1/30: The Thin Blue Line

Starting last week, the SCOTUS nomination battle pledged by Dems and traditional interest groups -- but which never materialized -- has been fought hard by the left blogosphere. Bloggers are begging readers to call, fax and e-mail their sens (even moderate GOPers are getting the calls). And not without some success -- over the weekend, more and more Dem sens have said they'll vote for the filibuster (even as some criticize the tactic). But at this point, 6 Dems have stated that they won't participate in a filibuster; they would have to flip one of those votes to stall (let alone stop) the nomination. Otherwise, the vote for cloture is set for 4:30 p.m. and the final vote to make Samuel Alito a justice is expected tomorrow at 11:00 a.m.

Plus, rumors fly about a possible deal between Sen. Ken Salazar (D-CO) and James Dobson; Dem lobbyist/ex-Gephardt aide Steve Elmendorf is now persona non grata in the left-blogosphere; bloggers are nice to an MSM personality for once, ABC News' injured Bob Woodruff finds a terrible way to get a blogger to say something nice about you; conservative bloggers make their none-too-surprising House leadership endorsements official; Cindy Sheehan gets the kind of attention she could expect from her Venezuela trip; a blogger trip to Amsterdam turns controversial; and someone else gets caught with their hand in the Wikipedia cookie jar.

Liberal bloggers are now all but scrambling to drum up support for a filibuster. Lefty Steve Gilliard posts complete office numbers for sens. representing swing seats. One blogger has set up a site titled Vichy Dems (the term is occasionally used by lefty bloggers against Dems who "collaborate" with GOPers). Loaded Mouth: "It's not over yet! Call everyone you know! Convince them to hammer their Reps... heck, tell them to hammer all the Rep's!! And tell them to tell everyone!" From the same post: "Jeez people!!! What MORE do you need?? DO you seriously want a Judge that Bush has wanted since day one? Come on! His motives are so transparent... Bush does NOT believe for one second that he has to ask Congress for ANYTHING!"

At Eschaton, Duncan Black envisioned 2 scenarios, one where the Dems "are a bunch of losers, as are all of their supporters. Bush and his giant codpiece looked magnificent at the state of the union, and Mrs. Alito was very happy and smiling sitting next to Mrs. Bush safe and content now that the magnificent and mighty President Bush made that bad Ted Kennedy go away." Another is where the Dems "shocked Washington ... by holding together, dropping a mighty turd in the punchbowl of the Bush administration, dealing a deadly blow to his nomination of Alito." He adds: "Those are the choices."

On 1/28, Sen. Kennedy held a conf. call with left-of-center bloggers, which Daily Kos' McJoan recounts for those not invited: "He is encouraging you to contact your Democratic Senators, regardless of what they might have said so far, but specifically mentioned Senators Pryor, Lincoln, Cantwell, Murray, Baucus, Harkin, Levin, Bayh, Lautenberg, Menendez, and Lieberman. In addition, he said to keep the pressure on Republican Senators Snowe, Collins, Chafee and Stevens."

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) now has a post up at The Huffington Post: "It's a zero sum game. Once Judge Alito becomes Justice Alito, there's no turning back the Senate confirmation vote. We don't get to 'take a mulligan' when choosing a Supreme Court Justice."

On 1/26, a diarist at Daily Kos suggested that Sen. Ken Salazar (D-CO) was not supporting Salazar because of an agreement with James Dobson: "I just got off the phone again with a staffer in Ken Salazar's office. You're not going to believe this. That f---er has cut a deal with James Dobson to not filibuster." The staffer allegedly told the writer: "The truth is that Senator Salazar has come to a compromise with Dr. James Dobson about an ongoing feud between them. Dr. Dobson has agreed to stop mentioning Senator Salazar in a negative context if he refuses to filibuster Samuel Alito. ... I'm sorry, but that's the truth, and that's why this is my last day working for Senator Salazar." On 1/28, conservative Baseball Crank called the "fun, unverifiable, malicious rumor of the day." And now as of this weekend, bloggers at Crooks and Liars, Firedoglake and Eschaton are all echoing the rumor.

But at least 2 lefty bloggers have concluded that the filibuster attempt is a mistake, and they write lengthy explanations. One is John Aravosis, who explains: "If you launch a filibuster and don't complement it with a smart well-funded campaign to get the public on your side, the public will think even less of the Democrats than they do now, and that will hurt us in the polls now and in November when we want to take back the Congress."

Another is Matt Stoller, who urges Dems to hold up the vote until after the SOTU, but also to be realistic: "A filibuster is an extreme action that requires robust public support. We do not have this support. It's that simple. ... By all means, call your Senators. Don't stop. Don't let up. But don't forgive the party leadership and our groups for this travesty. People for the American Way has been preparing for this fight for years. And then they didn't show up. The same is true with NARAL, and the Alliance for Justice. I honestly don't know why they are funded anymore -- that's how bad this failure has been." More: "They are telling us, broadcasting to us, that they think we're stupid. They think that having no campaign on Alito can easily be fixed by posting a diary on Daily Kos urging us to 'fight' a month after the fight has already been lost. It's craven, it's crass, it's ridiculous."

Conservative Ed Morrissey criticizes Dem Sens. Barack Obama and Joe Biden, both of whom will vote against cloture even though they are outspokenly critical of the filibuster tactic: "That's why Delaware sends you to the Senate, Mr. Biden -- to participate in stupid, empty gestures. It seems that a number of Democrats feel the same way, but they fail to account for their constituents who believe that engaging in McCarthyite smear tactics does not actually fall within the boundaries of Senatorial privilege." Liberal expat Avedon Carol: "I won't be the first to observe that when Biden and Obama babble in public about how (even though they will vote against cloture), the way to win these issues isn't with procedural stuff, but by talking about the issues involved and stating our values, they are actually doing the opposite of what they say should be done. And the good news for them about a filibuster is what it is: a refusal to foreclose on debate."

On 1/28, Washington Post's VandeHei wrote about liberal bloggers' pressure on Dems -- particularly in light of the Alito fight -- titled "Blogs Attack From Left as Democrats Reach for Center." Pretty much none of the lefty bloggers we read were happy about it, and for different reasons.

One controversial bit is a quote by Dem lobbyist/ex-Kerry adviser Steve Elmendorf, who said: "The bloggers and online donors represent an important resource for the party, but they are not representative of the majority you need to win elections. The trick will be to harness their energy and their money without looking like you are a captive of the activist left." A diarist at Daily Kos jumped on it quickly: "Not one dime, ladies and gentlemen, to anything connected with Steve Elmendorf. Anyone stupid enough to actually give a quote like that deserves to have every single one of his funding sources dry up." A couple hours later, Markos Moulitsas issued a similar call to arms: "Here's notice, any Democrat associated with Elmendorf will be outed. The netroots can then decide for itself whether it wants to provide some of that energy and money to that candidate. There's nothing 'extreme left' with demanding Democrats act like Democrats, no matter how much these out-of-touch and self-important beltway insiders think it is." Conservative Paul Mirengoff: "As a political operative, Kos makes a good ACT-UP activist."

Another blog-based criticism of Dems from the left is the choice of VA Gov. Tim Kaine (D) to deliver the SOTU response. Scott Shields disputes that this is a widespread criticism. But he had been criticized, notably by Jeralyn Merritt at TalkLeft on 1/19 for "touting his religious faith" during his campaign. In the comments below, liberals of faith themselves or otherwise sympathetic to Kaine's electoral strategy criticized the post. Some time after, she added another paragraph clarifying this (albeit without a note to let readers know it had been changed): "The way to beat the Republicans is not to emulate their message of religious faith, but to develop our own message. Kaine dismisses claims by pundits, the media and Republicans that Democrats are a secular party." Also notably by Ezra Klein, who wrote on 1/21: "Kaine is, at best, a functional speaker, not an orator for the history books. And nor is he a good looking dude who could put an attractive, fresh face on the party. He's a squat, squinty, pug-nosed fellow who just won an election that largely revolved around retail politics and the endorsement of his predecessor."

At HuffPo on 1/29, Nation editor Katrina Vanden Heuvel went after liberal bloggers for going after Kaine, and Klein in particular for making fun of Kaine's looks. 1st reason: "It doesn't really matter who gives the [SOTU] reply, since no one listens and it's an impossible task." More: "For liberal bloggers who want to get exercised about something really important: Where are the Democrats or liberals talking about Ford laying off some 30,000 workers" and similar workplace issues? More again: "If you want to know why Dems don't win elections, it won't be because Kaine is talking this Tuesday night. It's because the mainstream leadership of the Democratic party doesn't think, feel, viscerally respond to the increasing insecurities of working Americans." Crooks and Liars' Jon Amato, normally a Vanden Heuvel fan, wrote a short reply and also posted it to HuffPo: Why did you have to use an attack piece on bloggers written by Jim VendeHei [sic] of the Washington Post as the touchstone to your own article? His main purpose was to try and marginalize the left side of the blogosphere because we dared to question Deborah Howell's horrific reporting on the Abramoff scandal ... Your whole post is a straw man argument because the main premise is wrong. It only pushes the meme that liberal bloggers are irrational and unwieldy when that is simply not the case." Klein also hit back, defending his earlier post and pointing out that he among plenty of others did blog about the Ford layoffs.

At TPMCafe, Reed Hundt criticizes Dems who argue they should focus on winning elections above defining a clear set of ideas first, a popular notion on blogs such as Daily Kos: "I can't think of a single reform movement in history that started with the mantra of "just win, baby," to use Al Davis' phrasing. Every reformer in the history of ideas and politics has sought to define a point of view in debate first, and compromised in order to win elections second. ... By advocating compromise first, the Democratic Party has lost the confidence of its base and the sympathy of the people. That's why arguing for just winning elections is not pragmatic, even though the advocates think they are being intensely pragmatic. Moreover, the 'elections first' crowd always ends up debating tactics, not strategy; concessions, not convictions; practicality, not principle."

RedState's Nick Danger promotes the idea that Senate Min. Leader Harry Reid will soon step down from his leadership spot over his $60K Abramoff-related tribal donation and subsequent letter he wrote on their behalf. He points to DNC chair Howard Dean's appearance on the 1/29 "FNS": "Moderator Chris Wallace asked Dean, 'if we find that there were some Democrats who wrote letters on behalf of some of the Indian tribes that Abramoff represented, then what do you say, sir?' Without mentioning Reid by name, Dean replied, 'That's a big problem. And those Democrats are in trouble. And they should be in trouble.'"

Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit thinks the idea of blogger endorsements is a bit "pretentious," but does express his support for Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ): "Shadegg is the only one who seems like a plausible agent for reform, and it's going to be hard to persuade people who would like to see the GOP get back to its small-government, clean-Congress 1994 roots that there's any chance of that if they choose a business-as-usual Majority Leader."

N.Z. Bear, Reynolds' PorkBusters co-organizer and "I don't warm to politicians all that easily. But Shadegg ... impressed me with his anti-pork credentials. And his answers to our questions on policy and reform were good ones, showing not just a grudging acceptance of the need for a reform, but a real passion for it. And lastly, if intangibly: listening to the way he handled himself on the blogger call, I just plain liked the guy. He spoke candidly and openly; seemed honestly interested in answering questions, and sincerely committed to the ideas he was championing." He posts the phone numbers of RSC members who have committed to vote for Blunt, and urges readers in their districts to call and urge them to support Shadegg instead.

Addressing the subject of cong. earmarks, RedState's Blanton argues that acting Maj. Whip. Roy Blunt is the only unacceptable candidate: "John Boehner has never had an earmark. Both Boehner and Shadegg oppose earmarks. Blunt refuses to support any significant earmarks reform -- he's happy with the status quo. The status quo needs reforming and Blunt is not the guy to do it. It's time for House Republicans to get serious and vote for someone other than Roy Blunt for Majority Leader."

Cori Dauber, on the Iraqi terrorist attack on ABC's Bob Woodruff: "The news about the condition of the ABC team seems to be about as good as it could be right now. Meanwhile, consider this: night after night, when American troops are injured by roadside bombs, it warrants at best a sentence or two of wire service copy from network anchors. She adds, "while I cannot imagine this was an intentional attack on journalists ... by hitting reporters, the bad guys once again scored the 'value added' that comes from attacks on the press." Conglomerate Blog says "something that probably doesn't get said often enough: I am grateful for people who are willing to put themselves in harm's way to bring us information from Iraq."

Joe Gandelman relays some of his own close calls while reporting from Spain in the late '70s, noting the dangers: "[If someone] wanted to kidnap or whack me it would have been simple: I traveled alone, I stood out (most thought due to my short size I was French or Italian, not American), it was just me and my old portable typewriter." He adds: "I don't have much in common with Woodruff's level of journalism. Probably the only thing I have in common is that he's Colgate '82 and I'm Colgate '72. But the numerous biographies of him on the wires ... stress his focus on his love for his craft and ABC's determination to allow him to be more than a talking head."

Header at liberal Think Progress: "Woodruff's Courage Reveals Major Deficiency In Development of Iraqi Security Forces."

Reuters reports, "U.S. forces in Iraq, in two instances described in military documents, took custody of the wives of men believed to be insurgents in an apparent attempt to pressure the suspects into giving themselves up."

Andrew Sullivan condemns it in strong terms: "You may have heard of the tactic. As a way to leverage information or capture an enemy, terrorists sometimes kidnap innocent women and children in order to put pressure on their husbands or relatives. It's called kidnapping and blackmail. Except that in Rumsfeld's military, the United States now uses the tactic. Sure, it's against the Geneva Conventions. Sure, those Conventions are supposed to apply in Iraq. But this is the Bush administration. King George doesn't have to obey the law." Sullivan gets some positive notice from Atrios, who does point out several of his disagreements with Sullivan before throwing him the link. But Arthur Silber is not impressed, writing that Sullivan should have known his support for the Iraq war would lead to this: "If he were honest and capable of understanding the principles involved, he would realize that he too must accept all the consequences." Crooks and Liars concurs with Silber.

Comments From Left Field points out that this information has been known already: "I am disgusted that it has taken the press two years to start reporting on this story despite the fact that the evidence was already there and that some of their reporters had the courage to take the first steps, but the second, third and fourth steps never happened."

On the other hand, The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler is more outraged at the outrage: "She was married to a child murderer and, as such, might know something that could help us get the subhuman slime before he murdered again, period. Boo-hoo-f---ing-hoo."

The Carpetbagger Report points out that Bush's new stance on Iran, i.e. allowing them to use nuclear fuel on a tight leash, was actually Kerry's position in '04. More: "Just out of curiosity, any chance we'll see National Review blasting Bush's new approach to Iran as 'ignorant' and 'dangerously wrong'? Or maybe Condi Rice will explain why the idea rewarded Iran for bad behavior when Kerry recommended it, but it's brilliant leadership when Bush recommends it?" As TCR points out, Bush "was against the idea before he was for it."

Liberal Running Scared: "It's not often that I get to say that the Bush Administration may be doing something correct ... This will cause Mr. Bush's opponents to accuse him of a 'flip flop' and, indeed, they did so immediately. For once, however, I don't think this is a good time to criticize the president."

In the afternoon of 1/27, Cindy Sheehan's handlers sent out a statement headlined: "Cindy Sheehan to Dianne Feinstein: Fillibuster [sic] Alito or I'll Challenge Your Senate Seat." GOPbloggers was quite enthusiastic: "Ok, GOPers, time to break out the checkbooks and get ready to make MASSIVE donations." Feinstein's subsequent announcement that she would go along with the filibuster has probably obviated the threat, but Sheehan's public appearances in Venezuela with Hugo Chavez in Venezuela bring plenty of comment. Professor Bainbridge: "Cindy Sheehan started out with a lot of credibility as an anti-war activist, but she seems determined to throw away what little credibility she now has left. For one thing, she's gone from anti-war to anti-Americanism, hanging out with people like Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. It's one thing to hate the war; it's quite another to implicitly endorse those who hate your country." At Wizbang guest-blogger Rob Port writes, "what do you think would happen if Sheehan were a citizen of Venezuela who traveled to Washington DC to speak out against Hugo Chavez while standing next to President Bush? I'm fairly certain that, upon arriving back home in Venezuela, she'd receive a visit from the police. If they'd even let her back in the country." Liberal radio talker Taylor Marsh: "Frankly, I think Sheehan has lost it."

Left-libertarian State 29 points out that IA GOV candidate Chet Culver (D) received $40K in campaign donations from a friend, businessman Scott Ginsburg, who has been "banned for life" by the SEC and fined $1M for securities violations. State 29 notes the complete absence of coverage: "Where's the Iowa media on this? These political disclosure forms have been out in the public domain for 10 days and we haven't seen a peep in any of the papers about this sort of thing. Shouldn't this be front page news? Not in corrupt Iowa!"

Challenged by State 29 to respond, pro-Culver Political Forecast points out that it was mentioned in the 1/28 Des Moines Register, and then addresses the substance of the charge: "I admit that this is a huge oversight. But it happens. People -- whether they have a criminal record or not -- have a right to give to political campaigns, don't they? What is the big deal about this besides trying to bring negative publicity to the Culver Camp and make them seem like they're doing something wrong, when in fact, they aren't."

Lowell Sun reported on 1/27, "The staff of U.S. Rep Marty Meehan wiped out references to his broken term-limits pledge as well as information about his huge campaign war chest in an independent biography of the Lowell Democrat on a Web site that bills itself as the 'world's largest encyclopedia,' The Sun has learned." Meehan CoS Matt Vogel said he "authorized an intern in July to replace existing Wikipedia content with a staff-written biography of the lawmaker." Wikipedia was also the subject of some controversy in late '05 when it came to light that the page for veteran journalist John Seigenthaler contained potentially libelous misinformation (see 12/1 and 12/5 Blogometers).

On 1/28, Meehan sent a letter to the Sun, which concludes: "The Internet is a place for the free and open exchange of ideas and opinions. It was a waste of energy and an error in judgment on the part of my staff to have allowed any time to be spent on updating my Wikipedia entry. I thank The Sun for bringing it to my attention."

Tom Elia at The New Editor returns to the issue of the term limit pledge: "Meehan has downplayed the issue in recent years, saying that the pledge was a lesser issue in the 1992 campaign, was a 'youthful indiscretion,' and that he had 'moved on.' Sorry Marty: I was there. It was a central issue to the campaign, and my memory can't be erased like a Wikipedia entry."

Here is Meehan's Wikipedia entry; here is the associated discussion page, where this issue and others are raised; here is the history page, where you can read previous versions of Meehan's entry.

For an example of a GOPer (we presume) getting the House IP address blocked on account of vandalism, see the Wikipedia page for User:143.231.249.141, which includes a list of the changes made, mostly removing embarrassing info about GOPers and adding libelous or derogatory info about Dems.

On 1/26, National Journal's Glover wrote at his Beltway Blogroll about a blogger junket to Amsterdam, sponsored by Holland.com and Blogads. A full list of the 25 participating bloggers and details on the trip are available at the just-launched site, Bloggers in Amsterdam. He concluded: "Bloggers rightly maligned columnists Armstrong Williams and Doug Bandow for taking money from the Bush administration and Abramoff. Now some of the them are guilty of similar arrangements with the government of Netherlands, and they deserve the same scorn. No one who makes the trip is compelled to write one word, good or bad, about Amsterdam, and maybe some bloggers will return home and say nasty things about the place. But somehow I doubt they will."

Bloggers going on the trip are quite enthusiastic and also sure they are not compromising themselves. Other blogosphere reaction is more split:

John Aravosis, in his post announcing that he'll be going: "Anyone seriously worried about me being bought off by the crafty Dutch, talk to the folks at Syriana the movie. They ran an ad on my site, gave me a free ticket to the movie, I went, kind of hated the movie, so I came back and wrote that I didn't like it. They then didn't renew the ad for a second week. Oh well." Ezra Klein is another who's going: "I must say, blogging is pretty damn awesome." So is Pandagon's Amanda Marcotte: "The moral of the story, boys and girls, is that one should have a passport on hand just in case you ever need to leave the country at a moment's notice." Media Girl disagrees: "I suspect the true moral of the story will wind up being more in the realm of whether one wants to even appear to be open to pay-for-play." The Argument Clinic: "Where's My Invitation? I want to go on a luxury trip to Europe too! Darn it, people, I can't sell out if you don't make an offer."

Gawker's Gridskipper calls it much ado about nothing: "Oh yeah, get ready for a frenzied whipping of a nonstory into a frothy mass of righteous outrage!" More: "Leaving off that many of the anti-junket bloggers simply object in principle to advertising on blogs, and/or that they equate blogs and citizen journalism as the second coming of Christ, their collective naivete about travel journalism is laughable." Rick Heller at Centerfield: "Holland is not a particularly controversial topic, so no great harm is done. But imagine if a party to credit card-related legislation brought bloggers to Barbados to explain their side of the story. Would you give much weight to the views of those bloggers on the legislation after that?"

National Journal has received some strong negative feedback from some bloggers associated with the trip. We asked Glover to respond to some differing views on the ethical considerations. One competing claim is that transparency is all that should or can be required, and readers can make up their own mind. Another was the question about whether all bloggers should necessarily be held to the same standards as journalists. Here's what he sent back:

My primary concern is that some bloggers who cover the government regularly now have entered a contractual relationship with a government, and some of them no doubt will indirectly promote the work of that government via interviews granted after the trip. That's a seriously "slippery slope" whose end no one can know. What's to say they will stop at tourism issues -- or with the Dutch government? Or that they will disclose all such deals? Or that disclosure alone will keep them honest in their work and relationships?

Money and favors can corrupt bloggers just as easily as they have politicians, journalists and any other number of professionals, and bloggers don't even want to talk about ethics. Instead, they repeatedly ridicule the idea that they should even give such issues a second thought.

Disclosure certainly is a good thing, and it's an improvement over what happens in journalism. But bloggers get to decide for themselves when to disclose and how much to disclose. In this case, for instance, there is no disclosure of the value of the trip, of the trip-to-ad cost ratio for each blog, of how and where the bloggers' interviews will be used to promote Amsterdam, of whether those promotional materials will disclose the nature of the junket, etc. And what if bloggers decide the next trip isn't something they should disclose at all?

I don't think all bloggers are journalists, in every situation. In fact, I argued at Heritage last year that bloggers are not journalists at all. But if they are going to insist on that one hand that the U.S. government recognize them as journalists and on the other hand criticize the ethics (or lack thereof) of those journalists, then they should be held to similar standards, albeit ones designed for a very different media.

With my post about the Amsterdam trip and my column two weeks ago on "The Courting of the Blogosphere," I'm not trying to draw specific ethical lines for bloggers; I am just trying to get them to think seriously about the matter. My admittedly critical and harsh rhetoric in both cases is designed as a wake-up call from someone who loves blogs, wants to see them succeed and does not want to see them undermined -- by government, marketers or anyone else with an agenda.

Crooked Timber's Henry Farrell comments on the 1/26 Kennedy School blogger/media discussion at the Nat'l Press Club (see 1/27 Blogometer), and how the differing natures of journalism and blogging conflict with each other: "Journalism and blogging have different internal systems of authority. Newspaper articles aspire to presenting a comprehensive, neutral and authoritative judgement regarding the facts at hand in a particular matter. ... Blogposts are quite different -- they're arguments in an ongoing debate. They don't aspire to any sort of finality or authoritativeness (and indeed they're often updated in response to new arguments or facts)."

He continues: "The point is that they have very different -- and clashing -- notions of where authority and responsibility come from. Each newspaper article has the form of a discrete statement, which is supposed to be as authoritative as possible on its own ground. Each blogpost has the form of an intervention in an ongoing conversation -- the blogger's authority rests in part on her willingness to respond to others and engage in argument with them. ... These forms of authority are difficult to reconcile with each other, because the latter in large part undermines the former. If journalists start systematically responding to their critics ... then they're effectively admitting that the articles they have written aren't all that authoritative in the first place. ... Thus, in part, the tendency for journalists like Jack Shafer to dismiss criticism from bloggers and their commenters as 'organized riots' and lynch mobs. It's a fundamental threat to their notions of where journalistic authority comes from."

Economist Arnold Kling asks, is blogging a mere fad, or a useful technological development? We'll let you click through to see his answer and how he gets there, but his approach is worth noting, too. He begins with a model involving fellow econ bloggers Brad DeLong and Virginia Postrel: "In the model, our information needs are all different. Certain information is more valuable to me than it is to others. We can represent this concept by thinking of everyone as being located at different points on a circle. The points closest to you in the circle are people with similar interests. ... I live in the economics neighborhood of the circle. My neighbor to the left is Brad, and my neighbor to the right is Virginia. All communication is via blog. ... Everyone tends to receive information with a high value to them, and they avoid having to read information that has low value to them. If the filtering system works well, I get to read lots of economic insights, and I never have to read anything about, say, Olympic figure skating."