November 03, 2005

11/3: Politics In Black And White (And Black)

After nearly a week of big stories breaking one after the other, things calmed down a little bit, and perhaps the most heated debate of the last 24 hours centered on race -- black conservatives in particular -- and the MD SEN candidacy of black LG Michael Steele (R) specifically. After that, most of the discussion focused on the Plamegate scandal: Whether WH dep. CoS Karl Rove is about to be pushed out, what exactly NSA Stephen Hadley knew about the Niger uranium forgeries, and criticism of the leak from a perhaps unlikely source. Meanwhile, there's some frustration that the Online Freedom of Speech Act failed, and -- so far as we can tell -- very little being said about the ongoing Jack Abramoff hearings. And for a 2nd day in a row, the SCOTUS nod of judge Samuel Alito takes a backseat to other goings-on.

RACE: Would It Be Racist If They Were Just Throwing Hydrox Cookies?

During the late a.m. and early p.m. on 11/2, a report in the Washington Times about how black Dems condone what conservatives call "racially-tinged attacks" on Steele -- including claims that hecklers have thrown Oreo cookies at him -- got a lot of attention around the blogosphere:

Conservative were unanimously aghast -- New York Post's Robert George, recalling the Steele-related "Sambo" incident (see 10/28 Blogometer) from last week: "So, Steve Gilliard was, in a sense, speaking the truth: He represents a now-accepted view within the Democratic Party. If this is what black liberals wish to stand for now, they are sowing a wind that will turn into a racial whirlwind blowing back on all black candidates in the future." Daimnation heads a post: "Racism -- for a good cause, of course." Baldilocks: "What such people are doing to Michael Steele stems from the same type of mindset out of which white racism and many other delusional phenomena are born: the ability to call a lie the truth in order to justify one's actions or the actions of another." Mark Coffey: "Time and time again we see people, yes, on both sides of the aisle, who are afraid to condemn idiocy because it might be perceived as harming their stance with a particular constituency. Smear tactics of this sort are particularly galling, however, coming from a party that congratulates itself on its representation of minority rights at every opportunity." Baltimore-based The Political Teen: "I hope they keep up the attacks because they're just pushing Steele's poll numbers higher and higher." Betsy Newmark: "If you think that the Democrats are the party of racial tolerance, think again. They only tolerate liberal blacks." Michelle Malkin reposts the Steele/Sambo picture, and comments: "No minority who embraces liberal ideas is ever attacked for being a 'race traitor' or a 'sellout.' These ad hominem attacks are leveled only by the Left, and only against minority conservatives. For the unhinged Left, race-baiting has become an expedient substitute for substantive argument."

Liberals, on the other hand, don't see it as a problem, or didn't buy the story -- The News Blog's Gilliard, who created the original "Sambo" post: "Now, that's not something I would do, tossing Oreos, but it does demonstrate the lack of support he has." Brad Plumer disagrees that throwing Oreos should be considered racist: "Most liberals, give or take, believe some version of the following: 1) power in this country matters a great deal, especially economic power; 2) black Americans, as a group, have very little power -- economically and socially; 3) 'racially-tinged' remarks are vile mainly when they reinforce unjust power relations. So long as you believe these three things, then no, a black progressive calling a black politician 'Sambo' can't possibly be racist. It just doesn't follow." Alicublog agrees: "I give up. This is like trying to develop an argument against people who think peppermints are made out of peppers and mints. If you don't see the difference between Caucasians doing these things to African-Americans, and AfAms doing them to other AfAms, then I can only suggest a remedial class in Life Itself." DC-based Oliver Willis doubts the veracity of the "Oreo" story, writing, "the only source I can find for this happening is from Michael Steele himself, on Newsmax of all places. ... Considering the party he's a member of, and the company he keeps, it's quite possible the whole thing happened in Michael Steele's mind."

On this one, the centrists appear to side with the conservatives -- Donklephant: "Steele is being maligned on the basis of his color because he embraces a more conservative agenda -- isn't that his right? Why should this type of behavior be tolerated, let alone encouraged, in the name of party affiliation?" Centerfield: "It's long been common knowledge that minority leadership is all about power. Whether the minority be African-Americans, gays, or Hispanics, there are always a group of "leaders" who claim to speak for 'the community.' Any viewpoint that presents a challenge to that grip on power is met with absolute hatred."

On a tangentially related note, some conservatives are upset that Rosa Parks' funeral turned into a something of a "Wellstone moment," with largely Dem figures present and political tinges to the speeches -- Pundit Guy appraises the guest list: "Where were the Republicans? Why didn't a conservative member of Congress speak at the event? Who was invited? Where's the invitation list? Was anyone excluded from speaking?" K.J. Lopez: "I learn from Deroy Murdock that in the eulogy Jesse Jackson declared that President Bush 'put forth an anti-Rosa Parks judge.' Must funerals always become political rallies on the Left? And why does the Left get to claim Rosa Parks? Brave American. Inspiring American. Does she need to become a liberal icon?" NRO's Tim Graham follows up, noting that he too was taken back, even if "Rosa Parks is a central political figure of the last century, so you could expect some politics in the memorial, just as you might expect some politics in a presidential funeral."

BUSH: Maybe That Light At The End Of The Tunnel Really Is Just An Oncoming Train

At The Washington Note, Steve Clemons points out that a CBS News poll has Bush's approval at 35% -- just 8 points above Richard Nixon's 2nd-term approval rating. Clemons: "When is that next Patrick Fitzgerald press conference?" John Scalzi: "I can't imagine that the Bush approval rating could possibly get any lower than it is at the moment, but then again, that's what I thought when it hit 39% a few weeks ago." Liberal Steve Soto, on approval ratings: "Clinton's never fell below the mid-50's during the height of the Lewinsky impeachment witch hunt. So, if everything the White House has tried recently to turn things around has failed, I guess there's only one thing left to do: it's time to toss Karl on the bonfire." That link goes to a Washington Post report that says WH aides are "privately discussing" Rove's future, and may seek a "fresh start." Atrios comments: "This seems to be one of those horse head in the bed stories."

Meanwhile at RedState, conservative Mark Kilmer thinks that despite the "appearance of weakness" if Bush asks Rove to step down, he should do so anyway, and that Rove's "estimable skills" could be better served helping ex-Maj. Leader/Rep. Tom DeLay. He concludes: "This President and his White House will be fine. They shoot horses, don't they? No, no need for gun shots or fireworks. The President should thank the man for his service and give him a wristwatch." The argument meets resistance in the comments, but it's a considered disagreement, not knee-jerk.

Jane Hamsher, on liberals haveing said that Rove might not be indicted: "As a rule I don't bash my own side and won't start now, but to everyone floating the 'Fitzgerald's done' story -- you really didn't have any way of knowing that, just a suspicion. And we had ours. You may well be right. And we may well be wrong. But it's not looking good for either you or Rover at the moment."

Blogger/activist Michael Petrelis points out that, according to an interview transcript with State official Karen Hughes, Bush recently added the Koran to the WH library, and is reading it. Petrelis comments: "I must have missed the MSM coverage in October when Bush placed a Koran in the White House library, which Hughes claims is the first instance of the book earning a spot on those shelves. Frankly, I find it hard to believe that up until last month, the White House library lacked a copy of the Koran." Liberal John Aravosis: "He put a copy of the Koran in the White House library AND apparently he's reading it. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But oh the fundies are gonna flip."

WMD INTEL: The Italian Rapscallion

Considering the forged Niger documents, some liberal bloggers have been asking what Hadley learned from Italian official Nicolo Pollari, whom it seems was promoting them. At a presser last p.m., Hadley was asked about Pollari and the documents, and he said: "I have very little recollection of the meeting, but I have no recollection there was any of that discussion, or that there was any passing of documents." CAP's Judd Legum: "People are now asking what they talked about. Hadley says he has 'no recollection' of Iraq's nuclear ambitions being discussed or of any documents being passed. It sure sounds like a denial, but it doesn't mean much." Talking Points Memo: "[N]o one ever said that Hadley got the documents during that meeting. It is a matter of public record that they appeared in Rome a month later and made their way back to Washington via the State Department. ... It's certainly accepted practice for a president's national security advisor not to discuss what he or she discusses in meetings with foreign intelligence chiefs. ... But Hadley is talking," and "But his answers sound suspiciously vague." Another figure mentioned in connection with the documents is AEI scholar Michael Ledeen. Centrist Roger L. Simon notes: "One of things some do not know about Brother Ledeen is that he is fluent in Italian and has spent many years there. (Note to the avid: The Niger documents were in French.)"

Univ. of MI prof Juan Cole: "A proper Senate investigation offers the tantalizing possibility of a Unified Field Theory of the Iraq War fraud. That is, [Doug] Feith's Office of Special Plans, [Larry] Franklin's Pentagon espionage cell on behalf of the Likud Party in Israel, and [Scooter] Libby's campaign against [Wilson and Plame] could all be shown to be inter-related."

Ace of Spades HQ writes, if Senate Dems want to find out how they were "misled into war," they should question "the president" and the Sec/State, and a "warmongering, intelligence-twisting, neocon ideologue" sen. -- Hubs and Spokes posts video of Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) in 10/02 justifying the war on "unmistakable evidence" that Saddam was pursuing WMD. "And when they're done with Clinton, Albright, and Jay Rockefeller, they can start questioning Republicans, too. Fair is fair, after all."

PLAMEGATE: WFB Finds Some New Fans

National Review founder William F. Buckley writes at NRO, "We have noticed that Valerie Plame Wilson has lived in Washington since 1997. ... But even if she was safe in Washington when the identity of her employer was given out, it does not mean that her outing was without consequence. We do not know what dealings she might have been engaging in which are now interrupted or even made impossible." Starting with AMERICAblog, the article got picked up by most of the A-list liberal blogs, including Crooks and Liars, Eschaton, Daily Kos, Firedoglake, Onegoodmove and Rox Populi. None have much commentary to add except to note their agreement and pleasant surprise, except for Firedoglake, which isn't as impressed: "Buckley could've pulled the plug on the yippy Chihuahuas of The Corner calling for Joe Wilson's blood long ago if he cared so damn much, robbing half the blogosphere of its best material in the bargain. He didn't."

BLOGS VS. THE FEC: This One Goes In The Beltway's Column

In a 225 to 182 House vote 11/2, the Online Freedom of Speech Act -- initially proposed by Senate Min. Leader Harry Reid and supported by some in both parties and bloggers on both the left and right -- failed to win approval; though the 225 was a 55% majority, due to procedure, the bill needed 2/3 support.

The House bill's sponsor, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), followed up with a post at RedState: "I am encouraged that this important legislation received the support of a clear bipartisan majority. Most Members of Congress support protecting free speech on the Internet. ... We proved that we can pass this bill in the House under regular order. Working with leadership, I hope we can achieve this worthy goal before the FEC issues new regulations that will prohibit Americans from exercising their First Amendment rights over the Internet."

But Perkins Coie's Bob Bauer doesn't think that will happen, as he writes at Soft Money Hard Law: "In the wake of yesterday's vote, the writing of rules for the Internet -- or the decision to forego them -- has been left to court decision and administrative agency choice. Congress can always return to the subject, but this will not be soon; and as time goes by, and as the rules develop and proliferate, any subsequent Congressional intercession will be denounced as an attempt to 'roll back reform.' This will make still harder the business of reasoned discussion and reasonable decision. This suggestion -- that any disagreement over campaign finance is one between those who support 'reform' and those who oppose it -- is one of the dispiriting features of the current debate. It is meant to stop discussion before it begins."

Markos Moulitsas called the vote "definitely one of those days when we in the netroots got a chance to see who believed and supported our medium and who didn't" -- "I found out that Common Cause, which had given me a personal assurance they would stay out of this fight, wasn't a trustworthy organization"; "I found that Democrats like Pelosi hid behind a procedural argument -- that the way this bill was introduced prevented any amendments -- when the last thing this simple one-sentence bill needed was to be larded up with amendments"; he lists all the Dems who voted for the bill, listing which ones are currently running for higher office or may run for NJ SEN. He concludes: "And the DCCC's Rahm Emanuel voted against it." So far as we've seen, the DCCC's The Stakeholder has said nothing about it.

Update: Mike Krempasky lists the GOPers who voted against it.

Conservative PoliPundit's Jayson Javitz crunches the numbers on the vote, noting that 77% of GOPers supported the bill (i.e. "excluding the Internet from FEC regulation"), whereas just 23% of Dems did so.

THE ALITO NOMINATION: Once You Pop, You Can't Stop

Ann Althouse: "On Monday night, I was on a radio show with law prof Cass Sunstein, talking about the nomination of Samuel Alito, which Bush had announced just that morning. Sunstein stressed a study of 41 Alito dissents, which he had -- amazingly -- completed that day." Sunstein asserted that those dissents "almost uniformly" tilted right; she is skeptical about the speed and lack of specificity, and adds: "I'm not so ready to feel concerned about this. I'd like to see the actual cases. It could be that Alito is just turning out workmanlike analysis where the other two judges were stretching for a liberal result." Althouse adds an update as Sunstein writes in to explain his numbers, and adds: "I confess that I wasn't looking (or hoping) for this pattern. It really surprised me. I really want to be in favor of Alito and haven't made up my mind -- this is a just a source of concern."

Earlier in the week, Blue Mass Group identified NYC-based ex-KE'04 atty Kate Pringle as a former Alito clerk and supporter of his SCOTUS nod: "She emphasized that Alito is very respectful of the litigants in the case before the court, and also of the opinions of his colleagues -- he always looks for common ground and for opportunities to build consensus. She added that he is 'not out there to accomplish a specific agenda,' and noted his respect for "the Supreme Court as an institution." The Los Angeles Times then talked to Pringle, as well as DC atty Jeff Wasserstein, another left-leaning ex-Alito clerk, who says: "He didn't decide cases based on ideology, and his record was not extremely conservative." Conservative Captain's Quarters picks up the LAT story and adds: "Expect to see some of these same names testifying at the confirmation hearings. It will provide a few needed laughs to see Chuck Schumer and Joe Biden try to spin a John Kerry election attorney as a right-wing nutcase for her support of Judge Alito."

Blogs for Bush's Mark Noonan, on reports that the "Gang of 14" may split over the Alito nod: "In the Miers nomination it was proved conclusively that the GOP base cares very much about judicial nominations... and any GOPer, even a centrist or liberal GOPer, crosses the base on this issue at their grave peril."

ROE V. WADE: The Abominable Roe-Man?

A diarist at liberal MyDD points out: "If you've kept a keen eye on the right over the last few days you may have noticed that no one on the right seems to be advocating that Alito will be a vote against Roe v. Wade. In fact the only chatter about abortion from the right-wing conservative intelligentsia concern the claim that Alito's vote against choice in [Planned Parenthood v. Casey] was a nuanced position that doesn't reflect on his actual position on Roe. This from many of the same blogs that were up in arms over Miers' speech in the early 90's praising a woman's right to choose."

REPUBLICANS: The Word Is Getting Out

Over the weekend, ex-Rep. J.C. Watts (R-OK) wrote in the Las Vegas Review-Journal: "Republicans in just 10 years have developed the arrogance it took the Democrats 30 years to develop." That got picked up on 11/1 by Political Wire, was then picked up by Knoxville News' Michael Silence, and then by Instapundit late last p.m.

ABRAMOFF: Crickets, Take Two

One story that isn't getting much play out there, at least not yet, is the Senate Indian Affairs Cmte hearings on disgraced GOP lobbyist Abramoff; hearings began yesterday, and will run throughout the week. DCCC's The Stakeholder live-blogged a bit of it yesterday. Center-left Stygius looks at Interior Sec. Gale Norton's connections to Abramoff, and calls on her to resign.

CALIFORNIA CABLE: Yes, No, Maybe So

Damnum Absque Injuria collects the vote recommendations of fellow Golden State bloggers, and asks, "whether you're a Democrat, a Republican, a Real Republican who wasted his vote on [state Sen. Tom] McClintock in 2003 ... a moonbat Democrat, a Looneytarian or anything else," send him your voter guides.

• California Mafia recommends a mix of yeses and nos, adding: "Having judges draw the lines has worked -- it worked here in the 90s, it works in Iowa, and pretty much everywhere else it has been tried."
• Hugo Schwyzer recommends "no" almost across the board. On redistricting, he gave no endorsement: "I voted 'no,' but it was a close call -- I hate our current system of gerrymandered districts that guarantee no competitive races."
• Greenabbro recommends mostly nos, but grudgingly says yes to redistricting: "Some of the plan's specifics are poorly thought-out, and a clerical error in the submission process could mean that the initiative is thrown out by the courts. Oh well."
• California Conservative and Michael Williams recommend mostly yeses.

Conservative Calblog has set up a Bear Flag League Special Election Page, where League members (i.e. CA residents and expats) can post about the election and the final stretch of campaigning.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: So In One Sense, The Country Isn't Split At All

Conservative WILLisms considers the rise and fall of split-ticket voting: "In 2004, there was less ticket splitting than in any election since 1944." He prints a chart, showing it reached its high point in '84, and adds: "2004 was an election that made people think about their values and ideas. It was an election that made people choose sides. No longer were the two parties "indistinguishable," as some argued in the years preceding 2004. ... No, people had a choice, and they made their choice. Thus, it was an election that should have meant something, policy-wise. It remains to be seen whether the mandate will indeed be actualized.

LEST WE FORGET: Mr. T's Commandment

Whilst ordering an espresso, Mr. T tells LA-based writer Paul Davison: "I pity the fool who has to ask me if I still pity the fool."

Posted by at November 3, 2005 12:34 PM