January 06, 2006

1/6: Casual Friday

In today's edition: CNN shrugs off the Christiane Amanpour story; Pat Robertson pulls another Pat Robertson; Los Angeles Times responds to accusations of liberal bias in blog form; Wal-Mart weathers a different controversy; and Wonkette acknowledges what we already know.

AMANPOUR: Nothing To See Here, Folks ...

While NBC has said nothing more on the apparently unintentional disclosure that Andrea Mitchell had asked New York Times' James Risen whether he thought the NSA was spying on CNN's Christiane Amanpour, CNN themselves covered it last p.m. The report more or less brushed it off, with CNN's Ensor saying, "frankly, I get the impression the NSA is as puzzled by Andrea Mitchell's question, and NBC's decision to put it out on the web, as we were."

AMERICAblog, which broke the story late 1/4, finds the report unsatisfying: "And finally, while I'm glad CNN dug into this, asking a 'senior intelligence official' to look into this -- then having him get back to you and say 'nope, nothing there, we didn't break the law' isn't really very conclusive evidence, don't you think?"

CNN reports (13 item) in an online news brief: "A senior U.S. intelligence official told CNN Thursday that the National Security Agency did not target ... Christiane Amanpour or any other CNN journalist for surveillance." Tom Maguire suggests, "even though Ms. Amanpour was not 'targeted,' as per the NSA denial, she may well have been caught up in the surveillance *IF* she received a call *from* a phone that was being monitored for al Qaeda connections. And IIRC, that might include public phone booths in Kabul -- that is where calls to two of the 9/11 terrorists originated, if memory serves."

Fishbowl NY considers the story, and concludes: "It's incredibly strange, and incredibly suspect. But without further proof from NBC or anyone else, it remains nothing more than speculation, and a raised eyebrow." Michelle Malkin: "It wouldn't surprise me if Mitchell soon receives a call from DOJ prosecutors. Mitchell hasn't published a news story about the Amanpour matter, but that doesn't mean she won't be asked to reveal her sources."

At TAPPED, Matt Yglesias doesn't buy the denial: "The reason we all know that is that there was recently a big story about how the NSA was doing a whole bunch of illegal surveillance and the Bush administration thought that was great. The issue is whether the NSA was monitoring journalists, not whether the NSA was legally monitoring journalists."

SHARON: Much Needed Comic Relief?

Once again, a sizable %age of the blogosphere is talking about the expected death of Israeli PM Ariel Sharon. There's a new twist, as Pat Robertson has made another of his somewhat routine latest controversial pronouncements. This time: "[Sharon] was dividing God's land, and I would say woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the EU, the United Nations or the United States of America."

Liberal bloggers are actually much quieter, perhaps because he's not their problem. And while Robertson usually has few defenders, conservative bloggers don't even bother to treat him with much decorum:

Header at TigerHawk: "Pat Robertson, shut your pie hole!" Header from Tammy Bruce: "Pat Robertson is a Menace." Mark Steyn, a favorite of the right-blogosphere, said on Hugh Hewitt's radio show last p.m.: "I don't subscribe to this equivalence between, you know, Wahabi Imams and Christian fundamentalists. But I'm prepared to make an exception for Pat Robertson." Cold Fury bestows upon Robertson one of the right-blogosphere's signature put downs, calling him an "idiotarian." Pejman Yousefzadeh compares Robertson's statement to that of Iranian pres. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who in publicly-released remarks wished death upon Sharon. So does Andrew Sullivan, who adds: "The difference, of course, is that only one of these maniacs is on Karl Rove's A-list rolodex." Xrlq: "What I want to know is what we did to warrant Pat Robertson as our punishment."

Washington Monthly's Amy Sullivan: "I seem to remember that a few years ago Pat Robertson spent some time battling prostate cancer. What was God punishing him for then? It's not hard to think of some possibilities, including Robertson's gold-mining deal in Liberia with the vicious Charles Taylor."

As for Sharon, there were conflicting reports about his status this a.m.:

From The Corner: "Drudge is linking to the Internet site "World Tribune" saying that Sharon is dead. Fox is reporting that doctors were ready to declare him dead prior to this last surgery he's just been through. CNN says there is a statement to come, after a brain scan going on now." At about 10am, the top of Drudge Report carried the Israeli flag and a large banner headline in red: "CONFLICTING REPORTS ON CONDITION OF SHARON." It was later changed to "STABLE BUT SERIOUS."

Arianna Huffington writes of having met acting Israeli PM Ehud Olmert in 6/05.

ABRAMOFF: The Corruptions

Re: the Jack Abramoff scandal, Kevin Drum offers the Dems some advice: "If Democrats are going to make hay out of Republican corruption as a campaign issue this year, isn't it about time to start cracking some heads? Their smartest move would be a genuinely bold and aggressive anti-corruption proposal, one that Republicans couldn't possibly support and that would make any Republican counter-proposal look weak and opportunistic by comparison. I doubt the public will even begin to wake up for anything less than a proposal so dramatic that it promises to turn Congress upside down and forces the GOP to play catchup for the rest of the year."

Liberal RockThrower suggests the investigation focus more on the executive branch: "One place to start would be the Department of Interior. Records obtained by the Senate Indian Affairs committee show that Funds from the Coushatta Indian Tribe given to the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (CREA) at the suggestion of lobbyist Jack Abramoff paid for a public opinion survey provided to [Interior Sec.] Gale Norton and others at the Department."

Conservative Betsy Newmark, on the likely coming leadership elections: "I don't know enough of all the individuals to even know whom to pull for. I like Mike Pence and his push for making cuts in spending. However, we also need someone who can marshal votes and keep people in line when it comes to voting. DeLay could do that. However, having someone who could go on TV and present a welcome contrast to Nancy Pelosi would be a great plus."

At RedState, Nick Danger finds some interesting nuggets in a Malkin column from '01 -- that under Pres. Clinton, Indian casino money went to Dems more overwhelmingly than Abramoff's money has gone to GOPers, and that the "top individual recipient of Indian gaming money" in the '00 cycle was none other than John McCain.

Liberal Josh Marshall, on the House GOP: "One of the great questions of the last decade is how congressional Republicans managed to maintain such unprecedented party discipline. The standard answer is that that's how Tom DeLay earned his nickname 'The Hammer', by squashing anyone who threatened to get out of line. Only that's not really quite how the House GOP Caucus functioned. Notwithstanding the reputation DeLay liked to cultivate, he worked a lot more with Carrots than Sticks. And that means money. Lots and lots and lots of money."

EAVESDROPPING: First, Do No Harman

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey writes, Rep. John Conyers' (D-MI) letter to the WH asking if journalists and/or cong. members were spied on is "a dodge, a flim-flam, an outright lie and a vicious smear -- but coming from Conyers, whose long list of paranoid conspiracy allegations almost outstrips his re-election record, it won't surprise anyone." He also criticizes Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), who had previously acceded to the program, but now seems to have "some weird kind of buyer's remorse." Harman posted a bit about the wiretaps at Huffington Post on 1/5, stating: "After carefully reviewing the statute, I now believe the practice of briefing only certain Members of the intelligence committees violates the specific requirements of the law."

The Left Coaster's eRiposte lays out the "facts" vs. the "talking points" of the controversy, nicknaming it "King-George-gate." Sample: "TALKING POINT: Such spying issues should have been settled in private rather than leak it to the New York Times. FACT: Some people did try to settle some of the spying in private but were threatened with loss of jobs."

IRAQ: Gone In 23 Seconds

Liberal economist Brad DeLong does the math on Pres. Bush's meeting with senior admin. officials of previous admins: "Thirteen Secretaries of State and Defense. Ten minutes -- half of which is spent with Bush talking. Five minutes times sixty seconds per minute divided by thirteen equals twenty-three seconds per Secretary." DeLong closes his post with a repeated call to impeach both Bush and Cheney. Left I on the News is holding out for further reaching out: "Cindy Sheehan? Sorry, no. Medea Benjamin? Brian Becker? Anyone outside the establishment, or even inside the establishment but who disagrees fundamentally with what the U.S. is doing in Iraq? Sorry, no again. What we got for this PR show..." Dependable Renegade imagines what Madeleine Albright said, or wanted to: "YOU STUPID C---SUCKERS! YOU F---ED UP THE GODDAMNED WORLD WITH YOUR GODDAMNED GREED AND OVERWEENING SENSE OF ENTITLEMENT!"

Conservative Gateway Pundit: "The media appears to have liked the meeting today anyway, with over 212 articles published on the get together by early afternoon and most of the reporting generally favorable, or at least not rabid, towards Bush."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: To The Hiltzik

At the Los Angeles Times' Golden State blog, Michael Hiltzik criticizes the "wide range of conservative and reactionary blogs for which it's an article of faith that the traditional press is secretly devoted to inculcating the nation's innocent readers with their liberal agenda," focusing on Patrick "Patterico" Frey, Hugh Hewitt, and "sort of neo-liberal" Mickey Kaus. While comparing blogger crusades to "Stalinist show trials," he argues that a large part of their problem is a lack of familiarity with producing daily journalism. The occasion for the argument is Frey's 12/31 year-end summary of the Times' "general anti-Republican and pro-Democrat bias." Frey responded at length and in-depth, signing off: "That's it. Good night from your favorite Stalinist apparatchik." JustOneMinute has a hard time taking Hiltzik seriously.

IN THE STATES: Arnold Bails On The Right, And The Favor Is Returned

NC-based conservative John Hawkins writes, he was "warming up" to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA), but Arnold's just-announced 10-year spending plan -- which calls for a lot of it, and $68B in debt -- has put a stop to that: "Arnold was to the left of most Republicans on a lot of issues already and now that he has abandoned fiscal restraint, I'm not sure he really qualifies as anything more than a celebrity version of Arlen Specter or Susan Collins."

L.A.-based Hugh Hewitt, a usual Schwarzenegger supporter, is not pleased: "I am just not interested in the terms of surrender."

WAL-MART: Campanis-Mart

On 1/5, CollegeHumor.com drew attention to a surprising glitch in their item recommendation software: users who went looking for the "Planet of the Apes" TV series DVD set were also recommended various DVDs about major black figures, including MLK.

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis thinks it must have been a mistake: "There's lots to criticize Wal-Mart over, but the Planet of the Apes isn't one of them. Companies can be evil, but they're not stupid, or not THIS stupid." African-American Steve Gilliard, who was the subject of considerable controversy last fall when he Photoshopped MD LG Michael Steele's (R) face into a racist caricature, disagrees: "Yes, John, they can be this stupid." He notes, "among the 40 lawsuits filed against Wal Mart, at least one deals with racial discrimination. This is a cultural issue, and Wal Mart's culture doesn't value blacks. It may have started out as an internal joke, but it ended up online and no one corrected it." Jeralyn Merritt sides with Aravosis. Conservative Generation Why?: "Let's hope for Wal-Mart's sake this is just a bug in the software that needs some quick fixing. They're already one of the biggest corporate targets on the planet... I'm sure Jesse, Al, [Kweisi] and the rest of the bunch would make the most of this screwup."

BLOGS VS. THE FEC: Bad News First, Then Good

Adam Bonin analyzes the FEC recess appointments for Daily Kos: "[R]ecess appointments have been used as a means to place individuals on the FEC without sufficient scrutiny, leading the public and many in Congress to believe that their loyalties lie with the congressional leaders who sponsored them. Given the perpetual impotence of the FEC, it would be most unwise to maintain this approach. Individuals chosen to fill the FEC vacancies at this crucial time should go through the regular confirmation process so the Senate can be assured that they are qualified for the position and committed to carrying out the FEC's important mission. Bottom line? This probably gets us closer to a "win" on the Internet regulation issues, but this isn't how it's supposed to go down."

ENDTRODUCING: Wonk'd

Scooped by the MSM on the announcement of her departure from Wonkette, Ana Marie Cox discusses her future plans in a farewell post: "The time freed up from posting 12 times a day will be largely devoted to weeping over a diminishing Google Alert ego feed and working on my new book, which is non-fiction and therefore will require leaving the house. That will be a new experience but I'll leave a trail of breadcrumbs. And I'll try to remember to wear pants.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Regret Me Not

MSM corrections-monitoring blog Regret The Error has been monitoring closely the fallout of botched reporting on the WV mining tragedy. This a.m., they provide an interesting roundup of how some outlets addressed any mistakes that were made in subsequent editions. In a separate post, they give props to a Halifax newspaper for its handling of a plagiarism incident.

LEST WE FORGET: Protestant Bribery Ethic

Liberal satire blog Fafblog ventures a unique defense of Jack Abramoff and his co-conspirators: "A bribe is nothing more than the handshake of money, and money is nothing more than the badge of an honest day's pay -- or an honest day's bribery. A man who bribes is a man who has worked, whereas a man who can't afford to bribe is a man whose sloth has deprived him of the stature that a solid work ethic affords."

Posted by at January 6, 2006 12:37 PM