February 2006 Archives

2/28: Rainy Day Men #18 & 34

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the words "Bush" and "poll" and "all-time low" would attract a major swarm, and indeed it has. Most of the commentary comes from the left, where many think Pres. Bush has little to no hope of recovery. And while many make no secret of their schadenfreude, a few are turning the focus to how can they can best capitalize on the situation. Some on the right try to spin away the significance of the numbers, but we've had a hard time finding many at the top of the right-blogosphere commenting. Among those who do, it's a few who have made their displeasure with Bush known for some time. Meanwhile, a report that almost no one believes about VP Cheney -- who stands at 18% in the same poll -- stepping down from office gets plenty of attention, too. Bush's woes bump specific discussions of the UAE port deal and violence in Iraq from being the top-discussed issues, although they're certainly among the primary reasons cited for his loss of support, along with NSA eavesdropping and the admin's response to Hurricane Katrina.

Today's edition also includes plenty on the aforementioned war and aquatic border issue, plus conservative bloggers' reax to a recent meeting with WH'08 hopeful/AR Gov. Mike Huckabee (R), liberal bloggers trading barbs with The Note, Andrew Sullivan and Ramesh Ponnuru go at it again, and we present our latest Blogger Spotlight.

BUSH: Is 34 The Loneliest Number That He'll Ever Do?

The CBS News poll is definitely what's happening in the blogosphere this a.m., primarily on the left:

The Left Coaster: "So now, will the Democrats come out and play finally?" At Huffington Post, liberal radio talker Cenk Uygur celebrates much as Jerry Bremer did when the U.S. caught Saddam Hussein. He heads his post "We Got Him," and opens: "It's over. Bush's house of cards has just come crumbling down. We suspected it might just be a matter of time, but now it's officially over!" No More Mr. Nice Blog: "Remember the aftermath of the 2004 election? Remember how Democrats were portrayed as hopelessly out of step -- not religious enough, not NASCAR enough, not sufficiently family-oriented or security-oriented, too urban, too accommodating of abortion and Hollywood and indecency and gays? Well, it's time for the media to start talking about Republicans as the oddballs. It's time to start discussing them as the ones who don't have 'mainstream American values.'" Impeachment activist Bob Fertik -- who early this month posited that Karl Rove might engineer a terrorist attack at the Super Bowl -- thinks things may be finally swinging his way: "George Dubai-ya Plunges 8% to 34% -- It's Time to Impeach!" DC-based John Aravosis considers the possibility: "Will be interesting to see if the public starts demanding that Bush step down as president. I'm serious. Three more years of this?"

On the right, the tendenency is to minimize the importance of the poll by pointing out its flaws. Conservative John Hawkins argues that "adults" lean lefter than "likely voters" and that this poll undersampled GOPers. After throwing in margin of error, he concludes the real number is "probably somewhere roughly between 42.5 -- 48.5." He's not alone, as an anonymous pollster writes in to The Corner with some of the same complaints: "This is NOT representative of the electorate. They also used a split-sample methodology, which is legit (we've used it ourselves), but which also INCREASES the margin of error for those questions (a fact that is usually glossed over). You'll also note that the story ... and the pdf both reference "Americans." Not likely voters. Now, I'll tell you right now, what 'Americans' or 'adults nationwide' think, doesn't matter one iota in politics, or the polling world. Ultimately, anyone who thinks CBS is guilty of bias can find more evidence in this poll, which is exceedingly dirty." RightWinged and Flopping Aces make a similar argument. But Dem pollster Mark Blumenthal argues otherwise, 1st that the sample is about the same as previous polls, and that when one "recalculates the CBS job approval results for the most recent survey using the average party composition reported on their last three surveys ... the Bush approval percentage still rounds to 34%."

Otherwise there's very little commentary coming from the right so far. But there are a few. Don Surber, meanwhile, is angry at the WH: "I have asked for the head of Karl Rove repeatedly over the past nine months. Boy Genius? Boy Blunder. Those of us who elected this guy in November 2004 have every right to be disgusted. The White House must get its act together or face the walking of the plank. Bush's failure to lead the nation -- to get people to follow him -- is an embarrassment." Bill Quick: "If Bush insists on trying to push this deal through, not only will he see his veto over-ridden, he will probably lose the Senate, and possibly even the House this fall. I'd probably back him just to prevent that from happening, if I trusted him. Unfortunately, I don't trust him worth a damn." Outside The Beltway's James Joyner isn't quite as down on Bush, but doesn't try to dismiss the poll: "The bottom line is that, even if the CBS poll is junk, it draws attention to something that is undisputed: President Bush has lost the confidence of a substantial portion of the general public."

BUSH II: Practical Applications

Left-leaning Michael Stickings thinks the domestic issues play a bigger part in the low numbers than Iraq: "Iraq is over there, somewhere. Americans are dying, but America seems largely disinterested and detached from what's actually happening on the ground. And terrorism is an often vague and nebulous threat. ... Justifiably, Americans sense that something is amiss when their government allows a foreign state, one with connections to terrorism, to control their major ports. So, too, the NSA scandal. Justifiably, Americans sense that something is amiss when their government eavesdrops on them without a warrant. And this is why Katrina, the government's response to Katrina, is an issue that Democrats need to tap."

Liberal Jane Hamsher, who has been coordinating efforts to put pressure on pols via call-ins to talk radio, wants to make the most of it: "We have an extraordinary window to exploit Bush's anti-popularity and shake up a few Senators with regard to the investigations into the illegal NSA wiretaps. The vote on whether or not the Intelligence Committee looks into the matter is coming up on March 7, so this Wednesday we'd like to have a Roots action for Nebraska and Maine residents to put pressure on Chuck Hagel and Olympia Snowe not to cave."

Centrist Joe Gandelman asks what it might mean for the UAE deal: "So, if you take this data and look at recent developments you have to ask: Will having a 45-day investigation period likely culminating in Bush approving the plan to go through help with his standing with the public? Can he make a convincing case in 45 days? Or, since he doesn't have to run for re-election, is he relatively unconcerned about public opinion and prepared to do what he wishes?"

At The RCP Blog, conservative John McIntyre considers how bad the port deal could be for Bush: "The Cheney shooting accident was a trumped-up political story that inflicted no real damage on Bush; the Dubai deal is a completely different story. This seemingly obscure business deal and its impact could be the single biggest political story of 2006, and unlike Abramoff or Katrina or Scooter Libby, Dubai Ports World could be the catalyst the Democrats have been seeking for a big 2006."

Before the poll's release, Lewis Lapham's essay calling for Bush's impeachment in the latest Harper's was getting some attention. The Democratic Daily, on arguments that liberals should resist impeachment if they take the House: "I don't find these arguments very compelling. Clinton was impeached for bogus reasons. Bush's misconduct is exactly what the founding fathers had in mind when they included impeachment in the Constitution. Besides, even if the impeachment was unpopular with many, Republicans haven't done all that badly politically since then. An impeachment trial exposing Bush and his cronies might be what is needed to turn this around." Rightwing Nuthouse praises Lapham as an "iconoclastic intellectual whose lucid, well written essays and columns have been a source of inspiration and thought provoking debate to two generations of American liberals," but derides this effort as "case that Lapham makes is weak, speculative, and full of holes wide enough that George Bush could drive a 10 ton semi through."

CHENEY: Boy, Does Insight Have It In For The White House Or What?

The Washington Times' online-only Insight mag reports, "senior GOP sources" say VP Cheney is "expected to retire within a year." Skepticism is the order of the day, but that doesn't mean there aren't some interesting comments made.

UCLA law prof Stephen Bainbridge doesn't buy it either but says, "let's suspend disbelief and ponder possible replacements" -- the early leader and unsurprising winner is Sec/State Condoleezza Rice, who takes nearly half of all votes; the distant runner-up is ex-Sen. Fred Thompson. Conservative Sister Toldjah at least considers it: "A Cheney resignation would put the left in a bit of a quandary as he -- along with Karl Rove -- have been on their political hit lists going back to before the President was inaugurated the first time. They consider having him in office as a Republican weakness on which they can capitalize. But if he steps down, they Congressional left would be in the position of helping to either approve or disapprove his successor -- the person who could very well be considered a contender for the office of the Presidency come '08."

Liberal Taylor Marsh: "I'll believe this one when it happens. But it does explain why Senator Suck Up is keeping close to the king. Maybe McCain knows something we don't know." The Plame-focused TalkLeft surmises, "if today's rumor that Cheney may resign a few months after the November elections is true, he may be feeling more heat from Fitzgerald than we know about." Wonkette thinks it's all rubbish: "It's a fun little fantasy, but this is clearly one of those Moonie Times/Insight scoops that are a little bit more made-up than the other ones."

Ex-Donkey Blog pegs it as "obviously a trial balloon being floated by some senior GOP operatives." He notes one sentence that goes, "The sources reported a growing rift between the president and vice president as well as their staffs." And comments: "What you're seeing here is a minor turf war between staffers who think they have more influence than they really do." Libertarian Jim Henley focuses instead on this passage: "Mr. Bush, the sources said, has rejected the advice from circles close to his father, the former president, to dismiss Mr. Cheney." He writes: "I assume the younger Bush's disdain for his father's retainers is some oedipal thing. I don't expect it to change now."

PORT SECURITY: Is Lou Dobbs The New J.R. "Bob" Dobbs?

Conservative A Certain Slant of Light responds to New York Times' David Brooks' argument that deal opposition was based on a "nativist, isolationist, mass hysteria" -- a charge hurled by Bush's "minions in the government, the press, the GOP, and the center-right blogosphere" -- asking: "[D]o multi-national business interests under the aegis of economic globalization trump strategic national security concerns?" At TPMCafe, Matt Yglesias notices Washington Post's Richard Cohen making a similar argument to Brooks, but chooses not to engage: "I think I would need to be a card-carrying rightwinger to have an appropriate reply to this kind of racial demagoguery." Michelle Malkin is one of several bloggers to highlight a Jerusalem Post article reporting that Dubai Ports World enforces a boycott on Israel. She dares her critics: "Go ahead. Yell 'Islamophobia!'"

Crooks and Liars posts video of protectionist-minded CNN host Lou Dobbs claiming that Dubai Ports World has refused interviews with CNN unless they "silence" Dobbs and "suppress his reports."

Power Line's Scott Johnson puts a different emphasis on the report, commenting that this surely is "true of most of our Arab allies in the war on terrorism." Liberal TBogg responds to a pro-DPW post by Johnson's co-blogger John Hinderaker, implying another 9/11 could be the result: "So I'll hope you understand if we pass on this once in a lifetime offer. Thanks for offering though..."

Ex-GOPer Marshall Wittmann, writing as usual as an antlered even-toed ungulate, wrote before the 34% became known: "The Moose suspects that the bottom could be about to fall out on the Republican Congress. ... The Dubai deal, particular, reminds this mammal of the 1994 Crime Bill and Midnight Basketball. The policy may have been sound, but the optics were disastrous. Just imagine if a Kerry Administration had approved this deal!"

IRAQ: Then Again ...

Following yesterday's surge of hope for Sunni-Shiite unity in the right-blogosphere, a Washington Post report putting the Baghdad death toll for the past week at 1300 has tempered this optimism.

Several bloggers wonder how many dead is enough to call it a civil war. Para Pundit is one: "But when does the civil war begin? Is 2000 dead in a week a civil war? Or 3000? Not enough? How about 5000? Or does the death rate need to exceed some threshold level for a number of weeks before we classify the fighting Iraq as a civil war?" Liberal Hoffmania!: "Some f---ing humanitarian campaign. 1,300 more dead people -- the ones we were supposed to save from brutality -- thanks to the PNAC and Bush's blind subscription to it. ... Death. The number one product of the Bush years." Header at Left I on the News: "U.S. invasion claims 1300 more victims."

Conservative Mark Coffey: "[T]hose who say the war is unwinnable are half right -- it's unwinnable on our own. We need the Iraqis as much as they need us, for if the Sunni and Shia rank-and-file band together to end the violence, then the insurgents and militias will have no base of support. The next few weeks will be perhaps pivotal..." Centrist Justin Gardner: "I can't help but think that civil war is much closer than we may think. Only a few of those who were taken by this latest tragedy need to be "important" people. And any one of those few could be the catalyst. A man, a woman, a child. Wars have been started over much less."

>> Fallout continues from National Review founder William F. Buckley's declaration that the Iraq war is a failure (see 2/27 Blogometer). At his personal blog, The Nation's David Corn issues "A Challenge To [NR editor] Rich Lowry: Is Buckley Weak on Tyranny?" Conservative Jeff Goldstein points out that National Review has run an editorial disagreeing with Buckley, and Goldstein separates Buckley's critique from those coming from the left. Hawkish liberal Roger L. Simon: "I agree with David on this one, but I can't see how anyone -- Buckley, Corn, Lowry, you or me -- can make a final assessment of the Iraq situation right now. Not even close. I once wrote about "the politics of the last five minutes." With respect to Iraq we have now devolved into the politics of the last thirty seconds." Right-leaning Stephen Green: "You need at least two years a train a highly-skilled infantryman. It takes even longer to train the NCOs who will train the privates. Senior NCOs are the heart of any volunteer army, and the really good ones need ten or 15 years to grow -- and making good officers is almost as tricky. It's no coincidence that the best armies almost always have the best NCOs. ... So, please, would somebody send Buckley twenty bucks so he can subscribe to Strategy Page?"

EAVESDROPPING: Litella, Esq.

Upon closer review of the Specter bill (see 2/27 Blogometer), 1st Amendment atty Glenn Greenwald pronounces: "I can say with confidence that neither this bill nor any modified version of it is going to be even remotely acceptable to the Bush Administration." He adds, the bill might even "achieve the critical goal of highlighting the Administration's true motives in violating FISA." But he cautions that the bill "would become effective not merely by Congress enacting it (even over a veto), but instead, only by the President agreeing to be bound by the law." He adds, under Bush, "what used to be called a 'law' is now more like a contractual offer or a suggestion. When the American people pass a law through our Congress, we have to hope that the President will agree to obey it."

WHITE HOUSE '08: Huck Everlasting

On 2/24 Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR) met with conservative bloggers in DC to discuss current issues in advance of his expected WH'08 bid.

Townhall's Tim Chapman recapped some of Huckabee's comments on various issues and posts video clips of Huckabee. Chapman describes Huckabee's comments on the blogosphere: "He noted the [denial of service] attacks on Michelle Malkin's blog and said that it is an indication that blogs 'have become a major part of the communication infrastructure in this country.' The attacks on Malkin's blog, said the governor, were tantamount to terrorism." Malkin herself adds: "I liked his comments on the blogosphere and cyber Jihad. Now, if I could only set him straight on immigration enforcement." The unofficial Mike Huckabee President 2008 disagrees with Malkin's "whining": "Mike Huckabee is a compassionate conservative. We're not just saying that to get votes. He REALLY IS. Mike Huckabee is NEVER going to turn his back on a child of any race, religion, nationality or legal status. PERIOD. You can take it to the bank and if you don't agree, thats unfortunate."

NAM VP Pat Cleary, at Manufacturer's Blog: "And, by the way, bravo to him for reaching out to the blogosphere. This was a smart move on his part and shows that he 'gets it" when it comes to new methods of communications. Not sure Washington's ready for that..."

But Club for Growth's Andrew Roth doesn't think much of Huckabee: "And this guy wants to be the Republican nominee for president in 2008? He also opposes school choice, and spends money like a drunken sailor (he increased spending 65.3% from 1996 to 2004). I'm sorry, but he is NOT one of the best Republican governors in the country and he's not presidential material. Period."

RedState's Augustine uses Huckabee's appearance to comment on the sorry state of GOP govs, who have "produced little in the way of policy advancement -- and a lot more in the way of tax increases and federal government payouts": "With such a weak bench, it's no wonder that people who are just nice, pleasant, and ideologically solid are elevated above the rest. And it's no wonder that people get mentioned in the POTUS stakes who really have no business being there. This doesn't mean that Gov. Huckabee would make a good President or a bad one -- but it does mean that he's worth keeping around as a national face for the party, as a Veep or Cabinet member, long after other more prominent and less conservative names have disappeared."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Fists Of McCurry

New York Times' Seelye reports on ex-Clinton spokesperson Mike McCurry's regret about opening the WH press briefings to TV. McCurry: "It was a huge error on my part. It has turned into a theater of the absurd." On the right, Power Line notes the absurdity of the "White House reporter syndrome," on the left The Carpetbagger Report notes that ex-WH spokesperson Ari Fleischer is criticizing the WH's "bunker mentality." At Kung Fu Quip ex-RNCer Mike Turk remarks what a good guy McCurry is, and is "not surprised" that he regrets the decision. Responding to the McCurry quote above, the writes: "That is right on the money. Any time you introduce the exposure of television into an equation and add the possibility of fame, you're asking for trouble. The White House Press Briefings used to provide an opportunity for the White House to talk to the media -- to keep them informed. ... Now they provide an opening for opportunistic reporters to grandstand for the cameras." More: "They provide more cinema for the masses while solving none of our nation's problems. Gawker takes the pithy route: "No one likes White House press briefings. Who knew?"

ABC News' The Note has never been a favorite of lefty bloggers, but their indifference to the port deal -- "Zzzzz..." -- has raised specific ire. CAP's Think Progress highlights their avowed indifference, to which The Note responds that this marks the "end of The Note's latest experiment in which we see how easy it is to get liberal bloggers and e-mailers mad at us, and the beginning of the experiment in which we see how mad they get when we joke about their getting mad." Salon's Peter Daou deadpans: "Good to know they care..."

MISCELLANY: We Feel Like Admiral Stockdale At A Ping Pong Game

• Frequent adversaries Andrew Sullivan and Ramesh Ponnuru have been going at it again, trading arguments from The Daily Dish and The Corner, respectively. The debate began with a Nation article by Max Blumenthal on the views of conservative Princeton prof Robert P. George (not the Robert George who writes Ragged Thots); the debate primarily revolves around abortion, murder, and the SD abortion bill in particular. Rather than try to summarize the debate, here are the relevant posts, in order, listed by title: "Robbie George and Murder"; "Andrew Sullivan's Latest Fatwa"; "Ponnuru's Smear"; "Andrew Sullivan Can't Read, Ch. 815"; "Ponnuru Digs In"; "Sullivan Again"; "Ponnuru's Mask"; "So Now"; Sullivan's latest, "Ponnuru Again"; Ponnuru's latest, "Types Of Equality."
• For those of you still following the not-so-popular Scooter Libby pre-trial phase of the Plamegate case, here's Ponnuru's fellow NROer Byron York, with Tom Maguire following up; and here's TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt, with Firedoglake's ReddHedd following up.
• Josh Marshall posts a "Team Abramoff" email that puts AK Rep. Don Young's (R) claim that he had "no personal or professional relationship" with the indicted lobbyist "into further doubt." The email, from Jennifer Calvert to Jack Abramoff and his assistant, says Young "has asked for the use of our suites for some upcoming fundraisers." Young spokesperson Grant Thompson tells TPM: "Mr Young does not feel it appropriate to comment on emails that are generated within a corporation. When you find communications from Mr Young or his staff, we will consider responding."
• In his latest column, National Journal's Danny Glover notes recent troubles for the "Fighting Dems"/"Band of Brothers": "Every Tuesday, Daily Kos and "The Majority Report" at Air America Radio profile a new congressional candidate. They also steer readers and listeners to the ActBlue Web site to contribute to the upstart campaigns. All of the chosen candidates have two traits in common: They are veterans, and they are Democrats. ... But weeks before the nation's first primary (in Illinois on March 21), the band already has been broken: Three fighting Dems have laid down their arms. The only question now is how much staying power their comrades will have."
• In what looks like the 1st in a series, Post.com interviews conservative Bob Owens of Confederate Yankee; through this week, they are also featuring his posts on their Opinions page, similar to how they temporarily featured Sullivan's posts on the same page.

BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: The Tao Of Daou

Today the Blogometer talks to Salon's Peter Daou, who manages their blog aggregator (arguably our competition) The Daou Report. He was also the blog consultant on the KE'04 campaign.

What is your full name?

Peter Daou

What is your age?

40

Where did you grow up?

Beirut, Lebanon

Where do you live now?

New York City

What is your occupation? Have you ever worked on a political campaign or for the mainstream media?

I'm a political consultant. More specifically, a blog and online communications consultant to political organizations and campaigns. I ran blog outreach and online rapid response for the Kerry-Edwards campaign in '04. I've never worked in the traditional media.

When did you start blogging and why?

I started posting on political message boards in 2001 and blogs in 2003 as a way to broaden my political views and to sharpen my debating skills. There's no better place to match wits and argue politics than blogs. And as anyone who does this can attest, there are a lot of smart bloggers who will cut you down to size pretty quickly.

What has been your favorite post, or favorite story to write about, in that time?

Lately I've been fascinated by the intricate relationship between bloggers, the traditional media and the political establishment. I've written a series of extended blog entries discussing the netroots-media-establishment 'triangle' and how the various parts interact.

Describe your typical blogging schedule. And what is your average output?

Since I do this for a living, I start around 8am and stop only for an afternoon gym break. I'm back at my computer in the evening for another few hours. Weekends are only slightly less blog-centric. I make a point not to discuss blogs with my wife over dinner, so that's another hour or so to clear my head.

Who is your favorite political blogger? Favorite non-political blogger?

James Wolcott and James Wolcott.

Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?

Favorites include Blumenthal, Krugman, Dionne.

What is your favorite television news program, either network or cable?

Do you mean which one is the least offensive? Probably the network nightly news broadcasts.

What MSM-produced websites (i.e. newspapers, magazines) do you visit on a daily basis?

All the major traditional outlets: NY Times, Washington Post, BBC, CNN, etc.

What non-MSM websites (i.e. blogs) do you visit on a daily basis?

The Daou Report is a non-partisan blog aggregator, so I visit hundreds of left, right, and center blogs every day.

How often, or do you ever, read a newspaper in its dead-tree (i.e. print) form?

Almost never, unless I'm on the road and one is placed in front of my hotel door.

How do you see the new media and old media affecting and influencing each other in the next five years?

Despite the symbiotic nature of the relationship, the antagonism we're seeing now won't diminish for a long time, if ever. Bloggers are fed up with the insidious agenda foisted on an unsuspecting public by politically 'neutral' reporters, reporters are sick of the microscopic attention paid to their every word by bloggers.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: All Too Common

Jesse Lee at DCCC's The Stakeholder sees Bush's predicament as an example of the tragedy of the commons, where "local herders share a common pasture," and "each individual herder thinks to him or herself: man, I could get me another animal and do even better -- and it wouldn't even be much more of a strain on the pasture itself," so each "herder goes ahead and acts in their self-interests and gets that new animal. The pasture gets ate all up and they're all sans paddle." Lee: "Right now every Republican, from Tom DeLay to the lowliest back-bencher (cough, cough, Heather Wilson), is looking at that pasture and thinking, man, I could use me another animal. Maybe some grandstanding on spying. Maybe some grandstanding on ports. ... Your local pollster is telling you, man, you better get that animal. And if the only grass left is that extra green national security patch over there, so be it."

LEST WE FORGET: Danger Zone

At Huffington Post, AEI's Norm Ornstein tries his hand at comedy: "Tristar Pictures announced today that Tom Cruise would play Randy 'Duke' Cunningham in the story of Cunningham's sordid descent into bribery and manipulation of defense contracts during his career in Congress. ... Cruise purchased the film rights to Cunningham's story after a brisk bidding war, convincing Cunningham to sell to him in part because of the way Cruise had played him in Top Gun. Even so, the rights were in doubt after the sealed bids had been given to Cunningham's lawyer. But when Cruise sweetened the deal by also giving Cunningham a Rolls Royce, an antique commode and laser shooting equipment to replace the items seized by federal authorities when Cunningham was arrested, the outcome was sealed."

Well, if that doesn't do it for you, the Falling Sand Game surely will.

2/27: Deal Or No Deal?

It's a nat'l security trifecta today, as the fate of Iraq, a new FISA proposal and port security are all major stories.

After some good weekend news from Iraq, conservative bloggers are now heaping scorn upon the notion that Iraq could descend into civil war. But this came after some dark thoughts from last week about what civil war or partition would mean; most of the left reactions we saw were responses to conservatives' worries. Neither side is very happy with the new FISA plans, but for different reasons, and even though neither the left nor right is united on what the proposal actually means. Likewise, the port deal continues to confuse. From what we've seen, it's generally the case that conservatives approve whereas liberals do not -- yet a new poll showing strong opposition to the deal has The Corner worried -- and so might NR founder Bill Buckley's latest comment on the Iraq war.

Other than that, we've got Daily Kos lashing out at Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), questions about George Soros and Al Franken, skeptical takes of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's (R) weekend appearances, 2 scandals in the midwest -- one real and one fake, a Christopher Hitchens-led rally for Denmark, and your childhood (possibly second childhood) hero starts blogging.

PORT SECURITY: The Not-So-Perfect Storm

Pres. Bush's 45-day cooling-off period may have calmed some nerves, but it hasn't reduced its potency in the blogosphere. Liberal bloggers continue to find fault with Bush's handling of the situation, while conservatives are still listing reasons why it should go forward. Even so, a few on both sides note a recent opinion poll and argue the deal will either die or hurt Bush very badly:

Judd Legum at CAP's Think Progress argues that the compromise is "political, not substantive," arranged by the WH and not Dubai Ports World, wouldn't actually delay the sale, and if it did DPW might sue. He writes: "Reasonable people can disagree about whether it makes sense to have the UAE run operations at U.S. ports. But the proposed 'compromise' is fundamentally dishonest." The Carpetbagger Report doesn't think it will have the intended effect: "If the deal remains unpopular, Bush won't be able to rely on the "out of the loop" defense. His signature, with no congressional input, will make this deal happen. Politically, that's a real risk for the White House." David Sirota points out that OH SEN candidate Sherrod Brown (D) was the 1st to link the deal "to America's corporate-written free trade policy. Not surprisingly, Establishment spokesmen like Tom Friedman are desperately trying to distract attention from free trade's centrality in this scandal."

At NRO-hosted TKS, Jim Geraghty writes: "My friends, there is an organized disinformation campaign going on in the discussion of the Dubai Ports World deal. Draw whatever conclusions you wish about whether the deal is worthwhile, but please do not buy into these blatant misrepresentations, and please don't spread them in your discussions." He quotes Sens. Clinton and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Gov. Jon Corzine (D-NJ) and the DNC asserting that the U.S. would "turn over control" of the U.S. ports to the UAE, which he argues is a misrepresentation. INDC Journal's Bill Ardolino: "Is Democratic malfeasance worse than Republican hysteria? Probably. It's amusing watching 'tolerant liberal' politicians ideologically contort themselves and stoke irrational xenophobia and rational fear of terrorism into a National Security issue that attacks the President's right flank. Did I write 'amusing?' I meant 'depressing.' Maybe 'resignedly exasperating' would work best." Meanwhile, Sweetness & Light points out that the Nat'l Shipping Co. of Saudi Arabia "control[s] berths" at 9 U.S. ports including Baltimore, Houston, Pork Newark and Brooklyn. In the comments, a reader clarifies, "these ports are made up of many berths. For instance, in the Port of NY, the UAE might 'control' nine berths out of a couple of dozen. And yet the reports made it sound like they would control the entire port and its operation. So while the UAE may have control over a number of berths in Brooklyn, so might other companies, including the Saudi company."

But a Rasmussen poll shows that the public opposes the deal by 64% to 17%, and Cong. Dems now have a higher approval rating on nat'l security than Bush, by 43% to 41%. At The Corner, John Podhoretz writes: "The deal is dead. It won't survive after a 45-day extension or a 450-day extension. Congressional Republicans have no choice but to be extremely aggressive and nasty toward the president and the White House, because they will be properly terrified of looking like Bush's lapdogs on a hugely unpopular matter that goes to the heart of the Republican party's political advantage in the United States." A bit later, NR editor Rich Lowry added, "if Bush loses his edge on national security, he has nothing left."

Deal skeptic Mickey Kaus posits that if Bush vetoes the deal and Congress overrides it, that could be the best "logical Kabuki outcome for the GOP": "Congressional Republicans would get what they want -- which is a chance to demonstrate their independence from the President. Voters would get what they want -- which is not to worry about Dubai running American ports -- and they'd be more inclined to return the incumbent Republican majority. Meanwhile, Bush would show friendly Arab governments a willingness to risk his prestige to go to bat for them."

Seeing the Forest uses the port deal to make a separate point about Bush: "We invaded Iraq based on less evidence of al Queda and other terrorist ties than there is of UAE ties. Yet, the Bush crowd insists that we have nothing to worry about from handing control of our ports over to the UAE. Let me make this clear: I am NOT saying that UAE is a terrorist state, or even a terrorist-supporting state, I am pointing out the fear-mongering nonsense that Bush and the right spew for the lying, fear-mongering manipulative propaganda nonsense it is."

EAVESDROPPING: Across The Specter-um

As Washington Post's Babington reports, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) is introducing new language such that FISA will cover the ongoing NSA program. Bloggers of the left and right respond with opposing analyses, although there is some uncertainty on each side.

Rising star of the left blogosphere Glenn Greenwald writes it is "disorientingly bizarre to hear about a proposed law requiring FISA warrants for eavesdropping because we already have a law in place which does exactly that. It's called FISA." More: "What it does is authorize the entire warrantless eavesdropping program itself by directing the FISA court to approve of it every 45 days provided some extremely permissive criteria are met, and in the process, allows eavesdropping without case-by-case warrants."

But Confederate Yankee disagrees: "FISA does not cover this NSA program ... Glenn has never been able to get his head around the fact that FISA is not all-encompassing. After the confidential review of the program that silenced the majority of congressional Democrats and Republicans, Specter must have also ultimately come to the same conclusion that current FISA law does not apply to program of this nature." Conservative Orrin Judd, on Specter: "While it's helpful that he recognizes the program isn't covered by FISA, it's delusional of him to imagine that an act of Congress can cause it to be so covered."

DC atty Marty Lederman disagrees with Greenwald on the specifics. But like Greenwald, Lederman is not happy about it, as "it would bring the program "under the authority of the court" by providing statutory authorization for a program that is currently illegal." More: "It's not simply a a reenactment of the 'FISA framework' -- instead, it's a wholescale dismantling of that framework, a substantive amendment to FISA that would vastly increase the surveillance authority of the President." Lederman calls for the SCOTUS to review the program, and quick: So what's the alternative? How about this: A statute that facilitates prompt judicial review of the legality under current law of the NSA programs." Lederman adds the caveat that he's not entirely sure of his own analysis; no one on the left has objected, and while conservative bloggers obviously disagree, we haven't seen a direct refutation.

Back to Specter's plan itself, The Anonymous Liberal observes that "instead of having to demonstrate that probable cause exists on a warrant by warrant basis, the government would only have to demonstrate that there is probable cause to believe the program as a whole will intercept at least one communication involving a foreign power or agent of a foreign power or someone who has communicated with such a person. That's a comically weak standard, so weak that I doubt any conceivable surveillance program would fail to meet it, including dragnet-style data-mining programs." Kevin Drum notes that people who have communicated with someone who has communicated with an agent of a foreign power "certainly includes nearly all reporters and practically everyone with relatives outside the country."

Jane Hamsher: "We'll try to have some kind of Roots project action in Specter's back yard soon." For more on the left-blogosphere's "roots" project, see the 2/23 Blogometer and elsewhere in this edition.

IRAQ I: Getting Better All The Time?

As we'll get to a bit further down, the Iraq debate took a decidedly pessimistic turn late last week in the aftermath of the mosque bombing in Samarra. But now conservative bloggers believe the talk of "civil war" was premature:

The Astute Blogger notes a New York Times report about Sunni leaders agreeing to restart stalled talks on the new Iraqi gov't, and reacts: "Sheesh, that was the fastest descent into civil war and end of a civil war of all time! Or maybe the nattering nabobs of negativism who said that Iraq was declining into a civil war wrong!? Maybe they've been wrong all along? Maybe they just wished it were true?" Gateway Pundit posts wire excerpts and photos of peace rallies in Iraq, heading it: "Unity Protests Break Out in Basra, Mosul, Hillah, Al Kut, Karbala..." John Hawkins also surveyed news from around Iraq over the past weekend, found plenty of reports about Sunni/Shiite reconciliation, and went with the header: "Where's That Civil War In Iraq That The Media Was Promising?" He writes: "The war in Iraq hasn't been the picnic in a rose garden that the press and most of the Democrats seem to think it should be, but it has been largely successful and looks likely to remain so. We are on track to win in Iraq, and relatively soon."

Baghdad-based Iraq the Model posts updates, including corrections to exaggerated violence found in some news reports. TigerHawk argues that the Sunnis are finally realizing that they are not a majority and won't control the country again.

Kim Priestap at Wizbang contrasts this with the MSM's reaction -- "practically gleeful declarations of Iraq being on the brink of civil war" -- including the latest Time cover.

IRAQ II: Buckley-ing The System

National Review founder William F. Buckley writes in the latest issue, "One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed. ... Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans."

At Unclaimed Territory, Greenwald puts it side-by-side with similar comments made by DNC chair Howard Dean 12/05 which elicited condemnations from conservative bloggers. Greenwald: "These statements, made within a little over two months of each other, are almost identical. If anything, Buckley's statements are a much more emphatic declaration of defeat."

NR's Ramesh Ponnuru points out that Buckley "has been skeptical about the Iraq venture for some time," and that this is a "refinement and extension of Bill's position in response to new circumstances." Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey notes that Buckley's argument "highlights the difference" between so-called neocons and paleocons: "Bush 43 is not a conservative in foreign policy, at least since 9/11 taught him that genocidal tyrannies in Southwest Asia could produce immediate and existential threats to the American homeland. He has been much closer to Woodrow Wilson than his father or even Ronald Reagan in his reaction to the world." Mark Noonan at Blogs for Bush agrees: "Mr. Buckley was never a fan of liberating Iraq. From what I've gathered reading him over the past few years, Mr. Buckley seems a man who doesn't believe in a mission, as such, for the United States other than to look after its own, and only help out others as it fits in with strictly American interests. This is an intellectually valid position to hold ... but it is, for me, just a touch too cold." Bryan Preston of JunkYardBlog: "It's hard at this point to say that he's wrong. Even though he is. If Iraq spirals completely out of control, there will be a very strong temptation to write off the entire Islamic world as irredeemably backward and hopeless." He writes, Bush's "supporters will have to accept some version of the 'culture matters' argument. We will have to contain and destroy militant Islam directly, rather than letting its own contradictions destroy it from within while its more modern Islamic rivals destroy it naturally from without. That will be a cruel period in history. But there is not yet reason to give up hope altogether."

For Greenwald, these arguments fit into his theory -- much debated in the blogosphere (see 2/24 Blogometer for links to our coverage) -- that "when forced to choose between conservative principles or loyalty to Bush, Bush followers will expressly toss conservatism overboard and disclaim an association with its principles."

ReidBlog: "This had to be a tough editorial for the neocons at National Review to reprint, but they can't exactly say no to their spiritual father. ... They didn't feature the Buckley piece on the NRO web-site, of course. You have to do a search on the site to find it." Liberal Fallenmonk: "When you have lost William F. Buckley Jr. then the light at the end of the tunnel is the 12:40 from Topeka!" Bring It On!: "Get out your best dresses girls, the boys may be coming home!" Isen.blog: "Is this the 'Walter Cronkite moment' for the Iraq war? ... How much longer can the occupation last without the old right's support?"

Conservative Pejman Yousefzadeh, on partitioning Iraq: "One of the potential tragedies of the situation, of course, is that so many of the boundaries in the Middle East -- Iraq's included -- are artificial in nature, having been imposed by foreigners. There is not and should not be any real historical integrity in keeping these boundaries, and indeed, by abandoning them, we may be able to achieve greater stability. ... But if Iraq is allowed to split apart, it will inevitably be seen in the short run as a catastrophic failure on the part of the United States and all those involved in the reconstruction effort. And so, regardless of the long term benefits it may bring to allow Iraq to split apart, we are pretty much committed to keeping it together." Aziz Poonwalla thinks it would be a bad idea, and wouldn't necessarily stave off a civil war: "But worse, it would be tantamount to an acknowledgement that the base motivation for the Iraq war was never about freedom and democracy, but rather The Great Game redux. The result would be a true setback for the cause of what President Bush called in his State of the Union speech the 'calling of our time.'"

On 2/23, Vodkapundit's Stephen Green made a pessimistic argument for optimism in the case of civil war: "An Iraqi Civil War would be a disaster. Every bit of reconstruction, every small gesture of friendship between peoples and sects, every last chance of keeping Iraq viable and whole... well, that's probably all gone. ... If we're looking at an Islamic civil war, then vast numbers of good people will die, from Libya to Oman. Luckily, they won't have to be our people." More: "I'd like to think that the Middle East can do what the West did, without all the suffering. But if it takes regional fratricide, then so be it. Also on the plus side: a Middle East at war with itself would probably be too busy to wage war on us. Other than police actions to keep the oil flowing, we might finally be rid of the whole damn place." Liberal TBogg asks the question: "What happens when the 101st Fighting Keyboarders get bored with advocating American Brand(TM) freedom and democracy for the Middle East?" He quotes extensively from Green's post, as if an answer to his question. Athenae at First Draft finds the "our people" line especially chilling: "In another fifty years, we'll ask ... why do they hate us? Perhaps this is the answer, as well as the impetus for the question. They're not our people. They hate us and so we hate them and on and on, forever and ever. For Thine is the kingdom." Tim Dunlop compares Green's statement to Bush's line about "defeating the terrorists here in Iraq, so that we don't have to face them in our own country," adding: "So this is what the fiasco they have wrought boils down to: the probably forlorn hope that as long as lots of them are being killed, lots of us won't be." Robert Farley at Lawyers, Guns and Money takes issue with Green's claim that "Christianity was a violent religion until the Thirty Years War." Farley lists the wars and death tolls of Western wars since, and notes the rise of Naziism and Communism as evidence the West was still tolerated tyranny long after the war. Conservative Charlie Munn disagrees with a few points of Green's post. Green follows up, acknowledging Munn while dismissing TBogg et. al: "If only those on the left would do more than insult and inflame (but let's not inflame the Muslims!), then maybe they'd be an actual part of the national debate."

MIDTERMS: 1600 Pounds Of Gorilla

The Nation's Marc Cooper attended the David Horowitz-sponsored Restoration Weekend for conservatives in Phoenix, and reports back at The Notion that GOPers there were quite worried about the midterm elections. He quotes Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) on immigration: "I encourage Republicans to not repeat what happened in California in 1994 [with Prop. 187]. It works for one cycle and then you pay a price for a decade." And Club for Growth pres. Pat Toomey: "We have to acknowledge we have a President who is not popular ... The war in Iraq is the 800 lb. gorilla in the room and a major downturn could drown anything we do." Cooper adds: "By the way, I had a terrific time."

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas announces in a 2/25 post, "Hillary is in my spam folder": "That's it. Four fundraising emails in the last three days from the Hillary operation and that was it. I could unsubscribe, sure, but it's easier to add her address ... to my spam filter. She's got some stupid "contest" between the "Paul Begala Team" and the "James Carville Team" ... Hillary is in a fight? For 2008, perhaps. But it's absolutely clear that the GOP is not throwing everything at her. In fact, their efforts to find a candidate to challenge Clinton border on pathetic. Perhaps it's time for her to use some of that fundraising prowess to help out other Democrats? She's got $17 million and no real prospect of being seriously challenged."

IN THE STATES: Turn On Your Heartland, Let It Shine Wherever You Go

In the early p.m. on 2/24, Gov. Ernie Fletcher (R-KY) appointed 2 judges to be special justices on the KY Supreme Court, weeks before the court is about to hear arguments about corruption in Fletcher's admin. AG Greg Stumbo (D) wants the new justices to recuse themselves; the vacancies they are filling were created when the chief and another justice recused themselves from the case. In the mid-p.m. on 2/26, ex-Dem consultant and Bluegrass Report publisher Mark Nickolas filed a complaint with the state's jud. conduct commis. "asking them to forcibly recuse both men if they fail to do the right thing and honorably step-down on their own." In the linked blog entry, Nickolas posted his press release and the 6-page document in Microsoft Word format. Thoughts from Kansas: "The idea that he thought no one would notice or care is astounding." Nickolas updates this a.m. with more, including a comparison to the trial of Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX).

Rumors have been circulating lately that IA Sec/State and GOV candidate Chet Culver (D) briefly attended Drake Univ. law school, but dropped out due to poor grades, and went on to get a masters in education instead. Left-leaning Drew Miller called up the Culver campaign to hear their side, recounts the relatively mundane details, adding: "I don't think this is newsworthy. I'm just putting it out there so that, when it inevitably comes out, people will have the whole story instead of just the damaging parts." This post was prompted by an earlier one by the right-leaning Who's Makin' Bacon?, asking: "How important would it be to my fellow bloggers -- and my ones of readers -- in the upcoming election if they knew that one of candidates, say Nussle or Culver for example, flunked out of law school. Should that be an issue in the campaign?" The anonymous WMB editor adds: "I could have rushed a post" -- WMB links to a Miller post he indicates is doing that -- "but I didn't want to damage my credibility by being wrong. So I posted my question with the hopes of letting itself sort itself out. And now it has."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Oh, That Conservative Media

Lefty bloggers have been arguing as of late that the guest lineups on the Sunday shows are tilted toward the GOP. Now frequent Tim Russert critic Arianna Huffington points out that "Meet the Press" on 2/26 was more like "Meet the Republicans" -- the guests were Sen. John Warner (R-VA), Rep. Peter King (R-NY), and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA). Writes Huffington: "Perhaps the phone lines are down on the other side of the political divide. But I have to admit, it's not unenjoyable watching Republicans disagree, as their party continues to implode while being led by a lamer-by-the-day-duck President." Under the header "NBC Plays Pravda," Oliver Willis adds: "Even the old Soviet Union would have pretended a little better than that. Who knew GE would make Stalin seem like such a champion of media balance."

CALIFORNIA CABLE: Pumped Up Yet?

Left-leaning Joe Scott notes Schwarzenegger's "MTP" appearance as well as his speech at the CA GOP convo over the weekend: "On an ominous note, his biggest convention applause line was not about borrowing billions to rebuild the state's public works. It was mention of conservative Sen. Tom McClintock, his main GOP 2003 opponent in the recall campaign. That McClintock, a candidate for lieutenant governor, disagrees with Schwarzenegger on many policies demonstrates just how much the governor needs 80% of the party vote to win. The governor said he has it now, but ... Russert correctly said it is just 66%, to an inaudible reply."

NETROOTS: Beware Of Roving Bands Of Callers

At Daily Kos and Calling All Wingnuts, lefty activist Mike Stark proposes an "action" for 2/27. He declines to post it on the web, lest the details be too easily obtained by opponents, but he writes: "It will be an email action list of people willing to call and push an coordinated agenda on talk radio shows. I only need about 15-20 people per action, so don't feel like you are signing your life away ... you won't have to commit to every action." He adds, "if I had a list of 100 people and 20 could commit to an hour of hitting redial and waiting on hold, we could send shockwaves through the talk radio industry."

MISCELLANY: Getting Hitched

• In late Jan., Tom Blumer of OH-based Bizzy Blog asked: "Are Al Franken's ridiculously outsized earnings (including a LOT of money up-front) from a network that is funded by one guy a 'clever' way of circumventing campaign-finance law and underwriting a possible Franken run for the US Senate in Minnesota?" Now, he writes there and at MRC's NewsBusters, that the whole of Air America Radio's financing from investors such as George Soros is indistinguishable from "money laundering" to benefit Dem candidates: "So almost $22,000 a day ($8 million in losses spread over a year) is being funneled into AAR by George Soros and the gang to promote candidates they would otherwise be limited to donating some multiple of $2,100 to ... while at the same time giving these candidates air time and web site promotion to raise money from others."
• Christopher Hitchens' 2/24 pro-Denmark rally outside the Danish embassy, which was attended by Andrew Sullivan, Bill Kristol, Cliff May and numerous others. Pictures are available at Vodkapundit, Crossing Wall Street, and another site (whose name we can't repeat). Wonkette also posts pictures, and snarks: "Seriously, did you ever think you'd see these guys carrying signs around protesting shit? Is Thomas Friedman gonna write an op-ed mocking them now? Because these are the people who got together and officially declared protesting to be Ridiculous and Futile back in the go-go '90s, aren't they?"
• At the Club for Growth Blog, Andrew Roth points out the Beltway media's presence in the blogosphere (including us), and asks: "But what I'm wondering is where are Roll Call and The Hill? They should be in the blogosphere... and they should have be in yesterday. Customers looking for news coverage in the nation's capital are demanding real-time information so the blogosphere is ideally suited for these two newspapers. Ahead of the 2006 elections, they need to get with it and start offering blogs to their audiences. Times-a-wastin'."
• Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds was featured on the 2/26 episode of C-SPAN's "Q&A" with Brian Lamb. The transcript is here; video is also available on the show's website. He also had an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal about the UAE port deal on 2/25. In these appearances (and several times per day for weeks, if not months, now) Reynolds is promoting his forthcoming book, "An Army of Davids."
• Milwaukee Journal Sentinel ran a story on 2/26 about Sen. Russ Feingold's (D-WI) popularity in straw polls held at sites including Daily Kos and MyDD. The article quotes MyDD's Chris Bowers, GWU prof Carol Darr and RNC eCampaign dir. Patrick Ruffini.
• At MyDD, Jonathan Singer interviews MT SEN candidate Jon Tester (D).

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Gestalt Of Don Knotts

Conservative Danny "Jack Lewis" Carlton writes: "Don Knotts' career path -- from playing the "likable, average guy" in the '50s, to Barney Fife in the '60s, to "throw-away parts" in the '70s -- "illuminated our changing culture." He argues that by the '70s, the younger studio heads had lost the "general philosophies and world's view of the 50s" and "attempted to escape what they believed was a false world view, only to adopt a philosophy that was truly false, in the worst sense. They convinced themselves such illogical untruths as peace could be obtained by simply rejecting war; poverty could be eradicated by redistributing the wealth; violence could be ended by taking guns away from the law abiding; and morality was a meaningless concept useful only as individuals voluntarily chose it for themselves. The trouble with rejecting reality is that you then have to create your own. Thus during the seventies, when the 60s generation moved into positions of influence and power, we saw the rise of the perfect people. ... And thus the real Americans, the Don Knotts, were quietly pushed to out of view and the incestuous bubble of the Hollywood culture took on a life of its own, and began redefining who we are. ...When Don Knotts was cast as Ralph Furley in 'Three's Company,' he became the same character, but was portrayed as someone to avoid, to shun, to laugh at when he wasn't looking." More: "And now Barney is gone. The man we loved so much because in him we saw a glimpse of ourselves, but would never dare mention that to anyone."

LEST WE FORGET: U Can't Blog This

In a jarring, possibly space-time disrupting collision of early '90s culture and early '00s technology, it turns out that Stanley Burrell -- better known to the world as MC Hammer -- has been writing a blog of his own, the MC Hammer Blog. Started last week and updated almost entirely from his T-Mobile Sidekick, Hammer's blog is essentially a photoblog of being on the road with his family, meditations on faith, baseball and hip-hop, plus audio files and videos of recent performances. His comment section is open to all readers, but Hammer knows what he's doing: "Comments on my blog are most welcome, but please keep them related to the topics of my posts. I reserve the right to delete any that I consider inappropriate."

2/24: The Dubai Brothers

Concern about the UAE port deal is waning, now that Pres. Bush has announced a temporary, length-unspecified cooling-off period. As we've noted before, concern about the actual deal has been on the wane since opposition was at near-unanimity earlier this week -- but that doesn't mean it's settled. Some insist the deal still should not go through and are upset at being labeled bigots. Some who support the deal still want Bush to explain himself better. The right is somewhat divided on the merits and the rhetoric; the left is somewhat amused by this and wonders whether port security can be a good political issue.

Meanwhile, a relatively small but activated group of (mostly) conservative bloggers are pursuing the long-dormant Able Danger story -- that is, participating in conf. calls with those challenging the DoD to investigate the program -- atty Mark Zaid and Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA). There's a harmonic convergence here -- Beltway players using bloggers to get their message out, and bloggers using them for access to info they wouldn't have otherwise.

The trouble in Iraq remains a big story, a move by the SD legis. to ban abortion is getting some nat'l attention, an employee of Rob Reiner's gets caught trolling on a critic's blog, and after that, this Friday edition pretty much descends into an mesmeric medley of miscellany.

PORT SECURITY: The Above Headline Refers To No One In Particular ... We Just Wanted To Be First To Go With That Pun

With the Dubai port deal on hold for the moment, some of the wind has gone out of the sails on this issue. But it remains the top story:

Left-of-center bloggers took great exception to Dep. Defense Sec. Gordon England's statement that controversy over the deal could benefit America's enemies: "They want us to become distrustful, they want us to become paranoid and isolationist." AMERICAblog comments: "Bush has spent the past five years making Americans paranoid for purely political reasons. Now, apparently, if Americans do worry about national security, they are aiding the enemy." A header at Hullabaloo echoes the sentiment: "Live By Demagoguery, Die By Demagoguery." Daily Kos' SusanG, with snark: "Got that, Tom DeLay? Mayor Bloomberg? The rest of you sissies? If we don't allow a country that sheltered Bin Laden access to our major ports, we're emboldening the terrorists!" England isn't the only admin. official whose words are getting parsed. The Liquid List quotes State Dept. Undersec Robert Joseph calling the UAE "a stalwart ally" in the war on terrorism, and Sec/State Condoleezza Rice last year putting them on a list of countries not doing enough to stop human trafficking.

The racialMickey Kaus chastises Bush and other conservatives for casting skeptics as bigots. He snarks: "Voters love being called racists when they have legitimate concerns! Too bad Bush couldn't have made his accusation from the stage at Bob Jones University." A skeptic himself, Kaus calls out Rice for saying: "We have to maintain a principle that it doesn't matter where in the world one of these purchases is coming from." Kaus rejoins: "Really? So it's perfectly all right if Iran, say, decides to go into the port operating business?" At Irish Pennants, syndie columnist Jack Kelly is disappointed with his fellow conservatives on this point: "Boiled down to its essence, the argument for opposing the deal is: Dubai Ports World is owned by Ayrabs, and it was Ayrabs who attacked us on 9/11. The rationale for rejecting the sale is comparable to one President Franklin Roosevelt used after Pearl Harbor for forcibly relocating Japanese Americans from the West Coast to concentration camps in the interior. Blocking the sale will no more help us win the war on terror than Roosevelt's concentration camps helped us win World War II."

Border hawk Michelle Malkin stands firm as a critic of the deal, and sounds almost like lefty Josh Marshall in her questioning of the process: "Many retreating politicians, pundits, and bloggers are all too eager to overlook the dubious business-as-usual approval process that supposedly vetted the deal's risks thoroughly." But not entirely: "The supporters of, and retreaters on, the deal are also silent about the unprecedented, Islamic law-compliant funding scheme that allowed state-owned Dubai Ports World to force its more experienced rival to drop its bid for P&O." As for Marshall himself, he hasn't brought the issue up since we quoted him on it in our last edition, and he's turned his focus to revelations that Rep. Don Young (R-AK) had closer ties to disgraced GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff than he had earlier claimed.

But a few other prominent conservatives are now coming around to support the deal, though they remain concerned that Bush hasn't done enough. Hugh Hewitt had strongly opposed the sale, but is now open to changing his mind: "The Administration was wise to call for a pause for persuasion. Good arguments win debates, and leave everyone better off, and there is zero downside to being persuaded when it is a national security issue. Interesting test case: Someone ask [VA Dem SEN] candidate James Webb what he thinks. If the former Reagan-era Secretary of the Navy gives a green light, the deal will be a go, and the Dems will know the spirit of Scoop Jackson lives." James Lileks is also backing off his initial reaction, but thinks the Bush admin. botched it: "The crafty response would have been to acknowledge the worries, assure a complete and total review and disclosure, and let the facts speak for themselves." Lorie Byrd is in the same boat, and hopes Bush will: "Hold a brief address to the American people and in it say that he is aware that there are many misconceptions about various issues currently in the news, admit that he has not done a good enough job communicating and say that to remedy that he will be addressing the American people more frequently and that he hopes the national networks will make the brief addresses available to their viewers live when they occur. I guess what I want is an updated version of the fireside chat."

Byrd's Polipundit colleague DJ Drummond sees 4 main groups of pols engaged in the debate: those favoring the deal, those opposed to it based on security issues, those opposed so they can score points, and those who "just love a fight." Drummond himself supports the deal, and places Senate Maj. Leader Bill Frist in the point-scoring category, along with other "low-life" GOPers with their eye on '08. Another disgusted with Frist is Mark Noonan from Blogs for Bush, who stands up for the POTUS: "I'm not the cleverest guy in the whole, wide world -- but I smelt the political rat here a mile off. I was unimpressed by the first tremors of this furor last week because, quite honestly, it didn't seem that big a deal. Who, after all, would think that an Executive Branch run by scourge-of-terrorism George Bush would do anything to allow terrorists a new foothold in the United States? It was too absurd to contemplate -- but not too absurd for the MSM... and, God help us, not too absurd for it to be used to roll the Congressional GOP." Macsmind agrees: "You can't argue with success. It's amazing but every time Bush says 'trust me,' the same group of snivelers -- snivel! From the left I expect it. From the right it's enough to make me hurl." On the other side of the issue, Rick Moran of Rightwing Nuthouse stands by his criticism of the deal, and hits back at his critics: "I don't like waking up in the morning and discovering that I'm an 'Islamophobe' or 'Un-American' for calling the Administration a bunch of rabbit heads for the way they've managed the unveiling of this idiocy. ... It bespeaks a certain kind of intellectual laziness when the best one can do to counter an argument is to indulge in an orgy of name calling and finger pointing." He adds: "What those of us who oppose this deal are criticizing is the way in which the decision was reached in the first place and that the decision has to be looked at in the much broader context of the cavalier way in which this Administration has handled some -- not all -- key homeland security issues." Nick Nordseth at The RCP Blog writes, "there is a strong opposition that will not be won over so easily on the merits of the agreement ... So far, though, it is the pundits who are doing the backtracking, not the President."

The Left Coaster sees a political opportunity for the Dems: "The Democrats will now have the opportunity they have lacked to turn Rove's boast on its head, and show voters this fall that it is they who have a post-9/11 view of the world, while it is the GOP that hasn't changed its spots at all: it was, and always has been a GOP priority for cash to trump national security. And it is on full display with this deal." Fairly well persuaded that the current Dubai deal is not itself a problem, left-leaners Matt Yglesias, Kevin Drum and Ed Kilgore want to "pivot" the debate toward the overall laxity of port security post-9/11. Writes Kilgore: "Some of you may recall that John Kerry talked about this a lot during the last presidential campaign, to little avail. But then he didn't have the kind of 'news hook' supplied by the Dubai lease controversy, right? And that's why it's important right now that we move as quickly as possible from that hook to the underlying vulnerability of our ports to the most critical threat post by terrorists: a nuclear 9/11."

Fed'l Ex-Fed'l Maritime Admin. head Helen Delich Bentley has said there are no security implications while ex-DHS Inspector Gen. Clark Kent Erwin writes in the New York Times that it does. Mark Kleiman, for Huffington Post: "A good reporter ought to be able to resolve this question with a day of phone calls and a day on site at one of the ports. Don't hold your breath."

Trying to guess where it goes from here, Tom Maguire's theory is that "Congress will prefer not to have the final say -- that would make them accountable for the result, which is never a Congressional objective."

IRAQ: We Wish To Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Avoiding Mosques With Our Families

Iraq the Model reports that Sadrite militias have seized Sunni mosques, particularly the Wahhabist ones, and are playing "Shia religious mourning songs from the mosque's loudspeakers." Conservative UNC-Chapel Hill prof Cori Dauber: "The situation in Iraq is just flat bad, and there's no point trying to sugar coat any of it. All we can do is wait and see how things break." She adds, "this current crisis might be easier to deal with if, during that one, Sadr had been dealt with in a more permanent manner. (Say, by having the original arrest warrant against him for murder served.) He always managed to back down at just the right moment to preserve his options and keep himself in play, and he's never been anything but an enormously destabilizing influence." Liberal Univ. of Michigan prof Juan Cole: "Sunni Arabs in Iraq blamed US troops for not protecting Sunni mosques and worshippers from violence. The US military ordered the US soldiers in Baghdad to stay in their barracks and not to circulate if it could be helped. This situation underlines how useless the American ground forces are in Iraq. They can't stop the guerrilla war and may be making it worse."

Publius Pundit: "For once it looks as if the Shia political leadership will have to decide if it wants a unified, cooperative, and peaceful Iraq. They will eventually have to accept that their position of power is on the wane, and how they continue to respond in the aftermath of the attack on the Golden Mosque will be an important barometer of this." As others have recently Arianna Huffington advises Dems to finally get behind Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA): "The time has come for Democrats to can the excuses and realpolitik maneuvering, and take the lead on getting our troops out of Iraq."

More commentary at Confederate Yankee; Desert Rat Democrat; The Heretik; Decision '08; Neo-Neocon; American Future; In From the Cold; MaxSpeak, You Listen!.

ABLE DANGER: Wag The Blog?

Just a few days after the last Able Danger conf. call (see 2/21 Blogometer), another was held last p.m., again organized by Mike Kasper of TOPDOG08 and the Able Danger Blog. On the call this time was Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA). Flopping Aces: "Lots was said, and we should have audio up in the next day or so but I will run down a few interesting tidbits. First, he needs any help any can get in keeping this story on the front burner. Contact your local representatives, your Senator, and your Congressman. Contact the press and let them know you feel this is an important story." AJ Strata: "Weldon noted that the DIA held an agency wide conference recently in Florida -- pulling many of their people in from their posts -- and a top level DIA person said one of the Agency's top priorities was to shut down the Able Danger story. Not terrorism -- Able Danger. I live and work in DC and that has got to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard."

The Jawa Report contributor Bluto accuses Washington Post online columnist William Arkin of "character assassination" against whistleblower/Lt. Col. Anthony Schaffer. Bluto notes the harrassment Schaffer claims he's received, adding: "I have a different perspective from Arkin. When I was a Federal employee, I had occasion to blow the whistle myself. Shaffer's testimony rings true. Every word. This is how bureaucrats cover their asses." Arkin's latest is based on the recent testimony of Defense Undersec. Stephen Cambone. But Pink Flamingo Bar & Grill questions Cambone's credibility: "Looks like Stephen Cambone has some splaining to do. Like why wouldn't he swear in for his testimony in front of the House Committee? Was he worried about being busted for lying under oath?" Rory O'Connor held a roundtable discussion with other Able Danger bloggers on WTVN in Columbus, OH; he makes the audio available in 5 segments as MP3s.

An unnamed source of Ed Morrissey's writes in to say that, at the recent hearings, 9/11 Commis. exec. dir. Phil Zelikow "was excoriated in his testimony during the closed session by the Representatives present. He was called a liar to his face." Morrissey: "If this is accurate, it appears that Congress has also found Zelikow's role to hold some interest in how Able Danger got buried. Perhaps more of this curiosity will be evident in the public hearings to come."

MIDTERMS: Charlie Wilson's War

State Sen. Charlie Wilson (D-OH) has failed to qualify for the primary election, collecting just 46 of thee 50 valid signatures required. At Swing State Project, DavidNYC considers other ways Wilson might get onto the ballot, and finds all of them lacking: "Wait until after the primary, then convince the winner to step aside and let Wilson take his/her slot. This might be legally permissible, but good luck making it work in practice. And any move like this will also surely garner negative media attention." Chris Bowers: "Frankly, I feel that if he can't win the primary as a write-in candidate now, then he has no business being the Democratic nominee in the district. A mistake of this level speaks of massive campaign incompetence that almost certainly would lead to his defeat in November."

ABORTION: Such A Rush(more)

The SD Senate has approved legislation that would "impos[e] some of the strictest limits on abortion in the nation," according to AP. Conservative Captain's Quarters interprets: "The primary aim of this bill isn't to outlaw abortions -- it's to challenge the Supreme Court on Roe v. Wade by presenting them with such a law so clearly at odds with the original decision that the court will have to explicitly review the ruling." He's not sure, however, that the new Roberts court will overturn Roe. Bring it On! sees silence among conservative bloggers on the issue, and suspects it's because of the impact overturning Roe would have on the GOP: "I firmly believe that countless conservative women would suddenly move away from the Republican agenda to stand solidly with the left to defend a woman's right to choose." Running Scared: "Oh yes.... elections do have consequences, whether they are decided openly and fairly or not. Buckle up, campers. It's going to be a bumpy ride." Oliver Willis looks ahead: "This will be an intriguing question that should be asked in the 2008 election: Do you support the imprisonment of doctors for up to five years for the alleged 'crime' of performing an abortion, as South Dakota's legislature demands?" Atrios: "Contrary to what seems to be received wisdom in Washington, a strong majority opposes overturning Roe v. Wade. Even more than that, lots of people who want abortion to be illegal in some abstract sense are usually rather reticent about saying just who should be punished and what the punishment should be. There's a tendency to equate "make it illegal" with "stopping it" without recognizing that there would actually have to be state-imposed prison terms for the law to have any bite."

Jane Hamsher blames NARAL and Planned Parenthood for losing ground on the abortion issue. "They sat back, bilked their membership like an ATM then didn't show up to fight Alito's confirmation, frolicking in their mountain of hoarded cash even as they pissed and moaned. Worse yet, afterwards they told their members to thank those in the Senate -- like Joe Lieberman -- who cast their votes to let this happen."

IN THE STATES: Arnold Got Run Over By A Reiner?

As AP reports, film dir./long-rumored CA GOV candidate Rob Reiner (D) is coming under fire for serving as chair of a state commis. while that very commis. has approved $23M to support his pro-pre-school init. Also of note is that Reiner's term has technically expired and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) could remove him, but has not done so. Non-Knick/non-ex-Sen. Bill Bradley of L.A. Weekly and New West Notes notes that he's been trying, without luck, to get in touch with Reiner. What he gets instead is an apparent Reiner employee, "Charlie," posting pro-Reiner messages in the comments section at NWN. Bradley: "'Charlie,' I asked you if you got it. You said you got it. But you don't get it. You are so busted." Hugh Hewitt comments: "Maybe Reiner needs a new team?"

Iraq war veteran/IA state Sen. Chuck Larson (R) is currently appearing in a TV spot featuring Iraq veterans supporting the war. The ad is running in MN, and funded by pro-GOP 527 PFA through MidwestHeroes.com and Families United. As covered at MN-based Power Line in recent days, DFL chair Brian Melendez has called for the ads to come down for allegedly being "un-American, untruthful and a lie." Iowa Bacon explains why this is trouble for Larson: "Several groups that are active in lobbying Larson at the legislature -- and would be interested in currying favors from the former chairman of the Republican party and chair of the Nussle campaign -- have contributed" to Families United. More: "It's uncertain whether they would be as eager to contribute if Larson didn't hold some sway in the statehouse. It's also uncertain whether Larson draws a salary for his work." Iowa Underground Blog calls on Larson to resign, explaining that it's "very simple -- either lobby or govern. It's not that difficult -- and one that Larson himself seems to notice by not running for re-election to his Senate seat this year."

WHITE HOUSE '08: Messing With Texas

Dallas Blog informs us that ex-VA Gov. Mark Warner (D) met with local party leaders and elected officials 2/23. "A number of those in attendance praised Warner's answers to specific questions put to him by some of Dallas's most savvy political activists. Others noted that such meetings were an indication of Warner's political acumen because Texas, although having a history of voting Republican in the last many general elections, is nevertheless a major player in securing the Democratic nomination, with a national convention delegate strength exceeded by only a few other states."

MISCELLANY: Message Disciplinarians

• At Whatever Already, National Journal contributor Murray Waas notes that Senate Intel Cmte ranking Dem Jay Rockefeller has sent a letter to DNI John Negroponte charging that the Bush admin. "authorized" leaks of classified info to Washington Post's Bob Woodward for his '02 book "Bush at War." Rockefeller thinks this may have been done for political purposes and that it might have damaged nat'l security. Think Progress posts the letter [PDF].
• Tom Maguire fires the latest missive in the Glenn Greenwald-launched debate over whether mere opposition to certain Bush policies is enough to get one labeled a liberal by the Bush "cult" -- see 2/14, 2/17 and 2/22 Blogometers. Maguire seizes on this Greenwald line: "Tom ... exhibit[s] a good amount of intellectual cowardice by purposely refusing to say whether they actually dispute the existence of this phenomenon or whether they simply think that I provided insufficiently clear examples of it." Maguire: "[D]on't you have to love a guy who thinks it is intellectual cowardice to hold off on forming an opinion until facts are presented?" Maguire also indicates that he doesn't think Greenwald's latest examples amount to much, either.
• Matt Stoller points out that while bloggers in general were covering the mosque bombing in Samarra and the "brewing civil war" in Iraq, the blog at GOP.com focused on a report about a modest improvement in mail delivery. A veteran of the Jon Corzine GOV campaign, he explains: "Having been in a blogger capacity in a few organizations where the communications department ran the show, I can tell you a few things happen during a panic situation. In organizations like the RNC where the internet department has little clout, the blog gets silent. The message hasn't been built yet, and it's very clear that the stakes are too high for some random junior staffer to say a little something like they usually do. That's what it looks like is happening right now at GOP.com. They don't know how to respond to the port fiasco and the brewing Civil War in Iraq. And they are not even allowed to change the subject, probably because the Communications shop is too busy to even approve any new post even though it's been a day since they put anything up." In contrast, Tim Tagaris at the official DNC blog is able to stay on-message and on-topic, running with the header: "An Apocalyptic Day In Iraq -- An Out Of Touch Administration."
• Brad Friedman, a tireless monitor of voting technology controversies -- including Diebold's legal and corporate setbacks -- since the '04 election, calls attention to an AP report about Sequoia voting machines in Palm Beach, FL, recorded 100K "reboots" and re-calibrations during their time in use.
• At RedState, Mike Krempasky calls attention to the fact that the FEC will hold its final vote on new rulemaking for Internet political activity (see 6/30 Blogometer).
• For MyDD, Jonathan Singer interviewed Hennepin Co. DA/MN SEN candidate Amy Klobuchar (D).

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Even In The Blog Era, There's Still A Limited Number Of People Who Care About Politics

Programmer Tristan Louis has posted a blog trend study titled Technorati 100 Here Today Gone Tomorrow. He compares the Technorati Top 100 blogs (by links) for now to the top 100 from 9 months ago. Tech-oriented blog Boing Boing remains #1, but the 99 other places have changed. Notably, political blogs no longer dominate the top end; only Daily Kos remains in the top 10; Instapundit has fallen to #12. It's not that these blogs are losing traffic -- generally, they are growing -- but that they are being replaced by faster-growing non-political blogs such as PostSecret. But a few political blogs are bucking the trend: relative newcomer Michelle Malkin has risen to #10 overall, and less than a year after its debut, Huffington Post is #6.

LEST WE FORGET: Not-So-Grand Rounds

It's a Friday guess-who's-in-our bookmarks edition:

• Boing Boing addresses voluntary disemvowelment.
• Fafblog on mirage pie.
• Iowahawk dabbles in Onion-style fake news: "Bush Inks Irish Firm To Guard National Whiskey Reserve."
• Faux right-winger Jesus' General reviews a David Horowitz book on left-wing professors: "Mr. Horowitz failed to mention the mind control this professor exercised over students like me. That's the most important part of the story. I can't give the book more than one star."
• At Blowing Smoke, Jim Treacher posted a President's Day round-up of one-line reactions to Hollywood movies featuring fictional U.S. presidents.
• Steve at The Sneeze, points out that "Tired, Fat, Spent" is an anagram for "William Howard Taft," as well as other fat Taft tidbits.

2/23: Parallel Port Confusion

The sale of 6 major U.S. ports to the U.A.E.-owned company Dubai Ports World continues to dominate much of the blogospheric debate today. As we noted 2/22, momentum was shifting from blanket disapproval toward greater acceptance. This movement was generally led by the intellectual right, and the intellectual left soon found itself in guarded agreement -- the deal wasn't as bad as it first seemed. The more partisan wings of the left and right, roughly speaking, have continued either to oppose the deal or are shifting to oppose it on other grounds. But most everyone knows the facts are not yet fully known -- especially after the last couple days.

Dividing bloggers into particular camps is not easy, but let's try. On the right, we have: Those whose initial concerns have now been assuaged, those who are still opposed to the sale and questioning those who have changed their minds, and a hard-to-nail-down middle ground who are open to the plan but still have serious questions. On the left, we have: Those who favor or are neutral on the sale itself and are moving to other questions about port security, and those who are still opposed to the sale, and are also asking other questions. In our coverage, we don't put every blogger in one category or another, but we do try to arrange the bloggers of the left and right into a spectrum of opinion, for and against.

The 2nd biggest story today is the destruction of the Askariya shrine, or Golden Mosque, in Samarra, Iraq. The buzz phrase is "civil war," with most on the left asserting it's now here (if it wasn't already), while the right tries to stay optimistic and wonders why there isn't more anger in the wider Muslim world.

We also cover a tiny bit of Plamegate, a close call for Justice Antonin Scalia, the early planning stages of a new project by left-leaning bloggers, and if that wasn't enough, there's also our latest Blogger Spotlight.

PORT SECURITY I: Not A Tort, Nor A Matter Of Court -- But A ... Short Snort Thwart A Quart ... Nope, Nothing. [Updated]

There's plenty of reaction to an AP report about a "secret" deal between the U.S. and U.A.E. -- Conservative Poliblog asks: "My first question is: 'secretive' in the sense that negotiations weren't held live on TV, or 'secretive' in the sense that it wasn't common knowledge? ... This is one of those deals were the lede sets the tone and one wonders the degree to which the author of the piece was seeking a particular tone." Fellow right-leaner Outside the Beltway concurs, but finds that worrisome as well: "Further, we are not given any indication of what type of "cooperation" is being promised by Dubai. ... If the "cooperation" is limited to what is described in the piece, then it strikes me -- as a casual observer with nearly zero knowledge about port administration prior to this news coming out -- as a bad deal. Why give concessions in exchange for ordinary compliance with U.S. laws?" Meanwhile, liberal Lambert at Corrente has an alternate explanation for the exceptions granted in the deal: "Look. There's only one reason Bush is putting this operation outside US law, and that's that what he's doing would break the law inside the US. Just like Gitmo, Bagram AFB, etc. That spells torture."

How did we get here? Jim Geraghty at NRO's TKS bemoans the confused reax: "My fellow bloggers ... we've been snookered. ... Sad to say, some of my favorite bloggers used language that was vague, unclear, and helped foster misconceptions." He cites Instapundit and Little Green Footballs -- and he includes liberal blogs, presumably not among his favorites. And of the New York Post he writes, "I'm generally a big fan ... but the way this story arranges the facts appears to be some pretty blatant scaremongering." At CBS's Public Eye, Hillary Profita concurs: "Geraghty has a point, the confusion that this story has wrought is not to be blamed solely on the hyperbolic nature of bloggers. ... More and more, the media we consume is noted by its brevity -- which makes stories that are considerably complex even more difficult to tell -- and why it becomes so easy for misleading headlines and hyperbole to spread so quickly."

Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds criticizes the WH and MSM for the confusion: "Though the misconceptions seem to come from Big Media reporting, and the error correction mostly from bloggers and reader email. ... The White House should have had the facts out quickly, and should be on top of things now. It's not too late, but there's already considerable Congressional upset. You can respond to that sort of concern with facts, but not with a mixture of "trust us" and charges of bigotry which has been the White House's main tactic so far." A few days ago, Robert George observed that "'Dubai Ports World' is Arabic for ... 'Harriet Miers.'" With a few days to study the many red flags he concedes his initial reaction was incorrect: "'Dubai Ports World' is evidently Arabic for... 'WTF????'" At Oxblog, David Adesnik makes some of the same points in a post headed: "Bush Right. Bipartisan Consensus Wrong. Weird, Huh?"

Digby fears that because of the confusion -- and the WH's mismanagement -- we can't get out of the sale. He notes the U.A.E. royals' '99 with OBL and the fact that our Navy ships acknowledges that it's "obviously a very complicated relationship" the U.S. has with the U.A.E., yet while Bush "has been playing politics with this complicated situation for years now, saying things like 'you're either with us or you're with the terrorists' ... it was never quite that simple was it?" He asks: "Is it any wonder that this whole thing has brought about extreme cognitive dissonance?" Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum -- one of the early lefties to change his mind throw water on early concerns about the port deal -- looks at the company DPW beat out, PSA Int'l, which is owned by the gov't of Singapore. As a backup, PSA may now buy Stevedoring Services -- and so may "end up running terminal services in Seattle, Los Angeles, San Diego, Houston, Charleston, New Orleans, and a whole bunch of other U.S. cities." He asks: "Are we OK with these guys running our ports? Just asking..."

PORT SECURITY II: The Port Side On The Port

Reax from the left, organized from those least opposed to the port sale to those most against it:

• UCLA public policy prof Mark Kleiman concedes that the port sale is not the issue many on the left had hoped for: "Don't you hate it when reality gets in the way of a really good issue?"
• NewsHog is concerned that the left is getting carried away in its opposition: "Can we get beyond the hype, counterspin and the kneejerk Islamophobia here? Maybe? Yes? Take a chill pill and listen a moment. Kevin Drum has it right and the Wall Street Journal for once has some sense to its opinion."
• Scott Lemieux thinks the Bush admin. may not have followed the proper procedure, but adds: "We already have ports being operated by extremely bad authoritarian regimes, and I don't think anybody has suggested that these ports are particularly insecure. More importantly, all of the critiques of the Bush administration, in this narrow context, prove too much."
• Josh Marshall lists himself as "officially agnostic," but points out that the "failure to require the company to keep business records on US soil sounds like a pretty open invitation to flout US law as near as I can tell. Forget terrorism. This is the sort of innovative business arrangement I would think a number of Bush-affiliated American companies might want to get in on."
• Blue Jersey summarizes: "Ok folks, so it seems not only did the Bush administration blindly trust Dubai with our ports, he gave them a sweet deal. Also, Tom Delay has betrayed his dear leader by speaking out against the Port takeover."
• Daily Kos: "Democrats have been at the forefront of efforts to tighten port security for just about this entire decade. Republicans have stood in the way. And we now see the logical conclusion to their indifference -- the selling of our ports to a nation with extensive ties to the very terrorists who are trying to destroy us."
• Sisyphus Shrugged: "Four and a half years after 9/11, high-level national security decisions involving foreign governments are being made by unsupervised low-level staffers who can't be troubled to inform Our Fearless Leader and his cabinet officers when they've made a controversial decision so they can inform congress. ... Hey, national security voters, you laughing?"

PORT SECURITY III: Hard A-Starboard

Reax from the right, this time organized from those most opposed to those most favorable:

• David Kopel at Volokh Conspiracy: "Although many of the leaders of the UAE dictatorship may indeed support the U.S. in the war on terror, it seems clear that, at the least, there is a notable portion of the UAE, including some powerful and/or influential people, who do not. ... The risks of a bin Laden sympathizer from the UAE supplying critical US port information to terrorists seems unacceptably high."
• Hugh Hewitt: "I don't think there is going to be any explanation that will persuade any significant number of voters that this is a good deal, even if he can pull together enough votes to override a veto. Public opinion on such matters matters a lot. The UAE ought to rescind the deal, recognizing the intense negative reaction in America, even as many Americans recognized the intense negative reaction to the Danish cartoons on the part of Muslims who are on the right side of the GWOT."
• Bill Quick: "We have been assured over and over -- by George Bush, no less -- that the Saudis are our real, true, deep, great allies in the war against terror. So would you do the same deal with a company owned by the Saudi Royal family? How about the bin Laden family? If not, why not? If so, why?"
• Michelle Malkin's last post on the subject was at 11:40 a.m. on 2/22, disagreeing with a WSJ op-ed defending the deal: "Do not be reassured. The business-as-usual Journal editorial writers may have complete faith in this panel's dealings. You should not."
• Andrew Sullivan: "If people are worried about the ports, they need to scrutinize the Coast Guard and the administration's own DHS. Much of the rest is xenophobic nonsense. Leave that crap to Lou Dobbs."
• Argghhh!: "Perhaps because I've worked in the homeland defense business and have a little better understanding than most of how it all works ... I recognize that it is perhaps bad politics, but that doesn't mean that it is a bad decision."
• Six Meat Buffet: "At first, I was strongly opposed to it. Last night, however I heard Bill O'Reilly's reasons why it is not a bad idea. Normally, I think O'Reilly is a self-absorbed gas bag. This time, he was a self-absorbed gas bag that made sense."
• California Conservative: "The UAE is working in good faith on this national security issue and should be rewarded for its cooperation and openness. These aren't the actions of a company trying to hide something in their operations. Quite the opposite, actually."

IRAQ: Like Axl Said, We Don't Need Your Civil War

In the wake of the mosque destruction, Iraqi Pres. Jalal Talabani cautioned: "We should all stand hand in hand to prevent the danger of a civil war." Indeed, civil war is definitely the phrase on many minds. See: top header at liberal Huffington Post: "Wave Of Mayhem Pushes Iraq To Brink Of Civil War..." And at conservative Drudge Report: "Hell Unleashed: Mosque Attack Pushes Iraq Toward Civil War."

Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani has forbidden retaliation against Sunni mosques, but lefty Middle East scholar Juan Cole puts it skeptically: "Sistani called for nonviolent street protests that he must know won't be nonviolent. Iran is blaming Bush and the Israelis, which is ridiculous but already widely believed in Iraq and Iran. The threat of terrorism and attacks on Americans just went way up." Echidne of the Snakes is resigned to disaster: "The 'we' are totally worn out by all this, especially by the idea that each new step in the inevitable march towards anarchy is something worth commenting about, as if nobody had seen it coming. Like the levees breaking in New Orleans, I guess." The Peking Duck: "There's no denying it: Iraq is on the cusp of civil war. It seems to have started already, and there's probably no way to stop it. Even the most optimistic Iraqi bloggers concede the situation is desperate." Header at The Left Coaster: "Is Bush About To Lose His Iraq Bet?"

A few bloggers from the region are less certain about the prospect for all-out civil war. The blogger TPD above links to is Iraq the Model's pro-American Omar, who is worried: "I believe there are foreign terror groups behind this attack and I don't think local insurgent would do such a thing, simply because this particular shrine had been in Sunni territory for a thousand years and the residents of Samarra had always benefited from the movement of religious tourism and pilgrimage. Things look scary here in Baghdad and I hope there won't be more updates to report as I can't see a positive thing coming out of this." U.S. skeptic Baghdad Burning: "No one went to work today as the streets were mostly closed. The situation isn't good at all. I don't think I remember things being this tense -- everyone is just watching and waiting quietly. There's so much talk of civil war and yet, with the people I know -- Sunnis and Shia alike -- I can hardly believe it is a possibility." Egypt-based Rantings of a Sandmonkey: "The way Iraq's leaders have been handling it is very promising so far, and hopefully this will be the close call that will unite the Sunnis and the Shias against the Jihadis that want them both dead."

On the right there is great concern, but more optimism that the situation can be dealt with -- Bill Roggio: "This is a critical juncture in the development of Iraq. The timing of the attack was well-designed, as the negotiations to for the Iraqi government are still underway. Not only is Zarqawi trying to stoke a sectarian war, he is attempting to alienate the Sunni political parties from the government." The Belmont Club: "The good news is that there are enough cools heads on both sides to try to keep the lid on. That fact alone attests to the accomplishment of those who have tried to build a unitary Iraq." On the other hand, QandO's Jon Henke almost wishes they'd fight and get it over with: "At least a confrontation may force the Shiites and Sunnis to face down the problem and find a resolution. ... Any eventual resolution, of course, may or may not be something we'll like. But that's where we are in Iraq: largely out of the drivers seat, and dependent upon the Iraqis for the success or failure of the Iraq experiment." Balloon Juice's Tim F. is not as optimistic: "The only imaginable reason why somebody would want to do this is if they want a civil war. I say that because that's what's happening, and it's inconceivable that a group of Iraqis wouldn't foresee it."

There is also frustration at a perceived double-standard -- Instapundit: "If Danish cartoons could create riots worldwide against the defamers of Islam, you'd think that bombing of mosques would create anti-terrorist marches all over." USS Neverdock: "Such is Muslim hypocrisy and so much for the vaunted Muslim unity around the world. Why aren't Muslims around the world protesting this and calling for Zarqawi's head?"

>> Noting that FNC's Bill O'Reilly is now calling for the U.S. to "cut and run" from Iraq, AMERICAblog's John Aravosis wishes the Dems would have got behind Rep. John Murtha's (D-PA) call for withdrawal when they had the chance: "Sure, the Repubs would have beaten the crap out of them, but it would have put Bush and company in a bind. Either stay in Iraq in order to prove the Dems wrong -- and watch all hell break loose in Iraq, proving that we shouldn't be there -- or withdraw eventually and whenever the withdraw happens, concede that the Dems were right."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: From The Grassroots To The Netroots To The ... Waveroots?

1st Amendment atty Glenn Greenwald, who has been the leading expert among critics of the NSA wiretap program, argues that the "the serious split between the Administration and their formerly compliant Congressional allies is" on the port issue is "the perfect framework in which to press for real Congressional investigations into the NSA scandal." Liberal radio talker Taylor Marsh agrees: "Connecting the NSA illegal spying up with Portgate will give Glenn and anyone else trying to drive home the dangers, not to mention the illegality of domestic spying, a natural hook. The hook is accountability and what is being done in secret." More: "The beauty of Portgate is that it hits the people's emotions and nationalism. While you're in that tender spot, hit them with more damaging substance, which is the illegal wiretapping of American citizens." Marsh ties this in with a plan originally described by Jane Hamsher on 2/20 -- to put liberal voices on talk radio, initially by organizing to call-in on particular topics. The initial target markets are listed as states, in order: KS, PA, ME, NE, SC and OH. The plan currently goes by the name of "Project Roots" or "The Roots Project."

SCALIA: Gets Larouched

AP reports that Justice Antonin Scalia was "heckled" 2/22 during a speech at AEI. AP adds that "Scalia answered questions for about 15 minutes but repeatedly declined to engage anyone who asked questions, even of an apparently friendly nature." TAPPED's Nelson Harvey was there, and describes it as "a scene out of the political twilight zone." 12 supporters of Lyndon LaRouche "marched in" and "fired questions at the justice about the Treaty of Westphalia, the philosophy of Carl Schmitt, Ben Franklin and a suite of other themes lifted nearly verbatim from Larouche's campaign literature from any of the last four presidential races." The first one to speak "mispronounced the judge's name," calling him "Anton," to which Scalia replied "with a sharp 'Antonin!'" -- Ted Frank says "Scalia answered questions about his speech, and passed on other questions, but, as if a glutton for punishment (or at least confrontation), he continued to select scruffy leftists/LaRouche Youth who raised their hands." James Joyner calls the original AP article misleading, because it makes it seem as if an AEI spokesperson called Scalia rude. She told Joyner "she was referring to the outrageous conduct of the protesters, not Scalia."

PLAMEGATE: Drip, Drip ... Oh, Is Anyone Even Listening?

NRO's Byron York details the latest affidavit released by Scooter Libby's atty, leading: "Former Cheney chief of staff Lewis Libby has offered some new insights into his expected defense on perjury, obstruction, and false statements charges in the CIA leak case. And his defense is: I forgot. Or I misremembered. Or both." Tom Maguire reacts sarcastically: "Oh, you see why these lawyers command the big bucks." And he's not sure why exactly Libby's attys want to know what certain reporters told prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, but he does wonder if it could expose greater involvement by NBC's Andrea Mitchell or New York Times' Nick Kristof than is currently known. Firedoglake's ReddHedd has more posts coming on this today, but starts out trying to explain what the latest documents mean: "I will keep an ear to the ground regarding the hearing on Friday. Most likely what it will consist of is some argument on the motions and briefs filed thus far and, as a status conference, some detailing as to how disagreements over classified discovery will be resolved and how the judge will handle his own review process of the documents."

MISCELLANY: If You Hated The Illinois Nazis ...

• Liberal Dave Neiwert of Orcinus has been tangling with local white supremacists, and recently found himself named a "race traitor" at the site of the "regional National Socialist Movement outfit (sorry, I won't link to it). There is an innate threat in such a listing, of course, but it's one I'm accustomed to, not to mention well prepared to deal with." Just in case, he's raising money toward the "cause of keeping Orcinus afloat." In a rare non-sarcastic post, WA-based Jesus' General adds: "The first time I picked up a piece of National Socialist Vanguard "literature" off of my porch, I looked around and saw a neighborhood that was completely new and alien to me. Everyone was suspect. It's a terribly isolating feeling. David needs your support and your contributions."
• Conservatives are hitting Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) for suggesting that some people would spend school vouchers on places like the "school of the Church of the White Supremacist" or "the School of the Jihad." John Hawkins: "Did someone slip some bourbon in her coffee before she went on stage or something? There are already voucher programs in parts of the US. Show me any of them where they dole out funds to Osama Bin Laden Elementary or the Robert 'Sheets' Byrd White Power Middle School. It's not happening now, nor will it happen." == Iowa Voice ties this to her recent "plantation" comments (see 1/18 Blogometer), writing: "This woman will play just about any card she can get ahold of these days." == Lorie Byrd: "I wonder why the Republicans have not capitalized on the issue of school vouchers, which are very popular with non-Jesse Jackson-following blacks in America. This could be just the opening needed to bring the issue to the front burner."
• ThinkProgress catches Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) trying to downplay his comment to the effect to the St. George Spectrum, a small UT paper, that "Nobody denies that he was supporting al-Qaida. Well, I shouldn't say nobody. Nobody with brains." Hatch opponent Pete Ashdown (D), founder of UT's 1st ISP, waxes mock sympathetic to Hatch over being caught out by the Internet: "It would have worked if it hadn't been for those meddling kids and their Interwebs!"
• At liberal Huffington Post, conservative Washington Times ed. page editor Tony Blankley praises liberal Harvard prof Alan Dershowitz's forthcoming book, Meanwhile at The Corner, K.J. Lopez notes the unusual byline on a Washington Post op-ed defending free speech against the "war of intimidation" by "radical Islamists." That byline is conservative William Bennett and once again, Dershowitz.
• Beginning with a column for Slate, Christopher Hitchens has organized a rally in support of Denmark, to take place outside the Danish Embassy in DC at noon on 2/24. Fellow would-be Orwell Andrew Sullivan announces his attendance.
• Left-leaning academics/academically-inclined bloggers Mark Kleiman, Brad DeLong, Max Sawicky, Kevin Drum and Matt Yglesias all weigh in on the interesting question of what DC-based research institutions should and should not be considered think tanks.

BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: O Captain! My Captain!

Today the Blogometer talks to conservative Ed Morrissey, who writes Captain's Quarters.

What is your full name?

Edward Morrissey.

What is your age?

42.

Where did you grow up?

I grew up (to the extent I ever did) in Cerritos, California, a suburb of Los Angeles.

Where do you live now?

Twin Cities area of Minnesota. I've been here for eight years.

What is your occupation? Have you ever worked on a political campaign or for the mainstream media?

I'm a call center manager. I've never worked as an employee of the media, although I've written some free-lance commentary for hire. I volunteered for Bush 41's 1988 presidential campaign and knocked on a few doors, but that's been the extent of my political career. My uncle was a two-term Assemblyman in California (Jim Morrissey).

When did you start blogging and why?

I started blogging in October 2003. I started for the same reasons most others do -- an opportunity to add my voice, unedited, to the debate. I had written letters to the local newspapers and even had a couple of op-ed pieces published, but I wanted my own forum.

What has been your favorite post, or favorite story to write about, in that time?

I had so many great stories come my way, it would be difficult to pick one. The story that has been the best for me is the Canadian finance scandals. I made a lot of new friends in Canada and helped to inform Canadians of the corruption.

Describe your typical blogging schedule. And what is your average output?

I typically write for a couple of hours in the morning and a couple of hours at night, and I'll post anywhere between 5-10 posts a day, most days.

Who is your favorite political blogger? Favorite non-political blogger?

My favorite political bloggers? I have too many to give a complete list, but Michelle Malkin and Hugh Hewitt have to top the list. My radio-show comrades from Fraters Libertas, Power Line, Shot In The Dark, and SCSU Scholars rank pretty high, too. Non-political blogger? I don't spend a lot of time on non-political blogs. The closest would have to be The Anchoress, whose posts on Catholic spirituality and religion are simply astounding.

Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?

Again, I have several favorites. Howard Kurtz at the Washington Post is a must-read. Jack Shafer at Slate, Jack Kelly at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Michael Ledeen at NRO, Stephen Hayes at the Weekly Standard, many more I'm probably forgetting. I like E.J. Dionne at the Post even though we rarely agree on much.

What is your favorite television news program, either network or cable?

"Special Report" by Brit Hume. I rarely watch TV news on networks or cable; the format lends itself to very superficial reporting. I do like Abbi Tatton and Jacki Schechner at CNN and their coverage of the blogs.

What MSM-produced websites (i.e. newspapers, magazines) do you visit on a daily basis?

Washington Post, CNN, New York Times, Washington Times, New York Sun, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, LA Times, Yahoo news feeds, the BBC, the Guardian and the Telegraph in the UK, the London Times, Slate, and more.

What non-MSM websites (i.e. blogs) do you visit on a daily basis?

Besides the ones I mentioned above, I also visit The Moderate Voice, All Things Beautiful, Tapscott's Copy Desk, Heritage Foundation, QandO, Just One Minute, The Corner, Strange Women Lying In Ponds, and of course Instapundit.

How often, or do you ever, read a newspaper in its dead-tree (i.e. print) form?

Only when I'm in a waiting room.

How do you see the new media and old media affecting and influencing each other in the next five years?

I believe that both will make each other stronger and more responsive. The New Media cannot replace the Old Media's reach and flexibility, and the Old Media cannot compete with the diversity of voices in the New Media. In five years, they will appear more complementary than antagonistic. In ten years, no one will understand how we operated without both.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: What's A Conservative?

Since the publication of a 2/16 Slate, DC-based writers and other bloggers have been debating the conservatism of film director Whit Stillman. Conservatives Ross Douthat and Rightwing film geek argue that Stillman is one of them, liberal Garance Franke-Ruta is less sure. At The Corner, Jonah Goldberg points out that "Metropolitan" as a movie "isn't ideologically conservative in any profound way, but it is of conservative temperament. It treats a group universally despised by leftist culture -- elitist New York WASPS -- and treats them lovingly and satirically at the same time." At Tapped, Franke-Ruta agrees, adding: "If liberals and Democrats were less concerned with defending, attacking, or publicly enacting what are in the end only lifestyle choices, they might be more successful politically. That's one reason I believe conservative efforts to claim every part of human history and culture prior to about 1963 as their exclusive territory must be rejected ... Conservative have been very involved in the project of 'defining progressivism down,' and if liberals are really interested in taking back the country, they could do a lot worse than resisting that effort."

LEST WE FORGET: Bosnywash Ball

What if Washington pols were players on the Boston Red Sox? RedState contributor Higginsbj has it all worked out, at least from a pro-GOP, pro-Sox perspective. Highlights: Righty Curt Schilling is ex-Speaker Newt Gingrich -- "Curt was the hero behind his team's greatest triumph, but played too hard and it ruined his personal future. He is now attempting a comeback, which could be key to his team's immediate and long term goals. Impossible to shut up at times, he seems surgically attached to a TV camera. His team will need his influence if they want to win in '06." Manager Theo Epstein is political mastermind Karl Rove -- "The architect of his team's recent run of success, he was nearly forced out by power-mad adversaries. Though he is back, no one knows what role he is now playing. Recent moves by his organization have left many scratching their heads wondering if the genius has lost his influence, or just plain lost it." Catcher Jason Varitek is the late Pres. Reagan -- "Founder of the Modern Movement and strong Commander in Chief, current team would have never tasted success without his many years of contributions. Loves to pick fights with the Evil Empire." Speaking of, Yankee star Alex Rodriguez is House Min. Leader Nancy Pelosi -- "After whining and slapping at his adversaries for years, opponents fear he may win once."

2/22: Split Second Impressions

24 hours ago, the proposed sale of 6 U.S. ports to UAE-based Dubai Ports World was well along the way to becoming a genuine bipartisan issue across the blogosphere -- Pres. Bush's continued support for the plan stood in stark contrast to the outcry from members of Congress and bloggers of all leanings. Everyone took it up as a matter of security, and liberal bloggers added to the list of complaints Bush's secrecy, corporate ties and oil connections. But now things started to change, as new facts come to light, and many are having second thoughts. This is primarily true on the right, albeit not exclusively. Also in today's edition -- reax to news that the SCOTUS will take up abortion again soon, to Harvard pres. Larry Summers' announced resignation, the David Irving sentence, and more.

PORT SECURITY I: UAE! UAE!

The more some bloggers think about it, the more they're leaning toward Bush's position. While it may not be the majority position now, it is the one gaining momentum:

Right-leaning Hei Lun from Begging to Differ is sure the sale is bad politics, but not sure it's actually bad policy: "Some have pointed out that two of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers were from the UAE, but I don't think that's dispositive of much. If one of the hijackers had been a British Muslim, does that mean we can no longer trust British companies? The owners are foremost businessmen, and does anyone think that they'd spend billions just to launch a terrorist attack that will lead to all their assets in the world getting frozen? ... If terrorists were going to infiltrate the company, it makes no difference whether they're owned by a British company or an Arab one." GOP Bloggers makes a similar argument, and uses it to hit the Dems: "Obviously, there's a big difference and those who are raising objections to this deal but drone on about 'profiling' at airports and other such locations ought to explain why treating Arabs differently is acceptable in this case." Ironic header at conservative Brothers Judd: "Where Are All The Loony Righties Decrying Protectionism?" In a widely-quoted post, Squiggler explains her changed mind, from initial opposition to reconsideration.

Liberal Kevin Drum from The Washington Monthly winces at his own apostasy: "I hate to say it, but I can't help but think that Bush may be right about the whole thing." So does The American Prospect's Michael Tomasky, who titles his comment the "Semi-Annual 'Bush May Be Right' Post."

Left-leaning Sean-Paul Kelley argues that one cause for concern is that the UAE "still has ties to al Qaeda," but Glenn Greenwald questions whether this is really so: "Is this really the case, and if so, why haven't we taken action against the UAE in the past? Why hasn't anyone demanded that we do so?" Liberal Martini Republic cites many instances of UAE connections to terrorists by the 9/11 Commission. Conservative Dafydd Ab Hugh is sure the UAE is a friend, but still sees the potential for trouble: "The UAE has been America's most reliable Arab partner in the war against Islamist jihadi terrorism. Nobody is worried that the current Emir of Dubai will suddenly link up with al-Qaeda, just as we're not worried that General Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan will cut a deal with Osama bin Laden. But both countries have many Islamists and many supporters of terrorism and of al-Qaeda... and they cannot always ensure that their companies have not been infiltrated by sleeper agents." AJ Strata criticizes fellow conservatives concerned about "ethnic" make-up of the UAE "but this is the kind of ugly response that makes our enemies cheer and toast their good luck. This is so damn sad."

At The Corner, John Podhoretz responds to a question about "why an American company can't run the ports": "Ah, but there is one. And only one. And it's called Halliburton..." John Hawkins imagines the possibilities: "Can you just imagine the reaction from the left if Bush scuttled the UAE port deal and then Halliburton took over? Bwahahahaha! Talk about hilarious!"

Ex-Reason editor Virginia Postrel gives "kudos to President Bush for standing up for commercial freedom and sound foreign policy. Dubai is a U.S. ally and a rare island of semi-freedom in the Gulf."

PORT SECURITY II: Pride In Their Port, Defiance In Their Eye, We See The Blogs Of Security Pass By

Despite the reconsiderations noted above, there are still many concerns about the whole thing:

At The Corner, Podhoretz sees no good coming from this fight: "This is gonna be bad. He's going to lose this fight if he goes to the mattresses on it, because nobody in Congress will ever defend it publicly and a veto override is a distinct possibility. Second terms. Second terms." GOP consultant Rich Galen: "This port deal is not a national security issue. It is an issue of this administration having a continuing problem with understanding how these things will play in the public's mind and not taking steps to set the stage so these things don't come as a shock and are presented in their worst possible light. ... The Administration has no demonstrated capacity to brief allies on its activities so, when a public announcement is made, they have friends ready to explain to the public, either through or in spite of, the news media, what is really going on." Conservative James Lileks, at his Screedblog: "[I]f I had to make a prediction, I'd say this: the Dubai-ports fracas will become a flap, quickly swell into a firestorm, then become a debacle before settling into the history books as a 'historic miscalculation' -- providing the Republicans only lose the Congress. If they lose a city, it will be a 'critical turning point.'"

Michelle Malkin posts an e-mail from a tipster claiming to be a corporate atty specializing in "Islamic finance." He explains the deal is part of a "sukuk" -- a finance vehicle used "to work around the Muslim prohibition on interest" -- that's important to making a success out of Dubai's stock exchange. Responding to critics of her unflinching position on border and security issues, she adds: "If demanding that our government put American security interests above foreign business interests makes me an 'Islamophobe,' and if wanting to know the full details of the who, what, when, where, and why of this UAE government deal, secretly approved by the Treasury Dept.-led Committee on Foreign Investments in the US, makes me an 'Islamophobe,' I plead guilty." Liberal The Talking Dog: "Most peculiar, in that the simple sound-bite of 'The President is selling our ports to an Arab government' could undermine years of drum-beat mind control lying that 'this President is protecting us from terrrrrrrrorists.' ... This is a double disaster for the President." The Glittering Eye asks: "How many airport terminal operations are operated by foreign companies? Companies wholly or in part owned by foreign governments? Are those a security risk, too?"

Right-leaning Instapundit doesn't understand what it's all about: "Either this deal is somehow a lot more important than it seems (a quid pro quo for, well, something ...) or Bush is an idiot. Your call. ... There must be something important here to get Bush to threaten a veto -- had he done more vetoing, of course, that wouldn't be quite so obvious." Ex-spook In From the Cold tries to guess: "Cancelling the port deal could mean the end of U.S. basing rights in the UAE, strained relations with other regional partners, and the potential loss of a key defense contract, all viewed as critical in fighting the War on Terror. Collectively, those factors probably explain why the deal hasn't already been nixed, and why the Bush Administration may put up a fight -- even with political allies."

Shakespeare's Sister notes that Defense Sec. Donald Rumsfeld "claimed in a press briefing today that he hadn't even heard about the decision to sell oversight of 6 American ports to Dubai Ports World until this past weekend. If that's true, then I knew about a fairly significant national security issue almost a week before the Secretary of Defense, on the day the deal was approved, February 13. Maybe Rummy should try reading the paper. Or some blogs." On the "blog" section of his VOLPAC site, Senate Maj. Leader Bill Frist writes: "As of today, I'm requesting briefings on this deal. If the Administration does not put the deal on hold, I will introduce legislation doing so ... to ensure that this decision gets a more thorough review." Since going up just before noon, the post has collected 950+ comments, which is a lot by any blog's standards (though this was Frist's 1st post since 2/15). TX-based liberal Pink Dome: "To see a firestorm of criticism from politicians and the people and to simply brush it off because you have ties to the company and couldn't give a rat's ass what Congress thinks is unbelievable." While the phrase "King George" is generally one only used on the left (and by Andrew Sullivan), conservative La Shawn Barber sums up Bush's defiance as: "King George says get a life!"

For MoxieGrrrl, it's about oil: "You can't convince me that he's not closely connected to the Arab world. If you watched Fahrenheit 9/11, even with the most critical eye, you cannot deny that there are ties between the Bush family to very wealthy Arab families." For Scott Shields at MyDD, it's about security: "Like the publication of Upton Sinclair's The Jungle or the accident at Three Mile Island, this port deal is a wake up call. Did most people know that the foreign powers could run the show at American ports? I'd doubt it. And I doubt if they knew, that they would have supported it. Sometimes, it takes something blatantly obvious to highlight an existing problem. Selling off port operations to a government that refused to recognize Israel while it did recognize the Taliban would qualify as one of those times." At The Nation's The Beat, David Corn ties the 2 together: "The problem is that Dubai Ports World is a corporation. ... Like most American firms, Arab-owned firms are more concerned about satisfying shareholders than anything else. As such, they are poor stewards of ports and other vital pieces of the national infrastructure that still require the constant investment of public funds, as well as responsible oversight by authorities that can see more than a bottom line, in order to maintain public safety -- not to mention the public good of modern, efficient transportation services." David Sirota is on the same wavelength. Conservative QandO is not far off it: "There are some times when free trade may not be the best policy when it comes to national security. Quite apart from the fact that DPW is a state-owned company, and not a private sector firm, which raises some separate questions, are we really sure that, at this point in time, having a firm based in the Mideast running major port operations on the east coast is the wisest idea from a security standpoint? Just asking." Header at AFL-CIO's just launched blog: "Port Security? What Port Security?"

Conservative Debbie Schlussel is suspicious based in part on who's in favor of the deal: "You know the DP World deal to take over our ports is a bad idea when a group that openly supports terrorist groups HAMAS and Hezbollah thinks it's a splendid idea. In this case, that group is ADC (the misnomered American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee). We note that ADC, which refuses to publicly disclose all of its funding, gets a lot of money from the Mid-East. That discredits the group's position on this from the get-go." Cold Fury is "uncertain" about the deal, but the fact that ex-Pres. Carter is supporting Bush makes them wary: "If the single worst President in the last century ... thinks everything is hunky-dunky with this deal, there simply has to be a very serious problem with it. What the hell is Bush thinking these days, anyway?"

ROE VS. WADE: Here We Go Again

When Samuel Alito was confirmed on 1/31, we noted frustration on the left with groups such as Planned Parenthood that counted a vote against Alito as enough opposition; liberal bloggers had been pushing for a filibuster instead, and were displeased that these groups didn't focus on the cloture vote. Now that late-term/partial-birth abortion is headed to the SCOTUS, it's coming up again at blogs such as Firedoglake, where Jane Hamsher quotes Planned Parenthood as being alarmed about this development on 2/21, adding: "Well, you might have f---ing thought of that when you were encouraging people to thank Joe Lieberman for his cloture vote on Alito, sister." Conservative Mark Coffey amused by Hamsher's response, adding: "It's more than a little ironic that the very same people who whined about Alito being 'out of the mainstream' ... are so incredibly out of tune with public sentiment themselves. When Americans approve of a ban on partial-birth abortions by 3-1, only a fool would argue otherwise -- for that is the textbook definition of a mainstream view." Atrios hopes that Planned Parenthood will at least sit out the CT SEN race: "Planned Parenthood and NARAL aren't staffed by idiots -- they know how these things work -- so they'd better not endorse the man who helped lead us to the end of Roe."

At liberal TPM Cafe, DLCer Ed Kilgore sees little to look forward to: "Samuel Alito will have an early opportunity to change the constitutional law governing abortion, and probably will.

MIDTERMS: That's Some Joementum!

California Yankee notices a report that CT businessman Ned Lamont (D) will likely declare a primary challenge to Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) next month, and observes: "Regarding Lamont's primary challenge the poll results can be summarized as Ned who? ... The left side of the blogosphere in Connecticut has been all abuzz about Lamont for the last couple of months. But that support isn't nearly enough to overcome the advantages of an incumbent Senator who is still backed by the Democratic establishment." Also CA-based Daily Kos points out that, in recent months, Lieberman's approval rating has fallen while his disapproval rating is up: "And as we've seen in the past, the more people see of Lieberman, the lower his numbers sink. And the more people realize an alternative exists, it'll be that much worse for him."

SUMMERS: Larry Summers, Happened So Fast ...

Hugh Hewitt is disappointed: "No matter who gets the nod there will always be the sense that Harvard's elite drove off the sort of leader who could have helped the university build on its many past successes in dramatic ways. Expect a weak successor." Profs Kieran Healy and Bitch Ph.D. chalk it up to Summers' "dictatorial" style. Liberal TX law prof Brian Leiter agrees, but nonetheless figures that his departure is "probably a loss for Harvard: he forced the Harvard Law School to have actual tenure standards, and he had rather sensible instincts about academic merit." At his personal blog, Harvard grad Matthew Yglesias cautions: "The temptation will be to view this primarily through the lens of Summers' occassionally controversial political statements, but I would emphasize that there's probably a lot of institutional politics in play" -- and he highlights a section of Summers' resignation letter noting disagreements over the Allston expansion.

Header at TMFTML: "Insert Your Own 'Maybe They Can Find A Qualified Chick' Joke Here"

LOBBYING REFORM: The Root Of The Problem

At RedState, ex-FEC commish Brad Smith writes that "virtually every proposal" made in the wake of Jack Abramoff would not reform Congress itself, but instead would place "limits on efforts by citizens groups to appeal directly to the public to put pressure on Congress -- you know, 'call your congressman' stuff." More: "The problem is not the contact Congress has with ordinary citizens. It's the role of lobbyists meeting with Congressmen and Senators outside the public eye that creates the appearance of corruption. Congress should be trying to promote more grassroots lobbying, which severs the links between inside the beltway lobbyists and legislators, and enhances the power of average citizens." Townhall's Tim Chapman agrees: "The old adage that Congress only does two things well: nothing, and overreact -- may prove all too true when all is said and done on the lobby reform issue."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: The 5 W's And The 3 C's

Hugh Hewitt argues for one reason why the Dubai deal caught everyone by surprise: "I follow the news pretty closely, and the first I have ever heard of this deal was last week's column by and interview with Frank Gaffney. It was Gaffney's reporting that took a story off the financial pages and made the broader public aware of the proposed sale. While the White House Press Corps was speculating on whether Dick Cheney's hunting accident would have been more serious if Mr. Whittington had died, a major story was reported on by Gaffney and the Washington Times -- and ignored by the MSM.

At Transterrestial Musings, Rand Simberg notes an op-ed on a conservative website criticizing NBC's David Gregory for describing the WH press corps as a "proxy for the American people." "And they don't represent me. I didn't know that David Gregory was my proxy (or even that he fantasized that he was), but if so, I revoke it too. In fact, let's start a Google campaign. David Gregory, I revoke my proxy." Among those joining so far: Small Town Veteran, The Bernoulli Effect, RedState, Instapundit.

This previous weekend on "FNS" ex-Sen. Alan Simpson (R-WY) defended WH figures -- against the MSM, saying: "I worked with President Clinton, enjoyed him, President Bush, President Carter, good people doing good things. But let me tell you, you'll never find it if you just follow the Washington media. You'll never know the good -- all you'll get is controversy, crap, and confusion." The line was a hit at Captain's Quarters, and Ed Morrissey asked readers to submit logos. The 1st couple are here, and the latest are here.

MISCELLANY: Dishonorable Mentions

• We didn't cover the Austrian court's 3-year prison sentence for British historian/Holocaust denier David Irving in our last edition, although it was a big topic of discussion. It remains one today, but alas falls outside our usual coverage, and so here's a few bloggers talking about it -- Tiger Hawk: "Austria, which has seen fit to elect Nazis to its presidency, apparently thinks the best way to expiate its guilt is to toss a deeply misguided historian into the klink for writing a book. This is appalling, and the Western world needs to say so." Right Wing News: "Although Holocaust denial is a particularly odious, ignorant, and malignant belief, making it into a 'thought crime' is even worse. That's why Austria made a mistake." The RCP Blog: "It is a very slippery slope when governments start deciding what is hateful and who they are going to throw in jail. Not to mention, all this will do is turn Irving into a martyr and hero for fascist whack jobs and Hitler idolaters everywhere."
• Atty Glenn Greenwald's debate with conservative bloggers -- see 2/14 and 2/17 Blogometers -- about whether they constitute a "cult of Bush" continues, with Greenwald responding to a series of posts by Tom Maguire. Greenwald explains that he didn't respond to critics such as James Taranto and Marshall Wittmann because they added nothing new, but Maguire had been "jumping up and down" and crying for attention. Taranto had found Greenwald's citations of GOPer Bush critics being called liberal wanting, so Greenwald provides more -- Rush Limbaugh in an 11/05 broadcast, and NRO's Podhoretz defending himself from e-mailers calling him liberal for criticizing Cheney. He also notes that Bill Kristol has made the same critique, and citing a post at liberal Hullabaloo, revises/appends his own analysis: "[A]s Bush becomes more unpopular and his Presidency is recognized more and more as a failure, 'conservatives' will disclaim him altogether as one of their own on the grounds that he was the antithesis of real conservatism."
• Last year's controversial Kelo ruling (see 6/24 Blogometer) has now led to a number of states to tighten laws on eminent domain, as the New York Times reports. Centrist Justin Gardner is philosophical: "Even though I strongly oppose these eminent domain rulings and think they're contemptible, context is important. In essence, the court was ruling given current law, and this certainly goes against the whole 'activist judges' meme that is pinned on the left so often." The Anonymous Liberal argues: "Ironically, however, the current push by state legislatures to impose restrictions on their own eminent domain powers is unquestionably a vindication of the Supreme Court's decision, not a repudiation of it. It is exactly what the Court hoped would happen." Conservative JustOneMinute revisits the Kelo case, scrutinizing New York Times' coverage.
• Arianna Huffington went on "Hannity & Colmes" last p.m., where she squared off with Ann Coulter; Crooks and Liars has video. She recounts the experience at Huffington Post, and offers a theory about Coulter's continued popularity: "Coulter is the right wing punditry's equivalent of crack or crystal meth. She's highly addictive -- giving users the delirious, giddy high of outrageousness. But then the buzz wears off and they come crashing down, their spirits shriveled, their souls poisoned. Her brand of way, way over-the-top rhetoric, trading on hatred, demonizing, and caricature is doing to the American body politic what a three-month meth bender does to crank junkies." She even provides a before and after picture for Sean Hannity.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Wasn't This The Idea Behind Gore TV?

Blogger Ed Driscoll for TCS Daily, on video-blogging, aka vlogging or v-blogging: "Sooner or later, a vblog will be picked up by a cable TV channel, along the same lines as Fox News offering a TV show to blogging predecessor Matt Drudge in the late 1990s. Radio talkers such as Don Imus and Howard Stern have shows on cable TV that are little more than video rebroadcasts or simulcasts of their radio shows; why can't cable channels do the same for vbloggers?"

LEST WE FORGET: Shot And Chaser

The inimitable Harry Hutton from Chase me ladies, I'm in the cavalry weighs in on the Irving sentence: "Seriously, have you ever met a Holocaust denier? Can you, off the top of your head, name three Holocaust deniers? They don't scare me. In the UK I would say they are about 900th on the list of dangers, behind escaped zoo animals and clumsy people with hot drinks." And on the Cheney accident: "They're still going on about that Cheney thing. Jesus, you shoot one lawyer... This week he hasn't shot anyone, though you'd never learn that from the Mainstream Media."

2/21: The Portly Pepperpot

In today's edition -- bipartisan concern over the Bush admin's port security decisions, an attempt to put Able Danger back on the radar, residual coverage from last weekend's shooting incident, a neocon's second thoughts, bloggers vs. the media and the media vs. the media, plus gossip and muckraking from the midterm SEN races. And perhaps it was only a matter of time before we had to cover ourselves.

PORT SECURITY: Everyone's Dubai-ous

On 2/17 we touched briefly on what would become the bipartisan swarm of the weekend -- the Cmte on Foreign Investment decision to sell U.S. ports to a company in Dubai, U.A.E.

The RCP Blog: "It feels a bit like a rerun of the Harriet Miers nomination where the administration dug its heels despite knowing within hours it had made a grave mistake. The port sale is potentially even more damaging politically to the president because it strikes at one of his few remaining core political assets: the public's perception of Bush as an aggressive fighter of terrorism and staunch defender of America." Conservative The Astute Blogger: "Most people think it's simply nuts to have our ports managed by a foreign company, let alone an Arab company -- especially in a time of war. This feeling is widespread even though the port operator is NOT responsible for port security -- the US government is, (and would remain so even if this deal goes through)." Instead, he jokingly argues, the U.S. should sell the port to a Danish company to show solidarity over the Muhammad cartoons.

Citing a British paper, Think Progress highlights "mostly overlooked" part of the story is that the company "would also control the movement of military equipment on behalf of the U.S. Army through two other ports." Georgia10 at Daily Kos: "The decision was made in secret, without a full investigation and without the input of those who will be most affected by this deal. If this administration has the temerity to invoke 9/11 at every press conference and speech, then let it show us that why we can feel trust a foreign government to prevent another such attack." Bark Bark Woof Woof worries that the objections are, "frankly, based in the xenophobic idea that we shouldn't put the security of major trading outlets in the hands of Arabs because, well, they're Arabs." Instead he gives another reason to oppose the sales: "It comes down to the basic fact that there are just some things in this country that shouldn't be privatized or outsourced, and defense and national security is one of them."

Conservative Michelle Malkin somewhat incredulously posts video of Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) "embracing" Halliburton over the UAE company. Meanwhile, liberal AMERICAblog's Chris in Paris is surprised to find GOP Govs. George Pataki (NY) and Bob Ehrlich (MA) criticizing Bush for not discussing the decision with them, and comments: "Ehhh, why would Bush start discussing now? That's not how the Soviet-style team has worked in the past so why would anyone expect them to change?"

ABLE DANGER: Ready, Willing & Able Danger

We haven't covered the Able Danger data-mining program since 12/16, just before the NSA eavesdropping program took broke and became the once-secret program to speculate about. Last p.m. a number of bloggers participated in a conf. call -- organized by Mike from TOPDOG08 -- with Mark Zaid, atty for Able Danger whistleblowers including Lt. Col. Anthony Schaeffer. Most on the call are self-described conservatives, but an exception is Rory O'Connor. Several on the call primarily did round-ups of what the others wrote.

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey admits to his own neglect of the subject: "Other issues have pushed Able Danger off of my radar screen, and even Zaid noted that no explosive developments have arisen from the story in weeks. Nonetheless, the above bloggers have done an excellent job in maintaining some interest in the story. The conference call gave me an opprortunity to pick the thread back up and start pressing Congress for more hearings." At The Jawa Report, Bluto thinks there's a sinister explanation: "The biggest question I have is this: why isn't the mainstream media all over this story? It stinks to high heaven of coverup. NBC can provide nightly coverage of the Katrina aftermath for five months, but a story that has profound implications for national security doesn't rate thirty seconds?"

More at QT Monster's Place, The Strata-Sphere, Able Danger Blog, Decision '08; by piecing together reports of who asked which question, you can almost put the call together Rashomon-like.

CHENEY: Waltzing Matalin

The Cheney shooting accident story isn't over yet. For the right, it's a media story about how out of touch the MSM is; for the left it's about Cheney's secrecy and influence, and particularly the weekend TV role of one confidant.

Matt Drudge's response to the new Time and Newsweek covers focusing on Cheney was summed up in his all-caps headline: "MAIN PRESS PLANS ANOTHER WEEK OF CHENEY SHOOTING COVERAGE." Picking up from Drudge, GOP Bloggers heads a story: "MSM Digging Its Own Grave." RedState's Nick Danger: "If this is what they do, I don't understand why they think the White House is behind the public's growing disdain for them. Their own actions are disdainful. What do they expect the public to do, cheer them on?" More: "The worst part is, we all know why they're doing it. They hate the Vice President's guts. They hate the entire Administration. They are extremely partisan Democrats, and they think that their role is to use their platform in journalism to throw every spear they can, at every Republican they see, every time they get a chance." Mickey Kaus gently suggests that Drudge has it backward: "The newsweeklies are the caboose on a story more often than they're the locomotive, no?" Liberal Michael Shaw dissects the Time cover at Huffington Post.

Vodkapundit's Will Collier channels David Bowie for the header: "Ground Control To MSM: Your Judgement's Dead, There's Something Wrong." Observing that the MSM is "intent on stretching the non-story of why they didn't get a press release as soon as they would have liked into a second week," he plays the why-don't-you-cover-this game, sharoimg a story from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution which seems to indicate a U.S. citizen was attacked in his home by agents of the Chinese gov't but so far hasn't appeared in any nat'l newspapers.

Ex-Cheney adviser Mary Matalin showed up on a "Meet the Press" panel 2/19 and drew a lot of negative commentary from the left -- Josh Marshall: "Matalin claimed that Vice President Cheney never sent surrogates out to blame Harry Whittington for last weekend's hunting accident in the first days after the news broke ... How can she be serious when she was one of the lead surrogates sent out to do just that?" He quotes Matalin from the 2/13 Washington Post saying that Cheney "didn't do anything he wasn't supposed to do," and adds: "This just isn't even up for debate. Until they were forced to switch course the party line was that Whittington screwed up by sneaking up behind the vice president." Think Progress pointed out that she wouldn't confirm that Cheney's beer with lunch was "literally one beer." Arianna Huffington has a lot to criticize, from Matalin's physical appearance to her arguments: "The impact of her appearance was to make the whole story seem even less under control than having a beer and shooting your friend in the face. As for what she said, there were so many intelligence-insulting lies and half-truths it's hard to know where to start."

Matthew Yglesias: "Laura Rozensays Dick Cheney's not going anywhere. Mickey Kaus says Bush would have to be crazy not to consider dumping him. They're both right! Bush would need to think this over, and then he'd need to realize that Cheney knows too much."

TERRORISM: Neocons -- Dead And Loving It

Longtime neocon Francis Fukuyama becomes ex-neocon Fukuyama in a 2/19 essay for the New York Times, "After Neoconservatism." Comparing the "tragedy" of Marx's theories when forced by the Bolsheviks to the Bill Kristol/Robert Kagan rushing of democracy, he declares: "Neoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something I can no longer support."

Peaktalk disagrees that neoconservatism is dead, but takes him seriously: "[A] number of assumptions have to be tested against our democratization experiences in the Middle East and against the realization that there are no quick and easy fixes. We will need some tweaks and adjustments and we will even have to work with democratically elected regimes -- yes, that's you Hamas -- that do not quite fit our standards of governance." Roger L. Simon is more skeptical: "Fukuyama not much more than a decade ago announced 'the end of history.' In this article he says he was misread on that score and he really meant liberal democracy would lead to the end of history. ... Fukuyama seems to be a man in a hurry. The Iraq War here he declares to be a failure after only three years."

Kevin Drum: "I can't help but think that in some sense Fukuyama is the foreign policy version of Bruce Bartlett: a man who has decided that both the Bush administration and its cheerleaders don't take conservative principles seriously, and that even when they do they aren't willing to do the toughminded, real-world analysis it takes to get their policies right. Unlike, say, Charles Krauthammer or Bill Kristol, Fukuyama is at least trying to face up to the obvious failures of the war on terror over the past few years so that he can figure out a better way to proceed in the future." Feministe: "Fukuyama doesn't say this outright, but one of the biggest tragedies of this administration's policies is that now any time the United States reaches outside of its own borders, even if it's for positive goals like the extension of human rights or relief efforts, it's immediately regarded with suspicion."

Liberal Yale law prof Jack Balkin: "The fall of Communism was, after all the great confirmation of neoconservatives' fervent anti-communism and their belief that promoting American ideals of democracy and freedom could make the world better. But that very example also shows why the Bush Doctrine was so deeply unrealistic. The fall of communism began with Truman's policies of containment in the late 1940's, which were continued with various fits and starts along the way by every U.S. President thereafter for 40 more years." Paleocon Vox Popoli agrees: "It is this sort of thing that makes the New York Times still relevant, its ludicrous daily columnists and sophmoric political reporting notwithstanding. Fukuyama's recommendations are more neo-Marxian globalist nonsense, of course, but his critique of neoconservatism is completely correct."

After reading Jane Mayer's New Yorker story on U.S. torture policy, which cites an internal DoD memo opposing the admin's plan, Andrew Sullivan gives Bush about as wide a berth as he can before reiterating his criticism: "Their motives might be decent: they were doing all they thought they should to protect the country; and they still are. But I repeat: we have a lawless executive, consciously and with pre-meditation dedicated to the practice of torture."

MIDTERMS: Slick Rick

Philly Daily News' Will Bunch has published an article in The American Prospect reports that Sen. Rick Santorum's (R-PA) leadership PAC paid for groceries, coffee at Starbucks, while only 18% goes to other GOP candidates. He also reports that the company handling the Santorum's house refinancing gave them a surprisingly good deal, and also donated $24K to Santorum's PAC. It got linked by a number of lefty bloggers, though in general most of those linking simply summarized the story. Some added the nickname "Little Ricky." Words Have Power sums up the general sense of outrage: "Once again, we see a key Republican leader using lobbyist money to feather his nest and improve his life style. Once again, we see a key Republican leader getting special treatment from the representative of an industry that he is responsible to regulate."

Minnesota Democrats Exposed's Michael Brodkorb floats a rumor that Dem SEN candidate Amy Klobuchar (D) is changing managers, from Jessica Vandenberg to ex-Progressive MN head Ben Goldfarb. He cites a member-only online forum, where his original source comments: "With Goldfarb at the helm we wonder if Klobuchar's campaign will take on a more left leaning tact."

Conservative Dean Barnett "I've often said in private that Hackett was the most overtly mean-spirited politician I've ever seen. This contrasts with guys like John Edwards who radiate warmth and sunshine when the cameras on but are ruthless jerks in private." According to Daily Kos, calls it the "work of bitter former staffers who saw Hackett as a job through November and even perhaps their ticket to DC." Barnett isn't so sure, and (as a longtime critic of dKos) blames the mean-spiritedness on Moulitsas himself: "Markos has made it cool to be mean. Where politicians once tried to maintain a public façade of kindness and optimism, Markos and his not-so-merry band have insisted on unrestrained bile."

SPENDING: Caught By The Earmark

Truth Laid Bear announces the 1st of what presumes will be many PorkBusters "Hall of Shame" Awards -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) collects the "Lifetime Achievement Award," while Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) is named "Grand Prize Winner."

Lefty David Sirota calls attention to the "stealth agenda of Congress's earmark 'reform' zealots": "Think about what a congressional earmark is: it's a line in a big spending bill, inserted by a member of Congress, to direct federal funds to a specific project. If you entirely ban earmarking, as many of these earmark 'reformers' like [Sen. Tom] Coburn seem to desire, you delegate the responsibility of directing that spending to the executive branch. And that begs the question: why is it better for unelected appointees in the executive branch to decide how federal money is spend than having your elected officials decide?"

BLOGS VS. THE BELTWAY: The Do-Nothings

A diarist at Daily Kos heads a post: "ENOUGH!!!! Professional Politicians on Daily Kos." From the entry: "Let's get really serious, folks, and stop participating in the circus. STOP HELPING DEMOCRATS DO NOTHING. Stop giving them total and unfettered access to the audience, unless they have something MEANINGFUL to REPORT to us. Stop reacting like star-struck teenagers to their celebrity, stop fawning all over them. Stop with all the feel-good nonsense. Stop feeding the beast." By the looks of the poll attached to the diary entry, most agree.

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Hey, No Take-Backs!

NYU prof Jay Rosen reports that he had conducted a Q&A with Washington Post's John Harris and intended to publish it, as he had an earlier interview, but cannot. He explains: "I would tell you the reason, but in fact I don't know the reason. Harris apologized for not being able to explain more, and for wasting our effort." What can do is list one of the questions he asked Harris, an essay-length question that terminates with: "Do you ever worry that Bush might have changed the game on you, and put in practice a different set of rules? And if you don't worry about that, why the hell not? And why shouldn't you guys -- the Post and the press corps at large -- change the game on Bush and company?"

At NBC's Daily Nightly blog, WH correspondent David Gregory apologizes to WH spokesperson Scott McClellan for their much-remarked exchange last week, and then insists that the WH press corps is doing precisely its job. First one: "Let me say at the outset that I was wrong to lose my temper at Scott McClellan. ... I said, 'Don't be a jerk to me personally, just answer the question.' I regret saying that because it's never appropriate to speak that way and because it created a distraction from the issues at hand." Then the other: "The way we do our business is not always pretty and we should be accountable for that. I happen to believe, however, on balance, our dogged pursuit of lots of information, all the time, is a good thing."

Crooks and Liars' John Amato posts video of FNC's Bill O'Reilly hectoring "Fox News Watch" host Eric Burns over comments critical of O'Reilly by "FNW" contributor Neal Gabler: "Bill told Burns he should have edited out what O'Reilly found offensive. Now we know what O'Reilly does on his show. Don't like an opinion-cut it." Amato alludes to O'Reilly's recent legal issues: "How much was Gabler sued for? How much payola did FOX settle on to bail Neil out of legal troubles? None that I can think of. ... How long do you think Gabler will last?"

NETROOTS: Primary Battle

In an op-ed for the DC Examiner, Hotline senior writer/Blogometer author William Beutler criticized Dem netroots efforts to oust Dems who are squishy on party loyalty. Bloggers like Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas "have been calling for the Democratic campaign committees to challenge every Republican-held House and Senate seat." But the money isn't available and the bloggers "don't trust the party committees." Instead, Beutler writes, "they back feel-good candidates who will call Republicans 'chickenhawks,' yet don't have the organizational wherewithal to run effective campaigns. To wit: No candidate supported by Moulitsas has yet won a seat in Congress."

Dems "actively court liberal bloggers" because they can raise money, as when bloggers helped ex-Rep. Ciro Rodriguez raise more than $75K for his primary challenge to Rep. Henry Cuellar, a conservative Dem from TX. Beutler: "What's ironic is that those targeting Cuellar are mimicking the anti-heretic tactics of the Republican-oriented Club for Growth -- which made Cuellar its first Democratic endorsement in late January. If the Club for Growth is the Republican Party's tax-cut enforcer, the liberal netroots are enforcers of a similar kind for the Democrats. Yet it's harder to know what they"re enforcing, and woe to the politician who tries to guess the netroots' preferred position on Issue X -- and guesses wrong." Another difference, according to Buetler: the Club "raises and spends its own money and makes its own mistakes." The netroots" mostly direct donations to campaigns." Beutler: "This is an improvement insofar as the candidate knows the district best, but if Rodriguez or other liberal challengers lose and the netroots don't feel responsible, they won't learn from their mistakes. The result could be greater resentment, to say nothing of another revolt in the next campaign cycle."

MyDD's Matt Stoller, who says the Hotline "has an institutional tendency to hew to right-wing talking points," accuses Beutler of "ignoring an important side effect; we unlocked money from Moveon, we piled on with unions, and the League of Conservation Voters endorsed. We created 'buzz', but we weren't alone. Lots of Texas Dems and Congressional Dems do not like Cuellar, and know he is a closet Republican." As to whether candidate supported by bloggers like Kos have won, Stoller writes: "Um, Stephanie Herseth? Ben Chandler? This is absurd, and dishonest." And as for the blogosphere not having being held accountable for supporting losing candidates, Stoller writes: "The loosely confederated party insiders mostly direct donations to campaigns. This is an improvement insofar as the candidate knows the district best, but if Brad Carson or other conservative challengers lose and the insiders don't feel responsible, they won't learn from their mistakes. See how easy it is to create Beltway wisdom?" Atrios calls Beutler the "Wanker of the day" and writes that "the relatively small amount of money channeled through the netroots is often mocked by Those Who Know Where Our Money Should Go. But the truth is the netroots has played a critical role in helping Democrats get elected in special elections, stepping up when not enough others would."

Moulitsas calls Beutler "an inside-the-beltway guy who believes the CW he hears in coffee shops and cocktail parties. So he repeats partisan talking points and insider drivel in right-wing publications."

Beutler responds here and in the comments; Stoller replies.

Disclaimer and disclosure: Beutler's opinions do not necessarily reflect the opinions or decisions of what is covered by the Blogometer. This entry was written and edited by other Hotline staffers without input from Beutler.

MISCELLANY: Things You Were Afraid To Find Out

• Earlier this month, NJ-based meta-blogger Jeff Jarvis asked readers to help a columnist compile a list of blog-related words. That column is now out, and it turns out it was for William Safire's "On Language" column for this week, titled "Blargon."
• When we covered the temporary (as it worked out) retirement of OH blogger Tim Russo in mid-Jan., the reasons for planned departure from the political blogging scene were not on the record. Now the reasons have come to light in a thread at Daily Kos, which was then highlighted in a front-page entry. That and Russo's continued role in the OH Dem blogosphere is the subject of heated debate among OH bloggers, particularly in the comment thread at Heights Mom.
• Extreme Mortman's latest interview with bloggers in early primary states is with liberal The Little Green Blog from NH.
• As he did during the Harriet Miers controversy, Right Side Redux's Justin Hart has compiled a list of arguments for and against the NSA wiretap program; he lists many more pro-wiretap arguments than con.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Reba Babble To The Nag

At Tapped, Greg Sargent is the latest political writer to face the wrath of letter-writing Brooklyn gadfly Reba Shimansky. Sargent describes his own piece: "It's chock full of over-the-top criticism of Rudolph Giuliani from beginning to end. Nonetheless, Shimansky zeroed in on two words buried in the middle: the part which describes Giuliani's post-Sept. 11 performance as 'undeniably admirable.'"

LEST WE FORGET: God-Schmod, I Want My Monkey Man!

Bloggers across the 'sphere have long used Create a Character software to make sidebar representations of themselves as "South Park" character; now there's The Simpsomaker, where you can turn yourself (or anyone elese you can think of) into a character from "The Simpsons."

2/17: On A Friday

Thanks to that other GW's birthday, Hotline is taking Monday off. The Blogometer will return on 2/21.

Today's edition is an unusually long one for a Friday, tracking an unusually large number of stories. We'll let the stories tell themselves:

EAVESDROPPING: Senate Lets The Beat Mmmmm ... (Eaves) Drop

Several major developments on the domestic surveillance front have sparked a lot of talk on the left -- First, Washington Post reports that the Senate will not investigate the NSA's eavesdropping program because the WH rejected a request to have ex-AG John Ashcroft and others testify. On the House side, New York Times reports that the Intel cmte has agreed to open an inquiry on the program, though there's debate about the scope. Finally, Reuters reports on a fed. judge's ruling that the DoJ must respond within 20 days to requests for documents related to the NSA wiretap program.

First first -- A disappointed Bark Bark Woof Woof, on the Senate: "Oversight? Sure, as long as they do exactly what the White House tells them to oversee." The Carpetbagger Report: "It's quite a shell game. Both Intelligence Committees effectively announced that they won't ask any questions about the program's legality or execution, but are committed to changing FISA to make Bush's actions legal -- after the fact." Cenk Uygur, at Huffington Post: "These are the same Republicans who had the audacity to pretend they cared about the rule of law when Bill Clinton was President. ... I suppose it shoud come as no surprise that the people who were willing to so grossly violate the President's privacy (when it was not their President), now have no problems violating your privacy." Democratic Veteran: "One hundred years from now (if the Republic lasts that long), our grandkids are going to study invertebrates and start with the US Senate."

Early last p.m. at right-leaning Volokh Conspiracy, GWU law prof Orin Kerr called attn to the DoJ report on the 1st jud. opinion "touching on the NSA domestic surveillance program was issued today, and it didn't go well for the Bush Administration." Privacy rights group EPIC put in a FOIA request with DoJ, but was turned in. The District court judge "rejected DoJ's position, and ordered DoJ to review the documents, determine what is discoverable, and comply with the request in 20 days." Atty Glenn Greenwald adds more details and analysis: "As I have been indicating, this scandal has many tentacles. And each of them is growing inexorably." Democratic Daily Blog doesn't expect the court ruling to be the final word: "The Justice Department isn't about to turn over those documents just because a liberal activist judge has ordered them to."

Kevin Drum interprets a story from the Washington Post about how SSCI chair Pat Roberts is "considering legislation that would make it easier to prosecute leaks -- legislation that even John Ashcroft thought went too far. If Roberts is serious, the press could be in real trouble when it reports on things like the CIA's secret prisons or the NSA's domestic spying program."

CHENEY: Drinking Games

Although local police have no more questions in VP Cheney's accidental shooting of TX atty Harry Whittington, bloggers have plenty more. And though Cheney addressed the alcohol issue in his interview with FNC's Brit Hume this week, those questions are the most-asked -- and most controversial. Partial transcripts of the WH press corps pressing WH spokesperson Scott McClellan are available from Holden -- currently in possession of one pony -- at First Draft. Crooks and Liars posts video of "BushCo. apologist" Dick Morris taking the alcohol charge seriously on "Hannity & Colmes" last p.m.: "The alcohol theme has reached critical mass now and the traditional media as well as the 24/7 talking heads are taking the lead on this."

Tapped's Garance Franke-Ruta points out a few unanswered questions about the Cheney case, but adds: "I also think that people who are now speculating that Cheney put off his conversation with police on Saturday night because he had been drinking at lunch or after it are not thinking much more clearly about the situation than Cheney was initially." She argues that it's likely Cheney had a drink after the shooting to calm his nerves, chalking up the delay to Cheney's "natural distrust of the press" and "bad decision-making." But she notes: "The vice president has not held a press conference in three-and-a-half years and did not have press staff with him at the Armstrong Ranch; the idea that he would have, on his own, drafted and released a press statement or called a reporter about what happened is preposterous." Most of the commenters disagree with her take. So does Atrios: "I'm also amazed at the number of media types who claim to speak for the true men of the heartland who don't get that yes, in fact, drinking and hunting are commonly paired activities."

Conservative John Cole has his questions too, but points to liberal Jane Hamsher's assessment of the situation -- including "Boozehound Cheney was drinking all day" -- and decries her "factless assertion[s]": "[The left has] Cheney in a possibly compromising position, yet are going to blow it because of their overeagerness and their hate. Again." In his 2/16 column, New York Times' David Brooks [sub. req.] criticized liberals' suspicions "'So, just a question: how thorough was the investigation of what happened?' the influential blogger Josh Marshall queried darkly." Daily Howler's Bob Somerby responds: "Given the circumstances of the past several days, that may have been the most obvious question on the face of the whole bloomin' earth! But for Brooks-to-the-feudal-manor born, such a blatantly obvious question is an attempt to 'sniff up' a 'vast conspiracy!'"

Arianna Huffington describes Cheney's connections to the Armstrong family, and (referencing "The Sopranos") describes the ranch as a GOP "Bada Bing": "Put it all together and I think I'm starting to get a better picture of why Dick Cheney was 'so confident that Katharine [Armstrong] was the right one' and 'an excellent choice' to put the shooting story out."

BUSH: Blind Leading The Blind?

In our 2/14 edition we noted the debate sparked by a much-noticed Greenwald's much-noticed post asserting that nowadays, "in order to be considered a 'liberal,' only one thing is required -- a failure to pledge blind loyalty to George W. Bush."

WSJ's James Taranto argues that Greenwald fails to support his thesis that GOPers such as NH Sen. John Sununu and ex-Rep. Bob Barr have been called "liberal" and concludes: "Bush is not perfect but he is far better than the alternatives that were on offer in 2000 and 2004. Those on the left who look at the right and see blind loyalty for the most part are actually viewing a reflection of their own blind hate."

Ex-GOPer Marshall Wittmann argues: "Yes, there is an element of conservatism that attempts to apply a Leninist discipline on ideological heterodoxy. In fact, the Moose was the target of their efforts. The Moose has enjoyed the distinct pleasure of being labeled both a Republican squish and a Rovian plant. But, based upon personal exposure to both sides of the political spectrum, this mammal can confidently observe that there is more tolerance for differences on the right side of the spectrum than on the left." Ramesh Ponnuru at The Corner: "Maybe we'll get Marshall back some day?" At Instapundit, just keep scrolling.

RedState's Moe Lane agrees with Wittmann, admits to his own support of gay marriage (legislated, not court-imposed), and argues: "I think that there's a few people out there who don't quite grok that the GOP is a bit less ideological and a bit more coalition-ish than conventional wisdom would have. I also think that there's also a few people out there who grok it quite well -- and choose to ignore it because political dualism is so very, very useful to them."

Ed Morrissey criticized George Will's latest column on FISA and the Bush admin, writing: "I enjoy George Will's columns; he isn't exactly a hard-line conservative, but he usually covers the center-right well enough. In today's effort, though, Will starts off on a rant that not only goes far off the tracks, it doesn't even start on them." According to Andrew Sullivan -- who certainly has been defending his status as a conservative for awhile -- the above passage originally omitted "hard-line." He asks: "Why the new qualification? For some reason, a 'coding error' omitted one word from the original post. LOL. Nevertheless, George Will believes in limited government, the rule of law, and prudent foreign policy. He always has. That used to make a person 'conservative.' Under this president, it makes one a member of the opposition."

MIDTERMS: Oliver Twist

Yesterday we cited a post by MO Dem consultant Roy Temple reporting that Sen. Jim Talent (R-MO) finance dir. Jack Oliver had improperly received a check from the Coushatta Indian tribe -- then clients of GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff. But as our own Marc Ambinder reported at Hotline On Call, there is no evidence the $10K check was anything other than a routine donation to the RNC that Oliver, as RNC dep. finance chair, legally solicited. The assertion that the check was a personal check is wrong. Wrote Ambinder: "A copy of the actual check, written about nine days later and provided to the Hotline by the RNC today, lists the recipient as the Republican National Committee. Why? The tribe wanted to achieve 'Eagle' level status. Who recruited Eagle-level donors? Jack Oliver."

Burlington Free Press picks up on the "astroturf" blog controversy between the camps of Rep. Bernie Sanders (I) and businessman Richard Tarrant (R) in VT SEN we noted on 2/15. The Free Press describes the blog as "neutral-looking" and offers competing quotes from the campaign spokespersons. Sanders' Jeff Weaver: "This is a very disturbing development for a lot of reasons. This is the kind of negative, dirty-tricks kind of campaigning that we've seen in the rest of the country." Tarrant's Tim Lennon said it was a "coincidence" that 20-year-old Tarrant employee who runs the blog started on the Tarrant campaign at the same time the blog went up: "It's just something he chooses to do on his own time. As far as we know, there is nothing improper about what [Tarrant staffer] Jeff [Bartley] is doing."

Very early this a.m., Swing State Project's David NYC found an AFP story at Yahoo! News on the "Fighting Dems" cong. candidates (see 10/19 Blogometer) he likes, and asks his readers to give it the maximum 5 stars: [T]his isn't really about getting this particular story on the Yahoo [most-recommended] list (though that would be nice). I'm more interested in seeing if the readers of a blog like this can actually affect that standings on that list." As of mid-morning, the story had 4 stars, and was not listed in the Top 15 Most Recommended.

New NE-based Leavenworth Street gives odds on the GOP SEN primary -- Pete Ricketts 2:1, David Kramer 4:1, and Don Stenberg 7:1 -- and explains the reasoning behind those picks.

IN THE STATES: Are OH Politics Really This Much More Dysfunctional Than Other States? Or Do They Just Have More Bloggers?

Anonymous IA-based Who's Makin' Bacon? has an "exclusive" scoop -- businessman/'02 GOV candidate Bob Vander Plaats (R) is about to drop his current GOV bid and join Rep. Jim Nussle's (R) ticket: "Vander Plaats staffers are whispering about a day-long meeting he had this week with Jim Nussle to talk about becoming running mates. Apparently, Nussle, Vander Plaats and their wives" met earlier this week and "came out of the meeting singing Kumbaya." More: "Watch for the tell-tale signs: Vander Plaats hasn't updated his website in a few days and hasn't been mentioned in the press campaigning for a few days now. If you called Vander Plaats headquarters tomorrow, you'd be told that he is not on the road and they might admit that he is in a daylong meeting."

At Brewed Fresh Daily, Tim Russo reports that OH Dem chair Chris Redfern told the blogger interview consortium Meet The Bloggers that the anonymous blogger behind the controversial (and now-defunct) High and Broad is indeed OH House Dem Caucus comm. dir John Kohlstrand. Russo writes: "Whether or not there are any consequences or apologies forthcoming is an open question, among others." But he adds: "There are new rules in the blogosphere, and they were written in Ohio by Ohio bloggers. ... You will take personal responsibility for what you post on a blog" -- especially if you are working for a campaign or party. Jill Miller Zimon writes that Kohlstrand called her this a.m. to apologize for his controversial post (which some, but not Zimon, took as anti-Semitic). She writes: "He told me on the phone that he expects to speak with and apologize to Eric Fingerhut as well, and said at least a few times that he feels badly and he really likes and respects Eric. Since I got to hear his voice for half an hour, you will have to trust me, and my judgement, that I believe John was and is being sincerely contrite." Note: Yesterday we mistakenly referred to Kohlstrand as OH Dem comm dir. We have struck-through and corrected that references in our online archives; click here to see the corrected section.

HOUSE GOP LEADERSHIP: Giving Him The Cold Shadegg?

Although the 2/2 resolution of the House maj. leader race in favor of John Boehner was to the partial satisfaction of GOP-leaning bloggers, now a few are clamoring for more involvement by that race's dark horse/conservative favorite, Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ). Heritage's Mark Tapscott argues, as others did then, that Boehner would have lost to now-Maj. Whip Roy Blunt without Shadegg's involvement in the race. He advises: "House leaders on the GOP side of the aisle would be wise to bring Shadegg into a visible position in their ranks. Doing so would put some meat on their vows to get serious about cleaning up congressional ethics. Not doing so will give the lie to those vows in the most vivid possible manner." Townhall's Tim Chapman: "There are a lot of egos involved here, and unless leadership really buys the notion that this is a win for them, and not just some way to placate rank and file conservatives, then we are very unlikely to see any movement on this front." He suggests they give Shadegg a role similar to the one by U.S. Trade Rep./then-House Rep. Rob Portman, who was tapped as a WH liaison.

BLOGS VS. THE FEC: Nothing Gets Our Juices Flowing Like A Fight Drawn Along The Bitter Lines Of Campaign Finance Law

Election law prof Rick Hasen points out a new challenge to the McCain-Feingold/BCRA where a coalition of groups have petitioned the FEC for an exemption to the certain "electioneering communication" prohibitions in the law. Picking a fight, he writes: "In my view, it may be a bit premature to rely upon [the case] for anything of substance. In any case, reading the 'test' that these groups would put forward ... makes it clear that this would create a gaping hole in BCRA, essentially allowing virtually all sham issue advocacy to be paid for by corporate and union funds. To paraphrase one of these ads (with tongue firmly planted in cheek): 'Call Bob Bauer. And tell him what you think of his test that would gut one of the major provisions of McCain-Feingold.'" Perkins Coie atty Bob Bauer comments on the substance: "This a lawful and orderly way to go about doing what most participants in the debate -- including the authors of the law -- have at one time or another believed to be useful or necessary or both." And returns the volley: "So, to answer Rick's call to action with another: 'Call Rick Hasen. And say 'no!' to any gutting of this rulemaking: tell him that you would welcome his considered and constructive -- but ONLY a considered and constructive -- contribution to this effort to protect the right to engage in real grassroots lobbying.'"

At RedState, ex-FEC commis. Brad Smith explains "how campaign finance enforcement is institutionally biased against conservatives."

PLAMEGATE: Classification Warfare?

NRO's Byron York reports on Exec. Order 13292, the "little-known but enormously consequential expansion of vice-presidential power" authorizing him to classify info. In Cheney's FNC interview this week, Cheney indicated the order authorized him to declassify the info his ex-CoS Scooter Libby leaked to reporters. It doesn't surprise the darkly-querying Josh Marshall that Cheney would want this authority, and notes the "discussion about this turns on the power to declassify." He writes: " It would make sense to me if, in the administrative or statute law, the power to classify assumes or equates to the power to declassify as well." But the order "doesn't speak specifically of the power to declassify."

TERRORISM: Any Port In A Storm Of Controversy

Michelle Malkin does a round-up on reports that the Cmte on Foreign Investment "has approved a deal that will put six major ports" in the U.S. "under the control of a state-sponsored company based" in Dubai, UAE. She quotes extensively from reports and other opinions, and posts contact info for the WH: "The buck stops with the White House. The president has the ultimate authority to stop the deal. And he should." Captain's Quarters cites several passages where 9/11 hijackers lived and worked in, or received assistance from people in the UAE: "In fact, many of the 9/11 hijackers transited through the UAE, and a significant amount of al-Qaeda cash came through UAE-based accounts. If they run their own country's borders so poorly, why would we trust them to run ours?"

SPENDING: A New Porkbuster?

AMERICAblog, a liberal site not party to the conservatives' anti-pork campaign, takes on earmarks this a.m., as the New York Times reports that Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) has directed $50M in earmarks over 4 years through a lobbyist married to his aide. Ab's Chris in Paris scoffs at "So what does Specter do besides play dumb? Deflect the charges and imply blame on the assistant, of course. What another stand-up guy in the GOP."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: We Can't Help But Notice That Nobody's Standing Up For The Winter Olympics

HBO's Bryant Gumbel is catching flak from the right for this part of his recent take on the Winter Games: "So try not to laugh when someone says these are the world's greatest athletes, despite a paucity of blacks that makes the winter games look like a GOP convention." Mary Katherine Ham: "This is nice. Real nice. Spirit o' the Games and all that." Ace of Spades HQ: "Suffice to say that Mr. Gumbel will not, in the near future, be commenting on the NBA looking like a Biggie Smalls funeral procession." MRC's NewsBusters provides audio and video. Liberal Matt Yglesias notes: "Newsbusters appears to be objecting to the contention that there are few blacks at a Republican convention, but I believe this is demonstrably true." Jeff Goldstein saw Sean Hannity make the same argument as NewsBusters, and comments: "Predictably, Hannity was outraged at the political suggestion that the GOP is lily-white. To me, the real outrage is the suggestion that we can't be witnessing the world's greatest skiers, skaters, snowboarders, etc., simply because blacks haven't taken up those sports."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: You So Crazy

As we noted yesterday, Matt Stoller of MyDD has recently argued that the denizens of FreeRepublic.com and the comment sections at RedState are "racist" and out of control, and that the RNC should distance themselves from such online communities. And as we've noted more than once in the past, conservatives frequently delight in scanning sites like Daily Kos and DemocraticUnderground.com for comments calling for death to GOPers and support for America's enemies. We addressed the volatility of blog comment sections on 1/27, in the aftermath of the Deborah Howell/Post.com argle-bargle, and we'll revisit again just to point out: Both sides have serious liabilities in their comment boards and the examples they cite about the other could be easily turned upon themselves.

To use some different examples, it is not unheard of to find the N-word in the comments at the left-wing Eschaton (liberals there will sometimes use it when simulating conservative arguments), and it is not impossible to find commenters at the right-wing Little Green Footballs calling for the deaths of innocents (typically in Middle Eastern countries). What's notable about all of these examples is that the offensive statements are rarely made by a given site's front-page contributors (the anonymous Armando at Daily Kos and the anonymous Blanton at RedState are 2 examples where they sometimes are); the vast majority of wild comments are made by the participants in website comment sections. Charles Johnson at LGF does not police his comments, and takes no responsibility for what his readers say. Markos Moulitsas at dKos has a sophisticated moderating system in place, and leaves this responsibility to the readers themselves. Yet critics of each often lay blame for the worst comments at the feet of the site administrators. Whether they should or should not be is not the subject of our commentary here; that both sides employ a double-standard when criticizing the others' readership is.

Perhaps neutral criteria could be devised for measuring the "craziness quotient" of liberal blogs vs. conservative blogs -- but until anyone knows for certain that glass is a more integral component of their opponents' domiciles than their own, they might want to consider putting their stones away.

LEST WE FORGET: Maybe It's Some Kind Of Promotional Stunt For Pixar's "Cars"?

It's been a troubling month so far for the pseudo-anonymous blogger responsible for the confusingly-named Portland, OR-based Welcome to Blog (aka LauraBush.Info), where a Nissan sedan has lain abandoned in the bushes outside his home for the better part of 2 weeks now. If this is your car, he would like you to contact him about the possibility of having it removed; if it rains anymore, the car may slide down the hill and demolish his modest one-story abode. His initial "police report" is here, and the 11-day update is here. He updates the situation for anyone who might be sitting on the edge of their seat: "I considered attempting to enter the car through the driver's side door to retrieve any registration info that might be in the glove box but I'm afraid that the slightest bit of movement will send it toppling down the hill."

2/16: Fair, Balanced And Unafraid?

VP Cheney remains the big story today. The big development is, of course, his FNC interview, and once again new stories creep onto the radar screen, still not getting the attention they otherwise might have. The new Abu Ghraib photos did get plenty of comment, as did the new tapes of Saddam discussing WMDs during the '90s, which seem to have been a bit of a bust. After that, we have an unusual number of stories from SEN and GOV races, where blogs are interacting with -- and changing the direction of -- campaigns and the state parties as well. And we bring you our latest Blogger Spotlight.

CHENEY I: Fox Guarding The Veep House?

Cheney's taped interview with FNC's Brit Hume is the big deal; Fox news made both the video and transcript available online. From what we could tell, more commentary came from the left, which largely remains skeptical. Bloggers on the right were more likely to link to the video -- also hosted at Expose the Left -- without offering much comment.

Like most conservatives, Ed Morrissey was satisfied: "I think Cheney did an admirable job in the interview. Cheney took responsibility for the shooting itself. He went over the steps taken at the hospital to care for Whittington and some of the efforts taken to notify his family. His explanation sounds quite reasonable, and his actions appear to be understandable under the circumstances." Andrew Sullivan was not: "He has a calming demeanor and an under-rated TV presence. But two things he dodged. The first was the question of whether he had been following the usual hunting protocols," and "his formula of taking full responsibility, and giving the bottom line as "I shot the gun," doesn't answer the question of whether he was negligent in the way he was hunting." More: "As for the press strategy: completely unconvincing. He waited, he argued, for accuracy's sake. First reports are always wrong, he claimed. So what? He knew that he'd shot someone accidentally ... and that's all he needed to report to the national media."

On the left, Cheney's acceptance of responsibility was too little, too late. The Carpetbagger Report doesn't buy Cheney's defense of not announcing the incident earlier -- Cheney: "Are they going to take my word for what happened?" -- commenting: "This has to be the best Cheney line since "last throes." The Vice President of the United States worried that an official statement about a hunting accident would be rejected by the public. In effect, by suggesting Americans would not "take his word" for it, Cheney suggested most people would assume he was a murderer." Arianna Huffington: "One good thing about your conscience no longer functioning is that you are comfortable with everything. Especially with whitewashing the truth. So, taking a page from Orwell, Cheney assured us -- again and again -- that by keeping the story hidden he was only trying to make sure the truth got out. Indeed, he used the words "accurate" and "accuracy" 8 times in his short chat with Hume." World O' Crap also goes the Eric Blair route, headlining a post: "We Have Always Been At War With Quailasia."

Conservative Betsy Newmark offered praise for Hume's interview, and even liberal Ron Brynaert was pleasantly surprised at a more skeptical interview than he expected: "It was obvious from Hume's body, face and verbal language that he wasn't satisfied with Vice President's 'utterly unapologetic' stance regarding -- assumingly -- every single action taken by the entire staff of the White House since he accidentally shot his friend. There were other questions Hume could have asked, but it certainly was better than I expected." But Kevin Drum names one in particular, asking, "did Cheney ever speak with George Bush about this? Hume never asked. That's some serious journalism, Brit."

Based on Cheney's admittance of having a beer at lunch Markos Moulitsas headlines a post: "Cheney drank before shooting his pal." Conservative Mark Coffey scoffs: "[Y]eah, by the same token I drank before I came to work today -- it was weeks ago, but it was before I came to work today."

Washington Post's Howard Kurtz argued that the 3-day story was a "Monumental Misfire" for the Bush WH, but NYU j-prof Jay Rosen disagrees: "How does it hurt Bush if for three days this week reporters are pummeling [WH spokesperson] Scott McClellan over the details of when they were informed about Cheney's hunting accident? That's three days this week they won't be pummeling" McClellan over new questions about the admin's handling of pre-war intel.

CHENEY II: The Vice (President) Squad

Earlier, Drum sized up the "consensus conspiracy theory." Here's his version of the media angle: "An interview with a sheriff -- or anyone else -- is considered imprudent at that point, so the sheriff is told to come by the next morning after Cheney has sobered up. Karl Rove decides that silence from the White House is a good idea too and the president goes along. Scott McClellan isn't even informed. That's the way Dick wants it, so that's the way it's going to play. Unfortunately, there are several witnesses to the shooting, including [Cheney friend Harry] Whittington, and there's no telling what they're going to say. So Cheney decides to hide. If he doesn't answer questions, after all, he can't be caught in a lie. Once everyone has gone on record and the White House is sure that Whittington isn't going to contradict the VP's story, Cheney will take questions from the press."

NRO's Byron York: "I just watched the news conference by Harry Whittington's medical team. On three occasions, they refused to comment on how many shotgun pellets are in Whittington's body and on the composition -- steel? lead? -- of those pellets. Perhaps they don't know the answers. But that's not what they said; they said they could not comment on those particular questions while, at the same time, they answered many others."

Lefty Digby does not think the situation is resolved: "I know it's unseemly to bring this up but shouldn't there be at least a teeny-tiny little investigation about this now? People are smouldering in jail for decades for drinking and injuring people with guns." And Firedoglake is encouraged: "So Dick Cheney is admitting he had a beer before he shot a 78 year old man in the face? Sounds like he's doing damage control from the MSNBC scrub of yesterday. Neil Cavuto and the other concern trolls over at Fox are now discussing 'Politicizing Hunting Accident: Big Mistake For Democrats?' We must be on the right track."

Conservative radio talker Brian Maloney thinks the lefty bloggers are wasting their time, not to mention hypocrites. In particular he addresses "West Wing" producer Lawrence O'Donnell, the highest-profile person to raise the drinking question: "Evidence, who needs evidence? On the left, it's conspiracy-huntin' season. Without hesitation, one could easily expect the left to go ballistic were conservatives to make similar baseless charges against a Democrat. Yet the Huffington Post went right ahead and published O'Donnell's sloppy, tinfoil hat-like conspiratorial speculation."

Prior to the interview, Hugh Hewitt posted a lengthy and much-noticed post titled "The MSM Campaign Against Cheney." He quoted WH-skeptical headers from the major dailies, and argued: "The MSM is unhinged, a victim of its Bush hatred, which includes of course hatred of Cheney. The idea that failure to tell the White House press corps of a hunting accident for 14 hours is in anyway similar to leaving a woman to die in a submerged car while fleeing the scene or the cover-up of Watergate is just nuts. ... This episode doesn't resemble Chappaquiddick. It resembles Rathergate and Eason Jordan's overreach, episodes where legacy media allowed its massive blind spot to lead it into a collision with the public it seems not to understand is fully informed and mostly contemptuous of its preening and screaming."

ABU GHRAIB: A Double Standard For The Second Batch?

Michelle Malkin: "Readers have been e-mailing all day the question the MSM needs to answer: Why the Abu Ghraib photos, but not the Mohammed Cartoons? We're listening..." The Poor Man Institute responds: "Yeah, really! Come to think of it: why does the CNN insist on covering 'the news', but won't show that episode of Bugs Bunny where he beats up the Martian? ... Do you understand the difference between 'really happening' and 'a drawing'?" Sister Toldjahthis story is not new news, outside of showing 'new' photos of the same abuse we saw when this story first broke last year. So why the need to pile on?" In the Bullpen: "I am not against running them but I really don't know what more photos add to the story." The Debate Link: "I humbly submit that we should continue talking about these abuses until we see some real accountability for the perpetrators, the superiors who authorized the tactics, and a real commitment from the Bush administration to categorically stop using torture as a policy." Andrew Sullivan: "Just remember what this president has said: 'We do not torture.' That blood you see below will be explained away. More scapegoating of low-level grunts will occur."

The Jawa Report: "As bad as these images are, they pale next to the genuine torture and murder committed by the Saddam Hussein regime." Booman Tribune is angry the photos were leaked, and not released by the gov't: "What the ACLU wants -- and what we should want -- is the U.S. government suffering the intense embarrassment of having to show the photographic evidence of its torture policies. Nothing less will do."

With more than a twinge of sarcasm, Matt at Blackfive posts "New Abu Ghraib Photos!" His photos show U.S. soldiers caring for Iraqi children at an on-site medical facility and U.S. and Iraqi soldiers distributing food and supplies. Along the same lines but not intended as a specific rejoinder, Michael Totten shares photos of Kurdish model homes -- presumably not built by the Bluth Company -- and says: "It goes without saying that none of this was possible when Saddam Hussein did everything he could, with the fourth largest army in the world, to destroy these people."

IRAQ: Shouldn't Geraldo "Al Capone's Vault" Rivera Have Landed This Scoop?

Conservative blogs were abuzz yesterday when ABC News announced they would broadcast '90s-era tapes of Saddam Hussein and his advisers discuss terrorism against the U.S. But the tapes didn't live up to some early expectations. A major swarm never materialized, but the right-blogosphere found them interesting nonetheless, and expects more information to come. Though the tapes probably not a "smoking gun," Captain's Quarters considers it significant: "The recordings show that Saddam and his henchmen actively hid their WMD programs from UN inspectors, and also show that he had no intention of getting rid of them if he could help it." John Hawkins take is about the same, but he argues that by snipping part of an interview with Tarik Aziz, they distorted the meaning to make Iraq sound less threatening. Liberal Atrios is amused, headlining a post "Wingnut Reboot": "And they lose another round ... Nothing new."

There are more archives from the Saddam regime to be analyzed, and Power Line hopes the sooner the better: "The two heroes of this effort so far are [GOP Rep. Peter] Hoekstra and the Weekly Standard's Steve Hayes. We join in their plea to make these documents and tapes public so that the truth about Saddam's regime can be more fully known."

MIDTERMS: A Talent For Intrigue

MO Dem consultant Roy Temple reports that lobbyist Jack Oliver, who has ties to Bush and is finance chair for Sen. Jim Talent (R-MO), received $10K from a client of Jack Abramoff's while serving as RNC dep. chair. Temple: "This is despite the fact that Oliver's bio shows nothing about his having private clients during his tenure with the RNC, and he certainly never registered to lobby for the Coushatta." More: "I said I was surprised that Talent defended Oliver so strongly, but then again, given all that Jack knows, Talent probably doesn't want him angry and talking to the press."

Via VT-based Seven Days columnist Peter Freyne, SEN candidate/Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) employee Kagro X brings to Daily Kos the case that the VT SEN-focused blog Vermont Senate Race is actually an "astroturf" blog -- made to look like it's by an interested citizen but actually controlled by someone connected to a campaign. In this case, it's Jeffrey Bartley, a "salaried employee" of GOP candidate Richard Tarrant. Kagro X compares the situation to the controversy over Sen. John Thune's (R-SD) payments to conservative SD bloggers during his challenge to then-Senate Min. Leader Tom Daschle.

IN THE STATES: OR GOV Is Almost Interesting

Corvallis Gazette-Times reports, state Rep. Deborah Boone (D) "complained" to the House clerk's office 9 years ago that then-state Rep./now-state Sen. Ben Westlund (I), whom she was an aide to, had given her "an unwanted hug." Rumors of the incident appeared in the comments on Blue Oregon on 2/14 -- the same day Westlund dropped out of the GOP to run for OR GOV as an indie. Westlund has acknowledged the hug, says he doesn't remember why, and apologized "profusely" after. Blue Oregon proprietor Kari Chisolm wrote on 1/15: "It seems pretty clear -- to me, anyway -- that this rumor is much ado about nothing." Because he can't "police" the comments himself, Chisolm asks readers: "If you see an unsupported claim made here, challenge it. Demand facts, demand proof, demand sources, and demand details. And if you're one of the drive-by commenters -- posting allegations and running, well, don't expect to get believed."

Following up on our extensive but not-extensive-enough OH coverage in the 2/15 edition, we should have noted the rumor that OH Dem OH House Dem Caucus comm. dir John Kohlstrand is the blogger behind High and Broad. That blog featured a controversial post about state Sen. Eric Fingerhut's conflicts with the OH Dems (since removed). Michael Meckler wrote: "I telephoned Kohlstrand yesterday and asked him directly whether he was the author of the blog. He denied it, but he said he did know who the author was. Kohlstrand declined to comment further. When I spoke to Kohlstrand around 2 p.m. yesterday, the H&B blog post was still up. When I spoke with [Fingerhut manager Anthony] Fossaceca two and a half hours later, the post had been removed and replaced with the message that the blog was on hiatus." Fossaceca addressed the matter of the H&B post at Brewed Fresh Daily. And at Writes Like She Talks, Jill Miller Zimon notes that Fingerhut's camp responded to OH Dem chair Chris Redfern's version of events to her; in the comments, Fingerhut aide Jessica Colombi defends her boss.

MISCELLANY: The Day The Blogging Died?

• Mark Blumenthal of Mystery Pollster highlights a new Gallup poll. As a blogger, Blumenthal writes, he is 'certainly appreciates [Gallup editor] Lydia Saad's final acknowledgment that despite the relatively low readership, blogs may still exert a "disproportionate influence ... on opinion leaders, political insiders, and modern news media.' But oh for some empirical data to test that hypothesis." Chris Bowers: "Of course, even without Pew and Gallup, I already knew, or at least strongly suspected, that this had happened. Political blog traffic hit its all-time high in early September around Katrina. ... However, since that time, blog traffic has been generally flat. It could start to rise again, but a nearly six-month plateau is worrying." GWU law prof Daniel Solove considers what this means for legal blogs, aka blawgs. Comments from Left Field notes the recent meme going around about how blogs (particularly those on the left) are analogous to punk rock in the 70's, notes that a similar plateau occurred in 11/03 where bloggers could bring no more support to Howard Dean, and notes: "Once growth stops, the nature of the conversation and interactions changes."
• Following up the revelations about the RNC's un-implemented online tools (see 2/15 Blogometer), Matt Stoller continues an argument he's been making in recent weeks: "The issue here is that the RNC is making the correct strategic choice because they understand how toxic their base really is. ... I spent seven months in New Jersey going through right-wing message boards, I've read FreeRepublic.com, and I've been to Townhall.com Meetups, and I can tell you that there is a substantial portion of the right-wing base that has, as Redstate community-leader Blanton does, a vicious racist mentality." Winds of Change's Armed Liberal rolls his eyes at this claim, as well as a post from Stoller's fellow MyDD contributor Chris Bowers, who announced in a post last p.m. that "what the progressive netroots wants in Democratic candidates is also what the general public wants," pointing to them as an examples of Mickey Kaus' recent complaint about the "B.S. of the sort that consistently hurts Democrats."
• John Hawkins of Right Wing News writes an "open letter" to Ann Coulter: "[Y]ou're intelligent, gutsy, and have a knack for saying things other people know are true, but don't have the guts to say. Unfortunately, you've always had one major flaw: you have the same sort of case of foot-in-mouth disease that people like Pat Robertson and Howard Dean have and regrettably, it seems to have gotten much worse of late." More: "So, in your latest column, the first one you wrote after CPAC, you took the opportunity to talk about 'camel jockeys.' What will you be doing for an encore next week? Will you be slurring Muslims again or will you be branching out to different groups? ... Take it from a long-time supporter Ann: Your best days are behind you unless you snap out of it and start making some changes."
• Salon's Peter Daou offers a "A Challenge to Rightwing Bloggers Who Blame the Media for the Cheney Mess" -- "Back up your claims. With concrete examples of bias. And without the tautological crutch that any story critical of the administration is proof of liberal bias. I'll back up mine." Daou lists a whopping 32 instances where the MSM took the GOP line on an issue, citing examples.
• On 2/14, ex-Hotliner/ex-"Hardball" prod. Howard Mortman launched the 1st in a series of interviews with bloggers in the early primary and caucus states. First up is with Thomas Niblock of Hawkeye Republican.

BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: Info, Please

Today the Blogometer talks to left-leaning Yale law prof Jack Balkin, who leads the legal group blog (or blawg) Balkinization.

What is your full name?

Jack M. Balkin.

What is your age?

49.

Where did you grow up?

Prairie Village, Kansas, a suburb of Kansas City; at age 8 my family moved across the state line to Kansas City, Missouri.

Where do you live now?

Branford, Connecticut, about 13 miles east of New Haven.

What is your occupation? Have you ever worked on a political campaign or for the mainstream media?

I'm a law professor at Yale, and I'm the director of Yale's Information Society Project. I've never worked on a political campaign or the mainstream media.

When did you start blogging and why?

I started in January 2003. The ISP held a conference on blogging in the fall of 2002 and I met Glenn Reynolds, who later convinced me that blogging would be good for me. As in so many other things, Glenn is irresistible.

I started blogging because I was increasingly concerned about the direction of the country and I wanted to express my views about law and politics in public. This concern started, I think, with the Clinton impeachment and the 2000 election. I thought it was important to take public stands on matters that I had pretty much been silent about through most of my adulthood. However, I found the system of submitting op-eds to newspapers and magazines quite constraining; it was very hard to get access and when you did there was a lot of rewriting to please editors (who often continued to edit without one's permission); the result often wasn't worth the extra effort and annoyance. I loved the format of blogs, which allowed me to do political commentary one day, and pretty serious academic writing the next.

What has been your favorite post, or favorite story to write about, in that time?

I don't have one favorite post, but I've enjoyed using the blog to think out loud about constitutional law; I often use the blog as a scratchpad for my scholarly writing. Some of my favorite posts show how something happening in politics stems from how the larger constitutional system works. I'm surprised that I have ended up blogging so much about constitutional law, because my scholarly (and non- scholarly) interests are much more wide ranging.

Describe your typical blogging schedule. And what is your average output?

I often blog early in the morning when I get up, or late at night before I go to bed. My output is notoriously variable. Some weeks I'll publish something almost every day, and there have been times when I've gone for weeks without publishing anything at all. That's one reason why I converted what was originally a solo effort into a group blog, with some very fine people, who, I think, have made some wonderful contributions to public discourse.

Who is your favorite political blogger? Favorite non-political blogger?

Fafblog, on both counts.

Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?

I don't really have one; but I enjoy Paul Krugman's polemics on the left and David Brooks and George Will on the right always say something that gets me thinking, even when I disagree with them, which I often do. Rosa Brooks, who I've known for many years, is a recent entrant who I think is doing splendid work.

What is your favorite television news program, either network or cable?

I seem to watch news on television less and less these days, because the quality is increasingly disappointing, but every now and then I check in on the Jim Lehrer "Newshour," "Washington Week in Review," and "The Daily Show."

What MSM-produced websites (i.e. newspapers, magazines) do you visit on a daily basis?

I read the New York Times and the Washington Post almost every day.

What non-MSM websites (i.e. blogs) do you visit on a daily basis?

I don't have a daily list, but I tend to check in regularly with The Volokh Conspiracy, Andrew Sullivan, Kevin Drum, Josh Marshall, TAPPED, How Appealing, Legal Theory Blog, SCOTUS Blog, and TPM Cafe (including Matthew Ygelsias).

How often, or do you ever, read a newspaper in its dead-tree (i.e. print) form?

Perhaps only once or twice a week, usually on Sundays.

How do you see the new media and old media affecting and influencing each other in the next five years?

Although bloggers like to think of themselves as bravely checking and critiquing old media, and parts of old media still regard bloggers as uncouth, unaccountable, and unreliable, in fact new media and old media (viewed both as a set of distinctive technologies and as a set of persons and social practices) have effectively merged much more than either would care to admit.

Reporters now regularly use bloggers, particularly expert bloggers, as sources for their stories. Newspapers, television networks and newsmagazines increasingly incorporate interactive elements in their online versions, sponsor their own blogs, and provide linkbacks to the blogs that discuss their stories. These trends, which have begun in earnest in the past year or so, will only accelerate as time goes on, as traditional media organizations work out the kinks of how to integrate interactivity into their business models. (Eventually, of course, broadcast television and internet video will merge as content delivery methods, and online delivery of text will increasingly dominate paper delivery.)

The most heavily linked to opinion and expert blogs, and aggregator blogs (i.e., blogs which primarily collect links to what other blogs are doing) make it increasingly easy for mainstream media to know what is going on in the blogosphere and to use this as information sources, as ideas or raw materials for new stories, and as a rough estimate of public opinion.

Interactivity will transform old media, which will not give up the ghost, but will instead use its considerable political and financial clout to draw important elements of the blogosphere ever closer to it, coopting and transforming them, even though many parts of the blogosphere will always remain beyond old media's grasp.

What mainstream media has to offer the blogosphere are money, advertising and links (i.e., traffic). Although the structure of the Internet guarantees that bloggers can generate some degree of traffic on their own, mainstream media platforms, because of their prominence, will help secure a disproportionate share of traffic and attention, and therefore will become (even more than today) important nodal points in the blogosphere, much to the chagrin of some bloggers and the delight of others.

Of course, the more that old media tries to coopt the blogosphere, the more it will itself be transformed. The result, I am afraid, will not be an unalloyed victory for decentralization or democracy, nor will it represent the end of powerful shapers of public opinion who occasionally abuse their power. Rather, it will instead produce a different distribution of power and a different set of dangers and responsibilities.

Just as political parties learned how to manipulate mainstream media in order to structure public debate and deliver their preferred messages, they are learning how to coopt, manipulate (and in some cases become part of) the blogosphere in order to shape public opinion. Increasingly, opinion makers (both in political parties and in the business world) have a multi-pronged strategy that attempts to influence both old and new media. Although the blogosphere regards itself as far too large and too diffuse to be manipulated by powerful political and financial interests, this is surely not so, and the degree of this influence will become even more obvious as time goes on. Nevertheless, the decentralization of the blogosphere and its characteristic architecture (of log normal or powerlaw distributions) allows a degree of countervailing power, which, I continue to hope, will not be extinguished. The revolution is real.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Prudence At This Juncture

A few weeks ago, we suggested the Washington Post add a registration system to their comment sections to cut down on the invective they receive. While they haven't done this, we did notice that the St. Petersburg Times is giving this a try themselves -- and letting Blogger do the work for them: "We're trying out a new system for Buzz that we hope will add a little more accountability in the comments while maintaining the free-wheeling nature of this blog. Beginning tomorrow, posting a comment will require you to create a blogger account. Click on "sign up here'' and you'll go through a quick sign-up process much like registering to access some web sites. You still can withhold your name, but you need to register an identity and valid e-mail address. We will keep these addresses private. You don't have to be nice, but we want to weed out the nasty personal attacks." The decision was a controversial one -- especially from the many anonymous commenters who got in to register their displeasure before the registration requirement was implemented.

LEST WE FORGET: I Wish I Knew How To Quit Bidding On You!

Now selling on eBay: "BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN DISPLAY with Jake & Ennis Dolls, 2 Horses, Campfire, Dog, Can of Beans, Tent, Flashlight, Liquor Bottle and Tree!" The seller describes the set: "It is just beautiful. Create your own display by positioning the dolls in different positions. The picture strip is included. Be the only one to own this display and dolls for it will be the only one I make. The dolls are fully poseable!" With 2 days left, bidding stands at $152.50.

2/15: Cheneyquiddick

In our last edition, we pushed the story about VP Cheney's accidental shooting down a bit, as there didn't seem to be much new and there were other stories we needed to cover. Today it's the opposite -- there are several stories that almost certainly would have captured the blogosphere's attention, were it not for the Cheney story. One is the release of more horrifying photos from Abu Ghraib, and the U.S. media's non-coverage (so far). Another is the growing possibility that Congress will not investigate the NSA wiretap program, in part because of the WH's efforts to persuade lawmakers that one isn't necessary.

But the Cheney story looms as large as ever, and not without reason -- Harry Whittington's heart attack and the decision for Cheney to meet with authorities the morning after the incident has brought increased scrutiny to the case.

For many bloggers, this is as much a media story as it is about the WH. In the long-ago days before newspapers went online, reporters could do their work, send a story to their editors, add updates as they came in, publish and repeat the process the next day. With the advent of online news in the past decade, wire reports are constantly updated on the web, exposing the raw news collection process -- including their mistakes. For example, if one knows how to manipulate the URLs correctly at Yahoo! News, one can flip through multiple versions of the same news story. With the advent of blogs, there are a lot of people out there doing just that. In a couple examples below, bloggers have seized upon incorrect or incomplete reports that may never have seen the light of day in earlier news eras.

CHENEY I: Open Season

CAP's Think Progress is among those focusing on the fact that WH spokesperson Scott McClellan knew of the heart attack before the speech; however, it seems there isn't much more than general outrage about it from the left, and few if any mentions from the right. More popular is a video from the Corpus Christi Caller-Times, which broke the story on 2/12. They had a gun expert reproduce the incident, with the birdshot hitting a sheet of paper. Think Progress again is one of a growing number of blogs linking to it. One is MO Dem consultant Roy Temple, who hints: "This experienced trap and skeet shooter got 200 pellets into the face and torso of a stationary target at 30 yards, but he did so by taking careful aim, not by missing a quail and shooting a human target instead. Hmmmmmmm."

Philadelphia Daily News' Will Bunch reports at his Attytood blog that "Armstrong became a lobbyist just three short years ago. She had no prior experience in lobbying, nor does she have a law degree. Her recent governmental experience consists of her recent stint as chair of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission." And while she "insists that she never lobbied Bush or Cheney directly," Bunch has seen documents that show a TX ranch paid her $10K to lobby the WH and Ag Dept., as did a pharmeceutical firm Prionics. He also quotes Bush from 8/05 explaining that he couldn't meet with Cindy Sheehan because he was having lunch with Armstrong.

Others wonder if Whittington is worse off than we know. Bad Attitudes: "Could Mr. Whittington be in deeper trouble than they're admitting? The Post reported today that he's had a minor heart attack due to a piece of birdshot lodging in his heart. IANA doctor, but prima facie that doesn't sound like a positive thing, especially for a patient who's 78." Andrew Sullivan wonders what happens if Whittington dies: "He's 78. He got hit in the face and body by a spray of tiny pellets. He's back in intensive care. It's not inconceivable that the vice president may have accidentally killed someone. Let's hope it doesn't come to that. I don't know Texas law; and I'm not a lawyer. But wouldn't this be a case of something like negligent homicide?" Philly-based All-Spin Zone asks, "how does birdshot 'lodged in his skin' enter a blood vessel and proceed to rattle around in his heart? More than likely his neck is a pulpy mess and the shot entered a wrecked vein. But hey, compared to the other lies that this administration has told, this is a fairly small one, and involves only one life."

At one point, Gary Farber understood the hunting license rules to mean that Cheney had been hunting after legal shooting hours and without the proper hunting permit -- just $7. He updates later to note that available reports make it seem likely the shooting took place within a half-hour of "civil twilight." Unable to dig further, he writes, "it would be darned interesting to be able to pin down the precise time of the shooting for certain, wouldn't it?" Los Angeles Times has since verified Farber's suspicion about the $7 permit.

Noting an AP report, AMERICAblog is put off by some of the joke-making going on: "I expect Jon Stewart and Jay Leno to make jokes about this incident. That's their job. But, for Scott McClellan and Jeb Bush to make fun of the whole thing is just creepy and incredibly unseemly."

Stone Court recalls an '03 case where a hunter accidentally shot an illegal/undocumented immigrant and was shot; both shooter and shot were Hispanic, manslaughter charges were brought but ultimately dropped in favor of a civil suit. Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher summarizes: "This is what the State of Texas thinks of hunting accidents that injure innocent people if your surname happens to be Hispanic." She notes that the ranch owners lost a damage award to the tune of $20M, and speculates maybe this is why Armstrong wanted it known that Cheney was not drinking.

Ian Schwartz at Expose the Left points out that Firedoglake only describes the victim as "Hispanic" and wonders what the fuss is. "There is one problem though, the illegal was shot and killed and the shooter is facing manslaughter charges. Cheney, on the other hand has not killed anyone, yet, and you better believe liberals are [hoping] that Whittington dies."

Of course, there is no shortage of speculation about whether Cheney was in fact drinking. Lawrence O'Donnell leads the way, writing at the Huffington Post: "How do we know there was no alcohol? Cheney refused to talk to local authorities until the next day. No point in giving him a breathalyzer then. Every lawyer I've talked to assumes Cheney was too drunk to talk to the cops after the shooting. The next question for the White House should be: Was Cheney drunk?"

And some conservatives want to know why Cheney hasn't talked to the press. Troy Univ. prof Steven Taylor: "Quite honestly, I am a bit surprised that the Veep hasn't held a press conference to face the media music, if anything just to get it over with. If anything, that seems the wiser course of action." Pundit Guy agrees with an NRO editorial calling for Cheney to step forward and address the situation: "It's time to end this, and the Veep is the only one who can."

A new entrant to Huffington Post's Contagious Media Festival (see 2/10 Blogometer) is a "game" called "Dick Cheney Quail Hunt." One "plays" as Cheney, and far as we can tell, each game ends with shooting either a nearby Secret Service agent or a fellow hunter (but apparently not the little girl). Already the quail hunt has shot to #1, displacing previous leader Awwwstrich. Based on the current totals, the Cheney game is now the prohibitive favorite for the top prize.

CHENEY II: Hey, Look Over There!

Last a.m., Josh Marshall found an ABC News story that described Cheney's 28-gauge shotgun as a "pellet gun": "Like when bad guys whack people with a sawed-off pellet gun? Please." By the time we checked the story early this a.m. the description had been changed to "shotgun loaded with birdshot."

The Green Knight is fed up that the media is "retelling conflicting accounts of the event without comment or notice" and declares: "I swear, if Bush and Cheney killed and ate a baby on live TV, the major pundits would swarm all over CNN to tell us we shouldn't judge them too harshly."

Center-right law prof Ann Althouse links: "The Cheney shooting story is the biggest distraction in the political discourse I've seen in a long time. It's interesting and, of course, we had to crack as many jokes as possible, but as a component in the political debate ... it's utterly meaningless." She links to a New York Times editorial criticizing the WH's delay, and later updates to ask why the editorial avoids comparison to Chappaquiddick.

Just as conservative bloggers called attention to Dana Milbank's bright orange hunting gear on 2/13, now they're noticing that Dem activist-pundit/CNN contributor Paul Begala did the same on 2/14. California Conservative slightly modifies Begala's outfit in Photoshop. John Hinderaker notes Begala's stunt, adding: "But then, Begala is a notoriously vicious Democratic Party hit-man, whereas Dana Milbank is ..." According to a reader of his, ombudsman Deborah Howell will address the Milbank incident this coming Sun. Wonkette: "At least Begala's hunting outfit, in contrast to Dana Milbank's lame imitation of one, seems authentic." At Huffington Post, Steven Kaus (brother of Mickey) hits the conservative bloggers as disingenuous: "The orange attire is not what offends them. It is that Milbank and Olbermann have been pointing out the idiocy of the administration on a nightly basis. ... Apparently no true Swiftboat fodder was available, so this had to do."

Just as bloggers are questioning why Cheney didn't speak to authorities until the morning after the incident, some are questioning why the media hasn't pressed the question harder. An early CBSNews.com report contained the line that disappeared from subsequent versions: "CBS News White House correspondent Peter Maer reports Texas authorities are complaining that the Secret Service barred them from speaking to Cheney after the incident." Some readers wondered if the report was incorrect or e-mailed CBS "nonbudsman" Vaughn Ververs at Public Eye for an explanation. Ververs contacted Maer, who wrote back that the info was thought right at the time, but soon they learned that such a meeting had been arranged: "We reported it as it developed. I obviously resent any notion that the White House or GOP could 'gag' our reporting on this or any other story."

ABU GHRAIB: They're Heeeeeeere!

More photos from Abu Ghraib have leaked, and the Sydney Morning Herald is among a couple Australian outlets to publish them. Some are similar to those released in '04, while others are much worse; Kevin Drum notes from the news reports that these were "among those that were shown privately to members of Congress shortly after the original Abu Ghraib story broke."

It seems that for the most part, U.S. blogs are currently occupied by the Cheney story. That said, it already has been picked up by a diarist at the #1-ranked political blog, Daily Kos, and the Technorati #1-ranked blog overall, Boing Boing. We expect to find much more commentary on this tomorrow.

Edward Champion: "Disgusting. Definitely NSFW. I'm ashamed to be American. And I think I'm going to roll into a ball. Because if these photos don't get America horrified, I don't know what will. NPR, of course, is silent about these images this morning. I'm looking at CNN's website and there's a tiny link to the right when this should be the top story. Nothing at the Washington Post or the New York Times. Or even my hometown paper, the San Francisco Chronicle." For the strong-stomached, Obsidian Wings posts a few of the more graphic photos under the ironic headline "A City On A Hill."

EAVESDROPPING: House Afire

Washington Post reports, an "all-out" WH campaign has Congress reconsidering whether to launch a probe into the NSA wiretaps. Among the sens. now reluctant to open an investigation is moderate Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME).

Captain's Quarters: "Another reason for the ebbing of outrage by Congress ... has to be the reaction of the American people. Having been informed that the administration authorized warrantless surveillance on international communications between people with ties to al-Qaeda and people in the US, the American electorate ... yawned." Sister Toldjah: "It should be noted that the more moderate Senators like Snowe generally stick to their middle-of-the-road guns and don't give in to WH pressure, so this is a pretty significant change in attitude on the part of Snowe." Lefty Billmon notes that Cheney was involved in the lobbying effort, and snarks: "He must have threatened to take them 'hunting.'"

OHIO: Valentine's Day Massacre

Yesterday we detailed developments in the OH SEN and GOV Dem primaries. At first, most of the focus was on Iraq vet/'05 OH-02 special candidate Paul Hackett's (D) unhappy exit from the SEN race, apparently at the hands of nat'l Dem leadership. Today, questions are raised about how the state party may have worked to force state Sen./'04 SEN nominee Eric Fingerhut (D) to quit the GOV race.

Jill Miller Zimon posted about a conversation she had with OH Dem chair Chris Redfern. Zimon had previously written to Redfern about claims that the ODP wouldn't accomodate Fingerhut, an Orthodox a Conservative Jew, and his request to postpone an interview scheduled for the Sabbath. First, she was contacted by ODP comm. dir. Brian Rothenberg, who noted that Fingerhut was offered the opportunity to speak at a time when, two weeks earlier, he had scheduled a campaign event. Rothenberg, who notes he's also Jewish, wrote: "I am not aware in my upbringing of an exception for different events -- you are either conservative or orthodox and strictly observe or you are flexible in your observance. It is highly doubtful you change such a belief pattern in a span of two weeks!"

Zimon, on her conversation with Redfern: "Redfern spoke for several minutes about the importance to him that Fingerhut be afforded opportunities that respected Fingerhut's religious observances. ... Fingerhut's campaign says that a person speaking for the ODP said that 'it is impossible' for the interview to be re-scheduled in a way that would satisfy Fingerhut. Chris Redfern says that no one from the ODP has said that and that the ODP representatives were ordered to and carried out that order to offer Fingerhut accommodations which, the ODP believed, had been adequate in the past." Zimon concludes: "shouldn't these two camps be talking to one another? Is it reasonable to think that I should have written that in my email to Redfern, and perhaps to Fingerhut's campaign as well? I mean, that just sounds kooky to me, but things are getting kookier all the time these days."

A post at High & Broad about Fingerhut, titled, "Is There a Rabbi in the House?" offended many. It was removed, but recovered and posted on Buckeye Senate Blog. Brewed Fresh Daily claims the rabbi entry was posted by a paid ODP staffer and ex-journalist. Conservative Michael Meckler comments on the accusations of anti-Semitism flowing back and forth, and concludes on the whole issue: "Regardless of when the ODP screening committee meeting was going to be scheduled, Fingerhut's campaign was already in serious trouble. ... Whatever the true story of the scheduling dispute may have been, it would have had no effect on the outcome of the endorsement."

Back to the SEN race, Ohio 2nd responds to Markos Moulitsas claim that Hackett "didn't stand a chance" in the primary. "I don't mind people promoting their guy, but don't try to rewrite history and give people credit for other people's work. Kos wasn't there. He doesn't know crap about the 2nd race." Kos later posts some more thoughts. Responding to claims that the establishment pushed Hackett out, he points to seemingly analogous situations elsewhere, and also the case of now-IL Sen. Barack Obama (D). "He didn't quit when the odds were stacked up against him. So it can be done, and it has been done. The party is not all powerful." On the idea that primaries are bad: "Now, insurgent candidates don't have a god-given right to respect or support. But if they want to run, then the party should stay the frack out of it. There is no legitimate justification for the price the party pays in meddling in such affairs."

A sampling elsewhere from the left and right: Paul Rieckhoff: "The loss of Paul Hackett's voice in the national dialogue is a loss for our military, for the Troops in harms' way, and for the nation as a whole. Yet again, the Washington political machine has shown its inability to handle fresh perspective and bold challenges to the status quo." Mark Noonan at Blogs For Bush: "I do believe that they are imploding over there on the left side of the aisle." Sirotablog: "Beyond who you liked in this potential Democratic primary, one thing is a truism: successful candidates -- whoever they are -- have to have the tenacity in order to be elected. I'm sure Paul Hackett has tenacity in parts of his life -- hell, he went off to combat in Iraq. But its clear he doesn't have political tenacity."

GORE: Just Misunderstood?

On 2/14 we pointed out that we couldn't find any liberal bloggers mentioning Al Gore's speech on U.S. mistreatment of Arabs in the U.S. One who has is Anonymous Liberal, who argues that conservatives have it exactly backward: "Far from fanning the flames of anti-Americanism, Gore was actually doing damage control. He was trying to de-fuse a source of strong anti-American sentiment by making it clear to his audience that the actions at issue were not condoned by most Americans. It's hard to understate just how important it is to make it clear to the Muslim world that American policy almost never represents the views of all Americans. ... Compare that to Ann Coulter's crude slurring of every Muslim in the world at [CPAC], a remark which apparently prompted a 'boisterous ovation' from the Republican crowd. It's hard to imagine a single remark with more potential to engender hatred of America."

REPUBLICANS: I Want MyGOP

This past weekend, RedState co-founder Mike Krempasky admonished the RNC for letting the DNC beat them to the creation of individual fundraising accounts along the same lines as ActBlue (see 2/13 Blogometer).

In the comments, ex-RNC eCampaign dir. Mike Turk writes, "that sort of functionality causes a slew of legal problems that the FEC (and clearly the Democrats) have not considered. We looked at developing an ActRed site, but the legal restrictions prevent a national committee from doing so. It could be done by a third party, and I undertand several are working on the concept."

He also noted that the RNC did work on such a project last year, as well as a MySpace-like site on GOP.com for activists to create profiles. He explains how that project died: "When we were forced to pull a Social Security Testimonials tool off the site because someone dared to use the word "private" instead of the more acceptable "personal" accounts, it became apparent that our internal tolerance for self-expression would not allow that sort of openness. Arguments that restrictions of that nature are ridiculous and hamper our ability to be effective online were met with stony silence. In the end, MyGOP went nowhere."

He concludes: "For anyone who is casting aspersions on [current eCampaign dir.] Patrick Ruffini, I would caution against that. Patrick is pretty much the only friend we have in that building. ... Unfortunately, Patrick has an enormous task ahead of him. He has to convince a generation of political professionals to see the net as a community, rather than an audience." In the comments following, Krempasky and Turk agree to start working on this project as a PAC.

Turk's account of internal RNC operations puzzled some GOPers. Republicans familiar with the RNC's e-campaign operation at the time say that Ruffini was hired to implement many of the ideas that were generated by Turk and others. And the RNC believes that its relationship with bloggers have improved in recent months. The committee hosted a private conference with senior officials, including Karl Rove; Mehlman has hosted at least a half dozen conference calls to respond to bloggers; questions. Comments to official RNC blog posts are edited only for obscenity and spam, not generally for content, even comments critical of Bush are allowed. One Republican: "the notion that you can somehow control the blogosphere is just unrealistic" and "of course" RNC "recognizes that." (Hotline reporting, 2/15)

DEMOCRATS: Ten Campaigns From Normal

Mickey Kaus argues that the Dems' best strategy for '06 and '08 is to emphasize a "return to normalcy" theme without downplaying the war on terrorism: "We can routinize the anti-terror struggle the way we routinized the Cold War, when just as much was at stake." More: "It not only changes the focus from foreign policy (on which Dems tend to lose) to domestic policy (where Dems are poised to win) -- it does this a) without minimizing the importance of the anti-terror effort but also b) without requiring the public to decide that Democrats are actually better equipped to fight Al Qaeda. All they have to decide is that the Dems are right to say, 'We can handle it.'"

MIDTERMS: Like The Word "Smurf," Some Will Just Plug The Word "Blog" In When They're Not Sure What To Write

Ex-IA Dem chair Gordon Fischer wrote at his blog: "Speculation began this weekend when" IA Ag. Sec Patty Judge "was a no show at a Story County Dems event. It's now reached fever pitch. Apparently, Secretary Culver is doing a tour tomorrow, including a press conference at the Capitol, and is ending the tour in Albia. Hmmm." On 2/14, the Cedar Rapids Gazette followed up, noting -- in the reporter's awkward phrasing -- that "Fischer posted a blog on his Internet web page" about the rumor.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Map Quest

Boot Burns, a blog run by the campaign of MT SEN candidate John Morrison (D), calls attention to a map his team has assembled detailing the Bush admin's "land grab" -- i.e. the Ag Dept. is selling off Nat'l Forest areas around MT. Morrison's camp thus becomes the 1st campaign that we know of to make use of the mapping technologies available via Google Maps and Map Builder.

LEST WE FORGET: Some Things Are Just Sacred

Referring to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoon controversy, Iowahawk posts an imaginary news story that answers the quest: What would it take to turn the Midwestern Street into a seething rage?: "Green Bay, WI -- Like a pot of bratwurst left unattended at a Lambeau Field pregame party, simmering tensions in the strife-torn Midwest boiled over once again today as rioting mobs of green-and-gold clad youth and plump farm wives rampaged through Wisconsin Denny's and IHOPs, burning Texas toast and demanding apologies and extra half-and-half. The spark igniting the latest tailgate hibachi of unrest: a Texas newsletter's publication of caricatures of legendary Green Bay Packers coach Vince Lombardi..." Heritage's Mark Tapscott has the DC angle on the "riots." [Updated]

2/14: Cut And (Not) Run

Today's edition focuses on the end of a candidacy made possible by liberal bloggers, a blog swarm around a major figure that might become bigger news because of conservative bloggers and further reaction to and speculation about a major weekend incident by bloggers of all political stripes. Plus, we present our latest Blogger Spotlight.

OHIO SENATE: Over And Out

'05 OH-02 special candidate/Iraq vet Paul Hackett (D) told the New York Times 2/13 that he'd drop out of the Dem primary "as a result of pressure from party leaders." Hackett, who says he will not challenge Rep. Jean Schmidt (R) in OH 02 again, was not the only OH Dem to depart an OH primary 2/13. Ex-SEN/GOV candidate Eric Fingerhut did, too -- but the energy was always around Hackett, whose candidacies have been closely followed -- and debated -- in the lefty blogosphere.

Hackett had just taken up residence at TPMCafe's Table for One -- a page for special guests (usually pols) to blog for a week. His somewhat lengthy opening entry gives his background and concludes: "Let's settle for nothing less than excellence for this great nation. Lets make real change, right now. Please join our team and support our fight." The pol to last hold down the fort at Table for One was none other than Rep. Sherrod Brown (D), now unopposed for the chance to take on Sen. Mike DeWine (R) 11/7. Hackett's latest post at TPMCafe announces his withdrawal from the race. Buckeye Senate Blog created a post for readers to send messages to Hackett: "He worked damn hard these last few months. Leave your comments, I'm sure he reads them."

Pro-Hackett Ohio 2nd: "I hope they know what they are doing, because I don't. ... It's been a good run. For a while I was proud to be an Ohio Democrat." Many people in a thread at MyDD are upset, but another adds: "Hackett read too many of his own clippings. The fact that the guy ran one close race doesn't put him above the party." Ezra Klein: "I did think Sherrod Brown the stronger candidate, but Hackett had the makings of a genuine star in a party all too devoid of luminescence." Tim Russo, at Brewed Fresh Daily: "I've never voted Republican, and never will. But I will not raise a single finger to help this ODP ticket, along with so many others; newcomers who've seen their energy ignored and ridiculed, veterans who've warned against the inevitable every step of the way, and the old timers who just can't take anymore. ... The GOP will be laughing all the way to the halls of power. Again. And my party's 'leaders' will have themselves to thank for it. Again." At Huffington Post, ex-Sen./WH candidate Gary Hart (D-CO) calls pressure to force Hackett out "deplorable."

DavidNYC hopes these feelings will be short-lived: "I was a big Dean supporter during the primaries, and when he lost, I was seriously bummed. But I took a week, got over it, and then got right behind John Kerry." Markos Moulitsas: "To be clear -- Hackett didn't stand a chance [in the primary]. He had a tenth of Brown's money, and that was before party people allegedly tried to stop Hackett's donors from giving. His field operation in the special election was literally put together and implemented by Dan Lucas. Who is Dan Lucas? Sherrod Brown's campaign manager. Hackett's netroots effort in the special election was put together by Tim Tagaris. And while Tim is now at the DNC, he helped put together Brown's netroots operation. So it was Brown's people who helped put together the nuts and bolts of Hackett's special election campaign, and they were now working for their boss -- Sherrod Brown."

Captain's Quarters: "Hackett found out a little late that Democrats only pay lip service to veterans and the concerns of national security. I wonder how many of these veterans will stand by and watch their peer get pushed under the bus."

GORE: Al-Gore

Completely overshadowed by the Cheney incident, but still of note in the right blogosphere, is the news that this weekend ex-VP Gore denounced the post-9/11 treatment of Arabs at a conf. in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Conservative bloggers are none too happy with him; as far as we know it hasn't rated a mention among any of the top liberal bloggers.

Power Line: "The adage that "politics stops at the water's edge" has apparently long since been laid to rest. At the least, we need a new adage counseling American politicians not to defame their country or grovel before the potentates of the homeland of many of America's enemies." The Moderate Voice concurs: "Just when former Vice President Al Gore seemed to be re-carving a niche for himself as an outspoken, blunt political critic of the Bush administration he forgot a key rule of real estate: 'Location, location, location.'

TigerHawk addresses Gore's focus on stricter handling of U.S. visas: "Substantively, the idea that cracking down on Saudi visa applications is 'playing into al Qaeda's hands' is laughable. Had we scrutinized Saudi visas a little more carefully in 2001, thousands of Americans who died on September 11 that year might well have lived." More: "Supposing that some Saudis were inclined to be angry over the American visa policy, won't they be more angry after Al Gore has told them that they're being humiliated? How is that helpful?" Rightwing Nuthouse: "Were Arabs detained following 9/11? Why yes they were. According to this Arab-American website, the number could have been 1200, with 725 held on immigration violations, another 100 held for unrelated criminal charges, and 360 detained for possible links to terrorism. And according to the US Census Bureau, there are about 3 million Arab Americans in the United States. Some kind of 'indiscriminate roundup' eh?"

Ankle Biting Pundits says this can't help Dems: "I've often said that one area in which Democrats could get to the President's "right" on national security was on Saudi Arabia, who the current administration, as well as past administrations, have treated as a friend, when in fact they are the opposite. Only Al Gore, in the alternative universe he lives in, could imagine that a majority of Americans think it's a mistake to be more strict with the Saudis and the attempts of its citizens to enter the country." The Strata-Sphere labels Gore the "Symbol of the Democrats."

At The Corner, Tim Graham lists the number of stories the Washington Post has run on the Cheney incident, and compares: "Anything on Al Gore's America-bashing speech in Saudi Arabia? Not in the paper, yesterday or today."

CHENEY: Blog First, Ask Questions Later

Aside from the combative exchanges between WH spokesperson Scott McClellan and the WH press corps, there aren't any new developments in the Cheney incident. But rather than fade away as many stories do, this remains a major topic of speculation -- about what developments may come and about Cheney's future specifically.

Daily Kos: "The Cheney shooting story isn't about to die down. I predict that the press is going to run with this story for days, if not weeks -- and it has very little to do with the possibility of Cheney's being drunk, or with the 18 hour delay, or anything else. And this story is going to be much bigger than what we've seen so far in the White House Press Briefings. It's because this story is a perfect metaphor for this administration's foreign and domestic policy." The post re-tells the Cheney story, hyper-linking phrases to seemingly analogous events primarily based around the Iraq war. Joe Gandelman also thinks the story will stick around: "All kinds of (largely-unsubstantiated) theories abound. But one thing is NOT a theory: President Dick Cheney's decisions have provided the Bush administration with some of the biggest headaches during its time in office. ... Even before this incident the periodic question has surfaced: will Cheney end his term?" Marshall Wittmann, DLCer and ex-McCain aide, wonders the same thing: "We have assumed that there will no incumbent Vice President running on the Republican side in '08. That may not be the case -- the President may very well select his favored successor before the '08 Presidential primaries."

At TPMCafe, TX native and proud hunter Paul Begala rebukes Cheney for being careless and the post-shooting spin operation as well. He clarifies: "When you hit a man with a 28 gauge (likely 7 and a half shot) and land him in intensive care, you have not 'sprayed' him. You've shot him." At TNR's The Plank, Michael Crowley dissects McClellan's answers at the 2/13 gaggle, then adds: "Tomorrow's Talking Points Today!: How long before the Drudge Report links to an old story about some Democrat's forgotten hunting accident? ("FLASH: DEMOCRATIC SENATOR ACCIDENTALLY SHOT COLLEAGUE IN 1999.") The over-under is 10 a.m. tomorrow."

RedState addresses the Cheney-obsessed press: "In your whining about this story and pumping rumors of conspiracy, cover up, and delay, you show your true colors and your true immaturity in your ability to properly put news in perspective. You, particularly you the White House press corps, once dared mock the National Enquirer for running the Monica Lewinsky story. You now pursue every story, regardless of its significance, like the National Enquirer for fear it might again trump you on something." Lorie Byrd, on David Gregory at the presser: "He did not even resemble a real reporter. Instead of asking real questions, he spent more time doing one of those silly little attempts at stand up comedy that he does on the Don Imus show."

In response to the furor, conservative bloggers Matt Margolis and Ian Schwartz have teamed up to sell bumpers stickers that read: "I'd Rather Hunt With Dick Cheney Than Ride With Ted Kennedy."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: There Is No Dana, Only Zuul

Michelle Malkin posts a screen capture and video of Washington Post's Dana Milbank wearing hunting gear on "Olbermann" last p.m., and encourages readers to e-mail the Post's ombudsman. Via Malkin, a number of conservative bloggers post the image and second Malkin's complaint. Andrew Sullivan: "Just when you think the vice-president has created a p.r. disaster nothing could detract from, you come across a picture like this."

Watchdog group Media Matters has a report out highlighting the fact that guests on the Sunday morning news shows favor conservatives. A number of liberal bloggers link to the piece, including a couple who work for Media Matters. Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum notes: "One of the things they note is that although 23% of senators voted against the Iraq war resolution, only 11% of the senators who appeared on the Sunday shows before the invasion were anti-war. Why did the anti-war side get shunned so badly by the talk shows?"

BUSH: Who Holds Back The Electric Car? Who Makes Steve Guttenberg A Star? Bush Does! Bush Does!

In a 2/12 posting at his blog, atty Glenn Greenwald wrote: "It used to be the case that in order to be considered a "liberal" or someone "of the Left," one had to actually ascribe to liberal views on the important policy issues of the day ... Now, in order to be considered a "liberal," only one thing is required -- a failure to pledge blind loyalty to George W. Bush." The post drew agreement from lefty bloggers, but as conservative bloggers have expressed respect for Greenwald, he gets some of their attention, too.

Greenwald linked Little Green Footballs with the assertion that some conservative blogs think "we ought to drop nuclear bombs on countries which have committed the crime of housing large Muslim populations," and LGF proprietor Charles Johnson is incensed: "Glenn Greenwald is a liar. I have never said or written such a thing, because that is simply not my opinion." Worth noting: It may be that Greenwald is referring to the unwieldy and unmonitored comments section; whether Johnson is responsible for them is frequently a subject of debate. Conservative Mark Coffey, a proud RINO, writes that Greenwald "would have you think that conservatives have sold our souls to the devilish president, never mind Harriet Miers or the Gang of 14 or the recent statements of Bill Frist, George Allen, Arlen Specter, and other Republicans who have been quite openly critical of the Administration lately." Alexandra von Maltzan of All Things Beautiful, whose earlier critical post about Greenwald inspired his 1st on this subject, notes that he did not address the point of what she wrote, viz. that Greenwald "callously accused the Bush Administration of pursuing the same goal as al Qaida, namely striking maximum fear into our hearts."

Liberal Duncan "Atrios" Black agrees: "The interesting paradox is, as I've written before, that they'll dump Bush and transfer the cult onto the next Daddy figure that comes along." This a.m. Oliver Willis has a Cheney-related post up titled "The Bush Cult."

MISCELLANY: The Remainders Of The Day

• A story we missed following the Cheney accident was Ann Coulter's controversial remarks at the past weekend's CPAC conf., in particular a slur about Arabs; it elicited strong condemnation from liberal bloggers, and then a bit later, a number of conservatives (such as Robert George) joined the criticism. Pressured by e-mailers to address the issue at length, Instapundit partially defended her: "The lefties seem mostly upset about her use of the term 'raghead,' which is racist and offensive, but more or less akin to the term 'cracker,' which doesn't seem to bother a lot of lefties. So pardon me if I'm largely unmoved by their mock outrage on this account."
• At Gawker Media's Gridskipper, Boi from Troy posts photos from post-CPAC drinking; his fellow Dentonites at Wonkette also describe the events (and mention the Coulter thing).
• New York magazine devotes its latest cover to the blogging phenomenon, including a long article about the "New New Media," a guide to the Technorati Top 50 (includes nifty graphic), a NYC-centric/Denton-centric profile of some key blog personalities, and an explanation of long tail theory.
• RedState's lobbyist-blogger Pat Cleary gives a shout-out to a 2/13 protest outside the AFL-CIO HQ. The org. set up an inflatable dinosaur outside the building and bought an ad in today's Post to promote their new site, UnionFacts.com. Liberal Michael Froomkin (brother of Dan) notes that the New York Times couldn't get a straight answer about who funds the group beyond "various companies and a foundation." He snarks: "Do you suppose that the corporations paying for this stuff are booking the contributions under their 'corporate social responsibility' expenditures?"
• Rumor has it that GOP pollster Frank Luntz may become Dem pollster Frank Luntz. Chris Bowers: "As long as he sticks to the strategy side and not policy, I'll happily welcome a successful political consultant like Frank Luntz over to our side. After all, could he really do any worse than our guys?"
• Louisville Courier-Journal reports on further Wikipedia vandalism, this time involving a Dem candidate and Chandra Levy.

BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: Driscoll On Driscoll

Today the Blogometer talks to conservative Ed Driscoll, who writes the eponymous EdDriscoll.com.

What is your full name?

Edward B. Driscoll, Jr.

What is your age?

Over 40 and climbing.

Where did you grow up?

Burlington, New Jersey, a small suburb located between Philadelphia and Trenton.

Where do you live now?

Just outside of San Jose, California.

What is your occupation? Have you ever worked on a political campaign or for the mainstream media?

I'm a freelance journalist who writes regularly for a variety of magazines, primarily consumer electronics publications, including PC World, Videomaker, Electronic House, Servo, TechLiving, and also music publications such as Vintage Guitar, and Computer Music, a UK -- based publication. And on the Web, for Tech Central Station and Blogcritics. I've also written for National Review Online and The Weekly Standard, and I'm a paid contributor to Pajamas Media.com. (But I've never worked on any political campaign.)

When did you start blogging and why?

Around 1999, I began reading self-published e-zines, such as Virginia Postrel's, which was -- and is-a frequent destination of mine. Back then, I associated Weblogs solely with online diaries. Shortly before 9/11, I Googled my name, and discovered a Website called "InstaPundit" had linked to a piece I had written for National Review. That was the first time I noticed someone using Blogger.com other than as a diary, and the proverbial light bulb went off in my head.

In February of 2002, I wrote an article about this "New, New Journalism," and interviewed several bloggers about 9/11 and its aftermath, including Reynolds, and original milblogger "Sgt. Stryker." Both fellows permalinked me when my blog launched the following month, so I really hit the ground running.

What has been your favorite post, or favorite story to write about, in that time?

That the post-9/11 world has become the post-objective journalism world, for both better and worse. There had long been rare, scattershot admissions from the media about their bias, but before the Blogosphere, "the MSM" almost invariably billed themselves unbiased and objective, about as often and with as much believability as the Coneheads insisting that Remulak was a small town in France. The Blogosphere dramatically changed this, along with veteran journalists finally going on the record. Eventually, during the run-up to the election last year, then-New York Times ombudsman Daniel Okrent wrote his blockbuster op-ed admitting the Gray Lady's bias. This was followed shortly by the whole RatherGate debacle.

Describe your typical blogging schedule. And what is your average output?

Essentially, I blog when I want, about what I want. So depending upon other writing deadlines, I'll blog either a few hours a day, or more, or none at all. And if I'm traveling, as long as I have access to a broadband connection of some sort, I'll blog a little when time permits.

Who is your favorite political blogger? Favorite non -- political blogger?

Reynolds, Postrel, Charles Johnson, Roger L. Simon, Hugh Hewitt and Orrin Judd all immediately come to mind, and there are dozens of others.

I'm not sure if The Bleat fits the exact definition of a blog, but James Lileks.

Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?

Non -- blogging columnists I admire include: Mark Steyn, Charles Krauthammer, Jonah Goldberg, Brian Anderson.

What is your favorite television news program, either network or cable?

Probably "Special Report With Brit Hume", though I watch much less TV news than I did prior to following Weblogs. Unless a huge story is breaking, I just find myself preferring to get my news through the 'Net, in as much or as little quantity as I want about a particular story, rather than the soundbite format dictated by the limits of television's format.

What MSM -- produced websites (i.e. newspapers, magazines) do you visit on a daily basis?

At this point, mostly those linked to by bloggers.

What non -- MSM websites (i.e. blogs) do you visit on a daily basis?

See above.

How often, or do you ever, read a newspaper in its dead -- tree (i.e. print) form?

Very, very rarely these days -- usually only if traveling.

How do you see the new media and old media affecting and influencing each other in the next five years?

I see the two converging. After several years of thumbing their noses at bloggers, increasingly, newspapers and other forms of Big Media are adding blogs to their Websites, whether they're staffed in -- house, or outside productions such as Blogcritics. And blogs are more and more starting to add features once thought of as strictly the province of the MSM: multimedia (both audio and increasingly video), original reportage, and long -- form posts that at their best, rival or surpass the content of traditional publications.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Webmaster Of His Domain

Today's "Thought" again goes to Mickey Kaus, because we missed this item just below the one we cited yesterday, and it's an even better one: "The owner of the domain name Impeachbush.com, who bought it as an investment back in May, 1999, has decided that this is the time to put it on the market, which must mean something... It will be interesting to see, not just what such a URL is worth, but whether it's worth more to an anti-Bush group or to Karl Rove."

LEST WE FORGET: My Funny Valentine

A contributor to the popular message board site Something Awful has discovered something truly astounding -- by following one simple rule, one can make "Garfield" funny.

And because today is Valentine's day, Extreme Mortman has posted photos of 10 DC figures and invites readers to "match the politicians most need of sharing Valentines with each other."

2/13: Stop! Or My Vice President Will Shoot!

At the top of our round-up following the King funeral last week (see 2/8 Blogometer), we noted that race isn't a big issue in the blogosphere very often. Today, as almost everybody has something to say about the hunting accident involving VP Cheney and TX atty Harry Whittington, we'll point out that gun rights and hunting are even less frequently debated in the blogosphere. Since the passage of the (now-expired) Assault Weapons Ban in '94, the gun control movement has been in what seems an inexorable decline. Cultural objections to hunting have been set aside in favor of yard signs announcing "Hunters for [Dem candidate]" -- ex-VA Gov. Mark Warner (D) benefited from his "Sportsmen for Warner" signs. By early '03, Howard Dean's pro-gun stance was seen as an asset instead of a liability. And we recall that in the wake of John Kerry's WH'04 loss (prior to the launch of the Blogometer) MyDD's Chris Bowers listed gun control as an issue Dems should "should drop, if not" actually switch positions.

As for the incident itself, there are other questions about Cheney's responsibility, about the delay of the reporting -- liberal bloggers consider it part of the WH's pattern of putting their own reputation above the timely and accurate informing of the public -- and lots and lots of jokes. Generally speaking, lefty bloggers read between the lines to find greater fault with Cheney and the WH and even to find analogies with what's wrong with the admin overall, while conservative bloggers give Cheney the benefit of the doubt and decry the left's reaction.

Also today, we find that disgraced GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff is a widespread topic of discussion -- not just re: the release of the first of the photos showing him in the presence of Pres. Bush, but follow-ups to stories about the media (as it does today) and the midterm elections and lobbying reform (an issue that exists largely because of him). For long periods last year while the print media was covering the Abramoff investigation, few bloggers devoted much space to it. That's changed, all right -- post-indictment he's a permanent fixture on the landscape.

CHENEY I: It's Times Like These Where We Question The Propriety Of Journalistic Clichés Such as "Targeted," "Takes Aim" And "Under Fire"

Corpus-Christi Caller Times was the 1st to report the story, but many are getting the report from the AP via Matt Drudge-favored Breitbart wire service.

Conservative Michelle Malkin: "Unfortunately, this is very bad news for the White House -- and not just because of the inevitable late-night jokes that will inundate the airwaves over the next week. The Dems will exploit this accident to smear Cheney as incapable of being trusted, weak of mind, etc. The resignation rumors will fly again." Considering the continuity of gov't angle, ex-KE'04 aide Ari Melber asks if Cheney will continue to take hunting trips as VP: "Private hunting ranches are not a safe place for the Vice President. That was always obvious, but a trip to the intensive care unit should erase any doubt, even for Dick Cheney. Now reporters must press Cheney to answer the lingering questions about this weekend's hunting trip - and whether it was his last." Liberal BradBlog notes that Cheney hired Whittington at Halliburton, sending right-leaning Kesher Talk into sarcastic hysterics about "the dread Halliburton connection! How could we have overlooked that! And if that doesn't show that something nefarious was behind this then..."

E&P's Mitchell points out there was an 18-hour gap between when the incident's happening and reporting, and plenty of bloggers wonder about it as well. Liberal Steve Soto argues, "if it hadn't been for the ranch owner calling her friend at the local paper this morning and letting him know about it, this story wouldn't have even come out today because the White House was willing to let it go unreported until the local paper went with it. The local sheriff was willing to let the Secret Service sweep this under the rug, like a Jenna and not-Jenna chugging contest." He asks: "What were they afraid of? The embarrassment of Cheney looking stupid, reckless, or perhaps being drunk as a skunk?" Michelle Pilecki at Huffington Post probes further: "Also odd was the story that the shooting victim ... was 'bruised more than bloodied' according to the Houston Chronicle, and "his pride was hurt more than anything else." Yet, notes E&P, he was airlifted to a hospital and had spent more than a day in an intensive care unit. By the time the story went national, the prominent Austin lawyer was reported as being in stable condition." Conservative Outside the Beltway sees nothing conspiratorial: "Perhaps the Whittingtons wanted time to call family members and determine the nature of the injury. One can't imagine that the White House thought they would avoid having this incident kept secret by an entire hospital staff."

The Carpetbagger Report tries on the "suspicious timing angle," the "conspiracy fodder angle" and the "'era of responsibility' angle, before simply concluding: "One thing's for sure -- when the Vice President shoots a guy, it gets people's attention."

CHENEY II: The Way Of The Gun

One issue being raised by some left-leaning bloggers is the manner of hunting, which they find unsporting. Lefty P.Z. Myers downplays any talk that the shooting says anything about Cheney's character and insists he's not anti-hunting -- but he is anti- this type of hunting: "lowing away a horde of pen-raised animals, released in front of you to scurry into your gunsights, is not a sport. It's disgusting bloody-mindedness, a lazy, cowardly, vicious sort of abuse." MO-based ArchPundit: "That's not hunting, it's a damn trap shoot. I'd say the prey didn't have a chance, but given his stellar hunting skills, they did."

Getting prominent play at the Drudge Report is a statement by ex-Reagan spokesperson/gun control advocate James Brady saying: "Now I understand why Dick Cheney keeps asking me to go hunting with him" and wife Sarah Brady: "I've thought Cheney was scary for a long time. Now I know I was right to be nervous." Xrlq: "One hopes this was a lame attempt at humor." Conservative Stephen Bainbridge notes that it hasn't yet appeared on the Brady Campaign website and so questions its validity. But if it is legit, he comments: "It's kind of a pathetic commentary on the state of political discourse, when prominent folks like this can't even rise to the level of a bad Saturday Night Live sketch."

Josh Marshall and Nitpicker are among the lefty bloggers to argue that ranch owner/Bush pioneer Katharine Armstrong is blaming the victim by saying Whittington "came up from behind the vice president and the other hunter and didn't signal them or indicate to them or announce himself." Lefty Blogenlust checked up the TX Parks and Wildlife rules on gun handling, and concludes "the guy who was shot shouldn't be blamed." Libertarian Jeff Soyer at Alphecca isn't pleased with Cheney, either: "Another 'friend' of gun rights makes a fool of himself (and by extension, all of us) by forgetting the rules of safe gun handling. Thanks a lot, you dick."

Conservative Soccer Dad notes that VA Del. Jack Reid (R) had his gun accidentally go off in his state house office last month: "No doubt these two incidents will cause a lot criticism and bring further discussion of further regulating guns. However, that these incidents would inspire such a response shows how far our society has come in its view of guns." He points out that 2-time Dem WH nominee Adlai Stevenson accidentally shot and killed a girl in his youth, yet it wasn't a campaign issue. He predicts these events will follow Reid and Cheney.

CHENEY III: Thankfully, A Laughing Matter

TBogg indulges his "inner Freeper" and connects the dots -- viz., that Whittington is active in TX GOP politics and served on the TX funeral board. Asks TBogg: "So why did Dick Cheney attempt to pop a cap in Whittington's ass? And why did he wait a day to admit to what he did? And can we call this Cheneyquiddick?" More: "Here we invoke Noonan's Law which states: 'Is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible not to.' So get out your speculums and have at it..." Digby channels Rush Limbaugh speculating about Whitewater back in '94. The blogger for Air America's Majority Report Radio invokes 2 jokes currently going around the left side of the blogosphere, both the formulation and replacement word here: "GUNS DON'T SHOOT PEOPLE, CHICKENHAWKS SHOOT PEOPLE." Mad Kane does her limerick shtick. And Kieran Healy channels Jules from "Pulp Fiction": "And you will know I am the Unitary Executive when I lay my vengeance upon you."

A few conservatives are having fun with it too, although without any hostile undertones. The kitty cats of right-leaning Laurence Simon weigh in. Says one: "He has a lawyer as a friend? Okay, now I know he's the most evil man on the planet." Ace of Spades HQ: "The spin is that it was just a mistake. The truth is that Cheney was just hunting the ultimate prey -- man." Chris Short at right-leaning The Jawa Report has collected some more spiteful jokes made by commenters at left-leaning Huffington Post; the 1st comment at TJR is an equally spiteful comment from the right, setting off a fierce debate about propriety.

Captain's Quarters complained about the photo AP released of Cheney -- he's snarling against a black background -- and already Jesus' General has Photoshopped it into an ad for "Old Gutshot '78" scotch.

ABRAMOFF: Like Waldo, Zelig And Don Corleone All In One Person

Before the Cheney story broke, it was looking like the top story today would be Time's publication of a photo featuring Bush and Abramoff in the same room at the WH, as Bush and Karl Rove are meeting with Kickapoo chief Raul Garza (whom Abramoff represented at the time). It still is the 2nd-biggest thing out there. New York Times also has the photo, but in black and white.

Think Progress and others on the left point out that the photo undercuts a recent claim by WH spokesperson Scott McClellan about Abramoff's WH visits: "The photo of Abramoff with Bush at a private meeting undermines White House claims that any meetings between the two occurred at 'widely attended' holiday parties." Kevin Drum at Political Animal: "So apparently Abramoff had no trouble waltzing into the White House whether he was invited or not. It's almost like he was a regular visitor or something." Sploid header: "Whoopsy!"

Meanwhile, conservative bloggers have yet to address the above, but instead are rolling their eyes or beside themselves with laughter, as Abramoff is hard enough to find that they've added a red circle around his head. Rob Port at Say Anything: "After all the furor from the media and the left over photos of Bush and corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramoff together, this is the best they've been able to come up with ... Color me underwhelmed." Bluto at The Jawa Report: "What do you mean you don't see him. Right there! No... there... on the left, damnit, he's RIGHT THERE!... in the back... wait, we'll put a red circle around his head..." Blogs for Bush finds "the next photo" of Bush and Abramoff -- a satellite image of North America with helpful arrows pointing to Crawford, TX and Washington, DC.

WHITE HOUSE '08: New Math?

Ex-Spinsanity co-editor Brendan Nyhan noticed last week that Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) insinuated on NPR that his 7/31-8/1/02 hearings on the potential for war with Iraq reduced American support for the war by 20 points. Nyhan went looking for the poll data, and found nothing of the sort. He adds: "In fact, I don't see evidence of a swing from 'close to 70 percent' support for military action to 'below 50 percent' at any point" during Biden's tenure as Foreign Relations Cmte chair. More: "Given Biden's reputation as a blowhard and a plagiarizer, you'd think he would be more careful about this kind of self-aggrandizing rhetoric, especially given that he voted in support of the war after the hearings."

Jane Hamsher noticed Sen. George Allen (R-VA) calling for de-classification of the NIE re: Scooter Libby and Valerie Plame, and opines for Huffington Post: "The GOP obviously knew the shooting had happened and after putting so much energy into spreading the meme that Cheney had the absolute right to have Scooter do what he did they wouldn't allow Allen off the reservation like that without some sort of larger purpose. Maybe it was only a trial balloon, but still."

At Power Line, Paul Mirengoff comments on a Washington Post story dealing with Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) WH'08 prospects: "I think one must distinguish between two types of Bush loyalists. The first type, the ones who feature in the Post's story, consists of the operatives who pushed Bush to the forefront in 2000. Many of them have a strong pragmatic streak. ... McCain, by positioning himself as somewhat right-of-center (not a huge move) may well succeed in courting elements of this group." More: "The second group of Bush loyalists consists of his present voting base. This group is more conservative than his original backers and, in my opinion, more conservative than Bush himself. Winning this group over will be much more dicey proposition for McCain."

MIDTERMS: Rage Against The Machine

A diarist at MyDD points out that the version of a recent speech by OH SEN candidate/Rep. Sherrod Brown (D) at Brown's own Grow Ohio blog. "Here's a paraphrase of his response to the question about Iraq: 'I've got to give them (Bush and Company) credit. They're doing a better job with body armor in Iraq now.' The next day, four US Marines were killed by an improvised roadside bomb. One was from Westerville, OH. He was scheduled to come back to Ohio on leave this month. No wonder they scrubbed the online version of his speech." Interestingly, the founder of MyDD is Jerome Armstrong, a consultant to Brown who is mostly on hiatus from the site through the end of the campaign.

DC-based Justin Hart, who has supported Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) through his troubles, has now reluctantly decided it's best that he not return next year. Citing the triumph of the GOP "machine" over the conservative agenda "and the hopes that the Republicans can hold" their House majority, he recommends GOP challenger Tom Campbell: "I know Tom's family and I can say without hesitation that he is the right man to take on and replace Delay."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM I: The Borrowers

On 2/10, a short profile of Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) ran in the Washington Times. Problem is, reporter Eric Pfeiffer -- formerly of NRO and Wonkette -- used 2 quotes from a recent story about Obama by Chicago Sun-Times reporter Lynn Sweet (full disclosure: Pfeiffer is a friend and former colleague at the Hotline). One quote was by Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas. Sweet and Moulitsas both noticed the lifted quotes, and both blogged about it. Moulitsas: "This is outright plagiarism. Will the Washington Times do something about it?" Sweet: "Call the journalism police. It's a quote heist." The story made it around the left-blogosphere, to Eschaton and Crooks and Liars, and this a.m. is mentioned in Howard Kurtz's column, with a follow-up and summary at FishbowlDC. Conservative James Joyner sees the incident as a larger problem in the MSM: "One wonders what they're teaching at J-School. Bloggers, most of whom have no formal journalistic training, seem to instinctively understand that we are supposed to acknowledge the sources of our stories, preferably linking back to the original when an online version exists. Why don't mainstream reporters do this more consistently?"

Last week, we mentioned that CAP's Think Progress obtained and posted excerpts of Abramoff's e-mails to Washingtonian reporter Kim Eisler (see 2/9 Blogometer). On 2/10, the Washington Post quoted them as well (albeit sans the all-caps they appear to have been written in). Starting 2/11, National Review's Byron York asked how the e-mails made their way to Think Progress, wondering if CAP had misrepresented themselves to Eisler in the process of obtaining them. He also pointed out that Eisler is married to the Post's Judy Sarasohn, who covers lobbying issues there, wondering if there was a missing link there. But soon he heard back from CAP's Judd Legum, who denied doing so. And eventually he spoke to Eisler himself, who told York that he confused the Center for American Progress with the American Prospect. York also speculated that Eisler was "sympathetic to Abramoff," which fellow Corner contributor John Podhoretz quickly shot down. Lefty TBogg followed the developments, providing an amusing running commentary as "Byron Goodhair" attempted to explain the controversy and "make it all go away."

Online edition update -- On 2/12, The Democratic Daily ntoed that Eisler had posted a comment to their site earlier in the day, making the same clarifications as he had made to York, and explained how exactly he was "sympathetic" toward Abramoff -- "[M]y position is that Mr. Abramoff was like a lobbyist on steroids, but the prevailing notion that he cheated his clients, as opposed to doing all this to promote their interests, is not accurate. ... In any event, he is a human being with twins, a dog and a cat, and doesn’t really need to be turned into the villain of the century."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM II: The Other Brady Campaign

Washington Post's Jim Brady wrote a column addressing the 1/06 blogstorm over Post ombudsman Deborah Howell's mischaracterization of the Abramoff scandal. In his opening, he mockingly accepts all of the criticism thrown at him: "I am a twit without a functioning brain. I also do not have any [censored]. Despite 10 years spent in online media, I really don't understand the Internet. I am a dangerous ideologue, an enemy of democracy.

Not surprisingly, the blog critics he refers to are not impressed. Crooks and Liars' John Amato, one of his critics: "I agree Jim, you don't understand the internet. It's not calculus, but your phony outrage tries to make it seem like it is. ... How many death threats did [Howell] receive? I save mine and I'd be willing to share them with you." Matt Stoller, another critic, writes that the piece "shows just how aggressive he is willing to be to avoid accountability at his newspaper. It's quite remarkable, actually. He still does not understand what went wrong." Liberal Taylor Marsh: "If you're going to play in the blogosphere, be prepared to play by big blog rules."

In the piece, Brady disclaims the existence of "any such thing as 'the blogosphere' as opposed to 'the mainstream media.'" NAM's Pat Cleary, who (like Stoller) attended the Press Club event where Howell met her blogger critics, disagrees: "There is a huge divide between the MSM and the blogosphere. As we said at the Press Club, the MSM is trying to colonize the blogosphere, but we don't really want to wear shoes after all, as it turns out. What has happened is that the blogosphere has become the de facto ombudsman for every MSM outlet in the country, free of rules or profit motive that (understandably) constrain groups like the Post." But Power Line's Mirengoff, who also attended the event, agrees with Brady: "[B]loggers use common technology, but beyond that there's little that justifies unifying them under a single label. For example, we don't think that we do the same thing, or provide the same service, as most top-tier lefty blogs."

FUNDRAISING: Slow Motion

At RedState, Mike Krempasky writes an open letter to GOP web consultants: "I've talked to at least a half a dozen of you for more than a year and a half -- and I've told EVERY one of you that the number one thing that the party could do to really develop and support conservative bloggers in electoral politics was to develop a solid affiliate fundraising tool -- one that would allow us to involve our readers for the candidates or causes of our choice - and measure the results of our efforts. And the Democrats beat you to it." Krempasky's link goes to a page on the official Dem party website where individuals can create their own fundraising campaigns, which appears to be much like the liberal grassroots outfit ActBlue. More Krempasky: "Convene a small group of technically literate people, if it's more than five, you'll fail -- and do it tomorrow. Get a product by the end of the month. And when your web folks tell you it can't be done that quickly -- get a new batch of web folks. Ebay was written in days, not quarters."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Cocoon III

In the past few months, Slate's Mickey Kaus has posted a lot about "Brokeback Mountain," predicting early on that it wouldn't break $50M at the box office (wrong) and that it wouldn't play in the "heartland" (jury's out). He's also received plenty of grief for picking on the film, and now he explains his obsession as being part of his ongoing habit of pointing out how the MSM reinforces ideas liberals want to believe, whether true or not.

He writes: "I hadn't realized, until someone tipped me off, that Michael Moore's 'Fahrenheit 9/11' had exactly the same marketing strategy as 'Brokeback Mountain,' the gist of which was 'Hey, a film sticks it to the conservatives but it's playing in the red states!'" But 'Fahrenheit' actually underperformed in "red" areas, and Kaus bets that the same is true of "Brokeback": "The Heartland Breakout Meme seems like B.S. of the sort that consistently hurts Democrats ... [it's] the sort of gratifying myth that in the past has helped lull liberals (and gay rights activists who may or may not be liberals) into wild overconfidence. Remember when Democrats actually believed that 'Fahrenheit' would help push Bush out of office?"

LEST WE FORGET: Kiss Of The Spider Creeps

The mysterious Eggagog surfaces all-too-infrequently these days, but THIS IS FUN TO MAKE A BLOG ON THE COMPUTER WEBSITE is still fun -- and pleasantly bewildering -- to read (on the computer website).

2/10: Release Mechanism

Today all the major action is reactive, with bloggers reacting to specific newspaper and wire reports. Those include 3 stories about Pres. Bush and his admin. that bring criticism and elaboration from the left, and 1 story about Senate Min. Leader Harry Reid which elicits the same response from the right. While we've omitted coverage of the Jyllands-Posten cartoon controversy today, it continues to be a major subject of debate among right-leaning bloggers.

It's a particularly bad news day for Bush, as a National Journal report has emerged that ex-WH official Scooter Libby told a grand jury that VP Cheney approved the release of classified info to reporters, and another report contends that the WH understood the severity of the post-Katrina New Orleans flooding earlier than previously indicated., and some are reacting skeptically to Bush's disclosure of details about a thwarted terrorist. As for Reid, new details have surfaced about his involvement with tribal clients of disgraced GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff. As the lefty bloggers gravitate toward the stories that make Bush look bad, so do the righty bloggers swarm on the Reid story. That's usually how it works.

PLAMEGATE: Do Former Government Officials Turn In Clusters, Too?

The hottest story of yesterday afternoon was Murray Waas' report for National Journal that Libby "testified to a federal grand jury that he had been "authorized" by Cheney and other White House "superiors" in the summer of 2003 to disclose classified information to journalists" to defend the admin's pre-war intel. Waas compares Libby's strategy to that of Ollie North during Iran-Contra, but doesn't say that Cheney directed Libby to disclose then-CIA "operative" Valerie Plame's name (as liberal bloggers hoped). TalkLeft makes the full letter from prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to Libby's counsel available in PDF format.

On the left, bloggers compared the report to previously known information, and observe that none of the implications are good for the WH. Steve Soto: "Keep in mind this revelation comes days after Libby's 'faulty memory' defense was neutered when it was revealed that Cheney and Libby were aware in mid-June 2003 that the CIA had discredited the Niger claim, weeks before Libby began talking to reporters." Jane Hamsher: "Given the fact that Cheney and Libby knew as of June 17, 2003 that the Niger uranium claims were bunk and Libby began this crusade with Judy Miller anyway on June 23, the service to which these documents were put remain safely outside of 'ethical' territory. Mark Kleiman: "Libby's boss was Dick Cheney; Libby was Cheney's chief of staff. His only other 'superior' would have been... George W. Bush. So either Cheney or Bush (or both) ordered the release of classified information, which according to Bush is a crime. And anyone who commits a crime has to leave the administration. So which is it? Is Bush going to ask for Cheney's resignation, or offer his own?" Jeralyn Merritt explains why Libby may be bringing in aspects of Plamegate that don't obviously reflect on his charges: "He's asking for everything that came across his desk for ten months, to show how busy he was during this time period, on the theory that it's relevant to his defense of confusion or failed memory. No wonder Fitz is objecting. It's creative lawyering, but I have a hard time believing the Judge will find it relevant and disclosable."

The story didn't raise nearly the same interest on the right, where a few dismiss the significance or focus on other matters. Macsmind: "In case Murray was sleeping during civics class this action would be within the Vice President or other assigned 'superiors' authority." James Joyner is interested in the fact that Plame's name "is not attached to this part of the story. That is, it sounds as if Libby is arguing that he was authorized to divulge classified information on more than one occasion and that he therefore interpreted that as a standing right." Balloon Juice quotes from the piece, adding only: "This could get interesting."

Former Bush supporter Andrew Sullivan is one of a few bloggers who ties this back to the more recent NSA revelations: "So some intelligence matters are so important that the administration will not divulge them even to critical members of Congress. But others are leaked to journalists to win a political war. This is a pointed reminder that when the administration says it is withholding information to protect national security, a hefty dose of skepticism is in order." American Prospect's Laura Rozen: "You have to admit this doesn't do much for the White House's case that we should just trust them on the NSA warrantless domestic spying all going for a legitimate, non-politicized cause, you know?"

Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings: "The idea that Cheney authorized Libby to leak classified information for political purposes doesn't surprise me in the least. The idea that Libby testified to that effect, on the other hand, does." Nor did it surprise The Next Hurrah's Emptywheel, who had surmised as much from Fitzgerald's 1/23 letter. But Shakespeare's Sister admits to being apathetic: "So, in other words, the attempt to discredit Joe Wilson by outing his wife as a covert operative was being orchestrated by the top levels of the administration. Duh. Call me when it's provable and the bastards are in shackles."

ABRAMOFF: A Friend In Need Is A Friend Of Reid? (Really, That's The Best Pun We Could Think Of ... We'll Try Harder Next Time)

AP reported 2/9 that Senate Min. Leader Harry Reid "wrote at least four letters helpful" to tribes represented by Jack Abramoff after receiving money from his clients, and that his staff "had frequent contact with the disgraced lobbyist's team about legislation." The story comes on the heels of the less-noticed report that Reid and other Dems cut ties with the lobbyist running their PACs; conservative watchdog No Agenda was one that noticed.

Ed Morrissey writes, though the Abramoff scandal undoubtedly affects GOPers more, "Democrats have made themselves look foolish by trying to convince people that the corruption only affected the GOP, though, and the revelations about their party leader will make that hypocrisy even more transparent." PunditGuy: "Democrats should immediately repudiate Reid and refrain from attempting to use this issue as a weapon against the Republican party." Dan McLaughlin at RedState: "If there's nothing wrong with what Harry Reid did -- a position Democrats will need to take if they don't want to throw their own leader under the bus -- then the bar for a Republican scandal over ties to Abramoff will have to be set pretty high."

At MyDD, Scott Shields' initial reaction was to post a criticism of Harry Reid, but "as I started to read the article, I smelled a smear." He writes, "The first clue was that Senator Reid has a long history of protecting gambling in Nevada from outside competition. He does, after all, represent Las Vegas. So the fact that he sought to keep Indian casinos from expanding off of their reservations, while I may not necessarily agree, makes sense." But the story "totally lost credibility for me when it got to mentioning the Marianas Islands" -- Abramoff wanted Reid to oppose a bill raising the wages in the Marianas Islands, but Reid never agreed. NV-based radio talker Taylor Marsh agrees, invoking a now-entrenched lefty slang word: "The swiftboating of Senator Reid has begun." From the DNC's blog: "You mean a Senator from Nevada, that represents Las Vegas, has an interest in protecting the expansion of off-reservation casinos? Stop the presses! ... Despite the best of attempts of a desperate Republican Party, Jack Abramoff is not a bipartisan scandal -- it is a wholly owned problem of the Republican Party."

At KnoxViews, liberal Randy Neal is disgusted and wants Reid out as leader, and isn't swayed by Shields' reaction: "It doesn't matter whether it's Rs or Ds doing it, political favors for cash that involve even the appearance of impropriety should not be tolerated in Congress or for any other elected officials." But in the comments, right-libertarian SayUncle disagrees: "Unless the transfer of funds was of questionable legality, I say no harm no foul."

Matt Margolis at No Agenda: "When you add this to the fact that a number of Abramoff's tribal clients only gave money to Reid after becoming clients of Abramoff, it just destroys Reid's credibility on this issue." Conservative Outside the Beltway acknowledges that Shields has a point, but adds, "Reid has, in effect, been snared in the guilt by association trap he helped set." California Conservative waxes conspiratorial, writing that when Reid spokesperson "Jim Manley says that 'Reid's official calendar doesn't list a meeting on June 5, with [Abramoff deputy Ronald] Platt,' does that mean that Reid was trying to keep the meeting secret? That's certainly a possibility but I'd need more than that to confidently state that Reid knew he was mixed up in something unethical and was trying to keep his activities secret."

KATRINA: Knowing Is Half The Battle

The hottest story of this morning is a report from the New York Times on the cong. investigation into Katrina finding that DHS and the WH were told about the seriousness of the flooding New Orleans in the p.m. of 8/29/05, not 8/30 as had been previously believed.

As with the Cheney/Libby story above, this one got more play on the left, and fury was a common reaction. AMERICAblog quotes from the story, but did't even comment on it specifically: "If you want to keep electing liars, if you're happy the way the country has been going the past five years that the Republicans have controled everything, then keep voting Republican. You get the government you deserve." Tristero at Hullabaloo: "I'm too angry to write. Unforgivable. Unforgivable."

Others measure out responsibility. Centrist Justin Gardner: "Sadly, the chain of information obviously broke down. I don't believe for a second that Bush willfully ignored this threat. I simply think he wasn't informed properly." WH spokesperson Trent Duffy is quoted as downplaying the report: "Like it or not, you cannot fix a levee overnight, or in an hour, or even six hours." Left I on the News comments: "Well, no doubt that's true. But you can start reacting to the event by throwing all possible resources into the rescue efforts." Taylor Marsh: "Local and state officials are not blameless, but the scope and destruction known from the beginning at the federal level should have warned everyone at the top that no one below them would be able to handle the carnage."

Not so fast, argues Right Wing Nut House. Going over the time line, RWNH's Rick Moran can see why DHS and the WH didn't jump on the late report: "What ended up 'surprising' the Administration -- and every one else -- was that by early Tuesday evening, the water pouring in from Lake Pontchartrain overwhelmed the pumps causing them to shut down. This is what caused the massive flooding. To say that this could have been foreseen in the dark, on Monday evening, by a PR 'Specialist' is absurd. Again, taking nothing away from [FEMA public affairs specialist Marty] Bahamonde, but if you were Michael Chertoff and received a report that, if acted upon would have meant transferring millions -- perhaps tens of millions of dollars of resources, wouldn't you want that information coming from someone who was in perhaps a little better position to know? Especially when local officials were telling you something totally different."

TERRORISM: What Can Bill Burkett Tell Us About This Story?

In a speech before the Nat'l Guard Assn. last a.m., Bush discussed the details of a thwarted attack on L.A.'s Library Tower (which he called the "Liberty Tower," and anyway is actually called the U.S. Bank Tower now). The Military Outpost has the full text.

Conservative JustOneMinute has a pretty good guess about why Bush mentioned it: "A highlight -- the Administration will not discuss sources and methods, the point of the President's anecdote was the importance of international cooperation, and no connection to the NSA program is meant to be implied." L.A.-based Joe Scott points out that the report isn't news: "While some details are new -- the planned use of a 'shoe bomb' by hijackers to access the cockpit door -- neither Bush nor the White House gave any real reason beyond Rovian spin for releasing details of a plot they first disclosed last October. In fact, most of what Bush said about the plot was already recycled news."

Liberal The Mahablog, on the sarcastic side: "Certain details given by the President -- the use of shoe bombs to blow open the cockpit door, for example -- have met with some skepticism. But, hey, if some guy could take apart the Brooklyn Bridge with a blowtorch without anyone noticing, then why not shoe bombs?" Glenn Greenwald notes that WH reporters were skeptical about the claim, and quotes the transcript of them quizzing WH spokesperson Scott McClellan about it. Markos Moulitsas: "I think Bush confused Season 2 of '24' with reality." John Hinderaker at Power Line, as if comparing "the administration's extraordinary success in preventing terrorist attacks in the U.S. over the last four-plus years has been a mixed blessing, in that many Americans probably underestimate the danger posed by terrorist groups and fail to credit the administration for its remarkable record."

DEMOCRATS: Time To Go To The Bench?

Dem strategist Dan Gerstein comments at his blog, Dangerous Thoughts, on the much-noticed New York Times story (see 2/8 Blogometer) about the Dems' missed opportunity to exploit the GOP's problems. Gerstein lists a few reasons why: "A) we have put in place chronically unpersuasive and ineffectual leaders to try to bring the party together, articulate a common vision and set a common strategy for realizing it; B) many of us have come to realize the error of these leadership choices; and C) yet despite this recognition, we sit on our collective hands, say nothing about the fact that the emperor(s) has no clue, and idly listen to them make excuses about why we can't gain the upper hand on a Republican President with approval numbers hovering in the low-to-mid 40's and a Republican Congress that is badly scarred by scandal." He adds, GOPers "will do anything to win, while we will do anything to avoid confrontation. Which is to say that Senator Kerry, with all due respect, is once again dead wrong -- we are losing not because they have a much bigger megaphone, but mostly because they have a much bigger set of cojones. Worst of all, the public knows it."

MIDTERMS: Yes, You Can Violate Godwin's Law Even Without The Use Of Proper Nouns

Howie Klein of DownWithTyranny! reports on attending the 1st fundraiser for probable CT SEN Dem challenger Ned Lamont: "I was so sure I was going to be unimpressed with Lamont that I didn't even bother to bring my checkbook to this -- his very first -- fund-raiser. I was so completely impressed that the first thing I did when I got home was rush to the computer" and add him to Klein's ActBlue fundraising page. More: "He's as far from a corporate type of Big Business monster as you can be. He completely understands why it's essential for business that reforms like universal health care get hammered out. (He reminded me of Howard Dean when he talked about that.)"

On 2/8, MD LG Michael Steele (R) told a Jewish audience in the middle of a conversation on stem cells: "You of all folks know what happens when people decide they want to experiment on human beings, when they want to take your life and use it as a tool." Nat'l Jewish Dem Council adds at their blog: "And with that shameful comparison of the life-saving efforts by stem cell researchers to the "research" of Nazis like Mengele, Steele has once against demonstrated why he is beloved by social extremists."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Union Leader Primary

At Graniteprof, St. Anselm poli sci prof Dante Scala notes a recent Bush story which the Manchester Union Leader put a negative spin on the header, commenting: "Always striking when the Union Leader writes a less favorable head than the Globe in its news coverage of the President. But after all, this is the same paper whose publisher once described George Bush as an 'empty suit,' and whose editorial page editor just described the President's State of the Union stance on Iran as 'weak' and labeled his domestic policy initiatives "needless" and "goofy." Which raises the question: Over the next two years, will the Union Leader be on the lookout for a successor to the President who is more conservative fiscally and more aggressive on foreign policy?

LEST WE FORGET: DIY Friday Funnies

It's Friday, and we're not inclined to go looking too hard for something funny. Lucky for us (and maybe for you) we just stumbled across the Huffington Post/AOL Contagious Festival -- where people have created funny or annoying or otherwise "contagious" websites and videos and try to get the most traffic. The event is very similar to last year's independent Contagious Media contest (see 5/25 Blogometer), and the sponsor of that contest has some role in this one. To see the winners of last year's contest, click here.

2/9: Leaning Tower Of FISA

A day after the King funeral flap, conversation in the blogosphere is mostly back to where it was before. The NSA wiretap story and Jyllands-Posten controversy are top subjects again, and after that there's a lot of little stories. None of them is anywhere near critical mass, but they do rate some mention: lobbyist Jack Abramoff's e-mails to the Washingtonian, Rep. Tom DeLay's new Approps cmte seat, U.N. Amb. John Bolton's Nobel nod, OH SEN candidate Paul Hackett's party switch, CNN's editing decisions, and the fight over cong. spending. Plus, our latest Blogger Spotlight.

EAVESDROPPING: Really, Who Doesn't Hate Paperwork?

Washington Post's Leonnig has an interesting report detailing the objections of FISA court justices to receiving info "tainted" by its acquisition through the controversial NSA wiretaps, subsequent anger when their requested safeguards were not followed, and the shared concerns of DoJ atty James Baker.

Although some critics have allowed that bypassing FISA may be unconstitutional, it is still illegal, Kevin Drum concludes: "Not just illegal, unconstitutional." The Left Coaster doesn't allege that Pres. Bush was spying on domestic opponents, as some have, but that possibility is left open: "The FISA court gave George Bush a virtual blank check on 9/12/01 to do 'terrorist surveillance' and yet, Bush decided to circumvent the court and violate the law. So, we're back to the question: who were they really spying on without warrants?" Left-leaning Gary Farber doesn't go in that direction, but sarcastically opines that we shouldn't ask questions: "Only a terrorist-loving terrorsymp liberal would want to do that. So I have no questions. Nope. Not me. I'm a loyal American." MO Dem consultant Roy Temple, on how backward it seems: "Interesting strategy the Bush administration has. First you wiretap people, and if you get anything incriminating, then you use that info to obtain a warrant. Just what the founding fathers had in mind, I'm sure. Just what the founding fathers had in mind, I'm sure."

On the right, FISA defender/GWU law prof Orin Kerr finds the story very interesting, but for now holds off adding much comment. Hugh Hewitt focuses on the fact that Clinton appointee Colleen Kollar-Kotelly "has been fashioning rules about the NSA program without appellate review or the input of other" judges: "This is an alarming detail, and not because the judge is a Clinton appointee with limited if any national security background. Rather, it is simply too much to ask of one judge to shape the intelligence gathering rules for the nation."

Kollar-Kotelly's also-concerned predecessor in the FISA role was Reagan appointee Royce Lamberth, who earned the enmity of Dems for approving multiple discovery motions by Judicial Watch when it was investigating then-Pres. Clinton. As Atrios puts it: "We should remember that Royce Lamberth was like the patron saint of wingnuttery during the '90s." But as the Washington Monthly pointed out in 10/01, Lamberth also held up FBI wiretaps pre-9/11 which "might have hampered electronic surveillance of terror groups."

>> Before the NSA hearings began on 2/6, Rick Moran of Right Wing Nut House argued that, per the Washington Post's scoop, finding "only" 10 or 20 terrorist suspects out of 5K people "caught in the digital dragnet" is pretty good. Neoliberal Mickey Kaus concurs: "Maybe the government's not casting its electronic net wide enough. I'd rather they go through 100,000 phone calls and identify 20 people. ... And if the ratio to justify 'probable cause' is really 'right for one out of every two guys,' as a 'government official who has studied the program closely" suggests to WaPo, that shows how wildly obsolete the Constitution's 'probable cause' requirement is when you're trying to catch not horse thieves in 1789 but people with weapons that can kill whole cities in 2006." Right-libertarian Instapundit follows up: "I don't think I'd go that far, but I'm not sure that what's going on here even constitutes a search or seizure. Bearing in mind, of course, that neither I nor the critics Mickey criticizes actually knows what's going on here."

JYLLANDS-POSTEN: Publish Or Perish ... Or Publish And Perish?

Per Memeorandum, one of the most-linked posts is at pro-Western Cairo blog Rantings of a Sand Monkey, which posts scans of the Egyptian paper Al Fagr to demonstrate that the controversial Muhammad cartoons ran even in the Arabic press in 10/05, shortly after they first ran in the Danish Jyllands-Posten. He argues that gov'ts fanned the flames intentionally: "The Saudi royal Family used it to distract its people from the outrage over the Hajj stampede. The Jordanian government used it to distract its people from their new minimum wage law demanded by their labor unions. The Syrian Government used it to create sectarian division in Lebanon and change the focus on the [Rafik] Harriri murder." More: "Guess we will have to Boycott Egypt now as well, huh?"

Some of this has been reported in the West. As conservative Stephen Spruiell observes, "The WSJ has done some great work here, and the NYT touched on this angle in one report today, but overall the involvement of Arab governments remains the under-covered aspect of this story." Philadelphia Inquirer blogger Daniel Rubin and Moderate Voice's Joe Gandelman have good roundups of other blog reaction from Muslims abroad.

Elsewhere, the discussion about cartoon violence has shifted from discussion of news and suspicion as to the root of the violence, and toward debate over whether the drawings should be re-published here. At NRO's The Corner, John Podhoretz defends the decisions not to print the cartoons: "I have no problem whatever with a media organization choosing not to publish the cartoons on the grounds that it is acting cautiously to ensure that its staffers don't get their heads bashed in overseas -- or because of fears that Islamic radicals here at home might choose to take a stand by taking a shot at somebody. These people are dangerous and it is meet and proper to exercise caution." Sometime Podhoretz adversary Andrew Sullivan agrees: "I just wish the MSM were honest about this and confessed that they are making a decision based on legitimate fear of violence against them. That would clarify things, at least. If the NYT can publish 'Piss-Christ"' and the Virgin Mary made out of dung, then it cannot logically claim to be a paper dedicated to respecting religious sensitivity." Taylor Marsh notes that the cartoons are widely posted online, and asks: "Is it courageous to print the cartoons at this point, seeing the violence they have unleashed? Or is it more courageous to decline to publish, in order to judiciously weigh the consequences of waving a red flag in a region where we are currently engaged in a serious war?" The American Street: "I don't buy the line that any editor is cowardly for avoiding republication of the cartoons. It is their job to weigh the benefits and to determine what is necessary to keep their readers well-informed, and to do so with an eye on the business realities of such decisions, as well." Right-leaning Rossputin argues that U.S. newspapers should not run the cartoons just to make a free speech argument; left-leaning Xark! makes a similar argument makes a different argument that arrives at the same conclusion. [Updated 2/14.]

John Hinderaker is one of many who responds to a Washington Post op-ed by Anne Applebaum, accusing the right-wing blogosphere of hypocrisy for supporting the Jyllands-Posten when they blamed Newsweek for rioting after its reporting on the Koran. "First ... we hardly let the Islamic rioters off the hook. Beyond that, there are some obvious differences between the two stories. Newsweek negligently printed an inflammatory factual claim that turned out to be false. Jyllands-Posten didn't." Captain's Quarters: "The right-wing blogosphere defends the freedom of the press to express opinions, when labeled as such, and to report facts when delivering news. It doesn't mean that people can't criticize either action when necessary."

The Reaction takes a "two-way street" approach in trying to understand the reaction. "I wonder how many of the protesters even know what they're protesting against, how many understand the concept of free political speech and the ironic detachment of the Western secularists they so loathe. But I wonder, too, whether we have any clue ourselves. We and they seem to be speaking radically different languages, but shouldn't we at least make a greater effort to understand theirs?"

ABRAMOFF: MAYBE HIS COMPUTER JUST DOESN'T HAVE FULL ASCII SUPPORT, DID YOU EVER THINK ABOUT THAT? HUH?

CAP's Think Progress has obtained the e-mails written by disgraced GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff to the Washingtonian's Kim Eisler. Abramoff claims to have met Bush "in almost a dozen settings," and was surprised that Bush said he didn't remember him. TP quotes Abramoff, who apparently wrote these e-mails in all caps: "HE HAS A GREAT MEMORY! THE GUY SAW ME IN ALMOST A DOZEN SETTINGS, AND JOKED WITH ME ABOUT A BUNCH OF THINGS, INCLUDING DETAILS OF MY KIDS. PERHAPS HE HAS FORGOTTEN EVERYTHING. WHO KNOWS." A commenter at liberal TalkLeft comments: "Corruption aside, I hope the Republican party can start fielding congressmen [sic] who don't write like 14-year-old girls."

Rep. Tom DeLay has landed a seat on the Approps. Cmte At RedState, Balloon Juice's John Cole points out that while he doesn't like DeLay, nor can he let the AP's lead pass without comment. AP: "Indicted Rep. Tom DeLay, forced to step down as the No. 2 Republican in the House, scored a soft landing Wednesday as GOP leaders rewarded him with a coveted seat" on the cmte. Cole: "Tom DeLay was not 'rewarded' with a 'soft landing,' he simply reclaimed the seat on the Appropriations Committee that he vacated to become Majority Leader. ... I would think it is not too much to ask the press to get the story right and play things straight." On the left, DeLay's seating is more evidence the GOP isn't actually serious about cleaning up cong. corruption. The Democratic Daily: "Let me just preface this with WTF? There is no end to the finagling that this crowd of corrupt cronies do to show their loyalty to one of their kings of corruption..."

MIDTERMS: Partisan Hackett

Cleveland Plain Dealer's Openers blog reported this week that OH SEN Dem candidate/Iraq vet Paul Hackett "apparently hasn't been a Democrat very long," taking GOP ballots in the 90s and picking up his 1st Dem ballot in the '04 primaries. The text of the Openers entry was posted in a diary at Daily Kos, where commenters were largely unmoved by the news. One early commenter pointed out: "There is no one more fanatical than a convert." Buckeye Senate Blog explains: "Hackett told me today that he voted in the Republican primaries a few times (for Judges)" but changed his mind about the GOP because of the Clinton impeachment. Previously, Pounder had accused the Brown camp of pushing this on the newspaper, eliciting an amused reply from the Plain Dealer's Sloat, who titled his follow-up: "It's called shoe leather." Columbus-based High and Broad summarizes, opines that Pounder "got faced," then points out an error in Sloat's post.

Captain's Quarter's Ed Morrissey backs Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey over Sen. Lincoln Chafee in the RI GOP SEN primary even though Chafee polls much better in the general: "The party needs to consider its post-Chafee options. Sinking tons of cash in a vain attempt to re-elect a Senator who rarely supports them when most needed seems almost masochistic, and actively attacking one of the few candidates that could one day replace him borders on the insane." More: "If Chafee was a lock for re-election, then perhaps the White House view should prevail, but if Chafee can't cut it in the general election, it's time to develop the bench."

BOLTON: Considering That Alfred Nobel Was The Inventor Of Dynamite, Isn't The Nod Appropriate, In An Inappropriately Ironic Way?

TPMCafe's Bolton Watch launched just in time, because UN Amb. John Bolton has just been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Steve Clemons explains why Swedish ex-dep. PM Per Ahlmark might have nominated him: "European Liberals are sometimes liberal, but mostly libertarian -- and tend to look at the United Nations as a corrupt, inefficient foe of individual liberty and thus something that should be shaken apart. Some of them anyway." He adds: "Bolton won't win. There would be a global uproar -- but I have to write more about this soon. It's just too fun." At Unfutz, Ed Fitzgerald points out that the Swedish Liberals are actually center-right, and explains that Bolton's nod is a suggestion -- "it's not a shortlist, or in any significant way official."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: You Don't Have To Get Snippy About It

Header at Media watchdog Media Matters: "CNN spliced out standing ovation greeting Lowery's WMD remarks at King funeral." Rev. Joseph Lowery received an 23-second standing ovation when he mentioned the failure to find WMDs in Iraq, but when it was broadcast on "The Situation Room," the applause was snipped by 18 seconds. A commenter at Bopnews snarks: "I wish they had done that with the SOTU, I wouldn't have gotten so drunk and hoarse watching it." A commenter at Think Progress is too paranoid to snark: "This isn't just a question of bias. This is propaganda and government controlled media. I am scared and no longer proud of my country." Speak Speak News allows that time c: "I assume that CNN was just interested in saving time and that the deception was unintentional. However, they should put in a beep or something when shortening the middle of a video." Jimmie at The Sundries Shack is one of the few right-leaning bloggers to notice, and he doesn't see why anyone thinks the ovation would be news: "Like leftist religious figures giving leftist speeches in front of a largely leftist crowds don't routinely get standing ovations for digs at President Bush?"

SPENDING: Prick Up Your Earmarks

Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) writes in a New York Times [sub. req.] op-ed that "earmarking circumvents" the proper budget process, and the Approps Cmte "ensures that earmarks escape scrutiny by inserting them into conference reports, largely written behind closed doors." GOP-leaning QandO blames the GOP leadership: ""The obvious reason there has been an explosive growth in earmarks in the last decade" is because the "leadership hasn't exerted one bit of leadership in this regard, as simple as enforcing existing rules concerning this sort of practice. [House Speaker Denny] Hastert and [Senate Maj. Leader Bill] Frist have been AWOL." Dem-leaning Idealism Without Illusions thinks the whole earmark debate has been oversimplified, and pokes a few holes in the thinking of conservatives pursuing reform in this area. For one, he argues: "If the power to direct spending, to earmark, is taken from Congress, those earmarked funds would not go to offset the deficit, rather, they would go directly to the federal agency charged with overseeing the program out of which the earmarks have been removed. In other words, lets take the decision-making process out of the hands of elected officials and give it to bureaucrats." For those who don't have TimesSelect access, Austin Bay reprints the section where Flake explains the origin of the word.

N.Z. Bear of Truth Laid Bear got a tip from a "DC source," who tells him the House Approps Cmte staff leaked details of member requests to the AP. The source says the leak "included the total number and dollar size of earmark requests (e.g., 20 requests for a total of $50 million) for each individual member. ... I'm told that an AP story is being written about this but has not yet been published."

BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: DavidNYC State Of Mind

Today the Blogometer talks to DavidNYC, founder of the pro-Dem blog Swing State Project and a former front-page contributor to Daily Kos.

What is your full name?

I go by DavidNYC online.

What is your age?

28

Where did you grow up?

Believe it or not, New York City.

Where do you live now?

Washington, DC -- but headed back to NYC in May.

What is your occupation? Have you ever worked on a political campaign or for the mainstream media?

I'm a law student (soon to be an attorney, hopefully). I've worked on campaigns for Eliot Spitzer (twice) and Howard Dean. The closest I ever got to joining the mainstream media was taking classified ads for a local Long Island paper when I was a teenager.

When did you start blogging and why?

I created the Swing State Project in October of 2003. At the time, most people were focusing on the Democratic primaries. I said to myself, "We're going to have a nominee no matter what. What I want to know is, how will that guy -- whoever he is -- beat George Bush?" So I developed the SSP to look at the key swing states in the 2004 election. After the election, I started focusing on key races up and down the ballot throughout the country.

During 2005, I was also a front-page contributing editor at Daily Kos.

What has been your favorite post, or favorite story to write about, in that time?

In March of 2005, I wrote a post called "Let's Take This Open Seat on a Trial Run" at Daily Kos. Ohio's 2nd CD is incredibly conservative, but I thought, this is the perfect opportunity for Democrats to do some political R&D. In other words, when your odds of winning are so small, you can afford to take risks, experiment, be aggressive. Fortunately, we wound up with a fearless candidate (Paul Hackett) who was willing to do just that, and we came a lot closer to winning than I ever would have imagined. I had a lot of fun covering that race, both at Kos and the SSP.

Describe your typical blogging schedule. And what is your average output?

Being a student, I tend to have a fair amount of time between classes, which is when I usually write. I also write in the evenings at home. I try to put up at least one new post a day. Sometimes, when the muse strikes, I might write half a dozen or more.

Who is your favorite political blogger? Favorite non-political blogger?

Political: Billmon is the best pure writer out there. Though I often disagree with him sharply, I am always impressed with his intellect. Non-Political: Steve of The Sneeze. Totally hilarious!

Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?

Paul Krugman, for sure -- but I read him much less frequently now that the NYT has put him behind a subscription firewall.

What is your favorite television news program, either network or cable?

The only TV news I ever watch is NY1, a 24-hour local news channel in NYC. They put almost all other TV news to shame, despite being a local outfit. Pat Kiernan's "In the Papers" in the morning is the greatest!

What MSM-produced websites (i.e. newspapers, magazines) do you visit on a daily basis?

Mainly the NY Times &WSJ 's free content.

What non-MSM websites (i.e. blogs) do you visit on a daily basis?

Rather than mention all the big names, some of the smaller blogs I visit regularly are the Bluegrass Report, Dump Mike, Say No to Pombo and Take 19. I'm a big fan of local and especially single-district blogs. District Blogs is a great blog aggregator for the latter.

How often, or do you ever, read a newspaper in its dead-tree (i.e. print) form?

Very seldom, apart from (sadly) the freebie rag they hand out on the Metro.

How do you see the new media and old media affecting and influencing each other in the next five years?

In the traditional media, you have outlets like the New York Times and outlets like the New York Post. One is reputable, the other isn't, and everyone's figured out which is which by now. The same is true of the blogging world: You have Times-style blogs and Post-style blogs. Most bloggers try to verify what they post; some peddle in rumor. Most blogs are run by honest folks; some are run by paid shills.

My biggest concern, though, is that the traditional media will fail to distinguish between the two. I think we saw this happen in 2004 in South Dakota, where bloggers who were on campaign payrolls were wrongly treated as independent sources. When a story appears to originate in the blogosphere, traditional media reporters need to ask, "Is the source reputable? Is it a Times or a Post?" And if you can't answer in the affirmative, then pass on the story. This isn't always an easy question to answer, but one good place to start is the list of past winners of the Koufax Awards.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Partisan Uses Of Bipartisanship

More Soft Money Hard Law's Bob Bauer, commenting on the McCain/Obama flap: "Bipartisanship has irresistible partisan appeal, when -- as in the Abramoff matter -- one party, the party in power, stands suspected of countenancing and conniving in corruption and naturally wishes to share the pain. This is a paradox of bipartisanship: its partisan uses." He singles out Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) for using it against Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) -- see 2/7 Blogometer -- and concludes, "in providing partisan cover for his party and no small measure of political benefit to himself, [McCain] demands control of the debate and of the process and questions the motives and personal ethics of colleagues with different views. By contrast, good, honest partisan disagreement -- and partisan accountability -- have rarely looked better."

LEST WE FORGET: Battle For The Small Screen White House

ABC News's Jake Tapper likes NBC's "West Wing" and ABC's "Commander in Chief." But as he explains at his ABC-sponsored blog, his favorite fictional leader of the free world is "24"'s Pres. Logan: "I haven't particularly found Jed Bartlet or MacKenzie Allen convincing. They're too idealistic, too Hollywood. ... Politics is a difficult, nasty business. It's exemplified by tough characters such as Al Gore, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Dick Cheney. To rise to the top in this field you need to know from compromise. You need to have dirt on your hands. President Charles Logan ... is this kind of man."

2/8: Fit For A King?

Nothing brings people together like the subject of race -- for a big knockdown argument, that is. Race isn't often the basis of a blogosphere-wide debate, but when it does happen, it means fireworks. In '05 we observed the evolving controversies involving MD LG/SEN candidate Michael Steele (R) and his liberal critics (see previous Blogometers), and the relatively minor outcry over (see 11/3 Blogometer) Jesse Jackson's comments at the Rosa Parks funeral.

Even so, the funeral of Coretta Scott King probably sets a new standard. The dispute about how to interpret what actually took place is so stark that we fear even describing the events themselves, lest we be accused of misrepresenting the whole affair. But we'll certainly give it a shot: In their speeches about the Kings' legacies, Rev. Joseph Lowery criticized the Iraq war and ex-Pres. Carter criticized the NSA wiretaps and federal response to Katrina. Upon hearing this, conservatives objected to the injection of lefty politics at a public funeral. The left objected to that objection as disingenuous and out of line. This summary doesn't even come close to describing how bitter the disagreement about these points; lucky for you, we've got a round-up of just that below.

Conservative bloggers instantly saw a parallel in that the '02 Paul Wellstone funeral turned into a "political rally." Liberal bloggers argue that the politics were inherent to the people being honored -- to ignore that aspect would be to leave out the very reason the person is being honored. Moreover, while the right would claim its reaction to be one of genuine anger, the left sees something else in the Wellstone analogy -- that they will use it as a cynical political tool to tar Dems as opportunists. At least we can say there's plenty of opportunism to go around.

But the fight goes deeper than the usual partisan divide, and is more specific than overall racial differences. It's not black and white per se; it's about the very nature of Dr. King's legacy and how the right and left understand it.

For the right, non-violence was King's effective means to the worthy end of achieving racial equality; to the left, non-violence and racial equality are integral to one another. Just as conservatives understand King's legacy to be about the civil rights movement, liberals understand his legacy to be about peace more broadly. No conservative considers him or herself heir to the legacy of Bull Connor and George Wallace, but a significant percentage of liberal bloggers do. The right feel they too are the heirs of King's legacy; conservatives often hold up his famous declaration that people should "not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character" as an argument against racial quotas, even though King had expressed support for affirmative action policies.

Is it significant that the majority of commenters on both sides are white? That's another Rorschach-like question, but it's also worth mentioning that African-American church services tend to be more political than their majority Caucasian counterparts. In any case, the funeral itself was already an unusual event -- how many funerals are televised, include a eulogy by Oprah, and run six hours in length? The attendance of Pres. Bush is certainly one reason why yesterday's ceremony was a big deal; that one of his critics was ex-Pres. Carter is another, and we haven't even mentioned the Clintons.

It's sometimes said that hard cases make bad law, and perhaps the unusual nature of this event should make this fight a one-off. In one sense, it will be -- there won't be another chance to revisit the King legacy quite like this. But in another sense it won't be, and that's too bad -- it's clear there is still a profound and largely un-addressed disagreement about what Martin Luther King's life and accomplishments mean.

KING FUNERAL I: Who Threw The First Wellstone?

Before reading any comments from conservative bloggers, AMERICAblog's John Aravosis was pretty sure he knew what to expect: "Get ready for the white men of the Republican party to lecture black leaders about not knowing their place. ... I say this because you know it's only a matter of hours before the Republican Swift Boating of Rev. Lowery and Coretta's funeral begins. ... Coretta Scott King and Martin Luther King, and the legacy they leave behind, is far too dangerous to the right-wing extremists that run our country. They'll have to do something to mar Coretta's legacy. I have a hunch this will be it." Aravosis was far from the only one to describe the GOP's response as "swift boating."

And he was right about the conservative reaction -- As Cold Fury put it, "I went to the Coretta Scott King funeral and all I got was this lousy liberal political rally." Header from Jay Reding: "Can We Have Some Dignity, Please?" James Joyner wrote: "Like the controversial funeral for Paul Wellstone, much of it struck me as incredibly inappropriate for the occasion. Of course, applause and standing ovations, which were routine in this event even for non-controversial comments, also are something that I am unaccustomed to at funerals." He added, in response to AMERICAblog: "I would note that we had the same reaction to the funeral of Wellstone, a white man." Evincing conservatives' impression of the King legacy, Betsy Newmark wrote: "What an opportunity was lost to reflect on the life's work of these two people and how far we've come from the time of MLK's death in racial relations."

It wasn't just Lowery's words that ticked off the right -- Ed Morrissey wrote of Carter: "He of course neglects to mention that the wiretaps were approved by Bobby Kennedy, one of the saints of his party, and that the reasons for it had nothing to do with national defense." The Anchoress quotes a friend making the same point, and asking, "Why does the world forget that it was Democrat Bull Connor putting the hoses and the dogs on the marchers, and the Republicans standing up for civil rights?"

Rightwingsparkle: "The Bush family, of course, handled it with their usual class and dignity," with Bush 41 joking afterward: "I kept score in the Oval Office desk -- Lowery 21, Bush 3. ... It wasn't a fair fight." GOP Bloggers also praised Bush's "class" in the face of "tasteless and crass sloganeering," adding: "The fact that these people can't even sit through a eulogy without launching into a political tirade against Republicans speaks to who is responsible for the acrimonious partisanship in Washington."

A number of conservatives say they're unsurprised by the political content of the funeral, but are up in arms regardless. Ann Althouse, a centrist generally seen to be part of the right-blogosphere, is unsurprised and not greatly stirred: "It's not surprising that some of the eulogizing went political at the funeral for Coretta Scott King. It would have been better to pretend that President Bush's attendance at this 6-hour event was not itself political. But, of course, it was. So the Rev. Joseph Lowery said a little something about Iraq? Let it go."

KING FUNERAL II: Race Goes To The Swift Boaters?

Quoting from Aravosis' expectation that white men would object, Barbara O'Brien wrote: "Apparently it was a white woman, Kate O'Beirne, who led the charge." O'Beirne's appearance on "Hardball" last p,m. was widely held up as the signature example of the right's take -- after all, one can quote bloggers saying something, but a well-known pundit on nat'l cable makes a bigger impact. Crooks and Liars makes video of her appearance available. (Also worth noting, O'Beirne's new anti-feminism book has made her a lot of enemies on the left. And for what it's worth, Aravosis and O'Brien are both white.) She adds, "I don't think they'll get away with it. Oh, the hard right Bush base will be outraged. But there is no way they can do to Coretta Scott King's funeral what they did to Paul Wellstone's funeral without coming across as a bunch of racist windbags." Steve Gilliard, using one of the milder insults directed at O'Beirne, wrote: "Let me put this simply: Kate O'Beirne needs to shut her filthy mouth." At Hullabaloo, the widely-read Digby: "Oh lawdy, lawdy, lawdy Miss Mellie, I do decleah these Democrats are so ungenteel! Why, they were talkin' politics and singin' and dancin' and actin' all Negro and everything!" More, Digby back in his normal voice: "Do they really think that African Americans don't know how to behave at a funeral for one of their own? How very white of them." Firedoglake has more. Black liberal Pam Spaulding quotes from a Free Republic thread where a Freeper adopts a black voice: "We's for the gubmit but not Bush's gubmit. Bush's gubmit is against us black peoples." She lists a number of prominent black conservatives as "Self-Loathing Negroes." Greg Saunders: "Pity the poor conservatives who hate being reminded that they've been on the wrong side of every civil rights struggle in our nation's history."

As an example of how emotional this issue was, there's Norwegianity, which made use of a few four-letter words before commenting: "It's a funeral, and chances are the only thing that happened today that went against the wishes of the family was George and Laura inviting themselves. If they were made to feel uncomfortable, well, it's hard to imagine Bush the Lesser being confronted with his own policies and not feeling uncomfortable." Liberal PSoTD is a bit more sanguine: "So the disenfranchised and the unempowered and the disagreeing and even the powerful took the opportunity to make a few, slight, clever, quiet and accurate comments that alluded to the current Presidency at the funeral of a national political and cultural figure. Imagine that." He adds: "I'll be the first to say it was inappropriate if Coretta Scott King's family comes out and says they were unhappy about it. But that's the point -- it is their call. Who the hell is Kate O'Beirne to say?"

The Carpetbagger Report disagrees that the references to the Iraq war and wiretapping were primarily "jabs" at Bush: "Several speakers honored King, celebrated her life, and honored the values and principles to which she dedicated her life. The fact that those values and principles happen to be diametrically in opposition to Bush and his conservative agenda was an inconvenient coincidence for a clearly-uncomfortable president, but the point of the eulogies wasn't to attack Bush; it was to pay tribute to King and her beliefs." Jeralyn Merritt agrees: "They are charging that the Democrats shamelessly politicized the funeral and went out of their way to insult Bush. This is all nonsense. The tributes were appropriate. They were on topics not only relevant, but central to the lives and work of Coretta Scott King and Martin Luther King, Jr." Scott Lemieux disputes the notion that the Wellstone funeral was politicized by the left, calling that a "series of lies." UNC law prof Eric Muller makes the same argument, illustrated with photos.

KING FUNERAL III: Blog From A Birmingham Jail

Libertarian Cathy Young sides with the right on this one: "In a society where political polarization is increasingly rancorous, her funeral could have been a rare moment that united. It should not have been a time for division, or for scoring political points. Mrs. King herself, I think, would have understood that." Making the opposite argument, No More Mr. Nice Blog quotes an AP story from 11/02 where Coretta Scott King spoke out against the then-impending Iraq war, saying it would "increase anti-American sentiment, create more terrorists and drain as much as 200 billion taxpayer dollars that she says should be invested in America." NMMNB adds: "So if the Reverend Joseph Lowery wants to talk about Iraq at Mrs. King's funeral ... he doesn't need the permission of Matt Drudge, Michelle Malkin, Kate O'Beirne, or any of the other spiritual descendants of the people who attacked the civil rights movement in its heyday, thank you very much."

Daily Kos' SusanG heads a post "Please, Politicize My Funeral," adding: "Not that I plan on departing anytime soon, but today's hyped-up, hand-wringing caterwauling about the 'politicizing' of Coretta Scott King's funeral makes me inclined to officially endorse any political use that can be made of my death." And evincing the notion that King belongs to the left, she concluded: "Just get out of our lives. And our deaths. And our funerals. And the way we honor our heroes, damn it." Black conservative La Shawn Barber criticizes the King family and also "bloggers," without specifying whether of the left or right: "Nothing is 'sacred' or off-limits anymore. In my mind, funerals should be dignified and respectful services to honor the life of the deceased and help family and friends say goodbye, not political events. But the King family turned it into one, and bloggers became participants in the sideshow by adding to the partisanship. In my opinion, bloggers were just as disrespectful as the family and the politicians."

>>Less noted but not unremarked was the moment where ex-Pres. Clinton said: "I'm honored to be here with my President, and my former Presidents, and, and, ah, when, when..." The crowd began to cheer and call for Sen. Hillary Clinton to run, and both Clintons calmed the crowd. Newmark, in the same post linked above, saw it as calculated: "Why turn a moment to honor the lives and memories of Coretta Scott King and Martin Luther King into a political attack on President Bush and a campaign ad for Hillary Clinton?" But at Open Letter to Chris Matthews, Matt Stoller hit the aforementioned MSNBC host for implying that that this was the case: "Bill Clinton didn't use the funeral as a political prop for his wife. That's just another lie from a partisan hack." Ian Schwartz at Expose the Left, on the other hand, praised Matthews for "distancing" himself from Lowery and Carter's remarks.

DEMOCRATS: Opportunity Costs

Perhaps the most-linked article this a.m. is the one from New York Times' Nagourney which quotes a number of Dems, on- and off-the-record, about the "missed opportunities" to capitalize on the GOP's woes, and the fear that it will hurt them in the fall midterms. Conservatives don't usually look favorably on Nagourney, but nor can they resist an article that quotes Dems criticizing other Dems, and some of them link smugly. The left doesn't care for Nagourney much either, as one can tell by reading the satirical blog Adam Nagourney's Personal Diary, and they certainly aren't pleased by this piece either.

MyDD is upset that the article exists in the 1st place, and offers Dems some advice: "No elected Democrat should talk to Adam Nagourney on a strategy piece. ... If you are an elected Democrat, just stop talking about what Democrats need to do to be elected. Tell the country that Republicans are in charge and if people want a change they should vote for new leaders." More: "If you don't know what to say use the following preface to every single one of your sentences. 'You have to keep in mind that the Republicans control Congress, which means...'"

From Nagourney: "Some Democrats said they favored remaining largely on the sidelines while Republicans struggled under the glare of a corruption inquiry." Oliver Willis responds: "I'm going out on a limb here but I bet these whining unnamed Democrats are the same stupid Democrats who thought we should cede the whole argument about Iraq to Bush ... because some random Republican dumbass told them that -- oh heavens -- Karl Rove might say something mean about them." Brilliant at Breakfast, on the same: "There's an argument to be made for not shooting your opponent while he's got the gun pointed at his own head. On the other hand, while your opponent is busy trying to kill himself, it's a good opportunity for you to swoop in and get your own message out -- something the Democrats have been unable or unwilling to do."

Conservative Orrin Judd thinks this weakness may actually be a hidden strength: "They'd be in even worse shape if they had a national leader to more closely identify the party with being soft on terror, in favor of higher taxes and more spending, and associated with Hollywood 'values.' Just look across the entire Anglosphere -- and to Japan, Germany and Poland -- to see how parties of the Left are faring." Andrew Sullivan, emphatically not a Dem but still highly critical of the current GOP, offers to Dems an example of what they should say: "These guys are corrupt and incompetent. They have screwed up the Iraq war, turned FEMA into a joke and landed the next generation with a mountain of debt. We're for making the homeland safer, winning back our allies, and taking on the Iranian dictatorship. We're for energy independence, universal health care and balancing the budget again."

PLAMEGATE: Why Not Me?

Slate's John Dickerson, who was Time's Dickerson when the key events of the Plamegate scandal occurred, has written a 2-part article (here and here) on his relevant encounters with top WH officials during the summer of '03. As a collaborator on the story that ensnared Time's Matt Cooper in the investigation, he wonders why he was never subpoenaed, and proceeds to spell out how Valerie Plame's identity was suggested to him. In it, Dickerson gives a shout-out to the leading Plameologists at Firedoglake for turning up the letter from Patrick Fitzgerald that mentions him.

Firedoglake's ReddHedd liked Dickerson's 2-parter very much as well, commenting: "If Fitz was trying to flush something out of the underbrush with his letter to Libby's lawyers, he's gotten a whole brace of fat pigeons with this missive. And if I were representing Karl Rove, I'd be puckering this morning... along with several other Administration officials." The pieces confirm for her that the "this was a planned, coordinated effort ... And when you read it in concert with everything else we know about the Traitorgate case, you have to think that Fitzgerald is sitting on a whole lot of information we have yet to see." Dickerson writes that 2 officials led him to look into who sent Wilson to Niger, but "were really careful not to let the information slip, which suggested that they knew at the time Plame's identity was radioactive." ReddHedd keys in on this point: "You know, you would be awfully careful not to let a name slip if you knew you'd be committing a felony and treason to do so, wouldn't you?"

Some commenters at Firedoglake think there isn't much new in Dickerson's account, and conservative Mark Coffey agrees: If Dickerson's account is true, then, we know definitively that Rove was the first source for Matt Cooper, and Libby the confirming second one -- but really, we already knew that, didn't we? Note to those looking for a smoking gun here: nothing in the above suggests that Rove knew of the 'covert status' of Plame, nor that he lied to investigators or a grand jury." Tom Maguire figures the 2 officials who pointed toward Plame had to be Ari Fleischer and Condoleezza Rice. He also finds it less than newsworthy that WH officials were pointing the press in the direction of who sent Joe Wilson on the trip: "So the White House conspired to respond to press inquiries? Cool. Someone tell Fitzgerald."

Kevin Hayden at The American Street thinks Bush is on the verge of losing his "teflon" reputation: "Critics are starting to recognize that Bush is vulnerable. This is just the very dirty tip of the iceberg. More revelations are forthcoming, as his critics sense blood in the water. For as crooked as we know Bush is, there's wayyyy more crook to uncover."

All these months in, Plameology is a highly specialized field. Stygius, Tough Enough and other left-of-center bloggers -- who are following this closer than their right-of-center counterparts -- mostly leave this one up to Firedoglake. On the right, Coffey waited for close Plame follower Maguire to address this develtopment, then updated when he did.

MIDTERMS: Plain Raw Deal?

As reported in multiple CT newspapers, businessman Ned Lamont (D) -- possible challenger to Sen. Joe Lieberman (D) -- has set up an exploratory cmte, and his website has expanded. At Swing State Project, DavidNYC is a bit concerned that Lamont does not seem to have reached the minimum number of volunteers he's seeking: "Still hasn't reached 1,000. Maybe I'm basing this too much on personal experience, but I still really feel like 1,000 names is not a lot. When I was running New York for Dean three years ago, we had over a thousand local e-mail addresses in just a couple of months -- and we weren't promoted on the million-visitors-a-day Daily Kos, nor did we have our URL mentioned in newspaper articles. I would have expected Lamont to get 1K inside a week -- but maybe I'm being unrealistic." But Markos Moulitsas accept's Lamont's candidacy as a given; he doesn't mention his source, but confidently imparts different info about his recruiting: "Ned Lamont broke the 1,000 Connecticut volunteer mark (4,000 nationwide), which means he's in. But we already knew that." Per the Hartford Courant, conservative California Yankee observes that Lamont has moved the goalposts: "His website states the campaign will start as soon as 1,000 volunteers sign up. According to the Associated Press, Lamont's new 'exploratory campaign' manager now says that for Lamont to officially get in, they need to recruit volunteers from every town."

On 2/7, Tim Russo pointed out at Brewed Fresh Daily that the Cleveland Plain Dealer's new blog, Open Mike, has so far included only posts by GOP GOV frontrunner and Sec/State Ken Blackwell. Russo asks: "How is this not a corporate contribution to Blackwell's campaign? Only way it isn't is if Blackwell paid for it." The site is listed as being written by "Guest Contributors," but there is no indication about how long Blackwell will be writing for it, or whether Dem GOV candidate/Rep. Ted Strickland will get a shot at it. Buckeye Senate Blog posts screen shots of the Plain Dealer blog and Blackwell's own site, asking readers if they can tell the difference. In case you couldn't spot it, he points it out: "The Blackwell blog has a disclaimer at the bottom, the PeeDee leaves it readers to guess who is paying and authorizing the material." Russo updated this a.m. at BFD, suggesting that a complaint will be filed with the OH Elections Commis.

EAVESDROPPING: Are There Second Acts In American Political Movements?

Attention has temporarily swung away from the NSA wiretap debate (just as Plamegate fell off the radar yesterday) but Vichy Democrats -- launched in the wake of the failed filibuster of Samuel Alito -- is contemplating another campaign, this one aimed at getting Dems to put the screws to the Bush admin. Quoting a report from the conservative Insight, Vichy Democrats states that Rove "already is afraid that the Congressional investigations may ultimately result in impeachment proceedings, and is putting tremendous political pressure on Republicans to support the President no matter what, saying that any R Senator who deems warrantless wiretaps unlawful will be 'blacklisted' in the next elections." Another letter-writing/fax-faxing campaign is proposed: "So I'm considering launching a new Game Plan to encourage people to harangue the Dem members of Judiciary and Intelligence, the Dem Senate Leadership, and the more moderate or liberty-loving Republicans on the Committee, insisting that the Dems show a unified front if the hearings continue to show that crimes were committed, and that the Republicans place principle above politics, and honor their oaths of office, by calling a crime a crime."

BUDGET: Seeing Red

Raw Story reports that the FY'07 budget "quietly omits a table included in previous years which lays out the impact" of the budget on the deficit. The omission "likely signals that the Administration is trying to keep the focus off the massive deficits which the United States will incur after 2010," when the impact of tax cuts would take effect. The Liberal Avenger: "We are currently looking at the worst long-term federal budget outlook in the history of the country, and there is not even really a second place."

Truth Laid Bear's PorkBusters project posts the letter distributed by Appropriations cmte staffers calling for earmark submissions, and sarcastically declares: "It's feeding time, so line up at the trough!" RedState: "The email reads like a free for all -- you want money, just send in how much you want with priority for projects. It's just about enough to make you vomit that a group of Republican Senators would encourage living so high off the trough. Sick 'em Senator McCain."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Best Offense

Jeff Jarvis weighs in on AP's decision not to circulate the controversial Muhammad cartoons, based on what they say are "long-held standards for not moving offensive content": "I understand what she is trying to say. But that is an absurd standard they will live to regret. The news is often offensive. Murder is offensive. War is offensive. There are no end of images, in photos and words, that offend in the news -- and often that is why they are news. If the news becomes only that which is offensive to no one, we end up with what some people have long wanted: Just good news."

LEST WE FORGET: We Have Seen The Future ...

... and there will be meat carcass cubes!

2/7: Them's Fightin' Blogs

Conservative and liberal bloggers tend to have different interests, and so it should come as no surprise that they often swarm on different stories. Today, however, the two sides largely focus on the same set of issues. The 1st subject, and probably the most discussed, is AG Alberto Gonzales' testimony before the Jud Cmte. Related to that is a videotaped exchange between Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and a representative of a media outlet he believed was called "Pajamaline." Meanwhile, the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoon controversy continues; it remains a bigger story among conservatives, but the left is catching up. And an ornery letter from Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) to Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) garnered a good deal of comment (as did McCain's brief cameo on Fox's "24" last night).

Of course, it should also come as no surprise that there is strong disagreement between the right and left concerning all of the above (well, not so much "24"). Today's edition covers all that and a just bit on GOPers' and Dems' internal fissures going into the midterms. Plus, our latest Blogger Spotlight.

EAVESDROPPING: Love Him Or Hate Him, Bloggers Go Gonzo On Gonzales!

Gonzales' testimony was closely watched and meticulously blogged last a.m. and p.m., and debated throughout the day. The full transcript is available from the Washington Post in 2 parts, here and here. Cmte chair Arlen Specter got some negative attention from centrists like The Moderate Voice and liberals like Legal Fiction for not swearing Gonzales in before questioning commenced.

Lefty NSA point man Glenn Greenwald's much anticipated live-blogging post is here. Afterward, he summarized: "The Democrats did better than they did at Alito but not great. The Republicans did not fail to display their fundamental Bush loyalty. And Gonzales recited his script quite faithfully, with a few exceptions. ... Thus, in the absence of the emergence of smoking gun evidence reflecting abuse, where this scandal goes from here will, I believe, depend on what the media does with it and what the public is tolerates and demands." For an in-depth, anti-Bush live-blogging experience, see ReddHedd at Firedoglake: here, here, here, here and here.

The Talking Dog described Gonzales' testimony as "the current whitewash version of the President's massive program to spy on his (domestic) political enemies under the catch-all of 'protecting us from dark skinned terrrrrrrrorists.'" The particular reference is to the reported surveillance of an anti-war Quaker group (about which more below).

From Gonzales' testimony: "Our enemy is listening, and I cannot help but wonder if they aren't shaking their heads in amazement at the thought that anyone would imperil such a sensitive program." John Aravosis tags this "What would Osama do?" Like Aravosis, DCCC blogger Jesse Lee scoffed at Gonzales explanation for why they wanted to keep the program out of the press: "Gonzales acknowledged that Al Qaeda was probably already aware that we were trying to conduct surveillance on them, but that as long as it wasn't in the newspapers, sometimes they forget."

Said Gonzales: "President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have all authorized electronic surveillance on a far broader scale." Replied Atrios: "Aside from the rather obvious issue of, you know, lacking electronic communications at the time, what war was President Washington fighting?" Along the same lines, Kevin Drum is tired of the "constant invocation of presidents from Washington to Roosevelt who authorized warrantless surveillance in wartime. All of that happened before FISA was passed in 1978 and is completely meaningless. And he knows it." Picking up where Drum left off, Josh Marshall conceded that the program might be constitutional, but insisted it is nevertheless illegal: "The law might be a bad one. Perhaps it should be revised or repealed. But it's not voluntary."

Left-leaning GWU law prof Daniel Solove quoted chunks of Gonzales' testimony and "translated" them into plain English. In Solove's telling, Gonzales' explanation for bypassing FISA boils down to: "Basically, going to the FISA court is a total pain in the ass." Right-leaning GWU law prof Orin Kerr: "Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the AG's testimony is his suggestion, made at various places, that there are other classified telecommunications surveillance programs beyond FISA and the NSA program. Gonzales repeatedly limited his remarks to 'the program that the President has confirmed,' and suggested that some of the press coverage has erroneously reported stories about other programs with this one."

Right Wing Nut House gave the day to the Dems, "just barely." Gonzales couldn't respond with specifics, and Dems "mostly behaved themselves," plus there is the "lurking" issue of the DoJ dissenters. What if a few GOPers vote with the Dems to call them? "If it comes to that, there will be blood on the floor of the hearing room as the AG will be hauled back and forced to justify Administration intransigence.

Plenty of conservatives took umbrage at Jud Cmte ranking Dem Pat Leahy's (D-VT) defense of the aforementioned Quaker group. Villainous Company was one: "Law-abiding? Not exactly. This one is making the rounds of the Lefty blogs to the usual outraged howls.... Aiieeeeeee! Grannies! Puppies! Peaceful Quakers spied upon by BushCo and the Fascist Oppressors! To hear them tell it, the Quaker organization in question did nothing to merit any attention by the government." She quotes previous reports of the group's activities to demonstrate otherwise.

Hugh Hewitt would like to see Sen. Maj. Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) call a vote in the Senate about ending the NSA program, much the way he did to put Dems on the record opposing Rep. John Murtha's (D-PA) call for a withdrawal from Iraq.

The Strata-Sphere posted a semi-satirical "2006 Democrat Contract With Al Qaeda," as if consciously modeled on the GOP's '94 Contract with America. A sample: "THIRD, we will pass legislation ensuring that all Al Qaeda members will be free from government monitoring of their phone calls and emails with comrades back home monitored without probable cause."

BLOGS VS. THE BELTWAY: Disturbin' Durbin

At and around a news conf. related to the hearings on 2/6, Power Line's Paul Mirengoff and Pajamas Media's Andrew Marcus had the chance to interview a number of sens., including John Cornyn (R-TX) and Ted Kennedy (D-MA). Mirengoff also had an amusing exchange with Durbin. The exchange appeared on C-SPAN, and Crooks and Liars posted the video. What conservatives find amusing about it and what liberals find amusing about it aren't quite the same thing.

Approx. transcript -- Durbin: "[W]who do you work for, incidentally?" Mirengoff: "Power Line and Pajamas Media." Durbin: "Jamas Media?" Mirengoff: "Pajamas Media." Durbin: "Pajama Media?" Mirengoff: "And Power Line." [Snip] Durbin: "I'll check out Pajamaline, but I'm not familiar with your publication." Mirengoff: "Yeah. Dan Rather knows something about it."

In the available bit on video, Durbin pointed out that Mirengoff simply restated the admin. position rather than ask a separate question. Lefty bloggers jumped on this, as did some commenters at Pajamas Media.

Heritage's Mark Tapscott reported the exchange as word broke across the blogs, adding several updates. At their own sites, Power Line's John Hinderaker and Pajamas Media's Roger L. Simon both crow about the exchange. Later, Mirengoff added his own comment. Washington Times reported on the exchange.

NRO's Stephen Spruiell comments: "The 'who do you work for' defense isn't going to work anymore, but my guess is that politicians will be using it more often as bloggers start doing original reporting and covering live events."

JYLLANDS-POSTEN: From The Clash Of Civilizations To The Clash Of Cartoons

The ongoing controversy quite obviously lays bare stark differences between Western and Muslim societies, but in a few noteworthy places, it also highlights the left and right's split over how to approach those differences:

La Shawn Barber compares the cartoons to Rolling Stone putting Kanye West on the cover depicted as Jesus: "Christ is fair game, isn't he? Unbelievers, liberals, and other secularists make fun of him, mock him, scorn him, and curse him, yet they steer clear of doing the same with Muslims' god. They know offended Muslims, unlike offended Christians, issue death threats." Liberal Matt Yglesias doesn't think there's that much difference: "There's a difference in scale, of course, but the trajectory in these controversies is the same -- it's either a good idea to get super-agitated about the fact that people who don't share your view of the blasphemous sometimes express their failure to share your view in a public way, or else it isn't. Goose, gander, etc."

One of the new developments is a state-owned Iranian newspaper's announcement that it will hold a contest for Holocaust-related cartoons. Pseudonymous conservative Dr. Rusty Shackleford: "What's so odd about this is that the Iranian dude actually makes a bit of a good point. In many European countries, Holocaust denial is a crime, something antithetical to the very principle we are trying to uphold here." Liberal Needlenose: "If European media is really, truly (re)printing these [Muhammad] cartoons as a means of exercising free speech, then they should take up [the Iranian paper] on their offer. Most papers, however, distinguish between free speech and hate speech so any cartoons that get printed would have to navigate a fine line."

Lefty prof Juan Cole: "Of course people are upset when their sacred figures are attacked! But the hurt is magnified many times when the party doing the injuring is first-world, and the injured have a long history of being ruled, oppressed and marginalized. ... The Muslims are protesting this incident vigorously, and consider the caricatures insupportable. We would protest other things, and consider them insupportable." Not all on the left draw this kind of equivalence -- SF-based liberal Michael Petrelis urges fellow Americans to wear Danish flags to stand up for free speech.

Neandernews discovered the origin of one of the faked Muhammad cartoons. Instead of Muhammad with a pig nose, it's "a photo of Jacques Barrot, a pig squealing contestant at the French Pig-Squealing Championships in Trie-sur-Baise’s annual festival."

Right-libertarian Ross Kaminsky lists a number of "lessons" he's picked up from reading conservative commentary on the controversy. The 1st: "Many Americans agree that the battle against radical Islam is a World War, and that like prior World Wars, Europe may remain passive for too long." And another: "Many Americans either do not believe there are 'moderate' Muslims or do not believe that moderate Muslims can or will have any substantial ability to limit the aggressiveness of radical Muslims. Therefore, many believe that this is a war against Islam itself rather than simply some fanatical part of it." Michelle Malkin is keeping track of U.S. papers which reprint some of the cartoons, commending them for "braving the forces of political correctness."

MCCAIN: Trying To Get Conservative Bloggers' Attention?

Plenty on both sides of the aisle are buzzing about an exchange of letters between Sens. McCain and Obama re: Obama declining to pursue McCain's version of lobbying reform. Hotline On Call was a major conduit for bloggers picking up on the story. As our colleagues noted: "It is rare for a Senator to rebuke another so publicly, and all the more exceptional that McCain does not cloak his language in layers of euphemism." The full text of the letter is available at McCain's website. Obama sent back a letter in response that is considerably less inflammatory.

At GOP Bloggers, Matt Margolis writes: "It's not often that I am amused by John McCain... but he managed to do so today." Conservative Random Numbers wonders if this marks the "De-RINO-fication" of McCain.

Not that everyone on the right is thrilled -- At conservative Brothers Judd, a commenter writes: "Well, I'm all for bashing Obama. That's fine. And I'm even resigned to supporting McCain for the nomination. BUT McCain's superhuman sanctimony saturates every line of this letter. I'm on his side, I can't stand the object of his scorn, and I STILL want to clean McCain's clock after reading this." And Instapundit is skeptical of McCain: "I don't know who's right on this -- if McCain's lobbying reform legislation is anything like his campaign finance 'reform" legislation, I'd side with Obama."

Unsurprisingly, the left has little good to say about McCain's letter. Georgia10 argues that the point of McCain's task force is to "whitewash a purely Republican scandal," and writes: "Of course, when any Republican mentions the word "bipartisan" they really mean Republican and Joe Lieberman, which, in essence, isn't really bipartisan at all. True to form, ol' Joe has signed aboard McCain's task force, as has the reliable Democrat Ben Nelson." Matt Stoller pronounces: "Bipartisanship is dead. That's just true. It's sad, but Republicans have become too partisan to work for the good of the country. Voters will need to repair this at the ballot box in November."

Some have fun with the kerfuffle -- WuzzaDem writes a parody of McCain's letter, and Donklephant snarks: "My only question now is what am I supposed to do with all of these McCain/Obama 2008 bumper stickers? Damn it!"

>> On another note, McCain also made a brief cameo on Fox's hit show "24" -- a favorite especially in the blogosphere. Not a few note the odd fit, considering that McCain is a principal opponent of using torture, whereas series hero Jack Bauer (Kiefer Sutherland) is known to torture when he has to. Among the bloggers mentioning that point: Blogs 4 Bauer, In The Bullpen, The American Princess and OutPunting Our Coverage. After watching, Kushi Tan notes that McCain's appearance consisted solely of handing some paperwork to a character: "Good thing [McCain] wasn't in the briefing room when Jack was torturing, oops, I mean questioning the suspect."

MIDTERMS: Self-Inflicted Wounds

Save the GOP reports, the NRSC has apparently deleted comments from its site by conservatives upset that the NRSC backed RI Sen. Lincoln Chafee over Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey: "They have deleted a large number of comments, all of which contained no profanity or anything derogatory beyond being critical of the NRSC for endorsing a liberal Republican over a conservative one." At the time we checked the site, there were 4 visible comments, although the site listed 16 registered. The latest, it appeared, were complaints of the same nature as above. RedState's Blanton puts the blame squarely on NRSC chair Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), concluding: "Given the way the NRSC has been going about its business lately it is no wonder the DSCC has outraised the NRSC by $14,713,341.00 as of December 31, 2005."

DavidNYC posts an alert at Daily Kos pointing out that with little more than a week before the filing deadline, 3 OH CDs are still missing Dem candidates -- 07, House Maj. Leader John Boehner's 08, and 16. 16 is the "most viable" of the 3, and though '04 candidate/"one-time blogosphere darling" Jeff Seemann is listed by some as running, he is also MIA from his websites and FEC filings. The netroots have been pushing for the DCCC to run candidates in all GOP-held districts no matter what, but especially in OH, where the GOP is mired in scandal. He concludes: "Hopefully we'll see some last-minute filings, because 2006 is the year to be a Dem in Ohio."

NAACP: The MP3 Of Record

Brendan Loy follows up on a World Net Daily report on inflammatory comments allegedly made by NAACP chair Julian Bond in Fayetteville, NC last week (see 2/3 Blogometer). Loy finds that WND got some key details wrong, but what Bond said was still bad: "I'm not going to stoop so low as to defend it as 'fake but accurate'; it was inaccurate, period. ... That said, Bond's remarks are still beneath contempt." Loy's info comes from an MP3 of the event posted to the Observer's website. The Observer's follow-up came after pressure from conservative bloggers and WSJ online columnist James Taranto.

BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: The Wonderful Thing About TigerHawk Is TigerHawk's A Wonderful Thing ...

Today the Blogometer talks to the pseudonymous TigerHawk, who writes the eponymous TigerHawk.

What is your full name?

TigerHawk.

What is your age?

Roughly 44, look like a young 50.

Where did you grow up?

I spent my formative years in Iowa City, Iowa. My father was professor of history at the University of Iowa, and I am a lifelong Hawkeye fan, even though I am not an alumnus. I went to boarding school in New Jersey in the '70s, then Princeton, then the University of Michigan Law School. From there I moved to Chicago for about 8 years, and then back East about ten years ago. It is not clear that I have yet "grown up."

Where do you live now?

Princeton, NJ.

What is your occupation? Have you ever worked on a political campaign or for the mainstream media?

I am a corporate tool, in that I am a senior executive for a public company of some size, which is why I blog anonymously. I have not worked for the "mainstream media" since I wrote articles for the Res Gestae, the student newspaper of the University of Michigan Law School. And there are those who argue that the RG really isn't the MSM.

When did you start blogging and why?

I blogged in a sense before I really knew what blogs were -- when I travelled, I would sometimes write long emails on various subjects that interested me and circulate them to friends. Just about two years ago -- December 2003 -- one of my good friends who was quite tired of these emails suggested that I start a blog. She sent me the link to Blogger and the rest is history.

What has been your favorite post, or favorite story to write about, in that time?

I write about a great many things, and it would be hard to identify a favorite post among the almost 3000 to date. If I had to pick one right now, I nominate my post on "victory conditions in the wider war." I write a lot about the story of our age: the war on Islamic fascism, including the battle in that war now being fought in Iraq (the phrasing of my response surely indicates my general position on that topic).

Describe your typical blogging schedule. And what is your average output?

I blog early in the morning and in the evening, by and large. By "blogging," though, I include my on line reading, which I was doing long before I started my blog. I do try to post every day, though, and on weekends my output usually increases. Since inception, I have averaged about four posts per day.

Who is your favorite political blogger? Favorite non-political blogger?

My favorite political blogger is Richard Fernandez of The Belmont Club. I also like Glenn Reynolds, Roger L. Simon, the Power Line trio, Charles Johnson, Cassandra of Villainous Company (who has been known to post on TigerHawk) and any number of others. I'm not sure I have a favorite non-political blogger, although I do read them. That's a toughie.

Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?

Does Christopher Hitchens count? If not, Mark Steyn.

What is your favorite television news program, either network or cable?

Does "The Beltway Boys" count? I don't watch much television news, per se.

What MSM-produced websites (i.e. newspapers, magazines) do you visit on a daily basis?

New York Times, Washington Post, Yahoo! News. Often The Note at abcnews.com and the "Best of the Web" at opinionjournal.com. Others less regularly. I read a lot of stories on foreign newspaper websites -- I probably rotate among 20 or so foreign papers, looking at three or four per day.

What non-MSM websites (i.e. blogs) do you visit on a daily basis?

Instapundit and The Belmont Club are the most reliable daily visits. I probably read 40-50 other blogs or blog aggregators roughly twice a week.

How often, or do you ever, read a newspaper in its dead-tree (i.e. print) form?

Daily, or almost daily.

How do you see the new media and old media affecting and influencing each other in the next five years?

I am not a blog triumphalist, and even though I'm a big supporter of efforts to legitimize the professional blogs, for me it is just a hobby and always will be. But I'll still give it a shot.

Let's define our terms. I am not writing about the 27 million blogs tracked by Technorati, or the possibly larger number that are not. I'm also not talking about "elite" bloggers, who are really just professional journalists or writers who have deployed the new technology. I am talking about some small number -- probably less than 10,000 -- of English-language bloggers who write for a general audience and try hard to be successful. Many write on political matters, but some write for a general audience within some specialty (law librarians, or fans of the Chicago Cubs, or securities lawyers). The key point is that they are not really writing for their friends and family so much as for some unaffiliated audience.

The most important impact of blogging, I think, is that it is the most convenient mechanism by which readers can select what they want to read about and from what perspective. Of old, the producers of the three networks and the editors of the wire services or big city papers performed that task. It was an incredibly small group of people, if you think about it. Then, the Internet made it possible for people to read material straight from the wires or any newspaper, not just the paper that landed on the driveway. Now, we can choose our editors. That's really what bloggers are, after all -- editors. Oh, some of us do some analysis, some of us do some punditry, and some of us do some actual reporting (I like to think I've done all three at one time or another). But our real function is to tell our readers what we think they should focus on. We get and retain readers by writing about or linking to things that they think are important. In so doing, we have tremendously threatened the narrow elite that used to perform this task for the public. The smart MSM editors and producers will recognize that there has been a sea-change, and they will try to harness the "long tail" editors of the blogosphere to improve their own MSM product. The dumb ones -- or perhaps simply the blind ones -- won't know what's hitting them when their competitors open up their editorial process to open source contributions from bloggers.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: What About The Blogododecahedron?

Micah Sifry rolls out his latest "State of the Blogosphere" report, based on data collected by his company, Technorati:

• "The blogosphere is over 60 times bigger than it was only 3 years ago."
• 75K+ new blogs are created per day, "which means that on average, a new weblog is created every second of every day."
• Also increasing are spam blogs, aka "splogs," and spam pings -- false notifications that a blog has been updated -- aka "spings."
• He posts a chart showing the daily posting volume since mid '04; the heaviest blogging days remain those around Hurricane Katrina, but the Alito hearings were very, very close.
• "Technorati tracks about 1.2 Million new blog posts each day, about 50,000 per hour."

LEST WE FORGET: Magnetic Poetry, Presidential Edition

Think you can write a better speech on terrorism than a Michael Gerson or a David Frum? Then maybe you'd like to try your hand at the George W Bush Speechwriter.

2/6: Semper Infidels

It's a busy start to the week, thanks primarily to the start of the Jud Cmte's hearings on Pres. Bush's NSA wiretaps. But there's more -- conservatives are floating a rumor that the intel community believes Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) leaked details about the program to the New York Times. Meanwhile, Plamegate has roared back to being a major topic of discussion after virtually disappearing from conversation last month (which goes to show how dependent bloggers are on the MSM for certain stories). And while we've been staying away from the controversy over the Danish cartoon depictions of the prophet Muhammad, it has only gotten bigger as the protests have turned from violent to deadly. It's still primarily an int'l story, but it has also entered the domestic MSM, and today we include a brief round-up. Plus, OH SEN Dem Paul Hackett gets booed, the left ponders the dilemma of Iran, and 2 candidates for the next "Washingtonienne."

EAVESDROPPING I: Al The Trouble In The World

At deadline, AG Alberto Gonzales was testifying before the Senate Jud. Cmte to defend the NSA's wiretaps. We'll have more tomorrow. Early reports indicated that Gonzales would say that the program is "not a dragnet" and in "almost every case" the news reports got some part of the story wrong. AMERICAblog was dubious: "Bush came out and, in response, admitted the details of the program publicly. Why would he do that if the media got the story wrong? All he'd have to do is say we're not doing any of that, period." Stirling Newberry interpreted this message as Gonzales saying, "I think you are all f---ing idiots." Once the hearings started this a.m., the cmte agreed on a party-line vote not to put Gonzales under oath. Think Progress already has the transcript.

As AP reported (and Daily Kos' Susan G noted) this weekend, cmte chair Arlen Specter (R-PA) said he believed Bush had violated the FISA law. Meanwhile, conservative JunkYardBlog questioned whether Specter could lead the hearings fairly: "Specter is the man who acquitted Bill Clinton on impeachment charges as prescribed in the U.S. Constitution by invoking irrelevant Scottish law. And as wrong as he was then, he's wrong on this program now." AMERICAblog's John Aravosis posts a "transcript" of Specter's questioning of Gonzales -- instead of quoting their remarks verbatim, he describes his impression of what they said.

With permission, last p.m. Glenn Greenwald posted an e-mail from Sen. Ted Kennedy's (D-MA) staff outlining their strategy in the hearings. The e-mail claims Dems will "emphasize that they take a back seat to no one when it comes to national security," and argue that "working outside of the system in fact harms our national security." Greenwald appeared on C-SPAN's "Washington Journal" this a.m. to debate the wiretap case with UVA law prof Robert Turner; click here to find the video. Greenwald is also live-blogging the hearings.

Meanwhile, Washington Post reported on 2/5 that the NSA wiretap program has surveilled thousands, but only a handful "aroused enough suspicion during warrantless eavesdropping to justify interception of their domestic calls." For The Left Coaster and others, it is further evidence that the admin. is misusing its authority: "Tell me again cultists why it is too cumbersome for Bush to follow the FISA law to obtain warrants to spy on Americans, when out of the 5,000 people he has spied upon only ten or so a year trigger the full range of monitoring?" TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt summarizes: "Bush claims he doesn't spy on Americans. Cheney claims the program saved 'thousands of lives. 'The truth, as the Washington Post reports, is that the program has rarely uncovered information about terrorists or terrorists acts; the NSA has eavesdropped on many thousands of Americans without probable cause; and that probable cause or even reasonable suspicion will never exist because of the washout rate and number of false positives." Conservative AJ Strata disagrees with this analysis: "All these leads need to be tracked down to find the one terrorist capable of taking out maybe 1,000 innocent Americans. That one in 1000 we need to be watchful for." Power Line's John Hinderaker defends the NSA wiretaps by analogy: "[E]very time I board an airplane, my luggage is searched. This is done without a warrant, and the government lacks probable cause to believe that I am carrying a weapon. Nevertheless, searching my luggage is constitutional because it satisfies the standard of the Fourth Amendment: it is reasonable. Likewise, the NSA's data mining program, as described by the Post, is reasonable because 1) catching terrorists operating inside the U.S. is absolutely vital to our security, and 2) the program is likely to turn up significant leads to such terrorists."

The story also described the NSA program as a data mining operation, something Gary Farber had been arguing since 12/05, contrary to other left-of-center bloggers, who had taken at face value the Bush admin's word that it was not.

Something interesting we just didn't have more time to cover -- John Amato posts video of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) saying that the POTUS has the authority to order a killing on U.S. soil without due process, and posts skeptical commentary from other lefty bloggers.

EAVESDROPPING II: Smoking Out A Jay?

Hugh Hewitt, on 2/4: "The American Spectator's Jed Babbin was on John Batchelor's radio show yesterday, and stated that the intel community believes West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller is the leaker who illegally supplied the New York Times with the details of the NSA program. ... When the crime was bribery (Abscam) no one protested that a sitting U.S. Senator ought not to be a target. If the crime is much more serious -- and this is -- purported good intentions should not shield the suspect. Has any member of the press asked Rockefeller point blank if he's the law breaker yet?"

Conservative Atlas Shrugs reacts: "This is an act of treason," compared to the "fine and decent" Scooter Libby, who "awaits his penal fate for outing a Vanity Fair cover girl." But as it remains speculation, Jeff Goldstein is holding back: "Wingnut fantasies? Could be. But Rockefeller was in the loop. And for what it's worth, I'm unaware of any NSA member who's authored a strategy memo that essential calls for a plan to gin up an appearance of impropriety against the current administration, even though the pretense may be false or strained."

PLAMEGATE: Covert Band

In the 2/13 issue of Newsweek, Isikoff reports that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found Valerie Plame "had indeed done 'covert work overseas'" for the CIA, countering the Scooter Libby defense team's questioning of whether her status was in fact revealed in the Niger affair. Isikoff also reports that Fitzgerald "concluded he could not charge Libby" for outing a CIA agent because he "lacked proof Libby was aware of her covert status when he talked about her" with Judith Miller.

ReddHedd at Firedoglake counted it as a win for the liberal blogosphere: "Nice of Newsweek to catch up to the lefty blogoverse. It's about time." Intoxination: "It is amazing how many on the right tried to come out and say Plame was not covered under the statue because she was not 'covert' or active in the past five years. Now that argument is laid to rest." Nitpicker posts comments from conservatives who said Plame wasn't covert, and wants apologies. Brilliant at Breakfast: "Do Bush Administration officials routinely blow the cover of CIA agents when they don't know their status, or did Plame 'ask for it' because her husband dared to question the Bush lies that led us to war?" Conservative James Joyner: "[I]t is unclear how exactly this puts 'holes in the defense of ... (Scooter) Libby.' ... If true, however, it undermines the chief moral defense of the leakers, which is that Plame's status with the CIA was common knowledge." Tom Maguire is still skeptical about Plame's apparent covertness, giving weight to circumstantial evidence to the contrary -- that her husband Joe Wilson was "sloppy" in making himself a public figure, and that the CIA press office made only a half-hearted attempt to persuade Novak not to publish Plame's name.

Other Plame developments drawing attention in the 'sphere: Maguire also looks at a redaction from the now-public 8/04 Fitzgerald affidavit [PDF] and speculates as to the identity of Libby's source -- Bob Novak. Meanwhile, atty. Clarice Feldman at The American Thinker questions Fitzgerald's case against Libby, and calls for it to be dismissed. "There was not even an effort here at a fair investigation or even-handed treatment. The prosecutor was only issuing subpoenas to reporters he thought had received leaks from people trying to discredit [ex-Amb. Joe] Wilson's story. Whether or not leaks involved classified material or national security, leaks for other motives to reporters were of no concern to him."

JYLLANDS-POSTEN: Animaniacs

A few of the angles from the ongoing controversy over the Danish cartoon depiction of Muhammad and the violent response:

• Philadelphia Inquirer is the only major U.S. paper to publish the cartoons. Canadian Damian Penny jokes: "I presume the United States, so beloved by radical Islamists up until now, will be the next target of boycotts and angry demonstrations. Meanwhile, as far as I know, Canadian newspapers are sticking to the 'keep your head down and no one gets hurt' strategy."
• Now fake cartoons are circulating; Michelle Malkin posts a few of them. Dutch Islamists have also retaliated with a cartoon depicting Adolf Hitler in bed with Anne Frank; Malkin has that as well.
• Deaths related to the protests have been reported in Afghanistan and Turkey. The Danish embassies in Syria and Lebanon has been attacked, and demonstrations have taken place as far away from the controversy as New Zealand.
• Mickey Kaus, who has previously argued that Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani should have been Time's "Person of the Year," points out that Sistani condemned the cartoons as "misguided," but did not call for protests.
• Talking Points Memo notes that the SCOTUS Building has a frieze of Muhammad on the front and one inside, and in the mid-'90s, CJ William Rehnquist turned down a CAIR petition to remove them.
• The Infidel Bloggers Alliance is hosting a "Mohammed Cartoon Contest."
• At RedState, Erick Erickson offers a "minor dissent" -- although he finds the Muslim response far out of proportion, he also calls the Danish paper "childish" for having commissioned the cartoons in the first place: "Had it been Christ or the Virgin Mary instead of Muhammad, I guess we would also be supporting the Danish media against the protests of Christians."

IRAN: If This Becomes A Reprise Of Iraq, How Will Dems Play Differently?

On 2/4, Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum was one of several L.A.-area bloggers to meet with ret. Gen. Wesley Clark. At the talk, Clark suggested that a 2-week bombing campaign could actually destroy it does suggest that Democrats ought to figure out now what they think about Iran. After all, we've got the Ken Pollack book, we've got the referral to the Security Council, we've got the slam dunk intelligence, and we've got the lunatic leader screaming insults at the United States. Remember what happened the last time all the stars aligned like that?" More seriously, he asks: "What would be the Democratic response if (a) Bush asked for an authorization of force against Iran or (b) simply launched an assault without asking Congress? The chances of this coming up as an issue this year are strong enough that it would be foolish not to be prepared to deal with it."

Mark Kleiman attended as well, and wrote about it. Like Drum, he felt compelled to add a clarification: "Clark was describing an option, not endorsing it. His overall take was that the military results wouldn't justify the political backlash. What was news to me is that we could actually do it." Left-libertarian Arthur Silber, on the diminishing timeline for when Iran can be expected to have nukes: "There is only one word to describe this approach: it is not reasoned discourse -- it is hysteria, pure and simple." Duncan Black agrees: "The point is not that Iran with nukes is a good thing, or that it's not a current foreign policy issue of importance, it's just ludicrous to think it's 'the biggest threat to the Republic.' A few years back the frightened bedwetter crowd was freaking out about scary Iraq and now they're freaking out about scary Iran."

MIDTERMS: Evidence That He Cannot, As An Overused Pun Would Have It, Hackett?

A supporter of OH SEN candidate Paul Hackett (D) writes about an OH Dem candidate forum at Daily Kos: "Today about 20 or so audience members 'booed and catcalled' when Paul Hackett spoke of [primary opponent/Rep.] Sherrod Brown directly, saying Brown had been a 'politician' since he was 21, and asking what was Brown going to accomplish in the Senate that he had failed to in the Congress?" More: "I had to leave before he finished his Q&A and I walked out thinking, gee, what a huge gaffe by Paul Hackett. And then I remembered... Paul Hackett is a Marine. He says what he thinks. Paul Hackett is NOT a politician!" Audio is available at OH 2nd. Pro-Hackett Buckeye Senate commented: "This is going to be tough to write. But this was the worst I have seen Hackett. ... I don't think this forum was the best place to attack Brown, and the attack itself, while true didn't come across well IMHO." More: "My impression was that neither candidate is ready for a general election yet and perhaps this primary is a good thing after all. Perhaps."

The blogger behind TwoGlasses attended an event with businessman Ned Lamont (D-CT), who is mulling a primary challenge to Sen. Joe Lieberman. Although he found Lamont "credible enough," he also noted "As he walked in, Lamont noticed the stacks of bumper stickers ... with slogans reading 'Dump Joe!,' 'Joe Must Go!' and 'Anti-War: Anti-Joe.' He remarked that we needed to get some positive stuff out there, not just make this an 'Anybody But Lieberman' campaign. I chuckled inwardly, thinking to myself, 'Dude, the only reason you're here is because of the giant wave of anti-Lieberman sentiment ... Don't question it, just grab a surfboard and hop on for the ride.'"

Liberal Jonathan Singer counters the CW that the postponement of Libby's trial to 1/07 is an electoral boost to the GOP: "Notice that the occasional drip of news stories related to the case are neither making Libby look particularly good nor improving the administration or the GOP in the eyes of voters." And if Libby is "in any way exonerated" in court, that could have given the GOP a boost, but it can't now.

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Nothing But Criticism

Daily Howler's Bob Somerby defends MSNBC's Chris Matthews from fellow lefty bloggers' charges that he is soft on Rep. Tom DeLay: "Matthews is erratic, unbalanced, irresponsible, often false. But increasingly, so is the liberal web, which now (after years of ignoring the talker) is devoting itself to luridly stating -- and misstating; and overstating -- the gentleman's manifest sins." Firedoglake is holding a contest to select a nickname for NBC's Norah O'Donnell, on account of lefty bloggers' low confidence that she will cover Plamegate accurately. The winner gets a copy of the forthcoming book by Markos Moulitsas and Jerome Armstrong.

MISCELLANY: The Would-Be Washingtoniennes

• Montgomery Advertiser reports, Stormie Janzen, an aide to Sen. Sessions, shut down her MySpace blog after the office received a complaint about "a provocative photo of her bare midriff in unzipped jeans" on the site. Volokh Conspiracy's Eugene Volokh makes a very, very brief appearance: "Blogs have been popular for about five years and are often used for political commentary, said Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor and free speech expert."
• On 2/3, Evansville Courier & Press reported the existence on the web of pictures of IN 08 Dem candidate/Vanderburgh Co. Sheriff Brad Ellsworth's 19-year-old daughter drinking alcohol. The story helpfully notes that it is "against the law for those under the age of 21 to drink alcoholic beverages in Indiana." The pictures were on her Facebook page, and have since been removed. The story identifies Joshua Claybourn, a supporter of Ellsworth opponent Rep. Jeff Hostettler (R), as having discovered the photos. The photos 1st showed up in the comments to a post of his on 1/31. On 2/3 he followed up, writing: "[C]ontrary to what the article implies I did not search for the photos or seek them out. The links to the photos were left as an anonymous comment following that column. ... In the final analysis I think far too much has been made of the issue. I suspect -- and hope -- that this news becomes a footnote."
• Late last week liberal CO blogs such as New West started calling attention to CO GOV candidate/Rep. Bob Beauprez (R) wearing what Colorado Pols called "some sort of military garb." The story is spreading -- more recently, WA-based satire blog Jesus' General posted the photo and a letter to Beauprez: "It takes a lot of guts to parade around in military garb after requesting and receiving three separate draft deferments and then, finally, a medical release."
• N.Z. Bear has updated his Porkbusters site, introducing an actual blog and new resources. The re-design includes a new section, the "Pork Hall of Shame," identifying the "worst pork offenders" in Congress -- starting with those whose "web sites which boast of pork that the Representative or Senator has 'brought home.'" I'll pick on Senator Richard Shelby [(R-AL)] as an example, because, well, he deserves it"Other early nominees include Robert Byrd (D-WV) and Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI).
• Right Wing News has an interview with ret. fed'l judge Charles Pickering, whose nod was filibustered by Dems in '02, and was eventually appointed to a temporary seat on the 5th Circuit.
• New blog at TPMCafe: Bolton Watch, a joint venture with The Washington Note.

Having participated in a number of blogger conf. calls with Dem pols, The Washington Note's Steve Clemons is worried about the "those on the call -- both the Member of Congress and the bloggers -- are engaged in an informal collusion of interests." He's heard a rumor that one cong. office has told liberal bloggers they must write about their calls, and write favorably, or not be invited back. Clemons is concerned about "the sycophancy that seems to be developing in these meetings -- and the unwritten norm that those bloggers on the call are the running dogs for that particular Senator. There is clearly a 'community' of interests where the line between the journalistic and reporting objectives of the blogger and the interests of the Senator or Representative are becoming practically invisible." He prescribes: "If bloggers are positioning themselves to be the mouthpieces of a Member, then neither the interests of the Member nor the bloggiing community will be served. Any pretense of balance or even of credible, logical thinking will be undermined if Members of Congress view blogs as predictable appendages of their work and interests. There needs to be polite distance, and all sides on these interesting calls need to respect the responsibilities they have in these debates about politics and policy."

LEST WE FORGET: Anybody Else Up For A Bit Of Metablasphemy?

In today's culturally insensitive edition... Fafblog posts a stick figure (crudely drawn even by stick figure standards) of "'Not Mohammed' But It Totally Could Be And You'd Never Know It!" and a meditation on "metablasphemy." Meanwhile, Jim Treacher observes that it is apparently all right to describe these offensive things, but not draw them. Which is good, he writes, because he's been "finding" offensive words all over the place, such as a list of jokes including: "A duck, a goose, and a Muslim walk into a bar. The Muslim has to walk back out because his religion forbids him to drink alcohol!" He concludes: "Just disgusting. Seriously, if I find out who in my neighborhood is leaving this stuff lying around, they're getting a stern talking-to and a sharp blade through the neck."

And apropos of nothing... why are we always the last to know about these things? Lucky for them (and, well, everyone else) Bob Fertik was wrong.

2/3: The Ohio Compromise

All told, the right-blogosphere is taking the election of Maj. Leader John Boehner pretty well. Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) was the only candidate with the expressed support of any bloggers, but as we noted last week, the most important thing to those who got involved was that the leader not be ex-acting Maj. Leader/again-Whip Roy Blunt. The feeling is not unanimous, though, and Boehner has his detractors. Among the Dem-leaning bloggers who weighed in, the response is split between those who had been hoping for the more controversial Blunt and those who think Boehner is bad enough.

We won't be revisiting the controversy about the Muhammad cartoons which appeared in the Danish paper Jyllands-Posten, but for anyone who is not reading the political blogs already, know this: it's probably the biggest subject of conversation out there right now. All of the top searches on Technorati this a.m. are related to it in one way or another. As usual, Memeorandum is the best place to catch up on that.

Elsewhere in today's edition: WH'08 straw polls show Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) with solid (and increasing) support from the netroots, the hard core Plamegate kremlinologists consider the case of the missing e-mails, ex-Rep. Ciro Rodriguez (D-TX) gets a big boost from lefty bloggers and their readers, and more. Not much more, just more.

HOUSE GOP LEADERSHIP: The Boehner Of Blunt's Existence

RedState's Mike Krempasky congratulates Maj. Leader Boehner, adding: "We should add that in our view -- there is NO way Mr. Boehner would have won without Mr. Shadegg's entry into the race. For that -- Republicans ought to take note: conservatives matter more than you thought, and John Shadegg along with Mike Pence have just become perhaps the two most important Members of the House outside of leadership. N.Z. Bear agreed, arguing that Shadegg's "candidacy reminded his fellow Representatives that real reform, and real change in the leadership, was not simply the right thing to do, but utterly necessary to ensure the success of the GOP in November." Like Bear and Krempasky, center-right Univ. of TN law prof Glenn Reynolds had supported Shadegg. He's a bit more skeptical, calling Boehner the "Diet Coke of reform. One calorie -- not reformist enough!"

Libertarian Radley Balko, who shouldn't necessarily be construed as a right-leaner, isn't impressed: "John Shadegg, who'd probably have injected the leadership with at least a bit of principle, came in last. DeLay, Rostenkowski, Foley, Boehner. Business. As. Usual." But Robert George argues otherwise, noting the "bad blood" between Boehner and Rep. Tom DeLay going back to the "ill-fated coup attempt" on then-Speaker Newt Gingrich in '97. Writes George, "given the history between DeLay and Boehner, picking the latter to replace the former sends a pretty strong message. ... Boehner's comeback must be especially sweet considering that Blunt was also a long-time DeLay ally."

One conservative who is not the least bit pleased with Boehner's election is immigration hawk PoliPundit, who writes: "By electing Boehner, the Republican party has installed in leadership positions two powerful politicians" -- Bush is the other -- "who appear committed to selling out our country to their big-money paymasters. Both these powerful Republicans favor massive levels of illegal immigration that would destroy America's borders, and its integrity and culture as a nation."

For some GOP-leaning bloggers who supported Shadegg, Blunt's loss is sweet -- QandO's McQ, recalling his co-blogger's verbal barb-trading with Blunt's spokesperson (see 1/26 Blogometer), observes, "the good news is, Dale doesn't have to lick fireants off a stick." Another RedStater adds Blunt's name to the list of people who lost their place on account of a blog revolt -- ex-Senate Maj. Leader Trent Lott, ex-"Evening News" anchor Dan Rather, ex-SCOTUS nominee Harriet Miers. "And now" ex-acting Maj. Leader Roy Blunt. Justin Hart posts an exclusive photo of Boehner speaking from inside the GOP conf. meeting.

Some Dem-leaning bloggers are up-front about Boehner's election being a disappointment -- Michael Stickings: "As one who supports the Democrats, I wish Blunt had won, as it would have been much easier to paint him as DeLay II." At TNR's The Plank, Michael Crowley quotes a Dem Hill staffer concerned because Blunt would have been too status quo, and Shadegg would have been "killed their moderates," while Boehner is "frankly a better legislator" than the others. Crowley also quotes an ex-Hill staffer: "The good news is that Blunt will keep his whip job and he will be trying to sabotage Boehner for the rest of the year. They will make Steny and Nancy look like good friends."

Markos Moulitsas warns fellow Dems to be on guard: "Get ready for the GOP spin, how Boehner signals some sort of clean break from the past." He quotes a New York Times story which signals just that. A few on the right pick up on that same Times story, which describes Boehner's victory as a surprise. Poli sci prof Steven Taylor comments: "Yes, Blunt was the favorite, but it never seemed to me that he was the prohibitive favorite. Now, if Shadegg had won, that would have been a 'surprise election.'"

But others are more confident that he can be tied to corruption concerns -- The Next Hurrah reminds readers that Boehner once handed out tobacco industry checks to members on the House floor, and also highlights the OH GOP's corruption problems. Booman Tribune posts excerpts from a '96 Cleveland Plain Dealer op-ed titled "Boehner Raises Hypocrisy to an Art Form." TalkLeft and Shakespeare's Sister look at Boehner's vote record/ratings, and don't like it one bit.

One amusing side story is that on the 1st ballot there were more votes than there were voting members. BradBlog and Raw Story analogize it to the voting irregularities in WH'04, loving the irony even more that Boehner and that controversy are both OH-based. A reader at Talking Points Memo suggests: "Shouldn't Jimmy Carter have monitored the GOP vote?" However, as Hotline On Call noted at the time the discrepancy owed in part to the initially uncounted vote of PR Del. Luis Fortuno. Part of the confusion also derived from the absence of Rep. Gary Miller (R-CA).

And though we probably don't have to mention it, yes, plenty of blogs from across the spectrum misinterpreted the pronunciation of Boehner's name. All of them were juvenile, and most were groaners, but we sort of liked this from Wonkette: "Boehner will be following DeLay. Um, isn't that kind of like putting the cart before the horse?"

PLAMEGATE: Future Tension

Murray Waas has produced another report on the series of events leading up to the disclosure of ex-CIA operative Valerie Plame's name to Bob Novak. After reading it, Jeralyn Merritt thinks that VP Cheney is in more trouble than previously thought. Think Progress quotes Cheney on "Meet the Press" in 9/03 compared to Waas' piece, arguing that Cheney "feigned ignorance" about the CIA having already told him the yellowcake reports were likely false.

The missing e-mails we noted on 2/2 specifically came from Cheney's office, and this sets off plenty of speculation. In a post for Crooks and Liars, Hullabaloo's Digby writes: "These missing Cheney e-mails are very intriguing. This is particularly so because we went though a similar event during the Clinton administration and the Republicans went completely apeshit over it." Conservative Jon Henke: "18 megabytes of silence? ... I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that, before Bush reaches the end of his term, Dick Cheney will leave office. And we will be better off for it." On the other hand, leading conservative Plameologist Tom Maguire keeps an open mind about the missing e-mails, noting that "for all you or I know, the White House has a double-secret archive for national-security emails, and Fitzgerald is simply hinting to Libby's attorneys that to access these emails they have to ask the archivists nicely with the proper buzz-phrase that pays. "

At his own blog, Whatever Already, Waas is already moving on to another question: "Did President Bush personally receive information during his morning intelligence briefings about Joe Wilson's mission to Niger? Court filings in the CIA leak case appear to indicate that that may well might have been the case. ... Expect the issue of the PDBs to be a point of contention this morning during Libby's appearance in federal court today regarding discovery issues between the prosecution and defense."

WHITE HOUSE '08: Lookin' So Feingold

With the latest Daily Kos straw poll concluded, Moulitsas posts a recap of the poll results since he launched it in 6/05, which we reproduce below:

                  Jan  Nov  Sep  Aug  Jul  Jun

Feingold           30   19   19   16   10   10
Clark              22   26   34   35   34   26
Warner             12   14    4    3    5    5
Edwards             8   12   10    7    7    8
No Freakin' Clue    6    6    6    9   13   17
Other               6    2    3    4    4    7
H. Clinton          3    6    8    9   10   10
Kerry               3    2    2    1    2    2
Richardson          3    5    3    4    4    4
Bayh                1    1    1    1    2    2
Biden               1    1    3    3    3    3
Vilsack             0    0    0    0    0    0

He points out that John Kerry's numbers remain quite low despite the filibuster effort, noting that wooing the netroots requires more than "a one-off." He concludes: "I still think Warner is the person to watch, with Feingold a potential top-tier competitor for the 'anti-Hillary' slot as he seemingly bleeds Clark's support away."

At MyDD, Chris Bowers announces the latest in their series of straw polls. Like the dKos poll, the leaders of the current and past polls are Feingold, ret. Gen. Wesley Clark, ex-VA Gov. Mark Warner and ex-NC Sen. John Edwards. In fact, the principle difference is that Feingold's lead is even bigger -- about 37% in the latest poll.

Worth noting: one of the top "Recommended Diaries" at dKos since noon 2/2 is Feingold's "Pre-1776 Mentality," his response to Bush's frequent refrain that Dems have a pre-9/11 mindset. His entry has picked up 600+ comments.

MIDTERMS: Ciro Hour

On 2/2, ex-Rep. Ciro Rodriguez (D-TX) posted a diary to Daily Kos soliciting help for his bid against GOP-friendly Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX), who has the endorsement of the Club for Growth. In the 1st comment below Rodriguez's post, a staffer has posted a link to Rodriguez's ActBlue donation page. Meanwhile, Atrios posted a photo of Bush getting chummy with Cuellar, and suggested readers donate to Rodriguez as well. San Antonio Express-News reports that in the hours afterward, Rodriguez racked up $12K in donations from 263 online donations. When we last checked this a.m., the number was closer to $15.9K from 370+ contributors. Inspired by the attention, OR-based Jane Hamsher opens an account to raise funds for Rodriguez as well.

TX-based Charles Kuffner, on the Cuellar-Bush picture's influence: "Guess it took this picture for the big boys to notice the CD28 primary." At Swing State Project, DavidNYC considers whether Cuellar could lose the primary, switch parties and run as a GOPer in the general. Based on his reading of TX election law, he's pretty sure the answer is no. Vichy Democrats, which aims to oust conservative Dems: "[W] Without even taking a head count, I'm naming him our No. 1 Vichy in the House of Representatives."

At Reason's Hit and Run, Tim Cavanaugh predicts: "The Republican Party will retain control of both houses of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections." He counts among his reasons that Bush has beaten the odds before, Dems already blew the chance to ride an "anti-Bush groundswell" in '04, and Dems have no figure comparable to Newt Gingrich. Vodkapundit's Stephen Green notes that he'd made the same prediction on 1/26, writing: "Year Six of any administration is usually poison for the party. If we had something like a loyal opposition in this country, that would be as true in 2006 as it was in 1986. But it isn't. And it won't be. Mark my words."

On the other hand, DLCer Marshall Wittmann suggests that the GOP would be in better position if they do lose the House in '06. Resistant to reform, it has been an "albatross" for them, and Dems might well overreach and impeach Bush. He adds: "Of course, no Republican would publicly approve of such a scenario. But, politics works in mysterious ways. And the worse, may be better for the GOP, at least in the short run."

MISCELLANY: Blogs And Ends

• The Tom Toles cartoon controversy seems to have come to a calm conclusion, as the Post made understanding noises but indicated it had no plans to rein in their cartoonist. As for the JCS, liberal No More Mr. Nice Blog writes, "it may be that they're just defending their boss, in the guise of defending wounded soldiers. They know -- any idiot who's seen this cartoon knows -- that the real target" is Defense Sec. Donald Rumsfeld. Drawing comparison to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad, Democracy Project asks in a header: "Will The Post Republish The Danish Cartoons?"
• On 2/1, NAACP chair Julian Bond said in a Fayetteville State (NC) speech on 2/1, among other things: "The Republican Party would have the American flag and the swastika flying side by side." It's a huge deal in the conservative blogosphere, but we couldn't find any mentions of it on liberal blogs. Sister Toldjah: "Gee -- and to think there were actually people who raised the roof on the fact that the President didn't want to meet with the NAACP?" Rightwinged notes similar comments Bond has made previously. Dafydd ab Hugh argues that Dems need to perpetuate the idea that GOPers are KKKers lest they lose even a tiny bit of black support, and consign themselves to political irrelevance"; to do otherwise "would be political suicide."
• The Slate-sponsored debate between Will Saletan and Katha Pollitt has sparked an interesting intra-left debate about the politics of abortion. Sam Rosenfeld, Scott Lemieux and Duncan Black all side with Pollitt over Saletan in holding that the typical "abortion is morally wrong but should be legal" is at best incoherent and at worst bad politics.
• A few weeks back, AMERICAblog's John Aravosis noticed a news story about how cell phone records are available for purchase, and made an issue of it once the report slid into oblivion, even purchasing ret. Gen. Wesley Clark's records to prove the point (1/9 and 1/13 Blogometers). Now points out a report that the FCC and FTC are moving to curb. Aravosis is pleased with the development, but upset that Dems didn't stake out the issue when they had the chance: "Why in God's name aren't the Democrats the ones holding press conferences and public meetings on this issue? Are they actually that afraid of taking credit for something when it's handed to them? I gave this to the Dems before I even wrote about it -- they weren't interested. And we wonder why we don't ever win."
• Diarists at MyDD and Daily Kos try to call attention to the 2/1 budget bill after it passed. The bill itself, like much of the legis. business in the House and Senate, went almost entirely unremarked-upon on either the liberal or conservative sides of the blogosphere.
• Also at MyDD, Bowers has finished rolling out the results of a survey they commissioned, conducted by pollster Joel Wright.
• As one can see at Instapundit today, the RNC has bought ads with Pajamas Media; the tower ad links to a page where one can make a donation.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: "Open" Call

At OxBlog, enter-right David Adesnik considers the lefty watchdog sites targeting Tim Russert and Chris Matthews, appropriately named Open Letter to Tim Russert and Open Letter to Chris Matthews: "Relatively speaking, Russert isn't all that confrontational. If you try hard, you can accuse him of going soft on guests from either side of the political spectrum. But Chris Matthews? Over the past few months, I've listened to dozens and dozens of Hardball podcasts. ... Let's just say the man doesn't hide his opinions very well. The problem though, is that on those occasions when Matthews actually does give a liberal a hard time, he tends to borrow enough GOP buzzwords to make him sound like he may actually believe what he's saying."

He continues: Anyhow, this kind of debate about the vice and virtue of Matthews and Russert won't pivot on contending interpretations of ambiguous remarks ... If one side is going to win, it will have to systematically catalogue one-sided statements and demonstrate that Matthews or Russert consistently lean one way. The problem is, critics from both sides tend to pick out the exchanges they are unhappy with and ignore all those that might provoke the other side of the political spectrum. In fact, how often do media critics (myself included) even notice those exchanges to which the other side might object?"

LEST WE FORGET: Where We're Going, We Don't Need Roads

Here at the Blogometer, we're quite the fan of the nascent genre of recut movie trailers. We're also quite the fan of "Back to the Future" -- at least the 1st installment. At least for us, "Brokeback to the Future" is now the greatest recut movie trailer that we know of.

2/2: The Cartoon Network

With the confirmation of Justice Samuel Alito and deliverance of Pres. Bush's latest SOTU now 2 days past, the blogosphere has settled down a bit. This is not to say things are back to "normal," but today does feature the most activity surrounding the ongoing Plamegate case since the NSA wiretap story broke in mid-12/05.

One new controversy involves a letter by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the Washington Post over a political cartoon of arguable taste which they ran earlier in the week. The controversy has liberal bloggers coming to the defense of the Post vs. allegedly censorious U.S. military, while at least one conservative blogger says he's canceling his subscription. Of course, this comes just weeks after liberal bloggers condemned the Post's ombudsman for mischaracterizing the partisan terrain of the Jack Abramoff scandal. Why the change of heart? It probably isn't evidence of short memory. More likely, it's a sign that criticisms are aimed more at the specific individuals than the institution as a whole, and to some extent because the cartoonist is a Bush critic as well. But if the Post bows to pressure in some publicly apparent way, the situation would change immediately and dramatically. The case is also interesting because another political cartoon controversy has been raging in Europe; That situation has received plenty of attention in the blogosphere, but very little in the so-called MSM.

Later today comes the House GOP leadership vote; check GOP.gov after 1 p.m. EST for the latest news. Conservative bloggers have been promoting Rep. John Shadegg as their most-preferred candidate, but most could probably accept Rep. John Boehner as well. It will be interesting to see what happens if current House and commitment-leader Roy Blunt pulls off a victory. Fewer conservatives have gotten involved here than liberal bloggers did with the filibuster-Alito mobilization, but there are likely to be some strong words if their nemesis wins. As we've reported in recent months, House GOPers have worked hard to ingratiate themselves with conservative blogosphere via conf. calls and blogger events in the Capitol. Would a Blunt victory stunt the development of that relationship?

WASHINGTON POST: We Assume The Letter Was Delivered By An Acme Corp. Brand Mile-Long Accordion-Collapsible Hand

On 1/31 the JCS has sent a letter to the Washington Post protesting the 1/29 editorial cartoon by the Post's Tom Toles. Available at Post.com here, the cartoon features a quadruple amputee soldier in a hospital bed next to a diagnosing "Dr. Rumsfeld," who says, "I'm listing your condition as 'battle hardened.'" Editor & Publisher and AMERICAblog received a copy more or less simultaneously, and once the former had confirmed its veracity, the latter posted it in PDF format.

The letter describes JCS as "extremely disappointed" by the Post's decision to run the "beyond tasteless" cartoon. More: "While you or some of your readers may not agree with the war or its conduct, we believe you owe the men and women and their families who so selflessly serve our country the decency not to make light of their tremendous physical sacrifices."

AMERICAblog's liberal John Aravosis describes the letter as a "threat": "I have no problem with citizens speaking out about political cartoons they find offensive ... But when the government does it, that's a whole other story that smacks of censorship, especially when that government is the Pentagon threatening you during wartime." So does Seeing the Forest's Dave Johnson: "This is THE MILITARY DIRECTLY THREATENING A NEWSPAPER on behalf of the Republican Party. This is WAYYYY beyond unprecedented. This is past "find a safe refuge in Canada" time. This is a serious WATCH YOUR BACKS!!!!" Atrios: "The central theme of the cartoon is that Rumsfeld is an asshole, which he is. They repeatedly deflect criticism of the civilian leadership by implying it's a criticism of the troops."

Conservative UCLA prof Stephen Bainbridge disagrees strongly that it's any such thing: "Hyperbole is one thing, but in this case Aravosis has gone flying right past hyperbole and sailed straight into outright misrepresentation." DC-based AJ Strata protests in the other direction, announcing he's canceling his Sunday Post: "You advertisers want back in my house? Put pressure on the Post to fire Toles and make sure all of you donate heavily to causes that support our injured veterans and the families who lost loved ones."

Thysdrus on the left and Classical Values on the right are just 2 of several blogs to connect the Toles situation to a major controversy overseas: a Danish newspaper has come under int'l criticism from Muslims for printing cartoons of Muhammad, as their religion specifically forbids iconic representations of their prophet. For the full background on that case, see its associated Wikipedia entry. In fact, more so than the Post controversy, the Danish case is the biggest thing going on at Memeorandum today.

PLAMEGATE: Like Getting Back In Touch With An Old Friend

Recent reports about the indictment of ex-WH aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby have focused on a flurry of court filings. indicate that his attys are seeking info about ex-CIA "operative" Valerie Plame's CIA work history and the WH's PDBs. Tom Maguire uses the occasion to focus on one of his "favorite questions -- how covert was Valerie Plame?" But Libby is charged with perjury, not any law related to the disclosure of Plame's name; Mark A.R. Kleiman scolds Maguire for having the wrong focus, and explains: "The idea is to ask for something arguably relevant to the defense which the government can't allow to appear in open court for national-security reasons, hoping to force a dismissal." Holden at First Draft has a different take: "I suppose he's trying to run out the clock so he can pick up his pardon in December 2008 before his trial concludes, but he better not piss Fitzi off if he knows what's good for him." Atty ReddHedd at Firedoglake reminds readers that just because the motions have been filed does not mean they will necessarily succeed.

Raw Story has obtained a letter from special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has written a letter to the WH advising them: "In an abundance of caution we advise you that we have learned that not all email of the Office of the Vice President and the Executive Office of the President for certain time periods in 2003 was preserved through the normal archiving process on the White House computer system." While the Fitzgerald letter is not overtly accusatory, Daily Kos' Georgia10 points out that AG Alberto Gonzales, previously WH counsel, was tasked with reviewing WH files before handing them over. In months past, some bloggers have focused on an 11-12 hour apparent gap between Gonzales' discovery of the DoJ investigation and when he told WH staff to preserve all documents (see 7/25 Blogometer). Georgia10: "It is possible that Fitzgerald has known about the existence of deleted communications early on. Did Gonzales' explanation of why he waited 12 hours hold up at the grand jury? Does Fitzgerald indeed have proof that evidence was destroyed? If so, does Fitzgerald have evidence that the Department of Justice tipped the Administration to destroy that evidence?" For more speculation about the Fitzgerald letter, see The Left Coaster and The Next Hurrah.

SHEEHAN: This Lousy T-Shirt

Bloggers are still buzzing about antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan's ejection from the House chamber just before the SOTU, particularly in light of the fact that she wasn't the only individual removed because of a T-shirt, and because charges against both have now been dropped.

Sheehan posted a diary to Daily Kos giving her account of the affair. "I was never told that I couldn't wear that shirt into the Congress. I was never asked to take it off or zip my jacket back up. If I had been asked to do any of those things ... I would have, and written about the suppression of my freedom of speech later."

Glenn Greenwald notes his disagreement with Sheehan on some issues, but adds: "[I]f the circumstances of her arrest last night at the State of the Union speech are anything like what she describes them as being ... then her arrest is completely disgraceful. ... This is nothing more than a naked attempt to stifle dissent and to create a criticism-free bubble around George Bush." Greenwald later updates: "The law is clear that Sheehan did nothing illegal and there was no legal basis whatsoever for removing and arresting her for wearing that t-shirt."

The Moderate Voice's Joe Gandelman notes a difference in how the removal of the wife of Rep. Bill Young (R-FL) was handled: "Sheehan was led away in handcuffs. Ms. Young, whose husband is a VIP, wasn't." Reading Sheehan's account, Gandelman adds: "If Tom DeLay's wife wore a 'BARNEY SUCKS' t-shirt would she have been hauled out for protesting?" Liberal Shakespeare's Sister: "Conservatives have been perfectly content to sit back and watch liberals get censored, marginalized, and cast as traitors for what they have to say, but once a government starts criminalizing free speech just to silence dissenters, it's not long before those who once found themselves celebrating the harassment of those with whom they disagree suddenly realize that they're not as free as they used to be, either." McQ of conservative QandO: "I can understand rules or laws which proscribe behavior that might infringe upon the ability of the House to conduct its business in an orderly fashion. But two women sitting quietly in t-shirts that happen to have messages on them doesn't qualify as disruptive in my estimation. ... Lord help me but I agree with Cindy Sheehan and Beverly Young on this one. Somewhere, pigs are flying."

The Jawa Report is less sympathetic: "[Dem Rep.] Lynn Woolsey ought to be impeached and removed from the House of Representatives for her part in facilitating an unlawful act. At the very least, she should be immediately censured by that body. ... Cindy Sheehan's very presence in the Capitol building is an offense to that institution after she went down and hugged Hugo Chavez last week. But to allow her to come into that building wearing that shirt is even worse."

ENERGY: Enter Dependent Interdependence

Going back to the 1/31 SOTU, Daniel Drezner can't reconcile Bush's stand against protectionism with his call for energy independence. Writes Drezner: "To be fair to Bush, what he's saying might be correct even if it's not internally consistent. Trade on the whole is a good thing, but dependence on oil is bad. Except that a big reason the U.S. has intervened so much in the Arab Middle East for the past 25 years is not just because we're dependent on Arab oil imports." Andrew Sullivan asks why, if Bush describes oil as an "addiction," there isn't a more serious effort to kick the habit. Critical from another angle, WSJ's James Taranto asked: "If we're going to democratize the Middle East, why do we need to reduce imports of oil from the region?"

And maybe we won't in any case -- now this KRT report is going around the left and right blogospheres: "One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally." Balloon Juice on the right: "It sounded like a good idea to me. Well, fool me once, ha ha. It turns out Bush only said it because he likes the sound of people clapping." The Poor Man Institute on the left: "And the State of our Union is ... gullible!"

ALITO: Things That Make You Go Hmmm ...

In a somewhat unexpected move, Justice Samuel Alito's 1st noteworthy act on the SCOTUS was to side with the liberals in granting a stay of execution for a convicted murderer whose case is still under appeal. GWU law prof Orin Kerr: "It's hard to say if this means anything. Alito may just be extra cautious on his second day on the job. The rest of the Justices know the history of this issue, and Alito doesn't yet; in a capital case such as thus, obviously the best course in light of possible uncertainty would be to vote to leave the stay in place. On the other hand, it's possible first evidence of my theory that Alito isn't going to be as conservative as most people think." Lyle Denniston of SCOTUSblog sheds some light: "The state's request to lift that stay order went initially to Alito, who is assigned to handle such emergency matters from the Eighth Circuit. He passed the matter on to his eight colleagues, resulting in the vote to leave the lower court stay in place. The order made no mention of Alito not participating -- such a notation would have been added had he opted not to vote on the matter." Conservative blogs such as Enlighten-NewJersey are giving Dems such as Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) a hard time for his assessment of Alito: "So a 'little guy' can't get a fair shake from Samuel Alito, huh?" Roseville Conservative Blog: "So the Kool-Aid drinkers were wrong about Alito. ... It looks like he wrote a valid opinion that I disagree with for staying an execution."

At MyDD, Matt Stoller begins a what-if post about how the Dems might have defeated Alito: "Some people think that winning on Alito was always a longshot. I don't think so. Two stats suggest the magnitude of our failure. One, the country thinks that Roe v Wade should be protected. Two, the country wanted Sam Alito confirmed by the Senate. The only way to reconcile these conflicting sentiments is that we failed to explain that Sam Alito seeks to overturn Roe versus Wade."

Is there now an "Alito rule" whereby Dems' near-unanimous opposition to the well-qualified Alito means that GOPers should be expected to oppose a well-qualified Dem nominee in similar numbers? Power Line's Paul Mirengoff argues yes, whereas Big Lizards' Dafydd ab Hugh argues no. The 2 agree on most issues, but certainly not in this instance. Mirengoff replies here, and Hugh follows up here.

MIDTERMS: Stop Being Polite, And Start Being NARAL

Following the 1/30 cloture vote where pro-choice Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) voted to send Alito's nomination to the floor, many liberal blogs criticized NARAL for standing by their endorsement of him. As yet, they haven't let up -- Hullabaloo's Digby had previously defended NARAL's Chafee endorsement, but not anymore: "If the NRA had been in NARAL's position this past week, they would have ripped their support from Lincoln Chafee so fast it would make Trent Lott's hair crack. They know when to pull the strings." He writes, pro-choice GOPers "are now officially not worth the coathanger flyers their names are printed on. And unless NARAL gets a clue, fast, neither are they." Firedoglake points out that The Nation's Katha Pollitt left a message at NARAL's Bush V. Choice blog arguing that the org. stop endorsing pro-choice GOPers, only to have it "scrubbed" from the site.

Following the cloture vote, Dave Neiwert wrote a letter to Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) indicating that while he would vote for her in the fall, he would not donate any money to her campaign. Cantwell voted for cloture, but Neiwert's focus was on her "appallingly weak" Jud. Cmte performance. Later, Neiwert realized that Cantwell hadn't been on the cmte since '02, and updated: "That portion of my criticism was inaccurate; however, it does not blunt my belief that Cantwell should have been helping lead the charge on Alito."

BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: A Teachoutable Moment

Today the Blogometer talks to conservative arts critic Terry Teachout, who writes About Last Night.

What is your full name?

"Terry Teachout" is the name I go by.

What is your age?

I turn fifty next Monday.

Where did you grow up?

Sikeston, a small town in southeast Missouri, down where the tornadoes blow and the cotton and watermelon grow.

Where do you live now?

The Upper West Side of Manhattan, not far from the Central Park carousel.

What is your occupation? Have you ever worked on a political campaign or for the mainstream media?

I'm the drama critic of The Wall Street Journal and the music critic of Commentary, and I also write "Sightings," a biweekly column about the arts in America for the Saturday Journal's "Pursuits" section.

I was a senior editor of Harper's from 1985 to 1987 and an editorial writer for the New York Daily News from 1987 to 1993. Since then I've written primarily about the arts, and God in His infinite mercy has spared me the experience of working on a political campaign.

When did you start blogging and why?

Three and a half years ago. I'd come to the conclusion that serious arts criticism was in the process of migrating to the Web, so I figured it'd be smart if I got there first and scoped out the territory before the crowds showed up. In fact, I was faster than I knew -- I was the first mainstream-media arts journalist with a national reputation to start a blog.

What has been your favorite post, or favorite story to write about, in that time?

This is my smartest post. This is my most personal post.

Describe your typical blogging schedule. And what is your average output?

I blog each weekday in the interstices of other activities. It's not unusual for me to post 1,500 words a day, but I don't have a fixed quota, and there are certain days when I don't post at all. (It helps greatly that I have a trusted co-blogger, Laura Demanski, who signs her postings "Our Girl in Chicago" or "OGIC.")

Who is your favorite political blogger? Favorite non-political blogger?

Political: Ross Douthat (The American Scene). Non-political: Heather Heise (In the Wings).

Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?

Charles Krauthammer or Anne Applebaum, I suppose, though I no longer spend much time reading op-ed columns -- I think traditional op-ed pages have been rendered obsolete by the blogosphere and will soon start to disappear from major newspapers.

What is your favorite television news program, either network or cable?

In the absence of hurricanes, terrorist attacks, or lawyer-led coups, I don't watch any TV news programs, and haven't for years. The last TV-news personalities I really liked were Harry Reasoner and Charles Kuralt.

What MSM-produced websites (i.e. newspapers, magazines) do you visit on a daily basis?

The Wall Street Journal's Online Journal and National Review Online. I also take a quick flip through the New York Times' drama coverage -- nothing else, though. Otherwise, I cherry-pick the MSM through Web-based new-media portals. If it's not on the Web, I usually don't bother with it.

What non-MSM websites (i.e. blogs) do you visit on a daily basis?

Political: Ann Althouse, Glenn Reynolds, Mickey Kaus, Michael Barone, Megan McArdle, Ross Douthat, and RealClear Politics (though it isn't really a blog). Non-political: James Lileks, Maud Newton, Sarah Weinman (Confessions of an Idiosyncratic Mind), Jaime J. Weinman (Something Old, Nothing New), Heather Heise, Tyler Green (Modern Art Notes), George Hunka ("Superfluities"), Jeremy Denk (Think Denk), Alex Ross (The Rest Is Noise). Somewhere in between these two categories fall Erin O'Connor (Critical Mass), who blogs about academic politics, and Amy Welborn (Open Book) and Eve Tushnet, who blog about religion. I also have a depraved taste for Roy Edroso (Alicublog), the funniest hard-left blogger in the 'sphere.

How often, or do you ever, read a newspaper in its dead-tree (i.e. print) form?

Never, except on the rare occasions when I'm out of town and haven't brought my iBook, in which case I pick up a copy of the Journal each morning.

How do you see the new media and old media affecting and influencing each other in the next five years?

(1) The smart old media will start to interact with the new media on the new media's own terms (i.e., Time Inc.'s agreement to "take over" andrewsullivan.com while giving Sullivan editorial independence -- look for more such arrangements in the next few months). They will start to peel off functions that are done better by the new media (i.e. op-ed pages, classified ads, arts criticism). Their goal will be to stop publishing on paper as fast as possible and to sell most -- but not all -- of what they publish electronically, though not always in a tightly bundled way. My guess is that The Wall Street Journal will be the first major newspaper to successfully make the transition to post-paper journalism.

(2) The dumb old media will fight as long as they can for their existing privileges, then implode, farming out their superannuated editors to think tanks and institutes of journalism where they will issue statements about the duty of the media that no one will read.

(3) The most far-reaching, culture-changing structural innovations in journalism will come from small regional papers--and from blogs.

(4) At some point in the next two years, someone will launch the first paperless newspaper in a major city (it should have been the New York Sun). If I were younger and rich, I'd try doing it in Los Angeles.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Feiler Slower Theory

Mickey Kaus is always noticing small ways in which the news cycle has sped up. Now he points out, "any day that doesn't feature either a make-or-break moment, major terrorist attack, near-apocalyptic natural disaster or celebrity murder becomes a 'slow news day.' Hillary Clinton's January 16 'plantation' comments generated controversy, we were told, because she foolishly made them 'on a boring day' (Chris Matthews)-- a boring day on which there was a) an ongoing, bloody war in Iraq, b) a terror bombing in Afghanistan, c) mystery as to which Al Qaeda leaders, if any, we'd killed in a controversial Predator missile attack; d) unrest in Nepal, e) final campaigning in the Palestinian election, f) Israel's prime minister in a coma, g) a confrontation with Iran over the bomb, h) spreading bird flu and i) ongoing scandals over eavesdropping and sleazy lobbying... Boring days aren't what they used to be!"

LEST WE FORGET: Death And Dismemberment

How morbid are you feeling today? Let's say, on a 1 to 10 scale that 1 is not morbid in the slightest and 10 is beyond Wednesday Addams. If you're feeling anything above a 4, don't hesitate to check out "The Lego Suicides" Flickr photo set. But if your morbidity level is up around 7 or higher, go ahead and click through to "Beutiful art made with kintting" (sic).

2/1: 99 Responses, And Unmitigated Praise Ain't 1

While they complained about the length of the SOTU and the pointlessness of the clapping, bloggers nonetheless considered the speech a high-interest event. Although the Blogometer was not around yet to cover Pres. Bush's annual address in '05, but from what we recall, this year there was more coverage than ever -- probably a function of the expanded blogosphere more than any great interest in this SOTU over previous ones. We're definitely sure that more conservatives watched than liberals, and even Bush's supporters were not happy with certain aspects. There's a lot to cover, so let's get to it:

SOTU OVERVIEW: Move Over Alito, Hello SOTU

• We'll get into issue-by-issue critiques of the speech below, but it's worth mentioning here that conservatives were anything but enthusiastic about the speech -- Right Wing News gave Bush an overall C- grade: "There were a few high points, but he didn't deliver up enough specifics or enough popular programs," and is stuck in the "whole Big Government Conservative/Compassionate Conservative mindset that's so frustrating for Reagan conservatives." At The Corner (start here and scroll down) NRO's contributors live-blogged the SOTU as well as VA Gov. Tim Kaine's (D) response. They had little good to say about Kaine's address, and even a few criticisms during Bush's. Instapundit posted advance thoughts, links to others, speech excerpts, and then the full text of the SOTU address once it became available. From his review, once it was over: "Better than I expected, though that's a function of my low expectations. ... The Presidential Commission on entitlement reform was also very lame, though realistically it's probably all he can do."
• Centrist Joe Gandelman offers a middle-of-the-road take on the speech's reception: "Few pundits are hailing President Bush's State of the Union speech last night as a major watershed in his Presidency. It's not being called a failure but it's not being called an inspiring home run, either."
• Among the many live-blogging the speech -- Conservative Captain's Quarters,who noted that the speech "seemed to emphasize a particular theme, of moving forward to engage the world rather than waiting for the world to engage us"; liberal Kevin Drum, writing: "Now a reference to Clinton. That makes the score 4-1 in favor of references to former Democratic presidents. Aren't there any former Republican presidents he wants to give a shout out to?"; Arianna Huffington, rolling her eyes at "17 mentions of 'freedom' from the guy obsessed with assaulting it here at home"; Wonkette, with the special guest return of Ana Marie Cox.
• How much SOTU live-blogging do you need? There was far more of it than anyone could possibly read -- right-leaning Swamp Pundette; Plunderbund; Radioactive Liberty; Stop the ACLU; Don Singleton; Suitably Flip; Gay Patriot; peak oil-focused The Oil Drum; Blogs for Bush; The Matt-Cave; Modern Fabulosity; Macsmind; Drumwaster.
• Of course, not all bloggers watched it -- Josh Marshall did not, and wonders if this behavior is normal for a political junkie: "I have a confession: I'm not sure when the last time was when I watched the State of the Union address. I think I may have watched it in 2003. But I'm not even certain of that. Perhaps a glance through the archives would show that I watched a bit of it last year, I don't know. The truth is, I find it unwatchable. ... Are there others out there like me? I know that a great portion of the country never watches the thing and can't be bothered with politics in any case. But are there others out there who are genuine political junkies -- downright incurables -- and yet can't bear to watch this thing?"
• With Justice Samuel Alito's confirmation coming only hours before the speech, some bloggers made a point of watching the SCOTUS, focusing in particular on when various justices felt comfortable applauding: Liberal A la Gauche paid attention to when the SCOTUS justices clapped for certain things: "Alito looks a bit bewildered. The Supreme Court Justices just rose and Roberts applauded Bush' comment about fighting to protect our freedom. Breyer clapped a little. Alito just stood there at first, but then looked around and seemed to notice it was okay to clap and began to do so"; Charmaine Yoest was watching the SCOTUS as well: "Justice Thomas and Justice Breyer standing and clapping at his mention of Alito's confirmation! Wow! That is unprecedented." Righty David Boyd quotes Washington Post's Milbank noting, "When Bush declared that 'liberty is the right and hope of all humanity,' Alito was the only member of the judicial quartet to provide his concurring applause," and adds: "You're damn right it is. I don't know what's wrong with us if you can't applaud that. Kudos to Alito for thinking for himself eight hours into his appointment." Law prof Ann Althouse, on who was present and who was not: "We see a close up of Alito, and he seems to be pulling in his smile, as if maybe it's in bad taste to over-beam right now. No Sandra Day O'Connor, unless she's stashed away somewhere else. No Scalia. No Souter. No Stevens. No Ruth Bader Ginsburg."
• The justice-clapping wasn't the only clap-observing going on; despite the monotony of the GOP and Dem clapping/not-clapping routine, there was one surprise -- Social conservative Watchman's Words: "The one time that the Democrats wholeheartedly applauded was when the President decried the failure of the last year to act on Social Security. They celebrated not dealing with the largest long-term financial problem facing our nation." At MSNBC's Hardblogger -- where a half-dozen MSNBC personalities and guests offered their running commentary -- David Shuster also noted the surprise ovation: "The president's speech tonight was 51 minutes long... and was interrupted by applause 64 times. 63 were likely anticipated by the President's speechwriters, one was not."
• As they have done multiple times in recent months, the House GOP held a "blog row" event on the Hill. Justin Hart of Right Side Redux was there. So was NAM VP Pat Cleary for the Manufacturers Blog, posting members' responses to various Bush proposals. The Hill made a photo of House GOP conf. chair Deborah Pryce their website "photo of the day" for 2/1.
• Dems were active in blogging about the SOTU in other ways -- House Min. Leader Nancy Pelosi posted to HuffPo, calling Bush's speech "more of the same," and throwing links to a recent Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) post at Daily Kos, as well as several reps' live-blogging at DCCC's The Stakeholder. Pelosi's header: "It Was a Nice Break from Reality TV." In that DCCC live-blogging, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) wrote: "I was very disappointed with the President's speech tonight. The President had an opportunity to level with the American people, to honestly address the missteps made, and to pledge to move our country in the right direction. ... And, not surprisingly, there was nothing but bluster in his defense of NSA domestic surveillance and no apologies for misleading this country into war." CAP's Think Progress held a post-SOTU live webcast featuring several prominent left-of-center bloggers.
• One type of blog post is almost always underrepresented in the Blogometer, and that's the round-up post. Last p.m., that kind of post was far more popular than it usually is. Top-tier bloggers such as Michelle Malkin put one together, as do those lower on the totem pole, such as A Lady's Ruminations on the right and The Higher Pie on the left. And National Journal's own Beltway Blogroll posted a "nonpartisan SOTU primer" in the late afternoon.

We wouldn't call the speech a bomb, but in this section we will mostly focus on things that bloggers were unhappy about. Right-of-center bloggers did have a lot of positive things to say about the speech, but no one was entirely satisfied. On the left, few were satisfied by much at all:

• As expected, "addicted to oil" got a good deal of attention. But he didn't get much goodwill for focusing on an environmental issue -- Liberal UCLA prof Jonathan Zasloff wasn't impressed by the line, and wonders why others are: "How many times do people have to fall for this before they wise up? You don't even have to read the news stories very carefully. The President will apparently say that the US is addicted to foreign oil. And then you know the same old "policy" response: drill everywhere, destroy environmental regulations, do something cosmetic like talk about hydrogen a little, and that's it. Same old, same old." Steve Soto adds, "keep in mind that Bush's solutions ask for no sacrifice from anyone, don't address reducing consumption ... and certainly won't call for an end to all oil company tax breaks and subsidies." Even conservative Cliff May opined, "nuclear is great but it will only cut our dependence on oil when we have plug-in hybrids cars that can run primarily on electricity.
• Conservative La Shawn Barber felt not enough was said about immigration: "I'm bitterly disappointed with him for vague and empty platitudes about illegal immigration. He didn't address the social costs of the illegal scourge, nor did he mention anything about the incident that happened at the border this week, nor offer anything concrete to his pro-enforcement base." PoliPundit agreed: "Sure, there may be a small post-SOTU poll bounce; there will always be one. But it could have been so much bigger! Imagine how different today could have been if the president had chosen to bludgeon Democrats with a winning issue, like, say illegal immigration. Sigh."
• Not surprisingly, Bush's defense of the NSA wiretapping was not received well by his critics on this issue -- Andrew Sullivan live-blogged the speech over multiple posts, commenting early on the NSA section: "Classic Bush: ignore the actual criticism; set up a straw man; and then whack it with a big baseball bat. And you know what? It worked extremely well. 'We will not sit back and wait to be hit again.' Great line. Best defense. Avoids the basic issue." Liberal PSoTD also focused on the issue: "This country needs the news media to quit focusing on what Bush says, or even what Congress says, about the end around NSA, and get them to focus on the legal issue. Period. Bush can hang as many scare tactic names on the program as he wants, but the courts will determine whether he and his administration broke the law. Let's get to it." Echidne of the Snakes scoffed at Bush's claim that if the program had been in place earlier, it might have helped prevent 9/11: "This was funny, because of course we all remember that government document entitled, roughly: 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack America.' If a government document didn't make George do anything, why would illegal wiretapping?"
• On foreign policy, there were skeptics on both sides -- Liberal atty Glenn Greenwald: "There is something quite disturbing about the way in which Bush has taken to telling us in almost every speech he gives now the type of criticism of him we should and should not be making." He is highly skeptical of Bush's claim that the "end of tyranny" is a legit foreign policy goal, and he interprets Bush's line about "we will never surrender to evil" to mean: "We must have civil and respectful debate, and that's why I want to point out that anyone who disagrees with my terrorism and foreign policies is in favor of surrendering to our enemies." Another part of Bush's speech gave a shout-out to those living in places such as Burma, North Korea and Iran, saying the "demands of justice, and the peace of this world, require their freedom as well" Conservative defense analyst James Joyner provided a reality check: "Translating this into actual policy, however, will be virtually impossible." More Joyner: "He did make several references to 'radical Islam,' although continuing to pretend that it was some tiny minority of the Religion of Peace."
• Fiscal conservatives were optimistic about his brief nod to an issue dear to GOP-leaning blogs watching the House leadership race -- In one line, Bush said: "I am pleased that Members of Congress are working on earmark reform -- because the Federal budget has too many special interest projects." The Truth Laid Bear's N.Z. Bear responded: "From the Porkbusters team, I say: welcome aboard, Mr. President! ... Having the Presidential bully pulpit keeping Congressional feet to the fire on the need for earmark reform is a Very Good Thing --- and one that I sincerely hope is not a This Night Only performance." Power Line's John Hinderaker, who wonders if anybody but GOPers are watching, liked the mention as well: "'Earmark reform' -- he's for it! And, shrewdly I think, he links it to the line-item veto." But PoliPundit did not agree with that: "'Earmark reform?' 'Line item veto?' Joe Lunchpail is changing channels. Sigh."
• A few on the left were weirded out by Bush's mention of "human-animal hybrids," but in general Bush's critics on bioethics couldn't take it too seriously -- Obsidian Wings' liberal Hilzoy: "What, exactly, does Bush mean by 'human-animal hybrids'? Any being that has human and animal parts? So much for Jesse Helms, who had a pig valve transplanted into him." War Liberal asked, "did he really call for a ban on 'human-animal hybrids'? Is this a real concern? Are we at war with the Lobster People again?" Dave Nalle at Blogcritics: "Okay, has someone been giving him particularly bad Science Fiction novels?" Wonkette posts a Technorati-generated graph showing that the phrase "human-animal hybrids" went from nowhere to ubiquitous after the speech. Lefty Max Sawicky was incredulous as well, and in lieu of commentary posted a photo of a dog and a man both trying to catch a frisbee in their mouths.

DEM RESPONSE: Eyebrow-Beaten

Liberal policy blogger Ezra Klein must feel somewhat vindicated about having criticized Gov. Tim Kaine's (D-VA) telegenic qualities must feel somewhat vindicated about having criticized Kaine's telegenic qualities (see 1/30 Blogometer). Expectations were fairly low for his response, given the criticism of Kaine that had gone before as well as the role's natural disadvantage coming after the SOTU, but bloggers didn't seem to cut him much slack because of it.

The "eyebrow" was a hit -- or at the very least, it was memorable. Searching Technorati for "kaine" and "eyebrow" at mid-a.m., we found dozens and dozens of posts since last night. There are 145 results, as VA bloggers such as Commonwealth Conservative have been well aware of his interesting eyebrow properties. Expose The Left, formerly The Political Teen, posted video featuring Tim Kaine's curiously raised eyebrow.

Lambert at liberal Corrente wasn't pleased with Kaine's address, particularly where he said: "Are the President's policies the best way to win the war on terror?" Asked Lambert: "Why the rhetorical question? Why dignify Bush with the title of 'President,' which he has thrown away by violating his oath to protect the Constitution? Why accept the formula for endless war embodied in the 'war on terror'?" But it wasn't a total loss: "Still, kudos to the Dems for putting Kaine forward after only 18 days in office; that was a risk, and the Dems need to take risks in learning how to win again."

Libertarian ex-DNC spokesperson Terry Michael: "It took just 15 seconds for Gov. Tim Kaine to begin pouring Religion Lite -- one of the new favorite brews of the consultant wing of the Democratic Party ... How about us social cultural lefties, who make up a big chunk of the Democratic Party base. Are we going to be turned on, and turned out on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, by another cheesy attempt to inject religion into politics?"

Blogging at Hugh Hewitt's site, conservative Mary Katherine Ham approvingly noted Kaine's openness about being religious, and imagined how the left would react: "I think he mentioned his faith a couple times in the speech, and even suggested that we "pray for healing." Crazy fundie. The fever-swampers are gonna be ticked off. Fundraising numbers will plummet! Kos will call for heads! Quick, get Howard Dean out there!"

Vodkapundit live-blogged it: "OK, I have a 2008 Election Drinking Game. Every time between now and then, take a shot every time a Democrat says 'there's a better way.' Your liver will give out long before the election. Maybe even before Kaine is done talking."

SHEEHAN: The Short-Timer

Antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan's arrest and removal from the House chamber prior to the speech was undoubtedly the biggest subplot to last night's speech. Brad Friedman of The Brad Blog was one of the 1st out of the gate with the news, not to mention the flashing-siren GIF swiped from Drudge Report. He kept adding updates throughout the p.m. as developments were available -- in effect, live-blogging the Sheehan arrest.

Early on, AP reported: "A Capitol police official reportedly said Sheehan had unfurled a banner, which is a violation of House rules." This proved wrong, but not before many bloggers became aware of it. Eventually reports were corrected to reflect the fact that it was Sheehan's shirt that was at issue. When that fact became known, there was outrage from mostly left-of-center bloggers, but some others as well. But for once since last summer, conservatives were not the clear majority blogging about Sheehan. Attytood's Will Bunch concedes that Sheehan has "said some wacky things in recent months that a majority of her otherwise allies on the left don't agree with. But nobody -- NOBODY, regardless of their politics or past statements -- should be arrested at a political event for wearing a T-shirt. When you have that type of policing, you're becoming a police state." Tennessee Guerilla Women: "Cindy Sheehan was being fingerprinted and booked for the crime of 'unlawful conduct.' Seriously, that was the charge. Can a crime get any broader or more ambiguous than that? Cindy Sheehan's actual crime was the wearing of the shirt," which TGW quotes: "'2,245 Dead -- How Many More??' You will note that this is a simple factual statement." With pictures, liberal Blogenlust identifies "acceptable" and "unacceptable" forms of SOTU protesting -- purple fingers, acceptable; Sheehan's T-shirt, unacceptable. Iconoclastic conservative John Cole, who is "second to no one" in his "disgust for" Sheehan, is upset that she was removed over her T-shirt: "It was one thing when I thought she was arrested for unfurling a banner in the Capitol or some sort of civil disobedience. But arrested for wearing a t-shirt? WTF?"

Despite Bunch's admission above, pointed criticism of Sheehan and her defenders' response did come all from the right -- Sheehan came at the invitation of Rep. Lynne Woolsey (D-CA), and Michelle Malkin pointed out that Woolsey is a supporter of antiwar org. Code Pink, adding: "Recall that Code Pink obtained 16 tickets -- reportedly from unidentified members of Congress from New York and California -- to last year's inaugural address, which they interrupted repeatedly with their screams and banner-unfurling antics." Steven Taylor of PoliBlog thinks Sheehan didn't act in her own PR interests: "I suppose there is some political capital to be generated from being arrested, especially in the House chamber right before the SOTU. Still, wouldn't it have been a far better bang for the buck, so to speak, to stay in the room, get on TV (global TV, mind you) and then be interviewed by the networks after the speech?" Drudge Report points out: "In the early days of the Senate's impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton in January 1999, a Pennsylvania man named Dave Delp was removed by the Capitol police from the Senate gallery for wearing a t-shirt that said, 'Clinton doesn't inhale, he sucks.'"

BLOGGER SURVEY: High Brow Critiques

New Media Strategies conducted a survey of SOTU reaction among bloggers. Click here to see the report as a Word document. Among the findings:

• Most conservatives "love" the line: "Second guessing is not a strategy."
• Some conservatives "cringe" at the line: "We hear claims that immigrants are somehow bad for the economy -- even though this economy could not function without them."
• Many liberal bloggers feel Bush's speech was just "More of the same."
• Specific liberal criticism "centers on a lack of a plan for Iraq and," as one put it, "bizarre and ridiculous" talk about cloning, embryos, and human-animal hybrids.
• Both sides make Cindy Sheehan "a top issue to rally around."
• And the "one unifying aspect of the evening" was the "focus" on VA Gov. Tim Kaine's (D) "left eyebrow." One blogger said it has a "mind of its own" (release, 2/1).

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Anyone Can Complain About The Officiating

Via a nonpartisan report on the cable newsers' broadcasting plans by TV Newser, then via an alert by lefty watchdog Media Matters, liberal powerhouse Daily Kos focused negative attention on CNN's plan to feature GOPers William Bennett, Victoria Clarke and J.C. Watts in their post-SOTU coverage. More, noting that CNN chair Walter Isaacson had met with GOPers re: improving relations: "Always working the refs, even as their domination of cable news becomes complete." NRO's Stephen Spruiell thought the outrage a bit ridiculous: "Right now I'm watching Anderson Cooper, Wolf Blitzer, David Gergen, Paul Begala, Jeff Greenfield and J.C. Watts. How is that a stacked deck?" TV Newser did mention all of those present; although conservatives might contend that CNN's nonpartisan pundits tilt left, Begala was the only known Dem listed as part of the team.

Conservative UNC-Chapel Hill prof Cori Dauber found Washington Post TV columnist Tom Shales' review amusing: "Some of the oddest responses to presidential speeches always come from Tom Shales, maybe because he has no background in presidential rhetoric, and so reads the whole thing exclusively through the lens of how it played as a TV-event." This time it's for his lead, which goes: "Whether George W. Bush is, at best, the worst president since Herbert Hoover -- as a seemingly sizable number of Americans appear to believe -- he acquitted himself fairly well and came off as basically competent when he delivered his fifth State of the Union speech last night." Dauber comments: "Don't you usually use the word 'whether' in order to construct sentences around a contrast? You know, like ... 'whether George Bush is the worst president blah blah blah -- or not?'"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Representin' Without Representation?

At local Gothamist franchise blog DCist, Martin Austermuhle questioned DC Mayor Anthony Williams' decision to attend the SOTU address year after year. "[G]iven that the District gives so much of itself to the federal government, it's only courtesy that the city's mayor be given a chance to sit in on one of Washington's most important nights. No one questions the invitation, but should they question the attendance?" Williams cites a close relationship with Bush and "would never not take the First Lady up on the invite, but should his successor?" Candidates vying to replace Williams "seemed somewhat taken aback by the question" when asked at a recent forum. But DCist continues: "If Congress does not act decisively on District voting rights this year, should next year's State of the Union address feature one less guest?"

LEST WE FORGET: Are We Having Fun Yet?

Expectations of SOTU dullness were high enough that there was no shortage of bloggers conducting their live-blogging in an unusual manner:

• Lefty Tbogg live-blogged his "not watching the state of the union": "6:15 PST - Waiting for a job applicant to show up so I can make her an offer. She calls: stuck in traffic. I offer to wait. 6:20 - Read ESPN.com. No interesting baseball news."
• Two Babes and a Brain did a highly irreverent, stream-of-conscious live-blog: "Look... Kerry is doing a cross word puzzel ... puzzle."
• Semi-retired OH blogger Tim Russo posted a SOTU-review-as-lost-"Seinfeld"-script to Brewed Fresh Daily.
• Liberal Parrotline live-blogged it as a "wingnut" -- that's the lefty term for conservatives, and roughly equivalent to "moonbat," the righty term for the left might. A sample: "6:37: YAAAAAAY!!!!! PATRIOT ACT!!!!!!!! WOOOO-HOOOOOO!!!!! 6:38: Oh. My. God. DEMS ARE TOTALLY ANTI-PATRIOTIC!!!!!"
• Conservative Jeff Goldstein live-blogged the proceedings as an "experiment in minimalism": "Laura in pink, like a birthday cake. Pelosi in Cardinal red power suit. Like Jezebel. Or the devil. Or a really old red thing." He continues: "Games begin: Hastert, portly; Cheney, virile; Bush, in pale blue tie and dark suit, notes the passing of Coretta Scott King." And: "Bush: State of the Union Strong."