1/5: When It Rains, It Amanpours
A friendly reminder to our readers: We've got permalinks now, and there's nothing you can do about it.
As one life-and-death crisis recedes from the headlines -- the WV mine collapse -- another has surged forward -- the dire medical condition of Israeli PM Ariel Sharon. That's the talk of the conservative half of the blogosphere, where many have embraced his move to the center and fear what will happen now that it seems Sharon's time on the world stage has come to an abrupt end.
That's the biggest story vis-a-vis the sheer volume of posts on the subject, but it's all reactive. On the left-hand side, a quieter but curiouser bombshell has dropped, where NBC News has been caught in an error of proportions yet to be determined. Does NBC have evidence that the NSA wiretapped or otherwise spied on CNN's Christiane Amanpour? If so, how did NBC end up accidentally tipping their hand? Or is this all a big misunderstanding? NBC was forced to respond within hours, and it does seem that something more will come of this -- but no one knows how or when that will come about.
Meanwhile, what's up with Midwestern states and political blog controversies these days? On 1/3 we mentioned the latest round of conflict involving Dem bloggers supporting Iraq war vet Paul Hackett over Rep. Sherrod Brown in the OH SEN primary. Today we bring you 2 more intriguing stories -- allegations of astroturfing involving the SD College Dems and a well-known Dem consultant, and a libel suit against a no-longer-anonymous blogger/ex-MN GOP official.
Plus: Al Gore's comeback trail takes an interesting detour, a Jack Abramoff dupe explains himself, and we recap (a day late) David Letterman's biggest splash in some time. For puzzle fans who may be reading, today marks our 2nd William T. Vollmann reference in as many days, and our 3rd reference to "Dr. Strangelove" over the same period. Guess all 5 and... bask in the satisfaction of having too much time on your hands.
SHARON: Destabilizing The Region?
As the right tends to be more foreign policy-oriented, and certainly a bigger fan of Sharon than is the left, conservative bloggers swarmed while liberal ones mostly stayed quiet: The Political Pit Bull live-blogged the developing story, and Roger L. Simon updated as he found out more, commenting: "The gravity of this situation cannot be overestimated. Sharon had matured into a remarkable leader in the most perilous times." 
Vodkapundit: "As I write this, I half expect Sharon to pop half out of bed and shout, "I'm not dead yet!" But no matter when Sharon gives his last, his political career is already dead." Meryl Yourish says the Israelis need a new leader, but she's concerned that the right person may not exist: "Netanyahu is unelectable. Likud is mostly in the Kadima camp. The Labor party is a laughingstock and has no base."
Web-present security firm Stratfor [sub. req.] -- a go-to site for the blogosphere during the Iraq invasion -- writes in an intel analysis: "Sharon was hated by the Palestinians yet, paradoxically, he had far more credibility with them than does Peres. Sharon could deliver. Peres couldn't. This hurts Mahmoud Abbas badly. He heads the negotiation team on the Palestinian side, and he has lost his only credible negotiating partner." Polipundit's Jayson Javitz: "Memo to the IDF: Be alert. And if necessary show no mercy!"
Captain's Quarters pronounces the current political situation a partial success: "It now looks like Ariel Sharon may have struck the most devastating blow against Palestinian statehood by allowing them to have Gaza all to themselves. Sharon, who may be dying at this very moment, gave the world a fishbowl for the Palestinians to demonstrate the endgame of their nihilism. They have now made a ruin of Gaza, attacked Egypt, kidnapped the parents of one of their own folk heroes, and turned the territory into a gangland instead of a state." More: "If Sharon passes away tonight, he can go with a satisfaction of forcing the Palestinians themselves to prove themselves unworthy of the world's concern."
EAVESDROPPING I: You Bright And Risen Angles
In mid-afternoon on 1/4, DC-based liberal activist John Aravosis pointed out that MSNBC.com had removed a couple lines from its online transcript of a segment of NBC's Andrea Mitchell's interview of NYT's James Risen. In the redacted segment, Mitchell suggested the possibility the NSA had spied on CNN's Amanpour. From the original:
MITCHELL: "Do you have any information about reporters being swept up in this net?"
RISEN: "No, I don't. It's not clear to me. That's one of the questions we'll have to look into the future. Were there abuses of this program or not? I don't know the answer to that."
MITCHELL: "You don't have any information, for instance, that a very prominent journalist, Christiane Amanpour, might have been eavesdropped upon?"
RISEN: "No, no I hadn't heard that."
Compare the above to the version available online, which snips the 2nd exchange. More Aravosis: "Since when is NBC in the business of deleting entire paragraphs from their official transcripts? What's going on here?"
Later that p.m., NBC released a statement to Brian Stelter of TV Newser: "Unfortunately this transcript was released prematurely. It was a topic on which we had not completed our reporting, and it was not broadcast on 'NBC Nightly News' nor on any other NBC News program. We removed that section of the transcript so that we may further continue our inquiry." An excited Aravosis followed up, calling the statement "incredibly big news": "NBC has acknowledged that they have information to suggest that Bush may have spied (be spying) on ... Amanpour and that NBC is currently investigating that very possibility. This isn't just conjecture anymore, NBC has confirmed it."
Left-leaning Gary Farber: "It's still just speculation about speculation, no matter how much Aravosis likes to trumpet that sort of thing as "confirmed! proven! fact!" and the like, but it's definitely intriguing." Header over "Simpsons" vocal wizard Harry Shearer's column at Huffington Post: "Hello, Christiane? What's that Clicking?" Atrios: "Either way, it is some story. Andrea Mitchell has reason to think/conjecture/know that Amanpour was spied on by the administration, and for some reason as yet unknown she didn't want that little detail being public yet." Josh Marshall: "Despite the fact that it's framed as a question, Mitchell inevitably becomes in some sense a fact witness for the underlying claim. She legitimizes the question and strongly suggests she has at least some evidence that it is true. Okay, so someone at NBC screwed up. Mistakes happen. But the bell can't be unrung."
A few blog posts, including one by Philadelphia Daily News' Will Bunch, raise the prospect of whether Amanpour husband/ex-State Dept. spokesperson/KE'04 adviser Jamie Rubin might have been the intended target. Bunch also suggests "her recent reporting would have brought her into direct contact with members of al Qaeda," but also darkly hints that the U.S. gov't believes she is somehow working on behalf of al Qaeda.
EAVESDROPPING II: "Our Source Was The New York Times"
Volokh Conspiracy's Orin Kerr tries to explain why the gov't would want the program kept secret, for reasons other than "that terrorists may suddenly realize that they may be monitored; that argument never made much sense" -- now they know specific communication channels to avoid, and "in the long term, some countries may react to the disclosures of the program by redesigning their telecommunications networks so less traffic goes through the United States."
In a post titled "Are You A Good Leak, Or A Bad Leak?" JustOneMinute's righty Tom Maguire fisks the New York Times' editorial arguing why the Plame leak differs from whomever leaked to Risen. Maguire asks, what if the gov't is concealing "important national security secrets in wartime? Who makes the call? And how long can we survive if every disputed wartime decision is debated on the nation's front pages?" Power Line's Scott Johnson comments on a report by Washington Times' Gertz that ex-NSA official/apparent Risen source Russ Tice has asked to testify before Congress about "probable unlawful and unconstitutional acts" during his time in gov't. Johnson quotes Risen's recent statement to NBC's Couric that "career professionals were not really given a chance to forge a consensus" on eavesdropping; he summarizes their train of thought thus: "When the elected and appointed officials assert the prerogatives of their office, 'career professionals' will take the law into their hands and work together with the New York Times to set things right."
Lefty Crooked Timber contributor Ted Barlow responds to Ann Althouse's question: "I wonder if those who screamed loudest about the Plame leak and national security are equally outraged about this new leak?" As a "dedicated Plame screamer" himself, Barlow argues at length that the latter is "classic whistleblower scenario."
WHITE HOUSE '08: Gore More Years!
Last a.m., ex-VP Gore attended ATR pres. Grover Norquist's famed Wed. morning weekly meeting to talk about the environment. As Hotline On Call reported, Gore approached ATR about doing so after talking with Dem donor/financier George Soros, who made a similar visit in '05. Norquist appraised Gore's appearance thusly: "Lots of fun." The Corner's John Miller: "For a moment, let's set aside the content of his speech on global warming. ... Aren't you just a little bit impressed that Gore would try to talk to conservatives at the Wednesday meeting? I am. It shows guts, courage of convictions, and an optimism about how calm discussion among reasonable people can achieve good results." Indeed, several of his fellow Cornerites were, including Steven Hayward and Jonah Goldberg, who noted, it's "worth remembering that Gore was essentially the Joe Lieberman of the Democrats in 1988." It may be the most positive coverage NRO has given Gore, ever.
At The Reality-Based Community, Jonathan Zasloff notes that John Kerry claims "that he is in great shape to run in '08 because he boasts an e-mail list of more than 3 million. Obviously, those 3 million weren't fans of Kerry per se -- they just wanted to get rid of the Dear Leader. Kerry wasn't an awful candidate, but he certainly wasn't a great one. He's had his chance. Fortunately enough, there's an easy way for all of us in the netroots to fix this problem: unsubscribe from Kerry's list. It's easy, it helps to clean out your inbox, and it will send a very powerful message to Massachusetts' junior Senator that he should make other plans for 2008."
ABRAMOFF I: Roll Over Karl Rove, And Tell Scooter Libby The News
There isn't a lot that's "new" about the Jack Abramoff scandal since his 2nd guilty plea in as many days, but now the case has blown wide enough for bloggers to ruminate and speculate at length about it the way they did over Plamegate last summer. A sample:
- Late 1/3, Gay Patriot's conservative Dan Blatt wrote a long and contemplative post drawing upon his college-era memories of Abramoff: "[T]he Jack Abramoff I knew when I was involved" in the College GOPers "in the early 1980s bears little resemblance to the man who stood before a federal judge this morning. ... Jack was a true and gracious leader with a vision that went beyond merely promoting his party. He was eager as well to promote ideas and to help other bright young conservatives advance. Given that promise, I am particularly saddened by his fall."
- Lefty Univ. of MI prof Juan Cole revisits an early '05 report by Newsweek's Isikoff that Abramoff diverted $140K from the CAF charity (see also 1/4 Blogometer) to "militant Israeli colonists who had usurped land in the Palestinian West Bank." Cole compares Abramoff to acquitted Univ. of South FL prof Sami Al-Arian, and heads the post: "Abramoff and al-Arian: Lobbyist's 'Charity' a Front for Terrorism."
- Duncan "Atrios" Black, a longtime critic of David Brooks -- whom he invariably refers to as "BoBo" -- is surprised to agree with Brooks' latest New York Times [sub. req.] column: "BoBo actually lets loose on Republicans, for real. ... Only one side remark about Democrats in the whole piece, and not one I could disagree with."
- Wonkette's Ana Marie Cox turns in a New York Times op-ed on the scandal: "Sad to admit it, but most of what Jack Abramoff did with politicians (as opposed to his outright fraud with Indian tribes) wasn't criminal so much as extreme. The Hollywood arc would have a chain-gang of Congressmen breaking rocks by the final reel, but we are unlikely to get such satisfaction outside of celluloid." Ann Althouse thinks that in at least one instance, Cox's metaphors have gotten ahead of her: "One senses Wonkette has become Dowdette."
- Meanwhile, some on the left -- movie producer Jane Hamsher in particular -- are concerned that one of the prosecutors is "career" GOPer Alice Fisher, who previously lobbied for HCA -- the Frist family health care company, whose stock Senate Maj. Leader Bill Frist is now accused of dumping.
Libertarian ex-think tanker Doug Bandow -- who resigned from the Cato Institute and lost his syndie column after admitting taking Abramoff money -- asks in an ed-op, "Isn't it a little unseemly for Washington to be suddenly shocked, shocked at the fact that those with interests in what government does (such as Abramoff and his clients) seek out like-minded advocates (such as me and hundreds of other commentators and organizations)? ... Who decides whether such a potential conflict is sufficiently direct to matter? In 1987, I was paid to help a presidential candidate develop a plan to privatize Social Security. Does that mean I can never have a legitimate opinion on the issue or that politician ever again? And what is an aspiring ideologue to do if he believes something in principle and the person or group willing to offer support to write about it has an economic interest in the outcome?"
Liberal think tanker Steve Clemons: "I have always felt that non-profit think tanks were important, even vital, parts of Washington's public policy industry and of American civil society. However, many of them ... have become money launderers for lobbyists and corporate consulting organizations." He also cites an unnamed GOPer who e-mails him: "If Abramoff had had the sense to simply contribute his money to a 501(c)3 that then paid Bandow, there would be no problem. Tax exempts aren't required to divulge their contributors. Doug and Jack would both be off the hook. Any number of so-called think tanks would be happy to broker the deal for a small commission." The Next Hurrah's Emptywheel writes that when Bandow "or anyone else ... hides the people who fund an opinion piece, it means the reader cannot evaluate the interests -- and the financial largess -- that make something possible." Julian Sanchez, guest-blogging at Andrew Sullivan's site, thinks Bandow's "farewell column on the muddled intersection of money and punditry has a faintly self-serving, 'all the kids are doing it' odor to it." But he adds: "[I]t nevertheless raises an important point."
IN THE STATES I: Astroturf War
At South Dakota Politics, Jason Heppler posted "smoking gun" evidence that Dem consultant Steve Hildebrand is helping the SD College Dems astroturf letters-to-the-editor over an SD House bill -- several paragraph from the SD CDs' website, since removed. Heppler highlighted a few sections: "We are receiving letters from the SD Democratic Party and from Hildebrand's firm. ... All we need is a person to sign these letters."
Hildebrand, who remains on ex-Sen. Tom Daschle's (D) payroll, was connected to liberal SD blogs who tried to implicate Sen. John Thune (R) in a shady financial deal last summer (see 7/13 Blogometer).
SD College Dems pres. Justin Goetz responded at the College Dems' blog -- "A Smoking Gun?... More Like Smoke and Mirrors" -- and in an e-mail to the Blogometer, emphasized this was the only instance where they had received info from Hildebrand, and said: "Indeed, we asked only for signatures, but that was because our ... board had already crafted the letters, and we assume that if one is willing to affix one's name to the letters, one has enough self-respect to do so with the idea that one understands and believes in what is being written. Yet, in the body of those postings, you will note that I made multiple entreaties even in those instances for our chapter leaders to make their own additions." More: "[W]hen you have been writing letters to the editor for years, you know the rules. We just do not do that sort of plagiarized garbage."
IN THE STATES II: Minnesota Democrats Exposed Exposes Himself
As the AP reports, Dem consultant/Politics in Minnesota co-publisher Blois Olson "disputes a series of postings" at the controversial blog Minnesota Democrats Exposed "about criticisms Olson made" of FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley's (D) campaign. MDE's now-revealed ex-MN GOP official Michael Brodkorb claims he was told "that the Rowley campaign refused to hire" Olson's firm, "prompting Brodkorb to ask why Olson didn't disclose that when he criticized Rowley in several news stories."
On 1/3, MDE hinted at a big announcement, and then on 1/4 admitted, a bit AA-ishly: "I am Michael Brodkorb and I am Minnesota Democrats Exposed." (On 10/25, we noted a post at Lloydletta's Nooz and Comments fingering Brodkorb as the site's author.) He now promises the site will continue, and hours laer followed up with a post expressing vindication re: the lawsuit's substance -- that an employee of Olson's had sought out Rowley's camp.
Conservative Pair O Dice: "This is nothing but a thinly veiled attack on a blogger who has been shredding the DFL. They hate him and will do anything, even admit to blatant stupidity, to stop him." Meanwhile, Lloydletta is "skeptical" of Brodkorb's claim "that he wasn't paid to blog and the party didn't know what he was up to": "This is NOT a case of trying to suppress anonymous blogging. It's a defamation suit -- and the claims will be settled in court." North Star Politics: "People sue too much. In looking for the easy way out, looking for something for nothing, people too often turn to litigation, giving a bad name to an option which is often the only one."
BLOGS VS. THE FEC: We'll Meet Again
Last p.m. Bush made 3 recess appointments to fill vacant seats on the FEC: Robert Lenhard, Steven Walther and Hans Von Spakovsky. In '05, the leadership of RedState and Daily Kos, activist sites of the right and left respectively, have teamed up in the past to argue for bloggers' freedom from new FEC regulations, but here they part ways -- RedState's Mike Krempasky: "Hear that? Heads are exploding at the Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21. My fearless prediction: by tomorrow, those two organizations will be producing enough gas to power three small midwestern towns." Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "So yeah, it looks like King George has dissolved Congress. Who needs the pesky Senate for 'advice and consent' when a recess appointment will work just as well?"
IRAQ: Do All Your Base Are Belong To Us, Or What?
At Huffington Post, ex-Sen. Gary Hart (D) calls on the WH to "End this Evasion on Permanent Army Bases in Iraq": "Any attempt to find out whether the US is, or is not, constructing permanent military bases meets with frustration. The few who have attempted to get a direct answer to this question are met with evasion and purposeful confusion over what is or is not "permanent". But this is the ultimate test of true Bush administration intentions in Iraq."
BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Most Ridiculous Item Of The Week
The 1/3 appearance by FNC's O'Reilly on Letterman's "Late Show" -- where the 2 engaged in verbal fisticuffs -- has by now assumed a place in the blogosphere's cultural memory. The signature line is probably Letterman's put-down: "I'm not smart enough to debate you point to point on this, but I have the feeling that about 60 percent of what you say is crap." No question the left ate it up, while the reaction from the right was a bit more mixed. O'Reilly is less a favorite of conservatives than, say, MSNBC's Olbermann is to the left -- the time-slot competitors' respective nat'l ratings notwithstanding -- but they could not brook Letterman's defense of Cindy Sheehan. As usual, Crooks and Liars was the place to go for the video, although the segment's popularity took it offline for a time last p.m.
Shakespeare's Sister was impressed: "My fervent hope is that it also presages the beginning of a shift in how we regard people like O'Reilly. They are dangerous; their kind of deliberate misinformation is a virus that attacks the heart of a democracy. Letterman seemed completely and uncharacteristically fed up -- and I hope he's the first of many." Greg at The Talent Show called it "O'Reilly's 'Have you no shame, sir?' moment." Liberal Incomprehensible Demoralization commented in Top 10-list format. Conservative Ace of Spades HQ posted the "Top Ten Signs That David Letterman's Just Killing Time Before Retirement."
MRC's Brent Baker complained at the NewsBusters blog: "Letterman regularly has on guests from the mainstream media, but I've never heard him raise liberal bias with them, yet with O'Reilly he took the time to ridicule" FNC's "fair and balanced" motto. NRO's Media Blog's Stephen Spruiell says he's not much an O'Reilly fan, but calls it for him regardless: "Bill clearly, clearly got the better of Dave." TPM Cafe's Marc Chavannes was perhaps the one left-leaning commenter arriving at the same conclusion: "Surprising how David Letterman let himself be beaten by the street fighter in the guest seat. Why stray from humor if you don't prepare yourself for debate?"
Dem Bloggers was one of a few sites to dig up a 2/27/01 O'Reilly column for World Net Daily, where O'Reilly calls Letterman "a smart guy who can spot a phony with telescopic accuracy and expects his guests to bring something to the table."
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Beginning Of The Bureau Blogs?
Chicago Tribune's DC bureau has launched a new blog, The Swamp, a name which they note is "at the very least a triple entendre." We could be wrong, but we're fairly sure this is the 1st bureau-specific blog by a major U.S. news org. Is it the first of many? Well, "many" is a relative figure. Newspaper consolidation and staff cuts have reduced the number of bureaus and corresps. staffing them, but the prospect of newspapers providing blogspace for separate bureaus introduces a new dynamic to these institutional blogs. First and foremost is the likelihood of more in-depth coverage and commentary from them. For traditional MSM/SCLM-baiting bloggers, however, it also opens up the possibility of yet more intrigue.
LEST WE FORGET: Dude, That's So Meta
LiveJournal user Lushlush photographs, and tries to account for, the most perplexing public safety sign ever: "The sign is comical in itself: stick figure rides up the escalator and bumps his head on a hanging sign, the impact causing VIOLENT RED RAYS OF PAIN. Beware! All is well and good until, armed with a newfound caution, you look around for the offending object and realize that IT'S A SIGN ABOUT THE SIGN ITSELF." Worth seeing. In the comments, a Photoshop-savvy reader does a number on the sign, rendering it thereby even more self-referential.
