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 November 18, 2005 12:39 PM