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."
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."
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 January 19, 2006 01:08 PM
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
