February 07, 2006
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."
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.
Posted by at February 7, 2006 12:45 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.
