November 01, 2005

11/1: Alito's Way

Today it's almost all about Pres. Bush's pick of 3rd circuit judge Samuel Alito for SCOTUS:

THE FIGHT: Guess This Rules Out A Cameo On "The Sopranos"

Early in the a.m. on 10/31 Matt Drudge launched the 1st salvo in a fight that would continue all day, with a page at his site titled "MEDIA/DNC NICKNAME 'SCALITO' SEEN AS ETHNICALLY INSENSITIVE," citing an unnamed "outraged" GOP strategist saying: "If Alito were a liberal there would be no way Democrats and Washington's media elite would use such a ethnically insensitive nickname. Italian-Americans should not have to face these types of derogatory racial slurs in 21st century America."

Liberal Scott Shields at MyDD was dismissive: "No matter what you think about Judges [Antonin] Scalia and Alito, the similarities are unavoidable. Both were born in Trenton, NJ to parents from Italy and grew up to be conservative judges. The 'Scalito' nickname has been floating around legal circles since 1992. Never before has anyone claimed it was racist." So was Think Progress: "As the media has been clear in indicating, the nickname given to Alito is meant to draw comparisons to Scalia's ideology, not his ethnicity." Sadly, No!: "Y'know, if we lefties were really determined to disparage Alito's ethnicity, we probably could've come up with a funnier nickname than 'Scalito' (I'm thinking 'Judge WOPner')."

Daily Kos' Hunter -- himself Italian-American -- was enraged, firing back: "I will be God Damn F---ing Dead And In a Hole In The F---ing Ground before I let you claim 'Italian American' OR Roman Catholic as a f---ing code phrase for batshit conservative reactionaries whose dismissal of womens' rights, civil rights, worker rights, and pretty much everything else that has made America great make it clear they think all those things are akin to something they would normally scrape off their shoes."

Early in the p.m., Chris Matthews went on MSNBC with what he called a "disgusting document, put out not for attribution" -- from unnamed Dems -- where one of the top complaints about Alito is that he failed to win a mafia case. Said Matthews: "They nail him on not putting Italian mobsters in jail. Why would they bring this up? This is either a very bad coincidence or very bad politics. Either way it will hurt them." Video here. In the document, the relevant header reads: "U.S. Attorney Alito Failed to Obtain Conviction of 20 Mobsters, Saying 'You Can't Win Them All.'"

A still-angry Hunter responded: "Only one problem. Read the so-called 'disgusting' memo. It doesn't say anything like that. Do a search. The word 'Italian' isn't even in it. The whole so-called 'outrage' has been a complete fabrication by Chris Matthews, by Matt Drudge, and by the perennially race-baiting right." He adds: "And -- horror of horrors -- one point out of fifteen talks about a case where as a U.S. Attorney, Alito failed to win convictions of twenty mobsters after the longest criminal trial in U.S. history. Doesn't say anything even remotely implying Alito had any connection to the mobsters except prosecuting them and apparently botching the case. Doesn't say anything at all about Alito being an Italian American."

Liberal Billmon takes a more middle ground position: "The document in question is, in most respects, a run-of-the-mill hit job on Scalito's judicial record. ... But whoever thought it was a bright idea to dredge up an 18-year old mob case that Alito tried, and lost, as U.S. Attorney -- and then stick it in the freaking lead, no less -- really should find another way to make a living, because oppo research definitely isn't their forte."

Meanwhile, RedState got hold of the MS Word document (which they've made available for download; an HTML version is available at Capitol Report), and extracted "metadata" showing where it came from. Mike Krempasky: "Okay -- so who wants to come clean? ... How about one [DNC staffer] Chris Prendergast?" He updates with more info: "Douglas Graham did version 2, Chris Prendergast did version 1, Devorah Adler did version 3." RedStater Dales adds in another update: "They never did change the default title that Microsoft Word put on the document, which was probably the first line in the original document or template: 'how they made their $$, personal holdings, the whole deal' That was the first thing they wanted to get into on any nominee. Personal worth. Finances. As one of the other editors put it, 'naw, it's not personal, is it?'" Conservative Wizbang agrees with: "If you're attempting to mount a sleazy smear campaign ... it's probably best not to electronically sign your name to it."

Liberal DHinMI at The Next Hurrah disagrees that the memo is a smear, but agrees the DNC was "sloppy" in covering their track. DHinMI adds, "it was strange and exasperating to see Howard Dean appear so befuddled at Mathews' charge when the chairman appeared on Hardball much later in the day," especially considering Daily Kos diarist Susan S had called the DNC to "alert" them to what Matthews had said.

The Poor Man Institute applauds Hunter for "blogging like a solar furnace": "Hunter, if you could somehow loan Senate Democrats that spine? About time somebody did." Conservative Protein Wisdom describes it differently: "First, read the hysterical, belligerent rant aimed at egghumping wingnuts (Merlot muscles, is my guess), then stick around for the comments, where it dawns on the conspiracy nuts that Howard Dean is actually taking credit for what they've spent the day attributing to GOP dirty pull. Man. Comedy gold!" Little Green Footballs recognizes Hunter for the "Hilarious Progressive Rant of the Day."

Liberal Nitpicker connects the dots on "how the Right Wing Noise Machine works" -- in this instance, from Drudge to Matthews and back to Drudge again, who posted a complaint by Nat'l Italian-American Foundation chair Kenneth Ciongoli. Back at Daily Kos, Armando points out that Ciongoli is a Bush donor whose son clerked for Alito.

CONFIRMATION: Running The Option

Having taken on the polling duties Patrick Ruffini left behind when he signed on with the RNC, Hugh Hewitt asks his readers whether they are "pleased with" the Alito nod, and if Dems filibuster, "would you favor invoking the Constitutional Option?" Results are here; with 15K+ participating by this a.m., 94.5% approved of the nod, and 93.6% would favor striking down the filibuster.

Conservatives are pleasantly surprised by New York Times' Kirkpatrick, who turns in a mostly positive profile of Alito. Confirm Them refers to the Times as Alito's "cheerleading squad." A guest-blogger at Ace of Spades HQ: "At the end, you half expect them to invite him in to meet the parents, ask the guy if there's any brothers left at home for their friend Maureen [See "Lest We Forget" this edition]. The portrait is that of a man who's brilliant, measured, thoughtful and, most of all, nice." RedState summarizes it as "Shorter NYT": "We're sitting out this hand, guys." Instapundit: "On the other hand, there's this smoking gun: 'As for Judge Alito's trumpet skills, the former band leader said, 'he certainly was no virtuoso.''" But it's a different story over on the editorial side. Liberal Mark Leon Goldberg points out: "If you are looking for a morning dose of righteous outrage over the Samuel Alito nomination, don't miss today's" lead editorial.

Liberal Ezra Klein: "My initial reactions to Alito are very. very bad. Some of my colleagues are more sanguine, but this truly does seem like the nominee we were all fearing. Alito is the reason I wanted to confirm Miers." Although GOPers got just what they wanted, Markos Moulitsas writes, "this is the best possible scenario for Democrats as well. We now have a vehicle upon which to showcase the differences between us and Republicans, between liberalism and conservatism. This is a golden opportunity, and one wisely denied by Bush and Rove with the Robers and Miers nominations."

Washington Post's Babington reports, a "handful" of GOP "moderates could ultimately decide" whether Alito gets on the SCOTUS. INDC Journal's Bill Ardolino is skeptical: "As the card-carrying official spokesman for punch-pissing GOP Moderates, I don't see this happening." At The Moderate Voice, Joe Gandelman predicts the moderates "will be influenced in a tough choice by polling in days to come on how the public perceives Alito." Liberal Matt Yglesias, who opposes both the filibuster and Alito, comments at TAPPED: "All that being said, the worst possible outcome here is one in which moderate Democrats allow Alito on to the bench in order to preserve the filibuster -- a re-run, in other words, of the original 'Gang of 14' deal."

Bench Memos' Matthew Franck: "I have seen a copy of a statement about Judge Alito by Walter F. Murphy, a justly famous and famously liberal political scientist" who "supervised Alito's senior thesis ... and recalls predicting long ago that Alito would become a great judge. Noting their disagreements about some things ... the teacher unhesitatingly endorses the confirmation of his student." Right Side Redux has a testimonial from Mike Lee, son of the late SG Rex Lee, whom Alito clerked for.

Seeing the Forest's Dave Johnson: "What criteria are the right-wing blogs using to determine of Alito is a good pick for the Court? They like the choice because it divides the country. If the Americans who they perceive to be on the "other side" don't like this choice, that's good enough for them." He rounds up a half-dozen quoes from GOP-leaning sites, all stating they are happy with the choice because Dems and Dem allies are upset.

As noted here yesreday, CAP's anti-Alito talking points were cictulated far and wide. Hit and Run's libertarian Julian Sanchez went point-by-point rebutting the CAP/Think Progress talking points: "I haven't got a verdict one way or another on Alito yet, but ThinkProgress' roundup of 'facts' about the nominee's views is less than impressive." Conservative Dan McLaughlin at Baseball Crank takes on another point -- the one where Alito allegedly "dismissed a case in favor of a company where he was heavily invested." McLaughlin sizes up the facts, and disagrees: Nobody's perfect, and judges do make small oversights. But Alito had no actual conflict of interest -- the amount of money involved, in proportion to the size of the Vanguard Funds' holdings generally, meant that the case could not have affected a Vanguard investor, regardless of how large or small the investor's stake in Vanguard Funds was. ... Nor, as it turned out, was there any merit whatsoever to the underlying lawsuit, brought by a litigant who'd spent years trying to avoid paying a legitimate judgment."

Via e-mail, we learn that Bob Brigham, under the auspices of BlogPAC, is preparing an anti-Alito site at Scalito.com.

REPUBLICANS: Making The Right Call

Last p.m., RNC chair Ken Mehlman held his 3rd conf. call with right-leaning bloggers. Although the bloggers all support Alito much more than they did Harriet Miers, that didn't stop them from pressing Mehlman:

• Don Surber: "I asked if the Harriet Miers nomination was a setup. Mehlman gave a long answer -- executive privilege, yada yada yada -- so I asked again: 'No, absolutely not.' Fine."
• Blogs for Bush's Matt Margolis asked: "Comparing the nomination of Miers to the nomination of Judge Alito, Bush went from a stealth nominee to a known conservative with a lengthy track record. Does this mean that Bush realizes his previous strategy was wrong?" Mehlman disagreed with the assumption. Margolis adds: "Well, I may not agree that Roberts and Miers weren't stealth nominees, but I figured it was worth a shot to ask..."
• Others asking questions: Tim Chapman, plus RedState's Erick Erickson and Right Wing News' John Hawkins (the latter two didn't write up the call yesterday).

ROE V. WADE: You Doin' Roe Activities / With Roe Tendencies / Roes are your friends, Roes are Your Enemies

Noting Alito's Casey dissent, liberal Rox Populi asks: "Would love to hear from Libertarian-types on how it would be okay to have a law requiring women to inform their husbands before they get an abortion." Libertarian-type QandO responds: "Libertarians (generally) would not support a law requiring women to inform their husband before getting an abortion. But -- and this is important -- that was not the question before Judge Alito. That question was asked and answered when the legislation was proposed and passed. The question to which Judge Alito responded was whether such a law violated the Constitution. ... The law may still be bad policy, but that's a wholly different matter."

Confirm Them's Andrew Hyman is concerned about Senate Jud Cmte Arlen Specter saying, after a meeting with Alito, that Alito believes Griswold v. Connecticut is "good law" and applies to singles as well as marrieds: "If Senator Specter's report is correct, then Judge Alito is apparently coming awfully close to supporting the doctrine of substantive due process ... which judges like Antonin Scalia have consistently rejected, and which is the Supreme Court's favorite tool for legislating from the bench in cases like Roe v. Wade."

Ann Althouse has an op-ed in the New York Times disagreeing with the claim that Alito and Scalia are identical: "If you're old enough, you might remember how savvy it once seemed to respond to the nomination of Harry Blackmun by lumping him with Warren Burger and calling them 'the Minnesota Twins.'" She points out, however, the 2 split on Roe v. Wade, with Blackmun writing the majority opinion.

FAMOUS LAST WORDS: Reach Up In The Sky For The Roe-zone Layer!

Noting that an Alito confirmation would create the 1st Catholic majority on the SCOTUS, conservative Benedict offers the "Top Ten Changes A Catholic Majority Would Make To The Supreme Court." And giving equal time, liberal poet-blogger Mad Kane offers a set of Alito-related limericks.

NON-SCOTUS BLOGOMETER: Tumblin' Tumbleweeds

What bloggers are saying about everything else besides Alito:

WMD INTEL: A Bit Too "Faster, Please"?

With Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi in DC today, Josh Marshall stays on the Italian connection to the Niger forgeries: "Please let us know if any journalist in Washington today puts a question regarding Italy's role in the Niger caper to Bush, Berlusconi or spokespersons for either man. It won't be as easy as it might have been: their scheduled joint press conference was cancelled and reporters were not permitted to ask questions after the two gave brief statements today at the White House." Meanwhile, Italian newspaper La Repubblica is running a 3-part series on the WMD reports. Nur-al Cubicle translates. The article describes AEI scholar Michael Ledeen and Pentagon officials meeting in Italy with Iranians; the Niger documents are said to have surfaced there. Kevin Drum summarizes, "the implication of the Repubblica article is that not only was the Iranian regime cheering from the sidelines, but the U.S. and the Italians were actively seeking their help. I don't know how seriously to take this. It's obviously plausible, but that doesn't mean it's true."

Ledeen will serving as an editorial board member for Pajamas Media; his bio there went up just last p.m.

On 10/30, Instapundit complained that thanks to the Plamegate case there's been "the development of a new history that's very convenient for a lot of the people peddling it. The new story is that: 1. We only went to war because of WMDs -- that was the only reason ever given. 2. Bush lied about those. 3. He told his lies to Judy Miller, who acted like a stenographer and reported them. 4. Everyone else gullibly went along."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Recuses, Recuses ...

Frequent Tim Russert critic Arianna Huffington takes issue with the New York Times' 10/31 write-up, wherein the Times' Todd Purdum "paints a number of different portraits of Russert," but what "we don't learn is whether anyone has been critical of the way Russert has handled the Plamegate story." She lists 10 bloggers, including those who have been following the Plame investigation the closest. Huffington asked Purdum about this, and he replied: "Hindsight is always 20/20 and if I were doing that piece again, maybe I'd do things differently." She responds, at HuffPo: "But, Todd, you wrote the piece yesterday." Mickey Kaus adds, "NBC has to worry" that the argument will "gain traction" that "because Russert's now a player in the Bush drama, he should recuse himself from covering it."

PLAMEGATE: Plameout?

Brad Blog's Brad Friedman takes up the issue of VP Cheney's 9/14/03 "I don't know Joe Wilson" appearance on "Meet the Press." Suspicious of the charge, Friedman e-mailed Wilson himself, who wrote back to explain "that what Cheney said was 'technically true,' in that 'we have never met or laid eyes on each other.'" More: "However, the presumption that Cheney didn't know Joe Wilson would strains all credulity and common sense. As Wilson pointed out in his email, Cheney was Secretary of Defense during the first Gulf War when Wilson" was acting Iraq amb. He updates later, as TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt reminds him of her 7/05 post about how Cheney claimed during the '04 VP debate "that he never met John Edwards -- along with a link to the photo that shows he lied about that as well."

Gateway Pundit calls attention to a 6/03 speech to the lefty Education for Peace in Iraq Center delivered by Wilson. In the speech, Wilson "says the government sent him there and not the CIA (a lie)," "describes the US as 'occupiers' of Iraq (a shocking statement at the time)" and "says Bush is in office for sex." Early last month, The American Thinker pointed out one line from the event program: "He is married to the former Valerie Plame and has four children."

Libertarian Rand Simberg, on ex-Cheney CoS Scooter Libby: "Given the potential jail time and fines for the charges, I'll be very interested to see if Libby (assuming that he's convicted or cops a plea) gets a harsher sentence than Sandy Berger, someone accused of not only lying to investigators, but destroying archived government documents."

NETROOTS: Protect Ya Neck

It may be an off-year for politics in general, but the past week was a tumultuous one where blogs and campaigns intersect. In the OH SEN DEM primary between Rep. Sherrod Brown and Iraq vet Paul Hackett, a series of events -- including allegations of "conflict of interest" -- led one prominent blogger, Brown consultant/MyDD founder Jerome Armstrong, to suspend his blogging activities until the end of WH '08. In the very close VA GOV election, LG Tim Kaine (D) pulled his ads from a blog which had posted an offending depiction of MD LG Michael Steele (R). While the Kaine situation was separate from the rest, taken together these minor blowups are notable for a few reasons.

First, this isn't the first time these things have happened. During the '04 cycle, ads were withdrawn over controversial posts, some suspended their duties, and bloggers were accused of taking money from candidates (and in some cases did). This suggests that apart from once-off incidents, these have now crystallized as issues the blogosphere will wrestle with for years to come.

One key debate revolves around disclosure. Armstrong is one of a few bloggers-turned-consultants, and in addition to working for Brown, he has written for his blog in a manner consistent with his support for his employer. Numerous bloggers, some of them Hackett supporters, have taken issue with Armstrong's wearing two hats. It got to the point where some bloggers were floating outrageous charges about Armstrong and others, some of which we reprinted here. Blogger/consultants bristle at being singled out for their activities; they rightly point to consultant/pundits on television who frequently make no disclosure at all (cf James Carville, Paul Begala). The difference is that Begala's primary public presence is on a one-way communication device, whereas Armstrong's presence is (was) on blogs, where anyone can post or read negative feedback.

[Update, 11/7: Mr. Begala points out to us that he has done no paid consulting work since leaving the WH in '99. The advice he gave to the KE'04 campaign was done on an unpaid basis. Rather than a "consultant-pundit," today he considers "activist-pundit" a more accurate term for the work he does.]

We spoke to several individuals who work around blogs and consulting, and everyone agreed that disclosing one's conflicts is enough. Yet this hasn't seemed to settle the arguments: How much disclosure is enough? Consider this: last week we noticed that MyDD was running an ad from Rep. Brown. Having written about this already, we knew that all of Brown's ads were paid, none were in-kind, and so potentially Armstrong was making money on both ends: buying the ads and then getting a cut. We contacted him as well as the Brown campaign. While Brown's spokesperson did not follow up, Armstrong told us that most of the money goes to the site's other primary writers, Chris Bowers and Scott Shields. The only money Armstrong receives from the site are go toward site maintenance -- upgrades and a redesign. Says Armstrong: "I lose money on it."

Fair enough. But while Armstrong's bio page on the site does mention that he works for Brown, it wouldn't have settled this question. That the money goes to friends, if not him, is still something of an issue. Among those we talked to was RedState's Erick Erickson, who tells us he would have avoided this kind of ad: "I think that opens a bag of legal worms relating to in-kind contributions."

Armstrong tells us that it "really isn't that big a deal" to him -- he took a break from MyDD during the Dean race as well, so this is nothing new. Recent events "merely speeded up the decision." It may be a bigger deal to others. Nowadays, more bloggers are choosing campaign work over opinionating (see Jesse Taylor leaving Pandagon for Rep. Ted Strickland's OH GOV race). A yet worse outcome suggested to us is that some fear blogger/consultants will simply choose to not disclose at all. There are undoubtedly party activists and consultants on both sides who blog anonymously, and while they may be caught out from time to time, it's impossible to expect they all will be.

Blogging and consulting need not be mutually exclusive activities. But doing so opens one up to questions in a realm where the paranoid style is relatively pronounced. Despite the occasional attempt at a blogger code of ethics, one hasn't caught on and one is not likely to. Therefore, whether it's fair or not, blogger/consultants will have to be very careful.

Meanwhile, GOPers are getting a glimpse of what may be ahead for them. Dems have tended to lead the way in campaign innovation (the primary system, GOTV, use of technology) and while the RNC and GOP campaigns stand to be more blog savvy in the future, their lag behind the Dems in blog-based fundraising or advertising may become a purposeful decision not to participate.

As the case of Kaine and Steve Gilliard's News Blog demonstrates, another unfortunate outcome could be that candidates will by and large opt out of blog advertising. Some well-known sites such as Daily Kos may continue to receive advertising, but the fear of associating a campaign with fringe viewpoints or outlandish commentary may keep campaigns from putting ads on newer sites. And how long will it be before a GOP candidate makes an issue out of the blogs that may be fundraising for the Dem opponent? While some argue that a campaign does not necessarily "endorse" a website they advertise on, that's no guarantee they won't be criticized for associating with it anyway. Speaking as a campaign consultant, would Erickson buy blogads? "I'd be leery." He argues it is cheaper for a candidate to participate in the community, and less prone to criticism. If he did make such ad buys, "I'd keep it to ones I implicitly trust or that have sustained objective credibility" -- but with unwieldy group sites or those with edgier content, "you're asking for trouble."

In the OH SEN and VA GOV cases, it's too soon to judge how it will end for the campaigns, and these blog-related incidents may well not have a significant impact upon them. But already both have produced negative results for the bloggers involved. And if nothing else, they both demonstrate that blogging is already part of politics as usual.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Maybe He Just Forgot About The Memory Defense

At The Plank, Jason Zengerle calls attention to a WSJ op-ed by ex-Bush SG/Clinton critic Ted Olson, which defends Libby by asserting, with so "many phone calls every day -- some on record, some off. It is impossible to remember the details of who said what during which conversation on what day..." Zengerle asks: "Not to get too down and dirty here, but if Bill Clinton was really as much of a horndog as his Republican critics believed him to be ... then couldn't the same have been said about his faulty memory when it came to what he did and didn't do with Monica Lewinsky?"

LEST WE FORGET: "I'm Sorry, Ms. Dowd -- It Is Ms., Isn't It?"

The Minor Lift, The Major Fall takes on Maureen Dowd's epic New York Times Magazine cover story from this past weekend, "with apologies to Raymond Chandler."

Posted by at November 1, 2005 12:14 PM