January 31, 2006

1/31: Just Because You're Paranoid ...

As we go to press, Samuel Alito has been confirmed to the SCOTUS by a vote of 58-42. It's too soon to grab reax on that, but it's similar to what's come before. As everyone understands, the real fight was on 1/30, where the lopsided 72-25 cloture vote effectively ended the liberal blogosphere's efforts to persuade their representatives to block his nomination.

The left-blogosphere's campaign was the latest peak of its strong activist streak. For most of 1/06 and long stretches of late '05, it has been motivated and working toward several goals. In the past, these have included the pursuit of Rep. Tom DeLay, flogging the Plamegate investigation, promoting Cindy Sheehan, and backing the candidacy of ex-House candidate Paul Hackett. In all of those, lefty bloggers had a modicum of success. This time, they had some success getting 25 sens. to vote against cloture. But as with the previous defeats (Hackett's loss, Sheehan's slide back into obscurity, no Karl Rove indictment yet) the taste of victory surely raised expectations. And now there's an unmistakable anger, sense of powerlessness, and in some cases paranoia, throughout the lefty blogosphere. One way of taking power is striking back at the Dems who failed them. And there's a lot of that. Their invective -- and there's plenty of it -- is aimed heavily at the 19 Dems who voted for cloture, but also at the liberal interest groups which failed to mount a compelling case against Alito, and specifically NARAL for supporting pro-choice GOP Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI). Chafee voted against Alito today, but voted for cloture last p.m. Not a few are threatening to renounce the Dem Party entirely, or at least to stop giving money to the party this cycle.

In most cases above, GOP bloggers stood on the sidelines and observed, rather than countering the left head on. This is certainly the case here, where they have no reason to fight -- their confidence in Alito's eventual confirmation has never seriously been shaken -- and so it's a big day for the old right-blogosphere pastime of perusing Daily Kos comment boards to find bitterest responses from what some of them call the "moonbat" left. All that keeps this from being a "one story day" is the RSC meeting in Baltimore, where all 3 candidates for House maj. leader attended and spoke to the press. While the righty bloggers have followed that race closely enough, this event is probably a bit esoteric to most, and hasn't got the attention of the wider right-blogosphere -- only a couple of professional bloggers and GOP activists.

One thing we saw very, very few mentions about: Tonight's SOTU address. A few reasons for this: the Alito confirmation is dominating all other stories, and there's no awareness that anything big will be announced tonight, but also there's almost always far more coverage of an event following it. Bloggers tend to be reactive, and as yet there's not much to react to.

THE ALITO NOMINATION I: Group Think

Liberal Oliver Willis: "I think the failure to even present a remotely coherent case against Samuel Alito falls squarely on the head of the legal eagles on the progressive side. The primary reason for groups like People for the American Way, Alliance for Justice, etc. to exist is to be the front line of defense for Supreme Court nominations. ... It speaks volumes when you fail at your organization's primary mission. Not that their mission was to stop Alito -- I don't know that that was ever possible simply because we didn't have the numbers -- but that Roberts and Alito both sailed through the process unassailed."

NARAL's backing of the no-Alito but yes-cloture Sen. Chafee is a major issue for some, primarily female bloggers. Jane Hamsher argues that "vote for cloture is a vote for Alito," and yet: "I just got off the phone with NARAL and I am being told that they do not consider Chafee's vote on cloture to be significant. They are not going to pull their support for him over this. ... This ridiculous little kabuki about voting AGAINST Alito and FOR cloture is a sham, and if NARAL is going to look the other way they no longer deserve to be the guardians of a woman's right to choose in this country." Georgia10 of Daily Kos concurs: "Congrats, NARAL. You got punk'd." On the other hand, Roxanne Cooper and Amanda Marcotte both give Chafee a thumbs-up for his announced "No" vote on the nomination itself.

Conservative Betsy Newmark: "Here is one place where conservatives and liberals can agree. None of us like Chafee's wishy-washy, public agonizing over every controversial vote. I don't understand why the man even wants to consider himself a Republican unless it is that he enjoys the publicity he gets every time he opposes the GOP on some issue. If he were just another lefty New England senator, would any one care one jot about him?"

THE ALITO NOMINATION II: Kossack Krack-up?

NRO's Byron York went clicking through Daily Kos for reax, and posted this edited excerpt to The Corner: "What I want is a complete list of every scumsucking f--kstick Democratic a--hole senator who voted for cloture. That's what I want. I don't know what to DO with that list, not yet -- but I know for G--DAMNED sure I won't be VOTING for any of them, let alone sending them any g--damned MONEY. Frankly, right now I'd like nothing better than to torpedo the entire lot of them. Just dump them like so much worthless, leaden, VICHY MOTHERF--KING BALLAST." York doesn't provide the link but it is here, by Maryscott O'Connor, and is cross-posted to her My Left Wing. The post also features a Photoshopped Time cover, with a picture of Alito and the words "We are F---ED." Right-Wing News also picked it up, adding: "It's so over-the-top it's funny..."

The Daily Kos cloture vote "open thread" is an interesting one as well. Most of the comments are nothing like the above, but they are viscerally angry and focused on what the next move should be. Like O'Connor, some propose a divestiture from the Dems. Says one, "not one cent to the DSCC and especially not to my sorry excuse for a senator, Bill Nelson. it's third party time for '06 for me in the senate race. all of my money is now going to individual candidates, the DSCC can get bent." Some discuss changing parties as well. Decision '08 lists the top 5 (in entertainment value) "Kos Kidz" reactions to the vote.

New York Post's Deborah Orin joins in the dKos-focus, writing that John Kerry "got his marching orders from The New York Times and the left-wing blog Daily Kos (which can be hard to tell apart these days). Presto: Insta-filibuster, like it or not. It's the latest example of how Kerry -- plus 2000 loser Al Gore and the left wing of the blogosphere -- are all yanking the Democratic Party hard to the left, instead of the center (where most of the votes are). ... Another worry for Democrats was the fact that the reaction on the lefty blogs wasn't to think that maybe they'd had a dumb idea but instead to vow revenge and political death to Democrats who opposed the unpopular filibuster. ... 'Moron and coward'; 'Primary challenge'; 'Take down their names and kick their a-- in the next election' -- just a few of the angry messages for Democrats posted on the Daily Kos site as his bloggers realized the filibuster was going down. In fact, Kerry's allies seemed so angry at Democrats that they almost forget to attack Republicans."

As a kind of corrective to the hysteria, Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas made a point about what the larger American public was focusing on: "While we obsessed over the cloture vote, that was not news to the rest of the country, blissfully unaware. What was? Bob Woodruff almost getting killed and Jill Carroll pleading for her life, both in Iraq. ... This, for the real America, was the news today. This isn't meant to minimize the importance of the Alito vote, but to note that this has not been a glorious day for Dear Leader. In fact, it's one of those days that may very well have turned the public against his presidency once and for all."

The anti-Dem sentiments and ugly remarks are by no means limited to dKos. The Agonist declares, "no Democratic Senator on the list who voted for cloture (and against a filibuster) will ever receive a dime from me personally. Why? Because after such a catastrophic failure you don't deserve to be Senators. The Republicans schooled you." Vichy Dems wrote, "Four up, one down, one big fracking sissy: Republican Senator John Ensign in car accident, unable to attend cloture vote -- that's effectively one more for our side!" Conservative Adam's Blog responds: "Wow, that's the Democrats' key plan for victory. Make sure enough Republicans in car wrecks and then celebrating afterwards."

BlogActive, which outed GOP ex-Rep. Ed Shrock in 9/04, on 1/30 threatened an unnamed, married GOP sen. with outing if he voted for Alito. The outing is not necessarily imminent -- depending on the vote, it may happen sometime before his next election. Even on the site, half the comments are running against the idea of outing this unknown pol. Elsewhere, it mostly just gets attention from the right: John Podhoretz writes at The Corner, "the real threat that's posed here is to Democrats, because with a base this out of control, every Democrat that doesn't toe the moonbat line has a reason to be afraid." Rob Port of Say Anything concurs: "Last night I read a post by Oliver Willis where complained about Democrat politicians not making liberal blogs part of their 'message machine.' Given the above, it is little wonder mainstream Democrats don't want to make themselves more beholden to the liberal blogosphere." Header at RedState: "Democrats Blackmail United States Senator." More: "People like this are not the opponent -- they are the enemy. If this comes to pass, the United States Attorney should pursue charges." Gay conservative Lime Shurbet concurs, citing DC blackmail statutes.

On a sillier note, one story going around the blogs involves an apparently legit RNC-facilitated e-mail notifying recipients of a GOP House Party in Bloomington, IL. The host promised, verbatim, "a Jesse Jackson pinata, a dunk tank where you'll get the chance to sink my wife who will be dressed as Hillary Clinton, and a special guest appearance by my uncle -- Rep. Timothy V. Johnson." The party itself was apparently not legit, but it got linked by a Daily Kos diarist as fact. It also rated a mention at Wonkette, which also posted a screen shot. But before long, the dKos diarist started to notice hints that the party was not for real, and updated: "I believe that this is a hoax/prank. I think somebody gamed the GOP House Party online system to create a fake party, and the GOP's own system automatically generated the party page and sent out invitations to GOP team leaders in the area. There are too many things I'm learning that don't seem to add up." The RNC also took it down; until then it was available at this URL.

THE ALITO NOMINATION III: The Kennedy School

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) is of course a perennial target of conservatives, and his impassioned floor speech caught the attention of Michelle Malkin and the many who link to her. She wrote: "I am watching Sen. Ted Kennedy on C-SPAN unraveling before my eyes. He is screaming. The face is fire-engine red. The fists are waving furiously. Here's my rough transcript of his ongoing diatribe smearing the Alito nomination as a step backwards toward mass discrimination." From her own rush transcript: "And my friends, the one organization, the one institution that protects [the "march of progress"] is THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES!!! (Screaming at the top of his lungs.) Too much blood has been shed in those battles. Too much sweat. Too many tears. To. Put. At. Risk. That. March. For. Progress. (Banging podium. Voice cracking.)"

Kennedy's speech is available at his Senate website, and video is available via Crooks and Liars. And we meant to note yesterday, but only just found the link -- on 1/27 Kennedy followed Kerry in posting to Daily Kos. The title of the post was "Thank You for Helping To Stop Alito."

THE ALITO NOMINATION IV: Martha, Martha, Martha!

At Open Letter to Chris Matthews, Matt Stoller quotes Matthews from the 1/30 "Hardball" saying of Martha Alito, "isn't she a great woman, didn't she stand up-and then they'll put the camera right on Ted Kennedy and show how he was the guy that molested her basically -- that's the way they'll play it..." Stoller reacts: "This is journalism? Making light of the sexual abuse of women on national TV? And accusing a sitting US Senator of the offense, to boot (and no surprise it was a Democratic Senator)." Crooks and Liars: "Each day brings with it a new dawn and Chris Matthews keeps saying things that boggle the mind." Dem Bloggers: "Exactly where does "sloppy, irresponsible journalism" stop and "slander" begin?"

Joe Gandelman doesn't go in for the wholesale criticism of Matthews, but can see what they're getting at: "He might avoid a lot of headaches if he chooses his words a bit more wisely..." MacStansbury at MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy doesn't go in for any of it: "He's a liberal, a Liberal, a 'Liberal' and everything in-between. Watching these people twist in the wind amuses me to no end, especially when they are so blatantly wrong."

THE ALITO NOMINATION V: You Better Reax Somebody

Lefty Kevin Drum, on the filibuster and liberal bloggers' promotion of it: "I'm glad the filibuster took place, because even in failure it puts a marker down for future court fights. Still, even given the amateurish way that Senate Dems handled it, I expected it to get more than 25 votes. So here's today's assignment: In 5,000 words or less, what does this say about the influence of the lefty blogosphere?" RedState's Blanton, after the confirmation vote: "Hey Kossacks, does it not gall you that the votes for confirmation will be less than the votes to shut down the filibuster? You can thank a Democrat for that. Now, go on out and get them re-elected this year."

Righty Ed Morrissey writes, 2 lessons Dems may have picked up include a), orgs. "like PFAW and NARAL do not represent 'mainstream' views," and "bloviating of people like Ted Kennedy does not inspire the middle to their ranks, but instead repels more and more centrists through the obvious hyperbole and hypocrisy it demonstrates." He concludes: "The media predicted a permanent split on the Right over the Harriet Miers nomination, but it might be more likely that the Left will split over the failure of the Alito filibuster. The 2006 election just took an unexpected turn." Conservative Dafydd ab Hugh thinks the "era of the judicial filibuster is at an end": "While I would much prefer seeing the constitutional option enacted ... the reality is that if fear of the constitutional option makes it impossible for the Democrats to filibuster the latter, their number-one target, they won't be able to filibuster anyone else, either." Liberal Pharyngula lists the cloture-voting Dems, with designations such as "(One-termer-WA)" and "(Lickspittle-DE)," and dubs them the "Circus of the Spineless." Conservative Don Surber compares the Dems to Sideshow Bob's prolonged rake-stepping scene in the old "Cape Fear" episode of "The Simpsons": "These Intellectual Loons cannot [sustain a filibuster]. Still, they proceed to step on that rake. Bam! Bam! Bam! Bam! Bam! Bam! Bam! Bam! Bam!"

While most simply fault Dem sens. for failing to show the courage of their convictions, as even some centrist bloggers offered amused advice. Neoliberal Mickey Kaus, before the filibuster: "I'm not convinced Alito isn't the best we're likely to get under the circumstances, but filibustering a Supreme Court nominee -- in essence, requiring a supermajority before you fill a lifetime, unelected office with vast, uncheckable power -- seems more defensible than the average, everyday minority obstructionism. It's an honorable course Democrats might choose to take." He adds, "It's also honorable to stage a vote even if you know you're going to lose!" At Ragged Thots, conservative Robert George understands why Dems are upset: "Were I a Democrat voter, I'd be furious right now. ... Not only couldn't Senate Democrats get enough votes for a filibuster -- they lost 19 members of their own caucus in voting for cloture! 72-25!?!? You've got to be kidding! Why even go through the motions? And who do they allow to be the face of the filibuster -- Massachusetts' favorite sons, John F. Kerry and Edward F. Kennedy, the faces of elections lost and times past." Plus, Pres. Bush gets a great set-up for his SOTU this p.m.: "Now there's a strategy! If that's the gift that a politically-weakened president gets, what does that say about his opposition?"

Center-left Michael Stickings: "After supporting Roberts last year, I simply could not look past Alito's overt extremism on executive power and his covert (and sometimes not-so-covert) extremism on key social issues like abortion. Alito has been brilliantly packaged to look like a modest, kind-hearted (dare I say compassionate?) conservative who will simply examine the law and interpret the Constitution with care and an open mind, but he is in reality a blank check for the imperial aspirations of Bush and Cheney. And his nomination is the latest blatant example of conservative court-packing." Newsrack Blog lists the 19 "Vichy Democrats" who went along with the GOPers: "A special word for Senator Byrd: please, next time you get all bothered about the Constitution, remember your vote today and then have the decency to just STFU, you preening, pompous fool." Steve Soto: "The goal is to get more Democrats elected this fall so that there won't be any more Alitos. And we should thank the bloggers, the activists, and yes, John Kerry and Teddy Kennedy for stirring up at least some pressure for a filibuster while those of us in the online community saw clearly that the Joe Bidens, Pat Leahys, Joe Liebermans, and even the Barack Obamas aren't ready or never will be ready to fight for this party or this country."

Hullabaloo's Digby: "The last time we had a serious outpouring from the grassroots was the Iraq War resolution. My Senator DiFi [Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)] commented at the time that she had never seen anything like the depth of passion coming from her constituents. But she voted for the war anyway. So did Bayh, Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Kerry and Reid. ... Every one of those people were running in one way or another in 2002 and they went the other way. The tide is shifting. There is something to be gained by doing the right thing." He adds: "This is a dramatic moment for the netroots. Get ready for marginalization, evocations of 1968 and 1972, calls for purging us from the party, the whole thing. That's what happens when the citizens rise up. Don't let it shake your will. We are the heart of the Democratic party and we can make a difference."

On a completely unrelated note, Orin Kerr at Volokh Conspiracy: "While there will be lots of focus on the new Justice Alito, I hope we'll also take a moment to pause and thank Justice Sandra Day O'Connor for her 24+ years of dedicated public service. Justice O'Connor's July 1, 2005 letter to the President announced that she would retire from the Court upon the confirmation of her successor, which means that she will be retiring from active service on the Court as of today. I hope the news accounts of Alito's confirmation make a special point to note that."

HOUSE GOP ELECTIONS: Charm City

The RSC held a retreat in Baltimore, starting 1/30 and continuing through 1/31. All 3 House maj. leader candidates -- acting Maj. Leader Roy Blunt (MO), John Boehner (OH) and John Shadegg (AZ) -- spoke, and NRO's Stephen Spruiell and Townhall's Tim Chapman have been there to cover it.

Last p.m., Chapman reported: "Boehner said that he had heard from different members that Roy Blunt was making individual promises to members in return for votes. When asked to characterize what kind of promises were made, Boehner demurred. Blunt, vigorously denies this." Later, he reported that Shadegg said he had no evidence of this, but did say: "It is clear that discussions were made that resulted in whole blocs of votes shifting [into the Blunt column]." More Chapman: "When pressed as to the nature of those discussions Shadegg would not characterize them. : "I asked [RSC chair Mike] Pence about Rep. Tom Feeney's statement earlier today in which he hinted at the RSC potentially playing a role in any second ballot. Are RSC members talking quietly behind the scenes about a second ballot strategy? Pence fended of a smile and said, "If there is a second ballot, I suspect the RSC will be able to exert more influence."

Spruiell also talked to Pence, reporting: "When I asked him, 'What are the top priorities for RSC members in this race?' he named budget, marriage and ethics, in that order. It took me by surprise because the coverage of this race has focused on ethics and budget in that order -- and marriage hasn't even come up.

Pejman Yousefzadeh notes that the more bad press Blunt gets, the more likely GOPers are to get the impression they should switch their support away from him: "If Blunt fails to win on the first ballot, it is easy to imagine a mass of defections and a race that turns into a two-person contest between Reps. John Boehner and John Shadegg. And given that Boehner is yet another insider and Shadegg is the only genuine reformer in the race, who do you think is most savoring the clear shot at the other? And who do you think is most right to lick his chops?"

Posted to the Club for Growth Blog is a press release announcing the results of a Club poll showing that 77% of 1K likely general election voters surveyed nationwide say the new leader "should not be part of the existing senior leadership" and should not have "close ties" to DC lobbyists. The Club endorsed Shadegg upon his entry to the race. Full poll results are available on the site in PDF format.

BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: Beacon Hil

Today the Blogometer talks to liberal Hilzoy, who writes for the joint liberal/conservative group blog Obsidian Wings.

What is your full name?

Hilzoy.

What is your age?

46.

Where did you grow up?

Belmont, MA.

Where do you live now?

Baltimore, MD.

What is your occupation? Have you ever worked on a political campaign or for the mainstream media?

I am a philosophy professor. I focus on bioethics and Kant's moral philosophy, and have written on freedom of the will and moral responsibility.

When did you start blogging and why?

I once worked as a copy editor for the Jerusalem Post over 20 years ago; other than that, I have never worked for the media. I have never been paid by a political campaign, but I have volunteered for a lot of them.

What has been your favorite post, or favorite story to write about, in that time?

I was asked to join Obsidian Wings when one of its posters decided to move on a little over a year ago. I thought it would be fun, and besides, it was before the election, and I wanted to be in conversation with more conservatives.

I had also, at that point, grown very tired of the conservative stereotype of liberals, and I thought if anything good could come of my blogging, it was that while I am quite liberal, some parts of the conservative stereotype of liberals are just plainly false of me. (E.g., no one, not even my worst enemies, has ever called me a moral relativist, or said I just didn't care about morality. Likewise, I am not normally regarded as mushy-headed, nor has anyone who knows me ever accused me of insufficient patriotism. Not that people don't criticize me in real life -- they do. They just don't make these criticisms.) For this reason, I thought that I might be able to make people question it, not by trying to falsify it, but just (as my Mom would say) by being myself.

Describe your typical blogging schedule. And what is your average output?

One of the nice things about writing for a group blog is that I don't have to have a blogging schedule. Sometimes I write several posts a day; sometimes I write nothing at all.

Who is your favorite political blogger? Favorite non-political blogger?

I can't pick one, so I'll pick three. See here, here and here.

Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?

Paul Krugman.

What is your favorite television news program, either network or cable?

"The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer." I find most of the others unwatchable, since I have no interest in Scott Peterson et al.

What MSM-produced websites (i.e. newspapers, magazines) do you visit on a daily basis?

Too many to list.

What non-MSM websites (i.e. blogs) do you visit on a daily basis?

Again, you really don't want to know, especially with a 50-word limit on the answer. Luckily, I read very fast.

How often, or do you ever, read a newspaper in its dead-tree (i.e. print) form?

At this point, almost never, except sometimes in airports.

How do you see the new media and old media affecting and influencing each other in the next five years?

I really don't know, and I'm no good at predictions. (I do think that the idea that blogs and other media are in conflict is wrong.) But here's one effect I think blogs might have: blogs make it much easier for people to get really well-informed on political issues. People with real expertise are blogging, and it's amazing how much background knowledge about an issue you can pick up by reading a blog by someone who knows about that issue and discusses it. Moreover, a lot of blogs are funny and well-written. But blogs can also present policy information in a way that's accessible to people who do not enjoy reading, say, GAO reports or extended arguments about the tax code. Blogs are an extremely personal medium, and good bloggers have their own voice; this means that blogs can engage people whose cognitive style is less suited to digesting data and arguments whole, and more suited to dealing with, and coming to understand, actual people.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Blogs Vs. The MSM ... Literally!

Tech blogger Jason Kottke: "In 2002, Dave Winer of Scripting News and Martin Nisenholtz of the New York Times made a Long Bet about the authority of weblogs versus that of NY Times in Google: 'In a Google search of five keywords or phrases representing the top five news stories of 2007, weblogs will rank higher than the New York Times' Web site.' I decided to see how well each side is doing by checking the results for the top news stories of 2005." Based on his observation, he concludes with a non-conclusion: "As someone said in the discussion of this bet, this bet is about Google more than influence or reputation, so these results probably tell us more about how Google determines influence on a keyword basis rather than how readers of online informational sources value or rate those sources. Do web users prefer the news coverage of blogs to that of the NY Times? I don't think you can even come close to answering that question based on these results."

LEST WE FORGET: Does This Mean Stephanopolous Is Carson Daly?

Wonkette, now under new management by David Lat and Alex Pareene, considers an announcement from ABC News that their SOTU coverage will include live-blogging and a "truth squad." They write: "Personally, we're excited about the 'text and video comments' that will be shown, presumably, in a running ticker under the President, not unlike TRL." And by "consider," we mean they imagine what such TRL comments would look like: "This is Monica and Stephanie from the University of Maryland and we just wanted to say private health savings accounts are da bomb!" And: "yo, just wanna giv a shoutout to my boy Justin!! i miss you and i hope to see you next semester give alito a straight up-or-down vote!!! federalizm 4-eva!"

Posted by at 12:58 PM

January 30, 2006

1/30: The Thin Blue Line

Starting last week, the SCOTUS nomination battle pledged by Dems and traditional interest groups -- but which never materialized -- has been fought hard by the left blogosphere. Bloggers are begging readers to call, fax and e-mail their sens (even moderate GOPers are getting the calls). And not without some success -- over the weekend, more and more Dem sens have said they'll vote for the filibuster (even as some criticize the tactic). But at this point, 6 Dems have stated that they won't participate in a filibuster; they would have to flip one of those votes to stall (let alone stop) the nomination. Otherwise, the vote for cloture is set for 4:30 p.m. and the final vote to make Samuel Alito a justice is expected tomorrow at 11:00 a.m.

Plus, rumors fly about a possible deal between Sen. Ken Salazar (D-CO) and James Dobson; Dem lobbyist/ex-Gephardt aide Steve Elmendorf is now persona non grata in the left-blogosphere; bloggers are nice to an MSM personality for once, ABC News' injured Bob Woodruff finds a terrible way to get a blogger to say something nice about you; conservative bloggers make their none-too-surprising House leadership endorsements official; Cindy Sheehan gets the kind of attention she could expect from her Venezuela trip; a blogger trip to Amsterdam turns controversial; and someone else gets caught with their hand in the Wikipedia cookie jar.

THE ALITO NOMINATION: The War Party

Liberal bloggers are now all but scrambling to drum up support for a filibuster. Lefty Steve Gilliard posts complete office numbers for sens. representing swing seats. One blogger has set up a site titled Vichy Dems (the term is occasionally used by lefty bloggers against Dems who "collaborate" with GOPers). Loaded Mouth: "It's not over yet! Call everyone you know! Convince them to hammer their Reps... heck, tell them to hammer all the Rep's!! And tell them to tell everyone!" From the same post: "Jeez people!!! What MORE do you need?? DO you seriously want a Judge that Bush has wanted since day one? Come on! His motives are so transparent... Bush does NOT believe for one second that he has to ask Congress for ANYTHING!"

At Eschaton, Duncan Black envisioned 2 scenarios, one where the Dems "are a bunch of losers, as are all of their supporters. Bush and his giant codpiece looked magnificent at the state of the union, and Mrs. Alito was very happy and smiling sitting next to Mrs. Bush safe and content now that the magnificent and mighty President Bush made that bad Ted Kennedy go away." Another is where the Dems "shocked Washington ... by holding together, dropping a mighty turd in the punchbowl of the Bush administration, dealing a deadly blow to his nomination of Alito." He adds: "Those are the choices."

On 1/28, Sen. Kennedy held a conf. call with left-of-center bloggers, which Daily Kos' McJoan recounts for those not invited: "He is encouraging you to contact your Democratic Senators, regardless of what they might have said so far, but specifically mentioned Senators Pryor, Lincoln, Cantwell, Murray, Baucus, Harkin, Levin, Bayh, Lautenberg, Menendez, and Lieberman. In addition, he said to keep the pressure on Republican Senators Snowe, Collins, Chafee and Stevens."

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) now has a post up at The Huffington Post: "It's a zero sum game. Once Judge Alito becomes Justice Alito, there's no turning back the Senate confirmation vote. We don't get to 'take a mulligan' when choosing a Supreme Court Justice."

On 1/26, a diarist at Daily Kos suggested that Sen. Ken Salazar (D-CO) was not supporting Salazar because of an agreement with James Dobson: "I just got off the phone again with a staffer in Ken Salazar's office. You're not going to believe this. That f---er has cut a deal with James Dobson to not filibuster." The staffer allegedly told the writer: "The truth is that Senator Salazar has come to a compromise with Dr. James Dobson about an ongoing feud between them. Dr. Dobson has agreed to stop mentioning Senator Salazar in a negative context if he refuses to filibuster Samuel Alito. ... I'm sorry, but that's the truth, and that's why this is my last day working for Senator Salazar." On 1/28, conservative Baseball Crank called the "fun, unverifiable, malicious rumor of the day." And now as of this weekend, bloggers at Crooks and Liars, Firedoglake and Eschaton are all echoing the rumor.

But at least 2 lefty bloggers have concluded that the filibuster attempt is a mistake, and they write lengthy explanations. One is John Aravosis, who explains: "If you launch a filibuster and don't complement it with a smart well-funded campaign to get the public on your side, the public will think even less of the Democrats than they do now, and that will hurt us in the polls now and in November when we want to take back the Congress."

Another is Matt Stoller, who urges Dems to hold up the vote until after the SOTU, but also to be realistic: "A filibuster is an extreme action that requires robust public support. We do not have this support. It's that simple. ... By all means, call your Senators. Don't stop. Don't let up. But don't forgive the party leadership and our groups for this travesty. People for the American Way has been preparing for this fight for years. And then they didn't show up. The same is true with NARAL, and the Alliance for Justice. I honestly don't know why they are funded anymore -- that's how bad this failure has been." More: "They are telling us, broadcasting to us, that they think we're stupid. They think that having no campaign on Alito can easily be fixed by posting a diary on Daily Kos urging us to 'fight' a month after the fight has already been lost. It's craven, it's crass, it's ridiculous."

Conservative Ed Morrissey criticizes Dem Sens. Barack Obama and Joe Biden, both of whom will vote against cloture even though they are outspokenly critical of the filibuster tactic: "That's why Delaware sends you to the Senate, Mr. Biden -- to participate in stupid, empty gestures. It seems that a number of Democrats feel the same way, but they fail to account for their constituents who believe that engaging in McCarthyite smear tactics does not actually fall within the boundaries of Senatorial privilege." Liberal expat Avedon Carol: "I won't be the first to observe that when Biden and Obama babble in public about how (even though they will vote against cloture), the way to win these issues isn't with procedural stuff, but by talking about the issues involved and stating our values, they are actually doing the opposite of what they say should be done. And the good news for them about a filibuster is what it is: a refusal to foreclose on debate."

DEMOCRATS: VandeHei You, Out There In The Cold

On 1/28, Washington Post's VandeHei wrote about liberal bloggers' pressure on Dems -- particularly in light of the Alito fight -- titled "Blogs Attack From Left as Democrats Reach for Center." Pretty much none of the lefty bloggers we read were happy about it, and for different reasons.

One controversial bit is a quote by Dem lobbyist/ex-Kerry adviser Steve Elmendorf, who said: "The bloggers and online donors represent an important resource for the party, but they are not representative of the majority you need to win elections. The trick will be to harness their energy and their money without looking like you are a captive of the activist left." A diarist at Daily Kos jumped on it quickly: "Not one dime, ladies and gentlemen, to anything connected with Steve Elmendorf. Anyone stupid enough to actually give a quote like that deserves to have every single one of his funding sources dry up." A couple hours later, Markos Moulitsas issued a similar call to arms: "Here's notice, any Democrat associated with Elmendorf will be outed. The netroots can then decide for itself whether it wants to provide some of that energy and money to that candidate. There's nothing 'extreme left' with demanding Democrats act like Democrats, no matter how much these out-of-touch and self-important beltway insiders think it is." Conservative Paul Mirengoff: "As a political operative, Kos makes a good ACT-UP activist."

Another blog-based criticism of Dems from the left is the choice of VA Gov. Tim Kaine (D) to deliver the SOTU response. Scott Shields disputes that this is a widespread criticism. But he had been criticized, notably by Jeralyn Merritt at TalkLeft on 1/19 for "touting his religious faith" during his campaign. In the comments below, liberals of faith themselves or otherwise sympathetic to Kaine's electoral strategy criticized the post. Some time after, she added another paragraph clarifying this (albeit without a note to let readers know it had been changed): "The way to beat the Republicans is not to emulate their message of religious faith, but to develop our own message. Kaine dismisses claims by pundits, the media and Republicans that Democrats are a secular party." Also notably by Ezra Klein, who wrote on 1/21: "Kaine is, at best, a functional speaker, not an orator for the history books. And nor is he a good looking dude who could put an attractive, fresh face on the party. He's a squat, squinty, pug-nosed fellow who just won an election that largely revolved around retail politics and the endorsement of his predecessor."

At HuffPo on 1/29, Nation editor Katrina Vanden Heuvel went after liberal bloggers for going after Kaine, and Klein in particular for making fun of Kaine's looks. 1st reason: "It doesn't really matter who gives the [SOTU] reply, since no one listens and it's an impossible task." More: "For liberal bloggers who want to get exercised about something really important: Where are the Democrats or liberals talking about Ford laying off some 30,000 workers" and similar workplace issues? More again: "If you want to know why Dems don't win elections, it won't be because Kaine is talking this Tuesday night. It's because the mainstream leadership of the Democratic party doesn't think, feel, viscerally respond to the increasing insecurities of working Americans." Crooks and Liars' Jon Amato, normally a Vanden Heuvel fan, wrote a short reply and also posted it to HuffPo: Why did you have to use an attack piece on bloggers written by Jim VendeHei [sic] of the Washington Post as the touchstone to your own article? His main purpose was to try and marginalize the left side of the blogosphere because we dared to question Deborah Howell's horrific reporting on the Abramoff scandal ... Your whole post is a straw man argument because the main premise is wrong. It only pushes the meme that liberal bloggers are irrational and unwieldy when that is simply not the case." Klein also hit back, defending his earlier post and pointing out that he among plenty of others did blog about the Ford layoffs.

At TPMCafe, Reed Hundt criticizes Dems who argue they should focus on winning elections above defining a clear set of ideas first, a popular notion on blogs such as Daily Kos: "I can't think of a single reform movement in history that started with the mantra of "just win, baby," to use Al Davis' phrasing. Every reformer in the history of ideas and politics has sought to define a point of view in debate first, and compromised in order to win elections second. ... By advocating compromise first, the Democratic Party has lost the confidence of its base and the sympathy of the people. That's why arguing for just winning elections is not pragmatic, even though the advocates think they are being intensely pragmatic. Moreover, the 'elections first' crowd always ends up debating tactics, not strategy; concessions, not convictions; practicality, not principle."

RedState's Nick Danger promotes the idea that Senate Min. Leader Harry Reid will soon step down from his leadership spot over his $60K Abramoff-related tribal donation and subsequent letter he wrote on their behalf. He points to DNC chair Howard Dean's appearance on the 1/29 "FNS": "Moderator Chris Wallace asked Dean, 'if we find that there were some Democrats who wrote letters on behalf of some of the Indian tribes that Abramoff represented, then what do you say, sir?' Without mentioning Reid by name, Dean replied, 'That's a big problem. And those Democrats are in trouble. And they should be in trouble.'"

HOUSE GOP ELECTIONS: Anybody But Blunt?

Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit thinks the idea of blogger endorsements is a bit "pretentious," but does express his support for Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ): "Shadegg is the only one who seems like a plausible agent for reform, and it's going to be hard to persuade people who would like to see the GOP get back to its small-government, clean-Congress 1994 roots that there's any chance of that if they choose a business-as-usual Majority Leader."

N.Z. Bear, Reynolds' PorkBusters co-organizer and "I don't warm to politicians all that easily. But Shadegg ... impressed me with his anti-pork credentials. And his answers to our questions on policy and reform were good ones, showing not just a grudging acceptance of the need for a reform, but a real passion for it. And lastly, if intangibly: listening to the way he handled himself on the blogger call, I just plain liked the guy. He spoke candidly and openly; seemed honestly interested in answering questions, and sincerely committed to the ideas he was championing." He posts the phone numbers of RSC members who have committed to vote for Blunt, and urges readers in their districts to call and urge them to support Shadegg instead.

Addressing the subject of cong. earmarks, RedState's Blanton argues that acting Maj. Whip. Roy Blunt is the only unacceptable candidate: "John Boehner has never had an earmark. Both Boehner and Shadegg oppose earmarks. Blunt refuses to support any significant earmarks reform -- he's happy with the status quo. The status quo needs reforming and Blunt is not the guy to do it. It's time for House Republicans to get serious and vote for someone other than Roy Blunt for Majority Leader."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Somewhat Unusual, This

Cori Dauber, on the Iraqi terrorist attack on ABC's Bob Woodruff: "The news about the condition of the ABC team seems to be about as good as it could be right now. Meanwhile, consider this: night after night, when American troops are injured by roadside bombs, it warrants at best a sentence or two of wire service copy from network anchors. She adds, "while I cannot imagine this was an intentional attack on journalists ... by hitting reporters, the bad guys once again scored the 'value added' that comes from attacks on the press." Conglomerate Blog says "something that probably doesn't get said often enough: I am grateful for people who are willing to put themselves in harm's way to bring us information from Iraq."

Joe Gandelman relays some of his own close calls while reporting from Spain in the late '70s, noting the dangers: "[If someone] wanted to kidnap or whack me it would have been simple: I traveled alone, I stood out (most thought due to my short size I was French or Italian, not American), it was just me and my old portable typewriter." He adds: "I don't have much in common with Woodruff's level of journalism. Probably the only thing I have in common is that he's Colgate '82 and I'm Colgate '72. But the numerous biographies of him on the wires ... stress his focus on his love for his craft and ABC's determination to allow him to be more than a talking head."

Header at liberal Think Progress: "Woodruff's Courage Reveals Major Deficiency In Development of Iraqi Security Forces."

IRAQ: It's Good To Be The King

Reuters reports, "U.S. forces in Iraq, in two instances described in military documents, took custody of the wives of men believed to be insurgents in an apparent attempt to pressure the suspects into giving themselves up."

Andrew Sullivan condemns it in strong terms: "You may have heard of the tactic. As a way to leverage information or capture an enemy, terrorists sometimes kidnap innocent women and children in order to put pressure on their husbands or relatives. It's called kidnapping and blackmail. Except that in Rumsfeld's military, the United States now uses the tactic. Sure, it's against the Geneva Conventions. Sure, those Conventions are supposed to apply in Iraq. But this is the Bush administration. King George doesn't have to obey the law." Sullivan gets some positive notice from Atrios, who does point out several of his disagreements with Sullivan before throwing him the link. But Arthur Silber is not impressed, writing that Sullivan should have known his support for the Iraq war would lead to this: "If he were honest and capable of understanding the principles involved, he would realize that he too must accept all the consequences." Crooks and Liars concurs with Silber.

Comments From Left Field points out that this information has been known already: "I am disgusted that it has taken the press two years to start reporting on this story despite the fact that the evidence was already there and that some of their reporters had the courage to take the first steps, but the second, third and fourth steps never happened."

On the other hand, The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler is more outraged at the outrage: "She was married to a child murderer and, as such, might know something that could help us get the subhuman slime before he murdered again, period. Boo-hoo-f---ing-hoo."

IRAN: Anything You Can Do I Can Do Better

The Carpetbagger Report points out that Bush's new stance on Iran, i.e. allowing them to use nuclear fuel on a tight leash, was actually Kerry's position in '04. More: "Just out of curiosity, any chance we'll see National Review blasting Bush's new approach to Iran as 'ignorant' and 'dangerously wrong'? Or maybe Condi Rice will explain why the idea rewarded Iran for bad behavior when Kerry recommended it, but it's brilliant leadership when Bush recommends it?" As TCR points out, Bush "was against the idea before he was for it."

Liberal Running Scared: "It's not often that I get to say that the Bush Administration may be doing something correct ... This will cause Mr. Bush's opponents to accuse him of a 'flip flop' and, indeed, they did so immediately. For once, however, I don't think this is a good time to criticize the president."

SHEEHAN: Men Are From Mars, Sheehan Is From Venezuela

In the afternoon of 1/27, Cindy Sheehan's handlers sent out a statement headlined: "Cindy Sheehan to Dianne Feinstein: Fillibuster [sic] Alito or I'll Challenge Your Senate Seat." GOPbloggers was quite enthusiastic: "Ok, GOPers, time to break out the checkbooks and get ready to make MASSIVE donations." Feinstein's subsequent announcement that she would go along with the filibuster has probably obviated the threat, but Sheehan's public appearances in Venezuela with Hugo Chavez in Venezuela bring plenty of comment. Professor Bainbridge: "Cindy Sheehan started out with a lot of credibility as an anti-war activist, but she seems determined to throw away what little credibility she now has left. For one thing, she's gone from anti-war to anti-Americanism, hanging out with people like Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. It's one thing to hate the war; it's quite another to implicitly endorse those who hate your country." At Wizbang guest-blogger Rob Port writes, "what do you think would happen if Sheehan were a citizen of Venezuela who traveled to Washington DC to speak out against Hugo Chavez while standing next to President Bush? I'm fairly certain that, upon arriving back home in Venezuela, she'd receive a visit from the police. If they'd even let her back in the country." Liberal radio talker Taylor Marsh: "Frankly, I think Sheehan has lost it."

IN THE STATES: A Friend In Need Is A Friend Indeed, Unless ...

Left-libertarian State 29 points out that IA GOV candidate Chet Culver (D) received $40K in campaign donations from a friend, businessman Scott Ginsburg, who has been "banned for life" by the SEC and fined $1M for securities violations. State 29 notes the complete absence of coverage: "Where's the Iowa media on this? These political disclosure forms have been out in the public domain for 10 days and we haven't seen a peep in any of the papers about this sort of thing. Shouldn't this be front page news? Not in corrupt Iowa!"

Challenged by State 29 to respond, pro-Culver Political Forecast points out that it was mentioned in the 1/28 Des Moines Register, and then addresses the substance of the charge: "I admit that this is a huge oversight. But it happens. People -- whether they have a criminal record or not -- have a right to give to political campaigns, don't they? What is the big deal about this besides trying to bring negative publicity to the Culver Camp and make them seem like they're doing something wrong, when in fact, they aren't."

NEW MEDIA NOTES: Meehans To An End

Lowell Sun reported on 1/27, "The staff of U.S. Rep Marty Meehan wiped out references to his broken term-limits pledge as well as information about his huge campaign war chest in an independent biography of the Lowell Democrat on a Web site that bills itself as the 'world's largest encyclopedia,' The Sun has learned." Meehan CoS Matt Vogel said he "authorized an intern in July to replace existing Wikipedia content with a staff-written biography of the lawmaker." Wikipedia was also the subject of some controversy in late '05 when it came to light that the page for veteran journalist John Seigenthaler contained potentially libelous misinformation (see 12/1 and 12/5 Blogometers).

On 1/28, Meehan sent a letter to the Sun, which concludes: "The Internet is a place for the free and open exchange of ideas and opinions. It was a waste of energy and an error in judgment on the part of my staff to have allowed any time to be spent on updating my Wikipedia entry. I thank The Sun for bringing it to my attention."

Tom Elia at The New Editor returns to the issue of the term limit pledge: "Meehan has downplayed the issue in recent years, saying that the pledge was a lesser issue in the 1992 campaign, was a 'youthful indiscretion,' and that he had 'moved on.' Sorry Marty: I was there. It was a central issue to the campaign, and my memory can't be erased like a Wikipedia entry."

Here is Meehan's Wikipedia entry; here is the associated discussion page, where this issue and others are raised; here is the history page, where you can read previous versions of Meehan's entry.

For an example of a GOPer (we presume) getting the House IP address blocked on account of vandalism, see the Wikipedia page for User:143.231.249.141, which includes a list of the changes made, mostly removing embarrassing info about GOPers and adding libelous or derogatory info about Dems.

BLOGGER ETHICS: They Came Along And They Cut Them Loose

On 1/26, National Journal's Glover wrote at his Beltway Blogroll about a blogger junket to Amsterdam, sponsored by Holland.com and Blogads. A full list of the 25 participating bloggers and details on the trip are available at the just-launched site, Bloggers in Amsterdam. He concluded: "Bloggers rightly maligned columnists Armstrong Williams and Doug Bandow for taking money from the Bush administration and Abramoff. Now some of the them are guilty of similar arrangements with the government of Netherlands, and they deserve the same scorn. No one who makes the trip is compelled to write one word, good or bad, about Amsterdam, and maybe some bloggers will return home and say nasty things about the place. But somehow I doubt they will."

Bloggers going on the trip are quite enthusiastic and also sure they are not compromising themselves. Other blogosphere reaction is more split:

John Aravosis, in his post announcing that he'll be going: "Anyone seriously worried about me being bought off by the crafty Dutch, talk to the folks at Syriana the movie. They ran an ad on my site, gave me a free ticket to the movie, I went, kind of hated the movie, so I came back and wrote that I didn't like it. They then didn't renew the ad for a second week. Oh well." Ezra Klein is another who's going: "I must say, blogging is pretty damn awesome." So is Pandagon's Amanda Marcotte: "The moral of the story, boys and girls, is that one should have a passport on hand just in case you ever need to leave the country at a moment's notice." Media Girl disagrees: "I suspect the true moral of the story will wind up being more in the realm of whether one wants to even appear to be open to pay-for-play." The Argument Clinic: "Where's My Invitation? I want to go on a luxury trip to Europe too! Darn it, people, I can't sell out if you don't make an offer."

Gawker's Gridskipper calls it much ado about nothing: "Oh yeah, get ready for a frenzied whipping of a nonstory into a frothy mass of righteous outrage!" More: "Leaving off that many of the anti-junket bloggers simply object in principle to advertising on blogs, and/or that they equate blogs and citizen journalism as the second coming of Christ, their collective naivete about travel journalism is laughable." Rick Heller at Centerfield: "Holland is not a particularly controversial topic, so no great harm is done. But imagine if a party to credit card-related legislation brought bloggers to Barbados to explain their side of the story. Would you give much weight to the views of those bloggers on the legislation after that?"

National Journal has received some strong negative feedback from some bloggers associated with the trip. We asked Glover to respond to some differing views on the ethical considerations. One competing claim is that transparency is all that should or can be required, and readers can make up their own mind. Another was the question about whether all bloggers should necessarily be held to the same standards as journalists. Here's what he sent back:

My primary concern is that some bloggers who cover the government regularly now have entered a contractual relationship with a government, and some of them no doubt will indirectly promote the work of that government via interviews granted after the trip. That's a seriously "slippery slope" whose end no one can know. What's to say they will stop at tourism issues -- or with the Dutch government? Or that they will disclose all such deals? Or that disclosure alone will keep them honest in their work and relationships?

Money and favors can corrupt bloggers just as easily as they have politicians, journalists and any other number of professionals, and bloggers don't even want to talk about ethics. Instead, they repeatedly ridicule the idea that they should even give such issues a second thought.

Disclosure certainly is a good thing, and it's an improvement over what happens in journalism. But bloggers get to decide for themselves when to disclose and how much to disclose. In this case, for instance, there is no disclosure of the value of the trip, of the trip-to-ad cost ratio for each blog, of how and where the bloggers' interviews will be used to promote Amsterdam, of whether those promotional materials will disclose the nature of the junket, etc. And what if bloggers decide the next trip isn't something they should disclose at all?

I don't think all bloggers are journalists, in every situation. In fact, I argued at Heritage last year that bloggers are not journalists at all. But if they are going to insist on that one hand that the U.S. government recognize them as journalists and on the other hand criticize the ethics (or lack thereof) of those journalists, then they should be held to similar standards, albeit ones designed for a very different media.

With my post about the Amsterdam trip and my column two weeks ago on "The Courting of the Blogosphere," I'm not trying to draw specific ethical lines for bloggers; I am just trying to get them to think seriously about the matter. My admittedly critical and harsh rhetoric in both cases is designed as a wake-up call from someone who loves blogs, wants to see them succeed and does not want to see them undermined -- by government, marketers or anyone else with an agenda.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Irreconcilable Differences?

Crooked Timber's Henry Farrell comments on the 1/26 Kennedy School blogger/media discussion at the Nat'l Press Club (see 1/27 Blogometer), and how the differing natures of journalism and blogging conflict with each other: "Journalism and blogging have different internal systems of authority. Newspaper articles aspire to presenting a comprehensive, neutral and authoritative judgement regarding the facts at hand in a particular matter. ... Blogposts are quite different -- they're arguments in an ongoing debate. They don't aspire to any sort of finality or authoritativeness (and indeed they're often updated in response to new arguments or facts)."

He continues: "The point is that they have very different -- and clashing -- notions of where authority and responsibility come from. Each newspaper article has the form of a discrete statement, which is supposed to be as authoritative as possible on its own ground. Each blogpost has the form of an intervention in an ongoing conversation -- the blogger's authority rests in part on her willingness to respond to others and engage in argument with them. ... These forms of authority are difficult to reconcile with each other, because the latter in large part undermines the former. If journalists start systematically responding to their critics ... then they're effectively admitting that the articles they have written aren't all that authoritative in the first place. ... Thus, in part, the tendency for journalists like Jack Shafer to dismiss criticism from bloggers and their commenters as 'organized riots' and lynch mobs. It's a fundamental threat to their notions of where journalistic authority comes from."

LEST WE FORGET: Mr. Kling's Neighborhood

Economist Arnold Kling asks, is blogging a mere fad, or a useful technological development? We'll let you click through to see his answer and how he gets there, but his approach is worth noting, too. He begins with a model involving fellow econ bloggers Brad DeLong and Virginia Postrel: "In the model, our information needs are all different. Certain information is more valuable to me than it is to others. We can represent this concept by thinking of everyone as being located at different points on a circle. The points closest to you in the circle are people with similar interests. ... I live in the economics neighborhood of the circle. My neighbor to the left is Brad, and my neighbor to the right is Virginia. All communication is via blog. ... Everyone tends to receive information with a high value to them, and they avoid having to read information that has low value to them. If the filtering system works well, I get to read lots of economic insights, and I never have to read anything about, say, Olympic figure skating."

Posted by at 01:38 PM

January 27, 2006

1/27: How To Lose A Nomination Fight In 92 Days

2 stories have taken over the political blogosphere in the past 24 hours: 1) John Kerry's announcement that he will go forward with a filibuster of SCOTUS nominee Samuel Alito, and 2) Hamas' victory in the Palestinian elections now appears even larger than previously thought. It's to those stories we devote most of our blogosphere coverage today; the rest of it concerns blog criticism of the media as well as media criticism of the blogs. Currently, NBC's Tim Russert and MSNBC's Chris Matthews are facing sustained criticism from the left-blogosphere -- far more than anyone at FNC has received in some time. And in an uncharacteristic bout of original reporting, last p.m. we attended an invite-only discussion group about blogging and journalism. Our non-definitive recap is included below, as is an unsolicited commentary on how liberal and conservative blogs think differently about comment boards.

THE ALITO NOMINATION: Swiss Miss?

>> Early last p.m. John Kerry announced from Davos, Switzerland that he would lead a filibuster of Samuel Alito, and that Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) would join him. At about 8:30 EST, Kerry posted his 3rd diary this week (see 1/23 Blogometer) to Daily Kos: "Do I support a filibuster? The answer is yes. Yesterday Senator Kennedy and I spoke with our colleagues about it. I don't have a shred of doubt in my opposition to Sam Alto's nomination. I know Senator Kennedy does not either. He has truly been a great leader in the effort to oppose Judge Alito." More: "This was a coup. Miers was removed and Alito was installed to replace the swing vote on the Court. The President gave no thought to what the American people really wanted -- or needed. So it's up to us to think about what America really needs - that's part of the true meaning of 'advice and consent.'" The diary picked up 650+ comments by our deadline. Based on our skimming, the responses are running overwhelmingly positive, with many thanking Kerry for standing up in this fight and others criticizing the Dems who either plan to vote for Alito or at least won't back the filibuster.

>> At Hullabaloo CA-based Digby writes offers some advice to his fellow Dems: "I hope some of the comments I'm reading around the blogosphere aren't reflections of a knee jerk cynicism on the part of Democrats who have fallen in love with their assessment that they are superior to their elected leaders. This is a very dangerous state of mind. John Kerry stepped up today. Apparently, that isn't enough for some. He is still a "loser" in their eyes and is to be shunned. He didn't do it soon enough. Or he didn't do it right. Or he is nothing but a political opportunist. I'm beginning to think that some Democrats have gotten attached to their vision of Democrats as losers so they won't be emotionally shattered anymore. That's understandable. It's painful to get beaten. But, the rank and file need to step up too and be willing to lose and not hate ourselves or our leaders for it. How we lose on issues like this makes the difference for the future."

>> Elsewhere, plenty of lefty bloggers are still keeping up the good fight -- Popular liberal bloggers Jeralyn Merritt, Barbara O'Brien, and Patrick Nielsen Hayden encourage people to keep calling Senate offices urging support for the filibuster. They all post phone numbers. But Markos Moulitsas counsels liberals to focus on winning in '06: "[T]he real culprit is the Democratic establishment has done such a piss-poor job of running elections that we only have 44 of them. ... Ahh, you're thinking, we can say 'f--- [TN Rep. Harold] Ford and [PA Treas. Bob] Casey,' right? Absolutely not. Those guys, even if they might vote for an Alito, would vote for Harry Reid as majority leader, and the Dems would control the chamber's committees."

>> The political considerations are not to be overlooked -- Liberal Kevin Drum lays out the risks: "Would this end up hurting Democrats? It might. ... But in politics, if you only fight when you're sure of victory, you're never going to fight at all." Conservative Bill Ardolino rejoins: "Uh huh. How about when you're sure of losing?" At Outside the Beltway, James Joyner notes the Dems who aren't backing Kerry, sifts through the comments at dKos, and calls up a reference to "Team America": "Massachusetts, F--- YEAH!" RedState's Leon H describes Kerry as having "the acute political acumen that led him to crushing defeat against a vulnerable President," an acumen leading him to filibuster a nominee "with public support against him by a 2-1 margin." More: "The only thing that makes this better is that he's launching the filibuster from Europe. And also, that everyone knows his mission is doomed before it begins."

>> Meanwhile, red state Dem Sens. Tim Johnson (SD) and Robert Byrd (WV) have announced they intend to vote for Alito. Liberal Steve Soto: "After a wealthy GOP businessman jumped into a race for his seat this year, Bob Byrd said today he'll vote for Alito. And South Dakota's Tim Johnson, who isn't facing a race of his own" until '08 is "following the same flawed 'kick me again W' political instincts of Tom Daschle." Conservative PoliPundit sees it differently, opining that Johnson "probably doesn't want to be Daschled." Syndie columnist Jack Kelly, at his Irish Pennants blog: "Johnson has chosen to do the right thing. Let's honor him for it." He adds, Byrd "is on board, too. He's up for re-election this year, and he just got a major league opponent, so all he'll get from me is a temporary cessation of white sheet jokes.

>> More filibuster commentary -- Centrist Joe Gandelman doubts whether Dems are wise to listen to PfAW and the like: "Liberal groups arguing that even if it looks like a losing fight Democrats need to fight it to show that they will fight. Have these liberal groups proven to be great strategists for the Democratic Party in recent years or more of an Achilles heel?" Left-leaning Ed Kilgore: "I can only hope Senate Dems make a serious effort to stay focused on the Big Case against Alito during the debate, and not provide the GOP with any negative ad material. It's especially important that they deal with the GOP "obstructionist" talking point by relentlessly reminding people that Bush deliberately picked this fight by giving conservative activists their very own Supreme Court nominee." Right-leaning Jeff Goldstein: "A nearly unanimous party-line vote against Samuel Alito, as I noted elsewhere, bespeaks a broken system of advice and consent; and politicians like John Kerry embody the cynicism and partisanship that has turned the judicial confirmation process into an extension of electoral politics based around ideology and the power to control its spread and influence into social policy." Center-right Cadillac Tight likes Alito, but is open to a successful filibuster for bigger reasons: "I think Alito is a very smart guy, and I think he'd do a great job on the Supreme Court, but I'm not going to go hide in the basement and cry if his confirmation is blocked by a procedural move. There are other judges out there, after all, many of whom could do just as well as Alito. No, I'm actually much more interested now that there's potential for a filibuster, and I couldn't be happier about Kerry putting it together either. Kerry has become one of the biggest sycophants of the far left in the Senate, and he's definitely the one I want pushing this. I think we're long overdue for this fight, and while I'm marginally in the Republican corner, I won't be too upset if the Democrats come out as the victor."

PALESTINIAN ELECTIONS: What Hath "Democracy Whiskey Sexy" Wrought?

Liberal prof/blogger Juan Cole contributes an election recap to Salon titled "How do you like your democracy now, Mr. Bush?" Building on Cole, Marc Cooper writes: "The elections pushed relentlessly by the Bush administration have produced the least favorable results -- for all parties involved. ... Defusing Hamas -- if possible -- will also require what Reagan used to call 'constructive engagement' but of which his political heirs remain blissfully and recklessly ignorant. I can't think of a worse moment to have the Bushies in charge."

At Abu Aardvark, Williams College prof Marc Lynch: "It is an article of faith among virtually all Arabs and Muslims that in 1992 the United States and Europe green lighted the Algerian military coup after the Islamist FIS stood on the brink of electoral victory. This has been taken for a decade and a half as the definitive evidence that the American and European commitment to democracy was a hypocritical farce: democracy only if our allies won." He continues: "Hamas winning and presumably moving to form a government is the first real instance of an Islamist movement on the brink of winning power democratically since 1992. If they take power, we are going to see some major political science propositions put to the test: does power moderate or radicalize Islamist groups? Will they be willing and able to work with non-Islamist parties in a coalition? Will they use their democratic victory to abolish democracy?"

Brad Plumer tries to answer as best he can: "A handful of reasons for optimism: Hamas has mostly adhered to the ceasefire over the past six months, certainly more strictly than Fatah has; at the local level, where it has previously won elections, Hamas has been dealing with Israel regularly and for the most part has focused solely on day-to-day governing and economic development, rather than talking up the virtues of a sharia state. And judging from recent polling, most Palestinians would support a compromise peace settlement with Israel, and increasingly are souring on Hamas' armed wing, the al-Qassam Brigades. Popular opinion could prove a moderating force. On the other hand, this is Hamas." Reporting from Palestinians areas, OxBlog's Patrick Belton relays this encounter: "Talked with [PA spokesperson] Hanan Ashrawi downstairs just now. Not mincing words, she expressed utter disbelief in the Hamas 2.0 hypothesis, said she would not be open to joining a coalition with the party and told me that she thought Hamas would bring the West Bank and Gaza into theocracy. On the other hand, she'd just finished several months of running against the party. Take your pick."

Business consultant Pieter Dorsman of Peaktalk: "There's strong case to be made that Hamas has learned from what came before it. It benefited royally from Arafat's disingenuous approach to peace, not to mention his inability to forge any coherent social-economic policy. ... The purist's message is simple, war and the destruction of Israel, at any cost. The question is who will bear the cost as such an approach would further destroy whatever is left of the Palestinian economy and forever dry up the steady stream of international aid."

Following the elections, ex-Pres. Carter said: "The Palestinian Government is destitute, and in desperate financial straits. I hope that support for the new government will be forthcoming." Guest-blogger Bluto at conservative The Jawa Report picks this up and hits him with it: "Isn't President Peanut just the soul of kindness, at least when it comes to coddling terrorists? Unfortunately, as I pointed out earlier here, it's illegal for Americans to provide "material support or resources" to designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations."

Richard Fernandez of The Belmont Club considers the possible political effects in the West: "The election of Hamas is to some degree a vote against Fatah corruption. One of the chief electoral spoils will be the billions of dollars in international money that have over the years, gone into creating what in the end turned out to be hateful to everyone. In that sense it was a vote against the last 15 years of nonsense. The political investments in Yasser Arafat, which included warm receptions at the White House, the Nobel Peace Prize, half a century of international aid. Oslo. All of that may have been buried today, though it I wouldn't be surprised if those whose international careers depended on it try to resurrect it in zombie-like fashion to totter around in a putrefied state for as long as it can be kept going."

Header at conservative IMAO: "It's Like Electing a More Violent, Dumber Version of the Nazis."

RUSSERT: Arianna Has Such A Crush On Him

On "Meet the Press" last weekend, host Tim Russert hosted frequent guests James Carville and Mary Matalin. At the end of their segment, Russert encouraged Carville to plug his new XM Satellite sports radio show, which it just so happens will be co-hosted by Russert son Luke Russert, currently a college sophomore. On 1/22, frequent Russert critic Arianna Huffington criticized all involved for the "clubby" nature of the political and media elite: "Does Tim think nobody's going to notice that he's having a guest on his "news" show who is making it possible for his son to co-host a national sports radio show before he's out of college? Or, more likely, does he just not give a damn, because, hey, it's all just one big game... hockey, baseball, football, politics, it's all the same thing, right?" Not long after, Mickey Kaus added his own "Lukegate" questions: "It's one thing if a big star uses his connections to get a job for his unemployed son. Connections help. Stars' sons are often talented! But a sophomore in college? Isn't that rushing the connections thing a bit? Does Tim Russert think he's actually doing his son a favor? Does Luke Russert have no spark of honest Oedipal anger?"

Then on 1/26 she fired new shots after learning that he is scheduled to keynote an Ethics of the Media conference at Ripon College. "Inviting Tim Russert to keynote a conference on journalistic ethics is like having Jack Abramoff keynote a conference on lobbying reform, Jim Frey lecture on truth in advertising, or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad lead High Holy Days services at Temple Beth Israel." She details, courtesy of the Washington Speakers Bureau, what Russert charges for such appearances.

FishBowlDC's Garrett Graff: "[A]ll of these attacks appear to getting under NBC's skin: Yesterday NBC attacked her saying, 'The last time we heard from Ms. Huffington, she was hiring private eyes to investigate reporters'" -- based on a charge from her husband's '94 CA SEN bid. "Interesting, though, that the 'NBC publicity machine,' ... isn't refuting or engaging on the substance of Arianna's attacks." Jane Hamsher: "This is a man whose limber set of 'ethics' was openly and officially mocked by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald. Whoever booked this rodeo clown show must be a fan of the theater of the absurd." In a follow-up this a.m., Huffington defends herself against NBC's PR dept., which she says is getting "down and dirty" for bringing back the recurring allegation that Huffington is nursing a grudge stemming from a '94 Vanity Fair "hit piece" about her by Russert's wife, Maureen Orth.

MATTHEWS: Beware Of Imus

Open Letter To Chris Matthews stepped up the pace a bit on 1/26. Among the posts, they raise an incident from "Imus in the Morning" last week: "Please contact Toyota, Verizon and TurboTax, using the contacts in the column to the left, and ask them how they feel about associating their brand with lewd jokes that demean gays and lesbians. Why? Because Chris Matthews told one, on the air, during an interview with radio host Don Imus last week. Matthews and Imus shared anti-gay jokes they had heard, which we will not republish on this site." But they do link to Media Matters, which does, and also provides video. MSNBC apologized for it earlier in the week, as Open Letter noted on 1/23. Open Letter founder John Aravosis is also waging the campaign at his regular site, AMERICAblog.

Jane Hamsher calls Matthews' interview with L.A. mayor Antonio Villaraigosa (D) "high camp," especially the part where Matthews describes Mexican-Americans as "natural Republicans": "I think Tweety is losing his grip, the boycott must really be bothering him. Which is an excellent reason to keep the pressure up." Video is at Crooks and Liars.

PAJAMAS MEDIA: Underneath Their Robes

Dennis the Peasant, erstwhile co-founder of Pajamas Media (see 11/14, 11/16, 11/18 and 11/21 Blogometers) received in the mail a copy of the company's advertiser's kit from a "businessman who had contacted Pajamas Media and requested" it. DTP posts the images and dissects PJM's sales techniques, slide-by-slide. He summarizes: "Trying to sell advertising to the moderately sophisticated [with this] kit would be akin to attempt to play game of football without the football." Much of his criticism focuses on the fact that the kit fails to show the advertiser their site will deliver "purchase decision makers."

The kit also claims the "Founders of Pajamas Media debunked the authenticity" of CBS's Bush TANG memos. DTP: "The founders? How about one of the founders... or is Roger Simon now claiming he was in on that whole episode ... Oh, and when we talk about that one particular founder that was actually involved in the Rather Thingy, let's remember that a whole slew of folks, including the boys at Power Line, various folks at Free Republic and commenters at a variety of sites" were equally responsible.

Lawyers, Guns and Money agrees, and mocks the self-reported income numbers: "It's hard to isolate the very funniest thing amidst the ungrammatical gobbeldygook, but I particularly enjoyed the claim that the average Little Green Footballs reader has an average income ... of 'over $105,000.' Yeah, if Warren Buffet reads the site 30 times a day." A Crooked Timber commenter: "I dunno, six figures sounds about right for people living in their stepmother's basement selling used library books on eBay."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Howell's Moving Castle

Last p.m. we had the unique experience of attending an Nat'l Press Club luncheon and discussion hosted by Alex S. Jones, dir. of the Shorenstein Center at the Kennedy School of Gov't at Harvard. Also in attendance were bloggers representing Power Line, AMERICAblog, RedState, MyDD, and others. So too were a number of MSM journalists-turned-bloggers, Beltway media critics and 2 of the minds behind CBS's Public Eye blog. Jones called the group together as part of a new initiative at the school called the Carnegie-Knight Task Force, which plans to issue a series of reports in the interest of strengthening journalism. This discussion group, entitled "A Discussion of Blogging and News Values," was the first of many to be hosted by the task force.

To summarize both sides' point of view, the bloggers in attendance implored the press to "do your job" while the establishment journalists argued that their mistakes did not warrant the harsh response. Both sides understood that evolving media technology has changed the reporting model irrevocably. If the dissolution of "the guild" -- i.e., who gets to be a "journalist" -- doesn't do it alone, the drift of advertising revenue away from newspapers will take care of the rest.

As you might expect from a room full of bloggers and MSM types, things got heated and voices were raised. But what we didn't expect was a surprise guest -- Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell. Howell has been at the focus of an ongoing controversy over corrections and comment standards at the Post, and much of the discussion focused on these controversies. Howell was there to give her side of the story, as well as get some feedback in a (somewhat) controlled environment.

First of all, Howell agreed that she had made a grievous error in describing disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff's political donations: "I made a mistake ... and I am heartsick about it." That aside, she also conceded that she had made a mistake by waiting several days to post a correction, noting the practice of running news corrections on Page 2 but running column corrections only in the column. This is a typical arrangement at most newspapers. New York Times public editor Byron Calame has also dealt with the columnist-correction discrepancy in recent months (see 9/19 Blogometer). Howell indicated that she was interested in creating a standard place for all corrections at the Post.

As we mentioned earlier, not everything went smoothly. When MyDD contributor Matt Stoller was given the microphone, he forcefully stated to Howell: "The antagonism here is coming from you guys." Seemingly frustrated by the Post's handwringing over the comments, he shouted: "Nothing happened to you!" At this point Jones asked Stoller whether words could do violence, and Stoller stepped back and changed course.

At one point, Howell said that when she was brought on, the Post had asked her if she would write a blog. She told them at the time, let's see how it goes. Lest these last few weeks' experience turn her off the idea for good, Howell said she was still considering it. She asked the room -- "Should I write a blog?" The bloggers -- including John Aravosis, one of her chief critics -- encouraged her to do so.

Also worth noting: Some present were a bit surprised to hear bloggers Aravosis and Kevin Aylward from Wizbang freely admit the fact that they too delete comments from their boards. Of course, their standards are looser than the Post, which dictates that swearing is expected and substantive attacks are encouraged, but no slander, no copyright violation, and "in general" no personal attacks. Aravosis also volunteered that this last rule wasn't followed strictly, and definitely wasn't followed during the Howell controversy, and for that he also volunteered an apology.

When we get a copy of that Carnegie-Knight report, we'll be sure to share more.

BLOGS VS. THE MSM II: Commentariat Comment Riot

Now, about those comments: a frequent criticism by left-of-center bloggers about right-of-center bloggers came up again -- that conservative blogs don't have comments, whereas the liberal ones do. This certainly isn't the case for all or perhaps even most right-leaning blogs, but there's more than a strain of truth to this. Liberal blogs are on the whole more likely to enable comment boards than conservative blogs.

Among the highest-traffic liberal blogs, it's hard to find someone who doesn't have comments: the Washington Monthly's Political Animal and Crooks and Liars do, Huffington Post does and Tapped just added them. Talking Points Memo does not, although its sister site TPMCafe does. Most of the A-list conservative blogs do not -- Instapundit, Power Line and Michelle Malkin do not, but then Captain's Quarters, RedState and PoliPundit all do. They all have active boards does, albeit not at the level of Eschaton or Little Green Footballs, 2 of the biggest on the left and right, respectively.

Move down into the mid-tier and lower- trafficked blogs on both sides of the political divide, and nearly everyone has comments -- comments are a scarcer commodity, and certainly less of a hassle. In fact, it's often the only kind of feedback a semi-obscure writer gets. A flame war would be less a headache, more a novelty.

As the Post.com chat showed, the difference might well be ascribed to the philosophical differences that make conservatives conservative and liberals liberal in the first place.

Liberal blog readers expect that a blogger make space available on their site to facilitate discussion, whereas conservative argue that anyone can start a blog and it's not the responsibility of the blogger to give others a soapbox. It's their soapbox, of course. The difference here is one of conservatives touting the virtue of ownership and individual initiative vs. liberals expressing a desire for community.

As lefty blog analyst Chris Bowers has observed, that there are more conservative blogs in the upper tiers, although the liberal blogs have in that range attract more overall traffic. Though there are doubtless multiple factors, one reason is because many liberals have gravitated toward these community sites. All those diaries on Daily Kos are people who otherwise might have signed up for a Blogger account and struck out on their own in the blogosphere.

So the online left and the online right tend to have slightly different ideas about what a blog is for, and on this point they're talking past each other. What type of blog should the Washington Post have? Clearly they've decided to have comments, much as they've operated message boards for years. It has not been demonstrated that the comments on the Post.com blog were truly vulgar or spiteful, but if you've seen the Atrios or Firedoglake comment sections, you can imagine a lot of it wouldn't fly on a "family newspaper" site like the Post's. But whether the reader-commenters actually did carry that tone over is something only Post.com knows for sure.

In any case, if it's too difficult to moderate comments, then at least they should implement a registration process. Daily Kos does this on the left, and Roger L. Simon does this on the right end of the blogsphere. Post.com already makes readers register the first time they visit, and it would be easy enough to add another. Anyone who wants can still gain access easily enough, and violators are bannable. It's not a panacea, and the bad actors may well come back -- but it would be a useful step toward promoting more responsible comment board behavior.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Likely Stories

Of these 2 oft-discussed candidacies ... which is the more improbable?

Writing in his voice as the "Bull Moose," DLC's Marshall Wittmann pronounces the nascent ex-VP Gore draft movement the real deal. He appraises the evidence of elite support, and concludes: "The Moose has no insider insight, but he senses a groundswell of support building for the New Nixon -- that is, the New Gore. The momentum may be unstoppable. There could soon be a new Democratic frontrunner. Don't misunderstand the Moose -- he thinks that Gore would be a disaster for the donkey. But, there is an unmistakable pull in the party toward the port side. Filibusters are being hatched in Davos, and the inmates have taken over the asylum. And for them -- Gore's the One!"

For months and months, Brendan Nyhan has been trying to shoot down the notion that John McCain will either a) run for the WH as an independent, and b) win the WH as an indie. Each time it comes up, he's there to stomp on it again. The latest to catch his attention comes from U.S. News' "Washington Whispers": "Sen. John McCain' s white-hot public approval ratings--59 percent in the new Diageo/Hotline poll--are fast giving rise to a new 2008 presidential primary scenario among Washington's political brain trust. If, as conservatives believe, McCain's liberal stands on gays and abortion kill his GOP primary chances, he may ride into the election as an independent." Nyhan points readers to his previous arguments against this possibility, and by now just adds: "It's nearly impossible for third party candidates to win, and the likely effect of McCain entering the race would be to throw the race to the Democrat. How likely is that?"

LEST WE FORGET: Light Sleeper

By now you've surely seen the recut trailer for "The Shining," which re-envisions the horror film as a heartwarming tale of a family's triumph over adversity. But you may not have seen the recut trailer for "Sleepless in Seattle," which... takes the 1993 romantic comedy in the opposite direction.

Posted by at 01:20 PM

January 26, 2006

1/26: The Brady Bunch

What's the top story today? There's so much going on that we just don't have the time to decide. It's been a busy week, and today is no exception. We devote the most space to yesterday's Post.com chat with exec. ed. Jim Brady and several prominent bloggers, at which many issues were raised and none were put back down. It may put the cap on this particular episode, but the debate obviously will continue. One episode that's still on the air is the boycott of Chris Matthews, which is just getting under way now.

Getting away from the media, the left-blogosphere is pushing hard for the Senate Dems to filibuster Samuel Alito. While we haven't seen any ultimatums threatened just yet, the lefty bloggers are finding various Dems' excuses less than persuasive. Even if Alito cannot be stopped, some see a chance for a unifying Dem moment -- a moment the Hill Dems don't seem to recognize. Not that there isn't any acrimony on the other side of the aisle. Take acting Maj. Leader Roy Blunt, who appears to be purposefully alienating GOP-leaning bloggers. While few were inclined to support him before, this latest contretemps only makes it more likely they will be antagonistic toward him even if he wins the House GOP leadership race. In WH '08, as liberal bloggers are talking down Sen. Hillary Clinton, some conservative bloggers have been talking up John McCain more and more, despite their differences with him. But it's a delicate balance -- his support is partially based in the expectation that he would defeat HRC in the general election, but what if she doesn't make it that far?

Plus, the Palestinian elections, NSA wiretaps, and more impeachment scuttlebutt. Plus, our latest Blogger Spotlight.

HOUSE GOP ELECTIONS: Staff Infection

Following acting Maj. Leader Roy Blunt's poorly-received blogger conf. call last week (see 1/20 Blogometer), QandO's Dale Franks wrote: "I would rather lick fire ants off a stick than see Roy Blunt as Majority Leader."

And now according to Roll Call [sub. req.], Blunt spokesperson Jessica Boulanger said: "Dale Franks should get the soothing balm ready and beware: Fire ants attach themselves to a person by biting with their jaws, then pivoting their heads and stinging from their abdomens in a circular pattern at multiple sites. They tend to attack and sting in great numbers -- just like bloggers."

Mike Krempasky points out that Boulanger's "original zinger" matches almost exactly the description at Yahoo! Health: Fire Ants. He goes on: "At least she took the time to 'pluralize' the cribbed text so she could apply the smear to lots of bloggers. Way to build bridges with one of the most important emerging constituencies of the GOP. What would you people have done in the early 90's, pick fights with conservative talk radio hosts and call them nasty names? Genius."

At QandO, Jon Henke points out that Boulanger is an ex-aide to Tom DeLay, and her husband Todd Boulangerwas a member of "Team Abramoff." He writes: "It's as if they're intentionally trying to make our case for us."

Later that p.m., a RedState post titled "We Need John Shadegg" was posted by "The Directors" -- Krempasky, Ben "Augustine" Domenech, Erick Erickson and Clayton Wagar -- urging in bright red oversized letters: "Call (202) 224-3121 and urge your congressman to support John Shadegg for Majority Leader. This matters."

THE ALITO NOMINATION: Filibuster At Forty, Or Fight?

Scott Shields doesn't quite call for a filibuster, but does see an opportunity: "This is a moment of unity for the Democratic Party. I hope we're able to capitalize on it. There's quite simply no reason for any elected Democrat not to oppose the confirmation of Alito. "

In a post titled "Filibuster, You Idiots," VT-based N. Todd Pritsky pushes hard: "If you goddamned Democrats hang together on this, you can block Alito. ... You'd think right now if the GOP actually had this sewn up, we'd be hearing about how ALL Republicans had announced their intention to vote to confirm and they wouldn't be threatening to make a filibuster a campaign issue." BradBlog tells his readers, "your phone calls providing 'cover' for the Senators, or lack thereof, may make all the difference."

Armando quotes Sen. Mary Landrieu explaining that a filibuster won't do because there are bigger issues for the Senate to deal with, such as Katrina recovery. Armando offers a suggestion: "[W]hy not put off consideration of the Alito nomination until AFTER we deal with all those important issues she has outlined. I mean, since the Supreme Court is not important according to her, surely Alito's nomination can wait a few months before we address it."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM I: Vapor Trails

Early last p.m. Post.com exec. ed. Jim Brady invited several bloggers to participate in a live chat on Interactivity Ethics. The participants: lefty Jane Hamsher from Firedoglake, press critic Jay Rosen of PressThink, righty Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit and new media guru Jeff Jarvis of BuzzMachine. The chat was interesting, if disjointed.

Besides Brady, Hamsher was the only blogger present who had an active part in the last week's controversy over ombudsman Deborah Howell's misstatements on the Abramoff scandal and subsequent dispute about the Post.com blog comment boards; the others were there to add perspective rather than try to settle the issue.

Rosen argued that the Post didn't understand how its temporary silence compounded the problem: "From Sunday afternoon to Thursday, then, the Post and Howell were speaking loudly by doing nothing, sending the message 'there's nothing amiss,' or 'we don't hear you,' or 'just the usual partisan griping.' ... There's news value for outraged readers in a big non-response. The news for them is: you don't count, even when you have a point. Not answering the criticisms of her Jack Ambramoff column was escalating behavior, and the Post began it immediately."

Some left-leaning bloggers, Hamsher included, felt Reynolds' presence was incongrous, because he very rarely enables comments on his site. More than one questioner pressed him about this, to which he replied: "I've never had comments. I get about 1000 emails a day, and I don't have time to look at those, post on my blog, AND moderate comments. And unmoderated comments raise a risk of the kind of thing I mention above, as well as possible libel and copyright issues. I've actually considered bringing someone in to do that, but that seems too impersonal."

For the interested liberal bloggers, much of the focus has moved away from Howell toward the removed comments. Challenged on this point, Brady stood firm: "It was of a cached page of one of the two problematic posts, and as I have mentioned a number of times, didn't have any of the posts that we'd removed. If you want to act as it that's proof of clear exaggeration, I think you lose some credibility when you talk about the press and its burden of proof. If The Post had used that burden of proof to show that Abramoff directed money to Democrats, you'd rightfully be all over them."

In the end, Hamsher didn't feel her questions were answered satisfactorily. Back at her own site, Hamsher let her irritation be known: "[T]he fact remains that the real debate is between me and Brady; Rosen and Jarvis were filler and Reynolds was just there as a junkyard dog. And because of all the filler, Brady was able to avoid getting pressed on a story that he has had a great deal of success fobbing off to the media which has innumerable holes if anybody with any technical sophistication were to really press him."

The A-list left-blogosphere joined in: Duncan "Atrios" Black wrote, "all this could be settled by Brady sending any of us doubters the several hundred intolerable comments he has claimed existed." Lefty Digby challenges Reynolds' claim to civility, quoting Instapundit from 1/28/05: "There was a time when the Left opposed fascism and supported democracy, when it wasn't a seething-yet-shrinking mass of self-hatred and idiocy." (The topic was liberals ignoring Ward Churchill.) Markos Moulitsas: "Thing is, the media and political establishment have learned to accept 'incivility' from the Right. It's expected. It's normal. It becomes like the freight train in your neighborhood that only visitors notice. But from the Left? Heavens! Liberals aren't supposed to fight back! They're supposed to lie there and take it. Like good liberals. And when they don't? Well, everyone suddenly gets the vapors."

The right-blogosphere was not a party to the inital controversy, and so mostly stayed out of the debate. One who did, Snarkaholic, argued that Hamsher hid her background as a Hollywood producer, listing herself as mere blogger. NRO's Media Blog, Stephen Spruiell points out that, "right on cue," just as Reynolds indicated that he feared comments on his site would be attributed to him, AP quoted "one man" on the Little Green Footballs comment board railing against Los Angeles Times columnist Joel Stein (see 1/25 Blogometer).

Stay tuned for tomorrow, when we should have a bit more to say on the issue of blogs and comment boards.

BLOGS VS. THE MSM II: What, No Contact Info For The Regulars On "The Chris Matthews Show"? Not Even Liz Marlantes' Phone Number?

As he hinted earlier in the week 1/23, AMERICAblog's John Aravosis has launched a full-fledged boycott targeting "Hardball" and host Chris Matthews. It's actually the already extant Open Letter To Chris Matthews site, but with a new design, a FAQ explaning the boycott. The site explains its beef Matthews, a former aide to House Speaker Tip O'Neill: "Matthews is perceived, wrongly, as a responsible and objective mainstream journalist with a reputation for calling it as he sees it. That gives his partisan smears a veneer of credibility that makes them particularly offensive and dangerous in a nation at war." (It's probably worth noting that while Matthews has indicated he voted for now-Pres. Bush in '00, he is not a GOPer.)

On the front page are the e-mail addresses and telephone numbers of execs at Toyota, Verizon and Intuit (all companies which advertise on "Hardball"), the e-mail addresses and telephone numbers of MSNBC execs, and a call to action. The FAQ also cites 2 examples of Matthews putting filmmaker Michael Moore or the Dems into the same rhetorical spot as bin Laden and al Qaeda; the site provides video and transcripts for each.

The latest post criticizes a segment from last night's program in which Matthews defended a Dem ad targeting DeLay. Aravosis concludes: "Whether an intentional lie, or sloppy journalism, Matthews yet again skewers the left by skewing to the right."

EAVESDROPPING: Credit Rated

On 1/24, NYC-based atty Glenn Greenwald argued that the NSA wiretap defense put forward by Bush and ex-NSA dir./Lt. Gen Michael Hayden was "factually false." As he explained, a 6/02 bill introduced by Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH), S. 2659, "would have eliminated the exact barrier to FISA which Gen. Hayden [on 1/23] said is what necessitated the Administration bypassing FISA ... it would have "eliminated the 'probable cause' barrier (at least for non-U.S. persons) which the Administration is now pointing to as the reason why it had to circumvent FISA." The WH rejected the bill and it failed.

Washington Post's Eggen reported on this for the 1/26 edition, and gave a hat tip to Greenwald: "The DeWine amendment -- first highlighted this week by Internet blogger Glenn Greenwald and widely publicized yesterday by the Project on Government Secrecy, an arm of the Federation of American Scientists -- is the latest point of contention in a fierce political and legal battle over the NSA monitoring program."

Conservative Mark Coffey is impressed by Greenwald's work on the issue, but doesn't agree with his conclusions: "Glenn's latest discovery, while quite interesting, is not the glaring contradiction it is made out to be if one examines the assumptions underlying the administration's position, regardless of the correctness of those assumptions." Greenwald himself acknowledges Coffey's thoughtfulness, but otherwise, he notes, "I can't help but note that ... the usually vocal and responsive pro-Bush contingent in the blogosphere has been deathly quiet regarding this issue."

PALESTINIAN ELECTIONS: Heads They Win, Tails We Lose?

With Hamas pulling ahead of Fatah in the Palestinian elections, Mahmoud Abbas has stepped aside and asked Hamas to form their own gov't. Back in the states, bloggers on the right as well as the left are digging in for a major diplomatic challenge at best and see deadly confrontation on the horizon at worst. Unlike many issues in the blogosphere, this one doesn't seem to break down along partisan lines -- perhaps more pessimistic/optimistic lines.

Captain's Quarters, on Hamas: "They have chosen war and the annihilation of Israel over the two-state solution favored publicly (if not fervently) by Fatah. Europe and the United States need to wake up from their delusional dreamland of a situation where both sides in this conflict want a peaceful conclusion and a world without hatred for their children and grandchildren." All Things Beautiful agrees with parts of both of the above, but hardly finds a middle path: "The Palestinian elections have amounted to deciding which one of the terrorist parties the Palestinians will vote for. Which method of killing do the Palestinians prefer? Disgraceful." Liberal Running Scared sounds much like the conservatives above: "A glorious triumph for the export of democracy. Too bad they seem to have voted for the terrorists and war. Some people would do well to dust off their history books and read up on Germany's 1933 election. Free and fair, and with a devastating result."

On the other hand, conservative poli sci prof Steven Taylor points out that Fatah was not totally peaceful itself, and adds: "I take some solace that Hamas comes to power through legitimate elections, not a military take-over and that they will have to govern." Liberal Steve Clemons is inclined to agree: "The question though is what happens when a public votes democratically for a group like Hamas? My view is that one hopes Hamas learns to play in a heterodox political order and matures beyond its commitment to violence. Most serious Israeli officials believe that that is happening inside Hamas and say that the threat is no longer Hamas -- but rather the lesser-organized, self-initiating jihadist terrorists that are tougher for all parties to control."

Noting that polls had predicted that Fatah would hold on, James Joyner shares an academic observation: "Apparently, exit polls are lousy predictors of vote outcomes even in the Middle East. This isn't all that surprising since, after all, that's not what exit polls are designed to do. They remain quite useful at their intended purpose: giving detailed insights after the fact of what motivated voters."

WHITE HOUSE '08: If Hillary's Down, Is McCain Out?

At The Plank, TNR's Noam Scheiber asks, whether Alito being justice could help HRC's WH bid. According to the Hotline/Diageo poll, as Washington Post's Cillizza puts it, "approximately one-fifth of Republicans view Clinton favorably -- a group (perhaps moderate women that lean toward the GOP) that could push her over the top in a general election." Scheiber adds: "If, as expected, Alito is confirmed, and if the court begins further restricting access to abortion, I think this key group may well fall in line behind Hillary."

NC-based conservative Betsy Newmark considers what impact HRC could have on McCain's expected bid: "The irony is that Republicans may annoint John McCain as their champion because they think he's the only one who can slay the Wicked Witch, but it will turn out that some other conservative candidate might have done just as well. And then we'll be stuck with McCain."

Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Yesterday, I heard John McCain on Michael Medved's radio show. It was a reminder of how good McCain can be. And how conservative," especially backing up Bush's "telephoning the anti-abortion demonstrators in Washington. McCain said ... this was a tradition that goes back to President Reagan." Hinderaker adds, "it may not take too much to win over conservative Republicans like me. Especially if the choice comes down to McCain or a Democrat like Hillary Clinton, whom I'm pretty sure McCain would trounce."

Lorie Byrd protests the "McCainity" going around on the right: "I do agree that he would be a strong candidate, at least until the media and the Democrats turned on him. I don't, however, think he can be trusted and I don't think he has the temperment to be President. ... Much of McCain's popularity is a result of not only a fawning press, but of years of heaping praise from Democrat politicians like John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and others who will not be so kind to McCain if he is the Republican nominee. "

LOBBYING REFORM: Lifestyles Of The Broke And Infamous

On 1/25, NAM pres./ex-MI Gov. John Englertestified before the Senate to discuss lobbying reform. This a.m., NAM VP and chief blogger Pat Cleary defends his trade in a post at the Manufacturers Blog: "These two weren't dancing on the edge of the law, they were so far beyond it that it was, well, illegal. For this they were caught and will be punished. Advantage the rules. ... Having caught one guy going 100 m.p.h.," Congress has now "decided to lower the speed limit for everyone to 35." He defends the cong. staff tours that NAM pays for as truly educational: "To a person these have been a huge hit. For most, it is the only time they have ever been on a shop floor. Nothing like hearing about health care or energy costs directly from the folks who have to pay it. More important, every one of these trips has received the written blessing -- in advance -- of the House and Senate ethics offices."

At MyDD, Matt Stoller posts a letter from the House Dem leadership outlining their proposed reforms. Stoller is troubled: "I'm really quite puzzled by the strategy of going for lobbying reform. Lobbying isn't really the problem, lobbying is a method of gaining access to legislators. Bribery and extortion seem to be the immediate problems, followed by the structural issue of having to dump millions into every race to win, which is what gives lobbyists power over lawmakers." He adds, "until a House member is willing to file an ethics complaint ... this whole thing strikes me as quite cynical."

IMPEACHMENT: You Make The Call!

In a post at Tapped, Sam Rosenfeld asks for reader input about whether an attempt to impeach Bush is worth the effort: "The office consensus here seems to be that the substantive merits of an impeachment case are real enough, but that an actual push to impeach the president is, um, a spectacularly misguided idea on many levels. Level 1 can surely be summarized in three words: 'President Dick Cheney.' Then you get into a lot of slightly subtler questions about political strategy and backlash and what lessons ought to be learned from the Clinton impeachment, etc. This certainly seems like an idea that ought to be nipped in the bud early. At any rate, what do people think?" The 1st half of the 39 comments split about eventy before tilting strongly in the direction of impeaching Bush.

Ezra Klein, himself a contributor to Tapped, explains at his own blog why he doesn't favor impeachment: "Impeachment may be the sexiest and most gratifying of legal remedies for overstepping executives, but more attention, I think, should be paid to censure. It's a moderate response that codifies presidential wrongdoing and locks in perceptions of illegality. It short-circuits partisan defenses and rallying points that would refocus attention on the politics rather than the substance of the crime. And it strikes me as the most likely way to handicap Bush's second term and create favorable electoral results for Democrats, the only two outcomes actually able to constrain the executive branch." Dadahead, like many of the commenters at Tapped, finds the "President Cheney" argument unconvincing.

CO-based atty Jeralyn Merritt is on the fence: "I favor working to take back the White House and Congress in 2006 and 2008 rather than expending energy on impeachment, but if this President keeps going the way he has been, that could change."

BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: Mr. Baseball

Today the Blogometer talks to conservative Dan McLaughlin, who writes the baseball-and-politics blog Baseball Crank, and also contributes to RedState.

What is your full name?

Dan McLaughlin. While I don't blog anonymously, I don't use my full name with middle initial online so as to maintain a tiny bit of distance from my professional identity as an attorney.

What is your age?

34

Where did you grow up?

Nanuet, New York, a suburb of the City. I mainly grew up around the children of New York City cops and firemen.

Where do you live now?

Queens.

What is your occupation? Have you ever worked on a political campaign or for the mainstream media?

I'm an attorney, practicing securities and commercial litigation. I've volunteered a bit for campaigns, nothing substantial. The first one was Jim Rappaport's 1990 Senate campaign against John Kerry.

As a baseball writer, I wrote for the online edition of the Providence Journal in Providence, Rhode Island. My September 11 column ran in the dead-tree paper.

When did you start blogging and why?

I knew Bill Simmons from college, and in May of 2000, he asked me to do a semi-regular baseball column for his Boston Sports Guy website; it wound up as a weekly gig. After he moved to ESPN.com, I wrote for Art Martone at the Providence Journal from July 2001 until February 2003. But I wanted to write about politics, too, and preferred the flexibility of blogging, so in August 2002, I started a Blogspot blog. My current site, combining baseball and politics, opened April 14, 2003.

What has been your favorite post, or favorite story to write about, in that time?

A lot of my favorite posts have been on baseball topics ... two stories where I really did some digging were my post on the Vietnam records (or lack thereof) of the 2008 presidential contenders and on the Commerce Department's budget.

I had a lot of fun with the "AWOL Bush" story, which involved shooting down a lot of misimpressions, but I was basically just collecting analysis from other people. My favorite recent post was an essay on the Harriet Miers debacle.

Describe your typical blogging schedule. And what is your average output?

I grab breakfast and blog in the basement first thing in the morning until I run out of time and have to catch my train. I mostly don't blog at work, for obvious reasons. I blog on Friday nights sometimes, although I try to use the weekends to work on longer-term blogging projects, like baseball statistical studies. I try to do one or two short posts and one longer one, on a good day. Plus, I post quick thoughts to the RedHot section at RedState now that I'm a contributing editor there.

Who is your favorite political blogger? Favorite non-political blogger?

There's a lot of good ones, but I guess I'd have to say Instapundit, since I read him the most regularly. Also Tom Maguire, James Taranto, Mickey Kaus and Vodkapundit.

Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?

For politics, Mark Steyn, hands down. Also Jonah Goldberg and Charles Krauthammer. Non-political, of course, there's Bill Simmons and Dave Barry.

What is your favorite television news program, either network or cable?

Probably CNN Headline News, which is always on. I get about 90% of my news from the internet, and since I'm basically at work all the time during the week, I don't see much TV. I probably haven't watched an entire evening newscast on the networks in 13 years.

What MSM-produced websites (i.e. newspapers, magazines) do you visit on a daily basis?

For "straight" news, CNN, and sometimes MSNBC. For sports, ESPN.com. I avoid the Fox site because it has too many popups. It's worse than ESPN for pop-ups. I'm also a big fan of surfing the Google News front page. But I read more of the magazine stuff -- National Review, OpinionJournal, the Weekly Standard, Slate.

What non-MSM websites (i.e. blogs) do you visit on a daily basis?

Changes from day to day, but there's a bunch I try to get to almost every day -- Instapundit, RedState (of course), Baseball Musings, The Corner, How Appealing, Vodkapundit, WSJ's "Best of the Web", JustOneMinute, Kausfiles, QandO, Althouse. Then there's the next tier I aspire to read regularly but don't always have time for: Captain's Quarters, Power Line, Matt Welch, Asymmetrical Information, ConfirmThem, Lileks, Yglesias, Kevin Drum, Protein Wisdom, Wizbang, Volokh, Patterico, Hewitt, Hardball Times, Always Amazin', MetsGeek, Baseball Primer. And, of course, the Blogometer.

How often, or do you ever, read a newspaper in its dead-tree (i.e. print) form?

We get the NY Daily News and (I hate to admit it) the NY Times at home. I often skim the Daily News in the morning, but rarely open the Times, which my wife reads. I get the Wall Street Journal at work, but I'm not always as diligent about reading it as I should be. I used to read USA Today religiously for its baseball coverage, but I've gotten away from that.

How do you see the new media and old media affecting and influencing each other in the next five years?

Blogs can sometimes beat the MSM at reporting news, if there's a story a blogger is well-positioned to get. But on the whole, I don't see blogs taking significant market share from the MSM in terms of its delivery of hard news.

One theme I've noted is the danger bloggers pose to what baseball analysts might call "replacement-level" pundits, who have editorial-page or network gigs but aren't gifted writers or reporters and don't have any particular subject-matter expertise (legal, medical, economic or military backgrounds). For years, these folks made a good living rehashing conventional wisdom. But the blogosphere has unearthed a whole world of amateurs who can basically do the same thing or better at little or no cost, and sometimes offer more specialized subject-matter expertise. Basic economics tells us that this will eventually drive down the price, or eliminate the jobs, of replacement-level pundits as more MSM outlets figure out that they don't provide all that much value that can't be obtained better and more cheaply by tapping the blogosphere for op-ed pieces and TV appearances.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: There But For The Disgrace Of Blogs

Trying to get by while hoping that nobody rembers your past? Currently involved in activities your former supporters might not approve? If you've been in the public spotlight before and have a skeleton or two rattling around, your anonymity or peace of mind may not last very long. Here's an example from the right and left:

• Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan hasn't got much press lately, but she's gotten a bit now for her trip to Venezuela where she joined an event with anti-American pres. Hugo Chavez. MRC's News Busters points out that it's still underreported compared with Sheehan's former prominence: "You may not have heard this story because it wasn't mentioned on Today, the Early Show or Good Morning America, among others. This is one of those cases where the bias is in what's not reported." Alarming News finds it interesting that Sheehan is now also criticizing ex-Pres. Clinton: "[Clinton's] policies are responsible for killing more Iraqis that George Bush."
• Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum writes, "I note that the New York Times has published a piece by John Lott today and I just have to ask: what is Lott doing writing op-eds for them?" Lott has been controversial for fabricating research asst, "Mary Rosh," but Drum refers specifically to an incident where Lott "posted, retracted, and then reposted fraudulent data and then covered it up." He adds: "If anyone from the New York Times editorial page is reading this -- or anyone from any other editorial page, for that matter -- do your credibility a favor. Stop publishing this guy. In a decent world, he would have been blackballed from polite editorial society long ago.

LEST WE FORGET: How Long Before He Decides He Wants To Spend More Time With His Family?

Matt Yglesias, who blogs about politics and policy for Tapped and TPMCafe while devoting much of his personal blog's postings to NBA basketball, manages to combine policy and sports for TPMCafe: "One of feminism's less-heralded achievements is that sexual harrassment law may not only provide an increased measure of equality in the workplace, but also offer the New York Knicks a much-needed pretext for firing the egregious Isiah Thomas. Just saying."

NOTES AND ERRATA

In yesterday's edition, we mistakenly attributed a post by Daily Kos front-page contributor SusanG to Daily Kos front-page contributor McJoan. Click here to return to the corrected section.

Posted by at 01:07 PM

January 25, 2006

1/25: Blog With The Devil

In today's hell-catching edition: PA SEN candidate Bob Casey (D) catches hell from the left for supporting Samuel Alito for SCOTUS, the WH catches it for stonewalling on Katrina-related documents, a Los Angeles Times columnist catches hell for expressing his non-support of the troops, Justice Antonin Scalia catches it for taking a FedSoc trip, AG Alberto Gonzales catches it for defending the NSA wiretaps, a few GOP reps. catch it for supporting acting Maj. Leader Roy Blunt, Washington Post prepares to catch more of it than it's already caught, pretty much everyone catches hell over Amazon.com's flawed reviewer system, and the New York Times catches it for putting its new blog behind its subscription wall.

MIDTERMS: Casey Strikes Out?

AP reported last p.m. that PA SEN candidate Bob Casey (D) has "endorsed" Judge Samuel Alito for SCOTUS. Many liberal bloggers have already called for Alito to be filibustered, and they react accordingly.

Scott Lemieux heads a post, "Casey: Anything Santorum Can Do I Can Do Too!" and writes: "I am on the record of being highly skeptical of Robert Casey Jr.'s claims to be a staunch progressive who happens to be extremely reactionary on women's rights, but I was also open-minded. ... That's enough; Casey should not be the Democratic nominee." Booman Tribune: "We are under no obligation to take this shit ... The Republicans are bad enough. Lieberman is bad enough. We need Bob Casey, Jr. like we need a hole in our collective heads." From the official campaign blog of Casey primary challenger Chuck Pennacchio: "I'm hoping this dispels any notion [DNC chair] Howard Dean had about Casey not supporting extreme right wing judges. How about it Howard? Ready to back a real Democrat?"

Conservatives don't mind so much. Orinn Judd dubs him "the next Zell Miller." Matt Margolis notes the endorsement came only after the Philly Inquirer and Washington Post endorsed Alito: "Is he running to become Senator Bobby Casey Jr. or Senator 'Inquirer and Post'?"

Meanwhile, at The Corner, John Miller notes that after covering the PA SEN race, he's received a Happy New Year card from Casey's camp but not Santorum's, even though his conclusion was that, despite Casey's pro-life views, "pro-lifers would be foolish to think Casey's election over Santorum would serve their cause." He continues: "Yet I'm still on the guy's Christmas card list. I must say, that's impressive outreach. ... Having covered political campaigns for a while now, I've learned that little steps such as this may seem insignificant but they are often signs of genuine political health. That's good news for Casey, bad news for Santorum."

Noting a report in Roll Call, DavidNYC at Swing State Project is flabbergasted that the DCCC is $20M short because so many Dems have failed to pay their dues: "This is, as I say, just a totally unacceptable state of affairs. ... It's rarely my style to go after fellow Dems, but come ON, people! We need to be team players on this one." He suggests readers "politely" call or e-mail their reps. and "ask them to pay what they owe the DCCC." Markos Moulitsas notes that 4 of the "deadbeat Dems" are running for SEN or GOV: "It looks like they've already checked out of the House. Perhaps they should be stripped of their committee seats?"

In a post written for Political Wire, Stu Rothenberg writes, the question is not whether the Dems will make gains in '06, but how big: "While Republicans could benefit from improved news from Iraq, perceived progress in the war on terror, an ethics/reform agenda, or future circumstances that no one can now anticipate, I think it far more likely that the political landscape, which currently tilts to the Democrats, could tilt even more toward Democratic House candidates later this year. While a 15-seat Democratic gain remains difficult, I no longer think it impossible."

EAVESDROPPING: Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Pain

Kevin Drum quotes ex-NSA dir./Lt. Gen Michael Hayden pointing out that the NSA only monitors calls when 1 end is outside the U.S. because "that's where we've decided to draw that balance between security and liberty." Drum: "This rather strongly implies that George Bush believes there's nothing stopping him from ordering 100% domestic wiretapping if he feels like it, and nothing Congress can do about it if he does. So much for Article I Section 8."

On 1/24 AG Alberto Gonzales gave a speech at Georgetown Univ., only to have it interrupted by protesters who unfurled a banner reading, "Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither." Michelle Malkin points out the actual wording is: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." She adds: "The omission of those key qualifiers -- 'essential' and 'little' -- makes all the difference in the world. Ben Franklin has been hijacked to endorse an untenable and deadly view that no sacrifice of any liberty for any amount of safety at any time should ever be made."

Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Gonzales did an excellent job of spelling out the reasons why the program is not only necessary, but legal." He adds that Gonzales gave the "best discussion of FISA I've seen by an administration spokesman." Protein Wisdom highlights passage from the speech and concludes: "We are all of us safer for it, not because we are looking for a 'daddy figure' to protect us ... but rather because this is precisely what the President is supposed to be doing. It is his job. And just as I expect Congress to piss away money and debate endlessly on issues that are often of no import, I expect the executive branch to protect our nation and its sovereignty." Angry Bear takes issue with Gonzales' "reasonable" defense, citing the Constitution itself. Preemptive Karma "If the FISA law allows retroactive warrants and the Bush Administration so clearly doesn't want to make this spying program legit by getting those warrants... It begs the question of WHY?"

BLOGS VS. THE MSM I: Support Your Local Soldier!

The 1/24 column by Los Angeles Times' Joel Stein -- which begins "I don't support our troops" -- struck more than a nerve on the right -- according to Memeorandum it's attracted the biggest swarm of the past 24 hours. Stein, a former humor columnist for Time, concludes: "I'm not advocating that we spit on returning veterans like they did after the Vietnam War, but we shouldn't be celebrating people for doing something we don't think was a good idea. All I'm asking is that we give our returning soldiers what they need: hospitals, pensions, mental health and a safe, immediate return. But, please, no parades."

Stein agreed to appear on Hugh Hewitt's radio program last p.m.; Radioblogger hosts the full transcript (and Memeorandom says more links point to this page than to Stein's actual column). Hewitt earned kudos for the calm manner in which he draws out Stein's beliefs. Matt at Blackfive: "He did so without bombast, or vitriol, or belittlement. He did so like a wise elder showing a smart ass punk just how much of a smart ass punk he actually is." At his own blog, Hewitt writes, he "asked Stein if a reader would be justified in cancelling his or her subscription to the Los Angeles Times on the basis of the column. He admitted that while he hoped that a single column on the op-ed page wouldn't rigger such a reaction that he could certainly understand people doing so." Hewitt makes phone numbers available for LAT readers to cancel their subscription if they are so inclined. To that end, John McIntyre at The RCP Blog asks, "why would a major newspaper like the Los Angeles Times, that is trying rejuvenate their sales, run a column that displays this type of ingratitude to our men and women who volunteer to defend this country?"

LA Observed's Kevin Roderick notes that the piece was the Los Angeles Times' most-emailed story for the day, and quotes a Reuters story where Stein says he's receiving angry e-mail, but says: "My guess is that it will die down pretty quickly."

If so, that's in large part because Stein is relatively unknown in the blogosphere -- certainly compared to left-wing cartoonist Ted Rall. But for now, he's in the same league: Instapundit purposefully steps over a line most conservatives are wary of crossing: "I think it's probably OK to question Joel Stein's patriotism." John Hawkins gives him partial credit for honesty: "The truth is that a lot (but, not all) of the people on the left, have a deep antipathy towards the military that they refuse to reveal because it's considered politically taboo, particularly after the way many liberals behaved after Vietnam." Myopic Zeal: "Presumably he doesn't support Saddam's torture chambers either, but I wasn't able to Google up anything he had written to that effect." Jim Treacher parodies the column: "Remember those old Excedrin commercials? I think this is Excedrin Headache #352! Man oh man, I sure do love things from the '70s. Except for Vietnam. ... I mean, how can you be pro-war? That's like being pro-bad. 'I like bad, I think bad is right.' That makes about as much sense as Horshack getting an 'A' on his history test. Remember him?"

Perhaps more surprisingly, anti-war blogger Duncan "Atrios" Black handed Stein his "Wanker of the Day" award: "Bring on the parades. If our military rank and file have been betrayed by their civilian leadership they deserve our respect doubly."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM II: Therapy Session

In the latest on liberal bloggers vs. the Washington Post, today at 1:00 p.m. EST Post.com's Jim Brady are hosting an "Ethics and Interactivity" live chat with bloggers Jane Hamsher, Jay Rosen, Glenn Reynolds and Jeff Jarvis. Hamsher, at her Firedoglake: "They say the moderator will be choosing questions that are "representative" of the ones that come in, so leave a copy in the comments and we'll be able to have some way to check that." NRO's K.J. Lopez is upset that the Post has invited Hamsher, on account of having called NR's O'Beirne a "bitch" (see above). John Amato is dismissive: "They asked a guy who doesn't allow comments, while another guy doesn't get comments because he gets no traffic. Real experts they are on this topic."

Following John Kerry, now liberal blogosphere favorite Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) has joined in the criticism of MSNBC's Chris Matthews. Like Kerry, she posts a diary to Daily Kos: "Over the last few days, I have watched with concern as prominent media personalities and political pundits like Chris Matthews have engaged in reckless rhetoric comparing critics of the Bush Administration to the world's most wanted terrorist, Osama Bin Laden. This isn't just offensive, it's absurd -- and harmful to our nation." Being a bit more netroots-savvy, she also posted it to MyDD.

For days now, conservative bloggers, starting with Confederate Yankee, have pointed out for days that Moore himself compared bin Laden's rhetoric to his own on 11/1/04, writing at his site: "There he was, OBL, all tan and rested and on videotape (hey, did you get the feeling that he had a bootleg of my movie? Are there DVD players in those caves in Afghanistan?)"

THE ALITO NOMINATION: Tick Talk, Tick Talk

As we noted yesterday, according to NRO's York, Senate Maj. Leader Bill Frist is likely to allow Dems to talk all night prior to the SOTU, then call cloture the following a.m. RedState's Leon H: "The next 24-48 hours promise to reveal much about many things that have been shrouded in mystery over the past year. How much control do the respective caucus leaders hold over the other Senators in their party? Will the Democrats dare a filibuster on a nominee who enjoys public support by a 2-1 margin? Will they dare not filibuster? And, if the final showdown presents itself, does Frist have the 50 he needs?"

Daily Kos' SusanG: "No one knows for certain if Alito will tip the scale to elimination of the right to choose. Specter seems confident he won't; a dozen or so states seem to believe he will. It's a crap shoot, and gambling with fundamental privacy rights is a high-risk game." Chris Bowers: "From what I have heard, right now the 'no' votes on Alito are somewhere in the range of 44-47, and the filibuster votes are somewhere in the range of 37-40. In other words, we are close, but not there yet. Unfortunately, I have no idea who the weak Senators are on the filibuster vote, so I can't give you any information which contacts would be best to make."

SCALIA: Junket, or Junk?

ABC News followed Justice Antonin Scalia at a CO resort, where he played tennis and addressed the Federalist Society on the same day John Roberts was sworn in as Chief Justice. Confirm Them links to the Federalist Society's documentation of what Scalia did there. Objective Justice, on the "exclusive": "I just had to pick myself up off the floor because I was laughing so hard. ... Maybe it would have actually been a story if they described justice Scalia as trying to influence the lawyers, but they were too daft. Instead, the legal community now has something to amuse itself with." Crime & Federalism: "Justice Scalia had committed to teaching the course months in advance. Over 100 lawyers each spent hundreds of dollars to attend the seminar. How is keeping a commitment a 'snub' to anyone?" And more: "Of course, as is plainly evident from the Federalist Society's website, no one kept this trip a secret. Indeed, it was widely advertised to many people lacking power and prestige -- including me." Orin Kerr, with tongue in cheek: "It remains unclear whether Justice Scalia will have to step down from the Supreme Court or face impeachment, as no Justice has ever missed a hearing as critical as a swearing-in ceremony before. Some scholars argue that having missed Roberts' swearing-in ceremony, Scalia lacks the qualifications to vote on cases heard by the Roberts Court."

KATRINA: Paper Chase

Following the DHS report that showed the WH knew more about the possible impact of Katrina before it struck, New York Times reports that the WH does not plan to hand over a number of storm-related documents.

Liberal The Carpetbagger Report: "When this special committee was created in Katrina's wake, congressional Dems initially refused to participate because they assumed Republicans would be afraid to push the administration, even when necessary. This is a chance for the GOP to prove Dems wrong. Here's the only question congressional Republicans need to ask themselves in an intellectually serious way: What would they do if this were a Democratic president?"

Conservative John Cole: "I am under no illusion that Democrats would honestly or fairly examine the evidence, and I am fairly sure they will distort or portray in the worst possible light all the internal communications for political advantage. ... But just because they are going to do that is no excuse to not release what was known and when. I want to know what happened, and I want it fixed, if there is anything that can be fixed." Pressed to compare this with VP Cheney shielding his energy task force records, Cole moves a bit toward the fence.

No More Mr. Nice Blog creates a fake NYT report for 6/14/06: "The Bush administration completed work late last night on the conversion of the entire federal government to a password-protected, subscription-only entity." The name, of course, is WhiteHouseSelect.

HOUSE GOP ELECTIONS: Blunt Trauma

At RedState, Blanton singles out conservative GOP Reps. Bobby Jindal, Marsha Blackburn, Lynn Westmoreland, Todd Akin, and Joe Pitts as "disappointments" for their support of acting Maj. Leader Roy Blunt for the maj. leader job. Writes Blanton: "On one hand, it is perfectly understandable that these mostly relatively new members of congress would not want to rock the boat and would be inclined to go with the establishment. But, it is time for them to grow in office and look to someone like Jeb Hensarling as an example."

The Hill's Bolton reports, according to "those who have studied the growing influence of alternative media in politics," Blunt's momentum could be slowed by the "growing opposition" of conservative bloggers, who lean strongly toward Shadegg. The criticism of Blunt has grown since the 3 candidates held separate conference calls with bloggers on 1/19 (see 1/20 Blogometer).

N.Z. Bear, to The Hill: "I don't think it's a secret or controversial statement of the three candidates Blunt seems most connected to the old guard and arguably seems the least committed, the least interested in significant reform and shaking things up." Blunt spokesperson Jessical Boulanger said her boss "recognizes that bloggers are very opinionated and colorful and spirited groups." Blunt, she said, "looks forward to working with conservative bloggers in the future to direct their firepower on the Democrats."

CORRUPTION: Get The Picture?

On 1/23, Think Progress deduced that the Abramoff photos floating around were likely being shown by Abramoff himself. Now they point out that Newsweek's Isikoff said on "Hardball" last p.m., "while the White House hasn't put these out, Jack Abramoff has clearly shown them to people." Isikoff doesn't mention Time, but does say Abramoff showed the pictures to the Washingtonian, as Think Progress had thought.

AP has Travis Co. DA Ronnie Earle now probing possible financial doings between Rep. Tom DeLay and convicted ex-Rep. Duke Cunningham. Troy Univ. poli sci prof Stephen Taylor says he wouldn't put it past Earle to "go fishing," but regardless, "the stars are aligning for" DeLay's "electoral ouster" in the fall.

AMAZON: The Star System

Starting 1/11, liberal satire blog Jesus' General posted a fake-positive (i.e. negative) review of "Women Who Make The World Worse," by National Review's Kate O'Beirne. The review was subsequently pulled, then with the help of Crooks and Liars, reinstated. It was far from the only one, as ' RenaRF and others, including Jane Hamsher, encouraged their readers: "If you haven't written your one-star 'Ode to Kate,' please do." On 1/20, NRO's K.J. Lopez took issue with the campaign, writing that the book "should incite a constructive debate. That's not what we're watching happen on the Net at the moment, however. It's pretty evident that the most unhinged and motivated of Kate's detractors have neither read her book nor intend to."

By 1/23, it was apparent the same was happening to a new book by Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes praising Bush as the "Rebel-in-Chief." Michelle Malkin, whose latest book was about the "Unhinged" left, had her book subject to the same abuse, and wrote a lengthy post about the phenomenon: "Bottom line: The Amazon.com review section has become a joke and a cesspool, and if the company cares about its credibility with a large segment of its book-buying audience, it better fix the problem."

But liberal World O' Crap pointed out that conservatives have targeted liberal books just the same: "I checked out the Amazon customer reviews of Michael Moore's 'Will They Ever Trust Us Again?' which came out in October 2004, but is still getting one-star reviews," such as "I wouldn't trust that guy with a potato cannon." The same has happened to Bill Maher and Al Franken. Sadly, No!: "You'll notice, of course, that Mr. Franken didn't go crying to Amazon.com about the shitty reviews people gave his book. At what point did the American right become a bunch of pathetic crybabies?"

Vaughn Ververs of CBS's Public Eye picked up on the controversy on 1/23, noting: "It's not yet caused Amazon to shut down its reviews, but it's getting some notice." Journalist Rick Perlstein sent an e-mail to ververs -- reprinted at Hullabaloo -- which went: "Cher colleague, you know nothing about Amazon.com and have fallen for a right-wing propaganda campaign. People have been driving down the ratings of books for ideological reasons since there have been reviews on Amazon, with conservatives in the lead by about half a decade." In fact, in 11/00 Perlstein wrote an article about the phenomenon for the American Prospect. On account the feedback, including numerous comments on the Public Eye blog, Ververs later updated to note that neither side has a "monopoly on these tactics, only that these examples popped up at the same time."

As Sadly, No! points out, back in 9/03 Ted Barlow of Crooked Timber argued that the book reviews are "useless," and created a chart showing the average scores of books in several arbitrary categories: "Most books are reviewed by their fans, but political books draw a crowd of partisans to give one-star reviews of books they haven't read." Barlow noted that political books tended to draw lower ratings than discredited books such as "Mein Kampf." As of today, at 386 reviews, O'Beirne's book currently has 3 1/2 stars.

TIMESSELECT: If A Blog Exists But Almost No One Can Read It ... Is It Really A Blog?

New York Times has launched a new blog following opinions in newspapers, magazines and the blogosphere -- The Opinionator -- written by Chris Suellentrop. The catch is that you have to be a paid subscriber to read it. Suellentrop describes it at his own blog: "If you're already a Times or Times Select subscriber ... think of The Opinionator as the free shoephone that Sports Illustrated used to hand out with its paid subscriptions. It's the 'but-wait-there's-more' product, the journalism equivalent of that special bonus CD of classic country duets that Time-Life gave you when you bought their '70s funk anthology."

Mickey Kaus: "I suspect that within weeks, if not hours, he'll look at his stats and wish he weren't locked away behind Pinch's wall." He also points out that TimesSelect has only added about 20K subscribers atop the 150K it picked up soon after launch. As Kaus puts it, TimesSelect has hit a wall of its own. Andrew Sullivan calls it the Times' "latest exercize in cluelessness": "Chris Suellentrop is a swell guy. But having a sealed-off blog is an oxymoron." MemeFirst points out that it has a free RSS feed, but each entry is "truncated to the point of uselessness." Gawker: "It's almost like, you know, a real blog!"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Frankie And Johnny

The New Republic's Franklin Foer and New York Post's John Podhoretz have a feud going between them, taking place on the blogs they contribute to, TNR's The Plank and National Review's The Corner, respectively. The tiff started with Foer riffing on Podhoretz's nickname and his old Washington Times column, to Podhoretz raising a '95 incident where the 2 met, Podhoretz challenged Foer for previously comparing him to Stalin, upon which Foer turned green, and during which Podhoretz's spittle may have landed on Foer's glasses. In chronological order, see Foer here, Podhoretz here, Foer again here, Podhoretz again here and Foer's latest here. On an unrelated note, American Prospect's Ezra Klein, guest blogging at Wonkette, is apparently trying to start something with TNR.

LEST WE FORGET: Political Hacks Just Wanna Have Fun

According to the New York Times, neuroscientists have "tracked what happens in the politically partisan brain when it tries to digest damning facts about favored candidates or criticisms of them. The process is almost entirely emotional and unconscious, the researchers report, and there are flares of activity in the brain's pleasure centers when unwelcome information is being rejected. Economist Tyler Cowen points readers to an academic paper (PDF) he wrote on this subject, but most everyone else just has fun with it:

JustOneMinute: "I can't tell you how many flares of pleasure I enjoyed during the last campaign; was it good for you, too?" Right Side Redux: "Am I reading this right? I'm going to ignore this." Staunch Moderate: "We enjoy hearing bad news about our political enemies and react very skeptically to any news that goes against our preferred candidates or political views. Hell, I got a big smile on my face when I read the article on this experiment. So that just makes me a partisan nonpartisan." EconLog: "I can't wait until we have continuous, public MRI scanning. That way, when I criticize someone's beliefs, I can say, "See, I got you! Your pleasure centers are being activated. I must have scored a point!" On the other hand, why criticize someone you disagree with, if all it's going to do in the end is give them a high?"

Posted by at 12:52 PM

January 24, 2006

1/24: Eavesdrop It Like It's Hot

While the biggest story today is probably the Canadian elections, the story that really matters to anyone inside the Beltway is (for the first time in a week) the NSA wiretap scandal. On 1/23 Pres. Bush defended himself against claims that his orders broke the law, as did Gen. Michael Hayden of the NSA. Meanwhile, the immediate furor over the Washington Post, Chris Matthews and Tim Russert seems to have declined -- but their opponents are serious, and new websites are springing up to pressure them. Elsewhere, Sen. Hillary Clinton's red state/upstate NY appeal is debated, and an online conservative magazine gives new oxygen to the left's hopes of impeachment proceedings. Plus, our latest Blogger Spotlight.

EAVESDROPPING: Brokeback Laws And Mountin' Questions

Arguably the most-cited line from Bush's presser (apart from his "Brokeback Mountain" answer) was: "You know, it's amazing that people say to me, 'Well, he was just breaking the law.' If I wanted to break the law, why was I briefing Congress?" Answers and responses to that question are plentiful, from the right and left.

>> From the left -- AMERICAblog's Joe in DC answers: "Well, there is the question of whether you really briefed question. And, then there is the fact you think you're above the law." The Democratic Daily quotes from James Risen's book: "Some congressional leaders have been notified about the Program, but only in extraordinarily secret fashion and only in ways that guarantee they feel constrained from raising objections to it. (pg. 55-56)" A Moderate's Musings: "Because the law specifies that you need a warrant, not that you brief Congress. And you only briefed a few people and didn't let them debate it. Plus, you decided on this method only after you decided to couldn't change the law legally."

>> And the right -- California Conservative: "In that simple sentence, he called Democrats like Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy and others to task for their whining about him breaking the law. This argument really is about perspective: Congress' perspective that they don't like a strong Executive Branch and the public's perspective that they want to be safe. PERIOD." MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy: "Gotta love President Bush when he says stuff like that. And yes, I'm using 'President Bush' just to rub it into the moonbats, what with his honest election as President, twice." The Waterglass, to Bush: "As long as your political enemies consider you a more dangerous entity than they do a group of murdering fanatics bent on destroying western civilization, you're going to be under attack in this way. Partisan Democrats and civil liberties absolutists don't truly believe we're at war. I'm glad that the people who have the authority to make decisions do."

Both Eschaton and Daily Kos highlight an exchange between Knight Ridder's Jonathan Landay and NSA's Gen. Michael Hayden disputing the proper standard for wiretaps -- "probable cause" or the reasonability of the "search and seizure." To these bloggers, Landay seems in the right. Conservative John Hinderaker also studied the exchange and in his assessment, splits the difference: "I think that what the reporter said was correct, as to the Presidential authorization. ... Under the Presidential authorization for limited international surveillance, it sounds as though the standard is 'reasonable belief' as opposed to 'probable cause.' General Hayden was correct as to the constitutional standard. It is not unreasonable to intercept international communications that are reasonably believed to involve al Qaeda; therefore, the program is constitutional." Meanwhile, MRC's News Busters argues that NBC's "Nightly News" should have quoted Hayden saying that the wiretap program might have detected 9/11 terrorists had it been implemented then.

Kevin Drum writes, the NSA eavesdropping involved "garden variety" wiretaps, as Hayden acknowledged, and so "the only change necessary to make this program legal was an amendment to FISA modifying the circumstances necessary to issue certain kinds of warrants. This would have tipped off terrorists to nothing. So why didn't they ask Congress for that change? It certainly would have passed easily." Directing readers to a Matt Yglesias post on this question, Atrios writes: "Since in the numerous and changing justifications for the illegal acts by our criminal president we have yet to hear any sensible explanation for why they couldn't simply go to the FISA court to obtain warrants, the simplest and most obvious explanation is that they're up to no good."

At The Corner, Andrew McCarthy argues that domestic spying was "critical in the Civil War, when, by definition, it was done domestically." Libertarian Jim Henley objects: "Lincoln's domestic security actions during the Civil War represent a cost we continue to pay, today. ... 'Even Lincoln did it' is one more price the country deserved to pay" for having slavery in the first place.

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Open For Business

Two new "open letter" sites have sprung up in the past 24 hours -- To Tim Russert and Open Letter To The Washington Post. From the Russert-related blog: "This Sunday, you asked Senator Barack Obama to respond to Harry Belafonte's remarks about George W. Bush being a 'terrorist.' ... Why did you ask this question? Harry Belafonte isn't an elected official, he doesn't speak for Democrats, he doesn't represent Senator Obama, he doesn't represent the Democratic Party, and he is entitled to his own opinion." From the Post-related blog: "Since the Washington Post won't reliably keep their blog comments open, we have created this web site for individuals to comment on the work of the Post." Matt Stoller points these blogs out, writing: "These blogs are designed to be places where readers can give feedback to media outlets that don't allow their readers to effectively congregate. The internet opens up remarkable avenues for discourse. Tim Russert doesn't have an 'ombudsman' or a space for discussion, so we built one. The Washington Post does have an ombudsman, but it has been discredited by their actions." They are in the mode of To Chris Matthews, which urges an MSNBC boycott until he apologizes.

Providing video of last p.m.'s "Hardball," Crooks and Liars scoffs at Matthews' "obvious move to get us off his back." Said Matthews: "You know, on Hardball we've been raising the question about no-bid contracts and how Halliburton has gotten some profits out of that, and maybe we were right or wrong, but we were raising that issue. Certainly people like Michael Moore raised that question of profiteering." C&L's John Amato: "How does a guy go from comparing him to a terrorist one day -- then an incredible investigative journalist [i.e., Matthews] the next?" At JustOneMinute, Tom Maguire insists: "Matthews point is that Osama is adopting the rhetoric of Michael Moore, NOT that Michael Moore is adopting the rhetoric of Osama Bin Laden. This is an important distinction that the critics on the left seem to be determined to blur."

In light of the Post's removal of its comment section, Jeff Jarvis considers the "ethics of interactivity." To start: "Q: Are media required to play host to the opinions and criticism of others? A: No. But they will be judged by their interactivity." More: "Q: By the way, do we really need ombudsmen? A: No. Everyone in a newspaper should have a direct relationship with the public. They should all be their own ombudsmen."

CANADA: Does This Mean Conservatives Have To Stop Calling It "Canuckistan"?

If Memeorandum is to be believed, the most discussed subject on the blogs is the Canadian Conservative Party's modest victory, and the coming minority gov't under Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Naturally, everyone finds something to latch on to.

>> Conservatives tend to be on the giddy side -- Right-leaning Publius Pundit considers the pros -- "No more America-hating Prime Minister" -- and cons -- "Weird concessions to retain power..." Columnist Mark Steyn, who blogged the election results, dubs this election the "Maple Revolution," a reference to the pro-democracy movements in Lebanon. Pardon My English can't resist the shot at Michael Moore. The Hedgehog Report: "UPDATE (10:09pm): Democrats call for a recount... just kidding..."

>> Those on the left who do mention it, tend to be less so -- Daily Kos: "Unlike the United States, hubris can bring a government down at any time as the Liberals just learned." AMERICAblog: "Just what North America needs, another George Bush. Sad."

Gay Patriot: "Just like the Germans last fall, Canadians voted out a government whose leaders made clear their opposition to President Bush's policies. While the Bush's critics continually claim that people in other lands share their distaste for our Commander-in-Chief, it seems that when it comes time to vote, those abroad are not as obsessed with bashing the President of the United States as are some of their leaders -- and their cheerleaders in the American media and blogosphere." Ann Althouse: "I suppose I'm one of those Americans who don't spend much time thinking about Canada. I know it's up there, disapproving of us, like a sanctimonious older sibling. But I like the idea of this change, with new leadership that is closer to ours, friendlier to our goals. It will be interesting, perhaps, to see how things unfold."

Vodkapundit's Stephen Green considers the perils for the Conservatives depending on whom they ally with: "I hope I'm wrong, but right now Canada looks as fractured as it ever was." Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey, who also live-blogged as returns came in, is more optimistic, calling Harper's "limited mandate" a "test period where they expect the Conservatives to prove that they can lead from the center-right, maintaining the economic success of the last few years while cleaning up and streamlining the excesses of the Liberal government."

Power Line and Instapundit both give Morrissey some credit for the election, having defied the Canadian "publication ban" and making info related to the recent Liberal scandal.

Pejman Yousefzadeh looks elsewhere in the Commonwealth, and fears that new British Conservative leader David Cameron isn't making much progress.

WHITE HOUSE '08: The Upstate Upshot

Pro-Gore/anti-HRC pundit Arianna Huffington approvingly points to an article by The New Republic's Katz, arguing that Sen. Hillary Clinton's upstate NY victory in '00 is no sign of ability to win in red states, as the region is "'far more purple than red.'" Huffington adds, "both Al Gore and John Kerry attracted more upstate voters -- and carried more upstate counties -- than Hillary did." At The Politicker, Ben Smith disagrees with Katz's piece: "National elections aren't fought by sweeping whole states; they're won and lost on the margins, and Hillary's narrow defeat upstate was -- in that sense -- quite a victory. And since then, she's defused some of the suspicion and dislike. The same point applies to the argument that Upstate is more liberal than America. Sure it's more liberal than Alabama; but the central question of 'electability' is whether Hillary can pull a few more votes in Ohio than John Kerry."

IRAN: Down The Up Escalator

Left-leaning economist Brad DeLong counts as 1 of the U.S.'s post-Cold War "Superpowers would not intervene militarily outside their home regions without the blessing and support of the entire U.N. Security Council." And by invading Iraq and describing an "axis of evil," the Bush admin. "broke [this] principle ... And Iran's government -- and every other government -- has drawn the natural conclusion: the threat of nuclear retaliation is the only protection against being overthrown by a U.S. president." Right-leaning public policy prof Daniel Drezner argues that DeLong is wrong, that this "principle" is not and "likely never will be a cardinal element of American foreign policy, and anyone who tells you differently is selling you something." He lists several other reasons why Iran would want nukes, and adding: "I'm going to have to check, but I haven't been reading about any other countries -- or 'every other government' -- frantically trying to acquire nuclear weapons since the invasion of Iraq."

At The Corner, John Derbyshire outlines what he fears will be an "up escalator" that "we may get stuck on": "(1) Iraq 2003, pop. 26m, may have been trying to acquire the technology to get started on producing nukes. Stable under strict dictatorship. (2) Iran 2006, pop. 68m, has all the technology & expertise to produce nukes, may be just months away. Semi-stable under loose dictatorship. (3) Pakistan 2006, pop. 162m, possesses goodish stockpile of nukes & delivery systems. Unstable under feeble military dictatorship."

THE ALITO NOMINATION: Can They Talk The Talk?

Byron York reports at The Corner: "Word is that Democrats will stage a talk-a-thon on the Alito nomination when it reaches the Senate floor ... with every Democratic member taking the floor to stretch out debate in what will amount to a non-filibuster filibuster." More: "But one Republican source says this morning that the GOP plans to 'accommodate them without delaying the vote.' By that, the source means that [Senate Maj. Leader Bill] Frist will likely keep the Senate open very late to allow Democrats to talk into the night. And then Frist will file for cloture, and unless Democrats choose to filibuster the nomination, which seems highly unlikely, there will be a vote."

ABRAMOFF: Picture This

Once again, York at The Corner: "I just got a comment from Jack Abramoff's defense team on the question, raised in the Corner this morning, that whoever has photos of Abramoff with President Bush might be trying to sell those photos to the tabloids or some other high bidder. And the comment is... 'No comment.'"

Talking Points Memo: "A company called Reflections Photography handles photography and photo sales for many Republican political events. ... Did the White House, earlier this month, order Reflections to remove a photograph of a smiling President Bush and Jack Abramoff from its archive? Photo-plumbers?"

IMPEACHMENT: Our Very First "Impeachment" Slug!

Washington Times' online-only Insight reports, "A coalition in Congress is being formed to support impeachment... Our arithmetic shows that a majority of the committee could vote against the president." Most of the blogs that link to it are mid- to low-tier, but HuffPo splashed it across the top of its page this a.m., with the header "Conservative Mag: Bush Admin. Bracing For Impeachment Hearings..."

Also citing the piece hopefully: Impeach Bush Coalition, Dadahead, Bush Out, Connect Left, The Skeptical Observer

BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: Walk The (Power) Line

Today the Blogometer talks to DC-area atty Paul Mirengoff, who contributes to Power Line.

What is your full name?

Paul Eugene Mirengoff (Eugene for Eugene Debs, the old Socialist).

What is your age?

56.

Where did you grow up?

Wheaton, Maryland.

Where do you live now?

Bethesda, Maryland.

What is your occupation? Have you ever worked on a political campaign or for the mainstream media?

Attorney. I've never worked on a campaign or for the MSM.

When did you start blogging and why?

I started blogging during the summer of 2002. I was motivated by 9/11 and my perception of bias by the MSM against President Bush and his policies.

What has been your favorite post, or favorite story to write about, in that time?

The 2004 political conventions and ensuing presidential election.

Describe your typical blogging schedule. And what is your average output?

I do most of my blogging at night, after work. Often, I also do a little blogging in the morning, before work. Usually I produce about three posts per day.

Who is your favorite political blogger? Favorite non-political blogger?

My two colleagues at Power Line, John Hinderaker and Scott Johnson. I don't think I read any non-political blogs.

Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?

Charles Krauthammer.

What is your favorite television news program, either network or cable?

"Special Report" with Brit Hume.

What MSM-produced websites (i.e. newspapers, magazines) do you visit on a daily basis?

None regularly. I read the hard copy of the Washington Post and the Washington Times on a daily basis.

What non-MSM websites (i.e. blogs) do you visit on a daily basis?

Instapundit, Michelle Malkin, Hugh Hewitt, Captains Quarters, Real Clear Politics, NRO's Corner and Bench Memos.

How often, or do you ever, read a newspaper in its dead-tree (i.e. print) form?

Every day.

How do you see the new media and old media affecting and influencing each other in the next five years?

I think there will be some blurring of the line between old media and blogs, as the internet becomes the main place people go for news, analysis, and commentary. Over the next few years, as part of that process, I expect that old media will cover blogs more, publish more work by top bloggers, and create or expand their own blogs. Some blogs, in turn, may start to look more like the on-line versions of newspapers.

I don't think that bloggers will have much impact on the way the MSM covers the news during the next five years. The MSM will assume that by bringing bloggers into the tent, it has dealt with any threat posed by blogs. However, the MSM will be wrong. Blogs and new media will continue to steal readers and viewers, thereby eating at MSM profit margins.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: When Sources Have Blogs

At her personal blog, NRO contributor Cathy Seipp discusses complaints by New York Times' Sharon Waxman and David Cay Johnston over Seipp having mentioned an e-mail from Waxman in a recent NRO piece. Neither approved, but Seipp figured she was under no obligation to keep their contact secret. A few days later, Mickey Kaus picked up on Seipp's anecdote to speculate about 2 "newfangled bloggy etiquette questions: 1) Do you have to refrain from blogging about it when an MSM reporter (or anyone, for that matter) calls you to research a story? 2) Do you have to honor unilateral demands for confidentiality in emails from newsworthy figures like MSM reporters?" He agrees with Seipp that the answer to 1) is no, but the answer to 2) is a bit more murky. He suggests: "MSM reporters will have to learn how to deal with leaky, bloggy Heisenberg-inducing sources -- presumably by extracting promises of confidentiality."

LEST WE FORGET: Straight From The Gutfeld

Depending on your own view of abortion politics, you may or may not laugh at Huffington Post contributor Greg Gutfeld's vision of a pro-choice magazine (sample cover tease: "I Did It for America: 'My baby would have been a Republican'"), but the fight between the pro-lifers and pro-choicers in the comment section is sure to amuse.

Posted by at 12:49 PM

January 23, 2006

1/23: Comparative Literature

Is it just us, or has the polarity of the blog poles reversed? Two years ago, liberal bloggers were heavily involved in their WH'04 nominating process, leaving the conservative bloggers to criticize the MSM for perceived liberal bias. But now, conservative bloggers are the ones focused on an intra-party election while liberals are firing volleys at the MSM for buying into GOP talking points. Further evidence that this is actually '04 -- filmmaker Michael Moore is once again a political football. As we noted on 1/20, MSNBC's Chris Matthews is under fire for comparing Osama bin Laden's rhetoric to Moore's. Now some on the left are trying to turn the tables, tying bin Laden to Pres. Bush. Neither is an original concept.

In fact, as you read through today's edition, it sometimes seems as if the left and right are trying to out-compare each other to the enemy. Neither side thinks they really mean it themselves, and few on either side are willing to ascribe anything but the basest motives to the other. Civility isn't the blogosphere's strong suit, but this is perhaps just a bit much.

BIN LADEN I: Behind The Hardball

Mid-afternoon on 1/20, John Kerry posted to Daily Kos for the 1st time, weighing in on the Matthews controversy and expanding on comments from an earlier statement that had been circulated. Kerry: "There's something that doesn't sit right with me when, on the day Osama Bin Laden resurfaced in a disturbing audio tape, cable television ends up in a game of name calling as a war protester is compared to Osama Bin Laden. ... Here's a subject suited for true hard ball, on Hardball: four years of failure -- enough is enough -- why hasn't Osama Bin Laden been captured or killed, and how will he be destroyed before he next appears on tape to spread his disgusting message?"

Kerry adds: "P.S. I want you all to know that I'm reading your many comments. My wife Teresa reads blogs passionately, and I follow blogs too, and I'm glad I can be a part of this -- and frankly I'm not worried about taking some slings and arrows along the way. I've faced worse! So keep the comments coming -- good, bad, hopefully not indifferent." By 1/23 a.m., the post has picked up 1200+ comments. Many are skeptical about whether the post was written by Kerry or somebody in his office, but they agree with it nonetheless. Kerry followed up again on 1/21, thanking everyone "for over a thousand responses to my first -- and certainly not last -- Daily Kos post!"

BIN LADEN II: Whose Talking Points?

There's now a single-issue blog site on the Matthews comments. From "An Open Letter to Chris Matthews": "Yesterday, you compared Osama Bin Laden to Michael Moore. Michael Moore is an American filmmaker. Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist who murdered three thousand Americans. This type of McCarthyite smear has no place in American journalism, let alone on a major TV network. You owe Michael Moore, and the American public you serve as a journalist, an apology." Digby, on Matthews' clarification 1/20 p.m.: "No apologies. In fact, quite the opposite. Chris did say that he'd been misunderstood, but he didn't elaborate."

On 1/22, AMERICAblog's John Aravosis hinted at news to come: "Just had a super-secret two-hour conference call with a few friends. Let's just say that I think Chris Matthews and his bosses at MSNBC aren't going to be very happy campers in the next day or so..." In a possible sign of what's to come, Aravosis reminds readers of the StopDrLaura.com site he ran in '00, which took partial credit for the canceling of Dr. Laura Schlessinger's TV show.

A number of liberal blogs are sharing the "Hardball" phone number, including CorrenteWire, MyDD, Daily Kos. Also Sean-Paul Kelley at The Agonist, who asks that callers "be polite, but firm."

Some on the right find this whole campaign somewhat amusing -- RedState's Leon H: "I could go on and on -- they are planning one of their ridiculous 'flood their email inboxes and voicemail with profanity' campaigns as we speak, I'm sure... all over something Michael Moore himself bragged about. Priceless." Conservative Tom Maguire also points out a handful of instances in which bin Laden's rhetoric specifically lined up with allegations leveled in Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11." Conservative Jeff Goldstein is amused that "these talking points, having been translated into Arabic and then back into English, have managed to hold up so perfectly. No small feat, that -- and a testament to the rigor of the crafting of the agitprop. Let's see the geeks at Babelfish pull that shit off."

Meanwhile, the dubious comparisons just keep rolling in -- On "This Week" Kerry said: "Many people surmise the reason we haven't been attacked here is because they're being so successful at doing what they need to attack us in Iraq and elsewhere." The Political Teen, who has video, turns this into "Kerry congratulated the al-Qaeda on their successful terrorist tactics." Blogenlust says Pat Buchanan "compared" bin Laden to Clinton, and makes the audio available in WMA format. Buchanan says that bin Laden, feeling "eclipsed by Zarqawi and Zawahiri," is saying "what Clinton said -- I am relevant, I am here," etc.

Liberal atty Glenn Greenwald says that if GOPers don't actually mean to imply that Dems "support al Qaeda," then "I'm sure they won't mind at all if it's pointed out that Saddam Hussein's defense theory at his war crimes trial in Baghdad sure does sound an awful lot like the Bush Administration's theories as to why they have the right to violate the law." Along the same lines, Crooks and Liars approvingly quotes the transcript of Air America's Rachel Maddow challenging Carlson, pointing out that bin Laden also said the war would take "generations" and requires "patience," just as Bush has.

Conservative Mark Coffey replies to Greenwald: "I am a pretty reasonable guy, and I don't like to accuse my opponents of bad faith. Well, I'm accusing you, Glenn ... and the many, many like you of bad faith on this one." Coffey also calls attention to a 1/21 posting at Daily Kos by someone named NCJan, who writes: "I'm not a paranoid person, but I'm beginning to think we really all have to at least talk about this as if some kind of collaboration between Bush and bin Laden is at least a possibility." This also appears to be NCJan's 1st-ever posting, and most of the commenters are highly skeptical.

Stirling Newberry argues that the media is "doing bin Laden's work" because Bush is in trouble over "NSAgate" and the economy, and if McCain wins in '08, cong. GOPers and Bush himself will be repudiated. He writes: "The first step is to return fire on the Republican treasonization -- by leveling the same charge right back. State simply 'Matthews is doing bin Laden's work, by stirring up internal hatreds.' From there the 'house divided' rhetoric writes itself." Newberry argues, "we are standing at the precipice -- where the Republican Party, and the Bushites in particular, are trying to push opposition off a cliff -- so that when the current financial problems meltdown, or inflation blows up, they and only they will be allowed to deal with it. In the only way they know how. Which means that if we fail to strike back now, I would advise not getting too attached to your grand children - there is a war with their name on it."

WASHINGTON POST: Comment Commentary

The fallout continues over the Washington Post's decision to suspend comments at the Post.blog. A new blog sprung up to repost some of those comments: WaPo Lies. The author figured the Post might try to delete some of the comments, and therefore saved the page prior to the deletions. Andrew Sullivan comments: "The comments responding to Washington Post ombudsperson, Debbie Howell, are brutal, personal and rude. But most of them are making a legitimate point; and I don't see much profanity in the removed posts. ... If you're going to have open postings, this is what you should expect. Alas." Jeralyn Merritt of TalkLeft admonishes those who got nasty, writing, "the ugly, profane and sexist attacks on Howell are just that... ugly, profane and sexist. I think they detract from the writers' underlying arguments. If you want to be taken seriously, fact-based refutations are far more successful, particularly when trying to reach those outside the choir." Avedon Carol says the same. But Josh Marshall gives it a pass: "This stuff isn't always pretty. But, really, thank God those folks are on her tail because shoddy reporting isn't pretty either. So much of the imbalance and shallowness of press coverage today stems from a simple fact: reporters know they'll catch hell from the right if they say or write anything that can even remotely be construed as representing 'liberal bias' ... This is evening the balance, creating a better press."

Howell commented on the controversy in her regular column on 1/22: "I wrote that he gave campaign money to both parties and their members of Congress. He didn't. I should have said he directed his client Indian tribes to make campaign contributions to members of Congress from both parties." Jane Hamsher disagrees strongly: "No. What you should have said was that although Abramoff's victims, the Indian tribes, gave money to Democrats it was much less than they did before Abramoff appeared on the scene and there is no indication that there was anything quid-pro-quo about it." Conservative Gateway Pundit doesn't give her much quarter: "The article is mostly a sob story by an abandoned Leftie turned away by vicious peers and shocked that she was not allowed to tell the truth without being attacked and called a whore. ... Sadly, it will take Deborah several biased Bush-bashing and America hating articles to put her back into the graces of the loonie left. You can bet she will give it her all, though."

NYU prof Jay Rosen interviewed WashingtonPost.com exec. ed. Jim Brady, and came away sympathetic to his decision, though he hopes it will be only temporary. As for critics who say the Post couldn't handle criticism, Rosen disagrees: "That's a reckless assumption. I think he'll try to bring the comment board back at post.blog, although I'm not sure 'civility' should be the watchword there when he does." Stoller: "What has happened is that the Washington Post has failed to show its commitment to the truth, and when pressed, has turned to raw power to enforce its claim to authority. How else do you explain Jim Brady's choice to go onto Hugh Hewitt's radio show and discuss his editorial choices? Hewitt is not a legitimate person with whom to discuss issues of honesty or transparency." Radioblogger has the transcript of Brady's interview. Alec Oveis, at Tapped: "If the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and the other major outlets really want to commit to this new medium, as they say they do, then they ought play by the rules already established and let people say what they will, no matter how vicious and hateful it may be. You can't have your cake and eat it too, even though the Washington Post may think otherwise."

At TPMCafe, UC-Berkeley prof Brad DeLong compares quotes by Howell and Brady asserting that Dems received Abramoff campaign funds to earlier reports by Washington Post's Susan Schmidt -- whom Howell was defending when she made her controversial remarks -- and the late New York Times editor David Rosenbaum asserting that Abramoff directed tribes to donate less to Dems than they had in the past. He comments: "It sure doesn't sound like either Susan Schmidt or David Rosenbaum agree with Deborah Howell's and Jim Brady's claim -- their 'beyond argument' claim -- that Abramoff directed his client Indian tribes to make campaign contributions to Democrats, does it?"

Jesus' General created a parody of the Post website, including a fake live chat transcript with Howell and New York Times' former public editor, Daniel Okrent. When Okrent left his post last year (see 6/1 Blogometer), he took a parting shot at Times columnist Paul Krugman, one of lefty bloggers' favorite MSM writers.

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Who Wants A Piece Of This?

Another NBC employee coming under fire from liberal bloggers is "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert, who asked Sen. Barak Obama (D-IL) for his opinion on Harry Belafonte's recent anti-Bush statements. Firedoglake: "Russert has had two weeks to ask anybody on his show about it; why does he save this particular question for Obama?" Duncan Black at Eschaton points out that Russert didn't exactly wait, and in fact had previously asked ex-Sec/State Colin Powell for an opinion on the same, adding sarcastically: "I'm not sensing any pattern here myself..."

Others include Peter Daou at Huffington Post, Arianna Huffington herself, and Vanity Fair's James Wolcott (Russert's wife, Maureen Orth, is also a VF contributor). Wolcott suggests Russert ask about how the "nation still mourns the loss of our first black president, David Palmer, tragically gunned down in the season premiere of '24.'"

THE ALITO NOMINATION: Don't Count Out A Filibuster Just Yet?

Pacific Views and The Left Coaster are among the 1st few liberal blogs to promote a petition site aimed at persuading Dem sens to mount a filibuster against Alito. From the petition statement: "This is our litmus test. If our senators will not protect us from this constitutional outrage, we call for each and every one to be defeated in their next election. We call for candidates to arise in their own primaries if necessary to punish them for their cowardice and their complicity. If putting their own job on the line is not a circumstance "extraordinary" enough for them we don't know what is."

RedState's Leon H considers Reid's quandary, in that if Alito gets 60 or more votes, liberal interest groups will want to know why there wasn't a filibuster: "Right now, the safest tactic for Reid to pursue is to call for a filibuster, but to give consent to the 7 Democrat 'gangsters' to vote for cloture (or at least, enough of them to push the vote over 60). In so doing, he can significantly tilt the playing field in at least one critical race in '06, basically for free. However, the bolder move would be to exercise all the discipline that he can, and force the GOP to exercise the Constitutional option. And, if he feels that the majority can be regained in '06, this is actually the right tactical decision."

New York Times writes, if Alito is approved and the "far right takes over" the SCOTUS, "many senators who voted for Judge Alito will no doubt come to regret that they did not insist" on a centrist. Center-right law prof Ann Althouse is skeptical about this line of reasoning: "What exactly is the political dynamic for Democrats? If the shrugging Americans are suddenly awoken by a Court making extreme and unpopular decisions, will they blame the Democrats for not stopping him? If people don't like it, they should blame the President, who chose him."

At Wall Street Journal, ex-Lieberman aide Dan Gerstein criticizes liberal bloggers for touting an ineffective approach: "We think that if we simply call someone conservative, anti-choice and anti-civil rights, that's enough to scare people to our side. But that tired dogma won't hunt in today's electorate, which is far more independent-thinking and complex in its views on values than our side presumes."

HOUSE GOP ELECTIONS: Stacker 3

The Truth Laid Bear's N.Z. Bear has set up a new page devoted to the House GOP leadership elections, comparing acting Maj. Leader Roy Blunt, with Reps. John Boehner and John Shadegg -- their positions on the issues, which blogs have endorsed which candidate (Shadegg has 5, the rest have 0). He also provides audio and transcripts of the blogger conf. calls they did last week.

In an e-mail, Bear points that all 3 candidates "said they would support a measure to require 'earmarks' be identified by the name of the suggesting member of Congress," and "endorsed the application of [FOIA] to Congress (to which it currently does not apply), and the suggestion that all legislation be posted on the Internet for public review and comment 72 hours prior to a vote," and "expressed dissatisfaction with the free-speech limitations imposed by McCain-Feingold, and generally agreed that reforms are needed in the area of subsidized travel for Congress."

ABRAMOFF: Hardly Anyone's Even Seen Them, But They're Worth Several Thousand Words Already

First the Washingtonian and now Time reported on having seen the rumored photos of Bush with Abramoff. Jonathan Singer of MyDD comments: "Do not for one second forget that a high-ranking official in the Bush administration -- former chief procurement official David Safavian -- has already been indicted on charges related to his ties to Abramoff. With this in mind, it is simply unconscionable for the media to refrain from hammering the White House day in and day out until the details of all contacts between Abramoff and the Bush administration are published." At The Corner, Byron York highlights the part of the Time article noting that the pictures were of the formal, photo-op variety, and Bush has posed for "tens of thousands of such shots -- many with people he does not know." According to York, Time hints the source with the photos may be interested in selling them to a tabloid: "That wouldn't look very good for the source -- after all, the entire Abramoff scandal is about greed -- and, given that the photos exist and are going to come out anyway, would probably be the best possible outcome for the White House."

At conservative WILLisms, Ken McCracken confesses: "The Abramoff thing just makes my eyes glaze over." He also writes: "Okay, Washington can be a very corrupt place -- this is news?" And so he asks: "Here is my challenge: explain to me, in one succinct sentence, or short paragraph at most, what Abramoff and his cohorts did that was wrong."

At Tapped, Greg Sargent describes RNC chair Ken Mehlman's speech at the GOP's winter meeting as saying "there are bad apples in both parties and we should all do our part to root them out." Sargent writes, "it's time Dems got serious" about tying the GOP to corruption, big spending, etc: "If I were Harry Reid, I'd be spending less time apologizing and more time worrying about how to prevent this pushback from working." At Crooked Timber, John Holbo notes that Abramoff sat on the board of the United Seniors Assn., which was influential in getting the Medicare Rx bill passed. Writes Holbo: "I haven't yet seen anyone point out this fairly direct Abramoff/Medicare bill connection. Rather a useful factoid, perhaps, for purposes of converting the maddening complexities of this legislative boondoggle into damning talking-points. Medicare. It doth glaze the eyes over."

IRAN: How Long Until The Big UN Speech?

DC-based Steve Clemons announces at The Washington Note senses conservatives moving to make the case for war as they did in Iran: "I cannot validate the accuracy of a report I have -- but with the caveat that this may be erroneous information -- TWN has been told that senior Congressional leaders, including senior Democratic officials, were given a top secret briefing on Tuesday, 17 January, on potential military options against Iran. No Congressional leaders have publicly stated that they received such a briefing, but others close to the intelligence community have conveyed that information to TWN." He adds, "people need to be aware that there is a serious effort underway to legitimate 'early military action' against Iran."

Liberal Newshog argues that the left is ceding the Iran debate to the right: "It's true that many progressive blogs have posted about the Iran issue once or twice over the last week or two -- but the rightwing bloggers are on it every day, as are the GOP and the MSM which appears to be uncrtitically cutting and pasting from White House press releases. That higher volume is what is setting the agenda and setting the rightwing narrative in stone. Meanwhile liberals are more interested in Snoopgate and GOP corruption."

At Volokh Conspiracy, David Bernstein cites a report that Iranian pres. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "has challenged Europe to take back the Jews who emigrated to Israel, adding that no Jews would remain in Israel if Europe were to open its doors." Bernstein: "I have a better idea. How about Europe, and the U.S., open their doors to any Iranian who wants to leave their poor oppressive theoocracy? Would the last Iranian to leave please turn out the lights?"

WHITE HOUSE '08: Coming To Terms With McCain?

Right Wing News conducted an informal poll of GOP-leaning bloggers, asking for their "most desired" and "least desired" '08 candidate. The top 3 desired candidates were, in order, Condoleezza Rice, Rudy Giuliani and George Allen. Also in order, the least desired were John McCain, Chuck Hagel and Bill Frist.

After watching John McCain on "FNS" this weekend, PoliPundit's conservative Jayson Javitz appraises McCain as "Hawkish on national security. Shades of Ross Perot regarding domestic issues. ... McCain might be unstoppable for the nomination." More: "Not that I'm endorsing McCain. Not at all. ... But one thing about a McCain candidacy is that it would eliminate the possibility of a viable third-party, pro-life candidate on the national ballot. And without a viable third-party, pro-life candidate on the national ballot, it would take an electoral miracle for Hillary to sneak into office." Meanwhile Think Progress pointed out that McCain said "I don't think so" when asked whether Bush had the authority to conduct warrant-less eavesdropping, adding: "Karl Rove doesn't want to spin it this way but concern about the warrantless domestic spying program is bipartisan."

Re: Kerry's post on Daily Kos cited above, Power Line comments: "Keep [Kerry's participation at dKos] in mind next time someone tells you that the Kos Kidz are just a bunch of unemployed teenagers, and not the heart and soul of the Democratic Party."

MISCELLANY: Does The Offer Include Friday Catblogging?

• At liberal Pandagon, Jedmunds offers one of the harsher critiques of "Crashing the Gates," the forthcoming book on the Dem Party and the blogosphere by Markos Moulitsas and Jerome Armstrong. He writes, their "purported 'progressive' movement would appear to have no ideological goals other than electing Democrats," and what's more, "they don't realize that they have the same problem the Democratic Party has: they don't know what they stand for, because they're too afraid to stand for anything." On 1/10, the book received a much more positive review from Matt Stoller at MyDD, the site founded by Armstrong.
• Volokh Conspiracy's pseudonymous Juan Non-Volokh announces he is leaving the site temporarily, and will eventually return under his real name: "Starting today I am taking a brief leave from the Volokh Conspiracy to attend to a few matters. I expect to return soon (as in, sometime between now and when my tenure is official later this year). When I do it won't be as Juan. In the meantime, I would like to thank my co-bloggers and readers for their support and feedback, even (perhaps especially) when we disagreed. I hope that most readers have found my posts to be worthwhile."
• Publius Pundit points out that anti-war group CodePink has Photoshopped a protest of Iranian women "demonstrating against the regime in their anti-war ads." The CodePink version is placed alongside the original, to show the similarities. Publius Pundit also cites a statement by the anti-mullah Alliance of Iranian Women, criticizing CodePink for the ad: "All we ask is: if you do not support us do not use us for your own political games and maneuvering."
• August J. Pollak asks conservatives whether they would continue to support the Bush admin., even if Bush killed a kitten with a hammer. So far he has a response back from Dr. Rusty Shackleford, while Emperor Misha gives it a fisking at his own site.
• The finalists in the category "Best Political Blog" are set for the 2006 Bloggies: Wonkette, Firedoglake, Crooks & Liars, Talking Points Memo and Daily Kos. All are left-of-center sites.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Blog Or Not A Blog?

Even though the MSM reads blogs and is getting savvier about them, some reporters are still a bit behind. This a.m., AP's Jeffrey Gold reports: "Former Gov. James E. McGreevey, who resigned from office in 2004 after acknowledging a gay affair, has written a blog with gay rights activist and author David Mixner." But this is incorrect -- in their series of posts, McGreevey and Mixner are not writing "a blog," but rather contributing to one. Still, this isn't as odd as the Washington Post's Paul Farhi, who covered his own paper's trouble with its comments: "The newspaper company has temporarily shut down Post.blog -- a section of Washingtonpost.com that invites reader comments -- after receiving hundreds of posts, many using profane or sexist language, responding to columns by The Post's ombudsman, Deborah Howell." Fine, except Post.com never shut down the blog entirely, only the comment section. As long as a series of posts and a comment board can still be called "a blog," mainstream acceptance of blogs and mainstream understanding of them remain two different things.

LEST WE FORGET: Wear Flightsuit

For the amusement of anyone who ever played the Zork series, or perhaps another text-command computer game, Defective Yeti's take on the 1st 5 years of the Bush administration should be a familiar one.

Posted by at 01:25 PM

January 20, 2006

1/20: There's That Man Again

Yesterday, we wrote that there seemed to be no one story dominating the blogosphere. Then, the Osama bin Laden video was made public. Needless to say, we have a dominant story today.

The discussion takes several tracks: First, a general debate over the significance of his message. Second, questions about his motives for releasing the video now, and whether it shows our current military approach is being successful. And third, analysis and debate over how the domestic political situation influenced bin Laden's message -- and how the message will influence future US policy. Also, both liberal and conservatives have qualms with some of the MSM reaction to the tape.

Elsewhere today, conservatives react after conference calls by the 3 House maj. leader candidates. Liberals debate the decision to have new VA Gov. Tim Kaine (D) deliver the SOTU rebuttal. And the Washington Post finds itself back in the spotlight.

BIN LADEN: Guess Who's Back?

Most bloggers cite a BBC transcription of OBL's statement. Walid Phares of The Counterterrorism Blog provides his analysis. 1: "That the war in Iraq is going al Qaida's way." 2: "The American people are not informed, and the polls shows its real position towards withdrawal." 3: "There will be soon operations within the US and the West." 4: "al Qaida operations will not be confined to Iraq." 5: "The penetration of Western and US security systems is a [matter] to be discussed in the public debate." And 6: The proposition "for a 'long term armistice" is in itself a prelude to further attacks coming." Also at Counterterrorism, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross writes: "One hallmark of bin Laden's attempts to appeal to appeasement-minded Westerners has been a populist message that draws a deep divide between the common people and the blood-thirsty warmongers who are allegedly making massive profits off the U.S.'s wars. The latest audiotape not only speaks of this explicitly, but also supports the argument with a reference to the latest opinion polls on Iraq." At The Corner, John Podhoretz reminds us of the pre-WH'04 election OBL tape: "This isn't the first time that Bin Laden has offered America a 'deal.' ... [H]e essentially offered a separate peace deal to U.S. states that voted against the president." He notes disagreement over the translation he uses, but stands by it.

Most view bin Laden's releasing the video now as a sign of weakness. Kobayashi Maru: "Feeling the need to show yourself to rally the troops, and 'offering' truce shortly after sustaining significant surprise casualties amongst your leadership is more likely a sign of weakness than not. Time to press the offensive." The Next Hurrah: "This could be an attempt by bin Laden to stave off the transfer of power and influence and inspiration from him to Zarqawi, which could roughly be like the shift of influence from Lenin to Stalin. At the same time, it may reflect concern that Zarqawi is screwing up the image of al Qaeda in Iraq, with possible negative repercussions through all Muslim societies." The Belgravia Dispatch: "I conclude that we are winning the battle against al-Qaeda. Mind you, I'm not speaking about Iraq, necessarily, or perhaps certain al-Qaeda inspired spin-offs, or the GWOT generally. But the battle against the main, original al-Qaeda group." Paul Mirengoff at Power Line: "Bin Laden clearly recognizes that the central front in his war is the battle for public opinion in the U.S. ... He tried this just prior to the 2004 election. It didn't work then and it won't work now. As I said, bin Laden recognizes the central location of his war. What he doesn't understand is the terrain." Roger L. Simon: "[W]hat Binny is really doing, as he almost always is, is preaching to the Islamic choir. The boy may be somewhere in the mountains of Waziristan but his heart is in Riyadh, battling out family squabbles. Most of us don't grow up, but particularly, and most murderously, Bin Laden." Austin Bay: "Essentially, the new Bin Laden tape says 'please don't wage war on our turf, but let us wage war on yours.'"

Varifrank gives a line-by-line rebuttal to OBL's comments. The Moderate Voice: "This tape will likely be reported through various political prisms (does this story help us? does this story hurt us?) in some quarters since the war on terror has become infected by the most deadly biological weapon on earth -- politics." The Mahablog: "The last time we heard from him, I believe, was on the eve of the 2004 elections. And here he is again, just when Georgie needs a diversion from this little Fourth Amendment problem." GOP Bloggers: "America needs to be united in its determination to be victorious, and right now the Democrats do not appear to think that winning is important."

Many conservative bloggers note what they say is a similarity in OBL's rhetoric and that of the antiwar left. Some also believe that the video is meant to further spark the left. In the Bullpen: "Each time OBL opens his mouth, he sounds more and more like some aspects of an entire political party within the United States, or vice versa. Rightwing Nuthouse: "Osama has the liberals down cold. ... How long before we here some mindless lefty out there prattling on about negotiating with Bin Laden?" Earlier, Ezra Klein said: "Not to show myself a yellow coward who sleeps with a Koran tucked under my pillow, but allow me a thought experiment: what about negotiating with bin-Laden? I mean, this isn't a war of aggression, is it? We're fighting to ensure our safety. And a truce would ensure our safety. So shouldn't we find out what the guy wants?" Klein later updates: "Maybe 'negotiate' is the wrong word. I don't want to have him over for tea, just find out what his demands are."

Naturally, OBL's resurfacing sparks a discussion of domestic security. Secular Blasphemy: "After almost five years, it is safe to say that al-Qaeda's failure to attack the US itself ... is due to its inability to do so. Whether the above is blustering, or whether the terrorists have found a way to breach US security, is too early to tell."

A suspicious commenter at The Jawa Report: "[I]f this guy's still alive -- I want some real tangible [proof] -- Basement tapes don't cut it for me anymore. This is turning in a Jim Morrison or Elvis gag." Crooks and Liars takes the opportunity to cite previous admin statements and conservative MSM articles speculating that OBL is dead or no longer in control of al Qaida.

BIN LADEN, BLOGS VS. MSM EDITION: A Brushback Pitch

Crooks and Liars posts on MSNBC's Chris Matthews having "compared Michael Moore to Osama Bin Laden while discussing the newly released tape with" Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE). Matthews is quoted as saying: "I mean he sounds like an over-the-top Michael Moore here, if not a Michael Moore." Many are demanding an apology, with Hullabaloo providing the NBC contact info.

From C&L: "Talk about pandering to the right wing let alone an outright smear in the worst way. Not only is he making a comparison, but he's calling Michael Moore - "Osama." If he compared a conservative figure to Osama what do you think would happen? Chris Matthews owes Michael Moore an apology and fast." John Aravosis: "If Matthews can just ingratiate himself a bit more, then maybe the Republican establishment will really like him." Peter Daou at Huffington Post: "This is not just about Chris Matthews or Michael Moore or Osama Bin Laden, it's about the willingness of a prominent media figure to slander an opponent of the war." At Daou's Salon.com site, he posts a response from John Kerry. Conservative IMAO: "If anything, I think OBL deserves an apology too. At least Osama has offered another truce, that's more than I can say for Mikey."

Meanwhile, Little Green Footballs takes issue with AP referring to OBL as an "exiled Saudi dissident." Michelle Malkin: "Got that? Osama isn't a mass-murdering terrorist mastermind. He's just a poor, exiled dissident who disagrees with civilization. Also, Hugh Hewitt takes issue with CNN's Jack Cafferty. Political Teen has video.

GOP LEADERSHIP: A Blunt Assessment

House Maj. Leader candidates Roy Blunt (R-MO), John Boehner (R-OH) and John Shadegg (R-AZ) also did separate conference calls with some of the leading conservative bloggers. It is a sign of the blogosphere's growing influence that the candidates felt the need to state their case to non-MSM outlets, many outside the Beltway. A quick summary: the blog favorite Shadegg certainly didn't lose many supporters, while Blunt was widely panned both for his performance and for how his camp conducted the call. Listen to the Shadegg call here; Boehner here; and Blunt here.

Captain's Quarters: Shadegg "sounded the least organized and most wide open, and Shadegg himself seemed at times a bit flustered by the wide range of questions," but his responses "seemed genuine, and he had a very engaging air about him." Boehner "was a bit smoother and more collected. The format remained wide open and the call lasted as long as the bloggers had questions." On Blunt: "By far the most structured of the three conference calls, Blunt's also was the shortest and the least informative." In the end, he endorses Shadegg.

QandO Blog's Dale Franks, who says he hadn't planned to make an endorsements, now leans in favor of Shadegg. He says he was "probably closest to me" politically, and cites specific policy areas where they see eye-to-eye. Boehner, though "engaging," was "just ... too glib." He offers a rousing non-endorsement for Blunt, and calls his performance "a disaster." "I would rather lick fire ants off a stick than see Roy Blunt as Majority Leader." More: "[T]he sun will set in a blazing red sky to the east of Casablanca before I'd want Roy Blunt as Majority leader." His criticism starts with how Blunt's camp moderated the call, and picks up from there. John Henke, also at QandO: "It was hard to tell whether the stiff, tightly-controlled Rep. Blunt conference call was a artifact of Blunts' (and his staffs') discomfort with bloggers, or just his style in general."

Suitably Flip is milder in his review of Blunt: "I like Congressman Blunt and I think he's been an effective member of the House leadership to date, but I didn't hear much on this call to move me out of the Shadegg column." James Joyner is impressed with Shadegg, and has a good round up of more reax. Right Wing News gives Shadegg an A ("He hit all the right notes); Boehner a D ("less impressive than I thought he'd be") and Blunt an F ("a hubristic, status quo candidate who really isn't very interested in reform"). Michelle Malkin, on Shadegg: "I was impressed by Shadegg's candor and passionate committment to limited government ... and he's on the right side of immigration enforcement/national security issues."

Elsehwere, UCLA prof Stephen Bainbridge writes under the header "Roy Blunt: Just Vote No." "Electing Blunt GOP majority leader would be a vote for the status quo: big government conservatism, expanded entitlement spending, runaway deficits, and K Street-linked corruption. The GOP needs to use this vote as an opportunity to send a signal to the public that things will be different."

BLOGS VS. MSM: Lights Out

On Wednesday, we lead with the swarm enveloping the Washington Post. Yesterday came news from WashingtonPost.blog that they were turning off the comments feature. From WashigntonPost.com exec ed Jim Brady: "[T]here are things that we said we would not allow, including personal attacks, the use of profanity and hate speech. Because a significant number of folks who have posted in this blog have refused to follow any of those relatively simple rules, we've decided not to allow comments for the time being. It's a shame that it's come to this."

Democratic Underground has some of the comments archived, and John Aravosis doesn't see "a lot of hate speech or profanity." More: "The Washington Post is treading into dangerous territory here with regards to its reputation with an entire generation of pundits, opinion-makers, and readers. It's one thing for our president to try to skew the facts and stifle debate, it's quite another for what used to be one of the nation's greatest newspapers to start showing the same immature anti-intellectual qualities." Atrios: "The Post said they wanted a discourse, but part of the reason people were rather angry was that Howell was not providing honest discourse. So, they blame their readers." MyDD has some fun with the development.

DEMOCRATS: Kaine You Believe This?

We learned 1/19 that Kaine will deliver the Democratic response to the SOTU later this month. Many on the left, though not necessarily slighting Kaine, question whether he should be the face of the party that night. A favorite choice had been Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA). Arianna Huffington: "Talk about clueless. The Democrats don't seem to know what the Republicans do know: that the GOP is losing ground on its core issue of national security. That's why Bush is planning to shift his State of the Union focus away from Iraq and onto an attack on rising health care costs. ... [T]he Democrats will never become the majority party until they can prove to the American people that they have a better plan for keeping us safe. And that means having someone like Jack Murtha give the State of the Union response -- someone with the authority to make the point that, on every level, Iraq is the wrong priority."

Swing State Project: "I like Tim Kaine, and I think he's certainly a good choice. But I think Murtha is the better choice, because he's associated with an issue we really need to lead with, and because we need to strike while the iron is hot." PSotD: "He isn't a national leader. He isn't a national name. He hasn't done anything on a national scale. His political track record isn't extensive." Markos Zuniga likes the Murtha idea, but says Kaine isn't "a bad idea, either."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: "The Rise Of The Blogs"

Daniel Glover takes a look at the blogosphere in the latest edition of National Journal magazine. The piece is also posted for free at his Beltway Blogroll site. The piece begins by discussing Bush's '05 60-day campaign to sway public opinion on Social Security. "This strategy might have worked brilliantly in another era, when presidents dominated the news from their bully pulpits, and critics -- especially those outside officialdom -- fought for a few paragraphs or minutes of airtime for rebuttal. But in the Information Age, Bush's foes had a powerful new tool known as the Web log at their disposal, and they seized it to great effect." More: "Blogs have had a noticeable impact on American society since at least 2001. ... But only recently have blogs become a force within policy-making circles." It concludes with a quote from DeLay spokesperson Kevin Madden, who says of blogging: "Anybody who hesitates does so at their own peril." There's more, including interviews, at the main page.

In a separate piece, National Journal's Sangillo [sub required] does a "Who's Who" of bloggers. Lefty: Markos Moulitsas Zuniga ("Kos is more than a one-person blog; it's almost its own little empire"); Duncan Black ("a one-stop shop for populist angst"); Kevin Drum ("one of the few mainstream media outlets that have thrived in the blogosphere"); Josh Marshall ("one of the first political bloggers out of the blocks"). On the right: Michelle Malkin (whose blog "soared in popularity last year, partly because she is willing to take on difficult issues"); Glenn Reynolds (who, "delves deep into lower-profile policy matters"); the Power Line trio ("one of the leading blogs for hard-line conservatives"); Ed Morrisey ("especially prolific, sometimes writing up to nine essays a day"). And lastly, under the heading "Unpredictable," is Andrew Sullivan ("he is vociferous once he makes up his mind").

LEST WE FORGET: Look Out, Oprah

Philly Daily News blog Attytood took note of bin Laden's reference to William Blum's "Rouge State: A Guide to the World's Openly Superpower," calling it the "first selection" in the Osama Book Club. "It turns out that Osama bin Laden's power to move American book sales is even greater than his power to move American-based terror cells." Captain's Quarters makes a similar remark.

NOTES AND ERRATA

Questions, comments, reservations? Drop us a line at blogometer@nationaljournal.com.

Posted by at 12:34 PM

January 19, 2006

1/19: The Kitchen Sink Edition

Maybe it's just us, but it seems like conversations these last 24 hours are all over the place. Today the House Maj. Leader candidates address conservative bloggers in a series of conf. calls, the left and right argue the significance of the forthcoming report independent counsel report on ex-HUD Sec. Henry Cisneros, debate re: the presentation (and relevance) of the Dems' lobbying reform proposal, liberals bemoan the Dem surrender on soon-to-be Justice Samuel Alito, conservative TX-based bloggers aim to sink a Houston Chronicle poll showing trouble for Rep. Tom DeLay, and liberal DC-based argue about whether to accept the help of conservatives in opposing the NSA wiretaps, and bloggers circulate a highly inflammatory charge by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) about some highly illegal activity in the offices of DeLay and Senate Maj. Leader Bill Frist. There's plenty more, including a Plamegate nugget, some Kennedy gossip, a UCLA academic fight, and our latest Blogger Spotlight.

HOUSE GOP ELECTIONS: Leader Boards

Today, all 3 candidates for House Maj. Leader will hold conf. calls with GOP-leaning bloggers, a series of events largely self-organized by the bloggers. Rep. John Shadegg's (AZ) event has already taken place; Rep. John Boehner (OH) will hold his in the early afternoon, and acting Maj. Leader Roy Blunt (MO) will go at 3:00 p.m.

In a statement just before deadline, previous blogger-favorite Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) endorsed the 2nd favorite, Shadegg. Said Pence: "John Shadegg is a son of the Republican revolution, a member of the fabled class of 1994, and a leader who has never lost his zeal for reform. ... Now, more than ever, we need leadership with the energy and vision to steer this Congress back to our roots of fiscal discipline, limited government and traditional values.

RedState co-founder Mike Krempasky has his thoughts on Shadegg's call up now: "Congressman Shadegg directly addressed Congressman Blunt's past exercise of power -- and highlighted that since Blunt has yet to resign his current post of Whip, many Members are simply afraid of retaliation if Blunt does not win the Majority Leader's post." More: "Shadegg even went to far as to support the ability of membership to revolt on a rule in order to check leadership. ... If you want the one that scares the daylights out of the Democrats because of his honesty and principled approach to government -- Shadegg is the only answer."

As of last p.m., acting Maj. Leader Roy Blunt is the last candidate to appear on Hugh Hewitt's radio show. Blunt was enthusiastic about earmark reform but skeptical about posting drafts of legis. on the Internet prior to the votes, and at one point had to ask what FOIA was. Heritage's Mark Tapscott: "I must admit, it is a bit disconcerting that Blunt appears not to be sufficiently familiar with the FOIA to recognize what the acronym means. Probably indicative of how important it is to apply the FOIA to Congress." National Review editor Rich Lowry comments on moderate Rep. Chris Shays' (R-CT) defense of and support for Blunt: "There does seem to be a sense among insiders that Blunt, even though he has been an integral part of the DeLay-created world, was more circumspect than DeLay. Or as a member put it to me, diplomatically, 'He is more careful than other people.'"

The (not so?) Great Debate's John Sonnick admits he comes to the maj. leader question with few pre-conceived notions about each candidate, and after consideration, leans toward Shadegg: "But Shadegg seems to have it going on. He seems to have the idea of "if you want to spend it you ought to have it first" down pretty well. He seems to be willing to make some of the changes to the internal processes of the House that are necessary for any successful long-term reform. That said, he creeps my libertarian side out a bit."

Instapundit, on the campaign so far: "I have to say, I think this has probably been the most open leadership contest in history."

THE BARRETT REPORT: Vintage Cisneros

Based on a leaked account of independent prosecutor David Barrett's 11-year investigation into ex-HUD Sec. Henry Cisneros, New York Times reports on how the case went from questions about whether Cisneros lied to the FBI, and ending up with a "scathing report accusing" the Clinton admin. of "thwarting" an investigation into questions about Cisneros and tax evasion.

The right is somewhat split about the importance of the report: Captain's Quarters studies the New York Daily News' preview, and argues the report could "prove explosive to the 2006 re-election effort of Hillary Clinton, but even more damaging to her expected run at the Presidency in 2008." Decision '08 is more circumspect: "The report is an embarrassment to Hillary Clinton's campaign, but it will not be the fatal blow her opponents had hoped for. The issues are too obscure and too far removed in time." And centrist Mickey Kaus reads the same report and a couple others and declares the report likely a "huge disappointment to Clinton paranoids like myself who are willing to credit the 42d President with an expansive dark side." Kaus was hoping for evidence Clinton sicced the IRS on his female accusers, but instead it's all about Cisneros.

Attuned to the leaker/whistleblower dichotomy, righty John Hinderaker writes: "What most struck me about the Times story was how they characterized the person who leaked Barrett's report to them, thereby enabling them to beat most of their competitors to the story: 'A copy of the report was obtained by The New York Times from someone sympathetic to the Barrett investigation who wanted his criticism of the Clinton administration to be known.' Isn't that delightful? This particular leaker was no whistle-blower and no patriot; just a partisan with an axe to grind." Needlenose's lefty Swopa focused on the same passage, from a different point of view: "And the Times, regrettably, chose to oblige [the anonymous source], even though the article half-heartedly acknowledges that Barrett's accusations lack any substantial supporting evidence."

To the left, it's hardly important in light of what they see as much worse transgressions by the Bush admin. Bark Bark Woof Woof mocks the right's persisting "SEX! Clinton! Arghh!" mentality, focusing on this rather than the NSA scandal. The header: "You Bring the Apples, I'll Get the Oranges." Annoyed at complaints by those like Hinderaker, The Mahablog concedes, "no question, today the VRWC wins on points. These are some of the stories not on the front page of the New York Times: 'White House won't discuss meetings between officials, Abramoff'; 'Congressional Agency Questions Legality of Wiretaps'; and 'Going Nuclear: Iran and North Korea seem determined to build up arsenals of nuclear weapons.' I say righties should enjoy success when they've achieved it."

LOBBYING REFORM: Democrats, With A Plan?

Yesterday was the Dems' turn to reveal an ethics reform proposal. Left-leaning blogs, who previously were upset that GOPers beat them to the punch with a lobbying reform plan, reacted with surprise that Dems (a) came up with a good plan and (b) stayed on message.

Tapped's Sam Rosenfeld appraises the Dems' lobbying reform proposal and their announcement last p.m.: "I thought the presentation itself was remarkably well done by their standards," and the speeches "were all aggressive and politicized, replete with a nicely unsubtle recurring motif about Republicans and the mafia. (Reid lingered ominously over his account of the Vegas mob's attempts to blow up his car and murder his family back in the Seventies, then segued immediately back to discussing Tom DeLay and the rest of the gang.)" And each proposal carried a GOPer-specific name such as "'The Tony Rudy Reform' to close the revolving door." More Rosenfeld: "I tend to advocate a 100 percent political, substantively unserious approach to the "lobbying reform" issue, not only because anything else is futile under Republican majorities but also because I don't take very seriously the notion that any of these procedural reforms will produce better governance and substantive policy outcomes."

Rosenfeld as well as Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum note an intriguing and drastic campaign-finance proposal from James Carville and Paul Begala in the latest Washington Monthly, which would, among other things, ban incumbents from raising money, and instead match any money raised by challengers dollar-for-dollar with public funds.

Some more response to the Dem plan -- Conservative QandO Blog notes how "atypical" it is of Dems to actually offer a plan for something, and writes: "Republicans need to take note here. The Democrats are trying to steal a step on you, and, given these solid recommendations, are succeeding." Liberal Booman Tribune: "Of course, this GOP-led Congress is not going to pass the HLOG Act in anything like its current form. But, by staking out the ground, Reid makes the Republicans not only defend their past actions, but explain their tepid support for aggressive reforms." Media Matters' Oliver Willis, at his own blog: "I swear, the universe must have rocked off of its axis on Wednesday because the freaking Democrats stayed on message."

Writing for Huffington Post, David Sirota considers the Dem proposal fine and all, but argues, "you cannot fix a system if you allow it to continue as a system of legalized bribery, and you cannot take back congressional majorities if, like the Democrats, you propose solutions that are easily blurred by the majority." Wondering if the Dems have become "so comfortable in the minority that they are simply unwilling to give up the perks of our current money-drenched system," he writes, "the media hasn't even thought to ask these politicians why they don't support public financing of elections. The deafening silence is quite literally a conspiracy of the political Establishment to protect itself.

Think Progress prints the transcript of reporters grilling WH spokesperson Scott McClellan on Jack Abramoff. Specifically, they focus on his claim that he won't comment on any "staff-level meetings" WH staff may have had. "In fact, in previous press briefings, McClellan has repeatedly discussed both internal staff meetings and meetings between White House staff and outsiders, even detailing by name which officials were involved." The Carpetbagger Report prints more of the exchange and adds: "When reporters start getting feisty, it's usually because they know they're onto something and McClellan is trying to stonewall them. With any luck, they won't let up." Political Teen takes an opposing view, criticizing NBC's Gregory, who "has the audacity not to go research and command Scott to tell him why the White House is not not involved with Abramoff." NRO's Stephen Spruiell agrees.

THE ALITO NOMINATION: Ayotte Ugly

With more Dems saying they doubt a filibuster, interest is waning. But a few are staying with it, and WSJ's James Taranto is keeping a running tally.

King of Zembla's header sums up the left's disappointment in the standards to which Alito was held: "Since He Didn't Eat Any Flies at the Hearing, He Obviously Deserves to Be Confirmed" Liberal Newshounds recounts the conversation between Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) and FNC's Colmes, focusing on Nelson's claims he had "no concerns because Alito has assured him he won't be a 'judicial activist'" and "no concern about how Alito might interpret the law." From their header on the post: "Kiss The Constitution Good-bye!" Shakespeare's Sister, on the same: "Well, if you had your hopes up that the Dems would at least present a united front in voting against Alito, even if they weren't going to filibuster his deserving ass, wave goodbye to that hope."

Re: Sen. Max Baucus' (D-MT) decision to oppose Alito, Dan Dalthorp at conservative Confirm Them writes, "he seems to be making the same mistake that Tom Daschle made, viz. siding with the rabid east coast elites (Kennedy/Schumer/Leahy) against the good sense of the people in his deeply red state. May he meet the same electoral fate as his colleague from South Dakota!" bRight & Early puts the Dem opposition into a handful of humorous categories: "He's Qualified, Therefore I Will Vote Against Him"; "If We Can't Beat Him, Use Him In Your Campaign"; "He's Not For The Little Guy"; and "The Simplest Reason": "The one bit of reasoning you will never hear from a Senator directly, but will be at the heart of a good portion of the votes against Judge Alito, is very simple: [Pres.] Bush nominated him."

Meanwhile, legal blogs including Balkinization on the left and Bench Memos on the right have, for the moment, turned their attention to yesterday's Ayotte ruling on abortion, which sent the case back down to the circuit courts for further consideration. Daily Kos' McJoan turns it back to Alito: "With the Alito nomination, and his affirmed hostility to Roe, the timing of all of this is just too tantalizing to not raise speculation. Did O'Connor not trust this decision to be made with Alito on the bench? We'll never know. But one sure can't help wondering."

At TPMCafe, one contributor looks to the future: "If Alito is confirmed, and the Court is active in undoing progressive reforms, conservatives may provoke a backlash which we could benefit from."

EAVESDROPPING: Joining Forces Against Government ... Isn't The Term For That "Revolution"?

Some conservative big shots, including Free Congress Foundation CEO Paul Weyrich, ATR pres. Grover Norquist and ACU chair David Keene are joining forces with lefty orgs. and come out against NSA wiretapping. This "strange befellows" moment is causing a bit of confusion on the left, even some consternation.

At his Bull Moose blog, DLC's Marshall Wittmann writes: "Just contemplate who might want to take out Associate Membership in the 'Leave us alone' coalition," which would include ex-Rep./Clinton impeachment manager Bob Barr, an ACLU "hero," while Norquist is celebrated on "left wing blogs as a brother in arms against Big Brother." The alliance shows that "the extremes in American politics have far more in common than is commonly recognized."

TPMCafe's Matt Yglesias writes 1/18 that he's "puzzled" by Ed Kilgore's skeptical take on Norquist and Weyrich on civil liberties, arguing: "If liberals are for some reason unable to collaborate with Norquist on the question of NSA oversight while fighting him on tax cuts, then we're basically doomed."

Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall comments 1/18 that though Yglesias might consider Barr "a hero in some progressive corners for his Patriot Act and NSA arguments," that it's time to "Curb your enthusiasm" because "Grover Norquist is all bad." Also, are those who are now "toasting" Weyrich for the same reasons "know what life would be like in a society designed by Paul Weyrich?" Although Marshall opposes "a permanent Patriot Act extension myself, and deplore the NSA spying campaign" he doesn't think that alone is "more important, politically or substantively, than" all the other issues.

WAR ON TERRORISM: Mistakes Were Unmade?

Over the weekend, the U.S. had thought it might have killed top al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, until it seemed more likely they had killed innocent civilians. But now the CW is that they did hit an al-Qaeda meeting house, possibly taking out al-Qaeda's point man on WMD, Abu Khabab al-Masri.

The Counterterrorism Blog: "If true, this is almost as good as killing al-Zawahri; we had a $5 million reward out for Abu Khabab for his long success in training hundreds of terrorists in Afghanistan (including Richard Reid and Zacharias Moussaoui) and for his planning for chemical WMD attacks." Bill Roggio: "Claims the airstrike in Damadola only killed innocent villagers can now be laid to rest."

Assuming that al-Masri was killed but so were some civilians, Kevin Drum asks his lefty: "Question: Under those assumptions, was the attack justified? I think the answer is pretty plainly yes, but I'd sure like to see the liberal blogosphere discuss it. And for those who answer no, I'm curious: under what circumstances would such an attack be justified?" Responses are all over the map.

Conservative John Cole quotes the report and shrugs: "I am so jaded, I never know what to believe anymore when I read these reports."

DELAY: Numbers Theories

A handful of GOP-leaning Houston bloggers are raising questions about the Houston Chronicle's 1/14 poll showing Rep. Tom DeLay trailing ex-Rep. Nick Lampson (D).

Tom DeLay vs. the World questions the small sample size, the labeling of ex-Rep. Steve Stockman as a GOPer though he is running as an Indie, and because only .65% of registered voters turned out for the '04 GOP primary while 38% say they plan to this time, there is a "huge discrepancy between who votes and who was surveyed." David Benzion of the Lone Star Times noted that an FNC reporter may be preparing a report, and posted an e-mail from Chronicle editorial editor James Gibbons dismissing their concerns. But as blogHOUSTON summarized last p.m., these criticisms have only gotten louder since the poll was released.

Last a.m. Washington Post's Cillizza also looked closely at the poll, noting methodology problems as raised by DeLay spokesperson Shannon Flaherty.

CORRUPTION: We'll Either Be Hearing A Lot More About This ... Or Nothing At All

Via AMERICAblog, on Air America's "The Majority Report" on 1/18, Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) alleged that "day traders" -- presumably staffers -- operating out of the offices of Senate Maj. Leader Bill Frist and ex-House Maj. Leader Tom DeLay were investing with inside knowledge: "I'm going to track this down, I know it's true ... that Frist, DeLay and probably others had some day traders working out of their offices," and the "most egregious example" is that the traders "would find out there's a bill being written by lobbyists, that there would be no asbestos bill ... and when the market opened the next day, the cost of asbestos stock had doubled." AMERICAblog makes the audio available in WMA and MP3.

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Mother, Should I Build A Wall?

E&P reports that the New York Times, having already restricted its op-ed columns to paying subscribers, has now "decided that only TimesSelect subscribers should be allowed to e-mail Paul Krugman, Maureen Dowd, David Brooks, et al." Mickey Kaus: "Not just bad business. Bad journalism. Columnists get tips over email! They get interesting information from like-minded souls, and interesting information from readers who despise them. ... As a result of the disastrous TimesSelect experiment, the paper has begun to formally, technically cut itself off from the world of non-Times readers."

MIDTERMS: So You're Telling Me There's A Chance!

Even though Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) enjoys high favorables from CT Dems, Swing State Project's DavidNYC points out that his "re-nominate" vs. "someone new" numbers are evenly split at 47% each among those who self-ID as liberals. He argues that Lieberman is indeed beatable: "This is the pivot-point for Ned Lamont. He would only need to move that 47% number just a wee bit in order to dethrone Lieberman. For Lieberman to avoid that fate, he'd either have to tone down his attacks on fellow Democrats or try to put daylight between himself and Bush on the Iraq war issue. It's not clear to me that he could do that successfully, given how stubbornly he's refused to change his ways over the past five years."

PLAMEGATE: Too Quiet?

Byron York reports at The Corner: "Amid all the news of Abramoff, Alito, and the NSA-al Qaeda leak, one thing we haven't been hearing much about in the last few weeks is the Patrick Fitzgerald CIA leak investigation. Neither, apparently, have some of those who have been most affected by it. Sources close to Karl Rove say they have not heard from Fitzgerald since December, when there was public speculation that Fitzgerald was going to make a decision on Rove's future fairly soon. So far, however, there's been nothing, and while reporters have been keeping an eye on the courthouse in Washington, there apparently haven't been any Fitzgerald sightings there recently."

MISCELLANY: Kennedy, Gibson, Norquist And Brownie

• National Enquirer is reporting, and MSM gossip pages such as Boston Herald's "Inside Track" and New York Daily News' "Rush & Molloy", that Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) has a now 21-year-old illegitimate child named Christopher Bilodeau. Enquirer cites a "Bilodeau confidante" as its source, but the Kennedy camp calls the story "irresponsible fiction." Conservative Wizbang: "Yeah, I know, it's the Enquirer. But over the last decade or so, that paper has had a track record for accuracy that outshines the New York Times." Hub Politics, a MA-based project of Blogs for Bush's Matt Margolis, reminds that a few months back the Enquirer reported that Bush had "resumed drinking." Now Wonkette guest editor Eric Pfeiffer has uncovered what appears to be Bilodeau's MySpace page. It is perhaps the single worst-designed MySpace page we have ever seen, even if the Tenacious D playing in the background is a nice touch (although turn the speakers down if you're in a work environment -- the song is NSFW). There's no mention of the Kennedy rumors, although he writes in the "About Me" section: "Im really learning alot about myself as of late." More: "Women please pour your carnal desires on me like hot sticky honey.... who knows you might get lucky."
• Lefty satire blog Mel's Musings -- a religion blog which purports to be written by actor/director Mel Gibson -- has recieved a cease-and-desist letter from Gibson's attys, demanding the site be shut down by 5:00 PST on 1/19, on account of "Unauthorized Use of Name, Likeness and Persona." "Mel" immediately scanned the letter and posted it to the blog. This a.m. "Mel" asks his readers: " If you ran a satirical Mel Gibson website, and if Mel Gibson threatened to sue you, what would you do?"
• Via the website UCLA Profs.com, UCLA's Bruin Alumni Assn. -- which is not the official UCLA Alumni Assn. -- is offering students $100 for help in "exposing UCLA's radical professors," including a few prominent bloggers. It's a bit outside our territory, but it's caused a sizable furor on UCLA-related and academic blogs. Libertarian UCLA law prof Eugene Volokh -- not a target -- doesn't like it, but isn't terribly bothered: "We're in a much better position than other public servants, who routinely have to deal with criticism. If we're not robust enough to resist unsound criticisms — if we're deterred from saying certain things even when we think they should be said — what's the point of all the employment protections we have?" Conservative UCLA prof Stephen Bainbridge isn't on board: "My major objection to the BAA project is that they're mixing apples and oranges. In some cases, such as my colleague Jonathan Zasloff" -- who blogs at The Reality-Based Community -- "they don't offer a single shred of evidence of in-class bias or other abuses of position. Instead, they object to various political activies in which Zasloff has engaged outside the classroom and on his own time. If that's the standard, than people like me and Eugene Volokh should be on the list too, since our work for conservative causes differs but little from that of Zasloff for liberal causes." Liberal The Green Knight goes after the group's founder, '03 grad Andrew Johnson: "Let's see how much he's suffered at the hands of those Evil Marxist Professors™, shall we? Checking out his web page, we can see that he graduated with a degree in Political Science; thus, he seems to have kept his right-wing beliefs intact. ... His advisory board seems to be a pretty well-connected bunch, including Linda Chavez, so I'm thinking he won't be lacking for money any time soon."
• Via Washington Technology, Talking Points Memo points out that Bush has nominated Grover Norquist brother David Norquist to be CFO at DHS.
• Following ex-FEMA dir. Michael Brown's acceptance of responsibility for the poor handling of post-Katrina New Orleans, Michelle Malkin senses vindication for her previous criticism: "Unlike many conservatives, I was unimpressed by his CYA testimony before Congress last September. He overpromised. He under-delivered."

BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: Regarding Henry

Today the Blogometer talks to GWU poli sci prof Henry Farrell, who contributes to left-leaning academic group blog Crooked Timber.

What is your full name?

Henry Farrell.

What is your age?

35 years old.

Where did you grow up?

I grew up in Ireland; first in Dublin, then in a small town in Tipperary. I left Ireland in 1993; since then, I've lived in Brussels, Washington DC, Florence, Bonn and Toronto.

Where do you live now?

I now live in Washington DC.

What is your occupation? Have you ever worked on a political campaign or for the mainstream media?

I'm assistant professor at the Department of Political Science and Center for International Science and Technology Policy of George Washington University. I do academic research on various topics, including blogs. I've done bits and pieces of volunteer work for political campaigns in Ireland, and worked for Irish TV as a political researcher during the 1992 general election.

When did you start blogging and why?

I started blogging in January 2003. I'd come across Kieran Healy's blog, and figured that I had to move quickly if I wanted to get a toehold before he completely saturated the market for expatriate Irish social-scientist bloggers.

What has been your favorite post, or favorite story to write about, in that time?

My favourite non-political blogging has been the seminars I've organized on writers like China Mieville, Susanna Clarke and Steven Levitt. My favourite political post is this one on Rick Perlstein and the Democratic Party.

Describe your typical blogging schedule. And what is your average output?

I usually read through the blogs after breakfast, and return to them at odd moments during the day. I don't have any specific schedule for writing blog posts. My output varies, but is usually somewhere around 2-4 posts a week. It varies a lot, but as I write for a group blog with several other active posters, it's easier to take time out when I need to.

Who is your favorite political blogger? Favorite non-political blogger?

Favourite political bloggers are Mark Schmitt, Kevin Drum, Matt Yglesias, Brad DeLong, Max Sawicky, Nathan Newman. Favourite non-political (or only sometimes political) blogs are Patrick and Teresa Nielsen Hayden, Cosma Shalizi, Boing Boing, Scott McLemee, The Valve. Favourite non-classifiable blog -- Fafblog. Favourite blog on the other side of the political spectrum -- Steve Bainbridge.

Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?

Favourite op-ed columnists are Paul Krugman (although I don't read him very often now that he's behind the Times Select paywall) and Barbara Ehrenreich.

What is your favorite television news program, either network or cable?

I don't really watch TV news or the political programs -- I occasionally watch the "Daily Show."

What MSM-produced websites (i.e. newspapers, magazines) do you visit on a daily basis?

The Washington Post, the New York Times, the Irish Times. When I have time, I try to glance at a few European newspapers -- La Repubblica, Le Monde, the FAZ.

What non-MSM websites (i.e. blogs) do you visit on a daily basis?

In addition to those mentioned above, I keep up with about 50 blogs using an RSS reader. I try to persuade myself, with indifferent success, that this constitutes "research."

How often, or do you ever, read a newspaper in its dead-tree (i.e. print) form?

Daily. I subscribe to the Financial Times -- which I find simply indispensable as a source of news on international (and especially European) politics.

How do you see the new media and old media affecting and influencing each other in the next five years?

Blogs don't have enough readership to present a serious alternative to major newspapers or TV as a mass medium. The major problem that mainstream media faces isn't blogs -- it's finding ways to make Internet publishing into a paying proposition (a problem that many for-profit blogs have too). Where blogs are going to have a major impact is on those subsections of the media and politics that seek to influence elite opinion rather than mass opinion. We're already seeing how opinion journals on left (the American Prospect, Washington Monthly) and right (the National Review) are creating blog/online magazine hybrids. Over the next several years I suspect that we're going to see a proliferation of blogs run by think tanks, by lobby groups and by others trying to shape elite political debate. I'm an academic; I'd also like to see more academics using blogs to communicate with a wider public, and more use of blogs by intellectual journals. Why don't the Boston Review, the New York Review of Books or the London Review of Books have blogs? They're cutting themselves off from an important set of debates.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Indie Rocks

Some of Andrew Sullivan's readers are concerned that by moving his blog to Time's website, he is setting himself up for trouble now that the blog is "bought and paid for by Time magazine." Sullivan offers a defense, a theory, and a request: "Time's editors have never pressured me to write anything I don't fully believe in print, and anyone who knows my past knows I'm not exactly renowned for currying favor with my bosses. I think what's happening here is the opposite of what the reader thinks. Think of it as the blogosphere reaching out to the MSM and helping erase what is, in any case, a somewhat strained distinction. But this much I'll ask you. If you think I'm going soft, let me know. As if I needed to tell you that."

LEST WE FORGET: Second Prize Is A Set Of Steak Knives

John Hawkins stumbles across a website selling a red plastic knife rack in the shape of a man -- with the set of knives stabbing the man through the head, chest, legs, etc. Hawkins comments: "Hey look, it's Maureen Dowd's knife rack! Just kidding -- sort of. I mean, would you really be surprised if she had one of these? ... Can you imagine all the complaints if they sold a knife block like this with a woman being used as a pincushion? The nagging would never stop. But, as long as it's a guy being stabbed, "Oh, it's hilarious!" Of course, I do have to admit it is pretty creative and cool looking. On the other hand, if you went out on a first date with a woman and noticed that she had one of these things in her kitchen, wouldn't that be basically enough to make you think twice about going on a second date?"

NOTES AND ERRATA: Newsmeat Beat Manifesto

In our 1/9 edition, we mistakenly conflated nonpartisan celebrity FEC donations info site Newsmeat.com with the left-blogosphere. In describing a chain of posts that helped spread a developing meme, we intended to note that the info was cited from Newsmeat. Unfortunately, the way we wrote it makes it sound as if Newsmeat was advocating a position, which it was not doing and does not do in any case. The original sentence has been modified, and a note has been attached.

Posted by at 01:08 PM

January 18, 2006

1/18: Whipping Post

There's plenty of buzz out there about Jack Abramoff and the GOP's flawed lobbying reform proposal, plus another round commentary on Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Al Gore's MLK Day speeches. But the biggest thing going on is a major blog swarm on the Washington Post, including reporters Susan Schmidt and Howard Kurtz, ombudsman Deborah Howell and even online opinions editor Hal Strauss.

Like most blogswarms that last longer than a day, the incident that first brought criticism -- Schmidt expressing agreement with the GOP argument that Dems share some culpability in the Abramoff scandal -- was soon followed by responses that raised more questions than it answered. This one started with a single televised comment that sparked a series of blog posts, a flood of comments at the Post's editorial blog, eventually made its way into the Post's print edition, and continues as the bloggers continue to criticize the Post, which continues to defend itself.

Of course, much of this has been made possible because the Post has long been one of the more Internet-friendly, and lately one of the most blog-friendly newspapers. The live chat put Kurtz on the spot about the ongoing controversy, the Post's blogs offered a forum for angry readers to post comments, and its partnership with Technorati even brings blog commentary on each article to its very web pages.

Whereas the right-blogosphere reserves most of its ire for the New York Times, the left-blogosphere has grown to distrust the Post in much the same manner. The controversy has also extended to include The New Republic and its blog, The Plank. While the incident here will likely quiet down in coming days, it'll probably become a lasting criticism, one to be resurrected by the act of linking the next time a Post contributor crosses the watchful liberal blogosphere.

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: The Post Man Always Clicks Twice

In a 1/15 appearance on C-SPAN's "Q&A" Schmidt said of the Abramoff scandal: "They -- the Democrats have not been --- a few have been sort of out there strident about it but there's a deafening silence on the part of a lot of people. And that's because actually Abramoff had -- was giving a lot of money to Democrats, too." As we noted last week, Dems have protested this assertion vigorously, drawing a strong line between money personally donated by Abramoff (all to GOPers) and money given by Abramoff clients (including many Dems).

Duncan "Atrios" Black and other top lefty blogs caught Schmidt's assertion and pressured the Post to respond, largely in comments at the editors' washingtonpost.blog. The comments piled up quickly, and the Post deleted some it found to be offensive; the Post put this number at about a dozen, but a commenter at Firedoglake put the number at 600+. (This a.m., the Post's Hal Strauss conceded that more had been deleted, explained it as a glitch by its blog software -- the notoriously glitch-prone Typepad -- and said the comments had been reinstated.

On 1/15, Post ombudsman Howell wrote that the Post had written in other stories, including a 6/3 report by Jeffrey Birnbaum, that Dems had "gotten Abramoff campaign money." The Birnbaum story she refers to was titled: "Democrats Also Got Tribal Donations; Abramoff Issue's Fallout May Extend Beyond the GOP." She also defended Schmidt's reporting, and described how she uncovered the scandal: "Schmidt quickly found that Abramoff was getting 10 to 20 times as much from Indian tribes as they had paid other lobbyists. And he had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties." This only compounded the Post's problems with the left, as Howell's piece didn't clear up the underlying semantic difference. Howell's column was quickly pulled apart by lefty watchdog Media Matters, and A-list liberal blogs Daily Kos, AMERICAblog, Eschaton and Brad DeLong followed. Jane Hamsher summed it up: "Deborah Howell is an outrage. Or rather, her title of 'ombudsman' is an outrage. If you just change it to 'Official GOP Steward' I would have far less problems with her continued presence at the WaPo."

On 1/16, Michael Crowley of TNR's The Plank criticized Atrios' dismissal of Schmidt as "Steno Sue," and wrote that while the Abramoff case is primarily a GOP scandal, efforts to absolve Dems of all responsibility amount to "foolish semantics": "Hell, North Dakota Democrat Byron Dorgan attended a fundraiser held by an Abramoff tribal client, along with two Abramoff lobbying partners, in Abramoff's MCI Center skybox."

On 1/17, Philly Daily News' Will Bunch wrote in to the Poynter Institute's popular journalistic message board Romenesko, asking, "to whom does one complain at the Washington Post when the person who is there to receive reader complaints defiantly gets it wrong?"

In a live chat at the Post site on 1/17, Kurtz defended one of Howell's statements: "Howell's column Sunday said that a number of Democrats 'have gotten Abramoff campaign money.' That was inartfully worded. I believe what she was trying to say, and I have not discussed this with her, is that some Democrats have received campaign cash from Abramoff clients, and that this may have been orchestrated by the convicted lobbyist." Needless to say, that wasn't enough. Crooks and Liars focused on the : "Howard, how can you speak about her motives without actually talking to her?" And Robert's Stochastic Thoughts focused on Howell's statement that "he made substantial ... contributions": "This is not inartful wording. This is an unambiguously false statement. The pronoun 'he' is unambiguously singular and can not possibly be interpreted as referring to Jack Abramoff or his clients."

On 1/17, NYC atty Glen Greenwald criticized both the Post and TNR's Crowley, writing: "One of the truly most damaging problems we have faced is that the people in these journalistic and political circles have cared far more about defending themselves and preserving their status in these clubs than they have cared about performing their role as journalists. ... The blogosphere has made it impossible for them to maintain that cocoon. They now have to hear criticism of their work and sometimes even have to lower themselves to addressing it. And as The New Republic bloggers often make crystal clear, they are quite unhappy about all of this." Greenwald's larger point was a criticism of "credentialism" evident at TNR and the MSM overall, compared with the "meritocracy" of the blogosphere; this point garnered a positive mention by conservative Austin Bay.

The Post is still under fire as of this a.m.; the 1st comment on the Post's post announcing the launch of its Maryland Moment blog reads in part: "Every day, every blog, every comment, every live discussion, we must continue to bring up Howell and the Post's smear. Every time."

HOUSE GOP ELECTIONS: Word On The Street

PorkBusters co-leader Glenn Reynolds weighs in favorably re: Rep. John Boehner's (R-OH) Wall Street Journal op-ed calling for earmark reform, but adds: "On the other hand, his argument for lobbying reform (because 'literally anyone can be a lobbyist') seems less impressive. What we need is transparency, not another Washington-insiders guild." A WSJ op-ed by Rep. John Shadegg this a.m. generates more uniformly positive reviews from those who've already endorsed him. Kennedy v. The Machine calls it "a must-read rallying call for the conservative movement."

At Power Line, John Hinderaker considers the GOP lobbying reform package, and finds it "interesting" that Shadegg opposes the outright travel ban. Hinderaker opines: "The big problem isn't bribery; the big problem is the culture of spending that inevitably prefers the desire of recipients to cash federal checks over the desire of taxpayers to hold on to their money. But perceptions, right or wrong, are important, and if Congressmen can no longer take golf trips to Scotland, it's probably just as well."

After multiple invites, Boehner did appear on Hugh Hewitt's radio show last p.m. Hewitt describes the exchange as "satisfactory" despite his being Bengals fan, and adds: "He gives strong assurances that he has no Abramoff ties even though he counts many lobbyists among his friends." Mark Tapscott calls attention to one of his primary issues in a header: "Boehner Waffles on Internet Posting of Bills Before House Votes."

The RCP Blog's Tom Bevan handicaps the field, keeping in mind the GOP's new ethics proposal: "Though the GOP leadership race is "inside baseball" to most Americans, the general outline between making a real change in leadership or continuing on with the status quo isn't. ... Irrespective of whether either [acting Maj. Leader Roy Blunt or Boehner] might prove to be a more effective Majority Leader, timing and circumstance weigh heavily in the favor of Shadegg." Outside The Beltway: "The good news is that this leadership race is forcing the three candidates to one-up each other one how much they would clean up the House. That's a very good thing. The fact that they dirtied the place up so much after only a few years in power? Not so much."

Conservative Penraker gives an impression of the 3 candidates after seeing them on "Fox News Sunday": "What is troubling is that all of them have some degree of taint from the current scandal. Some of it may be unfair, and maybe it can be explained away. Certainly a couple of them did handstands attempting to explain it away. But the taint remains."

ABRAMOFF: The (R)eform Party

Last p.m., House and Senate GOPers introduced similar lobbying-reform bills, beating Dems to the punch on the issue in an attempt to head off criticism stemming from the Jack Abramoff scandal. Speaking of Birnbaum, the blogosphere didn't seem to pick up on the loophole until his report this a.m.

Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall wasn't thrilled that the GOP beat the Dems on this: "Who does what first isn't the biggest deal in the world. But I think the Dems just got caught off guard on this. Better planning please?" That said, he has some fun quoting Speaker Denny Hastert saying that a "year ago," most on the Hill didn't know of Abramoff. He also compares comments by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), who defended the K Street Project 11/05 but feigned ignorance by 1/06. Mary Katherine Ham, on Dems' claims that they "intend to unveil" a plan of their own this week: "When's the last time the Dems actually put forth a plan instead of telling everyone they intend to do so in the future?"

But as Washington Post's Birnbaum reports, there exists a loophole in the plan where cong. members could receive gifts and meals from lobbyists, and the "only requirement would be that whenever a lobbyist pays the bill, he or she also must hand the lawmaker a campaign contribution. Then the transaction would be perfectly OK." QandO: "Does all this waffling and equivocating give you a warm fuzzy about how serious the Republicans are taking this scandal?" Charging RINO advocates a slower process: "The current mad rush to pass 'something, anything' is not the best way to go." Captain's Quarters: "The Hastert proposal makes for a well-intentioned effort but sets up a big failure down the road."

On the left, the loophole was the source of some amusement, and mild confusion. ReddHedd: "Nothing like pretending that you are for reform while propping up the very system you publicly pretend to change. That's some serious ass chutzpah." The Carpetbagger Report: "Maybe I'm being overly sensitive, but if lawmakers are forced to take campaign money while enjoying lobbyist-paid perks, isn't that worse than the status quo?"

Meanwhile at Fired Up! America, Roy Temple points out that Rep. George Miller (D-CA) wants the DoJ to appoint an outside counsel to investigate 2 "instances of potential political manipulation" by DoJ officials in matters concerning Abramoff, Guam and the Marianas. Temple walks through the evidence that there may be a conflict of interest keeping the DoJ from doing the investigation -- starting with an ex-aide to ex-AG John Ashcroft who went to work for Abramoff. Temple: "The moment Abramoff's name came up in the context of an investigation, Ashcroft and all those close to him should have immediately recused themselves. Why didn't they? It is not yet known whether it was pressure from Ashcroft, or pressure from the White House that killed the initial investigation. But we have a right to know."

WHITE HOUSE '08: Here Comes The (Gore '08) Draft?

Ex-VP Gore has ruled out a WH'08 candidacy, but that hasn't stopped plenty of Dem-leaning bloggers from hoping that he will run. At Huffington Post, Cenk Uygur made it clear enough with the call, "Al Gore for President."

Also at HuffPo, Arianna Huffington made a stark comparison between Gore and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY): "Gore came out swinging, charging the president with breaking the law 'repeatedly and insistently.' He said that Bush had mounted a "direct assault" on the system set up for obtaining warrants for spying, and concluded: 'A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government.' In the other corner: Hillary. She, too, came out swinging, claiming the Bush administration would 'go down in history as one of the worst that has ever governed our country.' One of?!"

Liberal atty Jeralyn Merritt gives "the edge to Gore for another reason": "Half the country thinks the 2000 election was stolen from him, and they will want to right the wrong that was done to him." The Left Coaster: "I'd put my money on Gore. He didn't just get rid of the beard, he also got rid of the mitigating, the qualifying, and the equivocating that plagues sitting senators."

More than the left so far, bloggers at a few of the top conservative sites have noticed the Huffington piece, and they don't buy it. Moe Lane at RedState sees the other side of Huffington's conclusion: "Somebody not subscribing to her particular narrative might contemplate that said speeches might just as easily be seen as a contrast between a fairly crass appeal to the Bush Derangement Syndrome sufferers and a fairly crass appeal to the African-American community." Instapundit: "I think a better analogy is the Harlem Globetrotters vs. the Washington Generals."

Following Gore's 1/16 speech, conservative blogs followed Gateway Pundit in noting that in '94, then-dep. AG Jamie Gorelick defended physical searches without warrants. WH spokesperson Scott McClellan and AG Alberto Gonzales made similar arguments, as well. Think Progress credits itself with bringing to the AP's attention, as AP now reports, the law "was changed to cover physical searches in 1995 under legislation that Clinton supported and signed." TP's Judd Legum adds: "The larger issue, however, is that the White House doesn't have an honest response to criticism of their warrantless domestic wiretapping program."

RACE: Lefty Bloggers Got Hillary's Back? Now That's A Neat Trick!

Based on a suggestion by Atrios, AMERICAblog's John Aravosis went Googling for examples of conservatives using the phrase "Democratic plantation" -- and found it being used by conservative publications such as National Review and Wall Street Journal, plus commentators including Rush Limbaugh (actually a caller, multiple times) and Bob Novak.

At Wonkette, Eric Pfeiffer finds an example of then-Speaker Newt Gingrich comparing the House Dems' governance to a plantation -- more in line with how HRC used it.

Davenetics makes fun of HRC saying that "run like a plantation, and you know what I'm talking about": "[U]m, they might know what she means, but I'm guessing that the image that comes to mind is a slave master with a whip as opposed to rich white people refusing to listen to each other in a considerate manner."

MIDTERMS: Is There Even Such A Thing As "GOP Netroots"?

Connecticut Local Politics submitted 6 questions to Cable TV Co. pres./millionaire Ned Lamont (D), who is considering a primary challenge to Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT). Lamont, on his decision-making process: "I am trying to meet as many folks as I can over the next few weeks to gauge whether they share my outrage over the pork ridden bridge to nowhere and the endless war to nowhere and, if they do, I'm in."

Since the fall, Daily Kos has partnered with Air America's "Majority Report" to promote the House candidacies of the "Fighting Dems" -- Iraq war vets now running for Congress. A new candidate is promoted each Tues.; the latest is Tammy Duckworth, running to replace retiring Rep. Henry Hyde in IL-06. The post also contains links to information about the candidates, previous installments in the series, and other media coverage of the Fighting Dems. At Eschaton, 3 candidates get a push -- PA challengers Lois Murphy and Patrick Murphy, and also Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY). He explains: "She's an incumbent, and my preference is to steer money to challengers, but Slaughter is a great friend of the blogosphere and has been spending a lot of time fighting the good fight instead of raising money. For this she was rewarded with a threatened primary challenge, though this has yet to fully materialize."

Jonathan Singer conducted an interview with GOV candidate/Rep. Ted Strickland (D-OH), and posts it to MyDD. Strickland, asked why the bloggers should get involved in the OH GOV race: "I really believe that if we can win the governor's race in Ohio in '06 that we could put in place the kind of political infrastructure that will prevent another electoral disaster in Ohio, and it will make it much more likely that we'll be able to elect a Democrat to be the next president of this country."

Back on 12/13 we noted a blogad by FL House candidate Laura Leyva (D), who bought blogads on such sites as Swing State Project (where it still remains as of this a.m.). Last week, Ara Rubyan of E Pluribus Unum noted that as of 1/11, "she's raised just under $650, so she has a ways to go to beat her $2,500 goal." No word on an update yet, but 1/19 is her deadline.

INTRODUCING: Oooh, I Heard It On The Newsvine

As of last p.m., the much-anticipated community news site Newsvine has launched. We haven't had much time to look around, but it's similar in its story recommendation scheme to digg.com, but participants can write their own "columns" as well. The site appears highly sortable by topic and region -- for example: washingtondc.newsvine.com.

On 1/13, Roll Call analyst Stu Rothenberg contributed his 1st analysis to Taegan Goddard's Political Wire.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Truly Ahead Of His Time

Celebrated Ben Franklin's 300th birthday yesterday, Philadelphia Inquirer blogger Daniel Rubin suggested Franklin as "the nation's first blogger." Rubin: "Not so far a stretch, really. He pamphleteered, self-published, delivered colonial dish, news and opinion, sampled others' work and remixed it into his own mash. He wrote anonymously, or under pseudonyms. Instead of posting daily, he squirreled away his words and published them in an almanac. Doesn't this sound familiar?"

LEST WE FORGET: They Really, Really Don't Like You

Gapingvoid, which recently brought us the "Top ten blogger lies," now returns with the "Top ten reasons why nobody reads your blog." #7: "You didn't recently sell your company to AOL for $25 million. Somehow your eighth-grade English teacher managed to convince you that truth & beauty were more important to people than money & power. And you've been paying dearly for it ever since."

Posted by at 12:54 PM

January 17, 2006

1/17: Al B Sure

Among the stories and discussions taking place over MLK weekend: Judge Samuel Alito's confirmation by the full Senate seems all but inevitable, and some lefty bloggers are enraged that Senate Dems appear to have written off the filibuster; ex-VP Gore's big NSA speech drew plenty of attention, although the commentary broke down fairly neatly along partisan lines; the same is generally true of the latest developments in the NSA eavesdropping story, where the left and right can read the same New York Times report and give diametrically opposing summaries; Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) consolidates his status as the outsider's favorite for House Maj. Leader; Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) faces questions about his Purple Hearts; Mayor Ray Nagin draws a few Pat Robertson comparisons; and the Iranian nuclear situation is quite alarming to most, but not all. Plus, we've got to tell you about this blonde joke we just heard.

THE ALITO NOMINATION: Does This Situation Require A Futile Gesture On Someone's Part?

Despite the strong likelihood of Alito's confirmation, there are still complaints on the right about Dems requesting their standard weeklong delay before the Senate Jud Cmte votes. RedState's Leon H notes that Alito's nod has lasted 76 days, and will probably take more than 90 -- like those of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

But it's more a minor annoyance to them. On the left, anxiety and anger carry the day. In particular, many are unhappy with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) for saying: "I do not see a likelihood of a filibuster. This might be a man I disagree with, but it doesn't mean he shouldn't be on the court." Frederick Maryland of Demagogue tries to make sense of this statement: "If she doesn't think her concerns 'mean he shouldn't be on the court,' then why is she planning to vote against him? Will her 'no' vote be nothing more than a symbolic message?" AMERICAblog doesn't hold back: "This is just that much more evidence of why there needs to be a major blood-letting in the Democratic party, and soon. Heads need to roll. ROLL. People need to lose their jobs, en masse. After 2000, no one took responsibility. After 2004, no one took responsibility. And now it's happening again. Our wonderful party leaders are sitting back and scratching their heads wondering why the country isn't simply running into our arms while they sit back and do nothing to earn the country's respect and loyalty." Steve Gilliard argues that the Dems shouldn't just give up: "[Robert] Bork wasn't beat in the committee, but by ads after the fact. The pressure to defeat him grew externally. ... So the next act in this drama is to make a stink, call your elected officials, your Senators and ask them point blank about Friday's Times editorial, the one which claims Alito will vote to overturn Roe, and then ask them if they are going to do anything to stop him."

Univ. of WI-Madison law prof Ann Althouse explains to the left how they set themselves up to lose this fight: "I have heard so many liberals say that they only want to talk about ideology. They want to rely on the portrayal of judging as ideological, but then deny the President his choice of ideology. This doesn't work, and it shouldn't work. If we accept the foundation of the argument -- that judging is ideological -- then there is no trump to the President's appointment power when his party controls the Senate." More: "By declining to frame arguments in terms of legal analysis, the Democrats empowered the nominee to win by simply explaining a lot of legal arguments." Plenty of conservatives took the1/15 New York Times story, "Glum Democrats Can't See Halting Bush On Courts," as a sign of victory. TigerHawk concluded the so-called Gang of 14 deal last year didn't work out so badly: "Looking back, I think we can say that the Republican leadership in the Senate handled the filibuster controversy last April and May better than a lot of conservative bloggers thought they had." At Power Line, Paul Mirengoff conceded: "The deal has turned out better than I expected," but added: "That doesn't mean it was a good deal." BitsBlog concurred, analogizing: "That's like claiming that Russian Roulette isn't all that bad of a game just because you survived the most recent round."

As we meant to note last week, MyDD's readers have settled on a winner in its "Guess Alito's Freeper Handle" contest. The cleverest was also the winningest: "Borkemada."

GORE: On The Trail, Or Being Trailed?

Ex-VP Gore's speech, in which he accused Pres. Bush of breaking the law by approving the NSA wiretaps, was a big deal all around. Surprising almost no one, the left pronounced it an instant hit, while the right predictably called it a dud.

Susie Madrak, who attended, gushes: "Goddamn, it was spine-tingling. ... It took Al a little while to wind himself up, but by the end of the speech, I was ready to grab a pitchfork and storm the castle." Mocking the conservative spin that Gore has "gone crazy," Atrios sarcastically refers to him as "CRRRAAAAZY AL." Gore gets good marks from TPMCafe, and Digby calls him the "conscience" of the Dem Party. A diary at MyDD calls it the "speech of the century." Daily Kos didn't devote as much attention to it, and a number of readers think Moulitsas "dropped the ball."

Power Line calls it "What you'd expect from a demagogue": "A speech by Al Gore, who has no claim to expertise in the law, need not prompt further discussion by me." For that, they point readers to The Astute Blogger. Gateway Pundit lists a number of Clinton-era assertions of the WH's right to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intel purposes, including Senate testimony by then-dep. AG Jamie Gorelick. Varifrank has some fun with Gore's "no controlling legal authority" phrase. The comment thread over at PoliPundit is at least as anti-Gore as the lefty blogs cited above are pro.

As for the media's coverage, conservative Flopping Aces thinks there was too much; Salon's Peter Daou says there was too little.

EAVESDROPPING I: If Only They Could Get Their Hands On The Glengarry Leads

According the New York Times, "virtually all" of the NSA's post-9/11 NSA leads "led to dead ends or innocent Americans."

Bopnews and Rising Hegemon both see the report as a boon to the pro-impeachment argument. Kevin Drum aims to keep his eye on the ball: "Aside from the fact that the whole thing smells pretty strongly of a bureaucratic turf war, the effectiveness of the program just isn't a big issue. ... Not every program pans out. What's important is that the intercepts were done without a warrant even though the law expressly requires a warrant. That's the issue." But Bark Bark Woof Woof's Mustang Bobby thinks it does: "Not only is it questionable on legal and constitutional grounds, this kind of info dump is a huge waste of time and resources."

Conservative Captain's Quarters points out that deep in the story, an official says the program "uncovered no active Qaeda networks inside the United States planning attacks," but that it "might have helped uncover people with ties to Al Qaeda in Albany; Portland, Ore.; and Minneapolis. Some of the activities involved recruitment, training or fund-raising." CQ: "So recruitment, training, and funding terrorists on American soil suddenly doesn't equate to 'active al-Qaeda networks'? Since when? The FBI should tell us if it considers those functions as beneath its dignity to stop within the United States, because most Americans would beg to differ."

EAVESDROPPING II: He's Not A Terrorist, He's My Brother!

New York Times also reports, the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights both intend to pursue lawsuits against the Bush admin. over the wiretapping. One party to the ACLU suit is pro-war journalist Christopher Hitchens. Liberal Sisyphus Shrugged awards Hitchens "the Claude Rains Memorial Gambling Awareness Award" for being "once again all upset about undemocratic behavior by the administration that somehow slipped into the White House while he wasn't looking." Header at The Strata-Sphere: "ACLU In Contact With Overseas Terrorist?" AJ Strata answers his own question: "Would seem so. Since NSA only targets communications with terrorist suspects overseas." Stop the ACLU adds: "So, while our military fights the good fight, the ACLU are suing over an inconvenience in its ability to talk to the very people who want to kill us all."

On "This Week," ABC's Stephanopolous got Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) to opine on the consequences to Bush if the wiretapping is conclusively found to be illegal. Specter: "I'm not suggesting remotely that there's any basis, but you're asking, really, theory, what's the remedy? Impeachment is a remedy. After impeachment, you could have a criminal prosecution, but the principal remedy, George, under our society is to pay a political price." Lefty Steve Soto notes that Specter considered impeachment "without much hesitation." See also: Video at Crooks and Liars, discussion thread at Daily Kos, an extended transcript and discussion at Think Progress.

HOUSE GOP ELECTIONS: Is This The GOP's Version Of The People Vs. The Powerful?

Last week righty radio talker Hugh Hewitt noted that neither acting Maj. Leader Roy Blunt nor OH Rep. John Boehner had agreed to appear on his program. On 1/16, AZ Rep. John Shadegg did an interview. Shadegg denied knowing Abramoff, conceded he had been entertained at an Abramoff skybox, explained those circumstances, and took questions prepared by blogger/Heritage media dir. Mark Tapscott. Radioblogger has the full transcript. At Tapscott's Copy Desk, Tapscott is encouraged that Shadegg endorsed the posting of bills to the Internet 72 hours before the vote, and IDing those who attach earmarks to bills. He concludes: "Now, let's see what Shadegg thinks about applying the Freedom of Information Act to Congress!" Townhall.com's Tim Chapman points out that RSC chair Mike Pence (R-IN) -- some conservative bloggers' 1st choice to run -- has another list of questions for the candidates, and reproduces them in his post.

RedState's Blanton refers to Blunt's announcement that he has the necessary 117 votes to win as evidence that "he is defeated": "Show us your names Congressman. Show us your names."

In Blogometer's online edition and also at Hotline On Call on 1/13, we noted that the best-known of the conservative blogosphere issued a joint statement to the House GOP Conf. asking them to elect someone free of Abramoff taint. While they didn't outright endorse Shadegg, he was also the only candidate mentioned. "An Appeal from Center-Right Bloggers," as they called it, has now picked up the support of dozens and dozens of conservative bloggers, who have added their names at statement co-sponsor The Truth Laid Bear. In the comments, Ace of Ace of Spades HQ writes: "I support Shadegg. Actually, it's more that I oppose Blunt and Boehner."

MURTHA: The Boat Goes To The Swift

On 1/13 the conservative Cybercast News Service (CNS) reported that recently outspoken Iraq war opponent Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) might not have earned his 2 Purple Hearts. On 1/14 the Washington Post picked the story up and gave it a larger audience. At Whatever Already, Murray Waas points out that one of the sources in the report by "(until now) obscure" CNS was a '96 quote by an ex-aide to an ex-rep. who once lost to Murtha. What the Post doesn't mention is that the ex-rep., John Saylor, died in '73. And as Firedoglake points out, CNS says Harry Fox, the aide, is now 81 and too ill to confirm his charge. FDL's Jane Hamsher scoffs: "There is just oodles of journalistic integrity spilling all over this one, no?" On the other hand, ex-Rep. Don Bailey (D-PA) confirmed his similar account to the Post this weekend.

Arianna Huffington: "Last week, President Bush said that he would welcome 'an honest debate about Iraq' -- as long as 'the tone of this debate is respectful.' Oh, really? Then he should start by denouncing the despicable smear campaign being launched against Jack Murtha."

Conservative Daily Pundit: "The reality is, lots of medals were handed out in Vietnam under odd or questionable circumstances, and only their recipients will ever know the truth about them. Which makes the veracity of a report about something Murtha said all the more important."

KATRINA: But George Clinton Told Us Washington Was The Real Chocolate City!

Following a CNN report, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin (D) is getting flak from conservatives for public comments he made over the weekend, including: "Surely God is mad at America. He sent us hurricane, after hurricane, after hurricane ... [and He] doesn't approve of us being in Iraq under false pretenses." And: "This city will be a majority African-American city. It's the way God wants it to be."

California Yankee diagnoses Nagin as having "exhibited symptoms of Pat Robertson syndrome." At PoliPundit, Jayson Javitz credits him with "an unprecedented hat trick of banalities. He managed to be a religious demagogue, a racist, and a political hack, all in the span of several sentences." GOPBloggers puts Nagin together with Gore and calls it the Dems' "Deranged Weekend." Look What I Found: "It almost makes you wonder how the Katrina tragedy would have played out differently if New Orleans had a mayor that wasn't looking for excuses each step of the way." Nagin soon issued an apologetic clarification, but Tim F. of Balloon Juice didn't buy it: "Maybe Nagin had a speech about diversity on the teleprompter, but what he gave was a weird theological justification for keeping a black majority."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: The Rocketeers

At Reason's Hit and Run, Jeff Taylor called attention to a New York Times photo/caption that appears to describe an intact old artillery shell as: "Pakistani men with the remains of a missile fired at a house in the Bajur tribal zone near the Afghan border." Taylor: "The warheads of missiles do not typically survive impact. Some tail pieces might. Also notice how the old man and young boy are featured in the shot. Accidental or are they implicated targets? Bad, bad deal all around." The picture showed up at FreeRepublic.com and The American Thinker, whose Thomas Lifson asked: "Is a fake staged photo fit to print? What if it staged in a way that makes the US forces fighting the War on Terror look cruel and ineffective? The evidence argues that yes, it can run, and in a prominent position -- at least in the case of the New York Times website." The catch went around the right-blogosphere all weekend; American Thinker's post picked up 100+ links. In particular, bloggers with a military background pored overDonald Sensing at One Hand Clapping eventually determined that while the shell probably had been fired and wasn't Soviet in origin, it is "definitely not of American origin."

IRAN: Apparently Wants It More Than North Korea Right Now

Over the weekend, conservative Harvard prof Niall Ferguson published a much-discussed op-ed in the Telegraph, describing the "Great War of 2007," its origins in the current Iranian nuclear crisis and the necessity of preventive action. Instapundit: "I think our big error was in not preempting Iran in 1979. Everything since has been an effort to rectify that dreadful mistake." Matt Yglesias comments: "My impulse is always to suggest that preventative war advocates read a book or two about the first world war -- lacking the box office appeal of the sequel, but more pregnant with lessons for the future -- and see where that kind of thinking got everyone."

One blogger who has been downplaying the recent alarm about Iran is Atrios, who adds : "I suppose it's necessary to explain that just because I mock the inevitable rhetoric on Iran from the Bush administration and the wingnutosphere doesn't mean that I don't think a nuclear Iran thing would be a less than desirable development. But Iran Talk has nothing to do with what we're going to about that, Iran Talk is entirely about domestic politics." More: "I'll admit I worry less about a nuclear Iran than some. State sponsored nuclear terrorism/war would require a completely irrational actor, one even more irrational than North Korea's Dear Leader." In fact, Lean Left argues the whole war on terrorism has been overdone: "The terrorists simply do not represent a threat to destroy this country. Conservatives are panicking in the face of a threat that barely registers in historical terms. Murderers are of course to be defended against and brought to justice, but it does no one anyone could to pretend that a gang of murders is in fact the historical equivalent of Stalin."

DEMOCRATS: Gaze Into The Daily Kos, And The Daily Kos Gazes Also Into You

On 1/11, DCCC exec dir John Lapp posted identical appeals to the liberal "netroots" on both the influential campaign-focused blog MyDD and Daily Kos, the single biggest political blog of all. He argued that the GOP's "wholesale corruption" has left Americans "increasingly dissatisfied with the direction of the country," and marshaled poll numbers, news clips and an 8/13/05 comment to a MyDD blog post to rally support and solicit volunteers for the midterm campaign.

Lefty blogs have been skeptical about and even adversarial to the DCCC over a differing philosophy for '06; in particular, the lefty bloggers want Dems to challenge every single GOP-held seat, whereas the DCCC isn't prepared to make a commitment that doesn't seem realistic. But Lapp's appearance is a sign that the DCCC is trying to reach out and find some common ground. The 2nd comment at dKos was: "I thought the DCCC was the enemy? Why are they posting here?" Lapp responds: "Hoping I can change that image. We're not perfect, but we are doing our best. ... I've sent some fence-sitting hopefuls in several more districts across the country to Markos [Moulitsas, founder of dKos]. Hoping he can help them see the light that this is a rare year, not like one we've seen in decades for Dems. Looking forward to his report back."

By 1/13 the posts racked up 36 comments at MyDD and 81 at Daily Kos. That isn't a lot -- specific campaign strategy is still a bit esoteric even on politically-oriented sites -- but what is noteworthy is that nearly every other comment in both discussion threads comes from Lapp himself. In those comments, he thanks MyDD founder Jerome Armstrong, says hello to ex-Corzine GOV campaign blogger Matt Stoller, and responds in-depth to the concerns of the site's readers.

INTRODUCING: Time For A Change

As of 1/16, Andrew Sullivan has moved his blog to Time's servers. The re-design keeps the dark blue background, but makes the text background white, introduces a new logo, retains the name "The Daily Dish," replaces the old VP Cheney quote with a more sincere one from George Orwell, and includes a characteristically fun cartoon logo by ex-Suckster Terry Colon.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Bleating For An Entire Generation

At QandO, Dale Franks points out that "while historians have access to voluminous collections of private papers, letters, and diaries of people who lived in the 18th, 19th, and first half of the 20th century" -- mostly because we now make phone calls rather than write letters. Meanwhile, an obscure-but-influential early-19th century miner named Moses Austin is "immortalized," mostly because he kept a diary." Although writing on current events has "exploded" in the post-'01 era of blogs, future historians will already have books and magazines and official records to go on. But "they won't have as much access to is the way people actually lived their daily lives. In fact, of the recognized bloggers, James Lileks with his stories about Gnat, Jasper, home repairs, and personal reminiscences" -- in his daily Bleat -- "will probably be the one that is historically immortal."

LEST WE FORGET: Blonde Ambition

Have you seen the blonde joke going around the Internet? It's a good one.

NOTES AND ERRATA: The Buckeye Base

On 1/13 we addressed the impact of blogging on the OH SEN race, we failed to adequately explain one paragraph, about the tendency of the OH Dem blogs to "steer the conversation to 'base issues,' rather than mobilizing against the GOP." During our research on the race, we spoke with several inedividuals, both participants and observers, on both sides of the contested primary and in the middle.

That concern with "base issues" refers to the fact that not a few OH Dems are less interested in agonizing over whether the eventual nominee is Rep. Sherrod Brown or Iraq vet Paul Hackett. They would rather focus on making plans for how to unseat Sen. Mike DeWine (R). We heard this concern from a Dem Party official, and from a neutral observer who happens to be a blogger as well. We also heard that the Dec. race for OH Dem chair was more acrimonious this time around. At the very least, blogs raised the volume.

This sounds to us like the classic insider-outsider struggle that arises most any time people in an existing field find that bloggers are watching them closely. OH has been a leader in political blogging, and if the OH Dems are struggling to cope with the development of an interested blogging community, so will other parties in other states before long.

Posted by at 12:54 PM

January 13, 2006

1/13: All Over But The Votin'

Note to readers: The Hotline and Blogometer will observe Martin Luther King Jr. Day on 1/16, and we'll return on Tuesday, 1/17.

The Alito hearings have concluded, and the blogosphere is taking a breather. If there was something they wrote or could have written to affect the course of events -- for or against -- that time has likely passed. Alito's sober, process-oriented testimony and the Senate's low-impact theatrics didn't dramatically affect perceptions of Alito (or the Senate), and right now the right is doing a victory lap. Meanwhile, the left has just about resigned itself to the inevitable -- not just his confirmation, but the expected setbacks to liberal causes in years to come. When the main ray of hope is that moderate Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT), one of the netroots' least favorite Dems, tells a group of home state activists that he hasn't ruled out the filibuster, it's probably all over.

Besides the SCOTUS hearings, the breaking news is that the House GOP race for maj. leader will now include Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ), the 2nd choice of conservative bloggers after Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) declined to run. And special to our online edition today, we note an "appeal" to the House GOP signed by a large group of right-leaning bloggers, including the right-blogosphere's most prominent. It's not an endorsement of any one candidate, but there's no question which way they are leaning.

But the widest-read story concerns the too-easy availability of private cell-phone records online. We've covered this a bit over the past week, but within the last 24 hours it's finally gone from the blogs to network and cable TV news. And that's where we start:

EAVESDROPPING: I Have Here On My Blog A List Of 100 Numbers That Were Known To Be Called ...

Early last p.m., DC-based liberal activist/blogger John Aravosis announced in the headline to a post at AMERICAblog: "AMERICAblog just bought General Wesley Clark's cell phone records for $89.95." From CellTolls.com, he obtained the records for 100 calls placed between 11/15/05 and 11/18/05, and has posted the list (redacting all but the last 2 numbers of each number) to the site. To verify he had the right number, Aravosis called the number, and got this message: "Hi, this is Wes Clark, leave a message [unintelligible]." Noting that he was a Clark '04 supporter, Aravosis explains his motivations: "This effort was not meant in any way as a slight to the general. We wanted to see if it was possible to buy the phone records of someone high profile in order to prove that this is a problem with serious national security implications, and frankly, we didn't want to pick a Republican since we thought such a choice would be perceived as partisan or mean-spirited, and that is not our intent for exposing this. Our intent is to get this problem fixed so that we all can benefit."

On 1/12 the CBS "Evening News" ran a story on the cell-phone records, and this a.m. we saw MSNBC reporting it with a screen shot of Aravosis' site. In the mid-p.m., NBC "Nightly News" anchor Brian Williams wrote at the show's Daily Nightly blog, "The Web site americablog.blogspot.com is out with a rather stunning story ... At some point, we will air our own version of this story. Perhaps sooner rather than later." During 1/12's "Situation Room," CNN's Schechner reported on efforts under way to curb the activity: "There is prosecution and there's legislation being proposed on the state level. It's also being worked out by Senator Chuck Schumer on the federal level. There is also an organization called EPIC, which is Internet privacy. They filed a complaint with the FCC and the FTC to try to get stricter law -- legislation."

Bay Area media blogger Dan Gillmor suggests: "Maybe we should get together and buy all the available records of members of Congress. Maybe that would get them to pay attention." As we noted on 1/11, Dem activist Bob Fertik of Democrats.com has done just that, although he's exclusively seeking the records of GOP members in order to muckrake/dig up dirt. Fertik followed up: "It looks like my idea of spying on the Busheviks has terrified them, so they sent Brit Hume out to attack me personally on FOX last night. Hey Brit -- I'll debate you on Big Brother Bush any time, any place!"

THE ALITO NOMINATION I: Na Na Na Na, Na Na Na Na, Hey Hey Hey ... See You On The Senate Floor In A Week Or Two

Where conservatives were confident at the start of the week, they're now satisfied (and probably somewhat relieved). Not only do they see no serious threat to Alito's confirmation, but the MSM seems to agree with them. Late last p.m., some of them posted the Washington Post's A1 headline for this a.m.: "Alito Likely To Become A Justice: Liberals See Slim Chance Of Blocking Confirmation."

All week, conservative blogs have been promoting self-professed liberal ex-Alito clerks and fellow judges who have testified on Alito's behalf. Several who attended the hearings upon the RNC's invite got to meet with some of the clerks, and duly blogged it. Now Michelle Malkin spotlights Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, "a Clinton appointee who gave a glowing endorsement" of Alito. Malkin refers to Barry as "a woman the Dems don't want to hear." Power Line mentions Judge Timothy Lewis, "an African-American, 'pro-choice' judge appointed by President Clinton," and gives Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) credit for sticking around "hear and question these witnesses. However, she apparently was the only Democratic Senator to do so."

Earlier in the week, BooMan Tribune was hoping "there would be some sound bite moment that would exemplify and crystallize Alito's radicalism. Unfortunately, Alito was able to avoid making any glaring blunders and, so far, the Democratic investigators have not been able to turn up anything really juicy." And now the hope is that Alito's record is "by itself, sufficient to be classified as 'extraordinary'" and hence worthy of a filibuster: "I believe it is. But do the seven Democratic senators feel the same way?" But TAPPED's Garance Franke-Ruta says that not only is it over, it was over long ago: "The momentum against this nomination was lost sometime in the late fall. That's why some very high-profile parts of the left blogosphere have reacted to the hearings with a mix of fatalism and radio silence. If Alito's ascendance to the court really means what the interest groups and senators believe it means, then 33 years after Roe v. Wade, abortion rights as we know them may soon come to an end -- not with a bang, but with the whimper of these hearings."

My Left Nutmeg reports back from a DFA town hall meeting with Jim Dean and Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT). Although he wouldn't change his stance on the war, Lieberman himself "brought up the Alito nomination, and we all were pleasantly surprised with Senator Lieberman said that a filibuster was on the table for him -- hopefully he'll stick to his guns!" The news got a much wider airing on Daily Kos, where Armando asked: "So, if the filibuster is on the table for Lieberman, I think all Gang of 14 Dems must agree that it is for them too. Right?"

Manufacturers' Blog's Pat Cleary compares the days from nomination to confirmation for other sitting justices: Sandra Day O'Connor, 33; Anthony Kennedy, 63; Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 41; Stephen Breyer, 72. Cleary compares, "As of today, by our count, it's been about 74 days since Judge Alito was nominated." He implores readers to call the senators on the Jud Cmte: "Tell them the whole country is watching, and it's time for them to do their job and confirm this great judge" to SCOTUS.

THE ALITO NOMINATION II: Ode To Mary Jo

As many conservative bloggers speculated, Sen. Ted Kennedy's (D-MA) hunch that the papers of ex-National Review publisher William Rusher contained damaging info about Alito's connection to the controversial conservative org. CAP turned out to be wrong. Because of this gambit and Kennedy's overall reputation, conservatives have made him the poster boy for the Dems' ineffectiveness.

>> Real Clear Politics' Tom Bevan calls out Kennedy as a hypocrite for "smearing" others' reputations in light of Chappaquiddick. CNBC's Larry Kudlow, at his Blogspot-hosted Kudlow's Money Politic$: "Kennedy ought to be ashamed of himself. His hypocrisy and unwarranted attacks upon Alito defy imagination." On the right, the name "Mary Jo Kopechne" is often invoked to discredit Kennedy -- perhaps by no one more than WSJ's Taranto -- and her name has come up a lot this week. Lefty Roy Edroso expresses his outrage at Roger L. Simon for doing it, as does Dadahead, who challenges the right-wingers who "like to tell liberals to stop living in the '60s, but they're the ones that can't seem to get over shit that happened more than three and a half decades ago."

>> The crying incident remains a big topic, partly because it highlights the otherwise over-scripted nature of the hearings, and also for the spin that surrounded it. -- Iconoclastic conservative John Cole, who on 1/11 disputed the Drudge Report-promoted notion that Mrs. Alito left the room weeping "after" Dem attacks on her husband, is defending himself against conservatives who disagree, reading "after" to mean "because of." Wizbang's Paul, to Cole: "Hello? Of course she left after the Dems attack. Not just rhetorically but chronologically. You can't say the Drudge headline is a lie unless she left before the attack." WSJ's James Taranto offered a similar assessment. Cole responds: "Do I think the Democrats statements had anything to do with her crying? Sure. But it did not unfold as Drudge and the folks at the Opinion Journal would like you to believe. I guess I am part of the 'Angry Left' now. Better than the dishonest right, which is where I would put [Taranto] today." But Ann Althouse argues their disagreement is pointless, explaining Mrs. Alito's reaction thus: "It's natural to maintain your steely surface during an attack, and then to collapse into the arms of the person who stretches out his arms to you with compassion."

>> On another crying-related note, Right Wing News went looking through the Daily Kos boards for reaction to the incident with Mrs. Alito. Site founder Markos Moulitsas suggested it was a "PR stunt," and some commenters were much harsher: "do we want a judge who would marry such a weak-willed bitch?" Conservative Ace of Spades HQ has some small amount of sympathy for Alito's opponents: "I'd be annoyed by the tears too, because it makes Alito more likely to be confirmed for what are, pretty much, entirely irrelevant reasons. It 'humanizes' him." He adds: "Then again, the Democrats are trying to dehumanize him, so Balance is restored in The Force."

>> Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) is still getting smacked around, less for being a serious liability and more for being a showboat with his eye on '08. On the other hand, conservative Pejman Yousefzadeh agrees with recent comments challenging the usefulness of Senate confirmation hearings, but doesn't think they're going away: "Are we really to believe that individual Senators will foresake the chance to play to their various constituencies with the public policy statements they are bound and determined to make while ostensibly 'questioning' the nominee?" Biden's turn is almost like McCain's post-Keating 5 focus on gov't ethics, as he's been getting flack from the press and conservative bloggers over his Stephen A. Douglas-length (well, not quite) speech, and even some on the left are piling on; Nancy in NYC from Big Brass Blog asks: "Will someone please explain to Joe Biden that the time he is allotted" in the hearings "is not meant to double as free advertising for his 2008 presidential bid?"

Needlenose looks at Alito's apparent "fondness" for the "unitary presidency, his membership in a bigoted" org., and his "slithery disingenuousness," and pronounces him "Nixonian": "I don't know if that's a powerful enough meme, or if our side has the message-amplification capabilities ... but to the extent we can get it into circulation, it will set up the kind of discussion we want this country to have." Re: message-amplification, Salon blogwatcher Peter Daou, who has previously theorized about the "Triangle" of bloggers, public officials and the media, looks at the Alito hearings and the NSA cal se and calls the triangle "broken." It's the Dems who aren't holding up their side, and "progressive bloggers and activists are starting to see the bitter reality of their isolation: the triangle is broken and they're on their own until further notice."

HOUSE GOP ELECTIONS: 100 Degrees In The Shadegg

As we mentioned above, Shadegg's in. Though RedState was the 1st to hear that it was a go, our own Hotline On Call was perhaps the 1st to post the release from Shadegg sent out by spokesperson Mike Steel. Andrew Roth at the Club for Growth Blog posts Shadegg's letter (PDF) to his fellow cong. members. Right-leaning Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds: "I don't know a lot about him, but I think it's good that the race is opening up. I'd like to see the candidates talking about how they're going to reform the House to make it more transparent and accountable. So, I suspect, would a lot of other people. More on that later." Left-leaning AZ Congress Watch even offers a partial recommendation to the GOP caucus: "They could do a hell of a lot worse than Shadegg."

This a.m., a wide-ranging group of prominent right-leaning bloggers organized themselves under the auspices of The Truth Laid Bear to release a group statement about the direction of the House GOP caucus: An Appeal from Center-Right Bloggers. "It reads in part: "We are bloggers with boatloads of opinions, and none of us come close to agreeing with any other one of us all of the time. But we do agree on this: The new leadership in the House of Representatives needs to be thoroughly and transparently free of the taint of the Jack Abramoff scandals, and beyond that, of undue influence of K Street. We are not naive about lobbying, and we know it can and has in fact advanced crucial issues and has often served to inform rather than simply influence Members. But we are certain that the public is disgusted with excess and with privilege." The letter does not explicitly make an endorsement, but only mentions one maj. leader candidate by name: "As for the Republican leadership elections, we hope to see more candidates who will support these goals, and we therefore welcome the entry of Congressman John Shadegg to the race for Majority Leader." Plus, Bear has spoken with Steel about the possibility of a blogger conf. call, and the idea is on the table. Below is full list of initial signatories; bloggers in agreement are encouraged to add their names at TTLB:

N.Z. Bear, The Truth Laid Bear; Hugh Hewitt, HughHewitt.com; Glenn Reynolds, Instapundit.com; Kevin Aylward, Wizbang!; La Shawn Barber, La Shawn Barber's Corner; Beth, MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy; Lorie Byrd, Polipundit; Jeff Goldstein, Protein Wisdom; John Hawkins, Right Wing News; John Hinderaker, Power Line; Jon Henke / McQ / Dale Franks, QandO; James Joyner, Outside The Beltway; Mike Krempasky, Redstate.org; Michelle Malkin, MichelleMalkin.com; Ed Morrissey, Captain's Quarters; Scott Ott, Scrappleface; John Donovan / Bill Tuttle, Castle Argghhh!!!

Meanwhile, the left is doing what it can to take a bite out of acting Maj. Leader Roy Blunt. Liberal Truth Caucus is among a number of lefty blogs who call attention back to '03, when Blunt got caught trying to insert language favorable to Phillip Morris in the DHS bill. Blunt was then dating -- and later married -- Phillip Morris lobbyist Abigail Perlman. Truth Caucus concludes: "Point for Team Boehner." Crooks and Liars, in the very top tier of traffic for lefty blogs, prints the opening of Truth Caucus' post verbatim. Fired Up! America points out that Perlman is still a registered lobbyist for Altria, Phillip Morris' parent company.

WHITE HOUSE '08: Hillary's Reasons Why Not

Perpetual contrarian Mickey Kaus tries on the Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) "won't run" argument: the anti-war crowd detests her, her "transparent attempts to tap into anti-Bush sentiments to compensate for her invasion defense are falling flat," and "she's young -- she's got time." He figures this "bit of anti-CW will have legs, even if it's wrong, because: a) It's not in Hillary's interest right now to deny it; b) If she did nobody would believe her," and for other reasons.

CO Dem vice chair Dan Slater notes at DemNotes, "Mayor John Hickenlooper today sent a letter to DNC Chair Howard Dean formally indicating that Denver is interested in bidding for the 2008 Democratic National Convention. The deadline to submit such letters of intent by interested cities is tomorrow."

ABRAMOFF: The Only Unbreakable Laws Are Laws Of Nature

Libertarian ex-DNC spokesperson Terry Michael argues not for tighter restrictions on lobbying -- but for a rollback on most campaign finance laws, coupled with strict reporting requirements: "When will the good government types, and their hand-maidens at the editorial pages of liberal newspapers, learn that the Jack Abramoffs and Randy 'Duke' Cunninghams of the world aren't going to be stopped by an endless expansion of the revised statutes or House and Senate ethics regulations? Jack and Duke did it because they thought they could get away with it, completely aware" of BCRA and FEC regulations."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: That Ship Has Sailed

Throughout the week, right-leaning blogs have been circling a story about a terror arrest that the MSM hasn't covered (some say won't). Starting 1/7, Nick Danger of RedState noted the foreign reports of the arrest of individuals "suspected of being linked to a planned new series of attacks" in the U.S. that "would have targeted ships, stadiums or railway stations in a bid to outdo" 9/11. "You would think that the arrest of terrorists planning to 'outdo 9/11' would warrant some news coverage in the United States, but that's not what the editors at your Ministry of Truth decided." Ace, on why the news blackout: "Printing that may have undermined their 'NSA intercepts threaten our libertries' storyline." With ellipses in the original, Little Green Footballs was uncharacteristically generous: "I'm not completely sure you can draw the conclusion that this... oversight... was intentional. But it's a fair question, given the seriousness of the story." John Hinderaker: "It would be interesting to know whether some of the Algerians who were plotting to 'outdo the September 11, 2001 strikes' were trained by the Iraqi army. It would also be interesting to know whether NSA intercepts played a role in catching these terrorists."

ENDTRODUCING: A Buckeye For An Eye

Until this week, lively-to-read and widely-read Cleveland-based gadfly Tim Russo ran the Dem-leaning political site Buckeye Politics for OH-based blog network entrepreneur Gerardo Orlando.

Early in the still early-going OH SEN primary, Russo had been supporter of Rep. Sherrod Brown and critic of Iraq vet/ex-House special candidate Paul Hackett owing in large part to Hackett's politically inexperienced and out-of-state netroot support (see 7/29 and 8/29 Blogometers), but became disillusioned with Brown as well, growing to actively distrust Brown's blog consultant, Jerome Armstrong (see 10/24 and 10/26 Blogometers). Russo was an interesting read, partly for his punchy style, partly for his unconventional politics -- he supported the Iraq invasion despite his strong dislike for Pres. Bush -- and partly for his willingness to agitate. But that last attribute may have led to his end in the blogosphere.

Visit the Buckeye Politics site now, and all you see is: "Buckeye Politics will be offline until further notice." In the days that followed, rumors ran rampant about what might have happened.

Then late last a.m., Russo wrote at Brewed Fresh Daily: "Buckeye Politics and I have parted ways, and no, it wasn't a publicity stunt (although man, I wish I'd thought of that), nor are we defending legal threats from any quarter other than from a bunch of anonymous paid Sherrod Brown staff." Russo announced that he would be removing himself from the OH Dem blogosphere, concluding: "In the meantime, I'm no longer undecided on the US Senate primary... I'm voting for Paul Hackett. So should you."

That link -- and that reference go back to a post at Buckeye Senate Blog, which reported some mildly threatening emails which had appeared in the same blog's comment boards after the OH Dems' 12/19 state party election and Christmas party. That event bore witness to a heated encounter pitting Russo against Rep. Brown and his wife, Plain Dealer columnist Connie Schultz. Both sides say the other side started it, both claim the other side lost their temper, but about all they agree on is that Russo used the F-word. Brown's self-exculpatory version has prevailed in most corners, much to Russo's consternation. Cleveland's alt weekly Scene covered the incident this week, quoting Schultz and Russo, treating it as a he said/she said, to the satisfaction of neither.

As Russo and Buckeye Senate's Russell "Pounder" Hughlock -- a natural Hackett supporter and Brown skeptic -- publicized the incident, comments from anonymous users with names like Thisblogishorseshit and JewsforJesus started making antagonistic comments. Both suspected Brown's new Internet spokesperson and blogger Philip de Vellis. (Brown oversees the pro-Dem blog Grow Ohio.) De Vellis was a recent hire, and had been dispatched to put Brown's side of the story on the blogs. They couldn't prove de Vellis had done so. Their evidence was circumstantial at best -- with one big exception.

Hughlock compared the IP address on the comments to the IP address from e-mails he'd previously received from de Vellis -- and found an exact match. We contacted the Brown campaign ourselves about it, and while they were reticent to discuss accusations made by bloggers aligned with their opponent, they did take partial responsibility for the postings. De Vellis denied being the author, and pointed out the IP address listed on the comments serve the entire staff of about 30, but the campaign has acknowledged that the comments did indeed originate from their office. De Vellis said he was certain no one on Brown's Internet team had posted any of the messages, but said: "We haven't done an in-depth investigation." Rather, the Brown campaign quietly circulated a policy memo: Interns and staffers may no longer contribute to any blog save for Grow Ohio. This is a direction other campaigns will follow, lest they have to learn the same lesson.

Meanwhile, Brown had previously agreed to participate in the OH blogger-organized political interview site Meet the Bloggers, but in early Jan. decided to pull out. This week, Brown has been holding down the fort at Table For One, the politicians' showcase blog page at TPM Cafe. This decision disappointed many in the OH Dem blog community, but given the situation, it shouldn't have come as a complete surprise.

And what about Russo? He won't go into specifics, and the few in the OH Dem blogosphere that do know the full story would not allow themselves to be cited about it. Sources close to Buckeye Politics say Orlando wanted to get out of politics and focus on sports websites. There's clearly more to it, but when neither side wants it on the record, sometimes you have to let it be.

The upshot of Russo's forced exit is that this bitter, ugly OH SEN primary may now actually run more smoothly. Throughout the combative last few months, many primary-watchers worried about the combat, and not a few commenters on OH blogs would remind others: The ultimate goal is to defeat Sen. Mike DeWine (R). Several individuals associated with OH SEN primary told us their Dem-leaning blogs have a tendency to steer the conversation to "base issues," rather than mobilizing against the GOP; this too is an issue other states will face as state-level blog communities develop throughout the country.

Perhaps there is one thing everyone can agree on: Tim Russo got in the way.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: No Escape

Minneapolis Star-Tribune writes again on controversial Minnesota Democrats Exposed (see Blogometer's previous coverage). The story is based in part on an already-reported lawsuit against site editor/ex-MN GOP official Michael Brodkorb by DFL activist/consultant Blois Olson over a scoop on MDE. The story is also based in part on Brodkorb's latest scoops, that state Sen. Sheila Kiscaden would make her 3rd party switch -- reporting on 1/9 that she'd admitted polling her supporters about what party she should be -- and "publicizing some DFLers' concerns about" state House Min. Leader Matt Entenza (D). In both cases he beat the MN establishment media.

So what's the news here, exactly? Nothing at the moment; it may just be a slow news day. But it's evidence of the coming ubiquitousness of political blogs at the state level. In some states, blogs have already become a permanent and integral fixture on the state-level political scene -- where multiple bloggers on both sides of the aisle are read by activists, journalists and voters. OH is one of them, TN is another, and MN is perhaps one of the most-blogged states of all. Which states do you think are the most-blogged? Which are the least-blogged? E-mail us with your thoughts.

LEST WE FORGET: High Jinks

Inspired by the unmasking of fake-but-accurate memoirist James Frey -- whose Oprah-selected book "A Million Little Pieces" was exposed for all its truthiness this week by The Smoking Gun -- Jim Treacher conjures up "A Million Little Meeces," as told by Hanna-Barbera B-lister Mr. Jinks: "I wake to the tweeting of birds and the feeling of something warm dripping down my snout. I lift my paw to feel my face. My bowtie is askew, my whiskers are bent, and my eyes are X's." Jinksy continues: "I look at my fur and my fur is covered in a colorful Mixture of snot, blood, vomit, cheese crumbs, and plaster. The plaster is from the wall and the wall has a Hole in it and the Hole is in the shape of Me."

Posted by at 02:09 PM

January 12, 2006

1/12: A Million Alito Pieces

If the SCOTUS hearings for Judge Samuel Alito have been on the dull side, the 1/11 sessions finally generated some sparks. First there was the confrontation between Senate Jud Cmte chair Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) over access to records concerning Alito's membership in conservative Princeton group CAP. Later, Alito's wife Martha left the hearing room in tears. While the former is clearly the more substantive issue, the latter got more attention. Some on the right hear that there's nothing at all pertinent to Alito in the archives Kennedy wants to open, and a few are accusing him of McCarthyism. Meanwhile, the left takes on conservatives' claims that Mrs. Alito broke down in response to Dem attacks.

Meanwhile, as Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) approaches a decision about whether to enter the maj. leader contest, National Review editor Rich Lowry has posted to The Corner excerpts of a conversation they had last p.m., in which Shadegg at times seems to be thinking aloud. With the 2 declared candidates failing to win widespread support, Shadegg -- this a.m. endorsed by pro-GOP group blog RedState -- stands to be a strong dark horse.

Plus, ex-NJ Gov. Jim McGreevey (D) resurfaces at Huffington Post, some Plamegate speculation, and a blogger separated-at-birth exercise. And we present our latest Blogger Spotlight.

THE ALITO NOMINATION I: A Rusher Of Blood To The Head

Both Michelle Malkin and Crooks and Liars have video of the exchange between Kennedy and Specter. The papers to which Kennedy sought access were those of ex-National Review publisher William Rusher; Rusher has so far withheld access but is now relenting.

>> Reax from across the 'sphere: Volokh Conspiracy's Todd Zywicki compares Kennedy's interest in CAP to Joe McCarthy's Red-baiting. WILLisms runs with the header: "Have You No Sense Of Decency?" Betsy's Page: "Does Senator Kennedy really want people to start looking at someone's college record?" American Prospect's Garance Franke-Ruta comments: "Perhaps those files show nothing, or prove that Alito had only tangential involvement with the group, as news reports suggest. But perhaps they show more. What's clear is that Rusher was playing politics with the public's right to know." Misteramiercano header: "Arlen Specter Smackdown Of Ted Kennedy Was A Joy To Behold." Wylie Post: "Arlen Specter doesn't make a very good liar but sure does make a wonderful fool." Sundries: "Their tongue-lashing was nothing more than a chance of posturing by Senator Kennedy." QandO: "So, that was fun to watch. Very high-browed and senatorial."

>> But what's in the papers? Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey writes: "Word around the Capitol has it that the New York Times did an extensive research project on the Rusher papers -- and found absolutely nothing. Kennedy is about to come up with major egg on his face when Rusher's papers turn into Al Capone's vault." NRO's Ed Whelan hears the Rusher docs in fact "make no mention at all of Alito." Daily Kos contributor QuickSilver suspects differently: Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) "showed us a card today. From the way I heard his remarks, the Republicans are bracing themselves for fireworks if and when the CAP archive is actually opened. Whatever is in the boxes, it appears to be material dating from the mid 1980s, and the Republicans seem to know it." QuickSilver posits a theory: "I think this has everything to do with a 1984 scandal involving Dinesh D'Souza and a Princeton freshman," when CAP "put itself on shaky legal ground by" publishing a D'Souza-penned article in its Prospect magazine which included "details of a female Princeton student's sex life. Alito would have been a good person to turn to for advice on torts, and for dodging tort claims." A poll attached to the story shows 61% of 400+ voting Kossacks think the story is "viable (but needs oxygen)."

>> Conservatives couldn't be happier to have Kennedy take the lead on this -- Joe Malchow: "What an absolute hoot, and a scary one at that. Kennedy just fabricated this issue, and hit the straw man of CAP itself while ignoring Alito's denial of having been an active part of it, and his straightforward denunciation of CAP's more radical views. Now Kennedy is inventing a basis for a filibuster." SoxBlog's Dean Barnett calls it "the biggest tactical blunder by a Kennedy since the Bay of Pigs": "This incident was one of the two things from the hearings that caught the eye of the mainstream public that generally lives in blissful ignorance of our Senators' blustering. Because of this contretemps, Ted Kennedy became the public face of the Alito opposition."

THE ALITO NOMINATION II: Tear Jerks

The Political Teen has video of Mrs. Alito leaving the hearing room. Michelle Malkin makes available just Sen. Lindsey Graham's (R-SC) apology for the Dem onslaught.

>> The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "Bringing a SCOTUS candidate's wife to tears in the hearing room is going to do wonders for the Senate's popularity ratings." PA-based Susie Madrak: "Well, it's not that I have a heart of stone, but as I once said to a politician who angrily accused me of making his wife cry, 'No offense, but I have to take a lot of crap in my job for a lot less money than you make and if you're that concerned about the effect my doing my job has on your wife, perhaps you should consider another line of work.' Shut him right up." Jane Hamsher: "I've worked in the biz long enough to know a poorly executed little melodrama when I see it and that was the worst, the most shameless, most obvious. ... Pure setup 101." TalkLeft: "While I'm not convinced as is Jane ... I do think they were pretty lame. Bending The Third Rail: "Do they now have 'murder boards' for the spouses? Did Martha Alito spend hours sitting in a room practicing the appropriate non-verbal response to the questions at hand?" Huffington Post tweaks the umpire jud. analogy with the header: "There's No Crying In Baseball."

>> Of some controversy was the Drudge Report header: "ALITO WIFE LEAVES HEARING IN TEARS AFTER DEM ATTACK." Notably, conservative John Cole calls this "pretty hacktacular even for Drudge," adding, "only the most patently dishonest person on the planet would claim that Mrs. Alito left after a Democratic attack. She left after REPUBLICAN Sen. Lindsey Graham was basically praising Alito, defending him and reciting some of the things that have been said about Alito." Daily Kos' Armando quotes and tweaks Drudge's take: "Judge Samuel A. Alito's wife Martha left the confirmation hearing room in tears this evening, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. (You gotta love Drudge. The damn hearings were on every cable network, Armando has learned.)" AMERICAblog: "I'm sure FOX News and Drudge will be coming out with their corrections shortly." Hugh Hewitt disagrees: "Incredibly, the AP account of the departure of Mrs. Alito from the hearings today places blame on Senator Graham for her emotional moment. In fact Senator Graham was defending Judge Alito against the repulsive attacks of Kennedy et al." James Wolcott hits conservatives for going from boredom to outrage over Mrs. Alito's tears: "From their sympathetic clucks and disapproving tones you would have thought Alito had been subjected to a Stalinist show trial presided over by Randi Rhodes in a bad mood rather than honey-tongued Lindsey Graham asking Alito with tender solicitude, 'Are you a bigot?'"

THE ALITO NOMINATION III: Hello, There's A SCOTUS Nomination Going On Over Here ...

Cole also follows the lead of GWU's Jonathan Turley in opposing Alito over his "almost reflexive vote in favor of government." Again, Hewitt objects: "This is a curious, and ultimately reflexively anti-majoritarian position given that 'the government' is simply the accumulation" of the nation's laws. "Reflexively pro-government is the same as 'reflexively pro separation-of-powers and checks and balances.'" Cole's decision garnered some positive notices from the left-blogosphere, such as Running Scared, who agreed: "When the John Kerry and the Democrats waged a lame campaign in 2004 and all but handed the election to George Bush we knew the fall out would be a disaster. Alito will be an activist judge and our system of government will be the victim."

TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt hopes the "hoopla" over Kennedy and Mrs. Alito doesn't obscure "one of the more substantive moments" in the hearings -- where Alito "refused to say Roe v. Wade was settled law." She calls this "beyond troubling since he will become the swing vote for the conservatives on this issue. Leopards don't change their spots."

QandO's Dale Franks notices Sen. Dick Durbin's (D-IL) concern that Alito "has ruled for powerful institutions over individuals... some of whom are... black." He adds: "Well, I'm concerned, too, because the implication of Sen. Durbin's question is that Judges have a duty to rule in favor of politically preferred groups. If so, then that's not justice. That is a subversion of justice."

Crooks and Liars has video of NBC's Brian Williams on the MSNBC simulcast of "Imus in the Morning" where he appears to credit National Review with "video refuting what he said" about disliking Princeton "with an earlier statement" praising the school (see 1/11 Blogometer). However, Williams forgot the details. C&L's Jon Amato: "So far this week has turned into one big circle jerk of republican talking points for Alito and the fact that Brian Williams brought up the NRO as a resource tool without even knowing the story seals the deal."

EAVESDROPPING: Winners Don't Use Illegal Wiretaps

Georgetown law prof/ex-DoJ atty Marty Lederman posts to Balkinization a letter signed by himself and 14 others, including ex-FBI dir. William Sessions and Harvard law prof Larry Tribe critiquing the DoJ's argument in favor of the NSA program's legality.

Washington Monthly's Paul Glastris calls attention to a tidbit from the latest Pew survey, showing that 37% of GOPers compared to 18% of Dems are cool with gov't monitoring their communications. Pew adds, "This marks a 15-point increase in support among Republicans, and a nine-point drop among Democrats since 2002."

WSJ's James Taranto quotes New York Times NSA source Russell Tice as describing the NSA's mindset to ABC's "Nightline": "The mentality was we need to get these guys, and we're going to do whatever it takes to get them." Taranto extrapolates: "Apparently the mentality of Tice and many Democrats is that we don't need to get these guys and we're not going to do whatever it takes to get them." Right Wing News: "So are these lefties hysterically overhyping how bad George Bush is, thoughtlessly underestimating how monstrous al Qaeda is, or is it some combination of the two? Say what you like about conservatives, but at least we understand that al Qaeda is worse than the Democratic Party."

HOUSE GOP ELECTIONS: Shadeggs Of Gray

Radio talker Hugh Hewitt: "I have tried each day for three days to book an interview with either Roy Blunt or John Boehner. They have declined at a time when an audience of center-right listeners are intensely interested in the future of the party that they -- the activists -- put into the majority. It isn't a confidence builder to get no response from folks who want to be leaders no matter how busy their schedules."

The directors of RedState announce they're endorsing Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ): "The time has come for a new face in House Republican leadership. Whether we accept Boehner or Blunt (if we were forced to choose, it would be Boehner) we would be choosing a compromised leader at a time when every indication is that the Democrats intend to wage war on ethics. We need a better choice. John Shadegg is that choice."

At The Corner, Rich Lowry posts: "John Shadegg just called." Shadegg to Lowry: "I personally believe that we need pretty radical change. We need to ferret out anyone embroiled in this mess and any practices that contributed to it. We need to be taking the initiative to get back to our core principles." Lowry writes, "Even if he has an uphill fight, he muses, 'maybe I should carry this standard forward.'" Later, Lowry shared the analysis of a GOPer not affil. with any candidate, noting in particular the odd fact that Blunt appears weak and wants to retain his Whip position if he loses, while Blunt ally Eric Cantor (R-VA) is much better positioned to be the new Whip than anyone else is positioned for any other slot. Plus: "If Shadegg were to get in the race, there would be pressure on him -- given how unpopular Blunt's straddle is -- to say he was going to step aside as head of the policy committee. If he did, yet another leadership slot would be open, and the deck would be re-shuffled even more. It could get interesting."

Liberal Fired Up! America puts out a fake press release titled, "Blunt Leads In Votes From the GOP AbraMafia Caucus." The contact info is listed as "Todd Boulanger, Cassidy & Associates" -- with this note at the bottom: "If you are unable to reach Todd Boulanger at his offices at Cassidy, you might call his wife Jessica, in Rep. Blunt's office, and she will track him down for you."

As of last p.m., Hotline On Call counts 62 for Blunt and 35 for Boehner; Wyatt's Torch counts one more for Boehner -- embattled Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH), which Hotline has since confirmed. As of this a.m., Blunt claims 100+ to Boehner's 86, while Wyatt's Torch has taken Ney off the list, sans explanation. Keep checking Hotline On Call for updates.

MIDTERMS: More Questions Than Answers

Wal-Mart Watch highlights Gov. Bob Ehrlich's (R-MD) claim that Wal-Mart never hosted a fundraiser for him -- and CNBC's Insana confronting him with evidence that in fact they did. (Ehrlich had just vetoed MD's Fair Share Health Care Act, which Wal-Mart opposed.) Wal-Mart Watch also makes available the invite [PDF] to the 12/15/04 fundraiser in question.

On the news that Nassau Co. exec. Tom Suozzi (D-NY) is considering a GOV primary challenge to likely nominee/AG Eliot Spitzer, DavidNYC tries to game out what Suozzi could be possibly thinking. At best, "raise his profile" for a future race? But which race? He concludes: "Suozzi is manifestly impatient, to the point that it's very dangerous to his own dreams."

IRAQ: Bombs Over Doha?

Re: the reports that a UK memo has Pres. Bush suggesting an attack on al Jazeera's Doha HQ, Kevin Drum rescues this from the depths of a New York Times report: Labour MP Peter Kilfoyle said he "had tried to publicize the document in the United States in 2004. Mr. Kilfoyle said in a telephone interview that he and [ex-Labour MPTony] Clarke had hoped to influence the 2004 presidential election by sharing information from the document with John Latham, 71, a British citizen with connections to the Democratic Party."

Blogs for Bush hosts video of an Afghanistan vet confronting Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) at an Arlington town hall event which also featured Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA). "I keep hearing you say how you talk to the troops and the troops are demoralized, and I really resent that characterization. ... The morale of the troops that I talk to is phenomenal, which is why my troops are volunteering to go back, despite the hardships they had to endure in Afghanistan." More details at Mudville Gazette.

Brendan Nyhan points out that in Bush's latest speeches attack dissent on the war: "Note the juxtaposition Bush makes between 'a loyal opposition that points out what is wrong' and 'defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right.' So people who think the war is doomed to fail are disloyal?"

PLAMEGATE: What If?

As New Yorker's Toobin reports that Scooter Libby's defense team will challenge the reporters' credibility, Tom Maguire suggests the trial will "shatter the credibility of the media in a way that makes RatherGate look as embarrassing and unimportant as on on-air sneeze." He makes a series of guesses as to the nature of revelations that may come out, such as: "Walter Pincus is forced to admit that the Plame leak he received on July 12 2003 was *not* his first leak of the news that Wilson's wife was at the CIA. "

INTRODUCING: Can You Digg It?

Taegan Goddard, who runs the popular political news wire Political Wire has now launched the beta version of Political Stuff, a community news site to which users can recommend stories and vote to promote or demote stories based on how interesting they are. The site is based on the tech news site Digg. Interested in starting your own Digg clone? Start at pligg.com.

File under: Re-Introducing -- In what the Blogometer believes to be ex-NJ Gov. Jim McGreevey's (D) first public writing since resigning office in 8/03, he collaborates with Dem activist David Mixner for a Huffington Post piece about about visiting WV: "Yet, amid this misery and hopelessness, one finds remarkable kindness. Folks here believe helping a neighbor in need is nothing special - indeed, it is a way of life. Even the poor help the poorer. And by embracing the age-old virtue of loving thy fellow man, many of these tenacious residents find redemption for themselves. The amazing Marsha Timpson is one of those people."

BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: About Schmitt

Today the Blogometer talks to liberal Mark Schmitt, who writes The Decembrist and contributes to TPM Cafe.

What is your full name?

Mark Schmitt

What is your age?

43

Where did you grow up?

New Haven, CT

Where do you live now?

Washington, DC, returning recently after several years in New York.

What is your occupation? Have you ever worked on a political campaign or for the mainstream media?

I'm a senior fellow at a think tank, so I don't have any idea how to answer a question like "what is your occupation." On my marriage license, I wrote, "writer," and my wife looked at me funny, prompting the clerk to ask, "Are you really a writer?" But they let it stand. I have worked on political campaigns, although the only one since high school (when I worked on a lot of them) was Bill Bradley's 2000 presidential campaign. I've written plenty of op-eds and opinion articles, and recently started a regular column in The American Prospect, but I've never been employed full-time in the mainstream media.

When did you start blogging and why?

I started my blog in September 2003. I had a brief sabbatical from a previous job and a blog seemed like it would be a good way to make use of the free time that sabbatical provided. What appealed to me about blogging was, and remains, the flexibility of the format. You can comment casually on a dozen things that you come across, or dig into some issue with great depth, and everything in between. At first, my blog was a slavish imitation of Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo, probably right down to the tone.

What has been your favorite post, or favorite story to write about, in that time?

I particularly enjoyed writing about the Nuclear Option over judicial filibusters last spring. Because I've worked in the Senate, I had some particular background to contribute to the debate, and I was relatively certain of my opinions. But in a way the niche I prefer is not to get caught up in the day-to-day scandals, but try to look at them in a broader historical and forward-looking context. For example, through the 2004 presidential campaign, I tried to keep a thread going on the question of what would happen if Kerry won -- the fights about budget priorities, dealing with a hostile Congress, etc. Obviously, not applicable, but at the time nobody was publicly talking about any of those topics.

Describe your typical blogging schedule. And what is your average output?

It varies. My recent schedule has been three or four posts a week, on my own blog, The Decembrist, or on TPM Cafe, or cross-posted. But I sometimes go a week without posting anything.

Who is your favorite political blogger? Favorite non-political blogger?

Both questions are hard to answer. On the first, I'll say that lately I have really been enjoying Laura Rozen's War and Piece blog. She strikes the perfect balance between her own reporting, her own insights, and simply pulling together other things that someone should read, and she has a Joe Friday-like economy of language that others should learn from. Favorite non-political blog these days is Overheard in New York, because it gives me the daily dose of sheer lunacy that I need and that Washington doesn't quite provide.

Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?

Martin Wolf, Financial Times. Ron Brownstein, L.A. Times.

What is your favorite television news program, either network or cable?

"Hardball." (Not that I watch any television these days.)

What MSM-produced websites (i.e. newspapers, magazines) do you visit on a daily basis?

WashingtonPost.com, NYTimes, Financial Times, MSNBC

What non-MSM websites (i.e. blogs) do you visit on a daily basis?

Talking Points Memo, Washington Monthly, RedState, Crooked Timber, Arts and Letters Daily.

How often, or do you ever, read a newspaper in its dead-tree (i.e. print) form?

Daily. And if I don't, I get caught, because I miss something that just doesn't show up online.

How do you see the new media and old media affecting and influencing each other in the next five years?

I hope it's a significant change from the way they affect and influence each other at the moment, in which many of the new media (bloggers, in particular) regard the "MSM" as a useless dinosaur or worse, and newspapers and magazines stumble over themselves to capture the perceived hipness of new media for themselves, but only get the form -- e.g., reporters being required to write blogs in addition to their other deadlines. New media should recognize that we are often parasites on old media -- absorbing and commenting on stories that we don't have the resources or background to write. Traditional media should recognize that the open-source innovations in tone and format pioneered on the blogs can refresh stale formats such as the op-ed page. Five years from now, however, I doubt these distinctions will be meaningful and the term "new media" will seem quaint.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Have A Nice Day

Julian Sanchez thinks dark thoughts: "How many committed al Qaeda operatives, people willing to kill and perhaps die for the cause, do we think there are in the U.S. right now? The initial New York Times piece on the NSA wiretap story suggested that about 500 people were being tapped at any given time. How many do we think were full-blown al Qaeda terrorists? One in ten? One in twenty? ... Maybe we've just been that effective at catching these folk -- or maybe we managed to deport a big chunk on visa violations -- and I'm certainly not implying there aren't any U.S.-based al Qaeda. But if they've got even a fraction of 500 people here involved in their plots, why hasn't one of them managed to pull anything off?"

LEST WE FORGET: Separated At Birth?

Daniel Drezner tried out a face recognition program available at MyHeritage.com, which will tell you which celebrities you resemble. At first he declares the software "rubbish," but then realizes what a great time-waster it would be to upload the photos of prominent bloggers to find out whom they resemble. Among the results -- Drezner himself: Matt LeBlanc, Osama bin Laden; Glenn Reynolds: Franz Kafka, Henry Kissinger; Virginia Postrel: Diane Keaton, Eva Peron; Matt Yglesias: Leonardo DiCaprio, Vaclav Havel; ex-blogger Ana Marie Cox: Katie Holmes, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis.

Posted by at 12:45 PM

January 11, 2006

1/11: Princeton Of Darkness

Bloggers from the left and right are in DC to blog the SCOTUS confirmation hearings for Samuel Alito and the goings-on around them, so the too-rare creature of original reporting to weblogs is getting a substantial boost. In particular, they're putting officials on the record much the same way TV or radio does. Bloggers may be fairly accused of printing what they're told verbatim, but even friendlies are being put on the spot about subjects they might not want to broach. One could say they have the personality of TV, in the medium of print.

Despite all the activity and the close readings of Alito's remarks, Senate Dems haven't landed major blows. Some Dem-leaning bloggers want Dems to push hard -- many of them believe Alito lied at least once in the hearings -- but others are resigning themselves to his confirmation. Meanwhile, some Dem senators are getting caught in their own statements. And of course, bloggers have more than just the written word available to help make their points. In particular, there's an MP3 going around that Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) would really rather not be out there.

Meanwhile, the House GOP's leadership elections and the Jack Abramoff scandal continue to merge. GOPers are talking lobbying reform and want to elect a leader with less troubling ties than ex-House Maj. Leader Tom DeLay had, but each day new revelations about both of the frontrunner's are causing more jitters. GOP-leaning bloggers are more willing to draft back-benchers, and so far their instincts track closely with what many conservatives want.

But there's plenty more in this edition -- embattled LA Gov. Kathleen Blanco (D) could be facing a recall movement; one of the NSA's assumed whistleblowers/leakers steps forward, and a blog-savvy Dem activist wants you to help him dig up Hill GOPers' cell phone records.

If nothing else, '06 is getting off to a busy start indeed.

THE ALITO NOMINATION: Sam The Sham And The Pharaohs?

>> Among the live-bloggers: Desert Rat Democrat; Bush v. Choice; Parableman; SCOTUSblog; Wonkette. Live-blogging in progress this a.m.: SCOTUSblog; Captain's Quarters; Parableman.

>> Liberals aren't buying Alito's contention that he doesn't recall why he joined the Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP) in the early 70s -- MyDD's Chris Bowers and official DNC blogger Tim Tagaris went asking Dems and anti-Alito leaders whether they thought Alito was lying. PFAW's Ralph Neas called the statement "not credible," while Alliance for Justice's Nan Aron said it was "hard to know what to believe." Tagaris got Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) on video, saying in part: "I couldn't understand his answer. That they removed ROTC was the reason he belonged to this organization? I mean, it totally did not follow." AMERICAblog is in the "lying" camp: "Funny, had I joined an organization whose primary reason for coming into being was to demand that women and minorities not be allowed on my college campus, I think I'd remember that."

>> Among conservatives, Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) is criticized, even ridiculed, for an apparent flip-flop -- In the hearings on 1/10, Biden disparaged Princeton, his and Alito's shared alma mater, saying: "I didn't even like Princeton" and: "But all kidding aside, I wasn't a big Princeton fan." At Radioblogger, Hugh Hewitt radio producer Duane Patterson posts MP3s and transcripts of Biden's comments as well as earlier comments praising the school. He intercuts them to create the "Princeton Waffle" MP3 file, juxtaposing the 2 statements. At his own blog, Hewitt focuses on a 2/23/04 Biden speech at Princeton, recounting how he hoped his son would attend there: "I had been pushing Princeton, and this magnificently attractive, intellectually and physically beautiful young girl, was a sophomore, was showing us around, and I figured, man we got a lock now. My son is gonna really be interested" in attending the school. Hewitt asks: "Can you imagine if any Republican senator was caught on tape saying what Joe Biden said at Princeton?" On 1/9 Hewitt got liberal Duke law prof Erwin Chemerinsky to concede that Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) had incorrectly described Alito's record. Now Chemerinsky apparently volunteers to Hewitt: "I think Joe Biden's comments two years ago were offensive and inappropriate."

>> On the left, there's no consensus about how to derail the nod. But some already feel it's a lost cause -- In a one-off for Crooks and Liars, atty Glenn Greenwald presses Dems to oppose Alito vigorously: "All circumstances have come together to make this the perfect opportunity to fight. The President is weak and unpopular. His party is engulfed by scandal. ... And those are exactly the issues at stake in this hearing. Democrats should be frothing at the mouth to engage this fight. It couldn't have been scripted better." More: "There is certainly more to be gained by a principled fight than there is to be gained by meekly and impotently accepting defeat without a fight, and thereby looking yet again like the nice, good losers." But with Alito "fudging furiously" on Roe v. Wade, Kevin Drum wonders if the public will be ready to take up "pitchforks." At his own Unclaimed Territory, Greenwald is not concerned: "Most remember another President who claimed these law-breaking powers, and the last image of him is waving good bye in disgrace as he flew away from the White House." Jonathan Zasloff suggests something along the lines of "we need to stop Alito's imperial presidency." Matt Yglesias' frustrations are similar to Drum's. He notes the "low salience" of Alito to most Americans, and advises Dems on what to do: "The same thing they should have done on John Roberts -- explain why putting him on the Court will be bad for the country, vote 'no,' let the GOP majority confirm him, move on to other issues, and try to win the next two elections." Liberal Blogenlust compares Alito to Biff Tannen and Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT) to George McFly from "Back to the Future." This McFly quote sums up his take on the Dems' interrogative skills: "I'm afraid I'm just no good at... confrontations." Header: "Don't be so gullible, McFlys." The Carpetbagger Report hasn't thrown in the towel: "The problem is how to fight a nominee -- possibly with a filibuster -- who's steering clear of Bork-like lunacy. ... Alito deserves to be defeated; I'm open to suggestions as to how to make that happen." Saving the space for the letters between the "y" and "K" of the blog's title, Daily Kos advises "BorkAlito."

>> Liberals' frustration extends to the media -- Needlenose is not impressed with accounts of the hearings from the New York Times or Washington Post, implying that both amount to little more than a "standing ovation" for Alito. Duncan "Atrios" Black: "Watching the bobblehead coverage of the Alito hearings - and, frankly, just about everything else they cover -- one comes away think that to them it just doesn't really matter. Court decisions don't matter. Policy doesn't matter. None of this stuff matters. It's just a game played between rival high school football teams and they're just happy to go to the homecoming dance."

>> As they are often wont to do, the right is quite enjoying the left's frustration -- Professor Bainbridge parodies the Dem assessment of Alito: "After catching up on the first day of the Alito hearings, one conclusion seems inescapable; namely, that Alito is more machine now than man; twisted and evil. He yearns to take liberals, women, minorities, gays, small children, and puppies to the Dune Sea, and cast them into the pit of Carkoon, the nesting place of the all-powerful Sarlaac, in whose belly they will find a new definition of pain and suffering as they are slowly digested over a thousand years. (Or maybe it's the slavering maw of Cthulhu the Great. I zoned out for awhile during Durbin's opening remarks.) Maxed Out Mama reproduces arguments from Democratic Underground's filibuster debate thread. Her take: "You know how a toddler will get incredibly ornery when he or she is tired? Well, DU seems to need a collective nap."

>> The RNC's blogger forum continues, and on 1/10 Ed Morrissey met with Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and others, including 3 ex-Alito clerks. He writes: "[Craig] Gottlieb, a Democrat, thinks that the attacks have been effectively defused. When asked if the attacks were fair, Gottlieb says, 'Probably not, no.'" The Political Teen blogs Sen. John Cornyn's (R-TX) appearance at the blog row event. Blogs for Bush posts a photo from inside the hearing room. Power Line's Scott Johnson is on the scene as well. Townhall.com's Tim Chapman hears the Dems may try a Hail Mary of some kind: "I Just spoke to a Senior GOP staffer involved in the confirmation process. According to the staffer, Republicans are confident at this point and comfortable with the process so far, but believe that Democrats still "have something up their sleeves." When pressed as to what that might be, the staffer could not be specific."

>> Alito's current stance on Roe v. Wade is murky, and pro-choice bloggers are anything but reassured -- Armando connects the dots on Alito's answers re: Roe v. Wade: "Alito acknowledged that the 1985 memo where he stated that he supported the goal of overturning Roe v. Wade expressed his personal views at the time. He did not clarify whether he still believes it but implicitly seemed to accept that ... This makes it clear, Alito would vote to overturn Roe UNLESS the doctrine of stare decisis compelled otherwise. As for stare decisis, Alito stated repeatedly that it 'is not an inexorable command.' It seems clear that Alito will likely vote to overturn Roe if he is confirmed to the Supreme Court." Jill at Feministe puzzles over some of Alito's answers on this subject, but is sure of this much: "Alito seems to be searching for a way to get rid of Roe without shaking its popular predecessors. That is not a good sign."

ABRAMOFF: Not As Much Fun As Plamegate ... But Getting There

Swing State Project posts an image of a billboard targeting "soon-to-be-indicted" Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH), sponsored by liberal CAF and appearing in Ney's own CD. The board includes a picture of Ney and features the text: "Rep. Bob Ney: Under Investigation for Taking Bribes." Brad Friedman, who has been closely following Diebold's recent troubles, finds an Abramoff connection, and highlights Ney's "connection to electoral fraud."

TNR's Jason Zengerle catches ex-RNC chair Ed Gillespie telling Washington Post's Cillizza, "I have not been in meetings with Jack Abramoff so I can't tell you anything about him from a personal perspective" -- where in late '03 being anything but "reluctant to vouch" for Abramoff in on CNBC's late "Capital Report." Gillespie said then, more than once: "I know Jack Abramoff."

Josh Marshall points out that Rep. David Dreier (R-CA), tapped by Speaker Denny Hastert to be the GOP conf. point man on lobbying reform, has been a defender of the "DeLay Rule" -- passed in 11.04 to allow DeLay to remain in leadership even after indictment. He comments: "So now Dreier is the guy to crack down on law-breaking. But a year ago his agenda was cracking down on prosecutors."

You've really got to see the fake movie poster for "Kickback Mountain."

HOUSE GOP LEADERSHIP: A Dark Horse Or A Shadegg Dog Joke?

At The Corner, National Review editor Rich Lowry has been passing along tidbits from GOP contacts. He wrote last p.m., a Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) "supporter was arguing to me a little earlier that" acting House Maj. Leader Roy Blunt is running a 'push campaign' based on intimidating members with the notion that he is going to win, so they better get on board now. 'This is a page right out of DeLay, Inc.,' he added for good measure." Later, he followed up with: "A Blunt supporter fires back at that Boehner ally from a little earlier: "The disdainful reference to 'DeLay, Inc.' shows that the Boehner camp isn't willing to let go of old grudges even at this critical moment ... it doesn't help Republicans to compare us to the mafia." Not long after, he added: "My understanding from a House aide is that a reason that Blunt might not have gotten the surge he was expecting is that the Blunt people thought they would be able to vacuum up conservative would-be Pence supporters. But Shadegg's talk of perhaps running apparently has frozen those votes in place for the moment."

RedState's Blanton wants House GOPers to throw House GOP conf. chair Deborah Pryce out of her leadership spot, and hopes Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) will challenge her: "Deborah Pryce has done little with her position. While it was nice for the GOP to have played to quotas, it would have been better for everyone if they had played to competence."

Fired Up! America's Roy Temple points out that Blunt and DeLay "jointly sponsored multiple events" at the '00 GOP convo. Money from those funders ended up benefiting Blunt's son, now-MO Gov. Matt Blunt (R). He compares an '05 AP story where a Blunt aide said they intended to raise money for candidates; a Blunt spokesperson denies this in an AP report this a.m.

Meanwhile, Hugh Hewitt points out damning excerpts from a Washington Post story outlining Boehner's close connections to K Street lobbyists.

LOUISIANA RECALL: Kat Fight

LA GOPer Kat Landry, who AP reports "said she has never worked on political campaigns," has filed a petition to recall LA Gov. Kathleen Blanco (D). The name of her org. is RECALL, an acronym for "Responsible & Effective Citizen Action for Leadership in Louisiana." To do so is much harder than in CA; Landry has 180 days to obtain 900K sigs.

The Blue State Conservatives: "If you know of any displaced Louisiana residents living in your area please inform them that this is going on so they can have a say in the process even if they aren't living at home." Drudge Report imitator The Dead Pelican promoted the petition before it was filed. Nixon's Ghost makes the case for removing Blanco. Louisiana Libertarian is enthusiastic about the prospect. LA-based conservative Jeff Blanco (no relation) thinks Dems should sign on: "If one were a Democrat, I don't see how one can't support this recall. She's been so inept that she's bound to lose Democrat seats and lose the Governorship for Democrats."

In the opposition camp, The Scarlet Left posts a satirical e-mail apparently sent to Landry: "A friend told me about your website and your campaign, and I must say that I am pleasantly surprised. There has been much talk in the wake of Katrina by politicians and pundits that we should not seek political gain from this disaster, but they are dead wrong. I'm glad that you single-handedly took the initiative to organize this because we should, in fact, seek political gain from the disaster."

EAVESDROPPING I: Russ To Judgment

On "World News Tonight" 1/10, ABC News' Rossspoke with "longtime" NSA insider Russell Tice, who admits being a source for the New York Times' reporting on the agency's spy program. Media Blog's Stephen Spruiell notes his previous post on Tice's being dismissed from the NSA "when a psychiatric evaluation found him to be mentally unbalanced." He asked then: "[D]idn't the Times readers deserve to know that its information came from a potentially unbalanced ex-employee with an ax to grind?" This sentiment is shared by many on the right commenting on the matter. The Strata-Sphere: "Tice wants attention so he can sue for screwing up his career at the NSA. I doubt Tice is the only source or a key source." Macsmind: "This dupe hasn't a clue about what he is talking about."

Other Reax: The RCP Blog: "The whole tone of the ABC report is this guy Tice is the good guy, the 'whistleblower' courageously stepping forward to take on the unlawful NSA and Bush White House who are egregiously violating Americans' civil liberties. What if ABC and Brian Ross are wrong and it is not Bush and the NSA who are breaking the law, but rather Mr. Tice?" Blogging Out Loud: "I guess if you’re so inclined, you can just call Russell Tice a traitor. ... I tend to think it takes some major cojones to do what he did, so I’ll salute him instead of vilifying him, thanks." Connect Left calls Tice "an American Hero." Penndit: "Looks like Arlen Specter has another witness he should call."

Captain's Quarters, blogging from DC this week: "Senator Frist confirms for me that no one who got briefed on the NSA intercept has, to his knowledge demanded an end to this program. He confirmed that he was one of the leaders briefed on the program over the years. When I asked him if the program had stopped attacks on this country, he immediately and unequivocally said, 'Yes.'"

EAVESDROPPING II: What Goes Around ...

Democrats.com's Bob Fertik -- an activist not affil. with the DNC -- is encouraging enterprising muckrakers to dig up cell phone call lists for prominent GOPers. As noted in this space on 1/9, such records can easily be obtained for ~$100 online. Writes Fertik: "The trick, of course, is to find the phone numbers we want. Obviously the phone numbers for Bush, Cheney, and other top White House officials are carefully protected. But lots of the people we're interested in are outside the White House, and they are all busy people who run around with cell phones. ... Whose records would we like to see? Just think of all of the major Republican scandals, and identify the main players." Michelle Malkin reacts: "Where's the ACLU to condemn this? Chuck Schumer? The NYTimes editorial board?"

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Check Out The Big Brain On Sebastian!

Writing at TAPPED, Ezra Klein is flabbergasted at a "truly bizarre statement" from the latest column by Washington Post's Mallaby. The offending line: "Of course, attacking Bushonomics is too easy, like shooting a lame duck. So I want to focus instead on Democrats' response to the Bush chest-thumping." Klein responds, "if his policies are, indeed, so awful that their manifold flaws are self-evident, it's incumbent on pundits to publicly eviscerate them until they cease being self-actualizing, not to stroll off and find more worthy targets for their giant, giant brains. Sometimes, it truly seems that the class of folks paid to comment on DC's doings haven't yet adjusted to the fact that this is a one-party town."

MISCELLANY: What Does She Win, A Gold Star?

• Little Green Footballs announces the winner of the "Fiskie," its "2005 Idiotarian of the Year Award": anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, topping Venezuelan pres. Hugo Chavez and the New York Times with 21,381 votes counted. Past winners include ex-Pres. Carter and filmmaker Michael Moore.
• UCLA law prof Eugene Volokh revisits the matter of the anti-annoyance bill recently signed into law. His Volokh Conspiracy co-blogger Orin Kerr had previously discounted concerns about the provision -- as we noted on 1/10 -- but Volokh is more alarmed: "This potentially criminalizes any anonymous speech on a Web site that's intended to annoy at least some readers, even if it's also intended to inform other readers." One concern is that "the change extends traditional telephone harassment law from a basically one-to-one medium (phone calls) to include a one-to-many medium (Web sites). ... But one-to-many speech that is intended to annoy one or a few readers, but intended and likely to enlighten or persuade many other readers, is potentially much more valuable."
• Matt Stoller of MyDD reviews "Crashing the Party," the forthcoming book on the future of the Dems from Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas and MyDD founder Jerome Armstrong: "I've been trying to figure out how to review this book for a few weeks now, because while I really liked it, it wasn't an academicky book with a thesis and a set of data designed to prove that thesis. ... It's an attempt to outline this problem, and sketch some solutions to it. There hasn't been a real conversation within the party about the how to organize ourselves in my political lifetime."
• Carrying the PorkBusters torch, Glenn Reynolds posts a lengthy e-mail from Sen. Tom Coburn's (R-OK) office making an argument against cong. pork.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Charitable Dilemma

At The Plank, Michael Crowley notes the sentiment among some, including a Corner reader, that one possible explanation for some of the ethical scandals happening today is the salary of Members of Congress and senior staff. Doubling Congressional salaries would have a minimal impact on the overall fed budget, so why not do it? "I've had similar thoughts of late but decided the notion of getting such a thing passed in today's political climate was so laughable that I wouldn't even bother writing something." The obstacle to this happening: "Only everyone from Bill O'Reilly to Al Franken, Jon Stewart to Rush Limbaugh, not to mention every yahoo populist talk radio host and blogger in America. Oh, well."

LEST WE FORGET: Whatever You Have To Tell Yourself

Gapingvoid identifies the "Top 10 Blogger Lies." If that seems a bit thin, perhaps we can make up for it with the top ten-plus important facts about Chuck Norris.

Posted by at 12:57 PM

January 10, 2006

1/10: Sam And Friends

After months of waiting, the confirmation hearings for SCOTUS nominee Samuel Alito are in full swing. Now the blogosphere is at full attention, watching the proceedings, poring over transcripts, fact-checking and checking the fact-checks. We noted yesterday that the left was lagging behind in posting about the hearings, but that gap has been erased. What was available to cite then was mostly pre-game assessments; perhaps the GOP-leaning bloggers were just more enthusiastic. We've organized our recap with as many notes as possible, but the sheer volume of posts about Alito -- not to mention the volume of the conversations -- may be overwhelming. For example, here's an IceRocket trendline showing how mentions of the word "Alito" have quintupled over the past week:

In other news -- and there's a lot of it: With House GOPers jockeying for position in their upcoming leadership elections, bloggers on both ends of the spectrum are starting to consider who they prefer; WH dep. CoS Karl Rove made a surprise visit with conservative bloggers at an RNC event; the NSA eavesdropping scandal may have taken a back seat to the Alito hearings, but it's still a big topic; not to mention, NBC explains how the rumor about CNN's Amanpour got out; a new Plamegate tidbit involving NBC's Russert surfaces; rumor of another threat to the blogosphere's freedom burns brightly, then burns out; and, we bring you our latest Blogger Spotlight.

THE ALITO NOMINATION: First Day Jitters And Seconded Arguments, Half-Cocked Theories And Full-Bore Rants

Reax from those parked in front of a TV set, plus analysis on the players, the polls and the process:

>> Appraisals of Alito's comments and poise -- At The Corner, Ramesh Ponnuru appraised Alito's performance: "To the extent his remarks lacked polish, they drew sympathy and helped his basic I'm-one-of-you message. As the hearings go forward, I would not try to press the distinction between his previous job as an advocate and his current one as a judge too hard--at least not if it's done in a way that attempts to distance himself from past stances." A key Alito statement from 1/9 was: "A judge can't have an agenda, a judge can't have a preferred outcome. A judge can't have a client." Daily Kos' Armando scoffs that Alito is "run[ning] away from his record": "And we know what his preferred outcomes are. That he does not want to acknowledge them, that his supporters are ashamed of their views and Alito's views, tells all." Ann Althouse, on Alito's statement about the "contrast between some of the worst of what I saw on the campus and the good sense and the decency of the people back in my own community": "I doubt if he would have liked me or any of the people I hung around with."

>> The inevitable live-blogging -- Fred Smith and Lindsey Powell live-blogged the 2 halves of the hearings for the SCOTUSblog. Between sessions at the RNC blogger event, Blogs for Bush and Suitably Flip live-blogged the 1st session, the latter summarizing the remarks of each senator in chronological order. Liberal Swamp Pundette covered the whole thing, as did Planned Parenthood's SaveRoe.com blog, and Correntewire is said to have (but it wouldn't load for us). Personal Democracy Forum's Micah Sifry comments on the phenomenon: "It will be interesting to watch how this plays out over the course of the hearings, but my guess is the live-bloggers will likely get more traffic than the post-a-couple-times-a-day blogs. That's because people turn to the net for the latest news, not news that's a few hours old. ... Yes, they also look for smart commentary and analysis. But if you're an interest group hoping to affect online perceptions of the Alito hearings, you probably should be live-blogging the event. Or, offering lots of pizza, donuts and coffee to the bloggers who are!" Help for prospective live-bloggers comes from Tim Chapman, who posts the schedule for this week's hearings, plus a tentative list of witnesses, with short bios for each.

>> 2 sens. in particular drew the ire of their blogging opponents -- Conservatives focused on a statement Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) made in his remarks: "In an era when America is still too divided by race and riches, Judge Alito has not written one single opinion on the merits in favor of a person of color alleging race discrimination on the job. In fifteen years on the bench, not one." Michelle Malkin points to numerous instances where he did so, and pronounces the claim "complete bull." Hugh Hewitt posts to his blog an exchange from his 1/9 radio show where "way left" Duke law prof Erwin Chemerinsky agrees, with some prodding, that Kennedy was wrong on this point. Meanwhile, the left was buzzing about Sen. Tom Coburn's (R-OK) statement, which touched on "sodomy" and "prostitution" before concluding, "the real debate here is about Roe." Crooks and Liars has video. Firedoglake's ReddHedd: "Is there some other hidden meaning other than Tom Coburn would like Roe overturned and he's willing to talk about whatever else he needs to talk about to do it? No litmus test for him, though. Nuh uh."

>> Commentary on the process itself -- Conservative PoliBlog has had it with both sides' rhetoric: "I have decided that the word 'mainstream' (which is subjective to begin with) has lost all meaning in the context of judicial nomination hearings. Senator Schumer has long politicized the word in this context and now Senators Graham and Cornyn have decided to up the political ante." Watching the 2nd day of proceedings get under way this a.m., liberal Duncan "Atrios" Black wants the "dancing" to stop: "We all know the wingnut code" between Alito and Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA): "Specter gets Alito to say stare decisis is important. Alito says overturning precedent requires special circumstance. We all know what that means." Liberal Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "In a remarkable evolution of democracy, we have now entered an era in which candidates for the Supreme Court are allowed to glide through their hearings without once giving a straight answer about anything having to do with the laws or constitution of the United States. ... It's yet another sign that the separation of powers envisioned by the founders has slowly morphed into a de facto parliamentary system -- except without any of the institutional means of accountability normally built into a parliamentary system. Someday Congress is going to regret that." Conservative James Joyner at Outside the Beltway agrees with Drum's wider point about Congress' waning influence, but not on this topic. Rather, he blames the lack of substance on the "combination of the intense polarization of the abortion issue, the perfection of the fundraising machinery of both parties, and the live televising of judicial hearings creates a feeding frenzy where Senators are even more inclined to make asses of themselves than usual."

>> Who doesn't like what they're seeing in the polling? Most of the left, and a fair number on the right -- The left swarmed on Washington Post poll showing a majority of Americans now favoring Alito's confirmation. There's some discouragement about this result, but other think the tide will turn -- Echidne of the Snakes chalks it up to Americans having more immediately pressing concerns -- family, health, finances -- than the SCOTUS: "This is how the world crumbles, by the way. Not with a big bang but with a tiny whimper, made up of the millions of uninterested and tired sighs." The Carpetbagger Report agrees: "Republicans are kidding themselves if they think there's any depth to the numbers ... We can only hope the pollsters will do some follow-up work over the next week or so because support will drop once Americans learn more about Alito's record. ... 53% believe he should be confirmed, but that includes 38% of self-identified liberals and 40% of self-identified Democrats." Header at Tennessee Guerrilla Women: "ScAlito Poll: Majority of Americans Brain Dead." They find an unlikely ally in conservative Wizbang, where anonymous contributor Paul writes: "The big media is completely poll obsessed. But the reality is, most of the numbers they produce are meaningless." A concurrent CBS poll appears to show that 77% don't know who Alito is. Conservative Decision '08: "That's such a staggering figure that the credibility of the poll itself must be immediately called into question (unless, of course, the people surveyed were the same people who sat on the Michael Jackson and OJ Simpson juries)."

>> An announcement -- NARAL's Bush v. Choice announces its "Blog for Choice campaign ... bringing together top pro-choice bloggers to speak out on reproductive rights and health issues." Among them, bloggers from Feministe, Pacific Views, Majikthise, and Bitch Ph.D..

>> An argument -- At Balkinization, liberal Robert Gordon makes the "basic case against" confirming Alito. A tiny excerpt from the full argument: "He is in short a judge with an agenda, and the agenda is not 'conservative' but right-wing-Republican. Now of course the liberal lions of the Warren Court -- Warren, Brennan, Black, Douglas, Goldberg, Fortas, Marshall -- were judges with an agenda too. Their agenda was to push the polity toward treating subordinated, excluded and marginalized people with dignity and as civic equ