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 January 18, 2006 12:54 PM