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!"

IRAQ: Then Again ...

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?"

EAVESDROPPING: Litella, Esq.

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."

LEST WE FORGET: Danger Zone

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 12:38 PM

February 27, 2006

2/27: Deal Or No Deal?

It's a nat'l security trifecta today, as the fate of Iraq, a new FISA proposal and port security are all major stories.

After some good weekend news from Iraq, conservative bloggers are now heaping scorn upon the notion that Iraq could descend into civil war. But this came after some dark thoughts from last week about what civil war or partition would mean; most of the left reactions we saw were responses to conservatives' worries. Neither side is very happy with the new FISA plans, but for different reasons, and even though neither the left nor right is united on what the proposal actually means. Likewise, the port deal continues to confuse. From what we've seen, it's generally the case that conservatives approve whereas liberals do not -- yet a new poll showing strong opposition to the deal has The Corner worried -- and so might NR founder Bill Buckley's latest comment on the Iraq war.

Other than that, we've got Daily Kos lashing out at Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), questions about George Soros and Al Franken, skeptical takes of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's (R) weekend appearances, 2 scandals in the midwest -- one real and one fake, a Christopher Hitchens-led rally for Denmark, and your childhood (possibly second childhood) hero starts blogging.

PORT SECURITY: The Not-So-Perfect Storm

Pres. Bush's 45-day cooling-off period may have calmed some nerves, but it hasn't reduced its potency in the blogosphere. Liberal bloggers continue to find fault with Bush's handling of the situation, while conservatives are still listing reasons why it should go forward. Even so, a few on both sides note a recent opinion poll and argue the deal will either die or hurt Bush very badly:

Judd Legum at CAP's Think Progress argues that the compromise is "political, not substantive," arranged by the WH and not Dubai Ports World, wouldn't actually delay the sale, and if it did DPW might sue. He writes: "Reasonable people can disagree about whether it makes sense to have the UAE run operations at U.S. ports. But the proposed 'compromise' is fundamentally dishonest." The Carpetbagger Report doesn't think it will have the intended effect: "If the deal remains unpopular, Bush won't be able to rely on the "out of the loop" defense. His signature, with no congressional input, will make this deal happen. Politically, that's a real risk for the White House." David Sirota points out that OH SEN candidate Sherrod Brown (D) was the 1st to link the deal "to America's corporate-written free trade policy. Not surprisingly, Establishment spokesmen like Tom Friedman are desperately trying to distract attention from free trade's centrality in this scandal."

At NRO-hosted TKS, Jim Geraghty writes: "My friends, there is an organized disinformation campaign going on in the discussion of the Dubai Ports World deal. Draw whatever conclusions you wish about whether the deal is worthwhile, but please do not buy into these blatant misrepresentations, and please don't spread them in your discussions." He quotes Sens. Clinton and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Gov. Jon Corzine (D-NJ) and the DNC asserting that the U.S. would "turn over control" of the U.S. ports to the UAE, which he argues is a misrepresentation. INDC Journal's Bill Ardolino: "Is Democratic malfeasance worse than Republican hysteria? Probably. It's amusing watching 'tolerant liberal' politicians ideologically contort themselves and stoke irrational xenophobia and rational fear of terrorism into a National Security issue that attacks the President's right flank. Did I write 'amusing?' I meant 'depressing.' Maybe 'resignedly exasperating' would work best." Meanwhile, Sweetness & Light points out that the Nat'l Shipping Co. of Saudi Arabia "control[s] berths" at 9 U.S. ports including Baltimore, Houston, Pork Newark and Brooklyn. In the comments, a reader clarifies, "these ports are made up of many berths. For instance, in the Port of NY, the UAE might 'control' nine berths out of a couple of dozen. And yet the reports made it sound like they would control the entire port and its operation. So while the UAE may have control over a number of berths in Brooklyn, so might other companies, including the Saudi company."

But a Rasmussen poll shows that the public opposes the deal by 64% to 17%, and Cong. Dems now have a higher approval rating on nat'l security than Bush, by 43% to 41%. At The Corner, John Podhoretz writes: "The deal is dead. It won't survive after a 45-day extension or a 450-day extension. Congressional Republicans have no choice but to be extremely aggressive and nasty toward the president and the White House, because they will be properly terrified of looking like Bush's lapdogs on a hugely unpopular matter that goes to the heart of the Republican party's political advantage in the United States." A bit later, NR editor Rich Lowry added, "if Bush loses his edge on national security, he has nothing left."

Deal skeptic Mickey Kaus posits that if Bush vetoes the deal and Congress overrides it, that could be the best "logical Kabuki outcome for the GOP": "Congressional Republicans would get what they want -- which is a chance to demonstrate their independence from the President. Voters would get what they want -- which is not to worry about Dubai running American ports -- and they'd be more inclined to return the incumbent Republican majority. Meanwhile, Bush would show friendly Arab governments a willingness to risk his prestige to go to bat for them."

Seeing the Forest uses the port deal to make a separate point about Bush: "We invaded Iraq based on less evidence of al Queda and other terrorist ties than there is of UAE ties. Yet, the Bush crowd insists that we have nothing to worry about from handing control of our ports over to the UAE. Let me make this clear: I am NOT saying that UAE is a terrorist state, or even a terrorist-supporting state, I am pointing out the fear-mongering nonsense that Bush and the right spew for the lying, fear-mongering manipulative propaganda nonsense it is."

EAVESDROPPING: Across The Specter-um

As Washington Post's Babington reports, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) is introducing new language such that FISA will cover the ongoing NSA program. Bloggers of the left and right respond with opposing analyses, although there is some uncertainty on each side.

Rising star of the left blogosphere Glenn Greenwald writes it is "disorientingly bizarre to hear about a proposed law requiring FISA warrants for eavesdropping because we already have a law in place which does exactly that. It's called FISA." More: "What it does is authorize the entire warrantless eavesdropping program itself by directing the FISA court to approve of it every 45 days provided some extremely permissive criteria are met, and in the process, allows eavesdropping without case-by-case warrants."

But Confederate Yankee disagrees: "FISA does not cover this NSA program ... Glenn has never been able to get his head around the fact that FISA is not all-encompassing. After the confidential review of the program that silenced the majority of congressional Democrats and Republicans, Specter must have also ultimately come to the same conclusion that current FISA law does not apply to program of this nature." Conservative Orrin Judd, on Specter: "While it's helpful that he recognizes the program isn't covered by FISA, it's delusional of him to imagine that an act of Congress can cause it to be so covered."

DC atty Marty Lederman disagrees with Greenwald on the specifics. But like Greenwald, Lederman is not happy about it, as "it would bring the program "under the authority of the court" by providing statutory authorization for a program that is currently illegal." More: "It's not simply a a reenactment of the 'FISA framework' -- instead, it's a wholescale dismantling of that framework, a substantive amendment to FISA that would vastly increase the surveillance authority of the President." Lederman calls for the SCOTUS to review the program, and quick: So what's the alternative? How about this: A statute that facilitates prompt judicial review of the legality under current law of the NSA programs." Lederman adds the caveat that he's not entirely sure of his own analysis; no one on the left has objected, and while conservative bloggers obviously disagree, we haven't seen a direct refutation.

Back to Specter's plan itself, The Anonymous Liberal observes that "instead of having to demonstrate that probable cause exists on a warrant by warrant basis, the government would only have to demonstrate that there is probable cause to believe the program as a whole will intercept at least one communication involving a foreign power or agent of a foreign power or someone who has communicated with such a person. That's a comically weak standard, so weak that I doubt any conceivable surveillance program would fail to meet it, including dragnet-style data-mining programs." Kevin Drum notes that people who have communicated with someone who has communicated with an agent of a foreign power "certainly includes nearly all reporters and practically everyone with relatives outside the country."

Jane Hamsher: "We'll try to have some kind of Roots project action in Specter's back yard soon." For more on the left-blogosphere's "roots" project, see the 2/23 Blogometer and elsewhere in this edition.

IRAQ I: Getting Better All The Time?

As we'll get to a bit further down, the Iraq debate took a decidedly pessimistic turn late last week in the aftermath of the mosque bombing in Samarra. But now conservative bloggers believe the talk of "civil war" was premature:

The Astute Blogger notes a New York Times report about Sunni leaders agreeing to restart stalled talks on the new Iraqi gov't, and reacts: "Sheesh, that was the fastest descent into civil war and end of a civil war of all time! Or maybe the nattering nabobs of negativism who said that Iraq was declining into a civil war wrong!? Maybe they've been wrong all along? Maybe they just wished it were true?" Gateway Pundit posts wire excerpts and photos of peace rallies in Iraq, heading it: "Unity Protests Break Out in Basra, Mosul, Hillah, Al Kut, Karbala..." John Hawkins also surveyed news from around Iraq over the past weekend, found plenty of reports about Sunni/Shiite reconciliation, and went with the header: "Where's That Civil War In Iraq That The Media Was Promising?" He writes: "The war in Iraq hasn't been the picnic in a rose garden that the press and most of the Democrats seem to think it should be, but it has been largely successful and looks likely to remain so. We are on track to win in Iraq, and relatively soon."

Baghdad-based Iraq the Model posts updates, including corrections to exaggerated violence found in some news reports. TigerHawk argues that the Sunnis are finally realizing that they are not a majority and won't control the country again.

Kim Priestap at Wizbang contrasts this with the MSM's reaction -- "practically gleeful declarations of Iraq being on the brink of civil war" -- including the latest Time cover.

IRAQ II: Buckley-ing The System

National Review founder William F. Buckley writes in the latest issue, "One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed. ... Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans."

At Unclaimed Territory, Greenwald puts it side-by-side with similar comments made by DNC chair Howard Dean 12/05 which elicited condemnations from conservative bloggers. Greenwald: "These statements, made within a little over two months of each other, are almost identical. If anything, Buckley's statements are a much more emphatic declaration of defeat."

NR's Ramesh Ponnuru points out that Buckley "has been skeptical about the Iraq venture for some time," and that this is a "refinement and extension of Bill's position in response to new circumstances." Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey notes that Buckley's argument "highlights the difference" between so-called neocons and paleocons: "Bush 43 is not a conservative in foreign policy, at least since 9/11 taught him that genocidal tyrannies in Southwest Asia could produce immediate and existential threats to the American homeland. He has been much closer to Woodrow Wilson than his father or even Ronald Reagan in his reaction to the world." Mark Noonan at Blogs for Bush agrees: "Mr. Buckley was never a fan of liberating Iraq. From what I've gathered reading him over the past few years, Mr. Buckley seems a man who doesn't believe in a mission, as such, for the United States other than to look after its own, and only help out others as it fits in with strictly American interests. This is an intellectually valid position to hold ... but it is, for me, just a touch too cold." Bryan Preston of JunkYardBlog: "It's hard at this point to say that he's wrong. Even though he is. If Iraq spirals completely out of control, there will be a very strong temptation to write off the entire Islamic world as irredeemably backward and hopeless." He writes, Bush's "supporters will have to accept some version of the 'culture matters' argument. We will have to contain and destroy militant Islam directly, rather than letting its own contradictions destroy it from within while its more modern Islamic rivals destroy it naturally from without. That will be a cruel period in history. But there is not yet reason to give up hope altogether."

For Greenwald, these arguments fit into his theory -- much debated in the blogosphere (see 2/24 Blogometer for links to our coverage) -- that "when forced to choose between conservative principles or loyalty to Bush, Bush followers will expressly toss conservatism overboard and disclaim an association with its principles."

ReidBlog: "This had to be a tough editorial for the neocons at National Review to reprint, but they can't exactly say no to their spiritual father. ... They didn't feature the Buckley piece on the NRO web-site, of course. You have to do a search on the site to find it." Liberal Fallenmonk: "When you have lost William F. Buckley Jr. then the light at the end of the tunnel is the 12:40 from Topeka!" Bring It On!: "Get out your best dresses girls, the boys may be coming home!" Isen.blog: "Is this the 'Walter Cronkite moment' for the Iraq war? ... How much longer can the occupation last without the old right's support?"

Conservative Pejman Yousefzadeh, on partitioning Iraq: "One of the potential tragedies of the situation, of course, is that so many of the boundaries in the Middle East -- Iraq's included -- are artificial in nature, having been imposed by foreigners. There is not and should not be any real historical integrity in keeping these boundaries, and indeed, by abandoning them, we may be able to achieve greater stability. ... But if Iraq is allowed to split apart, it will inevitably be seen in the short run as a catastrophic failure on the part of the United States and all those involved in the reconstruction effort. And so, regardless of the long term benefits it may bring to allow Iraq to split apart, we are pretty much committed to keeping it together." Aziz Poonwalla thinks it would be a bad idea, and wouldn't necessarily stave off a civil war: "But worse, it would be tantamount to an acknowledgement that the base motivation for the Iraq war was never about freedom and democracy, but rather The Great Game redux. The result would be a true setback for the cause of what President Bush called in his State of the Union speech the 'calling of our time.'"

On 2/23, Vodkapundit's Stephen Green made a pessimistic argument for optimism in the case of civil war: "An Iraqi Civil War would be a disaster. Every bit of reconstruction, every small gesture of friendship between peoples and sects, every last chance of keeping Iraq viable and whole... well, that's probably all gone. ... If we're looking at an Islamic civil war, then vast numbers of good people will die, from Libya to Oman. Luckily, they won't have to be our people." More: "I'd like to think that the Middle East can do what the West did, without all the suffering. But if it takes regional fratricide, then so be it. Also on the plus side: a Middle East at war with itself would probably be too busy to wage war on us. Other than police actions to keep the oil flowing, we might finally be rid of the whole damn place." Liberal TBogg asks the question: "What happens when the 101st Fighting Keyboarders get bored with advocating American Brand(TM) freedom and democracy for the Middle East?" He quotes extensively from Green's post, as if an answer to his question. Athenae at First Draft finds the "our people" line especially chilling: "In another fifty years, we'll ask ... why do they hate us? Perhaps this is the answer, as well as the impetus for the question. They're not our people. They hate us and so we hate them and on and on, forever and ever. For Thine is the kingdom." Tim Dunlop compares Green's statement to Bush's line about "defeating the terrorists here in Iraq, so that we don't have to face them in our own country," adding: "So this is what the fiasco they have wrought boils down to: the probably forlorn hope that as long as lots of them are being killed, lots of us won't be." Robert Farley at Lawyers, Guns and Money takes issue with Green's claim that "Christianity was a violent religion until the Thirty Years War." Farley lists the wars and death tolls of Western wars since, and notes the rise of Naziism and Communism as evidence the West was still tolerated tyranny long after the war. Conservative Charlie Munn disagrees with a few points of Green's post. Green follows up, acknowledging Munn while dismissing TBogg et. al: "If only those on the left would do more than insult and inflame (but let's not inflame the Muslims!), then maybe they'd be an actual part of the national debate."

MIDTERMS: 1600 Pounds Of Gorilla

The Nation's Marc Cooper attended the David Horowitz-sponsored Restoration Weekend for conservatives in Phoenix, and reports back at The Notion that GOPers there were quite worried about the midterm elections. He quotes Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) on immigration: "I encourage Republicans to not repeat what happened in California in 1994 [with Prop. 187]. It works for one cycle and then you pay a price for a decade." And Club for Growth pres. Pat Toomey: "We have to acknowledge we have a President who is not popular ... The war in Iraq is the 800 lb. gorilla in the room and a major downturn could drown anything we do." Cooper adds: "By the way, I had a terrific time."

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas announces in a 2/25 post, "Hillary is in my spam folder": "That's it. Four fundraising emails in the last three days from the Hillary operation and that was it. I could unsubscribe, sure, but it's easier to add her address ... to my spam filter. She's got some stupid "contest" between the "Paul Begala Team" and the "James Carville Team" ... Hillary is in a fight? For 2008, perhaps. But it's absolutely clear that the GOP is not throwing everything at her. In fact, their efforts to find a candidate to challenge Clinton border on pathetic. Perhaps it's time for her to use some of that fundraising prowess to help out other Democrats? She's got $17 million and no real prospect of being seriously challenged."

IN THE STATES: Turn On Your Heartland, Let It Shine Wherever You Go

In the early p.m. on 2/24, Gov. Ernie Fletcher (R-KY) appointed 2 judges to be special justices on the KY Supreme Court, weeks before the court is about to hear arguments about corruption in Fletcher's admin. AG Greg Stumbo (D) wants the new justices to recuse themselves; the vacancies they are filling were created when the chief and another justice recused themselves from the case. In the mid-p.m. on 2/26, ex-Dem consultant and Bluegrass Report publisher Mark Nickolas filed a complaint with the state's jud. conduct commis. "asking them to forcibly recuse both men if they fail to do the right thing and honorably step-down on their own." In the linked blog entry, Nickolas posted his press release and the 6-page document in Microsoft Word format. Thoughts from Kansas: "The idea that he thought no one would notice or care is astounding." Nickolas updates this a.m. with more, including a comparison to the trial of Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX).

Rumors have been circulating lately that IA Sec/State and GOV candidate Chet Culver (D) briefly attended Drake Univ. law school, but dropped out due to poor grades, and went on to get a masters in education instead. Left-leaning Drew Miller called up the Culver campaign to hear their side, recounts the relatively mundane details, adding: "I don't think this is newsworthy. I'm just putting it out there so that, when it inevitably comes out, people will have the whole story instead of just the damaging parts." This post was prompted by an earlier one by the right-leaning Who's Makin' Bacon?, asking: "How important would it be to my fellow bloggers -- and my ones of readers -- in the upcoming election if they knew that one of candidates, say Nussle or Culver for example, flunked out of law school. Should that be an issue in the campaign?" The anonymous WMB editor adds: "I could have rushed a post" -- WMB links to a Miller post he indicates is doing that -- "but I didn't want to damage my credibility by being wrong. So I posted my question with the hopes of letting itself sort itself out. And now it has."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Oh, That Conservative Media

Lefty bloggers have been arguing as of late that the guest lineups on the Sunday shows are tilted toward the GOP. Now frequent Tim Russert critic Arianna Huffington points out that "Meet the Press" on 2/26 was more like "Meet the Republicans" -- the guests were Sen. John Warner (R-VA), Rep. Peter King (R-NY), and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA). Writes Huffington: "Perhaps the phone lines are down on the other side of the political divide. But I have to admit, it's not unenjoyable watching Republicans disagree, as their party continues to implode while being led by a lamer-by-the-day-duck President." Under the header "NBC Plays Pravda," Oliver Willis adds: "Even the old Soviet Union would have pretended a little better than that. Who knew GE would make Stalin seem like such a champion of media balance."

CALIFORNIA CABLE: Pumped Up Yet?

Left-leaning Joe Scott notes Schwarzenegger's "MTP" appearance as well as his speech at the CA GOP convo over the weekend: "On an ominous note, his biggest convention applause line was not about borrowing billions to rebuild the state's public works. It was mention of conservative Sen. Tom McClintock, his main GOP 2003 opponent in the recall campaign. That McClintock, a candidate for lieutenant governor, disagrees with Schwarzenegger on many policies demonstrates just how much the governor needs 80% of the party vote to win. The governor said he has it now, but ... Russert correctly said it is just 66%, to an inaudible reply."

NETROOTS: Beware Of Roving Bands Of Callers

At Daily Kos and Calling All Wingnuts, lefty activist Mike Stark proposes an "action" for 2/27. He declines to post it on the web, lest the details be too easily obtained by opponents, but he writes: "It will be an email action list of people willing to call and push an coordinated agenda on talk radio shows. I only need about 15-20 people per action, so don't feel like you are signing your life away ... you won't have to commit to every action." He adds, "if I had a list of 100 people and 20 could commit to an hour of hitting redial and waiting on hold, we could send shockwaves through the talk radio industry."

MISCELLANY: Getting Hitched

• In late Jan., Tom Blumer of OH-based Bizzy Blog asked: "Are Al Franken's ridiculously outsized earnings (including a LOT of money up-front) from a network that is funded by one guy a 'clever' way of circumventing campaign-finance law and underwriting a possible Franken run for the US Senate in Minnesota?" Now, he writes there and at MRC's NewsBusters, that the whole of Air America Radio's financing from investors such as George Soros is indistinguishable from "money laundering" to benefit Dem candidates: "So almost $22,000 a day ($8 million in losses spread over a year) is being funneled into AAR by George Soros and the gang to promote candidates they would otherwise be limited to donating some multiple of $2,100 to ... while at the same time giving these candidates air time and web site promotion to raise money from others."
• Christopher Hitchens' 2/24 pro-Denmark rally outside the Danish embassy, which was attended by Andrew Sullivan, Bill Kristol, Cliff May and numerous others. Pictures are available at Vodkapundit, Crossing Wall Street, and another site (whose name we can't repeat). Wonkette also posts pictures, and snarks: "Seriously, did you ever think you'd see these guys carrying signs around protesting shit? Is Thomas Friedman gonna write an op-ed mocking them now? Because these are the people who got together and officially declared protesting to be Ridiculous and Futile back in the go-go '90s, aren't they?"
• At the Club for Growth Blog, Andrew Roth points out the Beltway media's presence in the blogosphere (including us), and asks: "But what I'm wondering is where are Roll Call and The Hill? They should be in the blogosphere... and they should have be in yesterday. Customers looking for news coverage in the nation's capital are demanding real-time information so the blogosphere is ideally suited for these two newspapers. Ahead of the 2006 elections, they need to get with it and start offering blogs to their audiences. Times-a-wastin'."
• Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds was featured on the 2/26 episode of C-SPAN's "Q&A" with Brian Lamb. The transcript is here; video is also available on the show's website. He also had an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal about the UAE port deal on 2/25. In these appearances (and several times per day for weeks, if not months, now) Reynolds is promoting his forthcoming book, "An Army of Davids."
• Milwaukee Journal Sentinel ran a story on 2/26 about Sen. Russ Feingold's (D-WI) popularity in straw polls held at sites including Daily Kos and MyDD. The article quotes MyDD's Chris Bowers, GWU prof Carol Darr and RNC eCampaign dir. Patrick Ruffini.
• At MyDD, Jonathan Singer interviews MT SEN candidate Jon Tester (D).

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Gestalt Of Don Knotts

Conservative Danny "Jack Lewis" Carlton writes: "Don Knotts' career path -- from playing the "likable, average guy" in the '50s, to Barney Fife in the '60s, to "throw-away parts" in the '70s -- "illuminated our changing culture." He argues that by the '70s, the younger studio heads had lost the "general philosophies and world's view of the 50s" and "attempted to escape what they believed was a false world view, only to adopt a philosophy that was truly false, in the worst sense. They convinced themselves such illogical untruths as peace could be obtained by simply rejecting war; poverty could be eradicated by redistributing the wealth; violence could be ended by taking guns away from the law abiding; and morality was a meaningless concept useful only as individuals voluntarily chose it for themselves. The trouble with rejecting reality is that you then have to create your own. Thus during the seventies, when the 60s generation moved into positions of influence and power, we saw the rise of the perfect people. ... And thus the real Americans, the Don Knotts, were quietly pushed to out of view and the incestuous bubble of the Hollywood culture took on a life of its own, and began redefining who we are. ...When Don Knotts was cast as Ralph Furley in 'Three's Company,' he became the same character, but was portrayed as someone to avoid, to shun, to laugh at when he wasn't looking." More: "And now Barney is gone. The man we loved so much because in him we saw a glimpse of ourselves, but would never dare mention that to anyone."

LEST WE FORGET: U Can't Blog This

In a jarring, possibly space-time disrupting collision of early '90s culture and early '00s technology, it turns out that Stanley Burrell -- better known to the world as MC Hammer -- has been writing a blog of his own, the MC Hammer Blog. Started last week and updated almost entirely from his T-Mobile Sidekick, Hammer's blog is essentially a photoblog of being on the road with his family, meditations on faith, baseball and hip-hop, plus audio files and videos of recent performances. His comment section is open to all readers, but Hammer knows what he's doing: "Comments on my blog are most welcome, but please keep them related to the topics of my posts. I reserve the right to delete any that I consider inappropriate."

Posted by at 12:58 PM

February 24, 2006

2/24: The Dubai Brothers

Concern about the UAE port deal is waning, now that Pres. Bush has announced a temporary, length-unspecified cooling-off period. As we've noted before, concern about the actual deal has been on the wane since opposition was at near-unanimity earlier this week -- but that doesn't mean it's settled. Some insist the deal still should not go through and are upset at being labeled bigots. Some who support the deal still want Bush to explain himself better. The right is somewhat divided on the merits and the rhetoric; the left is somewhat amused by this and wonders whether port security can be a good political issue.

Meanwhile, a relatively small but activated group of (mostly) conservative bloggers are pursuing the long-dormant Able Danger story -- that is, participating in conf. calls with those challenging the DoD to investigate the program -- atty Mark Zaid and Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA). There's a harmonic convergence here -- Beltway players using bloggers to get their message out, and bloggers using them for access to info they wouldn't have otherwise.

The trouble in Iraq remains a big story, a move by the SD legis. to ban abortion is getting some nat'l attention, an employee of Rob Reiner's gets caught trolling on a critic's blog, and after that, this Friday edition pretty much descends into an mesmeric medley of miscellany.

PORT SECURITY: The Above Headline Refers To No One In Particular ... We Just Wanted To Be First To Go With That Pun

With the Dubai port deal on hold for the moment, some of the wind has gone out of the sails on this issue. But it remains the top story:

Left-of-center bloggers took great exception to Dep. Defense Sec. Gordon England's statement that controversy over the deal could benefit America's enemies: "They want us to become distrustful, they want us to become paranoid and isolationist." AMERICAblog comments: "Bush has spent the past five years making Americans paranoid for purely political reasons. Now, apparently, if Americans do worry about national security, they are aiding the enemy." A header at Hullabaloo echoes the sentiment: "Live By Demagoguery, Die By Demagoguery." Daily Kos' SusanG, with snark: "Got that, Tom DeLay? Mayor Bloomberg? The rest of you sissies? If we don't allow a country that sheltered Bin Laden access to our major ports, we're emboldening the terrorists!" England isn't the only admin. official whose words are getting parsed. The Liquid List quotes State Dept. Undersec Robert Joseph calling the UAE "a stalwart ally" in the war on terrorism, and Sec/State Condoleezza Rice last year putting them on a list of countries not doing enough to stop human trafficking.

The racialMickey Kaus chastises Bush and other conservatives for casting skeptics as bigots. He snarks: "Voters love being called racists when they have legitimate concerns! Too bad Bush couldn't have made his accusation from the stage at Bob Jones University." A skeptic himself, Kaus calls out Rice for saying: "We have to maintain a principle that it doesn't matter where in the world one of these purchases is coming from." Kaus rejoins: "Really? So it's perfectly all right if Iran, say, decides to go into the port operating business?" At Irish Pennants, syndie columnist Jack Kelly is disappointed with his fellow conservatives on this point: "Boiled down to its essence, the argument for opposing the deal is: Dubai Ports World is owned by Ayrabs, and it was Ayrabs who attacked us on 9/11. The rationale for rejecting the sale is comparable to one President Franklin Roosevelt used after Pearl Harbor for forcibly relocating Japanese Americans from the West Coast to concentration camps in the interior. Blocking the sale will no more help us win the war on terror than Roosevelt's concentration camps helped us win World War II."

Border hawk Michelle Malkin stands firm as a critic of the deal, and sounds almost like lefty Josh Marshall in her questioning of the process: "Many retreating politicians, pundits, and bloggers are all too eager to overlook the dubious business-as-usual approval process that supposedly vetted the deal's risks thoroughly." But not entirely: "The supporters of, and retreaters on, the deal are also silent about the unprecedented, Islamic law-compliant funding scheme that allowed state-owned Dubai Ports World to force its more experienced rival to drop its bid for P&O." As for Marshall himself, he hasn't brought the issue up since we quoted him on it in our last edition, and he's turned his focus to revelations that Rep. Don Young (R-AK) had closer ties to disgraced GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff than he had earlier claimed.

But a few other prominent conservatives are now coming around to support the deal, though they remain concerned that Bush hasn't done enough. Hugh Hewitt had strongly opposed the sale, but is now open to changing his mind: "The Administration was wise to call for a pause for persuasion. Good arguments win debates, and leave everyone better off, and there is zero downside to being persuaded when it is a national security issue. Interesting test case: Someone ask [VA Dem SEN] candidate James Webb what he thinks. If the former Reagan-era Secretary of the Navy gives a green light, the deal will be a go, and the Dems will know the spirit of Scoop Jackson lives." James Lileks is also backing off his initial reaction, but thinks the Bush admin. botched it: "The crafty response would have been to acknowledge the worries, assure a complete and total review and disclosure, and let the facts speak for themselves." Lorie Byrd is in the same boat, and hopes Bush will: "Hold a brief address to the American people and in it say that he is aware that there are many misconceptions about various issues currently in the news, admit that he has not done a good enough job communicating and say that to remedy that he will be addressing the American people more frequently and that he hopes the national networks will make the brief addresses available to their viewers live when they occur. I guess what I want is an updated version of the fireside chat."

Byrd's Polipundit colleague DJ Drummond sees 4 main groups of pols engaged in the debate: those favoring the deal, those opposed to it based on security issues, those opposed so they can score points, and those who "just love a fight." Drummond himself supports the deal, and places Senate Maj. Leader Bill Frist in the point-scoring category, along with other "low-life" GOPers with their eye on '08. Another disgusted with Frist is Mark Noonan from Blogs for Bush, who stands up for the POTUS: "I'm not the cleverest guy in the whole, wide world -- but I smelt the political rat here a mile off. I was unimpressed by the first tremors of this furor last week because, quite honestly, it didn't seem that big a deal. Who, after all, would think that an Executive Branch run by scourge-of-terrorism George Bush would do anything to allow terrorists a new foothold in the United States? It was too absurd to contemplate -- but not too absurd for the MSM... and, God help us, not too absurd for it to be used to roll the Congressional GOP." Macsmind agrees: "You can't argue with success. It's amazing but every time Bush says 'trust me,' the same group of snivelers -- snivel! From the left I expect it. From the right it's enough to make me hurl." On the other side of the issue, Rick Moran of Rightwing Nuthouse stands by his criticism of the deal, and hits back at his critics: "I don't like waking up in the morning and discovering that I'm an 'Islamophobe' or 'Un-American' for calling the Administration a bunch of rabbit heads for the way they've managed the unveiling of this idiocy. ... It bespeaks a certain kind of intellectual laziness when the best one can do to counter an argument is to indulge in an orgy of name calling and finger pointing." He adds: "What those of us who oppose this deal are criticizing is the way in which the decision was reached in the first place and that the decision has to be looked at in the much broader context of the cavalier way in which this Administration has handled some -- not all -- key homeland security issues." Nick Nordseth at The RCP Blog writes, "there is a strong opposition that will not be won over so easily on the merits of the agreement ... So far, though, it is the pundits who are doing the backtracking, not the President."

The Left Coaster sees a political opportunity for the Dems: "The Democrats will now have the opportunity they have lacked to turn Rove's boast on its head, and show voters this fall that it is they who have a post-9/11 view of the world, while it is the GOP that hasn't changed its spots at all: it was, and always has been a GOP priority for cash to trump national security. And it is on full display with this deal." Fairly well persuaded that the current Dubai deal is not itself a problem, left-leaners Matt Yglesias, Kevin Drum and Ed Kilgore want to "pivot" the debate toward the overall laxity of port security post-9/11. Writes Kilgore: "Some of you may recall that John Kerry talked about this a lot during the last presidential campaign, to little avail. But then he didn't have the kind of 'news hook' supplied by the Dubai lease controversy, right? And that's why it's important right now that we move as quickly as possible from that hook to the underlying vulnerability of our ports to the most critical threat post by terrorists: a nuclear 9/11."

Fed'l Ex-Fed'l Maritime Admin. head Helen Delich Bentley has said there are no security implications while ex-DHS Inspector Gen. Clark Kent Erwin writes in the New York Times that it does. Mark Kleiman, for Huffington Post: "A good reporter ought to be able to resolve this question with a day of phone calls and a day on site at one of the ports. Don't hold your breath."

Trying to guess where it goes from here, Tom Maguire's theory is that "Congress will prefer not to have the final say -- that would make them accountable for the result, which is never a Congressional objective."

IRAQ: We Wish To Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Avoiding Mosques With Our Families

Iraq the Model reports that Sadrite militias have seized Sunni mosques, particularly the Wahhabist ones, and are playing "Shia religious mourning songs from the mosque's loudspeakers." Conservative UNC-Chapel Hill prof Cori Dauber: "The situation in Iraq is just flat bad, and there's no point trying to sugar coat any of it. All we can do is wait and see how things break." She adds, "this current crisis might be easier to deal with if, during that one, Sadr had been dealt with in a more permanent manner. (Say, by having the original arrest warrant against him for murder served.) He always managed to back down at just the right moment to preserve his options and keep himself in play, and he's never been anything but an enormously destabilizing influence." Liberal Univ. of Michigan prof Juan Cole: "Sunni Arabs in Iraq blamed US troops for not protecting Sunni mosques and worshippers from violence. The US military ordered the US soldiers in Baghdad to stay in their barracks and not to circulate if it could be helped. This situation underlines how useless the American ground forces are in Iraq. They can't stop the guerrilla war and may be making it worse."

Publius Pundit: "For once it looks as if the Shia political leadership will have to decide if it wants a unified, cooperative, and peaceful Iraq. They will eventually have to accept that their position of power is on the wane, and how they continue to respond in the aftermath of the attack on the Golden Mosque will be an important barometer of this." As others have recently Arianna Huffington advises Dems to finally get behind Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA): "The time has come for Democrats to can the excuses and realpolitik maneuvering, and take the lead on getting our troops out of Iraq."

More commentary at Confederate Yankee; Desert Rat Democrat; The Heretik; Decision '08; Neo-Neocon; American Future; In From the Cold; MaxSpeak, You Listen!.

ABLE DANGER: Wag The Blog?

Just a few days after the last Able Danger conf. call (see 2/21 Blogometer), another was held last p.m., again organized by Mike Kasper of TOPDOG08 and the Able Danger Blog. On the call this time was Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA). Flopping Aces: "Lots was said, and we should have audio up in the next day or so but I will run down a few interesting tidbits. First, he needs any help any can get in keeping this story on the front burner. Contact your local representatives, your Senator, and your Congressman. Contact the press and let them know you feel this is an important story." AJ Strata: "Weldon noted that the DIA held an agency wide conference recently in Florida -- pulling many of their people in from their posts -- and a top level DIA person said one of the Agency's top priorities was to shut down the Able Danger story. Not terrorism -- Able Danger. I live and work in DC and that has got to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard."

The Jawa Report contributor Bluto accuses Washington Post online columnist William Arkin of "character assassination" against whistleblower/Lt. Col. Anthony Schaffer. Bluto notes the harrassment Schaffer claims he's received, adding: "I have a different perspective from Arkin. When I was a Federal employee, I had occasion to blow the whistle myself. Shaffer's testimony rings true. Every word. This is how bureaucrats cover their asses." Arkin's latest is based on the recent testimony of Defense Undersec. Stephen Cambone. But Pink Flamingo Bar & Grill questions Cambone's credibility: "Looks like Stephen Cambone has some splaining to do. Like why wouldn't he swear in for his testimony in front of the House Committee? Was he worried about being busted for lying under oath?" Rory O'Connor held a roundtable discussion with other Able Danger bloggers on WTVN in Columbus, OH; he makes the audio available in 5 segments as MP3s.

An unnamed source of Ed Morrissey's writes in to say that, at the recent hearings, 9/11 Commis. exec. dir. Phil Zelikow "was excoriated in his testimony during the closed session by the Representatives present. He was called a liar to his face." Morrissey: "If this is accurate, it appears that Congress has also found Zelikow's role to hold some interest in how Able Danger got buried. Perhaps more of this curiosity will be evident in the public hearings to come."

MIDTERMS: Charlie Wilson's War

State Sen. Charlie Wilson (D-OH) has failed to qualify for the primary election, collecting just 46 of thee 50 valid signatures required. At Swing State Project, DavidNYC considers other ways Wilson might get onto the ballot, and finds all of them lacking: "Wait until after the primary, then convince the winner to step aside and let Wilson take his/her slot. This might be legally permissible, but good luck making it work in practice. And any move like this will also surely garner negative media attention." Chris Bowers: "Frankly, I feel that if he can't win the primary as a write-in candidate now, then he has no business being the Democratic nominee in the district. A mistake of this level speaks of massive campaign incompetence that almost certainly would lead to his defeat in November."

ABORTION: Such A Rush(more)

The SD Senate has approved legislation that would "impos[e] some of the strictest limits on abortion in the nation," according to AP. Conservative Captain's Quarters interprets: "The primary aim of this bill isn't to outlaw abortions -- it's to challenge the Supreme Court on Roe v. Wade by presenting them with such a law so clearly at odds with the original decision that the court will have to explicitly review the ruling." He's not sure, however, that the new Roberts court will overturn Roe. Bring it On! sees silence among conservative bloggers on the issue, and suspects it's because of the impact overturning Roe would have on the GOP: "I firmly believe that countless conservative women would suddenly move away from the Republican agenda to stand solidly with the left to defend a woman's right to choose." Running Scared: "Oh yes.... elections do have consequences, whether they are decided openly and fairly or not. Buckle up, campers. It's going to be a bumpy ride." Oliver Willis looks ahead: "This will be an intriguing question that should be asked in the 2008 election: Do you support the imprisonment of doctors for up to five years for the alleged 'crime' of performing an abortion, as South Dakota's legislature demands?" Atrios: "Contrary to what seems to be received wisdom in Washington, a strong majority opposes overturning Roe v. Wade. Even more than that, lots of people who want abortion to be illegal in some abstract sense are usually rather reticent about saying just who should be punished and what the punishment should be. There's a tendency to equate "make it illegal" with "stopping it" without recognizing that there would actually have to be state-imposed prison terms for the law to have any bite."

Jane Hamsher blames NARAL and Planned Parenthood for losing ground on the abortion issue. "They sat back, bilked their membership like an ATM then didn't show up to fight Alito's confirmation, frolicking in their mountain of hoarded cash even as they pissed and moaned. Worse yet, afterwards they told their members to thank those in the Senate -- like Joe Lieberman -- who cast their votes to let this happen."

IN THE STATES: Arnold Got Run Over By A Reiner?

As AP reports, film dir./long-rumored CA GOV candidate Rob Reiner (D) is coming under fire for serving as chair of a state commis. while that very commis. has approved $23M to support his pro-pre-school init. Also of note is that Reiner's term has technically expired and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) could remove him, but has not done so. Non-Knick/non-ex-Sen. Bill Bradley of L.A. Weekly and New West Notes notes that he's been trying, without luck, to get in touch with Reiner. What he gets instead is an apparent Reiner employee, "Charlie," posting pro-Reiner messages in the comments section at NWN. Bradley: "'Charlie,' I asked you if you got it. You said you got it. But you don't get it. You are so busted." Hugh Hewitt comments: "Maybe Reiner needs a new team?"

Iraq war veteran/IA state Sen. Chuck Larson (R) is currently appearing in a TV spot featuring Iraq veterans supporting the war. The ad is running in MN, and funded by pro-GOP 527 PFA through MidwestHeroes.com and Families United. As covered at MN-based Power Line in recent days, DFL chair Brian Melendez has called for the ads to come down for allegedly being "un-American, untruthful and a lie." Iowa Bacon explains why this is trouble for Larson: "Several groups that are active in lobbying Larson at the legislature -- and would be interested in currying favors from the former chairman of the Republican party and chair of the Nussle campaign -- have contributed" to Families United. More: "It's uncertain whether they would be as eager to contribute if Larson didn't hold some sway in the statehouse. It's also uncertain whether Larson draws a salary for his work." Iowa Underground Blog calls on Larson to resign, explaining that it's "very simple -- either lobby or govern. It's not that difficult -- and one that Larson himself seems to notice by not running for re-election to his Senate seat this year."

WHITE HOUSE '08: Messing With Texas

Dallas Blog informs us that ex-VA Gov. Mark Warner (D) met with local party leaders and elected officials 2/23. "A number of those in attendance praised Warner's answers to specific questions put to him by some of Dallas's most savvy political activists. Others noted that such meetings were an indication of Warner's political acumen because Texas, although having a history of voting Republican in the last many general elections, is nevertheless a major player in securing the Democratic nomination, with a national convention delegate strength exceeded by only a few other states."

MISCELLANY: Message Disciplinarians

• At Whatever Already, National Journal contributor Murray Waas notes that Senate Intel Cmte ranking Dem Jay Rockefeller has sent a letter to DNI John Negroponte charging that the Bush admin. "authorized" leaks of classified info to Washington Post's Bob Woodward for his '02 book "Bush at War." Rockefeller thinks this may have been done for political purposes and that it might have damaged nat'l security. Think Progress posts the letter [PDF].
• Tom Maguire fires the latest missive in the Glenn Greenwald-launched debate over whether mere opposition to certain Bush policies is enough to get one labeled a liberal by the Bush "cult" -- see 2/14, 2/17 and 2/22 Blogometers. Maguire seizes on this Greenwald line: "Tom ... exhibit[s] a good amount of intellectual cowardice by purposely refusing to say whether they actually dispute the existence of this phenomenon or whether they simply think that I provided insufficiently clear examples of it." Maguire: "[D]on't you have to love a guy who thinks it is intellectual cowardice to hold off on forming an opinion until facts are presented?" Maguire also indicates that he doesn't think Greenwald's latest examples amount to much, either.
• Matt Stoller points out that while bloggers in general were covering the mosque bombing in Samarra and the "brewing civil war" in Iraq, the blog at GOP.com focused on a report about a modest improvement in mail delivery. A veteran of the Jon Corzine GOV campaign, he explains: "Having been in a blogger capacity in a few organizations where the communications department ran the show, I can tell you a few things happen during a panic situation. In organizations like the RNC where the internet department has little clout, the blog gets silent. The message hasn't been built yet, and it's very clear that the stakes are too high for some random junior staffer to say a little something like they usually do. That's what it looks like is happening right now at GOP.com. They don't know how to respond to the port fiasco and the brewing Civil War in Iraq. And they are not even allowed to change the subject, probably because the Communications shop is too busy to even approve any new post even though it's been a day since they put anything up." In contrast, Tim Tagaris at the official DNC blog is able to stay on-message and on-topic, running with the header: "An Apocalyptic Day In Iraq -- An Out Of Touch Administration."
• Brad Friedman, a tireless monitor of voting technology controversies -- including Diebold's legal and corporate setbacks -- since the '04 election, calls attention to an AP report about Sequoia voting machines in Palm Beach, FL, recorded 100K "reboots" and re-calibrations during their time in use.
• At RedState, Mike Krempasky calls attention to the fact that the FEC will hold its final vote on new rulemaking for Internet political activity (see 6/30 Blogometer).
• For MyDD, Jonathan Singer interviewed Hennepin Co. DA/MN SEN candidate Amy Klobuchar (D).

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Even In The Blog Era, There's Still A Limited Number Of People Who Care About Politics

Programmer Tristan Louis has posted a blog trend study titled Technorati 100 Here Today Gone Tomorrow. He compares the Technorati Top 100 blogs (by links) for now to the top 100 from 9 months ago. Tech-oriented blog Boing Boing remains #1, but the 99 other places have changed. Notably, political blogs no longer dominate the top end; only Daily Kos remains in the top 10; Instapundit has fallen to #12. It's not that these blogs are losing traffic -- generally, they are growing -- but that they are being replaced by faster-growing non-political blogs such as PostSecret. But a few political blogs are bucking the trend: relative newcomer Michelle Malkin has risen to #10 overall, and less than a year after its debut, Huffington Post is #6.

LEST WE FORGET: Not-So-Grand Rounds

It's a Friday guess-who's-in-our bookmarks edition:

• Boing Boing addresses voluntary disemvowelment.
• Fafblog on mirage pie.
• Iowahawk dabbles in Onion-style fake news: "Bush Inks Irish Firm To Guard National Whiskey Reserve."
• Faux right-winger Jesus' General reviews a David Horowitz book on left-wing professors: "Mr. Horowitz failed to mention the mind control this professor exercised over students like me. That's the most important part of the story. I can't give the book more than one star."
• At Blowing Smoke, Jim Treacher posted a President's Day round-up of one-line reactions to Hollywood movies featuring fictional U.S. presidents.
• Steve at The Sneeze, points out that "Tired, Fat, Spent" is an anagram for "William Howard Taft," as well as other fat Taft tidbits.

Posted by at 12:20 PM

February 23, 2006

2/23: Parallel Port Confusion

The sale of 6 major U.S. ports to the U.A.E.-owned company Dubai Ports World continues to dominate much of the blogospheric debate today. As we noted 2/22, momentum was shifting from blanket disapproval toward greater acceptance. This movement was generally led by the intellectual right, and the intellectual left soon found itself in guarded agreement -- the deal wasn't as bad as it first seemed. The more partisan wings of the left and right, roughly speaking, have continued either to oppose the deal or are shifting to oppose it on other grounds. But most everyone knows the facts are not yet fully known -- especially after the last couple days.

Dividing bloggers into particular camps is not easy, but let's try. On the right, we have: Those whose initial concerns have now been assuaged, those who are still opposed to the sale and questioning those who have changed their minds, and a hard-to-nail-down middle ground who are open to the plan but still have serious questions. On the left, we have: Those who favor or are neutral on the sale itself and are moving to other questions about port security, and those who are still opposed to the sale, and are also asking other questions. In our coverage, we don't put every blogger in one category or another, but we do try to arrange the bloggers of the left and right into a spectrum of opinion, for and against.

The 2nd biggest story today is the destruction of the Askariya shrine, or Golden Mosque, in Samarra, Iraq. The buzz phrase is "civil war," with most on the left asserting it's now here (if it wasn't already), while the right tries to stay optimistic and wonders why there isn't more anger in the wider Muslim world.

We also cover a tiny bit of Plamegate, a close call for Justice Antonin Scalia, the early planning stages of a new project by left-leaning bloggers, and if that wasn't enough, there's also our latest Blogger Spotlight.

PORT SECURITY I: Not A Tort, Nor A Matter Of Court -- But A ... Short Snort Thwart A Quart ... Nope, Nothing. [Updated]

There's plenty of reaction to an AP report about a "secret" deal between the U.S. and U.A.E. -- Conservative Poliblog asks: "My first question is: 'secretive' in the sense that negotiations weren't held live on TV, or 'secretive' in the sense that it wasn't common knowledge? ... This is one of those deals were the lede sets the tone and one wonders the degree to which the author of the piece was seeking a particular tone." Fellow right-leaner Outside the Beltway concurs, but finds that worrisome as well: "Further, we are not given any indication of what type of "cooperation" is being promised by Dubai. ... If the "cooperation" is limited to what is described in the piece, then it strikes me -- as a casual observer with nearly zero knowledge about port administration prior to this news coming out -- as a bad deal. Why give concessions in exchange for ordinary compliance with U.S. laws?" Meanwhile, liberal Lambert at Corrente has an alternate explanation for the exceptions granted in the deal: "Look. There's only one reason Bush is putting this operation outside US law, and that's that what he's doing would break the law inside the US. Just like Gitmo, Bagram AFB, etc. That spells torture."

How did we get here? Jim Geraghty at NRO's TKS bemoans the confused reax: "My fellow bloggers ... we've been snookered. ... Sad to say, some of my favorite bloggers used language that was vague, unclear, and helped foster misconceptions." He cites Instapundit and Little Green Footballs -- and he includes liberal blogs, presumably not among his favorites. And of the New York Post he writes, "I'm generally a big fan ... but the way this story arranges the facts appears to be some pretty blatant scaremongering." At CBS's Public Eye, Hillary Profita concurs: "Geraghty has a point, the confusion that this story has wrought is not to be blamed solely on the hyperbolic nature of bloggers. ... More and more, the media we consume is noted by its brevity -- which makes stories that are considerably complex even more difficult to tell -- and why it becomes so easy for mis