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 January 23, 2006 01:25 PM