back. So, really, even the fall-back is pretty decent."

WMD INTEL: Swarmin' Norman

In the 12/05 issue of Commentary, Norman Podhoretz challenges liberal "distortions, misrepresentations, and outright falsifications" about Bush's promotion of the war, in a piece titled "Who Is Lying About Iraq?" You won't be surprised that supporters and opponents of the war take opposite points of view about the piece.

In the "support" column -- John Hinderaker: "Podhoretz demolishes the canard that the Bush administration lied about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, not by offering new evidence, but by succinctly and persuasively laying out the facts that demonstrate the absurdity of the charge on which the Democratic Party has apparently decided to risk its fortunes." Roger L. Simon: "If I were an Iraqi citizen thankful for my freedom from dictatorship (the vast majority, I imagine), I would despise Senator Harry Reid. Reid is either hugely immoral or butt stupid. Take your choice." Cold Fury calls it a "thorough debunking"; Austin Bay quotes large chunks, and writes: "Podhoretz destroys the 'Bush/Blair lied' meme."

Representing the "oppose" side -- Kevin Drum: "Unless you think that going to war is no more serious than planning a marketing campaign for a new brand of toothpaste, all of this contrary evidence should have been publicized and acknowledged along with all the evidence that went in the other direction. It wasn't." Matt Yglesias notes that Podhoretz joins a "suspiciously large number of conservative pundits have been offering out-of-context quotations" from a 1/04 Atlantic article by ex-Clinton official Kenneth Pollack. In the article, Pollack does question the WH's use of WMD intel. Writes Yglesias, surely "we can all agree that you can't cite an article that calls Bush a liar as evidence that he did nothing wrong."

MISCELLANY: From The Extremes

INDCJournal has some fun with Pat Robertson's crazy outburst of the month. And if you are wondering what Ralph Nader has been up to lately, Mark in Mexico has an update.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Our Latest Export

Campaign blogging is a recent development in U.S. politics, but we're not alone. In the Chilean presidential campaign, at least 2 of the 4 serious candidates maintain blogs on their campaign sites -- socialist Michelle Bachelet and conservative Sebastian Pinera. Both are stripped-down affairs with no blogroll or evident RSS feeds, but they are professionally designed, and Bachelet's is licensed under terms set by Creative Commons (common on many left-leaning U.S. blogs). What's more, both sites allow readers to comment on the posts. If the blog is any indication, Pinera has the edge here -- he's had as many as 150 comments added to some recent posts, whereas Bachelet's average number of comments appears to be zero.

LEST WE FORGET: A Special Edition Of Reader Mail

"Sam Alito" writes: "First, let me thank you for the mention in the blogometer last week. It was a great boost at a time when this could have been seen as a dumb stunt to capitalize on the Harriet Miers blog's attention. In case you were wondering, there are a number of these things, of varying degrees of success. I'm sure you are already aware of patrickjfitzgerald.blogspot.com (whoever registered the name without the "j" middle initial did a terrible job, and this guy took over). But you may not have noticed that between the Miers withdrawal and the Alito pick, the following names were also registered (in what appear now to be failed blogs):

• janicerogersbrown.blogspot.com
• edithhollanjones.blogspot.com
• priscillaowen.blogspot.com
• edithclement.blogspot.com

"Sam" continues: "there is also a karl rove blog and a scooter libby blog, though both seem to be inventions of the patrickjfitzgerald blog, where they frequently post comments." Thanks, Sam.

Posted by at 12:42 PM

November 10, 2005

11/10: Judge Judy

Judy Miller, a bête noir of the left since the start of the Iraq campaign, is out at the New York Times. While many in the left-blogosphere still hold out hope that Karl Rove gets indicted, Miller's long-anticipated departure is probably the next best thing.

While it would be incorrect to say Scooter Libby stepped down on account of the blogs, in Miller's case there's no question the blogosphere's chatter was a significant part of the Times' reaction, insofar as they're concerned with repairing the paper's reputation. There are no publicly named blog readers at the WH, but the New York Times makes no secret about taking blogs seriously: According to Nexis, blogs have made their way into nearly 500 stories in the New York Times in the past year alone. (At the Washington Post, about 430; at the Los Angeles Times, not quite 340). And few have disputed that the blogosphere has been a driving force in earlier media scandals -- such as the resignation of former Times editors Howell Raines and Gerald Boyd, following the Jayson Blair fiasco.

But that's not all -- other stories getting comment include the deadly suicide bombings in Jordan, which is certainly a big topic, as is a controversy about whether U.S. forces used "chemical weapons" in Fallujah. Other major stories are Pres. Bush's still-sinking approval rating, a bipartisan blogger letter to Congress, the thoughtful conclusion of the latest "plagiarism" allegation, a self-imposed setback for the GOP's ANWR plans, and our latest Blogger Spotlight.

And of all things, be on the lookout for a few odd couples: 2 OJ comparisons, 2 possible libel cases, 2 anonymous profs, and 2 "thorough debunkings," mostly with 1 cite each from the left and right.

MILLER: At Long Last! An End To Puns On "Hey Jude," "Punch And Judy," "Miller Time," And The One Heading Today's Edition ... Not That We're Giving Up On Puns

Coincident with Miller's announced retirement, the Times posted to its website a two letters, 1 from Miller to Keller, and from Keller to the staff. They immediately followed up with a Kit Seelye news report about its own activities. New York Observer's Media Mob added some additional reporting, including a phoner with Miller saying, "I'm really very satisfied with the agreement." Miller told the Observer that she planned to "take a little time off," pointing out it was "the time I was supposed to take before this 40-day nightmare began."

Seelye explains why the Times did not grant Miller a rebuttal "essay": "Gail Collins, editor of the editorial page, said, 'We don't use the Op-Ed page for back and forth between one part of the paper and another' -- but agreed to let her write the letter." Conservative Mark Coffey responds: "Of course not, Gail -- that would be like, oh, say, MoDo using her column to take a public shot at Miller... wait, bad example." More Seelye: "She said she regretted 'that I was not permitted to pursue answers' to questions about those intelligence failures." Left-leaning Gary Farber responded: "Well, O.J., now you're free to go out and find the real killers," and gives the memo a "Read The Rest Scale: 3.5 out of 5." (It's worth noting that QandO's McQ had applied the OJ reference to the case of ex-CBS News prod. Mary Mapes on 11/8; see 11/9 Blogometer.)

Joe Gandelman fisks the Seelye report; he quotes publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. saying: "We are grateful to Judy for her significant personal sacrifice to defend an important journalistic principle ... I respect her decision to retire from The Times and wish her well." Gandelman explains: That's corporate-speak for 'Thank the Lord that we've extracted ourselves from this inexorable political and journalistic tarpit!'"

TalkLeft: "Something I just noticed: The article at the Times website about Miller's departure from the paper is headlined, 'Reporter Agrees to Leave Paper.' That is a further slam to Miller in that it implies she was asked to leave and agreed. If the departure was her idea, wouldn't the headline simply read 'Reporter Leaves Paper'?"

Miller has posted her letter to her own site, along with previous correspondence and updates related to her involvement in Plamegate; Jeff Jarvis parenthetically jokes, "I told you she'd end up blogging." Firedoglake fisks the Miller letter, and counsels her on rehabilitating her career: "Some honest self-appraisal and a little candor would be a good start." The Minor Fall, The Major Lift rewrites Miller's letter more to the author's liking.

No More Mr. Nice Blog: "Wonder how soon it'll be before her paychecks are signed 'Rupert Murdoch.' And I wonder how soon she'll start trying to exact revenge against her former employer, a la Dick Morris -- and whose help she'll get when she does." Noting that Miller will be keynoting the Pajamas Media launch next week, James Joyner observes: "Well, she apparently has a career as a speaker at big blogger events."

To NRO's Media Blog, Rush and Molloy column which quotes a source saying "Keller got snowed by Wolfowitz" basically means "Bill Keller lied us into war! At least according to the same standard the paper's editorial board applies to George W. Bush." Arianna Huffington calls Miller's leaving "a great victory for the Times newsroom, the blogosphere, and journalism," and dismisses the "entanglement" issue: "Fine, Judy didn't screw Libby. Just the American public." She argues: "We are far more concerned about their political entanglement. The kind where agendas intertwine, and fiction gets massaged into fact. Far worse than sexual entanglements, political ones f--- with your head."

Michael Petrelis asks why New York Times public editor Byron Calame ran nothing on his pseudo-blog for 2 weeks, then posted an insubstantial reader e-mail about Alzheimer's and art therapy: "Surely there are other readers bringing issues of concern to Calame's attention, issues he could address either in his print column or through his web journal. Why the minimal output, Barney?"

TERRORISM: Amman-strous Day

Depending on your news source, between 55 and 67 people are reported killed in the trio of suicide bomb blasts at local franchises of Western hotels in Amman, Jordan. 300 are listed as injured. Al Qaeda has claimed responsibility, and Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi in particular is suspected of organizing the attacks.

Conservative The Astute Blogger: "On September 25th, I predicted that the jihadoterrorists would SOON try to expand their attacks into Jordan. I said this because it is my belief that as we put more pressure on Zarqawi -- and Assad & Iran: THE TWO MAIN NATIONAL BACKERS OF JIHADOTERROR -- that they would get their jihadoproxies to try to widen the "battlefield" from the Sunni sections of Iraq and eastern/southeastern Afghanistan to Jordan and Israel." Firedoglake's ReddHedd and The Counterterrorism Blog's Andrew Cochran posted reports as they came in.

Captain's Quarters: "Haaretz reports that the lack of Israeli victims came from an eleventh-hour evacuation of Israelis from Amman hotels after a specific threat came to Jordanian intelligence ... This sounds quite peculiar to me, almost like the germination of an urban legend, but Haaretz has Jordanian intelligence escorting Israelis back to Israel." Liberal Needlenose, on the same: "This is weird. If the Israelis had specific intelligence about an attack on the hotels, why didn't they bother to share with with their Jordanian pals?" Later, Meryl Yourish updates to report the story is false: "Ha'aretz printed a rumor first, then published this article in response. Nice going, Ha'aretz, because, it's not like anti-Semites won't use the fact that an Israeli paper published this crap first as evidence that it's true."

Two Minute Offense relays a report from a CNBC prod., saying if the attack was al Qaeda, "US officials will have to think seriously about whether their anti-terror policies are effective." If terrorists are able to set off suicide bombs in Jordan, it must be George W. Bush and his policies which are at fault." TMO, on the media: "They aren't 'folks' like normal human beings. They are sick humanoid type creatures who suffer from a serious brain-destablizing affliction." The Anchoress adds: "It's official now. Everything bad that happens in the world is George Bush's fault. I mean... it's just stunning. They're not even pretending to try to hide their hate for this president."

PENTAGON: White Noise

On 11/8 and again on 11/9, the UK Independent published 2 stories reporting that the U.S. military "used chemical weapons" -- specifically, white phosphorous (WP) -- in a 11/04 firefight in Fallujah. The story originated with the Italian public broadcaster RAI.

Greg at The Talent Show: "If you've ever wanted to know why liberals like me occasionally seem anti-American, it's because of stories like the one below which are so f---ing heartbreaking, the only sane responses are to either explode with rage or cry your eyes out." Daily Kos' Hunter understates his objection: "I know, as well, that we do not drop 'chemical weapons' on Iraq. We may, in the course of fighting insurgents in civilian neighborhoods, drop 'incendiaries' or other airborne weaponry which may melt the skins off of children as an accidental side effect of illuminating their neighborhoods or melting the skins off their neighbors. In that this still can be classified as melting the skins off of children, I feel comfortable in stating that the United States should not condone the practice." Pandagon: "What's left to say about this administration? My final straw was snapped long ago."

Then on 11/9, libertarian-leaning UK blogger Scott Burgess questioned the assertion that victims' "clothes remain largely intact" while their "skin has been dissolved or caramelised or turned the consistency of leather by the shells." Burgess interviewed GlobalSecurity.org's John Pike, who disputed that the clothes/skin result was consistent with WP. Burgess also pointed out that the spokesperson for the group, ex-soldier Jeff Englehart, "unbeknownst to Independent readers," is an "antiwar activist." Meanwhile, Stockholm-based Michael Moynihan questioned Englehart's having left different interviewers with different impressions of whether he fought in the Fallujah operation. Instapundit calls Burgess' work a "pretty thorough debunking ... though it was pretty obviously bogus on its face."

Also 11/9, ex-LiveJournal developer Mark Kraft wrote in to Altercation with a 3/05 Field Artillery Magazine [PDF] story calling WP an "effective and versatile munition" sometimes used for "screening missions at two breeches and ... as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when [U.S. forces] could not get effects on them with HE," i.e. chemical high explosives. This appears to contradict the U.S. military's 12/04 statement that WP was used for "for illumination purposes." Balloon Juice's John Cole, himself ex-Army, writes: "As I have stated repeatedly, while WP has a number of uses, the primary one is illumination and marking. It has a number of different uses, but using WP is not illegal or somehow 'worse' than having an HE round dumped on your head (and I have had HE rounds dumped on my head -- well within 'danger close' in an accidental friendly fire incident), it is not a violation of international law, and no one is trying to hide anything."

BUSH: Avoided Like The Plague (Perhaps Even The Avian Flu)

DCCC's Stakeholder calls attention to Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ) saying on "Imus" that he wouldn't want Bush to campaign in his CD "at this time." Right-libertarian Classical Values points out that Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) is doing much the same: "Santorum's display of fear (if in fact that is what it is) reminds me of the way some Democrats shunned Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal. As it turned out, the voters didn't much care. If anything, there was a pro-Clinton backlash." RightFaith invites other readers to join a Blogger's Rally for Bush, and creates a series of sidebar buttons, including that reads "I Still Support the President" and "Backing Bush Through 2008."

FRENCH RIOTS: Tout L'Ennui Dans Le Monde

Riots in France finally seem to be on the wane, but they're still a serious matter of discussion on the left and right.

Juan Cole addresses the riots, considering the in-between-ness of "Beur culture" in the urban outer suburbs of Paris, and the collective "ice cream headache" the riots must be causing the "dittoheads." His solution: "Recognizing that 'Frenchness' is not monochrome, that France is a tapestry of cultures and always has been, and that sometimes some threads of the tapestry need some extra attention if it is not to fray and come apart." A Fistful of Euros agrees with Cole about "multiculturalism, or the absence of it, in France." Atrios, too: "France's approach to multiculturalism and race is essentially that of Ward Connerly ... This is France's system. This is the conservative approach to race and society. This is what they've spent the last week mocking."

Belgravia Dispatch, on French pres. Jacques Chirac's low profile throughout the riots: "As for Chirac, someone pronounce him dead already, okay? The poor man has made Dick Cheney look like a brazen exhibitionist."

THE ALITO NOMINATION: On Guard About Vanguard

Sisyphus Shrugged considers the New York Times' coverage of SCOTUS nominee Samuel Alito's Vanguard investment (see 10/31 and 11/1 Blogometers) "kind of disgraceful." Its header: "Democrats Press Court Designee Over Mutual Fund Case." Susie Madrak agrees. Across the 'sphere, conservative Pejman Yousefzadeh calls it a smear, and points readers to Baseball Crank's defense of Alito on these charges: "This is a shot-in-the-dark attempt to derail an impressive nominee on his way towards confirmation by the Senate. Let us hope (and work) to ensure that it does not become anything more than that."

BLOGS VS. THE FEC: Shays-Meehan And The Lettermen

On 11/7 Markos Moulitsas came out against campaign finance bill H.R. 4194, sponsored by Reps. Chris Shays (R-CT) and Marty Meehan (D-MA), "and only those two, as they honestly have no clue what they've gotten into. Their complete lack of understanding of this medium would be quaint and cute, for two old out-of-touch luddites, if it didn't have such real-world repercussions."

Now Moulitsas and Mike Krempasky have sent a letter (posted as a PDF at Krempasky's RedState) to the FEC explaining their opposition. Among other issues, the bill "offers no guidance as to the treatment of group political activity, potentially treating all group websites that discuss federal candidates as political committees, with voluminous filing and disclosure requirements, so long as members spent $1000 on server and other costs, an easily-reached amount." They quote FEC commish Michael Toner, who is in their corner, and urge passage of Rep. Jeb Hensarling's (R-TX) recently defeated H.R. 1606 (see 11/2 and 11/3 Blogometers). Krempasky explains in a post this a.m., and there's more at the Krempasky-Moulitsas (and others) site, The Online Coalition.

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Scheer Madness

On 11/4, L.A. Observed reported as "chatter" the likelihood that the Los Angeles Times would drop Robert Scheer's column; in an 11/8 radio appearance, Scheer confirmed it. Conservatives are pleased: Presto Pundit: "Scheer has got to be the most dishonest man in newspaper journalism. The big question -- why did this take so long?" Patterico: "Maybe things really are turning around there." But liberal Marc Cooper writes that while Scheer sometimes "infuriated" him, Scheer is "unique and unconventional," has a wide following, and is local: "The Kinsley Experiment was an embarrassing failure, but what has been the follow-up? Open the editorial pages and find that the mighty L.A. Times still can't get it together to scare up three or four locally based columnists to project a persuasive institutional voice. Instead, a plethora of weary out-of-town wonks continues to relentlessly wank on unimpeded." L.A. Observed's Kevin Roderick adds: "I've also been copied on a few emails sent to the Times from longtime readers who say if Scheer goes they are canceling."

Meanwhile, L.A.-based Joe Scott notices the "front page, three-byline, headline" treatment actor/possible GOV candidate Warren Beatty got from the Los Angeles Times: "I don't know whether the prominent placement was to assuage angry liberals, concerned that the paper is dropping iconic left-wing columnist [Scheer], or give the small gaggle of churlish conservative activists another chance to nip at the Times' heels." Regardless, he points out: "On election night, Beatty and [Annette] Bening got more media attention than the governor in his concession speech."

ELECTION '05: LAT Just Can't Catch A Break

Sacramento Bee's veteran blogger Dan Weintraub [reg. req.] posts a chart, which shows the results of each polling outfit's accuracy in the '05 elections: Field Poll fared the best, SurveyUSA came second, and L.A. Times came last. Kos points out, "As for the two biggest races of the night, SUSA had the best numbers in Virginia, while that Monmouth poll wins the prize in New Jersey."

ENERGY: ANWR Just Not Gonna Do This Right Now

Late last p.m., House GOPers dropped ANWR from a budget bill, reports the AP, on account of fears the "hotly contested" amendment would sink the entire bill. Conservative Generation Why?: "Don't know if those guys in Congress are just victims of our failing public school system, but I wish somebody would remind them that having more representatives than the other guys means you're IN THE MAJORITY." Liberal Just a Bump in the Beltway: "Now that's what happens when you present an unified front and can then negotiate from a position of strength to get reluctant members of the majority party to work with you." Oliver Willis: "For a heck of a fun time, check out this thread on Free Republic. The inmates are not happy inside the conservative asylum."

HACKETT VS. BROWN: Author, Author!

On 11/8 we pointed out a minor controversy, wherein Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) had used text from a post by labor blogger Nathan Newman; the Cleveland Plain Dealer had called it plagiarism, the Brown office copped to the charge, and then Newman returned from his "mini-honeymoon" to say he had hoped somebody would use his writing. We pick up the story:

On 11/8, the AP reported Newman's side of the story, with him saying: "They had an explicit right to print it without attribution. The point was the substance, not my prose and I'm glad [Brown] used it." Conservative Pardon My English: "This is all very philanthropic of Newman, and I, like Newman, enjoy writing about politics enough that I do it for free. But on those occasions when someone wants to use something I've written, I appreciate it when they bother to ask first -- it's the respectable thing to do."

On 11/9, the Plain Dealer editorialized: "Brown's staff has fallen on the sword for him, claiming all responsibility for the paper placed on the boss's desk. And blogger Newman is incensed that The Plain Dealer even cares where the language came from. But we do -- and voters should, too. Here's why: We need to know who is speaking. Is it a responsible, elected public official, or an Internet dilettante? Or is theirs a seamless relationship that makes a vote for Brown a vote for nathannewman.org or the Daily Kos? In their minds, does it make a difference? In ours, it does." Liberal YenZenta asks if the Plain Dealer is guilty of libel: "The Cleveland Plain Dealer has now referred to Newman as an "internet dilettante" in a new editorial. I don't know if that rises to the level of libel, but it certainly gives a false, misleading and demeaning picture of Nathan Newman."

Early on 10/10, Nathan Newman himself addressed the situation again, albeit from a theoretical perspective -- considering "how the law treats collective production of knowledge" and the elusive "search for the singular 'author.'"

BLOGGERS VS. BLOGGERS: The New New School

On 11/1, the anonymous Bitch Ph.D. had "done a li'l reading, participated in a conference call, done some thinking," and decided that Alito was worth using the filibuster on, listing 10 reasons why. In the comments, conservative Paul Deignan of Info Theory posted a pair of long posts lambasting her analysis. He was instantly labeled a troll, and his identity as a Perdue Ph.D. candidate became an issue -- as eventually did hers, as an anonymous profblogger. Deignan and Bitch Ph.D. argued the details, the commenters returned glib retorts, and Godwin's Law was violated at least once.

Deignan later received, and on 11/2 posted to his blog, an e-mail from:

Wallace Hettle
Actual Professor
Google Me
University of Northern Iowa

Hettle issued a stern warning about Deignan's "trolling" on the message board, and announced his intention to speak with Deignan's advisers: "You are a lunatic; the academy is no place for you. You also seem to be a homely and I assume lonely man. Anyway, I'd advise you not to troll under your real name. Academia, like the Internet, is a small place." The 2 traded multiple e-mails, which Deignan subsequently added to his post. By 11/3, Deignan concluded that Hettle had libeled him, and wrote: "I call on Professor Wallace Hettle to issue a public apology. Until then, this thread is open for legal opinions on the case for libel." In an undated update, he adds: "Still, no retraction and apology, so the lawsuit goes ahead full steam. The attorney has already been solicited (and the firm is very successful in these internet cases). Note that blog publisher and [popular comment function provider] Haloscan are US companies so I believe the tort can be tried in US courts."

Self-described classical liberal Dean Esmay assessed the situation: "Paul Deignan is being subjected to what seems to be a surprisingly common tactic of people in academia: they don't like his opinions, so they're attempting to get him in trouble with his academic advisors. What's particularly jaw-dropping is that if you just read the discussion he was partaking in, Paul was at no time anything other than civil and rational." Beth at conservative My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy wrote: "The Bitch (hey, that's what she calls herself) banned him -- although he was simply (and politely) debating her points. (Couldn't handle having your point of view challenged?)"

On 11/7, lefty academic P.Z. Myers of Pharyngula delivered a different dissertation: "This little pimple rather pompously trolled Bitch Ph.D., and one commenter ('Wally') sent an email to his advisors, and Dr B chopped out some of his comments and banned him. His response? He's trying to puzzle out Dr B's identity so he can reveal it and use it in his lawsuit against Wally. That's right. Lawsuit. Over blogging." Myers also fisked Deignan's explanation of why the issue was worth a lawsuit.

The same day, Bitch Ph.D. discussed her role in the "shitstorm." She defended her dismissal of Deignan's comments: "In contrast to my brilliant critics, at least my logic skills enable me to distinguish between an unsupported inference and an actual argument." And to those who hold her up as "'proof' that lefty professors are totalitarian in the classroom," she points out, "a classroom is not a blog: so that even if this blog did censor comments that disagree with its arguments, that constitutes precisely zero evidence as to my behavior in the classroom." She also derides a comment by Deignan that he would seek out and publish her identity.

Onetime academic Jeff Goldstein posted phone numbers and encouraged readers to write to the Univ. of Northern IA's History Dept., including the chair, Dr Robert Martin. English prof Thersites of Metacomments heads a post "Those Oppressed Conservatives," declaring: "Noted unfunny asshole Jeff Goldstein has revved up the wingnut whine machine on behalf of, well, a crazy person." Goldstein added in an update: "I don't hold Bitch Ph.D. responsible in any way for the comments made by Wally Hettle. I also don't think Paul should be trying to out her identity. My beef has always been with Hettle's actions..."

By 11/9, liberal Unfogged declared: "I find myself weirdly obsessed with the Ballad of Paul Deignan -- as if I'm entitled to a whiz-bang fictional ending in which all loose ends are tied up (a sitemeter-driven experiment? genuine lunacy? pursuit of justice?) and the plot resolved (Paul's father -- is he really Darth Vader?). At the same time I'm completely tired of talking about this." Meanwhile, right-leaning Scribal Terror coined the word "hettling" -- "to tattle in a harassing or hateful manner."

On a marginally related point, Deignan's question about Bitch Ph.D.'s identity is very similar to that of anonymous Volokh Conspiracy contributor Juan Non-Volokh, whose identity has been most seeked by UT-Austin law prof Brian Leiter (see 6/23 and 6/27 Blogometers).

BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: I Feel Pritsky, Oh So Pritsky And Witsky And Bright!

Today the Blogometer talks to lefty NTodd, who writes Dohiyi Mir.

What is your full name?

N. Todd Pritsky

What is your age?

36

Where did you grow up?

Perrysburg, OH, a suburb of Toledo (where Saturday night "is like being nowhere at all").

Where do you live now?

East Bumf---, er... I mean, Fletcher, Vermont. That's about 30 miles north (and a bit east) of Burlington, not too far from the Canadian border.

What is your occupation? Have you ever worked on a political campaign or for the mainstream media?

For 14 years I've been working for a small telecommunications training firm in Colchester, VT. In that time I've worn many hats: graphic illustrator, network admin, Senior instructor, Director of E-learning. This year I switched to a 1/4 time role so I can teach at Champlain College and start a photography business.

I have never worked on a political campaign, nor for the MSM (unless you count delivering the Toledo Blade when I was a kid!).

When did you start blogging and why?

I started actively blogging on June 14, 2003 -- a rainy Saturday, and I was doing laundry at home in between road trips.

The why is rather simple: I was tired of yelling at the TV. I hated the rah-rah war stuff, had my own ideas, and wanted to express them. I never thought anybody would actually read the damned thing, so originally it was just a form of catharsis.

What has been your favorite post, or favorite story to write about, in that time?

My favorite post is actually one on my old site (before I moved to Typepad) that I wrote in the wake of Saddam Hussein's capture: "Queer Eye For The Deposed Guy". It was the first thing I'd written that ever got attention in the mainstream press. My blog has certainly evolved in the intervening years -- moving to Typepad, doing more photography, adding podcasting, etc -- but I still think fondly of that piece.

Describe your typical blogging schedule. And what is your average output?

Oh, it's catch as catch can, really. I often get asked how I find time to blog. My answer: Insomnia. Okay, that's only partially true. I do find that sometimes when I can't sleep I'll go on a blogging tear, but usually if I'm not teaching I'll take blogging breaks throughout the day, especially if I get a bug up my ass. So my output varies from non-existant to obsessive -- on average I guess that means it (not the blogger himself) is "healthy."

Who is your favorite political blogger? Favorite non-political blogger?

It's funny, but I don't actually have a favorite political blogger per se. My favorite political BLOG is Eschaton, and I go there for the community, not for Atrios. Heck, since he's hit the big time he doesn't do as much of the writing that originally drew me to his site so long ago (which is totally okay -- I still think he provides a good voice). I go there to hear what everybody else has to say. And to blogwhore!

As for favorite non-political stuff, I like Bruce Schneier's security blog, since that's related to my work, and I like an award-winning local group blog I belong to, which is run by my friend Bill.

Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?

The Shrill One and Joe Galloway.

What is your favorite television news program, either network or cable?

I don't watch television news. I think it all sucks major ass.

What MSM-produced websites (i.e. newspapers, magazines) do you visit on a daily basis?

Burlington Free Press, Washington Post, New York Times (though I won't be paying them to read Krugman, the silly old media fools), BBC News, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, National Review, Stars and Stripes (well, maybe that doesn't count as MSM).

What non-MSM websites (i.e. blogs) do you visit on a daily basis?

Eschaton, Daily Kos, Washington Monthly, Dependable Renegade, First Draft, Lunaville, Candleblog.

I also check out a few others quite regularly, though not every day: Hubris, The Politburo Diktat, Michelle Malkin, Michael Berube. And I meander through blogs run by members of The Liberal Coalition.

There are myriad blogs I really should visit more often -- I used to do "blogarounds", but I've been too lazy of late. Others I visit when there's a particular story that I know is right up their alley (e.g., Brad DeLong's site when I want to get some economic analysis).

How often, or do you ever, read a newspaper in its dead-tree (i.e. print) form?

I read the above-the-fold stuff on the front page in a rack by the checkout counter at the Steeple Market in Fairfax when I'm picking something up. That's it.

How do you see the new media and old media affecting and influencing each other in the next five years?

I think the world envisioned in EPIC 2014 is probably part of it, though perhaps a bit over the top.

The comparisons to "samizdat" publishing and Tom Paine are pretty apt, but I don't think blogs are all that revolutionary -- I don't buy into the hype. I do see them as another channel of news gathering, analysis and part of the political discourse. More importantly, I think the blogosphere is a democratizing medium, and one that simply augments other forms of exchanging ideas that have previously existed.

Radio didn't displace print. TV didn't displace radio. Cable didn't displace network TV. I don't think blogs will displace any of them. I'm sure, however, that blogging (and podcasting to a lesser extent) have influenced, and will continue to influence, the further evolution of those media. We've already seen blogs take on a sort of "fifth estate" role, watching over the MSM.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: A History Of Political Violence

Poli sci grad student Brendan Nyhan considers the relationship between pres. approval ratings and the outcome of cong. midterm elections, with a couple of nifty charts and some interesting trivia. He writes: "just for fun, let's project the seat swing based on President Bush's current approval rating of approximately 40 percent. A naive model in which the relationship between presidential approval and seat swings remains constant over time projects that the Republicans will lose approximately 47 House seats in 2006. And under a few different specifications I've tested, the predicted loss is always at least 36 seats, and usually many more." Nyhan adds, "it seems like few people are taking the impact of Bush's approval ratings seriously enough right now. Presidents with approval ratings below fifty percent during a midterm election have gotten hammered" -- Johnson ('66), Ford ('74), Reagan ('82) and Clinton ('94).

LEST WE FORGET: Sticking It To The Man

At WuzzaDem, an overly excited and somewhat delusional Gov.-elect Jon Corzine (D-NJ) is interviewed by a stick figure.

Posted by at 12:43 PM

November 09, 2005

11/9: Blue Harvest

As expected, 11/8/05 was a pretty good election for the Dems, even if it was an off-year. To recap: Sen. Jon Corzine (D-NJ) is now gov-elect, as is LG Tim Kaine (D-VA), Mike Bloomberg will remain NYC's GOP mayor, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's ballot measures all failed. Individual mayor's races occurred and other ballot measures passed and failed in various states, but we can't cover it all. Here's what we can:

ELECTION '05: The Bloggers Have Spoken, The Bastards!

Reax from the left -- A header at Daily Kos: "Weird. We won. Onward to 2006!" More Kos: "I have to say, while this beats the losing we've experienced the last couple of years, this is still quite unsatisfying. Let's call it the appetizer. 2006 is the real target." Kevin Drum: "It looks like George Bush is now officially an electoral albatross." Atrios: "For purely petty reasons, the results I cared most about yesterday were the California ballot measures. Arnold, denied!" More Atrios, on Corzine: "Maybe I should see if that cell phone # he gave me once still works..."

Reax from the right -- RedState: " Well, that wasn't fun ... Nor was it entirely unexpected. When Republicans don't give their *own* supporters a reason to vote for them (other than 'the Democrats are worse!!'), how in the world can they expect to reach swing voters? Welcome to the consequences of failing to inspire anyone." PoliPundit: "The fate of the ballot initiatives indicates a real need for the GOP to make an ideological case to voters. This president typically makes the case for competence, not ideology. However, in the wake of Iraq-gas-prices-Katrina-Libby-Miers, competence is no longer an argument that works in favor of the GOP. Republicans need to find simple themes and reconnect with voters." Conservative Matt Margolis: "Democrats may act as if this is a springboard for more victories in 2006, but precedent says this is not the case. In fact, when Democrats won the governorships in Virginia and New Jersey in 2001, and then-DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe saw a 'huge shift in political momentum' only to seethe Republican Party increase their majority in Congress the following year."

Reax from the middle -- Joe Gandelman emphasizes that it was a bad night for the GOP, and adds: "Taking a middle line, you could say it suggests that plans for a decades-long Republican electoral majority are premature. It is generally considered unrealistic for Democrats to expect that in flash they can win back both houses of Congress in 2006. But the election results show the GOP would be foolish to take anything for granted." Mickey Kaus: "Anti-gerrymandering reform lost in both California and Ohio. You might say it's time to take the fight to the courts -- and there are valid constitutional arguments to be made, along Baker v. Carr lines, against partisan or pro-incumbent gerrymanders. But isn't it kind of difficult to argue that the courts need to intervene to make democracy fair after the voters, in a perfectly fair, non-gerrymandered state-wide election, have rejected the idea?"

More reax -- Lefty Carpetbagger Report writes: "So this is what it feels like to have a good election year. I'd almost forgotten." Barbara O'Brien at American Street: "I'd hate to be a Republican campaign strategist tonight, huh?" Below The Beltway: "Republicans need to figure out what went wrong here in Northern Virginia, and fix it fast or they could face this same problem in 2006, 2008, and beyond." Denise Best, at centrist Donklephant: "Looks like the pendulum is swinging back toward the 'left.' Or is swinging away from the 'right' a more accurate description?" Noting close margins in VA and NJ and a big win for GOPer Bloomberg, Free Belarus suggests that "perhaps the media should stop kidding itself that ['05] has anything to do with Bush or the Republican Party." But Instapundit thinks GOP turnout problems "can be laid at the feet of the White House and the Republican leadership." Re: Corzine's NJ win, Talent Show asks: "Is this what it feels like when the good guys win?" Rumblings from the Captain's Quarters: '05 "shows that the GOP can expect a tough time trying to hold their margins." Lawhawk dismisses any nat'l comparisons: "This wasn't a referendum on Bush, but rather a continuation of relatively closely contested elections that find the Democrats winning because of their natural advantage in registered voters." In that one Mayor's race, Moderate Voice sees "a clear mandate in New Yawk."

VIRGINIA GOVERNOR: Kaine Is Able

Dem-leaning Waldo Jaquith: "For the third election in a row, Democrats have taken more seats in the House of Delegates. ... The tides have shifted. Republicans are losing their grip on power in Virginia, in no small part thanks to President Bush's weakening grip on power in the United States."

Ex-Shouting Cross the Potomac blogger Will Vehrs, guesting at Commonwealth Conservative, comments on Kaine's victory speech: "Kaine mentioned calls from Potts and Kilgore. He went out of his way to call Potts' campaign honorable. Kilgore ran a 'spirited' campaign. The crowd almost booed Kilgore. He said nice words about the beliefs of the opposition."

Conservative James Joyner calls the VA race "nasty but more-or-less issue free": "Kilgore ran a campaign right out of the Lee Atwater playbook, trying to portray Kaine as Michael Dukakis with a Southern accent. He steadily declined in the polls largely because that obviously wasn't true."

In a post titled "The Hunt for Scapegoats Begins," GOP-leaning Bacon's Rebellion analyzes how Kilgore went from frontrunner to loser.

VA resident Meryl Yourish: "So the choice, for me, came down to this: Do I vote for the guy with the really weird eyebrow, or the guy with the smirk? I went eyebrow all the way. My guy won."

NEW JERSEY GOVERNOR: The First Act In A SEN-GOV Switcheroo?

BlueJersey's Juan Melli compares Bush's 2.9% '04 win to Corzine's 10-point (or so) victory: "If Bush got a man-date, then today, New Jerseyans demanded a polygamous man wedding."

Conservative Enlighten NJ's last post was at 8:18 p.m., summarizing the latest count and noting that AP had called the race. In the comments, where liberal readers tease Enlighten NJ about its part in spreading rumors about Corzine, an anonymous ENJ blogger writes: "It is what is. The voters have spoken -- Corzine will be the next Governor and we wish him the best."

GOP-leaning DynamoBuzz: "'The Day After,' that apocalyptic disaster movie from the 1980s, can pretty much be used as a metaphor for the NJ Republican party. Hard to remember that less than 8 years ago they controlled both houses of the NJ legislature and the governor's job."

In the Agora, on rumors that Corzine will tap acting Gov. Richard Codey (D) to replace him in the Senate: "[A]s I understand it, there's some animosity between Codey and Corzine because of Corzine's pushing aside the acting governor to run for the seat himself, so Codey might turn down an appointment. Corzine might also go for a one-year caretaker in the seat, but I doubt it."

PoliticsNJ's Inside Edge offers some history on previous sens. who have become govs., and offers some more: "In the last ten gubernatorial elections where no incumbent was a candidate, the party who controls the White House lost six times."

CALIFORNIA CABLE: Apparently the T-800 Can Self-Terminate

Right-leaning Matt Szabo: "The lesson from the massacre of 2005 is that Californians are not ideologues. We are socially-liberal fiscally conservative freedom-loving pragmatists. We recalled Gray Davis and elected Arnold Schwarzenegger to reform a broken government, not to impose a right-wing agenda."

Steve Soto, at The Left Coaster: "If the man goes 0-4 and the state GOP loses out on getting anything through tonight, why would the Democrats in the Legislature even bother to pay attention to the Administration next year, when they could just wait for a new governor? W... I'd like to know which political rocket scientists advised the man to put his leverage on the line with approval ratings in the 30's."

At The Corner, Claremont-McKenna prof Jack Pitney writes, the Dem legis. now :might get cocky and push even harder for a liberal agenda. If so, the governor could have an opportunity, just as his own hubris provided an opening to the Democrats earlier this year. Meanwhile, however, he has to brace for some painful news cycles in the days ahead."

Left-leaning Hugo Schwyzer, in a late update: "All of the governor's initiatives are failing, as is the abortion notification initiative. Turnout seemed better than anticipated. Most of the outstanding ballots left to be counted are in liberal counties (Alameda, Los Angeles), and soon I will head to bed -- cautiously optimistic. I've been on the losing end of so many elections, it seems too good to be true that the left might have swept here in California tonight."

Conservative Presto Pundit: "Voters had a chance to shoot the rabid dog of failed government and instead turned the gun on themselves. Our children will pay -- and pay and pay."

INTEL: Just What This Town Has Been Missing -- A Leak Investigation!

Last p.m., cong. GOPers announced that they want a joint investigation of an alleged leak that led to Dana Priest's Washington Post report on secret CIA prisons in other countries. Additionally, as Think Progress reports, "in an off-camera meeting with reporters, Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) revealed that the leak likely came from a Senator or Senate staffer who attended a GOP-only meeting with Vice President Dick Cheney last week, where the detention centers were discussed." CNN's Ed Henry covered the story last p.m.; Think Progress posts the video as a Quicktime file. A Daily Kos diarist, Running Scared and Martini Republic are among many lefty bloggers unhappy with the GOP's focus but amused by the intraparty accusations. Brad Blog sees it as part of something bigger: "To defend against the indefensible leaking of the identify of a covert CIA operative in the TreasonGate affair, it is now clear that the Rightwing has begun an offensive to try and attack the CIA in order to define them as a 'rogue agency' who was out to get the Bushies from the get-go." Conservative Balloon Juice: "While on one hand, this is a deeply cynical maneuver to quell reports of CIA perfidy both past and present, it does illustrate one of the problems created by the Plame investigation -- will leakers feel safe to leak the classified information the press and public needs."

Liberal Rob Schumacher: "It's disturbing that classified information (Plame's identity, the existance of these prisons) seems to leak out of DC like water leaks into the Titanic... but in this instance they should not only investigate the leak, but the substance of the leak as well." Right-leaning Instapundit: "Another leak probe is getting started. I think these may become a regular thing when classified information is published. Thank the New York Times!"

Hugh Hewitt quotes Senate Min. Leader Harry Reid alleging that Cheney was behind the Plame leak, and comments: "It was a through-the-looking-glass moment, where Harry Reid embraces his inner Michael Moore. It may work in the fever swamp, but I doubt very much if ordinary Americans think much about these wild charges other than that they indicate a Senate minority gone way over the cliff."

Weekly Standard's Worldwide Standard summarizes the admin's critics: "First, the cry of many anti-Bush liberals was that Bush officials "pressured" intelligence analysts to reach the judgments made in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate. When that line of attack was torpedoed by two bi-partisan reports ... they descended into cuckoo-clock land with another conspiracy in which a secret cabal forged those Niger uranium documents to push the U.S. into war. That fizzled the other day when the FBI weighed-in. The latest is that Bush officials presented the intelligence to the American people in a dishonest campaign to rush us into war."

FRENCH RIOTS: Among The Thugs

Captain's Quarters notes that the 13th night was the worst yet: "So new social programs don't work, and a heightened yet tentative police response has prompted a more significant attack on French infrastructure. Torching cars might signify localized discontent run amok; firebombing the subway system looks a lot more like a terrorist attack. Will the media understand the significance of the tactical adaptation, or will it continue to pretend that this is nothing but youth running wild?"

OxBlog's Patrick Belton writes from France: "I'd arrived at Aulnay-sous-Bois yesterday expecting a seething cauldron on just the point of boiling over. What I found was quite different, and surprised me. Aulnay has seen the worst violence of any of the banlieues to date, but its housing projects had their windows open, laundry hung out to dry, music and laughter spilling out from within; the streets were filled with children playing. The only odd inkling this was a neighbourhood whose violence this week featured in the news of every newspaper in the world was the procession of the odd burnt car being towed away like a discarded effigy; or, in the case of the Hertz station which lay inconveniently by the Cite de l'Europe, a whole parking lot of them. Someone clearly had a bad experience the last time renting."

THE ALITO NOMINATION: Justice Brownnoser?

UCLA law prof Stephen Bainbridge comments on a Daily Princetonian article which reports that judge Samuel Alito's thesis adviser, prof Walter Murphy, has used Alito's thesis in his own work: "Candidly, and without wishing to give offense to any of my former students, this is pretty rare and therefore high praise indeed. In 17 years of law teaching, I've used exactly three student papers as either research memoranda or, in two cases, by asking the student to co-author a more developed paper with me. It's a very positive indication of the quality of Alito's intelligence."

Via Tradesports, Mattazuma is putting money on Alito to get at least 70 votes in the Senate: "I figure that if John Roberts got 78 votes, Alito will do at least that well. I'm considering the 80 contract as well, it is currently at 9."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Which Newspaper Will Be The First To Start Using The Strike Tags?

Righty Tom Maguire notices that New York Times columnist Nick Kristof has tinkered with an entry on his TimesSelect page addressing mistakes in his previous Plamegate columns. Maguire points out that Kristof's updating policy is not as transparent as blog standards, and adds: "Mr. Kristof's paragraphs on the question of whether [ex-Amb. Joe] Wilson told him that he had debunked forged documents, and whether Wilson could have done so, have been extensively re-written -- the bits I excerpted and criticized have disappeared, so Mickey Kaus and I appear to be discussing a different entry from the one currently on offer. Well, that is one way to stump the critics. Mr. Kristof's new entry does preserve the theme of the old one -- Wilson *might* have debunked specific signatures and dates, rather than the broader question of whether the deal actually happened. Well, yes, and pigs might have flown."

In a 10/30 column, Time's Klein described an e-mail circulating among conservatives that was critical of Bush 41 NSA Brent Scowcroft, who has caught some flak for his New Yorker-printed criticisms of the current admin. Klein had not seen the e-mail himself, but reported it as "talking points about how to attack" Scowcroft, and quoted an anonymous GOPer saying: "I was so disgusted that I deleted the damn e-mail before I read it. But that's all this White House has now: the politics of personal destruction." But in the most recent issue, Weekly Standard's Scrapbook section described it as "about as ad hominem as a seminar paper." WSJ's James Taranto and National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru both received the e-mail in question, and agreed that Klein got it wrong. Ponnuru wrote: "It was not a how-to guide about attacking Scowcroft, and it did not make any personal attacks on Scowcroft. Instead it explained why the author regarded Scowcroft's specific points and general philosophy as wrong. Is that a terrible thing for the White House to do?" Now Real Clear Politics' John McIntyre posts the full e-mail, and concludes: "We will let you decide who is really doing the smearing in Washington these days." Kausfiles concurs: "If you can't send that around then you can't have a useful argument about policy."

QandO's McQ fisks ex-CBS prod. Mary Mapes' comments in an ABC News story. From ABC: "Mapes says she is continuing to investigate the source of the controversial documents whose authenticity was seriously questioned by the CBS panel." McQ responds: "She could team up with OJ." More from the ABC: "She tells Ross that she had no journalistic obligation to prove the authenticity of the documents before including them in the "60 Minutes II" report. "I don't think that's the standard," she said." Wizbang's Paul: "Huh? Any journalist can make any attack against the President of the United States and the authenticity of the accusations is irrelevant? Why not ask him if he stopped beating his wife yet?"

X-FILES: Because There Weren't Enough Nixon Comparisons Floating Around Already

Capitol Hill Blue, described by Wonkette as a "political rag that also functions as a tin foil hat," reports that the Bush admin. "has compiled dossiers on more than 10,000 Americans it considers political enemies," apparently including ex-Amb. Wilson, CIA "operative" Valerie Plame, filmmaker Michael Moore, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), columnist Joe Conason and lefty bloggers Markos Moulitsas and Wonkette herself, Ana Marie Cox. Tennessee Guerrilla Women: "Unfortunately, this is all too believable." Lonewacko: "Of course, this report might not be true in whole or in part. It might be an anti-Bush smear. Or, it might have been intentionally leaked: either they have this information and this is a threat, or they want to make their enemies think they have this information." Via Technorati, we mostly see liberal bloggers hoping that they are on the list as well.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Midas Click?

Tech blogger Dave Taylor explains Google Adsense: "I realize that $0.20 [per click] doesn't sound like much money, but if you have a few hundred visitors a week, and some percentage of them click on these adverts, you could easily make $20-$50 or much (much!) more from your site each week, without having to do any work other than add the special AdSense code to the pages in the first place." Loaded Mouth's Tas takes issue with the promise of easy blog money: "Folks, let me tell ya something: Loaded Mouth gets thousands of visitors per week, and I made dick of Google Adsense. If you have thousands of visitors a day, or if you beg your readers to click on your ads, then you'll make money. But otherwise, stop dreaming. And don't listen to people like this Dave guy."

LEST WE FORGET: Stacked

Aaron's CC has launched a project called "Deck O' Bloggers 2005." He's taking suggestions, and posts sample cards showing Hugh Hewitt as the King of Diamonds and Michelle Malkin as the Queen of Hearts. He writes: "Link-whoring? Yeah, a bit. But how much are a piece of custom photoshopping unique to your blog, a good laugh and bragging rights worth?"

Posted by at 12:49 PM

November 08, 2005

11/8: (D)-Day?

There are GOV elections in VA and NJ, CA and OH have inits on the ballot, and a handful of other states and cities will go to the polls as well. A substantial section of today's edition has been given over to following the last-minute gossip and maneuvers, but Hotline will have more: Be sure to keep checking Hotline On Call later in the afternoon, into the night, and (fingers crossed) maybe even later for the latest election upates.

Meanwhile, there's all kinds of political debate out there unrelated to today's races. Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) has apparently been caught plagiarizing a blogger -- but the blogger doesn't actually mind. After months of lefty pavement-pounding on WMD intel failures, now a handful of conservative blogs are asking pointed questions about ex-Amb. Joe Wilson and, of course, the French. Why did Scooter Libby call up Tim Russert, and what does Laura Bush think of Karl Rove? A few bloggers report what they know. Meanwhile, the French riots are still news, while torture is back as a hot debate topic. And don't miss the return of the Blogger Spotlight.

ELECTION DAY '05: Which Candidates Are Praying Most For A Recount Scenario?

Liberal community blog Daily Kos has an open thread (i.e. a short post with a comment board open for free discussion) devoted to election day. At conservative community blog RedState, there is also an election day open thread.

At The Corner, NRO's John Miller writes, he'll be voting for VA AG Jerry Kilgore (R), but "alas, I suspect that Democrat [LG] Tim Kaine will be holding a victory party tonight. He predicts a GOV victory for Sen. Jon Corzine (D-NJ) over GOP businessman Doug Forrester as well, and defeat for all of Schwarzenegger's inits: "This looks like a day for the Ds."

VIRGINIA GOVERNOR: Virginia Is For Voters

Commonwealth Conservative's Chad Dotson, at RedState, on Kaine's polled lead: "I looked at the crosstabs, and immediately noticed about a dozen screwy numbers, starting with the fact that Democrats were way oversampled. Well, SurveyUSA has now admitted that their poll was screwed up. For all intents and purposes, the race for Governor remains a dead heat." Oliver Willis: "I'll note that the Kilgore's campaign tactic in the last two weeks is to scream that Kaine is 'liberal, liberal, liberal'... and Kaine has gone up in the polls."

One Man's Trash predicts a win for "Kilgore by the narrowest of margins... around half a percentage point." Blue Dog Steven Sisson predicts a 52-44 Kilgore victory. Meanwhile, Dotson is hosting a prediction contest.

Early last p.m., Daily Kos posted an MP3 of the GOP robo call (see 11/7 Blogometer), plus transcript. Swing State Project points out that the RGA specifically is behind the calls.

Dem-leaning Raising Kaine: "Yesterday afternoon and evening, even after the Kilgore campaign was fined by the State Board of Elections for its campaign shenanigans, many of us received yet ANOTHER phony Republican robocall aimed at suppressing Democratic turnout today."

While UVA prof Larry Sabato was out fielding reporters calls and offering election commentary, bloggers Rick Sincere, Waldo Jaquith and Norm Leahy took over his campaigns and elections class "to discuss the internet and bloggers and their impact on politics." Sincere has a full rundown, and notes: "We tried to address the future of blogging, and all of us pretty much agreed that it is not possible to say where political bloggers will be in even just a few years."

NEW JERSEY GOVERNOR: Whichever Way You Vote, Just Vote For Change

At the official Corzine Connection blog, BOPnews' Matt Stoller writes: "I've been as sickened as anyone about the tone of this race. But three nights ago, I went to a house party on embryonic stem-cell research, and found that despite all the vicious negativity, we cannot afford to think that politics doesn't matter. It does." Liberal BlueJersey posts a Dem release asserting there are GOP "dirty tricks" afoot this a.m.

Conservative Enlighten-New Jersey agrees with a blogger who calls toend "one-party rule in Princeton Township. We second that notion and would extend the thought to include the entire state of New Jersey. It may be an uphill battle to curb government spending and bring meaningful property tax relief to the Garden state, but if you don't vote for change, there isn't any possibility we will get change."

NJ-based centrist Jeff Jarvis: "It's election day in New Jersey. I'm voting for Jon Corzine and I will have the rare chance in my Republican enclave of a town to vote for Democrats for the local board, which has been dominated by the GOP -- and a lot of snippiness -- for years. The problem is that even ... our Republicans, our town fathers and mothers spend like drunken Democrats. Power corrupts. Absolute power gets us parks that are lit like Nascar tracks, road projects that look like Donald Trump's driveway, open-space purchases that are utterly unnecessary, cars bigger and nicer than mine for town bureaucrats, and more ways to waste tax dollars."

Mindles Dreck, at libertarian Asymmetrical Information: "Don't you love a NJ gubernatorial campaign? Forrester and Corzine have been running negative ads for weeks, and the recent lot from Forrester have gone pretty personal, raising a morality charge dressed up as a conflict of interest (well -- okay, it is a conflict of interest, but that's not why it's airing). It reminds me of the good old days when the [Dem ex-Gov. Jim] Florio campaign ran an ad saying [GOP GOV opponent] Jim Courter had 'toxic waste in his backyard.'"

CALIFORNIA CABLE: How Bad Does Arnold Need This For '06?

CA-based Jayson Javitz, at PoliPundit: "I'd be stunned if *all* those measures were to pass. The MediaCrats simply have thrown too much money and muscle against them. Then again, I'd equally be as stunned if *all* those measures failed. We have ballot referendums out here every single election cycle. In almost every instance at least 1-3 conservative measures ... are adopted." Meanwhile, Mystery Pollster explains just how and why polling shows that Schwarzenegger's inits are likely to fail.

Damnum Absque Injuria's voter guide round-up is about twice as long as it was when we 1st wrote about it (see 11/3 Blogometer). Among the notable contributions is one from conservative Professor Bainbridge and DAI proprietor Xrlq himself.

Slate's Mickey Kaus makes up his mind to vote for Prop 77, Schwarzenegger's redistricting init., and explains his decision much the same way he explained his vote for Schwarzenegger in '03 -- in a few hundred list-laden words, plus crucial post-script caveats.

OHIO BALLOT: Or Reform It Later

Getting less attention out-of-state is OH's "Reform Ohio Now" inits. They include redistricting, but where the CA measure is backed by its GOP gov., the measures here are backed by Dems and liberal groups. At Rep. Brown's Grow Ohio, Tim Tagaris asks site readers to e-mail everyone they know with a letter he posts to the site. Meanwhile, a diarist at RedState makes a lengthy argument against the inits.: "The amendment package being sold to Ohio Voters as "Reform Ohio Now" has the potential to tarnish and trash the election procedures in Ohio which have been fair, open, fraud-free, and managed with integrity for most of Ohio's history." Conservative Bizzy Blog has posts on each of the issues being voted on. More at Ohio 2nd and Brewed Fresh Daily.

MIDTERMS '06: The Twelve-Year Itch?

Conservative FlynnFiles asks: "Does an '05 Democrat victory mean bigger things for Democrats in '06? Probably. But they shouldn't count on a reverse repeat of 1994. Between" WH'92 and the '94 midterms, Dems lost a GA SEN runoff, a TX SEN special election to replace Lloyd Bentsen, "scores of officeholders, including two U.S. senators," defected to the GOP, and lost "all of the major regularly scheduled '93 off-year contests. Nothing so dramatic has occurred in the lead-up to 2006's elections."

Lefty David Sirota writes at Huffington Post: "In a breathless, frightening, foaming-at-the-mouth diatribe on the right-wing fringe site" Newsmax, SBVT leader John O'Neill announces he is targeting SEN candidate/Rep. Bernie Sanders (I), in a letter Sirota writes is "filled with wild lies. The truth is, Sanders has been one of the most outspoken advocates for this nation's veterans." O'Neill writes, "with the unique rules of the Senate... where all it takes is one maverick Senator to really gum up the works, Sanders is about to turn into a dangerous liberal wrecking crew. Just like it was critical for us to stop John Kerry, it's now just as important that we stop Bernie Sanders from reaching the Senate." O'Neill asks readers to donate to the campaign of Sanders' GOP opponent, Lt. Col. Greg Parke.

FRENCH RIOTS: What's So Funny 'Bout De La Paix, L'Amour Et De La Sympathie?

A Captain's Quarters reader writes in to point out that "both American and French media sources warned of coordinated Islamist action against France in the weeks before the riot." On 9/27 AFP reported that an Algerian group had "issued a call for action against France"; a 10/19 Washington Post story warned of similar activity. CQ's Ed Morrissey concludes: "The Islamist connection might get ignored by the media now, but when it involved Iraq as a training base ... they had no hesitation in writing about it. One wonders why they have suddenly developed amnesia about it now."

Conservative Incite: "The real effects of the French riots will become apparent later on, and they will have less to do with the actions of the French State than with the actions of the international Islamic terrorist threat. The Islamic terrorists have long seen and understood the potential of using Europe's Muslim population to further their agenda, and have long had a significant presence in France. The scale and coverage of these riots, however, has probably surprised even them, and will encourage them to focus more of their efforts and resources on the promising European front."

Andrew Sullivan: "I'm concerned about Muslim extremism in Europe and fear the worst. But I have to say that the reporting so far from France does not conform very closely to fears of an explicitly Islamist insurrection."

Conservative Don Surber, on the Euro's 2-year low, coincident with the French riots: "I hate to admit this, but I am glad to see this hurting the wallets of Warren Buffett, George Soros and other unpatriotic Americans who bet against the dollar in wartime."

Liberal The Peking Duck writes: "Nothing is more depressing than seeing those on the right jump for joy over the Muslim youths rioting in Paris. They're thrilled because it confirms how dysfunctional and bad France is, and confirms that Muslims are animals. ... It's about poor disaffected youth on the fringes of society, warehoused in project housing with no hope and no future. The rioting may be totally wrong and inexcusable, but at least see it for what it is. It is not a 9/11-like attack, but the result of many years of stigmatization and poverty. First try to understand it, then criticize it. Is that too much to ask?"

In a post titled "Restrain your schadenfreude!" The Radical Centrist disagrees with that sentiment, but concedes: "I have to admit, there is a certain satisfaction oozing from many posts out there. Certainly of the 'I told you so variety.' Even more common are the breathless predictions of worsening, leading to raging conflict across the continent. No one has had the nerve to say it yet, but you know that a thousand hands are eager to type the words 'a quagmire for Chirac.'"

In a lengthy and much-commented upon 11/6 post, Lenin's Tomb calls the reaction of the American right "Islamophobia," and criticizes Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy for inflammatory rhetoric: "I should also point out that Sarkozy has not suddenly come to this rhetoric anew, as if prompted by the riots into an intemperate fury. He has been saying this stuff for months."

PENTAGON: From The Judge's Chambers To The Torture Chambers

In early summer, Amnesty Int'l released a report calling Gitmo a "gulag"; as the 6/2 and 6/3 Blogometers show, it was the subject of much debate between right and left bloggers. At Volokh Conspiracy, the pseudonymous Juan Non-Volokh revisits the question again, on account of the Washington Post's much-discussed report of secret prisons. While he supports the so-called McCain Amendment to protect military detainees/stop prisoner torture, he adds: "I would like to underline my ultimate position: Not every mass murder is comparable to the Holocaust. By the same token, not every secret detention is comparable to the Gulag. In my view, the overuse of such comparisons undermines our ability to recognize the varying magnitudes of various evils." At Crooked Timber, Kieran Healy snarks: "Nice to see a fine legal mind at work on such a hard problem. How difficult is it to enumerate the differences between what the U.S. is doing at the moment and what the Soviets did? Let's see. Millions of people are not being spirited away to labor camps in Siberia. Whole segments of society are not being brutally annihilated. Dick Cheney doesn't even speak Russian! QED, they are not gulags." Healy defends the Amnesty report as tactical, and concludes: "Juan thinks that Amnesty's 'hyperbole deadens the sensitivity to moral distinctions in public discourse.' To the contrary, his priorities on this issue are themselves evidence of a withered moral sensibility." At Balkinization, Marty Lederman responds to Non-Volokh as well, arguing that "there's no need to resort to recycling of ancient complaints about over-heated Amnesty International rhetoric that you already flogged to death five months ago. There are plenty of stories in the press every day now that would benefit from greater exposure." He lists a few such as Cheney and new CoS David Addington defending the use of waterboarding in the U.S. In the original Volokh Conspiracy post linked above, Juan Non-Volokh answers his critics.

Left-leaning Mark Kleiman writes at his recently rechristened blog -- now called The Reality-Based Community -- that while he could possibly, maybe find an exception to his opposition to torture (i.e. to prevent a terrorist attack), but considering "there are not such circumstances, I'm comfortable sticking with the absolute rule. Isn't it extraordinary how it's the people who reject moral relativism and insist on the black-and-white difference between good and evil who argue for making exceptions when it comes to torture?"

Righty radio talker Hugh Hewitt suggests that McCain's amendment will come back to haunt him: "McCain's opposition to Cheney will also be part of the GOP's electorate collective memory in 2008. McCain's problem is that many people view his every action as the product of self-serving calculation, and a need to be seen as being "apart" and "different." Even on the issue of harsh interrogation of detainees, McCain's very public approach based on his long imprisonment and suffering only reinforces his profile as a man who not insists on being heard, but insists on being seen as being heard."

WMD INTEL: Oh, The Theories You'll Hear

Tom Maguire passes along a report from the "interesting, sometimes accurate" World Net Daily, about ret. Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely saying "that Wilson mentioned" wife Valerie Plame's "status as a CIA employee over the course of at least three, possibly five, conversations" in the FNC green room in DC during '02. The Strata-Sphere compared transcripts, and found a half-dozen times between late '02 and early '03 when the 2 were on FNC from DC at close times.

James Lewis writes at right-leaning The American Thinker: "There are an amazing number of French fingerprints all over the Plame-Wilson affair. ... The truth about the French connection came out when [Italian middleman Rocco] Martino confessed in court that the French had given him the forged document to peddle to various intelligence agencies," as a "stink bomb" to blow up in the U.S.'s face and avert the war. That failed, Lewis writes, and so: "Enter our hero, Joseph C. Wilson, from stage left. ... Did French intelligence urge Wilson to make his trip and enlist his wife Valerie to propose him? Without that trip ... Wilson had no special claim to any expertise about Saddam's weapons. It was Valerie Plame who was the CIA WMD expert, but it was Wilson who became the front man." Conservative Macsmind writes, according to the Senate Intel report, "there is no doubt that Wilson went in 1999 (under the guise of investigating a 1998 deal), to broker what I believe were ongoing sales of Uranium from Niger to other rogue nations including Iraq. Of course detractors note that since France controlled the mines, this would be impossible, but the findings of the Oil for Food Scandal are shedding a differing light on COGEMA. In essence, what you had was a "cake" laundering operation, and the "washing machine" was the cache located at Al Tuwaitha. So long as the amount remained the same, no one would ever know." Mark Noonan, at Blogs for Bush: "The deeper you go into this story, the worse it gets for everyone except President Bush and team." Meanwhile, The Left Coaster's eRiposte argues (in a much longer post) that there really was no French connection: "The evidence shows that he was working partly for the French Government but only as a source for them. He wasn't hired by the French to disseminate his materials to other agencies or groups. He was trying to sell them the information. Also, this claim deliberately obscures the fact that the French intelligence was not the source of the CIA's first three Niger intel reports, it was SISMI [the Italian agency]."

AEI scholar Michael Ledeen, himself sometimes insinuated in the forgery scandal by liberal bloggers, writes his own account of these theories for NRO, channeling late CIA counterintel dir. James Jesus Angleton. Matt Yglesias responds to Ledeen: "The fascinating thing about this theory (aside from some basic plausibility problems), to me, is what it implicitly says about the Bush administration. They were not only so gullible, so eager to hear what they wanted to hear, that they could be duped by crude forgeries, but this level of gullibility was so intense that Jacques Chirac and co. could count on it sufficiently to pass them forgeries that were deliberately made crude and unconvincing."

In recent weeks, "Hardball" has focused closely on Rove, Libby and the rest of Plamegate. This week host Chris Matthews is revisiting questions about how the Bush admin. sold the war. Crooks and Liars posts video from a segment on the 11/7 show.

BROWN VS. HACKETT: It Could've Been Worse -- At Least It Wasn't A "Neil Tennant Moment"

Cleveland Plain Dealer's Koff reports this a.m., a letter from Rep. Sherrod Brown was 90% "plagiarized" from a recent post by liberal blogger/labor activist Nathan Newman. Brown spokesperson Joanna Kuebler "said she found Newman's work when researching labor issues. Brown's legislative staff confirmed its accuracy, and Brown then signed the staff-prepared letter. Added Kuebler: "We should have cited it, and we didn't. The Republicans were rushing to confirm Alito, and we wanted to collect as much accurate information as quickly as possible." Quoted in the article, Univ. of Chicago prof/blogger Daniel Drezner compares it to Sen. Joe Biden's (D-DE) borrowings from British Labour Party leader Neil Kinnock in his WH'88 bid.

For his part, Newman is angry at the Plain Dealer, not Brown: "So a Sherrod Brown staffer used some lines from one of my blog posts. Who frigging cares? This is a ridiculous story ... If the crime is plagarism, then you think they'd want to talk to the victim before running it. But what about the real victims, the workers denied minimum wage, family leave, or a day in court to challenge racial and gender discrimination because of Alito's decisions?" He adds: "This was hardly a literary blog post using deathless prose for the ages. It was the facts that made this post interesting, not its literary value."

Democracy Guy: "Sherrod wanted a letter on Alito, asked his staff, which like all good entrenched incumbent staffs is lazy, and so used to just trolling around on the blogosphere, they cut and pasted this column, and that was that. Who's gonna know? ... There's a lot about Sherrod's use of the blogosphere that should be disclosed, but isn't."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Revving Up Russertgate?

Attempting to answer the question of what Libby had called Russert to complain about back in the summer of '03, Kausfiles "hears, through trustworthy and knowledgeable sources, that in his conversation with Russert Libby gave vent to the archetypal (and wrongheaded) charge that Matthews was animated by anti-Semitism -- presumably because Matthews talked a lot about 'neoconservative' Bush aides and war supporters ... If that was Libby's complaint, it would help explain why NBC wanted to keep quiet about its exact contents. Not only does it potentially bring up a wild, hard-to-refute issue that the network would rather not have to deal with -- but Libby's jag is also something you wouldn't forget, or make up, which would make Russert's testimony extremely convincing at trial." Kaus contacted Matthews, who would confirm nothing, but said: "Scooter thinks anytime anybody uses the word 'neoconservative' it's anti-Semitic. ... I'm sorry. It's an ideological term." TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt calls it an "interesting theory," considers exceptions or problems with the theory, but ultimately lets it stand on its own.

Conservative Hugh Hewitt: "On the day of the indictment, I asked on air how Russert can be allowed to cover a major trial in which he will be a central witness. It is a conflict-of-interest as big as the Titanic, with a Titanic-like result possible for NBC's reputation."

BLOGS VS. THE FEC: Tonering It Down

Last week, FEC commish Michael Toner (R) posted to RedState a message of support for HR 1606, which aimed to head off possible new FEC regs. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) -- another recent RedState contributor (see 11/3 Blogometer) -- was defeated. Now FEC co-commish Scott Thomas (D) has a post up at RedState explaining his opposition to the bill. In the first comment, Skeptic's Eye's Allison Hayward posts a rebuttal.

BLOGGERS VS. BLOGGERS: Bananas In Pajamas?

Accidental Verbosity's Jay explains his decision not to participate in the soon-to-launch Pajamas Media network: "I was excited by the original PJ concept. I grew more skeptical over time, and what it ended up being bore limited resemblance to the plan as presented to me in one of the early NDA invitations. Change isn’t automatically bad, as things sometimes don’t work out as expected or prove viable, but it looked too different, and lost the main incentive it had for many of us: shared revenue and clout for distributed advertising across many small blogs." Picking up on that post, Bogus Gold agrees: "I wish this kind of endeavor much success. But I'd be lying if I said I thought Pajamas Media's specific venture struck me as sound. I'm sure I lack the understanding of those closer to the project, but the product that is emerging strikes me as a guaranteed loser. Best case scenario? Much like the dot-com boom produced a number of well-financed failures which made a lot of people rich despite the implosion of the businesses underlying them, Pajamas Media might squeeze some sizable quick bucks out of some big players before they disappear." Meanwhile, The Classless Society's Scott Ferguson calls attention to PJM founder/LGF blogger Charles Johnson's "obsession" with Islamic violence, linking to a Google search backing up his point. He adds: "To be fair, most of the estimated 133,000 drops are not unique. According to Google (at the time this was posted), only 908 are. Still, it does show a wee bit of tendentiousness in this soon-to-be-major-media-executive's viewpoint regarding a religion with more than 800 million believers." PJM launches next week; among the latest contributor bios posted to their site are those for Michelle Malkin, WSJ's Claudia Rosett and the "Matt Drudge of porn," Luke Ford.

In a post encouraging Bush to fight back against his Dem detractors, Power Line's John Hinderaker wrote: "The Democrats are mounting the most scurrilous political campaign that has been seen in American politics since the Civil War." Right-leaning Andrew Sullivan gave the quote his "MALKIN AWARD NOMINEE (for shrill right-wing hyperbole)." Left-leaning Brendan Nyhan: "So apparently, Democratic criticism of the war in Iraq is more scurrilous than, say, the defenses of segregation offered by Strom Thurmond or George Wallace."

BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: The Bald And The Beautiful

Today the Blogometer talks to conservative Juliette Ochieng, who writes Baldilocks.

What is your full name?

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng

What is your age?

44

Where did you grow up?

Los Angeles, CA

Where do you live now?

Los Angeles, CA

What is your occupation? Have you ever worked on a political campaign or for the mainstream media?

Retired Air Force (Active Duty and Reserve). No[, no campaign work].

When did you start blogging and why?

July 2003. I had been reading blogs for about a year and had been thinking "I could do that," so I did.

What has been your favorite post, or favorite story to write about, in that time?

The bogus AWOL accusation leveled at George W. Bush exposed a mainstream media so ignorant and disdainful of the American military that the media thought it knew military rules and regulations better than the military itself did. It was a pleasure to write those posts and disseminate information from a knowledgeable standpoint.

Describe your typical blogging schedule. And what is your average output?

I am a very undisciplined blogger, but that's changing. I find that my writing gets better and more enjoyable if I set myself to a schedule (first thing in the morning). Getting caught up in reading the writing of others is the biggest hindrance to that schedule.

One to three posts per day is roughly the usual. I also think that it's mandatory to skip one or two days of posting; a "weekend," though not necessarily falling on the traditional weekend and not necessarily consecutive days.

Who is your favorite political blogger? Favorite non-political blogger?

Right now, Jeff Goldstein of Protein Wisdom. He's tenacious. And funny. And weird. A great combination.

Non-political blogging? What's that?

Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?

Christopher Hitchens

What is your favorite television news program, either network or cable?

"Special Report with Brit Hume"

What MSM-produced websites (i.e. newspapers, magazines) do you visit on a daily basis?

New York Times, Washington Post, Yahoo News, Times of London and others.

What non-MSM websites (i.e. blogs) do you visit on a daily basis?

Little Green Footballs, Protein Wisdom, Instapundit and others.

How often, or do you ever, read a newspaper in its dead-tree (i.e. print) form?

Rarely; only when I'm separated from my computer. It will probably become never when I get a laptop.

How do you see the new media and old media affecting and influencing each other in the next five years?

The new media will make the old media more honest and the old will make the new more accurate.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Laura's Theme

Bull Moose Blogger/ex-GOPer/DLCer Marshall Wittmann: "The new CW contends that while Rove was a genius at winning elections, he is abysmal at governing. This wisdom will be advance by the Bush Kennebunkport clan in their Hatfields and McCoy-like feud with the Bush Crawford Clan. ... The Moose has reason to believe (he will do a 'Judy Miller' before he reveals his inside sources) that the First Lady holds this view." More: "Rove created the concept of Bush as a Governor and then as a President. However, the Bushies of K have always viewed him with suspicion. Not only has Karl been disappointing, but the other minder of Junior, Dicky C. has also let down the Kennebunkport bunch. As the President plummets, their views are in the ascendancy."

LEST WE FORGET: Maybe We Shouldn't Tell You There Are Blue Balls Linked In This Post

Trust us, just click here. And make sure the volume is turned up.

Posted by at 12:43 PM

November 07, 2005

11/7: Paris Is Burning

As the week opens, conservative bloggers have kept their focus on the unrest in France, which has now been going on 11 nights. Meanwhile, liberal bloggers continue pressing numerous questions about the WH and pre-war WMD intel.

For conservatives, the former is a troubling, if vindicating, example that Muslim immigrants are a bigger problem than Europe admits; among the liberals commenting, most point to unemployment and social inequality as the real problem. And re: the latter issue, Dem-leaning bloggers want the Dems and MSM to keep pushing for answers about various intel claims that proved incorrect; to the extent that GOP-leaning bloggers are looking at the same issues, they focus more on the credibility of the admin's accusers or how it's being covered by the MSM.

Plus, bloggers covering the '05 elections in NJ and VA, and the special in CA, are blogging up a storm in anticipation of the 11/8 vote. We'll keep tabs on what we can.

FRENCH RIOTS: And We'll All Come Criticize The Intifada

>> Nearly all of the commentary comes from the right -- Little Green Footballs has termed it the "French Intifada," over the weekend counting off Day 10 and Day 11 while citing news links and joking about the "Grim Milestone" of 100 cars burned. LGF's Charles Johnson thought the media overused the term "grim milestone" when the 2Kth U.S. soldier was killed in Iraq (see 10/26 Blogometer). According to Memeorandum, conservative columnist Mark Steyn's latest for the Chicago Sun-Times was one of the most-linked stories over the weekend, all by conservatives. Among them, Betsy Newmark: "What will probably happen is that enough people will be arrested that the nightly stories of mass riots will stop. The politicians will pretend that they've done something to stop the violence. But that won't be the end of it, of course. Just imagine the opportunities for more rioting as all these hundreds of arrested come to trial." Ranting Profs' Cori Dauber is among those exasperated with the MSM coverage; 1st for being slow to clue in, 2nd for ignoring the War on Terror angle: "Yesterday the AP had an article explaining that the riots in France were all about unemployment. Today the Post has an article from one of their own reporters, and she helpfully explains that really all that burning is just a cry for recognition. How does she know? She asked a bunch of the kids who've been doing the burning, and after all they ought to know." Another is EU Rota: "Old journalistic axiom: 'If it bleeds, it leads.' New journalistic axiom: 'If it bleeds and doesn't shatter leftist myths, it leads.'" Some can't resist having a bit of fun at the expense of the French. Aussie Tim Blair spins the thousands of cars burned as a good thing: "Torched cars = more walking = reduced need to visit gyms. French social policy triumphs again!"

>> From the left -- AMERICAblog's Chris in Paris: "The focus on the right seems to be more about the violence and political finger pointing than the actual problem behind the problem. Of course something needs to be done about the violence but instead of cowboy politics which seem to almost dare the rioters to try again, there should be more time spent on discussing the root cause." On 11/5 he discussed these causes in greater detail. European Tribune's Jerome a Paris calls it a "real political crisis for the government, caught between the Le Pen-light shenanigans and provocations of [Interior Minister Nicolas] Sarkozy (which are strongly approved and encouraged by a good part of the 'law'n'order' rightwing crowd in the country, but criticised by a majority today, including the moderate right)) and the silence of the rest of the government, led by [PM Dominique de] Villepin, which was hoping that the crisis would burn Sarkozy but did not expect to be caught in the flames as well."

>> Centrist Joe Gandelman, who supported the Iraq war, takes seriously the possibility that France's failure to assimilate its Muslim immigrants is a big part of the problem: "Writers and analysts of varying viewpoints have been writing for years about a simmering problem there with its Muslim population."

>> More conservatives on the riots -- Sister Toldjah; Counterterrorism Blog; Captain's Quarters; Roger L. Simon; The Right Coast; Belmont Club.

WMD INTEL I: From I.L. Libby To Al-Libi

On the left side of the 'sphere, one of the most-linked articles was New York Times' Jehl reporting that the U.S. suspected since early '02 that a captured al-Qaeda member, al-Shaykh al-Libi, who had told of an Iraq-Qaeda connection was probably a "fabricator." The DIA report was uncovered at the behest of Senate Armed Forces Cmte ranking Dem Carl Levin. The Times story was announced ahead of publication by E&P, noting the Levin memo.

>> The Times story got links at the top of Huffington Post, from righty Bush critic Andrew Sullivan, and widely-read community blog Metafilter. Think Progress summarizes statements from the Bush admin. based on "false evidence" that apparently came from al-Libi. At The American Street, Mahablog's Barbara O'Brien points out that the captured Qaedist was "not the only intelligence source later uncovered as a fibber. For example, an Iraqi exile code named 'Curveball' was the primary source for the ephemeral mobile biological weapons labs. And there is Ahmed Chalabi, beloved of neocons, who has been accused of feeding the Pentagon all manner of misinformation." The Left Coaster: "Was it a sudden re-growth of guts and balls that did this, or did the Democrats now come into possession of new information that was withheld from them before the election that gave them the club to force this issue out into the open now? We now know the answer, and it is the latter."

>> Pro-war bloggers have not ignored the debate entirely, but there's nothing like a swarm around it -- Under the header "Obligatory Bombshell Blogging," Balloon Juice's Tim F quotes an excerpt and adds: "Quelle surprise." Winds of Change's Dan Darling argues, Libi "he did end up eventually telling his interrogators more than simply that Iraq was training al-Qaeda operatives, as [ex-Sec/State Colin] Powell recounted at the UN in the terrorism portion of his presentation that ... everyone including Levin agreed upon in the [Senate Intel] report 'was carefully vetted by both terrorism and regional analysts.'"

WMD INTEL II: Maybe If It Was A TPS Report It Would Get Done Faster

In the 11/14 Weekly Standard, publisher Bill Kristol pens an editorial calling on Bush to fight back against Senate Dems like Min. Leader Harry Reid, who said the Bush admin. "manufactured" pre-war intel. In the piece, he cites the "bipartisan Silberman-Robb commission" as having "found no evidence of political manufacture and manipulation of intelligence." But liberal bloggers object; Josh Marshall quotes a selection from the report which says the commis. was "not authorized to investigate how policymakers used the intelligence" they had. Marshall asks readers to submit further examples. Duncan "Atrios" Black cites New York Times columnist David Brooks as bringing up Silberman-Robb on the 10/4 "News Hour." Atrios, a well-known as a Brooks critic, asks: "Does PBS care that they employ a liar? Does the New York Times? Sure, people just get things wrong sometimes but when winger central sends out the talking points and they all obligingly repeat them, that's not just getting things wrong that's being deliberately full of shit." Crooks and Liars cites Senate Intel Cmte chair Pat Roberts. Arianna Huffington cites Coburn on "Meet." Media Matters filed an early entry on 11/3, noting Rush Limbaugh, the Wall Street Journal and FNC's Major Garrett as making the same claim.

Liberal TAPPED's Sam Rosenfeld writes, the Senate Dems' win on the forthcoming Intel report coincides with the agreement of both House caucuses to settle their differences and hire a new Ethics Cmte counsel, allowing ethics complaints about DeLay and Bob Ney (R-OH) to be addressed. He asks: "What are the prospects for any of these inquiries amounting to more than whitewashes? It's not hard to imagine Roberts and his fellow Republicans signing off on a grudging and halfhearted judgment of administration deceptions that should satisfy no one."

There's always more speculation out there -- Talking Points Memo notes an Isikoff/HosenballNewsweek story noting that the FBI concluded it did not know the origin of the Niger forgeries without having interviewed Rocco Martino, the Italian businessman who came forward with them. TPM disagrees with the implication of their assertion that U.S. officials couldn't "compel" testimony from him: "I don't know what the Bureau's authority would have been in such a case. But whether they had any power to compel Martino to talk is irrelevant because they didn't even try to contact him while he was here. Conservative A.J. Strata sees a completely different cover-up, one that has the CIA using Wilson's trip to cover their own missteps, and as part of the CIA's ongoing "war" with Cheney and the WH: "The number of people who knew Val was CIA is increasing every day (note to Fitz) and more and more this 'outing' appears to be cover for something else. Those Niger trips had nothing to do with the Iraq war and the rationale for going to war."

BUSH: How Long Before More Conservative Bloggers Are Calling On Rove To Step Down?

Although the above debates relegated Bush, dep. CoS Karl Rove to the back burner, what is being said isn't very good news for him. More conservatives

Heritage's Mark Tapscott lists and debates lost opportunities and other errors by the Bush WH, and finally concludes: "It seems clear now that Karl Rove is indeed preoccupied with defending himself in the Plamegate scandal and avoiding indictment ... That means Rove can't do what he has always done -- keep Bush and the administration focused and moving forward on the basis of a coherent, aggressive political strategy. In other words, the administration is rudderless. That means it's time for Rove to step aside and the President, for better or worse, to find a new chief political strategist. Before it's too late."

Liberal John Aravosis pledges to keep up the fight: "Tell us again why this known security risk retains a security clearance during wartime? This is our issue, folks. It's time we mounted a campaign to yank Rove's clearances and defend our country against a president who puts personal friendship ahead of national security and the rule of law. I'm open to suggestions for additional ways to get attention to this issue - types of protests, online and off, and more."

VIRGINIA GOVERNOR: Dirty Rotten Scoundrels

On 11/4 conservative No Agenda, a site run by Blogs for Bush's Margolis, called attention to the VA BoE censure of LG Tim Kaine's (D) campaign for having put out fliers made to look like they originated from a GOP source, as the AP reported.

On 11/5, Daily Kos diarist Mlk posted scans of a mailer purporting to be the "Official Democrat and Progressive Voter Guide," with a DNC donkey on the front. Yet the mailer portrays GOPer-turned-indie Russell Potts as the true progressive, not Kaine. Mlk points out: "If you read the fine print, it was produced by" the org. "Virginians for Jerry Kilgore," which supports VA AG Jerry Kilgore (R) for GOV. On 11/6, Markos Moulitsas posted a few of the scans to the front page under the header "GOP dirty tricks," and linked back to the original.

GOPers are skeptical. Margolis asked at yet another site, GOP Bloggers: "Does anyone really believe the Kilgore campaign would resort to the same dirty trick as the Kaine campaign... especially when the Kaine campaign may face prosecution for their scheme?"

Meanwhile, pro-Kaine Raising Kaine reports that NoVA residents are getting robo calls purporting to be from the Kaine camp, but at the end say they were paid for by the "Honest Leadership for Virginia PAC" -- which supports Kilgore. RK: "I would strongly urge everyone to be EXTREMELY skeptical about robocalls and mailers during the next 24-36 hours. Probably, the best bet is simply to ignore them ... Also, make sure you let everyone you know about the Kilgore campaign's gutter politics!"

NEW JERSEY GOVERNOR: Caught In The New Jersey Net

Over the weekend, the Drudge Report called attention to questions about NJ GOV GOP nominee Doug Forrester and Dem nominee Jon Corzine's personal lives. In a BlueJersey post cross-posted to Daily Kos, Juan Melli notes that Forrester's campaign has been implicated in some of the rumors, and calls into question whether anonymous NJ conservative blog Enlighten-NJ.

Meanwhile, Enlighten NJ makes a brief nod to the story, and also writes up a report about deceased individuals being purged from the NJ voter rolls.

In a post titled "We're All Larry Flynt Now," Atrios comments: "Some of us remember a few years back when Monica Madness hit that stories came out about Republican adultery. Salon was universally pilloried for daring to publish the fact that Henry Hyde had an affair. We were told that it wasn't about the sex, it was about the lying, and that politicians, Republican ones at least, deserved their privacy. ... I noticed that had apparently changed when the 'Kerry had an affair' rumor surfaced during the election. There was no effort to justify why it was actually relevant to the election. It wasn't about the lying, or whatever, it was just about the sex. Apparently, now, that's the new standard. Adultery, abortions, whatever, are all fair game. There need not be any bullshit justification, or hook of hypocrisy needed, they're newsworthy in and of themselves."

In a separate post, Melli notes that if he wins, Corzine has hinted to the Asbury Park Press that he will appoint acting Gov. Richard Codey (D) to replace him in the Senate. He also notes via the Bergen Record that nat'l Dem leaders want Codey, and that Rep. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) is "out" of consideration.

CALIFORNIA CABLE: Are These Bloggers Pumped Up Or Are They Pumped Up?

California Conservative posts a "Carnival of Arnold" -- a collection of links to posts by right-leaning bloggers supporting GOP CA Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's inits. Among them, Eric's Grumbles Before the Grave supports Prop. 77, the redistricting measure; Gay Patriot praises Schwarzenegger for pressing ahead with his reform agenda despite strong opposition; and union member The Irish Lass recommends voting the anti-union side of Prop 75.

Meanwhile, lefty SoapBlox California, aka Calitics has been closely watching the Field Poll results showing Schwarzenegger's inits trailing, and highlights the "strange bedfellows" the redistricting measure has brought. While some liberal orgs. support it, one GOPer opposed is ex-Maj. Leader Dick Armey. Notes Calitics: "While Prop 77 would likely mean a slight pickup of seats for the GOP, Ohio's redistricting would likely yield up to 5 new Democrat seats. Armey and many other GOP leaders are concerned about this. Who isn't? Arnold. He officially supports Reform Ohio Now." Swing State Project's Tim Tagaris notes that while a couple of the liberal-backed Reform OH Now inits. are looking like they will pass, the redistricting measure trails.

PENTAGON: Any Means Necessary?

Center-righty Andrew Sullivan points out, before a closed-door session of cong. GOPers on 11/4, VP Cheney made the case for allowing "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment from of detainees if needed to prevent a terrorist attack. As Sullivan describes it: "A man who avoided service in Vietnam is lecturing John McCain on the legitimacy of torturing military detainees. But notice he won't even make his argument before Senate aides, let alone the public. Why not? If he really believes that the U.S. has not condoned torture but wants to reserve it for exceptional cases, why not make his argument in the full light of day? You know: where democratically elected politicians operate."

Political Animal: "If conservatives dislike Dick Durbin's comparison of American practices to those of Hitler and Stalin, they should make clear to Dick Cheney that America doesn't condone the practices of Hitler and Stalin. Because apparently, the vice president of the United States does condone them. Vigorously."

A front-paged RedState diary challenges last week's Washington Post report about CIA prisons around the world, asking: "Do Dana Priest, the Washington Post, the NY Times and the rest of the MSM really care if their reporting hinders our abilty to prosecute and win a worldwide fight against Islamic-based terrorism?" The diary links over to Priest's 11/4 live chat, where about "80% of the commenters seemed upset that she didn't name the 'several democracies in Eastern Europe' who allegedly host CIA covert prisons for special (i.e., top-level Al Qaeda) prisoners."

MISCELLANY: Including, If You Can Believe It, All Of Today's Plamegate Coverage

• Swing State Project's DavidNYC wonders if scandal-entrenched Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-CA) will ride out his term or step down and possibly trigger a special election: "[W]hile DeLay can probably sink his nails in and cling to life, Cunningham doesn't have a friend in the world. If he has any brains, he'll resign if he's indicted -- why would he want to be criminally indicted lame-duck Congressman for a year?"
• Slate's Mickey Kaus wonders why NBC never elaborates on what Libby was calling Russert to complain about in '03. Many in the blogs suspect Libby had called about a "Hardball" segment on Wilson's Niger trip; Kaus writes: "If it was about Wilson, after all, that makes it much more plausible that Libby and Russert at least came close to talking about Wilson's wife's role in arranging the Niger trip."
• BuzzMachine's Jeff Jarvis is perplexed by the fact that New York Times reporter Judy Miller was given a 1st Amendment award by SPJ, and will keynote an upcoming Pajamas Media launch meeting in NYC. Jarvis: "I don't understand how these players can separate her credibility and ethical behavior (as defined by such thing as SPJ's code of ethics) from their own credibility and trust. Like it or not, we in journalism are judged by our worst work and what we do about it. ... My issues with Miller are not political. They are journalistic. She is no longer credible. So why is she selected as a standard bearer for the First Amendment, shield laws, journalism, or any newspaper?"
• Gateway Pundit calls attention to local St. Louis coverage of Jimmy Massey, an associate of anti-war mom Cindy Sheehan and a former Marine sgt. who claimed to have committed war crimes in Iraq. Massey had formerly received positive press from USA Today, but now the St. Louis Dispatch is reporting that Massey's former soldiers and the reporters embedded with him call his specific allegations "demonstrably false or exaggerated."

THE ALITO NOMINATION: Talk Of Nuclear War? Just Alito Bit

What the blogs are saying about the SCOTUS nod of judge Samuel Alito:

THE SCOTUS FIGHT: The Blog Party

On 11/4, the RNC held its latest blogger conf. call, this time to discuss the Alito nod with conservative bloggers. Decision '08's Mark Coffey gives an overview of the whole call. Tim Chapman has a full transcript. Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "I asked two questions, one of which was: 'If the Democrats were to filibuster, would President Bush like to see the constitutional option used?' [WH confirmation team's Steve] Schmidt sidestepped the question." Later on, Matt Margolis from Blogs for Bush asked why the hearings were being put off until January despite the fact that in the past, hearings have been done in as little as a month. Schmidt came across as not being particularly concerned about the delay. This worries me -- just a little bit -- because the Democrats are going to throw everything but the kitchen sink at Alito." James Joyner gripes that Schmidt ducks some of the harder questions, but does pass note "actual news," with (apparently) Schmidt saying: "We have an extraordinary amount of confidence in Chairman Specter." Margolis, on Schmidt on the delay: "He also said with Thanksgiving and Christmas coming up it complicated things. So, the White House is has "no great concerns" with the hearings beginning on January 9th. I, however, still do." Additional commentary from Ankle Biting Pundits and Suitably Flip.

Since last week, Univ. of WI-Madison law prof Ann Althouse has been defending Alito against criticisms of his FMLA ruling; Alito opponents have cited it as an activist and intolerant opinion, but Althouse disagrees. She takes up a Boston Globe op-ed by Harvard prof Larry Tribe, who writes: "You can't help doing a double-take when you read Judge Samuel Alito's opinion holding Congress powerless to compel states to provide family medical leave to their employees." She responds, incredulously: "Is this really by Larry Tribe?" She argues a few specifics of the case that she thinks he left out, and concludes: "Tribe's eagerness to slam Judge Alito shows."

SCOTUS CONFIRMATION: Nuclear Disarmament

Citing conciliatory statements by Senate Jud Cmte Dems Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy, conservative Ed Morrissey writes, the "political momentum of a Democratic filibuster appears to have dissipated over the weekend"; Kennedy said on "Meet the Press," his "only reservation" about Alito "was that the people who wanted the nomination of Harriet Miers withdrawn now seem so enthusiastic about Alito. If that's the basis of Kennedy's analysis, it demonstrates the shallowness of his intellect."

Liberal Crooks and Liars cites Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) saying on "Meet" that he uses his "medical skills of observation of body language" to tell if people are lying "We have Bill Frist making a diagnosis on Terri Schiavo using old video tapes and now we have Coburn saying he can tell if you're lying just by using his keen training in body language. What's up with some of these Republican doctors? I didn't know that studying body language was a course given to doctors anyway. Can somebody find that class given in medical school?"

SCOTUS IMPACT: Business As Usual

Liberal Yale prof Jack Balkin, at his Balkinization blog: "Movement conservatives and religious conservatives are for the most part delighted with Alito. But for those conservatives in the movement who want a return to a pre-New Deal Constitution, or one with significantly reduced federal powers, I've got news for you. Samuel Alito ain't your guy. In fact, the only Justice on the Supreme Court who takes such views seriously is Clarence Thomas, and if he had made his views known at his confirmation hearings, he wouldn't be on the Court either. ... Business interests do not want a constitutional revolution in federal state relations. They want a flexible, agile, and supple federal power that will deregulate selectively to allow businesses with the most political clout to do most of what they want ... That is why we got John Roberts. That is why we are getting Sam Alito."

ROE V. WADE: You Don't Need A Weather Man To Know Which Way The Wind Roes

Tom Maguire writes that the reason "Alito hit the pro-choice side in three of four abortion cases, is that Alito, with his personal ideology checked at the door, is the sort of judge a true judicial conservative can love. If there are social conservatives looking for a reliable vote to overturn Roe, they may be in for a disappointment." He also speculates that Alito "will not be opposed to some whittling around the edges of Roe -- the Partial Birth Abortion ban (See note below) might represent the sort of balancing of interest with which he would be comfortable. However, my guess is that Alito accepts that a core of abortion rights are well established at this point."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: We Must Make Amends

Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum asks: "Do you know how many constitutional amendments have been proposed in just the past year? According to Thomas, there have been 47." He lists them all, denoting which amendments were GOP-sponsored or Dem-sponsored or bipartisan. And Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL), "who is apparently extremely fond of making statements via submission of constitutional amendments, has his own special section."

LEST WE FORGET: Coastal Elites

Baltimore Sun's Vozzella reports on the blogging efforts of MD SEN candidates, with special attention to AU prof/CNN talking head/Dem candidate Allan Lichtman, who "claims to be the only real blogger in the race. He has posted about 20 entries on his campaign blog on issues such as stem cell research, Scooter Libby and the Iranian president's recent statement on Israel. And the responses sure don't seem censored. ... Lichtman says he's just glad to get a spirited dialogue going. 'I'm putting myself out there to get really tested,' he said. 'For a while I was a recommended diary on The Daily Coast.'" Thus, apparently, Vozzella joins a privileged club (according to Google) of transcribers who have mistaken this non-existent site for Daily Kos.

NOTES AND ERRATA: First Regaled, Then Begalaed

In our 11/1 edition we cited ex-Clinton adviser/CNN pundit Paul Begala and James Carville as examples of "consultant/pundits on television who frequently make no disclosure." Mr. Begala pointed out to us that he has done no paid consulting work since leaving the WH in '99; all of the work that he has done since -- including his advice to the KE'04 campaign -- has been unpaid. Rather than "consultant/pundit," it would be more accurate to call him an "activist/pundit." A note has been added to the 11/1 edition to clarify this.

Posted by at 12:49 PM

November 04, 2005

11/4: The Clash Of Civilizations?

While the Blogometer tends to keep its eye on domestic U.S. politics, on some days there's no getting around the fact that many of the bloggers we cover are occupied elsewhere. In this case, it's a story that's been quite big in the right-blogosphere over the past week -- but relatively downplayed by the U.S. media, viz., the nightly riots in the suburbs around Paris, by young North African/Muslim male immigrants. As yet there have been 8 straight nights of violence, and it appears to be spreading beyond the Paris metro area. Bloggers, particularly conservative ones, follow int'l stories with greater focus than at least the TV media does (see: Oil for Food). We won't go too in-depth on the riot stories, but we'll give a sample. Meanwhile, there's plenty of focus on Pres. Bush's low approval ratings, with not a few Jimmy Carter references being thrown about, and a few questions about possible blog-astroturfing. Also: A little of this, a little of that.

FRENCH RIOTS: Or Is It The History That Never Ended?

Conservative The Belmont Club: "The disturbances are no longer about two teenagers electrocuted while fleeing the police. They are now about French presidential politics, race, jobs, immigration, multiculturalism -- with perhaps a touch of Islamic ideology thrown in. As such the riots have become national, Europe-wide and maybe even global events." Dean Esmay tallies up the acts of mayhem, summarizing with "ominous intimations the country may be sliding into civil war," and asking: "Iraq? No, France." Vodkapundit compares the situation to "Escape from New York." Righty humor blog Ace of Spades HQ: "Okay, this isn't really funny at all." Gateway Pundit offers breathless coverage, with some positive words for generally pro-American Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, who has "looked through the multiculturalist smoke from the exploding molotov cocktails to call the rioters 'thugs.'" Southern Appeal: "Just who is rioting in France? The news stories on the Paris riots have been cryptic. Few have been clear just who is shooting at police and burning property. ... The networks won't say it, but what is really happening is a clash of cultures, one Islamic and the other French-Catholic." PoliPundit's Jayson Javitz: "Les Francais are saddled with the following realities: (1) Slow economic growth, (2) a huge welfare state, (3) high unemployment, (4) negative population growth (among their indigenous peoples), and (5) a massive, unassimilated, and largely unemployed lower caste of Muslims (whose population is growing very rapidly). Just extrapolate the inevitable and obvious effects of those demographic and economic trends 20-30 years into the future." No Parasan!: "The night's activity: 400 cars and 27 buses burned in the Paris area. 3 warehouses burned down and many government and administrative buildings hit by fire bombs. Car burnings being reported in other regions of the country. Despite this the French preSS is stating that the violence is down and that there were no riots last night. Now that the French have seen how all of this is being reported in other parts of the world, there is a concerted effort by French media to downplay the violence and show as little of it as possible." Outside The Beltway, on the coverage, such as a short dispatch from the 11/4 New York Times: "The fact that these 'youths' and "frustrated young men" just happen to be Muslim is hardly irrelevant to this story, yet it is ignored in most of these stories and relegated to the last paragraphs of others."

Roger L. Simon prints an e-mail from an American in Paris, who notes that under French law, "you are guilty until YOU can prove yourself innocent" -- "Thus the muslims who were arrested last Thursday night in Clichy-sous-Bois went to prison on Monday! None of that Miranda merde here!" The letter also recognizes some apparent pro-Americanism outside the elites. Neo-Neocon asks, "does this represent a new French underground: the pro-Am