January 24, 2006
1/24: Eavesdrop It Like It's Hot
While the biggest story today is probably the Canadian elections, the story that really matters to anyone inside the Beltway is (for the first time in a week) the NSA wiretap scandal. On 1/23 Pres. Bush defended himself against claims that his orders broke the law, as did Gen. Michael Hayden of the NSA. Meanwhile, the immediate furor over the Washington Post, Chris Matthews and Tim Russert seems to have declined -- but their opponents are serious, and new websites are springing up to pressure them. Elsewhere, Sen. Hillary Clinton's red state/upstate NY appeal is debated, and an online conservative magazine gives new oxygen to the left's hopes of impeachment proceedings. Plus, our latest Blogger Spotlight.
EAVESDROPPING: Brokeback Laws And Mountin' Questions
Arguably the most-cited line from Bush's presser (apart from his "Brokeback Mountain" answer) was: "You know, it's amazing that people say to me, 'Well, he was just breaking the law.' If I wanted to break the law, why was I briefing Congress?" Answers and responses to that question are plentiful, from the right and left.
>> From the left -- AMERICAblog's Joe in DC answers: "Well, there is the question of whether you really briefed question. And, then there is the fact you think you're above the law." 
The Democratic Daily quotes from James Risen's book: "Some congressional leaders have been notified about the Program, but only in extraordinarily secret fashion and only in ways that guarantee they feel constrained from raising objections to it. (pg. 55-56)" A Moderate's Musings: "Because the law specifies that you need a warrant, not that you brief Congress. And you only briefed a few people and didn't let them debate it. Plus, you decided on this method only after you decided to couldn't change the law legally."
>> And the right -- California Conservative: "In that simple sentence, he called Democrats like Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy and others to task for their whining about him breaking the law. This argument really is about perspective: Congress' perspective that they don't like a strong Executive Branch and the public's perspective that they want to be safe. PERIOD." MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy: "Gotta love President Bush when he says stuff like that. And yes, I'm using 'President Bush' just to rub it into the moonbats, what with his honest election as President, twice." The Waterglass, to Bush: "As long as your political enemies consider you a more dangerous entity than they do a group of murdering fanatics bent on destroying western civilization, you're going to be under attack in this way. Partisan Democrats and civil liberties absolutists don't truly believe we're at war. I'm glad that the people who have the authority to make decisions do."
Both Eschaton and Daily Kos highlight an exchange between Knight Ridder's Jonathan Landay and NSA's Gen. Michael Hayden disputing the proper standard for wiretaps -- "probable cause" or the reasonability of the "search and seizure." To these bloggers, Landay seems in the right. Conservative John Hinderaker also studied the exchange and in his assessment, splits the difference: "I think that what the reporter said was correct, as to the Presidential authorization. ... Under the Presidential authorization for limited international surveillance, it sounds as though the standard is 'reasonable belief' as opposed to 'probable cause.' General Hayden was correct as to the constitutional standard. It is not unreasonable to intercept international communications that are reasonably believed to involve al Qaeda; therefore, the program is constitutional." Meanwhile, MRC's News Busters argues that NBC's "Nightly News" should have quoted Hayden saying that the wiretap program might have detected 9/11 terrorists had it been implemented then.
Kevin Drum writes, the NSA eavesdropping involved "garden variety" wiretaps, as Hayden acknowledged, and so "the only change necessary to make this program legal was an amendment to FISA modifying the circumstances necessary to issue certain kinds of warrants. This would have tipped off terrorists to nothing. So why didn't they ask Congress for that change? It certainly would have passed easily." Directing readers to a Matt Yglesias post on this question, Atrios writes: "Since in the numerous and changing justifications for the illegal acts by our criminal president we have yet to hear any sensible explanation for why they couldn't simply go to the FISA court to obtain warrants, the simplest and most obvious explanation is that they're up to no good."
At The Corner, Andrew McCarthy argues that domestic spying was "critical in the Civil War, when, by definition, it was done domestically." Libertarian Jim Henley objects: "Lincoln's domestic security actions during the Civil War represent a cost we continue to pay, today. ... 'Even Lincoln did it' is one more price the country deserved to pay" for having slavery in the first place.
BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Open For Business
Two new "open letter" sites have sprung up in the past 24 hours -- To Tim Russert and Open Letter To The Washington Post. From the Russert-related blog: "This Sunday, you asked Senator Barack Obama to respond to Harry Belafonte's remarks about George W. Bush being a 'terrorist.' ... Why did you ask this question? Harry Belafonte isn't an elected official, he doesn't speak for Democrats, he doesn't represent Senator Obama, he doesn't represent the Democratic Party, and he is entitled to his own opinion." From the Post-related blog: "Since the Washington Post won't reliably keep their blog comments open, we have created this web site for individuals to comment on the work of the Post." Matt Stoller points these blogs out, writing: "These blogs are designed to be places where readers can give feedback to media outlets that don't allow their readers to effectively congregate. The internet opens up remarkable avenues for discourse. Tim Russert doesn't have an 'ombudsman' or a space for discussion, so we built one. The Washington Post does have an ombudsman, but it has been discredited by their actions." They are in the mode of To Chris Matthews, which urges an MSNBC boycott until he apologizes.
Providing video of last p.m.'s "Hardball," Crooks and Liars scoffs at Matthews' "obvious move to get us off his back." Said Matthews: "You know, on Hardball we've been raising the question about no-bid contracts and how Halliburton has gotten some profits out of that, and maybe we were right or wrong, but we were raising that issue. Certainly people like Michael Moore raised that question of profiteering." C&L's John Amato: "How does a guy go from comparing him to a terrorist one day -- then an incredible investigative journalist [i.e., Matthews] the next?" At JustOneMinute, Tom Maguire insists: "Matthews point is that Osama is adopting the rhetoric of Michael Moore, NOT that Michael Moore is adopting the rhetoric of Osama Bin Laden. This is an important distinction that the critics on the left seem to be determined to blur."
In light of the Post's removal of its comment section, Jeff Jarvis considers the "ethics of interactivity." To start: "Q: Are media required to play host to the opinions and criticism of others? A: No. But they will be judged by their interactivity." More: "Q: By the way, do we really need ombudsmen? A: No. Everyone in a newspaper should have a direct relationship with the public. They should all be their own ombudsmen."
CANADA: Does This Mean Conservatives Have To Stop Calling It "Canuckistan"?
If Memeorandum is to be believed, the most discussed subject on the blogs is the Canadian Conservative Party's modest victory, and the coming minority gov't under Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Naturally, everyone finds something to latch on to.
>> Conservatives tend to be on the giddy side -- Right-leaning Publius Pundit considers the pros -- "No more America-hating Prime Minister" -- and cons -- "Weird concessions to retain power..." Columnist Mark Steyn, who blogged the election results, dubs this election the "Maple Revolution," a reference to the pro-democracy movements in Lebanon. Pardon My English can't resist the shot at Michael Moore. The Hedgehog Report: "UPDATE (10:09pm): Democrats call for a recount... just kidding..."
>> Those on the left who do mention it, tend to be less so -- Daily Kos: "Unlike the United States, hubris can bring a government down at any time as the Liberals just learned." AMERICAblog: "Just what North America needs, another George Bush. Sad."
Gay Patriot: "Just like the Germans last fall, Canadians voted out a government whose leaders made clear their opposition to President Bush's policies. While the Bush's critics continually claim that people in other lands share their distaste for our Commander-in-Chief, it seems that when it comes time to vote, those abroad are not as obsessed with bashing the President of the United States as are some of their leaders -- and their cheerleaders in the American media and blogosphere." Ann Althouse: "I suppose I'm one of those Americans who don't spend much time thinking about Canada. I know it's up there, disapproving of us, like a sanctimonious older sibling. But I like the idea of this change, with new leadership that is closer to ours, friendlier to our goals. It will be interesting, perhaps, to see how things unfold."
Vodkapundit's Stephen Green considers the perils for the Conservatives depending on whom they ally with: "I hope I'm wrong, but right now Canada looks as fractured as it ever was." Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey, who also live-blogged as returns came in, is more optimistic, calling Harper's "limited mandate" a "test period where they expect the Conservatives to prove that they can lead from the center-right, maintaining the economic success of the last few years while cleaning up and streamlining the excesses of the Liberal government."
Power Line and Instapundit both give Morrissey some credit for the election, having defied the Canadian "publication ban" and making info related to the recent Liberal scandal.
Pejman Yousefzadeh looks elsewhere in the Commonwealth, and fears that new British Conservative leader David Cameron isn't making much progress.
WHITE HOUSE '08: The Upstate Upshot
Pro-Gore/anti-HRC pundit Arianna Huffington approvingly points to an article by The New Republic's Katz, arguing that Sen. Hillary Clinton's upstate NY victory in '00 is no sign of ability to win in red states, as the region is "'far more purple than red.'" Huffington adds, "both Al Gore and John Kerry attracted more upstate voters -- and carried more upstate counties -- than Hillary did." At The Politicker, Ben Smith disagrees with Katz's piece: "National elections aren't fought by sweeping whole states; they're won and lost on the margins, and Hillary's narrow defeat upstate was -- in that sense -- quite a victory. And since then, she's defused some of the suspicion and dislike. The same point applies to the argument that Upstate is more liberal than America. Sure it's more liberal than Alabama; but the central question of 'electability' is whether Hillary can pull a few more votes in Ohio than John Kerry."
Left-leaning economist Brad DeLong counts as 1 of the U.S.'s post-Cold War "Superpowers would not intervene militarily outside their home regions without the blessing and support of the entire U.N. Security Council." And by invading Iraq and describing an "axis of evil," the Bush admin. "broke [this] principle ... And Iran's government -- and every other government -- has drawn the natural conclusion: the threat of nuclear retaliation is the only protection against being overthrown by a U.S. president." Right-leaning public policy prof Daniel Drezner argues that DeLong is wrong, that this "principle" is not and "likely never will be a cardinal element of American foreign policy, and anyone who tells you differently is selling you something." He lists several other reasons why Iran would want nukes, and adding: "I'm going to have to check, but I haven't been reading about any other countries -- or 'every other government' -- frantically trying to acquire nuclear weapons since the invasion of Iraq."
At The Corner, John Derbyshire outlines what he fears will be an "up escalator" that "we may get stuck on": "(1) Iraq 2003, pop. 26m, may have been trying to acquire the technology to get started on producing nukes. Stable under strict dictatorship. (2) Iran 2006, pop. 68m, has all the technology & expertise to produce nukes, may be just months away. Semi-stable under loose dictatorship. (3) Pakistan 2006, pop. 162m, possesses goodish stockpile of nukes & delivery systems. Unstable under feeble military dictatorship."
THE ALITO NOMINATION: Can They Talk The Talk?
Byron York reports at The Corner: "Word is that Democrats will stage a talk-a-thon on the Alito nomination when it reaches the Senate floor ... with every Democratic member taking the floor to stretch out debate in what will amount to a non-filibuster filibuster." More: "But one Republican source says this morning that the GOP plans to 'accommodate them without delaying the vote.' By that, the source means that [Senate Maj. Leader Bill] Frist will likely keep the Senate open very late to allow Democrats to talk into the night. And then Frist will file for cloture, and unless Democrats choose to filibuster the nomination, which seems highly unlikely, there will be a vote."
Once again, York at The Corner: "I just got a comment from Jack Abramoff's defense team on the question, raised in the Corner this morning, that whoever has photos of Abramoff with President Bush might be trying to sell those photos to the tabloids or some other high bidder. And the comment is... 'No comment.'"
Talking Points Memo: "A company called Reflections Photography handles photography and photo sales for many Republican political events. ... Did the White House, earlier this month, order Reflections to remove a photograph of a smiling President Bush and Jack Abramoff from its archive? Photo-plumbers?"
IMPEACHMENT: Our Very First "Impeachment" Slug!
Washington Times' online-only Insight reports, "A coalition in Congress is being formed to support impeachment... Our arithmetic shows that a majority of the committee could vote against the president." Most of the blogs that link to it are mid- to low-tier, but HuffPo splashed it across the top of its page this a.m., with the header "Conservative Mag: Bush Admin. Bracing For Impeachment Hearings..."
Also citing the piece hopefully: Impeach Bush Coalition, Dadahead, Bush Out, Connect Left, The Skeptical Observer
BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: Walk The (Power) Line
Today the Blogometer talks to DC-area atty Paul Mirengoff, who contributes to Power Line.
What is your full name?
Paul Eugene Mirengoff (Eugene for Eugene Debs, the old Socialist).
What is your age?
56.
Where did you grow up?
Wheaton, Maryland.
Where do you live now?
Bethesda, Maryland.
What is your occupation? Have you ever worked on a political campaign or for the mainstream media?
Attorney. I've never worked on a campaign or for the MSM.
When did you start blogging and why?
I started blogging during the summer of 2002. I was motivated by 9/11 and my perception of bias by the MSM against President Bush and his policies.
What has been your favorite post, or favorite story to write about, in that time?
The 2004 political conventions and ensuing presidential election.
Describe your typical blogging schedule. And what is your average output?
I do most of my blogging at night, after work. Often, I also do a little blogging in the morning, before work. Usually I produce about three posts per day.
Who is your favorite political blogger? Favorite non-political blogger?
My two colleagues at Power Line, John Hinderaker and Scott Johnson. I don't think I read any non-political blogs.
Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?
Charles Krauthammer.
What is your favorite television news program, either network or cable?
"Special Report" with Brit Hume.
What MSM-produced websites (i.e. newspapers, magazines) do you visit on a daily basis?
None regularly. I read the hard copy of the Washington Post and the Washington Times on a daily basis.
What non-MSM websites (i.e. blogs) do you visit on a daily basis?
Instapundit, Michelle Malkin, Hugh Hewitt, Captains Quarters, Real Clear Politics, NRO's Corner and Bench Memos.
How often, or do you ever, read a newspaper in its dead-tree (i.e. print) form?
Every day.
How do you see the new media and old media affecting and influencing each other in the next five years?
I think there will be some blurring of the line between old media and blogs, as the internet becomes the main place people go for news, analysis, and commentary. Over the next few years, as part of that process, I expect that old media will cover blogs more, publish more work by top bloggers, and create or expand their own blogs. Some blogs, in turn, may start to look more like the on-line versions of newspapers.
I don't think that bloggers will have much impact on the way the MSM covers the news during the next five years. The MSM will assume that by bringing bloggers into the tent, it has dealt with any threat posed by blogs. However, the MSM will be wrong. Blogs and new media will continue to steal readers and viewers, thereby eating at MSM profit margins.
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: When Sources Have Blogs
At her personal blog, NRO contributor Cathy Seipp discusses complaints by New York Times' Sharon Waxman and David Cay Johnston over Seipp having mentioned an e-mail from Waxman in a recent NRO piece. Neither approved, but Seipp figured she was under no obligation to keep their contact secret. A few days later, Mickey Kaus picked up on Seipp's anecdote to speculate about 2 "newfangled bloggy etiquette questions: 1) Do you have to refrain from blogging about it when an MSM reporter (or anyone, for that matter) calls you to research a story? 2) Do you have to honor unilateral demands for confidentiality in emails from newsworthy figures like MSM reporters?" He agrees with Seipp that the answer to 1) is no, but the answer to 2) is a bit more murky. He suggests: "MSM reporters will have to learn how to deal with leaky, bloggy Heisenberg-inducing sources -- presumably by extracting promises of confidentiality."
LEST WE FORGET: Straight From The Gutfeld
Depending on your own view of abortion politics, you may or may not laugh at Huffington Post contributor Greg Gutfeld's vision of a pro-choice magazine (sample cover tease: "I Did It for America: 'My baby would have been a Republican'"), but the fight between the pro-lifers and pro-choicers in the comment section is sure to amuse.
Posted by at January 24, 2006 12:49 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.
