February 28, 2006
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!"
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?"
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."
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.
Posted by at February 28, 2006 12:38 PM
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
