February 09, 2006
2/9: Leaning Tower Of FISA
A day after the King funeral flap, conversation in the blogosphere is mostly back to where it was before. The NSA wiretap story and Jyllands-Posten controversy are top subjects again, and after that there's a lot of little stories. None of them is anywhere near critical mass, but they do rate some mention: lobbyist Jack Abramoff's e-mails to the Washingtonian, Rep. Tom DeLay's new Approps cmte seat, U.N. Amb. John Bolton's Nobel nod, OH SEN candidate Paul Hackett's party switch, CNN's editing decisions, and the fight over cong. spending. Plus, our latest Blogger Spotlight.
EAVESDROPPING: Really, Who Doesn't Hate Paperwork?
Washington Post's Leonnig has an interesting report detailing the objections of FISA court justices to receiving info "tainted" by its acquisition through the controversial NSA wiretaps, subsequent anger when their requested safeguards were not followed, and the shared concerns of DoJ atty James Baker.
Although some critics have allowed that bypassing FISA may be unconstitutional, it is still illegal, Kevin Drum concludes: "Not just illegal, unconstitutional." 
The Left Coaster doesn't allege that Pres. Bush was spying on domestic opponents, as some have, but that possibility is left open: "The FISA court gave George Bush a virtual blank check on 9/12/01 to do 'terrorist surveillance' and yet, Bush decided to circumvent the court and violate the law. So, we're back to the question: who were they really spying on without warrants?" Left-leaning Gary Farber doesn't go in that direction, but sarcastically opines that we shouldn't ask questions: "Only a terrorist-loving terrorsymp liberal would want to do that. So I have no questions. Nope. Not me. I'm a loyal American." MO Dem consultant Roy Temple, on how backward it seems: "Interesting strategy the Bush administration has. First you wiretap people, and if you get anything incriminating, then you use that info to obtain a warrant. Just what the founding fathers had in mind, I'm sure. Just what the founding fathers had in mind, I'm sure."
On the right, FISA defender/GWU law prof Orin Kerr finds the story very interesting, but for now holds off adding much comment. Hugh Hewitt focuses on the fact that Clinton appointee Colleen Kollar-Kotelly "has been fashioning rules about the NSA program without appellate review or the input of other" judges: "This is an alarming detail, and not because the judge is a Clinton appointee with limited if any national security background. Rather, it is simply too much to ask of one judge to shape the intelligence gathering rules for the nation."
Kollar-Kotelly's also-concerned predecessor in the FISA role was Reagan appointee Royce Lamberth, who earned the enmity of Dems for approving multiple discovery motions by Judicial Watch when it was investigating then-Pres. Clinton. As Atrios puts it: "We should remember that Royce Lamberth was like the patron saint of wingnuttery during the '90s." But as the Washington Monthly pointed out in 10/01, Lamberth also held up FBI wiretaps pre-9/11 which "might have hampered electronic surveillance of terror groups."
>> Before the NSA hearings began on 2/6, Rick Moran of Right Wing Nut House argued that, per the Washington Post's scoop, finding "only" 10 or 20 terrorist suspects out of 5K people "caught in the digital dragnet" is pretty good. Neoliberal Mickey Kaus concurs: "Maybe the government's not casting its electronic net wide enough. I'd rather they go through 100,000 phone calls and identify 20 people. ... And if the ratio to justify 'probable cause' is really 'right for one out of every two guys,' as a 'government official who has studied the program closely" suggests to WaPo, that shows how wildly obsolete the Constitution's 'probable cause' requirement is when you're trying to catch not horse thieves in 1789 but people with weapons that can kill whole cities in 2006." Right-libertarian Instapundit follows up: "I don't think I'd go that far, but I'm not sure that what's going on here even constitutes a search or seizure. Bearing in mind, of course, that neither I nor the critics Mickey criticizes actually knows what's going on here."
JYLLANDS-POSTEN: Publish Or Perish ... Or Publish And Perish?
Per Memeorandum, one of the most-linked posts is at pro-Western Cairo blog Rantings of a Sand Monkey, which posts scans of the Egyptian paper Al Fagr to demonstrate that the controversial Muhammad cartoons ran even in the Arabic press in 10/05, shortly after they first ran in the Danish Jyllands-Posten. He argues that gov'ts fanned the flames intentionally: "The Saudi royal Family used it to distract its people from the outrage over the Hajj stampede. The Jordanian government used it to distract its people from their new minimum wage law demanded by their labor unions. The Syrian Government used it to create sectarian division in Lebanon and change the focus on the [Rafik] Harriri murder." More: "Guess we will have to Boycott Egypt now as well, huh?"
Some of this has been reported in the West. As conservative Stephen Spruiell observes, "The WSJ has done some great work here, and the NYT touched on this angle in one report today, but overall the involvement of Arab governments remains the under-covered aspect of this story." Philadelphia Inquirer blogger Daniel Rubin and Moderate Voice's Joe Gandelman have good roundups of other blog reaction from Muslims abroad.
Elsewhere, the discussion about cartoon violence has shifted from discussion of news and suspicion as to the root of the violence, and toward debate over whether the drawings should be re-published here. At NRO's The Corner, John Podhoretz defends the decisions not to print the cartoons: "I have no problem whatever with a media organization choosing not to publish the cartoons on the grounds that it is acting cautiously to ensure that its staffers don't get their heads bashed in overseas -- or because of fears that Islamic radicals here at home might choose to take a stand by taking a shot at somebody. These people are dangerous and it is meet and proper to exercise caution." Sometime Podhoretz adversary Andrew Sullivan agrees: "I just wish the MSM were honest about this and confessed that they are making a decision based on legitimate fear of violence against them. That would clarify things, at least. If the NYT can publish 'Piss-Christ"' and the Virgin Mary made out of dung, then it cannot logically claim to be a paper dedicated to respecting religious sensitivity." Taylor Marsh notes that the cartoons are widely posted online, and asks: "Is it courageous to print the cartoons at this point, seeing the violence they have unleashed? Or is it more courageous to decline to publish, in order to judiciously weigh the consequences of waving a red flag in a region where we are currently engaged in a serious war?" The American Street: "I don't buy the line that any editor is cowardly for avoiding republication of the cartoons. It is their job to weigh the benefits and to determine what is necessary to keep their readers well-informed, and to do so with an eye on the business realities of such decisions, as well." Right-leaning Rossputin argues that U.S. newspapers should not run the cartoons just to make a free speech argument; left-leaning Xark! makes a similar argument makes a different argument that arrives at the same conclusion. [Updated 2/14.]
John Hinderaker is one of many who responds to a Washington Post op-ed by Anne Applebaum, accusing the right-wing blogosphere of hypocrisy for supporting the Jyllands-Posten when they blamed Newsweek for rioting after its reporting on the Koran. "First ... we hardly let the Islamic rioters off the hook. Beyond that, there are some obvious differences between the two stories. Newsweek negligently printed an inflammatory factual claim that turned out to be false. Jyllands-Posten didn't." Captain's Quarters: "The right-wing blogosphere defends the freedom of the press to express opinions, when labeled as such, and to report facts when delivering news. It doesn't mean that people can't criticize either action when necessary."
The Reaction takes a "two-way street" approach in trying to understand the reaction. "I wonder how many of the protesters even know what they're protesting against, how many understand the concept of free political speech and the ironic detachment of the Western secularists they so loathe. But I wonder, too, whether we have any clue ourselves. We and they seem to be speaking radically different languages, but shouldn't we at least make a greater effort to understand theirs?"
ABRAMOFF: MAYBE HIS COMPUTER JUST DOESN'T HAVE FULL ASCII SUPPORT, DID YOU EVER THINK ABOUT THAT? HUH?
CAP's Think Progress has obtained the e-mails written by disgraced GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff to the Washingtonian's Kim Eisler. Abramoff claims to have met Bush "in almost a dozen settings," and was surprised that Bush said he didn't remember him. TP quotes Abramoff, who apparently wrote these e-mails in all caps: "HE HAS A GREAT MEMORY! THE GUY SAW ME IN ALMOST A DOZEN SETTINGS, AND JOKED WITH ME ABOUT A BUNCH OF THINGS, INCLUDING DETAILS OF MY KIDS. PERHAPS HE HAS FORGOTTEN EVERYTHING. WHO KNOWS." A commenter at liberal TalkLeft comments: "Corruption aside, I hope the Republican party can start fielding congressmen [sic] who don't write like 14-year-old girls."
Rep. Tom DeLay has landed a seat on the Approps. Cmte
At RedState, Balloon Juice's John Cole points out that while he doesn't like DeLay, nor can he let the AP's lead pass without comment. AP: "Indicted Rep. Tom DeLay, forced to step down as the No. 2 Republican in the House, scored a soft landing Wednesday as GOP leaders rewarded him with a coveted seat" on the cmte. Cole: "Tom DeLay was not 'rewarded' with a 'soft landing,' he simply reclaimed the seat on the Appropriations Committee that he vacated to become Majority Leader. ... I would think it is not too much to ask the press to get the story right and play things straight." On the left, DeLay's seating is more evidence the GOP isn't actually serious about cleaning up cong. corruption. The Democratic Daily: "Let me just preface this with WTF? There is no end to the finagling that this crowd of corrupt cronies do to show their loyalty to one of their kings of corruption..."
Cleveland Plain Dealer's Openers blog reported this week that OH SEN Dem candidate/Iraq vet Paul Hackett "apparently hasn't been a Democrat very long," taking GOP ballots in the 90s and picking up his 1st Dem ballot in the '04 primaries. The text of the Openers entry was posted in a diary at Daily Kos, where commenters were largely unmoved by the news. One early commenter pointed out: "There is no one more fanatical than a convert." Buckeye Senate Blog explains: "Hackett told me today that he voted in the Republican primaries a few times (for Judges)" but changed his mind about the GOP because of the Clinton impeachment. Previously, Pounder had accused the Brown camp of pushing this on the newspaper, eliciting an amused reply from the Plain Dealer's Sloat, who titled his follow-up: "It's called shoe leather." Columbus-based High and Broad summarizes, opines that Pounder "got faced," then points out an error in Sloat's post.
Captain's Quarter's Ed Morrissey backs Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey over Sen. Lincoln Chafee in the RI GOP SEN primary even though Chafee polls much better in the general: "The party needs to consider its post-Chafee options. Sinking tons of cash in a vain attempt to re-elect a Senator who rarely supports them when most needed seems almost masochistic, and actively attacking one of the few candidates that could one day replace him borders on the insane." More: "If Chafee was a lock for re-election, then perhaps the White House view should prevail, but if Chafee can't cut it in the general election, it's time to develop the bench."
BOLTON: Considering That Alfred Nobel Was The Inventor Of Dynamite, Isn't The Nod Appropriate, In An Inappropriately Ironic Way?
TPMCafe's Bolton Watch launched just in time, because UN Amb. John Bolton has just been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Steve Clemons explains why Swedish ex-dep. PM Per Ahlmark might have nominated him: "European Liberals are sometimes liberal, but mostly libertarian -- and tend to look at the United Nations as a corrupt, inefficient foe of individual liberty and thus something that should be shaken apart. Some of them anyway." He adds: "Bolton won't win. There would be a global uproar -- but I have to write more about this soon. It's just too fun." At Unfutz, Ed Fitzgerald points out that the Swedish Liberals are actually center-right, and explains that Bolton's nod is a suggestion -- "it's not a shortlist, or in any significant way official."
BLOGS VS. THE MSM: You Don't Have To Get Snippy About It
Header at Media watchdog Media Matters: "CNN spliced out standing ovation greeting Lowery's WMD remarks at King funeral." Rev. Joseph Lowery received an 23-second standing ovation when he mentioned the failure to find WMDs in Iraq, but when it was broadcast on "The Situation Room," the applause was snipped by 18 seconds. A commenter at Bopnews snarks: "I wish they had done that with the SOTU, I wouldn't have gotten so drunk and hoarse watching it." A commenter at Think Progress is too paranoid to snark: "This isn't just a question of bias. This is propaganda and government controlled media. I am scared and no longer proud of my country." Speak Speak News allows that time c: "I assume that CNN was just interested in saving time and that the deception was unintentional. However, they should put in a beep or something when shortening the middle of a video." Jimmie at The Sundries Shack is one of the few right-leaning bloggers to notice, and he doesn't see why anyone thinks the ovation would be news: "Like leftist religious figures giving leftist speeches in front of a largely leftist crowds don't routinely get standing ovations for digs at President Bush?"
SPENDING: Prick Up Your Earmarks
Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) writes in a New York Times [sub. req.] op-ed that "earmarking circumvents" the proper budget process, and the Approps Cmte "ensures that earmarks escape scrutiny by inserting them into conference reports, largely written behind closed doors." GOP-leaning QandO blames the GOP leadership: ""The obvious reason there has been an explosive growth in earmarks in the last decade" is because the "leadership hasn't exerted one bit of leadership in this regard, as simple as enforcing existing rules concerning this sort of practice. [House Speaker Denny] Hastert and [Senate Maj. Leader Bill] Frist have been AWOL." Dem-leaning Idealism Without Illusions thinks the whole earmark debate has been oversimplified, and pokes a few holes in the thinking of conservatives pursuing reform in this area. For one, he argues: "If the power to direct spending, to earmark, is taken from Congress, those earmarked funds would not go to offset the deficit, rather, they would go directly to the federal agency charged with overseeing the program out of which the earmarks have been removed. In other words, lets take the decision-making process out of the hands of elected officials and give it to bureaucrats." For those who don't have TimesSelect access, Austin Bay reprints the section where Flake explains the origin of the word.
N.Z. Bear of Truth Laid Bear got a tip from a "DC source," who tells him the House Approps Cmte staff leaked details of member requests to the AP. The source says the leak "included the total number and dollar size of earmark requests (e.g., 20 requests for a total of $50 million) for each individual member. ... I'm told that an AP story is being written about this but has not yet been published."
BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: DavidNYC State Of Mind
Today the Blogometer talks to DavidNYC, founder of the pro-Dem blog Swing State Project and a former front-page contributor to Daily Kos.
What is your full name?
I go by DavidNYC online.
What is your age?
28
Where did you grow up?
Believe it or not, New York City.
Where do you live now?
Washington, DC -- but headed back to NYC in May.
What is your occupation? Have you ever worked on a political campaign or for the mainstream media?
I'm a law student (soon to be an attorney, hopefully). I've worked on campaigns for Eliot Spitzer (twice) and Howard Dean. The closest I ever got to joining the mainstream media was taking classified ads for a local Long Island paper when I was a teenager.
When did you start blogging and why?
I created the Swing State Project in October of 2003. At the time, most people were focusing on the Democratic primaries. I said to myself, "We're going to have a nominee no matter what. What I want to know is, how will that guy -- whoever he is -- beat George Bush?" So I developed the SSP to look at the key swing states in the 2004 election. After the election, I started focusing on key races up and down the ballot throughout the country.
During 2005, I was also a front-page contributing editor at Daily Kos.
What has been your favorite post, or favorite story to write about, in that time?
In March of 2005, I wrote a post called "Let's Take This Open Seat on a Trial Run" at Daily Kos. Ohio's 2nd CD is incredibly conservative, but I thought, this is the perfect opportunity for Democrats to do some political R&D. In other words, when your odds of winning are so small, you can afford to take risks, experiment, be aggressive. Fortunately, we wound up with a fearless candidate (Paul Hackett) who was willing to do just that, and we came a lot closer to winning than I ever would have imagined. I had a lot of fun covering that race, both at Kos and the SSP.
Describe your typical blogging schedule. And what is your average output?
Being a student, I tend to have a fair amount of time between classes, which is when I usually write. I also write in the evenings at home. I try to put up at least one new post a day. Sometimes, when the muse strikes, I might write half a dozen or more.
Who is your favorite political blogger? Favorite non-political blogger?
Political: Billmon is the best pure writer out there. Though I often disagree with him sharply, I am always impressed with his intellect. Non-Political: Steve of The Sneeze. Totally hilarious!
Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?
Paul Krugman, for sure -- but I read him much less frequently now that the NYT has put him behind a subscription firewall.
What is your favorite television news program, either network or cable?
The only TV news I ever watch is NY1, a 24-hour local news channel in NYC. They put almost all other TV news to shame, despite being a local outfit. Pat Kiernan's "In the Papers" in the morning is the greatest!
What MSM-produced websites (i.e. newspapers, magazines) do you visit on a daily basis?
Mainly the NY Times &WSJ 's free content.
What non-MSM websites (i.e. blogs) do you visit on a daily basis?
Rather than mention all the big names, some of the smaller blogs I visit regularly are the Bluegrass Report, Dump Mike, Say No to Pombo and Take 19. I'm a big fan of local and especially single-district blogs. District Blogs is a great blog aggregator for the latter.
How often, or do you ever, read a newspaper in its dead-tree (i.e. print) form?
Very seldom, apart from (sadly) the freebie rag they hand out on the Metro.
How do you see the new media and old media affecting and influencing each other in the next five years?
In the traditional media, you have outlets like the New York Times and outlets like the New York Post. One is reputable, the other isn't, and everyone's figured out which is which by now. The same is true of the blogging world: You have Times-style blogs and Post-style blogs. Most bloggers try to verify what they post; some peddle in rumor. Most blogs are run by honest folks; some are run by paid shills.
My biggest concern, though, is that the traditional media will fail to distinguish between the two. I think we saw this happen in 2004 in South Dakota, where bloggers who were on campaign payrolls were wrongly treated as independent sources. When a story appears to originate in the blogosphere, traditional media reporters need to ask, "Is the source reputable? Is it a Times or a Post?" And if you can't answer in the affirmative, then pass on the story. This isn't always an easy question to answer, but one good place to start is the list of past winners of the Koufax Awards.
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Partisan Uses Of Bipartisanship
More Soft Money Hard Law's Bob Bauer, commenting on the McCain/Obama flap: "Bipartisanship has irresistible partisan appeal, when -- as in the Abramoff matter -- one party, the party in power, stands suspected of countenancing and conniving in corruption and naturally wishes to share the pain. This is a paradox of bipartisanship: its partisan uses." He singles out Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) for using it against Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) -- see 2/7 Blogometer -- and concludes, "in providing partisan cover for his party and no small measure of political benefit to himself, [McCain] demands control of the debate and of the process and questions the motives and personal ethics of colleagues with different views. By contrast, good, honest partisan disagreement -- and partisan accountability -- have rarely looked better."
LEST WE FORGET: Battle For The Small Screen White House
ABC News's Jake Tapper likes NBC's "West Wing" and ABC's "Commander in Chief." But as he explains at his ABC-sponsored blog, his favorite fictional leader of the free world is "24"'s Pres. Logan: "I haven't particularly found Jed Bartlet or MacKenzie Allen convincing. They're too idealistic, too Hollywood. ... Politics is a difficult, nasty business. It's exemplified by tough characters such as Al Gore, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Dick Cheney. To rise to the top in this field you need to know from compromise. You need to have dirt on your hands. President Charles Logan ... is this kind of man."
Posted by at February 9, 2006 12:56 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.
