February 02, 2006
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.
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).
Posted by at February 2, 2006 12:35 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.
