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-Americans? And, if so, how large is it?"

Liberal Booman Tribune affil. European Tribune points out, "the violence visible in the past few days is actually little different to what happens every day in the banlieues, with an average 100 cars burnt per night every day this year." Liberal Ed Cone: "Lots of immigrants to France end up in the grim suburbs of Paris. Many of these people are from former French colonies in North Africa -- it's been said there are more practicing Muslims in France than practicing Catholics -- and racial and religious tensions run high. ... This has been a long time coming."

BUSH: The Downward Spiral

With the Washington Post writing that "a majority of Americans question" Bush's "integrity," and "growing doubts about his leadership have left him with record negative ratings on the economy, Iraq and even the war on terrorism," bloggers -- especially on the left -- have been paying attention. Matthew Gross writes that "it's not about whether the man will remain President (of course he will), but what he'll be able to accomplish as President in his remaining years. The more unpopular and radioactive he is, the less political capital he has to implement his more radical policies." The Moderate Voice's Joe Gandelman asks that "this brings us back to the central question: what can a President DO to reverse this kind of trend? Is the same governing approach -- in Bush's case, appealing mostly to his party's conservative and specifically social conservative base -- viable? Will business as usual mean at best a mere holding action and no more slippage? Or is there a way to get out of the hole by changing the style of governing -- reaching out." The Carpetbagger Report's commentary, titled "Worst... support... ever," says that "every time a new poll comes out showing Bush's faltering support nationwide, I think, 'Okay, now he's reached the floor of his support.' And yet, the floor manages to fall a little further all the time."

Conservative bloggers are seeking to undermine the methodology of the polls themselves, stating that it just can't be as bad as being reported -- MRC's NewsBusters observes that "the breakdown of the respondents once again showed an over-sampling of both Democrats and Independents, and, as a result, a significant under-sampling of Republicans... A poll MUST represent a fair and accurate portrayal of the population, or else it is worthless." Confederate Yankee also notes that it could be worse, noting that "Bush's worst to date is still several points better that the next best in President Clinton, and substantially better than all other presidents of the past four decades. Perhaps naysayers shouldn't crow so loudly when Bush is still at the top of the heap." Right-leaning Andrew Sullivan does believe it, writing, 47% is the "proportion of Americans" in a Washington Post/ABC poll "who strongly disapprove of president Bush's performance. The strongly approve number is 20 percent. 58 percent doubt his honesty. We're approaching Carter-land."

Considering the Washington Post's 11/3 story on Rove's future, John Podhoretz writes at The Corner, the article's appearance is "a bit of a breakthrough because it's one of the few times during Dubya's tenure in the White House that the press has been used as a tool to fight an internal battle. The thing is that Bush hates such things. The other thing is that press secretary Scott McClellan's messy fingerprints are all over the WaPo story, as even Bush will be able to see. The essence of the story is that Karl Rove needs to go because he's made life difficult for McClellan. You have to figure, therefore, that the story was leaked or sanctioned by McClellan ... Tipoff #2 is the idea that what's affecting the White House is less the whole leak affair than its effect on Scott McClellan. Yes, I'm sure people are wandering the halls of the Old Executive Office Building, murmuring to each other, 'I just can't get any work done because of what's happened to Scott!'"

THE ALITO NOMINATION: Chittister Chittister Bang Bang

Last p.m., The Corner noted that Alito's hearings begin Hugh Hewitt: "I can't say I am surprised. To push the Dems would simply trigger the sort of obstructionist tactics that we witnessed on Tuesday. I don't think the extra time is going to do much to help or hurt Judge Alito. The broad themes are already set, and there isn't going to be any sort of blockbuster revelation. And there isn't going to be any filibuster."

Early in the week, centrist Univ. WI-Madison law prof Ann Althouse decided to take upon the task of correcting erroneous or mistaken statements about Alito's ruling on the FMLA in the Chittister ruling. Since then she has been keeping tabs on it, such as here and here. Last p.m., Daily Kos diarist McJoan got a post front-paged by front-page contributor Armando, asserting that in his Chittister ruling, "Alito argued that the FMLA was an instance of unconstitutional congressional overreach." Wrote McJoan: "Luckily for me, Rehnquist led the Supreme Court in overturning Alito's flawed decision." Down in the comments, poster Mmmbeer wrote: "Alito DID NOT, DID NOT, DID NOT vote to make FMLA unconstitutional. That's a REALLY, REALLY, REALLY bad reading of the opinion. If anything, it's an incredibly awful interpretation of the law. I realize that it's a message that lots on the left WANT to believe, but that's just not the case." Armando, Mmmbeer and others proceded to argue out the facts of the matter -- and it grew heated, quickly. Althouse picked up on the thread, as another instance of a liberal commentator having "misstated the law." She argues that Alito sought to strike down only 1 of 2 justifications for the law. Althouse also quoted a handful of abusive comments from Armando, adding: "Just to be clear: Armando is one of the main writers over on Daily Kos, not just some commenter. And Daily Kos is the most widely read blog in the world, with traffic nearly as high as the NYT online." Although unrelated, this week Althouse has already had a small issue with Armando re: his "bashing" of her New York Times op-ed on Alito and Antonin Scalia. Conservative Patterico's Pontifications offers more commentary on FMLA: "The analysis is simple and the accusations are bogus. Any leftist who tells you that Judge Alito ruled the FMLA unconstitutional doesn't know what they're talking about."

Note: The above paragraph has been slightly edited to explain the FMLA dispute better

TNR's Noam Scheiber, at The Plank: "When, other than in the case of an incompetent, is it legitimate to oppose a president's nominee to the bench? Patrick Leahy has one solution to this problem in [the 11/03 NYT]: 'This is the whole issue of ideology, and if the ideology is one that you go in with a predetermined agenda, then I don't care if they are a Democrat or a Republican. They don't belong on the Supreme Court.'" Scheiber adds: "The Leahy standard doesn't make any sense to me. It's impossible for a judge to be devoid of ideology and predetermined agendas. This is a point that college freshmen have beaten into them. Besides, anyone with any intellect should have some ideological leanings. And wouldn't the Leahy standard disqualify pretty much all the current members of the court?"

ROE VS. WADE: There You Roe Again ...

Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum, on Alito's having told Senate Jud Cmte chair Arlen Specter that he supppoorted the ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut: "Now, for some reason it's taboo in American politics for a prospective justice to simply tell us what he thinks of the reasoning in Roe v. Wade, but the next best thing is to tell us what he thinks of the reasoning in Griswold, which is the cornerstone of Roe. As near as I can tell, Alito is going out of his way to signal that he has no interest in overturning Griswold or Roe, and that even his dissent in Casey was a close call. I wonder how long it's going to be before social conservatives cotton to Alito's coded acceptance of Roe and turn on him the same way they did on Harriet Miers? James Dobson can't be too happy about this."

At The Slog, liberal advice columnist Dan Savage asks re: the much-debated "right to privacy": "I find myself wondering why we don't just put it in there? If the Republicans can propose a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, can't the Dems propose a 'Right to Privacy' amendment? Since the RTP is popular (unlike the anti-gay marriage amendment), the Dems should put it out there and let the Republicans run around the country explainging why they're against a right to privacy -- not a winning position. Then, once it passes, we'll be spared the debate over whether or not the RTP is in there every time a conservative is nominated to the Supreme Court."

PLAMEGATE: Wherein Foreign Intelligence Services, The Alito Nomination, And Carville-Matalin All Can Be Found In The Same Subhead

The New York Times tunes in to the Niger connection in Italy today with a story headed "Source of Forged Niger-Iraq Uranium Documents Identified." Liberal Josh Marshall quotes it and adds some more questions: "So back in July, [FBI dir. Robert] Mueller sent a letter to the Italian government providing them with a complete and definitive exoneration of any involvement with the forgeries. A year ago Newsweek reported that the US hadn't received permission from the Italian government to interview [forgery conduit Rocco] Martino -- that despite the fact that Martino traveled to the US twice in the summer of 2004."

Financial Times quotes Sen. Dianne Fenstein (D-CA) she now regrets her vote to authroize the Iraq war: "Had I known then what I know now, I never would have have cast that vote, not in a thousand years." Atrios points it out, noting that DiFi is "off the bus," calling that fact "something which has gone mostly gone unnoticed." Crooks and Liars heard Rep./SEN candidate Harold Ford Jr. (D-TN) say something similar on "Imus" this week, and asks: "Is this the start of something new?"

Conservative Power Line considers: "The Democrats appear to be putting all their eggs in the pre-war intelligence basket, but why? ... I think perhaps the Democrats in the Senate are trying to distract their activist base from the reality of their own impotence. Vital events are, of course, transpiring in the Senate right now, including ANWR drilling--approved today--and, most notably, President Bush's Supreme Court nominations. Nothing is more important to the Democratic base than preserving the liberal orientation of the Supreme Court. But the President has now dealt two hammer blows to liberal control of the Court -- the only branch of the federal government still under liberal control -- in the form of the Roberts and Alito nominations."

Arianna Huffington is not pleased with a recent CNN appearance by Dem strategist James Carville declining to criticize VP Cheney, changing the focus to focus on Bush: "Can somebody please, please, please shut Carville up -- especially about Plamegate. His takes on the scandal are utterly compromised by his marriage" to VP Cheney adviser Mary Matalin, who is "one of eight founding members of the White House Iraq Group, a witness in front of the Plamegate grand jury, and a close friend of Scooter Libby."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: TimesSelectivity

As reported at the New York Times and elsewhere, CPB chair Kenneth Tomlinson resigned/was removed from the board. His departure comes a day after CPB's Inspector Gen. delivered a report critical of Tomlinson. Liberal Suburban Guerrilla: "I think it's safe to assume that, like most GOP resignations, it's a reliable sign of an upcoming scandal." Echidne of the Snakes: "It may be too late to save the PBS. At least my local station has been taken over fairly completely. I recently listened to an evening of solid wingnuttery. I can get this from any commercial network without the pretense of erudition. And the CPB is still firmly in the claws of wingnuts." Free-market Chicago Boyz: "Another government-backed-media controversy. Of course when there's any question of bias in the other direction, most (all?) of the critics cited in connection with this PBS dispute are only too happy to live with the status quo.

Slate's Mickey Kaus notices about New York Times columnist Nick Kristof's correction to his original '03 "Kristof's response is on TimesSelect -- non-members like me can't read it, even if we go down to the store and buy a copy of the NYT print edition." He adds: "Here Kristof may have hit on the marketing breakthrough that will save TimesSelect. Call it TruthSelect. Here's the plan: Have the columns in the print edition contain flagrant inaccuracies. Figure out what the accurate version of events is, but print the corrected, accurate versions only on the restricted, premium portion of the Web site, where people have to pay $49.95 to get at them. The B.S. is free. The truth you have to pay for!" Conservative JustOneMinute runs excerpts of the correction, considers what it means, and generally finds it inadequate.

WHITE HOUSE '08: PMDawn

Centrist Dem/ex-GOPer Marshall Wittman calls the recent events in DC PMD -- "Politics of Mass Destruction" -- "The blinding brilliance of Rovian pandering to the base has sent the President's popularity down into the Jimmy Carter 30's," while "the Democrats are in a full throated Dean scream." He writes, "it is quite possible that both parties will field candidates who challenge the prevailing polarizing partisan dynamic in American politics. There is more ample room for a progressive independent force to emerge in both parties. ... In the Democratic Party, an outsider could very well emerge who promises a new type of bi-partisan politics that is not driven by rage but instead by bringing the country together around a reform and progressive message. More on that later."

MyDD's Scott Shields: "When I saw the headline yesterday that [ex-Senate Dem leader] Tom Daschle was calling for withdrawal from Iraq, I have to admit I rolled my eyes and chuckled a bit. Daschle wants to run for President in 2008, but I can't imagine he's got much of a chance. Especially in recent days, Harry Reid has shown how hard Daschle really could and should have fought the Bush administration when he led the Democrats in the Senate. I can't imagine Daschle getting very far because to many Democrats, he's the face of capitulation. But he was spun so hard by the Republicans that, in many other eyes, he's the face of obstruction. Neither bodes well for him."

BLOGS VS. THE BELTWAY: Astroturf War?

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas picks up on an Arkansas Times story reporting what looks like blog-astroturfing on behalf of ex-Rep./ex-DHS Undersec. GOV Asa Hutchinson (R). He asks, how does one "prevent these astroturf blogs? It's impossible. It can't be done. It's easy as dirt to set up an anonymous blog, and all the regulation in the world can't do a damn thing about it. Campaigns wouldn't be so stupid as to run these things inhouse anyway, and if they did, existing CFR laws would already apply. Rather, they'd recruit sympathizers and volunteers. But really, even sympathizers and volunteers have First Amendment rights to talk about their favorite candidates and bash their opponents. Or does political Free Speech extend only to the apathetic and uninvolved?"

Democracy Guy observes that an advocate of Columbus Mayor Mike Coleman's (D) GOV campaign has been posting under multiple aliases at his site and at MyDD and Grow Ohio as well.

ABRAMOFF: Is No One Live-Blogging This?

TAPPED's Sam Rosenfeld: "Despite the fun and drama from yesterday's Indian Affairs Committee hearing, the question still does remain as to whether John McCain is pulling his punches and selecting his probe's targets carefully, given his past assurance that he would not be going after elected Republican officials. That Interior Secretary Gale Norton emerges so unscathed from an inquiry that has uncovered rampant and flagrant corruption on the part of her immediate subordinate is, for one thing, a bit odd."

CALIFORNIA CABLE: Last Action Governor

Matt Szabo reports on the "unmitigated disaster" for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA), where he was asked overwhelmingly critical questions. He writes: "Another clear finding from the forum: $100+ million in television advertising really, really works. The vast majority of the questions were at minimum premised on the union-funded television arguments, and in most cases lifted language from the ads directly. The anti-Schwarzenegger forces have saturated the air waves with their messages -- and they clearly took hold with this audience."

BACKLOG: An Insider-Outsider Perspective

On 10/28, CBS News "nonbudsman" Vaughn Ververs asked at the official The Public Eye blog considers whether Memogate scandal would have gone to air had The Public Eye existed in late '04, and admits he doesn't know. One "question that continues to be asked is: Are the documents fake? Nothing I've seen leads me to believe they are authentic. ... In any case, it was CBS' responsibility to prove they were authentic, not for anyone else to prove they were fake." In 5 parts, he answers the "tougher question" of "whether CBS accounted for itself properly." Re: the in-house Thornburgh-Boccardi report, he writes: "My biggest quibble with the report concerns its finding that they could not find a political bias behind the story. As in the case of the documents, the lawyers found that a lack of absolute proof left them unable to make that charge. But there are several things that make a pretty convincing circumstantial case of some type of bias to me." He concludes: "For Public Eye's purposes, I came to this feeling the whole affair was largely in the past. I still feel that way. My hope is that, in some complicated way, writing this now -- before events potentially stir up an old hornet's nest -- will help Public Eye move forward cleanly with our true mission."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Exonerating Daley?

Freakonomics author Steven Levitt: "I met one of (the elder) Richard Daley's grandsons yesterday. Great guy. At the risk of poisoning a possible friendship, I just had to ask him whether his grandfather really stole the election for Kennedy in 1960 through vote fraud in Chicago. He said no. And I believe him. I once had a research assistant spend a month going through old voting records to find any evidence of fraud in the 1960 presidential election in Illinois. We couldn't find a thing. There are lots of ways to cheat that we wouldn't have detected, but the easiest ones we likely would have found. Honestly, I was shocked we found nothing."

LEST WE FORGET: What's This About Vegetable Stock?

From Timothy McSweeney's Internet Tendency's latest collection of Friday Lists: "Reasons Bloggers Hate the Mainstream Media."

Posted by at November 4, 2005 12:27 PM