November 02, 2005

11/2: Catch-21

The talk of the blogosphere is Senate Min. Leader Harry Reid's surprise move to call the Senate into secret session on 11/1, which persuaded the GOP to expedite the release of the Senate Intel Cmte report on pre-war WMD intel. To say lefty bloggers are enthusiastic would be an understatement -- the left has complained for years that Dems don't adequately stand up to Pres. Bush and the GOP, particularly on the Iraq war. For them, Reid's gambit was more than adequate.

It's arcane enough that not a few bloggers are digging up facts about the rule itself: At Technorati this a.m., while popular searches include Microsoft's latest web venture and readers hunting for a free version of John Tierney's latest New York Times column, the top 10 search phrases include "Rule 21" and "Closed Session".

And it also continues the zig-zagging focus of the blogosphere since last week -- on 10/27 WH counsel Harriet Miers withdrew from SCOTUS consideration, on 10/28 prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald indicted ex-WH aide Scooter Libby, on 10/31 Bush picked judge Samuel Alito for the court, and then last p.m., Reid made his move. We can only assume tomorrow the blogosphere will be buzzing about Cindy Sheehan.

WMD INTEL: Top Secret!

According to Memeorandum, the Crooks and Liars post providing video of Reid on the floor of the Senate invoking the rule was one of the top-linked posts of the past 24 hours.

While never a major topic itself, the whereabouts of the cmte report has been raised occasionally in the blogosphere, by those such as American Prospect writer Laura Rozen at War and Piece (see 10/20 Blogometer).

Reid himself writes at his Give 'Em Hell, Harry blog: "This past weekend, we witnessed the indictment of [ex-VP CoS Libby] and a senior Advisor to President Bush. Libby is the first sitting White House staffer to be indicted in 135 years. This indictment raises very serious charges. It asserts this Administration engaged in actions that both harmed our national security and are morally repugnant. The decision to place U.S. soldiers in harm's way is the most significant responsibility the Constitution invests in the Congress. The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really about: how the Administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions." There are nearly 500 comments added to the post. A representative comment: "You rock!! Please don't stop fighting for the American people. Please find the truth!"

Talking Points Memo: "Well done. Reid forces Frist and Roberts to stop blocking the senate investigation into White House manipulation of WMD intel prior to the Iraq war." Daily Kos' Hunter lists several reasons why the move was "political brilliance," and adds, it is "also a perfectly executed response to Bush nominating Alito yesterday with zero Democratic input. You don't warn us what you're going to do? Then we won't warn you either. Surprise!" Liberal Las Vegas Gleaner applauds the move, adding that "it could get pretty dicey for Reid and some of his Democratic playmates if they end up having to eat crow of their own over the Iraq vote. Rightful, but dicey." Mark Schmitt, at TPM Cafe: "I have a theory about Congress, which is that there is often a moment when the effective majority switches, when the minority takes control of the agenda well before an election. It happened in 1994 when Gingrich forced the Crime Bill back to conference. ... I think the same thing just happened today." At AMERICAblog, John Aravosis suggests sending Reid flowers: "I'm serious about this. It's a small gesture, but quite a nice one, I think. It's important to realize that Senator Reid and his staff are real people, and a heartfelt thanks goes a long way towards inspiring more good deeds like the one we witnessed today."

At Huffington Post, lefty David Sirota poses a series of questions about the war that he wants answered. Such as: "Why did President Bush say in 2002 that 'Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program' when two critical reports -- an IAEA one from 1997 and a CIA one from 2001 -- made clear that there was absolutely no evidence of that claim? And why in 2003, did both Condoleezza Rice ignore these intelligence documents and insist that Bush's nuclear claim was 'absolutely supportable' when in fact it was not?"

Over on the right, reactions differ -- Michelle Malkin speaks for many when she calls it a Dem "temper tantrum." But at The Corner, John Podhoretz calls it "politically canny." With the "political momentum" moving Bush's way with "shocking speed," the Dems are "staging a counterassault against the president's effort to change the political story of the moment. ... It may not work, but there's no sense pretending this is a dumb thing to do. It isn't." Captain's Quarters: "This shows the emptiness of Democrats, both in head and heart. As Bill Frist said afterwards, the minority party proves it has nothing to contribute except cheap political stunts." Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "Presumably, Reid needed a closed door session to prevent the public from witnessing the spectacle of Democrats making fools out of themselves..." Conservative Balloon Juice was somewhat irked at the surprise nature of the move, but wants to see the report as well: "I do not see what the problem is with an investigation into pre-war intelligence, although I can see that the potential exists for manipulation of the intelligence for partisan benefits on both sides." Professor Bainbridge: "So does anyone agree with me that Harry Reid's stunt today likely was at least as much about sending a warning shot re the nuclear (aka constitutional) option as WMDs?"

ROVE: Maybe Lott Just Doesn't Read Conservative Blogs ...

Appearing on "Hardball" on 11/1, ex-Senate Maj. Leader Trent Lott asked, "how many times has the top political person become also the top policy advisor? Maybe you can make that transition, but it's a real challenge." Kevin Drum: "Lott has nursed a grudge against [WH dep. CoS Karl] Rove ever since Rove declined to lend his support during Strom Thurmondgate a couple of years ago, so this is hardly surprising. But what is surprising is that Lott actually picked exactly the right reason for recommending his departure." Crooks and Liars has video. Stephen Spruiell at NRO's Media Blog: "So just to be clear, Lott didn't say he thought Rove should resign, but he did question whether Rove should be making policy decisions. I think it's a fair question. I think Rove has been responsible for several bad policy decisions -- like signing the Farm Bill and enacting steel tariffs, to say nothing about prescription drugs -- that were made for political reasons." Then again, he adds, Rove's "absence ... caused Bush to panic and pick" Miers for SCOTUS.

THE ALITO NOMINATION: Where Did Everybody Go?

Although Alito was the hot topic just 24 hours ago, Reid's surprise maneuver last p.m. sucked all the oxygen out of the SCOTUS debate.

Adam C at RedState: "If Democrats oppose Alito strongly for solely ideological reasons we will have passed the point of no return. Before Judge Bork was "borked" nominations were generally opposed for one of two reasons: ethics and a lack of qualifications." Dems opposed Bork for ideological reasons, but GOPers still voted en masse for justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Adam C worries: "If Democrats oppose Alito strongly for ideological reasons, Republicans will adopt the same tactic when they are out of the White House. ... This is a more divisive process than it should be. And injecting judicial philosophy tests into the voting process will make it worse. Democrats have the chance to repudiate their effort to politicize this process, but this is really their last chance."

Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas advises, "given the tenuous hold on power of the Republican Party, do Republicans really want to ditch the filibuster? Because it won't be long before Democrats retake the White House and congress. And it sure will be nice to need just 51 votes to pass legislation and confirm nice, solid, liberal judges. I say test the GOP. If we don't use the filibuster out of fear they'll pull the nuclear option, then there is no practical filibuster in existence anyway. Force them to pull the trigger. Let's see just how confident they are in their 'permanent majority' status."

SCOTUS: Anti-Alitism

An 11/1 editorial in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel includes this line that has conservatives up in arms: "In losing a woman, the court with Alito would feature seven white men, one white woman and a black man, who deserves an asterisk because he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America." Brainster's Blog: "Can you imagine the furor if somebody were to point out that David Souter shouldn't count as a white man because he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream white America?" Power Line's John Hinderaker writes, "the liberals at the Journal Sentinel apparently think that Supreme Court justices are like House members who represent constituencies, and are supposed to vote according to the wishes of those they represent. That's a stupid idea, obviously. But stay with it for a moment. If that is their theory, then why do the same liberals consistently praise Supreme Court decisions that frustrate the wishes of most Americans?" Don Surber: "I guess in the eyes of the Wisconsin newspaper, black people should know their place -- at the feet of liberals." QandO: "The really funny thing is that such an attitude is what's now known as "progressive" thinking." Protein Wisdom's Jeff Goldstein calls it "the apotheosis of progressive identity politics played out in a major newspaper editorial in the most baldfaced way I have ever seen."

At Volokh Conspiracy, Todd Zywicki points out that if Alito is confirmed, "three of the most conservative Justices ... on the Supreme Court would be a black man raised in Georgia poverty and two Italian-Americans, all Catholic as well. This group traditionally has been Democratic and liberal in orientation, which adds to the puzzle. Perhaps this is simply an isolated coincidence, but I wonder whether this demographic fact says something deeper about the nature of modern conservatism and political alignments in the country." His guess is that the justices are drawn to conservatism because it supports a "meritocracy where one is judged on your character and ability, and not on your connections or demographics. ... All that is asked is for the opportunity to enjoy the blessings of a free country and to compete on equal terms."

PLAMEGATE: Slowly Morphing Into Russertgate?

Tom Maguire quotes from a 10/3/05 CNBC interview, where Andrea Mitchell said of Plame's being a CIA employee: "It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community." For months, Maguire has been among those unsatisfied with Russert's statements about what he knew. But now he goes to the indictment, which states: "Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew it." Maguire: "Perhaps the defense will stage a bit of a show -- put Ms. Mitchell on the stand and let her explain that she kept her boss in the dark about the Plame/CIA tidbit. Put a few more reporters up there to admit they knew Ms. Plame was at the CIA. Maybe give Mr. Russert an opportunity to explain that everybody knew except him -- after all, he 'may be the capital's most intimidating interlocutor,' but all his colleagues kept him in the dark, right?"

SPENDING: Uh Oh, Time For Another Leak Investigation ...

Townhall's Tim Chapman obtains and publishes an internal e-mail from a Senate Appropriations staffer to other Senate staff, which "highlights the mentality that makes pork-barrel spending so hard to combat." From the e-mail: "The end is drawing near, and since it's been so long, I wanted to check in with you all and confirm your priority lists. Please send me an updated list of priorities. Remember, we will start at the beginning of your list and fund down until we run out of money. So if you spend big... you'll likely only get one or two projects." Chapman comments: "This email obviously comes at a time when the Senate appropriations process is heating up. If Senators want their 'priorities,' or 'projects' -- read pork -- their staff had better be working overtime. Notice that nowhere in the message is any mention of not spending all the money. Rather, there is a distinct emphasis on spending it all, no matter what."

MIDTERMS '06: The Comeback Kid?

With the announced retirement of Rep. Mike Oxley (R-OH), Swing State Project's Tim Tagaris and DavidNYC both push for '04 OH-04 nominee Ben Konop (D) to try again. Writes DavidNYC: "Retirements like this are exactly why you first run longshot campaigns against entrenched incumbents. ... If Paul Hackett can close nearly 40 percent, then Ben Konop can close 20 percent in what is shaping up to be a huge Democratic year nationwide and especially in Ohio."

With the midterms now a year out, Chris Bowers projects a Dem gain of "0-2 seats" in the Senate next year, although a handful of races appear very close. He adds: "While there are other paths to victory, rounding up 51 no votes on Alito would the surest way to guarantee large Democratic gains in 2006."

BLOGGERS VS. BLOGGERS: There's Something About Malkin

Michelle Malkin, syndie columnist turned blogger, is one of the most polarizing figures in the blogosphere -- she is a favorite of many conservatives and detested by liberals. The release of her new book -- "Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild" -- provides an opportunity for her proponents and detractors to go at it again. In the post linked above, Malkin commemorates the event by posting a couple dozen mug shots of individuals arrested for anti-GOP related crimes. Right Wing News' John Hawkins writes: "I read the manuscript before it was sent to the publisher and I can tell you that it's a fast, fun, read."

Meanwhile, the book's Amazon listing has become ground zero for Malkin critics, some of whom give the book 1 star, while others give it a sarcastic 5 stars with comments like: "Michelle rocks!!! She's the coolest advocate of racial profiling EVER!!!" Worth noting: one reason Malkin is disliked by liberals more than the average conservative commentator is her controversial previous book, "In Defense of Internment: The Case for 'Racial Profiling' in World War II and the War on Terror." Though outnumbered, Malkin has her defenders. One writes: "The book has been out for less than 24 hours, and already it seems as if every leftist maniac in North America has not only purchased and read it, but found the time to write some of the funniest hate-speech ever created!" At some point yesterday the negative reviews had been removed -- "a courtesy that they have not afforded Al Franken" -- as liberal TBogg points out; he suspects Malkin complained to Amazon.

Over the weekend, Orcinus' Dave Neiwert, a former newspaper colleague of Malkin's in the Seattle area, argued that Malkin has never been a "professional journalist" -- that she was a columnist, and a frequently corrected one at that.

Also over the weekend, Malkin collaborator Brian Maloney dealt with the question: "What is it about Michelle Malkin that so quickly works liberals into a frenzied state?" Instapundit noted the post for Maloney's argument about liberals' "preemptive attacks" on Malkin's book, which he calls "unwise."

Liberal James Wolcott: "I don't understand why someone as politically keen as The Nation's David Corn would lend his name to the editorial board of Pajamas Media, the greatest assembly of conservative deadbeats since Jonah Goldberg's last fondue party. ... By allowing his name to be slated on the editorial board, Corn is letting himself be used as a figleaf enabling Pajamas to pretend that it's a bipartisan effort instead of what it so flagrantly is, a neocon popstand." Corn responds: "My blog -- along with those of Marc Cooper and Eric Umansky -- will represent the left side of the keyboard. Additional libs and lefties may be signed up, I am informed." He allows that he isn't thrilled about serving on the board with a few of the conservatives present, but others he is fine with. He adds: "I look forward to a new Internet enterprise that seeks to promote varying views, even if the idea came from conservatives."

SHEEHAN: Move Over, Geena

For awhile now we've observed that anti-war mom Cindy Sheehan is only discussed anymore by conservative bloggers. Today is a good example of that. An 11/1 article in the liberal Village Voice calls for Sheehan to run for president. As a Technorati search shows, it got plenty of mention from conservative bloggers, including A-listers Little Green Footballs and Blogs for Bush, but the most we found on the left was a sidebar "news of the day" link at group blog BlondeSense. Other comments: ThinkingRight: "Please, please, please tell me this is for real!!" Brainster's Blog calls it "incredibly naive." Sondra K solicits ideas for "campaign slogans and/or posters."

PENTAGON: Crickets

A Washington Post story on overseas CIA prisons gets mentioned by the bloggers who usually mention it. Right-leaning Andrew Sullivan: "Well, it's all beginning to come out now. The CIA has been operating a secret network of detainment facilities across the globe to capture and interrogate suspected terrorists, facilities that would be illegal in the U.S. and where torture is enforced by explicit permission by the president. ... Just for the record: when the president says he doesn't condone torture, he is lying." Liberal AMERICAblog, on the same: "I know we have to play hardball with some of these guys. But Jesus, using Soviet-era prisons? But hey, don't you dare compare what WE'RE doing to prisoners with what the Soviets or the Nazis did to prisoners."

Update: Er, looks like we blew this one. Apparently it generated more buzz than we'd thought.

BLOGS VS. THE BELTWAY: Hensarblogging

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) posts a diary to RedState, which gets front-paged. He announces a 11/2 House vote on the Online Freedom of Speech Act (H.R. 1606), and calls for blogger support.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Bottle Up And Explode

Brendan Nyhan considers the state of Bush's presidency: "Why did President Bush's presidency seem to implode over the last six weeks or so? I think one factor hasn't been given adequate attention: 9/11. By pushing his approval ratings up so high, it muted Democratic opposition to Bush until late 2003, bottled up virtually all conservative dissent through 2004, and warded off any serious first-term scandals. But now that the approval boost has finally worn off ... all the fundamentals that had been suppressed are kicking in hard. ... In short, the equilibriating forces of American forces are reasserting themselves."

LEST WE FORGET: The Pez Dispenser

Here at the Blogometer, we buy our candy after Halloween. We also don't post anything about Halloween candy until after Halloween. So here's our chance -- check out The Sneeze, where Steve measures, and photographically documents, the effective dispensing of a Halloween-themed Pez dispenser.

Posted by at November 2, 2005 12:18 PM