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 January 17, 2006 12:54 PM