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."