January 25, 2006

1/25: Blog With The Devil

In today's hell-catching edition: PA SEN candidate Bob Casey (D) catches hell from the left for supporting Samuel Alito for SCOTUS, the WH catches it for stonewalling on Katrina-related documents, a Los Angeles Times columnist catches hell for expressing his non-support of the troops, Justice Antonin Scalia catches it for taking a FedSoc trip, AG Alberto Gonzales catches it for defending the NSA wiretaps, a few GOP reps. catch it for supporting acting Maj. Leader Roy Blunt, Washington Post prepares to catch more of it than it's already caught, pretty much everyone catches hell over Amazon.com's flawed reviewer system, and the New York Times catches it for putting its new blog behind its subscription wall.

MIDTERMS: Casey Strikes Out?

AP reported last p.m. that PA SEN candidate Bob Casey (D) has "endorsed" Judge Samuel Alito for SCOTUS. Many liberal bloggers have already called for Alito to be filibustered, and they react accordingly.

Scott Lemieux heads a post, "Casey: Anything Santorum Can Do I Can Do Too!" and writes: "I am on the record of being highly skeptical of Robert Casey Jr.'s claims to be a staunch progressive who happens to be extremely reactionary on women's rights, but I was also open-minded. ... That's enough; Casey should not be the Democratic nominee." Booman Tribune: "We are under no obligation to take this shit ... The Republicans are bad enough. Lieberman is bad enough. We need Bob Casey, Jr. like we need a hole in our collective heads." From the official campaign blog of Casey primary challenger Chuck Pennacchio: "I'm hoping this dispels any notion [DNC chair] Howard Dean had about Casey not supporting extreme right wing judges. How about it Howard? Ready to back a real Democrat?"

Conservatives don't mind so much. Orinn Judd dubs him "the next Zell Miller." Matt Margolis notes the endorsement came only after the Philly Inquirer and Washington Post endorsed Alito: "Is he running to become Senator Bobby Casey Jr. or Senator 'Inquirer and Post'?"

Meanwhile, at The Corner, John Miller notes that after covering the PA SEN race, he's received a Happy New Year card from Casey's camp but not Santorum's, even though his conclusion was that, despite Casey's pro-life views, "pro-lifers would be foolish to think Casey's election over Santorum would serve their cause." He continues: "Yet I'm still on the guy's Christmas card list. I must say, that's impressive outreach. ... Having covered political campaigns for a while now, I've learned that little steps such as this may seem insignificant but they are often signs of genuine political health. That's good news for Casey, bad news for Santorum."

Noting a report in Roll Call, DavidNYC at Swing State Project is flabbergasted that the DCCC is $20M short because so many Dems have failed to pay their dues: "This is, as I say, just a totally unacceptable state of affairs. ... It's rarely my style to go after fellow Dems, but come ON, people! We need to be team players on this one." He suggests readers "politely" call or e-mail their reps. and "ask them to pay what they owe the DCCC." Markos Moulitsas notes that 4 of the "deadbeat Dems" are running for SEN or GOV: "It looks like they've already checked out of the House. Perhaps they should be stripped of their committee seats?"

In a post written for Political Wire, Stu Rothenberg writes, the question is not whether the Dems will make gains in '06, but how big: "While Republicans could benefit from improved news from Iraq, perceived progress in the war on terror, an ethics/reform agenda, or future circumstances that no one can now anticipate, I think it far more likely that the political landscape, which currently tilts to the Democrats, could tilt even more toward Democratic House candidates later this year. While a 15-seat Democratic gain remains difficult, I no longer think it impossible."

EAVESDROPPING: Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Pain

Kevin Drum quotes ex-NSA dir./Lt. Gen Michael Hayden pointing out that the NSA only monitors calls when 1 end is outside the U.S. because "that's where we've decided to draw that balance between security and liberty." Drum: "This rather strongly implies that George Bush believes there's nothing stopping him from ordering 100% domestic wiretapping if he feels like it, and nothing Congress can do about it if he does. So much for Article I Section 8."

On 1/24 AG Alberto Gonzales gave a speech at Georgetown Univ., only to have it interrupted by protesters who unfurled a banner reading, "Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither." Michelle Malkin points out the actual wording is: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." She adds: "The omission of those key qualifiers -- 'essential' and 'little' -- makes all the difference in the world. Ben Franklin has been hijacked to endorse an untenable and deadly view that no sacrifice of any liberty for any amount of safety at any time should ever be made."

Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Gonzales did an excellent job of spelling out the reasons why the program is not only necessary, but legal." He adds that Gonzales gave the "best discussion of FISA I've seen by an administration spokesman." Protein Wisdom highlights passage from the speech and concludes: "We are all of us safer for it, not because we are looking for a 'daddy figure' to protect us ... but rather because this is precisely what the President is supposed to be doing. It is his job. And just as I expect Congress to piss away money and debate endlessly on issues that are often of no import, I expect the executive branch to protect our nation and its sovereignty." Angry Bear takes issue with Gonzales' "reasonable" defense, citing the Constitution itself. Preemptive Karma "If the FISA law allows retroactive warrants and the Bush Administration so clearly doesn't want to make this spying program legit by getting those warrants... It begs the question of WHY?"

BLOGS VS. THE MSM I: Support Your Local Soldier!

The 1/24 column by Los Angeles Times' Joel Stein -- which begins "I don't support our troops" -- struck more than a nerve on the right -- according to Memeorandum it's attracted the biggest swarm of the past 24 hours. Stein, a former humor columnist for Time, concludes: "I'm not advocating that we spit on returning veterans like they did after the Vietnam War, but we shouldn't be celebrating people for doing something we don't think was a good idea. All I'm asking is that we give our returning soldiers what they need: hospitals, pensions, mental health and a safe, immediate return. But, please, no parades."

Stein agreed to appear on Hugh Hewitt's radio program last p.m.; Radioblogger hosts the full transcript (and Memeorandom says more links point to this page than to Stein's actual column). Hewitt earned kudos for the calm manner in which he draws out Stein's beliefs. Matt at Blackfive: "He did so without bombast, or vitriol, or belittlement. He did so like a wise elder showing a smart ass punk just how much of a smart ass punk he actually is." At his own blog, Hewitt writes, he "asked Stein if a reader would be justified in cancelling his or her subscription to the Los Angeles Times on the basis of the column. He admitted that while he hoped that a single column on the op-ed page wouldn't rigger such a reaction that he could certainly understand people doing so." Hewitt makes phone numbers available for LAT readers to cancel their subscription if they are so inclined. To that end, John McIntyre at The RCP Blog asks, "why would a major newspaper like the Los Angeles Times, that is trying rejuvenate their sales, run a column that displays this type of ingratitude to our men and women who volunteer to defend this country?"

LA Observed's Kevin Roderick notes that the piece was the Los Angeles Times' most-emailed story for the day, and quotes a Reuters story where Stein says he's receiving angry e-mail, but says: "My guess is that it will die down pretty quickly."

If so, that's in large part because Stein is relatively unknown in the blogosphere -- certainly compared to left-wing cartoonist Ted Rall. But for now, he's in the same league: Instapundit purposefully steps over a line most conservatives are wary of crossing: "I think it's probably OK to question Joel Stein's patriotism." John Hawkins gives him partial credit for honesty: "The truth is that a lot (but, not all) of the people on the left, have a deep antipathy towards the military that they refuse to reveal because it's considered politically taboo, particularly after the way many liberals behaved after Vietnam." Myopic Zeal: "Presumably he doesn't support Saddam's torture chambers either, but I wasn't able to Google up anything he had written to that effect." Jim Treacher parodies the column: "Remember those old Excedrin commercials? I think this is Excedrin Headache #352! Man oh man, I sure do love things from the '70s. Except for Vietnam. ... I mean, how can you be pro-war? That's like being pro-bad. 'I like bad, I think bad is right.' That makes about as much sense as Horshack getting an 'A' on his history test. Remember him?"

Perhaps more surprisingly, anti-war blogger Duncan "Atrios" Black handed Stein his "Wanker of the Day" award: "Bring on the parades. If our military rank and file have been betrayed by their civilian leadership they deserve our respect doubly."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM II: Therapy Session

In the latest on liberal bloggers vs. the Washington Post, today at 1:00 p.m. EST Post.com's Jim Brady are hosting an "Ethics and Interactivity" live chat with bloggers Jane Hamsher, Jay Rosen, Glenn Reynolds and Jeff Jarvis. Hamsher, at her Firedoglake: "They say the moderator will be choosing questions that are "representative" of the ones that come in, so leave a copy in the comments and we'll be able to have some way to check that." NRO's K.J. Lopez is upset that the Post has invited Hamsher, on account of having called NR's O'Beirne a "bitch" (see above). John Amato is dismissive: "They asked a guy who doesn't allow comments, while another guy doesn't get comments because he gets no traffic. Real experts they are on this topic."

Following John Kerry, now liberal blogosphere favorite Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) has joined in the criticism of MSNBC's Chris Matthews. Like Kerry, she posts a diary to Daily Kos: "Over the last few days, I have watched with concern as prominent media personalities and political pundits like Chris Matthews have engaged in reckless rhetoric comparing critics of the Bush Administration to the world's most wanted terrorist, Osama Bin Laden. This isn't just offensive, it's absurd -- and harmful to our nation." Being a bit more netroots-savvy, she also posted it to MyDD.

For days now, conservative bloggers, starting with Confederate Yankee, have pointed out for days that Moore himself compared bin Laden's rhetoric to his own on 11/1/04, writing at his site: "There he was, OBL, all tan and rested and on videotape (hey, did you get the feeling that he had a bootleg of my movie? Are there DVD players in those caves in Afghanistan?)"

THE ALITO NOMINATION: Tick Talk, Tick Talk

As we noted yesterday, according to NRO's York, Senate Maj. Leader Bill Frist is likely to allow Dems to talk all night prior to the SOTU, then call cloture the following a.m. RedState's Leon H: "The next 24-48 hours promise to reveal much about many things that have been shrouded in mystery over the past year. How much control do the respective caucus leaders hold over the other Senators in their party? Will the Democrats dare a filibuster on a nominee who enjoys public support by a 2-1 margin? Will they dare not filibuster? And, if the final showdown presents itself, does Frist have the 50 he needs?"

Daily Kos' SusanG: "No one knows for certain if Alito will tip the scale to elimination of the right to choose. Specter seems confident he won't; a dozen or so states seem to believe he will. It's a crap shoot, and gambling with fundamental privacy rights is a high-risk game." Chris Bowers: "From what I have heard, right now the 'no' votes on Alito are somewhere in the range of 44-47, and the filibuster votes are somewhere in the range of 37-40. In other words, we are close, but not there yet. Unfortunately, I have no idea who the weak Senators are on the filibuster vote, so I can't give you any information which contacts would be best to make."

SCALIA: Junket, or Junk?

ABC News followed Justice Antonin Scalia at a CO resort, where he played tennis and addressed the Federalist Society on the same day John Roberts was sworn in as Chief Justice. Confirm Them links to the Federalist Society's documentation of what Scalia did there. Objective Justice, on the "exclusive": "I just had to pick myself up off the floor because I was laughing so hard. ... Maybe it would have actually been a story if they described justice Scalia as trying to influence the lawyers, but they were too daft. Instead, the legal community now has something to amuse itself with." Crime & Federalism: "Justice Scalia had committed to teaching the course months in advance. Over 100 lawyers each spent hundreds of dollars to attend the seminar. How is keeping a commitment a 'snub' to anyone?" And more: "Of course, as is plainly evident from the Federalist Society's website, no one kept this trip a secret. Indeed, it was widely advertised to many people lacking power and prestige -- including me." Orin Kerr, with tongue in cheek: "It remains unclear whether Justice Scalia will have to step down from the Supreme Court or face impeachment, as no Justice has ever missed a hearing as critical as a swearing-in ceremony before. Some scholars argue that having missed Roberts' swearing-in ceremony, Scalia lacks the qualifications to vote on cases heard by the Roberts Court."

KATRINA: Paper Chase

Following the DHS report that showed the WH knew more about the possible impact of Katrina before it struck, New York Times reports that the WH does not plan to hand over a number of storm-related documents.

Liberal The Carpetbagger Report: "When this special committee was created in Katrina's wake, congressional Dems initially refused to participate because they assumed Republicans would be afraid to push the administration, even when necessary. This is a chance for the GOP to prove Dems wrong. Here's the only question congressional Republicans need to ask themselves in an intellectually serious way: What would they do if this were a Democratic president?"

Conservative John Cole: "I am under no illusion that Democrats would honestly or fairly examine the evidence, and I am fairly sure they will distort or portray in the worst possible light all the internal communications for political advantage. ... But just because they are going to do that is no excuse to not release what was known and when. I want to know what happened, and I want it fixed, if there is anything that can be fixed." Pressed to compare this with VP Cheney shielding his energy task force records, Cole moves a bit toward the fence.

No More Mr. Nice Blog creates a fake NYT report for 6/14/06: "The Bush administration completed work late last night on the conversion of the entire federal government to a password-protected, subscription-only entity." The name, of course, is WhiteHouseSelect.

HOUSE GOP ELECTIONS: Blunt Trauma

At RedState, Blanton singles out conservative GOP Reps. Bobby Jindal, Marsha Blackburn, Lynn Westmoreland, Todd Akin, and Joe Pitts as "disappointments" for their support of acting Maj. Leader Roy Blunt for the maj. leader job. Writes Blanton: "On one hand, it is perfectly understandable that these mostly relatively new members of congress would not want to rock the boat and would be inclined to go with the establishment. But, it is time for them to grow in office and look to someone like Jeb Hensarling as an example."

The Hill's Bolton reports, according to "those who have studied the growing influence of alternative media in politics," Blunt's momentum could be slowed by the "growing opposition" of conservative bloggers, who lean strongly toward Shadegg. The criticism of Blunt has grown since the 3 candidates held separate conference calls with bloggers on 1/19 (see 1/20 Blogometer).

N.Z. Bear, to The Hill: "I don't think it's a secret or controversial statement of the three candidates Blunt seems most connected to the old guard and arguably seems the least committed, the least interested in significant reform and shaking things up." Blunt spokesperson Jessical Boulanger said her boss "recognizes that bloggers are very opinionated and colorful and spirited groups." Blunt, she said, "looks forward to working with conservative bloggers in the future to direct their firepower on the Democrats."

CORRUPTION: Get The Picture?

On 1/23, Think Progress deduced that the Abramoff photos floating around were likely being shown by Abramoff himself. Now they point out that Newsweek's Isikoff said on "Hardball" last p.m., "while the White House hasn't put these out, Jack Abramoff has clearly shown them to people." Isikoff doesn't mention Time, but does say Abramoff showed the pictures to the Washingtonian, as Think Progress had thought.

AP has Travis Co. DA Ronnie Earle now probing possible financial doings between Rep. Tom DeLay and convicted ex-Rep. Duke Cunningham. Troy Univ. poli sci prof Stephen Taylor says he wouldn't put it past Earle to "go fishing," but regardless, "the stars are aligning for" DeLay's "electoral ouster" in the fall.

AMAZON: The Star System

Starting 1/11, liberal satire blog Jesus' General posted a fake-positive (i.e. negative) review of "Women Who Make The World Worse," by National Review's Kate O'Beirne. The review was subsequently pulled, then with the help of Crooks and Liars, reinstated. It was far from the only one, as ' RenaRF and others, including Jane Hamsher, encouraged their readers: "If you haven't written your one-star 'Ode to Kate,' please do." On 1/20, NRO's K.J. Lopez took issue with the campaign, writing that the book "should incite a constructive debate. That's not what we're watching happen on the Net at the moment, however. It's pretty evident that the most unhinged and motivated of Kate's detractors have neither read her book nor intend to."

By 1/23, it was apparent the same was happening to a new book by Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes praising Bush as the "Rebel-in-Chief." Michelle Malkin, whose latest book was about the "Unhinged" left, had her book subject to the same abuse, and wrote a lengthy post about the phenomenon: "Bottom line: The Amazon.com review section has become a joke and a cesspool, and if the company cares about its credibility with a large segment of its book-buying audience, it better fix the problem."

But liberal World O' Crap pointed out that conservatives have targeted liberal books just the same: "I checked out the Amazon customer reviews of Michael Moore's 'Will They Ever Trust Us Again?' which came out in October 2004, but is still getting one-star reviews," such as "I wouldn't trust that guy with a potato cannon." The same has happened to Bill Maher and Al Franken. Sadly, No!: "You'll notice, of course, that Mr. Franken didn't go crying to Amazon.com about the shitty reviews people gave his book. At what point did the American right become a bunch of pathetic crybabies?"

Vaughn Ververs of CBS's Public Eye picked up on the controversy on 1/23, noting: "It's not yet caused Amazon to shut down its reviews, but it's getting some notice." Journalist Rick Perlstein sent an e-mail to ververs -- reprinted at Hullabaloo -- which went: "Cher colleague, you know nothing about Amazon.com and have fallen for a right-wing propaganda campaign. People have been driving down the ratings of books for ideological reasons since there have been reviews on Amazon, with conservatives in the lead by about half a decade." In fact, in 11/00 Perlstein wrote an article about the phenomenon for the American Prospect. On account the feedback, including numerous comments on the Public Eye blog, Ververs later updated to note that neither side has a "monopoly on these tactics, only that these examples popped up at the same time."

As Sadly, No! points out, back in 9/03 Ted Barlow of Crooked Timber argued that the book reviews are "useless," and created a chart showing the average scores of books in several arbitrary categories: "Most books are reviewed by their fans, but political books draw a crowd of partisans to give one-star reviews of books they haven't read." Barlow noted that political books tended to draw lower ratings than discredited books such as "Mein Kampf." As of today, at 386 reviews, O'Beirne's book currently has 3 1/2 stars.

TIMESSELECT: If A Blog Exists But Almost No One Can Read It ... Is It Really A Blog?

New York Times has launched a new blog following opinions in newspapers, magazines and the blogosphere -- The Opinionator -- written by Chris Suellentrop. The catch is that you have to be a paid subscriber to read it. Suellentrop describes it at his own blog: "If you're already a Times or Times Select subscriber ... think of The Opinionator as the free shoephone that Sports Illustrated used to hand out with its paid subscriptions. It's the 'but-wait-there's-more' product, the journalism equivalent of that special bonus CD of classic country duets that Time-Life gave you when you bought their '70s funk anthology."

Mickey Kaus: "I suspect that within weeks, if not hours, he'll look at his stats and wish he weren't locked away behind Pinch's wall." He also points out that TimesSelect has only added about 20K subscribers atop the 150K it picked up soon after launch. As Kaus puts it, TimesSelect has hit a wall of its own. Andrew Sullivan calls it the Times' "latest exercize in cluelessness": "Chris Suellentrop is a swell guy. But having a sealed-off blog is an oxymoron." MemeFirst points out that it has a free RSS feed, but each entry is "truncated to the point of uselessness." Gawker: "It's almost like, you know, a real blog!"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Frankie And Johnny

The New Republic's Franklin Foer and New York Post's John Podhoretz have a feud going between them, taking place on the blogs they contribute to, TNR's The Plank and National Review's The Corner, respectively. The tiff started with Foer riffing on Podhoretz's nickname and his old Washington Times column, to Podhoretz raising a '95 incident where the 2 met, Podhoretz challenged Foer for previously comparing him to Stalin, upon which Foer turned green, and during which Podhoretz's spittle may have landed on Foer's glasses. In chronological order, see Foer here, Podhoretz here, Foer again here, Podhoretz again here and Foer's latest here. On an unrelated note, American Prospect's Ezra Klein, guest blogging at Wonkette, is apparently trying to start something with TNR.

LEST WE FORGET: Political Hacks Just Wanna Have Fun

According to the New York Times, neuroscientists have "tracked what happens in the politically partisan brain when it tries to digest damning facts about favored candidates or criticisms of them. The process is almost entirely emotional and unconscious, the researchers report, and there are flares of activity in the brain's pleasure centers when unwelcome information is being rejected. Economist Tyler Cowen points readers to an academic paper (PDF) he wrote on this subject, but most everyone else just has fun with it:

JustOneMinute: "I can't tell you how many flares of pleasure I enjoyed during the last campaign; was it good for you, too?" Right Side Redux: "Am I reading this right? I'm going to ignore this." Staunch Moderate: "We enjoy hearing bad news about our political enemies and react very skeptically to any news that goes against our preferred candidates or political views. Hell, I got a big smile on my face when I read the article on this experiment. So that just makes me a partisan nonpartisan." EconLog: "I can't wait until we have continuous, public MRI scanning. That way, when I criticize someone's beliefs, I can say, "See, I got you! Your pleasure centers are being activated. I must have scored a point!" On the other hand, why criticize someone you disagree with, if all it's going to do in the end is give them a high?"

Posted by at January 25, 2006 12:52 PM