March 2006 Archives
Today's hottest topic is the release of freelance journalist Jill Carroll, perhaps because the story features a convergance of some of bloggers' favorite pastimes: debating success in Iraq; discussing the Muslim culture divide; and bashing MSM outlets. Some on the right became suspicious and downright hostile toward Carroll after hearing her speak well of her captors, and even after seeing her wardrobe. Others on the right and most on the left react with joy, followed by shock at the way the right was reacting.
Elsewhere, there's some follow-up on Mohammed cartoon front, with a movement afoot to pressure Borders into carrying a magazine that features said images. Also, a new story in National Journal raises our Plame antennae. And, what's this about anniversaries?
CARROLL: Welcome Home?
Early on, news of Jill Carroll's release was welcomed with relief, and perhaps excitement that her captors realized their tactics weren't working. Guest blogging for Michelle Malkin, Allahpundit calls it "Excellent news." Nathan Goulding: "Whatever the real reason for her release, one thing is clear: This is a victory. Whether her captors feared for their lives, or whether they simply saw the pointlessness of their despicable actions, they gave up." Stop The ACLU: "Details of why she was released are unknown, but the main thing is that she is alive and healthy. We wish the best for her and her family!"
But as video footage was released, sentiment on the right began to change. Little Green Footballs tries to dissect the Carroll tapes. "Note that even after her release, Carroll maintained that she had been treated well by her captors -- so it would appear that this journalist for the Christian Science Monitor made these anti-American comments voluntarily."  Allahpundit updates: "In fairness to Carroll, a lot of people would say a lot of things they didn't mean in those circumstances. Let's see whether she defends it now. Assuming, that is, that anyone in the media bothers to ask her." But Debbie Schlussel doesn't think these comments were pressured: "Why are so many people who claim to be patriotic Americans so overjoyed that Jill Carroll was freed, yet hardly a peep when American contractors and others were freed? ... Maybe it had something to do with the fact that she HATES AMERICA and our Mid-East policy. And, oh yeah, she HATES ISRAEL, too." Jonah Goldberg: "It would be nice to hear her say something remotely critical of her captors, particularly about the fact that they murdered her translator in cold blood. I'm very glad she's alive, but I'm getting a very bad vibe." Also at The Corner, John Podehertz writes: "It's wonderful that she's free, but after watching someone who was a hostage for three months say on television she was well-treated because she wasn't beaten or killed -- while being dressed in the garb of a modest Muslim woman rather than the non-Muslim woman she actually is -- I expect there will be some Stockholm Syndrome talk in the coming days." UNCoRRELATED: "Apparently the insurgents are realizing the American left are their allies in restoring the glorious regime of Saddam Hussein."
The Counterterrorism Blog: "Her future writings are going to tell the world more about the reasons behind the kidnapping." JAWA Report: "It's quite sickening some of the answers she gives, but understandable under the circumstances. But, before you accuse Jill of being a victim of Stockholm Syndrome, keep in mind that she was under duress." John Hinderaker directs his ire at the media: "To anyone who saw the videos in which she pleaded for her life, her mental distress was obvious. ... No doubt, in saying that she had been 'well treated,' Ms. Carroll was mostly trying to assure her friends and family that her physical condition was OK. That's obviously appropriate. But let's not encourage a lot of warm feelings toward the murderous thugs who kidnapped Carroll, shot her translator, and may well have received a ransom to let her go."
The left is a bit surprised at all the fuss. Firedoglake: "The woman has been free for less than a day, and the wingnut attack brigade has already geared up to paint her as being mental." Judd at ThinkProgress: "It is totally inappropriate to assume that her description of how she was treated is motivated by anything other than a desire to tell the truth." A New World: "It's as if these people expected her to throw on some fatigues and wrap herself in a mission accomplished banner."
BUSH: Roving Reporter
Once again, National Journal's Murray Waas has a story involving Karl Rove and the WMD debate. Waas' latest story spurs a blogswarm about the Valerie Plame affair. Waas reports: Rove warned WH staff that if it were disclosed that Bush had been told that some of his pre-Iraq evidence may not be legitimate, it would hurt the pres' re-election hopes. The aluminum tubes SOTU claim was found to be on shaky ground after a review of intelligence by now-NSA Stephen Hadley. Josh Marshall adds: "While I and reporters from CBS were working on this story through 2004 it was clear that folks on the Hill would agree to talk and then suddenly un-agree when they got the call from the White House. The White House worked doggedly at almost every turn to get the story killed or delayed beyond the election, which they of course did." And Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) writes at Huffington Post that he wants the Hadley memo released.
Steve Soto: "Eriposte has already reported here at TLC that Bush was told about concerns within his own administration about the 'tubes=centrifuges' assertions months ago." He adds: "Democrats need to focus on Bush's declaration to Congress and show that Bush knowingly lied to Congress to start the war in March 2003." The Next Hurrah: "Thanks to Waas, we now know that in October 2002, a briefer came in and said, 'Mr. President, you're making claims the Intelligence Community doesn't agree on.'" Joe Gandelman: "Each week there seems a new entry in the drip-drip-drip of stories that are virtual cautionary notes to take assertions from this administration with a big chunk of salt."
But Legal Fiction has a hard time believing the story will have an impact. "If this story actually did change anyone's mind, it's going to be hard for me to take that person seriously. If it's taken you until spring of 2006 to come around on the nuclear program, well, I'm sorry, but you've got problems. ... Of course, there's something to be said for punishing the conduct of so casually disregarding the lives of our soldiers and their families that you can't tell them the truth about the threat they're so bravely willing to die to protect us against. But again, what's the point? It's not going to change anything about Iraq." Norwegianity: "Someday Fitzgerald will get to go to trial and when he does George Bush had best pray there won't be a Democratic Congress in place to start impeachment hearings."
JYLLANDS-POSTEN: Closing The Borders
As we reported yesterday, a decision by a large bookselling chain not to carry the 4-5/06 issue of Free Inquiry Magazine because it portrays cartoons that inspired violent riots throughout the Muslim world has consumed the conservative blogosphere. The bookseller claimed they wouldn't carry the magazine because the safety and security of the company's employees and customers might be threatened. The Bidinotto Blog, in an open letter to Borders and their affiliate, Waldenbooks, sums up the feelings of just about every blogger out there: "Your company's craven policy of capitulation in the face of the mere hypothetical threat of terrorism is absolutely appalling -- a complete moral abdication that only encourages those threatening our rights and liberties." Little Green Footballs has become the clearinghouse for bloggers writing about the matter, and the site publishes a letter from a Borders employee who reveals more about the company's perceived fear of angering the Muslim community. Infidel Bloggers Alliance comments on the letter. INDC: "It's one thing to cave in to threats to save your own skin. Though not particularly noble, it's at least understandable. But to cave in when there's a distinct lack of violence in the area in question, now that takes a pretty amazing lack of intenstinal fortitude to pull off." Others commenting on the matter: John In Carolina, American Thinker, Ed Driscoll, Dynamist Blog, Clayton Cramer, Dean's World, Andrew Sullivan, Samizdata, American Diva and Tim Blair.
Kesher Talk reveals that Barnes & Noble may be the next chain to refuse the magazine. PSoTD is one lefty blog that defends Borders' actions, and thinks even Free Inquiry will come out on top: "Borders has given Free Inquiry magazine more promotion than they probably get in a year with this action, so more good than harm has come to them as well." Gates of Vienna notes that Borders has just signed a deal to open stores in -- where else? -- the UAE.
SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: The Hundred-Year Law
MA's high court ruled 3/30 that same-sex couples from other states cannot travel to MA to legally get married. CBS News reports. Magpie offers a comprehensive breakdown of the two 6-1 decisions handed down by the court, which apparently hinged on a 1913 law about marriage reciprocity with other states. Suburban Guerilla questions that '13 law. Indiana Law Blog is the post for aspiring attys to read. Lefty Pam's House Blend calls it "a blow to civil equality for now."
DEMOCRATS: Turned Upside Down
Expose the Left has video of Pelosi holding a "Real Security" sign upside down. California Conservative: "We're feeling safer already."
Meanwhile, Captain's Quarters continues dissecting Dems' nat'l security plan, saying they'd "starve the National Security Agency in a fit of pique over the work performed by the agency in terrorist surveillance."
IN THE STATES: King Barack In The Connecticut Yankees' Court
Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) keynoted the CT Jefferson Jackson Bailey dinner 3/30 and loaned some support to Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT), who's facing a primary challenge from businessman Ned Lamont (D). The Hartford Courant reports. Atrios notes that one of Obama's speechwriters may have thrown a little jab at Lieberman in Obama's speech. California Yankee notes the audience's less-than-ecstatic response to Lieberman's speech. And The Agonist is disappointed in Obama for his support of Lieberman.
WashingtonPost.com's Cillizzareports that VA Sen candidate/ex-Navy Sec./ex-GOPer James Webb (D) has thus far "assiduously courted the liberal blogosphere." Cillizza calls Webb the first candidate with backing from the Netroots with a chance to win, and that got some on the left reminding Cillizza of the roles played by bloggers in other races. The Agonist sums up.
The VA Sen race continues to get a lot of blogger attention, as MyDD's Jonathan Singer sat down for an interview with lobbyist/Dem activist Harris Miller (D) earlier this week.
CONGRESS: Reconsidering
Captain's Quarters notes that folks on Capitol Hill are starting to have second thoughts about changes made at the behest of the 9/11 Commission. The House Intel Cmte is threatening to withhold funding until NID John Negroponte can justify increases in staff, etc. "Anyone who looked at this document with any careful scrutiny could see that the solution promised more bureaucracy and never addressed the real issues in communication and coordination. We had ten people on this panel who represented bureaucracies their entire lives; when one only owns a hammer, every problem looks like a nail, and this is a perfect example of that wise proverb."
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Happy Birthday, Mr. Blogometer...
Yesterday marked the 1st birthday of The Hotline's Blogometer. It's healthy, walking on two feet and eating solid foods now, but it's still not sleeping through the night. Come to think of it, it might never. If you feel nostalgic, check out the very first edition. Seriously, we hope you've enjoyed the first year of what we once called "an experiment," our attempt to condense the entire blogosphere into something you can read. A particular note of thanks to the recently-departed William Beutler, who got us off the ground.
On a similar note, happy 2nd birthday to Air America Radio, the popcorn for liberals, the fodder for conservatives, and the vehicle for Al Franken's '08 MN Sen bid. DailyKos pays tribute.
LEST WE FORGET: Three-Stage High-Five
For those of you who remember the simple joys of making Walter Payton burst through a hole while avoiding diving tacklers, then rushing the quarterback with Mike Singletary -- yes, we're talking about Tecmo Bowl -- we've got a website for you. Console Classix offers just about every original Nintendo game we can remember, all for free. It's a great way to waste an afternoon. Or several. And while none of us are from Chicago, you all know the Bears were the best team in that game.
And this? This is just strange.
NOTES AND ERRATA
In the FISA section of our 3/30 edition, we identified Kevin Drum as a righty. He assures us that he's still "planted firmly on the left."
Questions, comments, reservations? Drop us a line at blogometer@nationaljournal.com.
Bloggers can be bitter, and today's edition is chock full of "I told you so" references to predictions they made months ago over warrantless wiretapping. Also, a blogger gets booted from a top blog, and he wants to know why. And finally, still no dap from the MSM as more bloggers come forward claiming their material has been lifted by the AP and others without so much as a hat tip.
Elsewhere, Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) found herself in a Cheney-like blogswarm after punching a Capitol Police officer. The left, meanwhile, slams a CA-50 candidate for misrepresenting a photo that he claimed showed a tranquil Baghdad. And there's some debate about Dems' new nat'l security strategy.
EAVESDROPPING: That Clicking Sound Is Just The Microphone, We Assure You
Yesterday's testimony by five former FISA judges before the Senate Jud Cmte sparked a considerable flare-up in the ongoing debate over Pres. Bush's wiretapping program. The debate starts with MSM coverage of the matter, as many noted the discrepancy in tones between articles reporting testimony from the Washington Times and the New York Times. Power Line is first among them: "New York Times reporter Eric Lichtblau has a considerable career investment (and, I suspect, an ideological investment as well) in the idea that the NSA program is illegal." Power Line also links to a full transcript of the hearing. Captain Ed calls the NYT's story a "serious misrepresentation." Confederate Yankee, Jeff Gannon, Don Surber, NRO's Media Blog, JustOneMinute, ProteinWisdom, AJ Strata, Macsmind.
Commentary on the right about the actual testimony comes complete with much back-patting. Everyone, it seems, predicted exactly what the FISA judges would say several months ago. Confederate Yankee goes with the Washington Times' version and thinks the FISA judges came down on Bush's side. Don Surber agrees, and takes this message away from the hearings: "What the president did was perfectly legal." Captain Ed takes a slightly different view: "The judges confirm that the matter is far from settled, and in fact told Congress that they don't have the jurisdiction to make the judgment." Moderate Charging RINO thinks the judges didn't absolve the admin of anything: "I continue to see no compelling evidence that end-running FISA is necessarily the best way to get the job done." Kevin Drum observes, of Judge Harold Baker's assertion that the pres. is bound to follow the law "like everyone else": "Bound by the law like anyone else?!? That's treason talk."
From the left, yesterday's testimony sparked renewed interest in Sen. Russ Feingold's (D-WI) push to censure Bush. Huffington Post's Cenk Uygur, questioning attacks on Feingold as acting for political purposes: "Is there anything more brazenly political than the way President Bush has used 9/11 as a bludgeoning stick against his political opponents?" AMERICAblog hints at censure, or more: "Congress can't and won't deal with the simple fact that Bush broke the law. To paraphrase Judge Baker, since the president ignored the law, he should be in legal peril." The Heretik focused on the five jurists' testimony: "From the secret court comes news the judges will not secrete themselves away. It's no secret the secret judges are more than a little annoyed with the way George Bush has turned national security into a secret club and they're not in. So they are out in public talking about things George Bush doesn't want talked about at all." The Carpetbagger Report shakes his head: "I know it's pre-9/11 thinking to believe the president is bound by the law 'like everyone else,' but maybe there are still a few members of the Senate who are inclined to agree." Decision '08 reports on two competing pieces of legislation that "are battling it out to see which will be the first to explicitly legalize Bush's NSA surveillance." Finally, Ron Coleman notes the long and involved history of one of the judges who testified yesterday, Allan Kornblum, who's described in some news accounts as the "author" of the original FISA law back in '78.
IRAQ: Vacation Photos From Iraq? Did You Not See Our Travel Warning? Yesterday?
Daily Kos exposes CA-50 candidate Howard Kaloogian (R) who claimed to be telling "the truth" about Iraq. Well, if by Iraq he meant Turkey, then yes. TPM Muckraker has his explanation: "We turned all the photographs [from the trip] over to the webmaster, and it appears he took one from the stopover and not from Baghdad. If a mistake happened, we'll correct it." Talking Points Memo then highlights the new photo Kaloogian uses to show that things in Iraq are better than reported. But it's an aerial shot that, suffice to say, doesn't show much of anything. "What this joke of a picture -- given what it's supposed to demonstrate -- tells me is that Kaloogian's bogus fact-finding mission probably didn't get outside the heavily fortified safe zones guarded by the US military. And that's not surprising since even a lot reporters don't venture beyond those areas much any more."
Running Scared: "Sounds like good old Howard is off to a fine start if he wants to fill the shoes of Duke Cunningham." Preemptive Karma: "If you're going to put up a photo to prove that Baghdad is all about peace and the press is rapping it for no good reason--you'd better be sure you've got the goods." Magpie: "Didn't Kaloogian expect that, given that he's running for Cunningham's seat, that left-wing bloggers would be going over his website with a fine-tooth comb? Or did Kaloogian figured that no one would care if he was caught in a lie?"
DEMOCRATS: We Have A Plan
Dems announced their nat'l security platform 3/29, with ex-Sec/State Madeline Albright and Ret. Gen. Wesley Clark joining cong. leaders. Reviews on the left: Oliver Willis: "Makes sense to me (its certainly better than not saying anything), but now they've got to repeat that like a mantra until they're blue in the face. ... I don't know if the Dems can beat the GOP in the polls on national security, simply because they've been so afraid to assert anything, but if they were able to come to some sort of equilibrium it would be a bit of a breakthrough." MyDD: " The only way to change the situation is to change leadership. That's what the Democrats should run on." Atrios: "The real issue isn't what Democrats are saying about Iraq now. ... f 2006 fails to be 'a year of significant transition' what will Democrats be saying then? Forget the unified message now, what will be the unified message then?" Georgia 10 at Kos: "For those that say today's plan did not offer enough detail, I urge you to look at that page and see the solutions Democrats have offered time and time again--only to be stonewalled by an administration beholden more to corporate interests and politics than actually safeguarding our nation. "
On the right, many have a hard time taking Dems seriously. Gateway Pundit: "Mark your calendars. Today is a historic day. Democrats are announcing today, four-and-one-half years after 9-11, that THEY have saved a can of Whoopass for the jihadists! Well, Alright!" Captain Ed: "The plan is a collection of slogans and mission statements with almost no specifics about legislation, financing, strategies, tactics, or military efforts to achieve them." Hugh Hewitt: "The fact that a plan this flimsy is getting this much attention is the clearest testament I've seen in some time to the Democratic Party's lack of ideas." Wizbang: "These folks can show up to a press conference and say they're going to be tough on national security, but it won't change the fact that they fought President Bush on virtually every national security issue that came before them in the House." JunkYardBlog: "On the other hand, eliminating bin Laden is a better platform than impeaching Bush. Too bad the Democrats are more likely to pursue the former if the voters actually give them Congress this fall."
Also worth noting today: Matt Stoller criticizes Dems for holding a fundraiser for Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) while he's being investigated for bribery.
McKINNEY: New Spin On The Fighting Dems
As first reported by Hotline in Last Call!, and explained at On Call, McKinney punched a Capitol Police officer "after he mistakenly pursued her for failing to pass through a metal detector." Reaction is a mix of comedy and serious criticism. Suitably Flip: "Just can't be bothered with that pesky security, eh Cynthia?" Right Wing News: "Sounds like a clear cut case of assault. Wonder if Cynthia will 1) give a heartfelt apology, 2) give a cheap non-apology apology, 3) blame the cop for "making her" hit him, or 4) play the race card?" State Of The Qusan: "I guess I shouldn't be condoning violence but in addition to a very deadly look, I think my reflexes might have caused me to punch this guy too!" Explore For Truth: "If she were Republican would be asking for her resignation??" Captain's Quarters: "Today the Democrats launched their mission to revamp their image on security and national defense. They have long complained about a national perception of their party as wimpish, but Cynthia McKinney decided to set the record straight" The American Princess: "Her record speaks to a torrid history of relations with Capitol security guards." RedState: "Assaulting a police officer is a felony is most districts, and felonious behavior is just cause for expulsion. I'm just saying."
IMMIGRATION: No GOP Divide In The Blogosphere
The Senate began debate on immigration reform proposals last p.m., and the righty blogosphere continues to watch with baited breath. Right Wing News tries to answer some FAQs about illegal immigrants. The questions tend to play in to the more conservative GOP's talking points. Iowa Voice is firmly entrenched in the "send 'em home" camp. The divide within the GOP over the immigration issue is highlighted by Captain's Quarters take on George Will's "moderate" stance on the issue, especially his analogizing a border fence with the Berlin wall. "Will sounds a reasonable note in the immigration debate, and his column is well worth a read -- once you get past the implied analogy of America transforming itself into a prison state."
Others on the right continue to discuss last weekend's marches throughout the nation protesting immigration reform legislation passed by the House. Mark Krikorian at The Corner: "The president has got to offer a public critique of the illegal-alien marches, especially since he's going to Mexico this week to yuk it up with Vicente Fox. ... These protests -- with their ubiquitous Mexican flags, open claims of irredentism, and support from the Mexican government -- are a direct challenge to the American regime, and must not go unanswered." A Blog For All notes that the demonstrations weren't exactly spontaneous. RedState concurs. The News Blog argues that the GOP is playing with fire: "Latinos had been slightly more receptive to GOP pitches, but like Katrina with blacks, this is about family. This isn't some abstract debate, this is about cousins, friends, even kids. And when you do that, people take it personally. Blacks took Bush's failure in Katrina personally. Latinos take this personally."
ABRAMOFF: Play Time Is Over
Disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff received the minimum possible sentence, according to the Washington Post, for his role in a fraud case stemming from the attempted purchase of SunCruz casinos. Lefties had a field day with this one. TPM's Muckraker reports -- before yesterday's sentencing -- on Abramoff's defense team's efforts to get the sentence as light as possible. Muckraker updates just after sentencing with a list of just who Abramoff could be implicating in his cooperation (more than 200 hours of it thus far) with the DoJ. Off the Kuff licks his chops: "The main point to remember here is that this is not the Washington case; that investigation, and presumably Abramoff's cooperation in it, is ongoing." Demagogue and The Carpetbagger Report note the same. Why Are We Back In Iraq? looks at Abramoff's plea deal in terms of his role in producing "Red Scorpion." Righty John Cole thinks Abramoff's sentence is about right: "I am willing to bet this sentence reflects a degree of cooperation in future prosecutions that will probably pay greater political dividends for our friends on the left and will more than outweigh the sheer satisfaction they might have gained by watching Abramoff go to jail for a longer period of time."
BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Dapless
At Talking Points Memo, Josh Marshall echoes the recent complaints of others about "how routinely mainstream media outlets rip off stories that are originally reported on blogs. ... Last week, over a three or four day period, there were four instances in which a mainstream media outlet took a story or scoop we ... had first published and ran it as their own without crediting or mentioning that TPMmuckraker.com had originally broken the story. Writing up or following up on a story and not crediting the news organiztion that first reported it is not a journalistic felony. It's more on the order of a misdemeanor or moving violation. But it is a breach. And mainstream news outlets, a few of which I've actually written for, don't seem to think it applies to blogs that are doing original reporting."
Atrios responds: "Look, personally I've never cared about getting credit for stuff other media types might happen to lift from this site. ... I've always been interested in just getting the good stuff out there and not really caring how it's done or where it comes from, and it's silly to try to take credit for stuff which is often highly collaborative between readers, other blogs, me, etc., just because I have a big megaphone. ... While journalism doesn't have the same citation standards of academia, and it generally shouldn't, reporters shouldn't feel entitled to rip things off just because they were originally reported on the internets. I'm sure Alt Weekly reporters are chuckling to themselves, 'welcome to our world...'"
JYLLANDS-POSTEN: Embers Flare Up
Skirmishes over cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammed continue to rage around the world, and several bloggers are picking up on them. Ed Driscoll rounds up the latest battles, from Alberta to NYU, and even at your local corporate bookstore. That last is the one causing a lot of renewed buzz, and comes by way of the San Francisco Chronicle, which reports that Borders and Waldenbooks won't carry the April-May issue of Free Inquiry magazine, which contains the cartoons. This has the blogosphere discussing Islamic shari'a law and what the country should do in the face of Islam. Dr. Sanity, like most bloggers, criticizes the companies: "These businesses claim this was a business decision made for the safety of its customers and staff. I think that political correctness played an even bigger role. Well, I too, can make a business decision and I choose not to buy books from either outlet anymore since they have bowed to shari'a." Kesher Talk, describing themselves as of a "hawkish Jewish liberal perspecive," notes: "Don't let anyone tell you this is about high-minded sensitivity to other cultures. It's about fear." Righty Little Green Footballs concurs: "The big bookstore chains will not be standing up for free speech." Using various four-letter words to describe the companies, the Infidel Bloggers Alliance calls for a boycott. NRO's TKS doesn't like the move, but thanks the companies for their honesty: "I would observe that if nothing else, applaud the honesty of Borders/Waldenbooks. They're not claiming that not stocking the magazine is a matter of 'sensitivity,' it's a matter of safety for their employees. I can disagree whether that's the right decision, but I can at least understand it and appreciate it." Eugene Volokh comments on the "seemingly troubling behavior" of NYU.
WHITE HOUSE '08: All's Well That's Falwell
It's the left's turn to take issue with Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) upcoming speech to Liberty Univ. and his flirtation with the Fed Marriage Amendment. ABC News has today's analysis and article. The Moderate Voice analyzes McCain's circus trick: "He has to do a political tightrope act to get the nomination ... and one false step and in a general election he could wind up a political dead duck. He hasn't quite taken that step yet, but the tightrope is shaking a bit." Lefty The Reaction: "He's a conservative, and he always has been. But, looking ahead to '08 as the presumed early front-runner, he's now cuddling up to the far right. He knows he needs to win over the Republican base in order to get through the primaries. He knows that a maverick will ever win the GOP nomination. He knows has has to play politics. That's predictable, but unfortunate." AMERICAblog thinks McCain is letting Jerry Falwell do his talking for him. And The Carpetbagger Report is right on message: "I guess McCain was sort of against the amendment before he was sort of for it." Think Progress points out McCain's flip-flop as well.
IN THE STATES: Raspberry Jam?!? I HATE Raspberry Jam!
Lone Star Project has conducted what it calls a "baseline analysis" of the TX GOV race. The conclusion they reach? Ex-Rep. Chris Bell (D) has a much better shot at the gov's mansion than others may think -- but only if he can keep Dems with him. If enough Dems defect to Compt./ex-Dem/ex-GOPer Carole Strayhorn (I), Gov. Rick Perry (R) is safe, but if she can peel both Dems and GOPers away, she'll get the win. By the way, check out their cool vote calculator, which you can use to plug in numbers that assure a Kinky Friedman (I) win. Others commenting on various aspects of the race, including Strayhorn and Friedman's attempts to get on the ballot and an Austin TV station declaring the race neck-and-neck include The Red State and Off the Kuff.
BLOGGER VS. BLOGGER: The Great Kos Purge
Tom Duncombe of My Left Wing has some questions for DailyKos. Duncombe tells his story: "I'm not from the blog world originally--and where I come from, credentials are not looked down upon or sneered at. In the course of the thread, I got sworn at quite a bit, but was also exposed to a new theory of authentication that I had never been exposed to before--that in blogs, people earn their credentials through good writing and group approval. So far so good--I learned something. And I moved on from there. I posted some posts, I earned some mojo. And then I came back to Daily Kos this evening to see that I've been kicked off the site. I've been "disappeared." An electronic firing squad has taken my persona to the big, evil sports arena in the sky, assassinated me, and then buried my pixillated bones in the desert somewhere. I'm very disillusioned with Daily Kos." Armando says Duncombe was "autobanned" by the community. Buckeye State Blog wants to know if anyone will ask Kos about the incident on his current book tour.
BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: Coffey Clutch
Today the Blogometer talks to Mark Coffey, who writes Decision '08.
What is your full name?
Mark Alan Coffey.
What is your age?
37.
Where did you grow up?
Lamesa, TX -- midway between Lubbock and Midland.
Where do you live now?
Austin, TX -- a very blue city in a very red state.
What is your occupation?
Analyst.
Have you ever worked on a political campaign or for the mainstream media?
No -- though I did run for the student council years ago (and won!).
When did you start blogging and why?
I started blogging, oddly enough, after the 2004 election, thus missing the biggest traffic period. I was reading all the blogs, e-mailing friends and relatives relevant news stories, and generally doing everything but putting the content on the web. When I hit on the idea of getting an early jump on 2008, my mind was made up, and I went live on November 21st, 2004.
What has been your favorite post, or favorite story to write about, in that time?
Lately, I've been on a campaign to rename the Netroots as the Nutroots (r), but with limited success (it's not that my audience is not big enough - oh, no! Rather, like Spinal Tap, my appeal is very selective). My formation of the Coalition of the Chilling was much more successful - I was able to convince a number of prominent bloggers to joing me in decrying the harsh rhetoric that greeted the Gang of 14 Deal (a deal that has worked out remarkably well for Republicans, I might add).
Describe your typical blogging schedule. And what is your average output?
I blog on and off pretty much all day, everyday ... I enjoy it and I need to build up my audience.
And what is your average output?
I'd say probably about 7 or 8 posts a day.
Who is your favorite political blogger? Favorite non-political blogger?
Tom Maguire of JustOneMinute, hands down. A true blogger, through and through (honorable mentions to Tim Blair and Mickey Kaus). [For non-political:] Although both sometimes cover politics, amongst many other things, I really enjoy Be Be Re and NBR.
Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?
Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist? Christopher Hitchens
, without a doubt (I know I'm stretching a bit, but he is a columnist for Slate and Vanity Fair, as well as the AtlanticMonthly ).
What is your favorite television news program, either network or cable?
I like the occasional hour-long specials, like CNN Presents, but I can't abide the soundbite nature of regular news on television.
What MSM-produced websites (i.e. newspapers, magazines) do you visit on a daily basis?
The Washington Post, The New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal's OpinionJournal.
What non-MSM websites (i.e. blogs) do you visit on a daily basis?
Besides the previously mentioned blogs, I always visit Memeorandum, Real Clear Politics, and Pajamas Media (with whom I am affiliated). I also visit the Huffington Post and Daily Kos for the entertainment value and to keep up with what's hot among the lefties.
How often, or do you ever, read a newspaper in its dead-tree (i.e. print) form?
I rarely purchase a newspaper ... but if I do, it's the Wall Street Journal.
How do you see the new media and old media affecting and influencing each other in the next five years?
Too many people see the world of media through the prism of blogs vs. MSM. The reality is that the two are complementary; the MSM, with its large budgets and professional journalists, can cover the world in a way that most bloggers, who are local by nature, can't (although all those local bloggers collectively cover the globe, as well). Bloggers can react quickly to breaking news, however, and can engage in dialogue with an immediacy that can't be matched by television or print. The reality is we are one huge disfunctional family.
MISCELLANY: That Guy?!?! For That Job?!?!
Mark Kilmer at RedState follows up on talk of Club For Growth's Pat Toomey taking over at OMB. He admits it's not likely, but that WH advisers "would serve [Bush] well to put Mr. Toomey's name into the mix. The President would serve himself and the country by making the pick, and Mr. Toomey would serve everyone well by accepting." And worth noting is that RedState's Blanton is ending his run at the site.
Mark Tapscott tries to draw attention to "potentially landmark" legislation pending in the Senate on earmark disclosure.
Winds of Change notes that in CA, HAVA -- "as implemented by California Secretary of State Bruce McPherson -- is killing over 40% of the attempts to register that were made in Los Angeles County this quarter."
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Double Vision
Kevin Drum writes about cloning: "It's true that the last few years have produced a flood of headlines about the genetic basis of various personality characteristics, but surely very few people believe that genes are the sole basis of personality, do they?" Most literature on the subject suggests that personality is "some mysterious combination of both" nature and nurture. "We already know the answer to the clone question. Identical twins are clones, and although twins can be remarkably similar, any parent of twins can tell you that they also have very distinct personalities. It's not all in the genes. On the other hand, it might be different for cats and dogs. I mean, I'd like to pretend that Inkblot has such a distinct personality that I could tell him apart from his hypothetical clone, but I wonder if I really could?"
LEST WE FORGET: Killing Your Productivity, One Afternoon At A Time
We love bad predictions about the future, and it's nice to see that someone's compiled a bunch of them. Sorry for ruining your afternoon, but these are like Pringles: You can't read just one.
Between the resignation of WH CoS Andy Card, elections in Israel that turned out poorly for everyone the average American has heard of and the Senate battle over immigration, we wonder how bloggers with regular jobs got any work done yesterday. Developments in Iraq and Afghanistan gave bloggers good excuses to take extra breaks as well.
Also today, we report on two potential WH '08ers who cut through to the blogosphere. One blogger wonders whether Card's resignation is part of a larger push for MA Gov. Mitt Romney's (R) WH bid, and several others note, with varying degrees of approval and skepticism, Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) slated speaking engagement at Jerry Falwell's Liberty U.
Finally, for those of you interested in a more academic debate, two heavyweights of the modern neoconservative movement duke it out over just where that movement's headed. If you're in for the political junkie's equivalent of a cat fight, this brawl's for you.
BUSH: They're Daring Us Not To Use Lame Card Puns
Yesterday, we noted the reaction of PowerLine: "Yawn." Reaction rises a bit above that level, speculation doesn't break much new ground. Andrew Sullivan: "Bottom line: this is better than nothing, but also merely the minimum necessary. Maybe there's more to come." Daniel Drezner: "What's amazing to me is not that Card has resigned -- it's that there are so many people who have been working at high levels in this administration for six years and show no signs of leaving." UNCoRRELATED: "Card controls access to the president and has undoubtedly ruffled some feathers over the years. His resignation allows for a 'reconcilation' of sorts with members of Congress who may have felt annoyed at not having more face-time with the President." The Sideshow: "The problem is the policies, and Card didn't set those. No one was calling for Andy Card's head. Rumsfeld's, sure. Cheney's -- oh, yeah. Rice's -- yes, and well before she got her new job. Karl 'Security Breach' Rove's? Uh huh. And Bush's, f'sure. But Card? Please." Outside The Beltway: "Unless [Bolten] comes up with some bold new policy initiatives, it is unclear how this move will bolster the president's sagging poll numbers." BottleOfBlog "There's only one guy who could resign and make the executive branch run any better at this point. And he ain't going back to Crawford just yet."
Craig Crawford offers five reasons this won't help. First among them: "He wasn't the problem. ... Card was a glorified scheduler who took a back seat to Vice President Dick Cheney and his own supposed deputy, Karl Rove." Meanwhile, Ankle Biting Pundits hears from sources that Card is leaving to play a "significant role" in Romney's (R) WH bid. New Donkey also doubts the "fatigue" excuse: "Fatigue from what, exactly? I mean, it's not like this administration has been terribly active in terms of meeting the big domestic or national security challenges facing the country, right?"
What about the new guy? Think Progress says: "Josh Bolten's record suggests he will not be a strong enough voice to stand up to" Bush, Cheney, Rove and Rumsfeld. Left Coaster points to Bolten's role in the Medicare Part D legislation. Bull Moose: "The distinguishing feature about both of them is their loyalty to the President. Loyalty, indeed, is a worthy virtue. But, this is a moment for creativity and boldness. And Bolten for Card isn't exactly bold."
RedState floated the idea of replacing Bolten at OMB with Club for Growth pres/'04 SEN candidate Pat Toomey (R). "Getting Pat Toomey on board, putting Pat Toomey on the team, could enliven fiscal conservatives who haven't had much to shout about from this Administration since the President's tax cuts. It would also help the resume of a talented conservative for when or if he decides to seek public office in the future." Club for Growth's blog responded.
IMMIGRATION: We Wonder If McCain And Feingold Had A Quarrel Of Sorts. That Makes Kennedy The Rebound
Folks are starting to analyze the bill passed by the Senate Jud. Cmte. At Red State, Leon Wolf says the McCain-Kennedy bill isn't perfect, "but it's a surprisingly good one, and the Republican Senators who voted it out of Committee absolutely do not deserve to treatment they have received in some quarters of the conservative blogosphere." Captain Ed: "Immigration stalwarts might hope that the House approach will prevail in the joint conference committee that will reconcile the two bills, but that hope appears fading at best" Steve Soto sees signs that the GOP is "Stepping Back From The Political Abyss" on the issue, except for Senate Maj. Leader Bill Frist, "who apparently feels that he cannot allow Specter to substitute his bill for Frist's more extreme proposal if the GOP caucus isn't with Specter. What Frist and the GOP caucus miss however is that they will lose huge politically this November if they let Specter, McCain, and the entire Democratic caucus beat their brains out over this for a couple of days. And the only person who will look like the imbecile that he is will be Frist himself." Off The Kuff looks at demonstrations in TX 3/28 and also at how it's impacting state campaigns. Michelle Malkin, meanwhile, highlights the upside-down American flag at a CA demonstration.
Glenn Reynolds highlights some key points about the debate: "It's not really about security. It's only sort of about economics. A lot of it is anger at Washington. The debate stinks. It could be poison for both parties." Daily Kos' Darkside wonders why people would trust a "helpless" admin to solve the immigration divide. "With a competent admin and an independent Congress, even one[s] we might not care for generally, there would still be hope that they're really going to hammer out a half-ass, intermediate-term solution to illegal immigration. ... But then grim reality comes crashing in." Dean's World looks at it from the minority perspective: "It is blacks (along with legal Latinos) who bear the brunt of illegal immigration, in employment rates. And it is lower-income black communities that are often overrun first with illegal immigrants, who drain social services that should go to citizens and legal residents. ... If black folks must follow the law, then no special rights for anyone else. And no way should illegal immigrants immediately get rights that took centuries for blacks to acquire."
John Cole just can't get into the issue. "To make things even worse, I don't have any desire to educate myself about the current Senate/House legislation. The way I see it, a wall is impractical, not granting amnesty is pointless (does anyone really think we are going to round up all the illegals?), I am not convinced by arguments that illegals are an economic drain or boon (if I had to make an uneducated guess, I would argue it is a wash), and if terrorists want to sneak bombs in, they will find a way that does not involve illegals." His only view is that the feds should help border states with any immigrant-related expenses.
WHITE HOUSE '08: Give Me Liberty Or Give Me A Better Speaking Gig
McCain will deliver the Liberty U. commencement address, having reportedly improved ties with Falwell. Paul Mirengoff: "McCain may be unsuccessful in courting enough conservatives to win the nomination, and that's my hope. But if he's the Republican nominee, he will be running against Hillary Clinton or someone to her left, not against the John McCain of old. As such, he'll have a lock on the centrist vote." Georgia 10: "Ah, a full embrace of the man McCain referred to as 'pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance.' My question: will Tim Russert ask Senator McCain if he agrees with Falwell's comments?" Carpetbagger Report: "McCain has no excuse for this. If he's capable of feeling shame, this would be a good time for it. This is, after, the same Falwell that McCain (accurately) criticized as 'an agent of intolerance.'"
DEMOCRATS: Joining The Fight?
AP reports on Dems' terrorism plan, to "eliminate" Osama bin Laden. Nodding approval from AMERICAblog. The Agonist: "Finally the Democrats are talking about the ideas progressives have been developing for 5 years. Finally Democrats, instead of gnashing their teeth about 'getting a plan,' have put together a smart, hard-nosed and realistic appraisal of the global situation and have presented the American people with real choices, not rhetoric." Captain Ed disagrees: "They shrewdly selected Osama as a focal point, reminding the country that after over four years, the Bush administration hasn't captured the terrorist leader. ... However, the Bush administration has isolated the AQ leadership and forced it back into Pakistan, as well as killed off or captured most of the operational leadership in the organization." RightWinged: "Here come the no plan Democrats shouting that they have a better plan, but offering nothing but more Bush bashing and insane promises again."
Daily Kos' Georgia10 looks at Gallup's poll ranking the top 10 issue items, and reminds readers of DCCC chair Rahm Emanuel's proposing universal health care, "A practical proposal which, by the looks of this poll, may widely appeal to the American people."
RedState and some other conservative blogs are discussing fines handed to Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) stemming from a '96 eavesdropping case. "So, if you are keeping score at home, that would be one House Democrat to zero current Congressional or White House Republicans who have been found by a court of law to have participated in illegal domestic surveillance of political opponents."
And Democracy Now publishes an interview with ex-Sen. Gary Hart (D-CO). Both a transcript and audio are available.
ABRAMOFF: We're Off On The Road To Jail, We Certainly Do Get Around
Convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff will be sentenced today for his role in a wire-fraud scheme. TPM Muckracher notes: "The defense team for ... Abramoff is pulling out all the stops as his first trial enters its sentencing phase." While his lawyers claim Abramoff is broke, Sisyphus Shrugged (in a long and very detailed post updating us on the course of the trial leading to sentencing, including just about every link to every document on the case you'd want to find) inquires: "Raise your hand if you think this guy doesn't have money hidden overseas." TalkLeft also offers lots of documents, and calls Abramoff's attys' tactics "great, creative lawyering." Sentencing Law and Policy agrees. Noting letters to the judge on Abramoff's behalf, including some from his children, Roger Ailes responds: "If I was the court, defense counsel's happy horseshit would make me want to throw the book at Abramoff with extra velocity."
ISRAELI ELECTIONS: We Called It -- Likud's In Trouble
Yesterday's elections in Israel drew comment from across the spectrum. As expected, Ariel Sharon's Kadima party won the most seats, with 28, though they had expected better results, and Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud party fared much worse than expected, finishing fifth. See the Jerusalem Post for the full wrap-up. New Republic's Yossi Klein Halevi also pens a summary in the L.A. Times. Vital Perspective posts Israeli TV's preliminary exit polling, and An Unsealed Room posts actual results. Her conclusion: "The Likud has been smashed to pieces." The Corner's John Podhoretz: "So the polls are closed, and the story is: Oy." New Donkey summarizes: "Israeli elections appear to have confirmed the much-expected mandate for Ariel Sharon's creation, the Kadima Party, to lead the next government, though with fewer Knesset seats than expected. The real shocker, however, was the collapse of Likud under Bibi Netanyahu, who wrested control of the party from Sharon: it will apparently be the fifth-ranking party in the next Knesset." The Politiburo Diktat sees the results as a positive, and tries to count seats Kadima can use to form a coalition: "If these results hold up, Kadima should be able to begin its unilateral withdrawal." AMERICAblog isn't so optimistic: "Passing anything is not going to be easy." Peaktalk agrees and sees trouble ahead for the coalition gov't: "Israel needs a broad national consensus to give effect to Ariel Sharon's vision and while Ehud Olmert can probably make things work, there will always be a risk that such a fragile coalition may fall apart at a critical juncture." Hugh Hewitt sees a short-lived coalition.
Low turnout was the talk of a number of blogs as well. Fewer Israelis than ever turned out to vote. Captain Ed thinks low turnout "shows that the Israelis have given up on the hardliner approach to stand their ground wherever Israelis live." A Blog For All notes turnout as well, and Dutchblog Israel, who worked the polls yesterday, offers his thoughts on turnout. Meanwhile, soon-to-be-official PM Ehud Olmert has called on Palestinian Pres. Mahmoud Abbas to resume negotiations on Israel's permanent borders. Steve Clemons at The Washington Note: "This is just hopeful news -- but it's important for proponents of negotiations not to get carried away with illusions." Paul Mirengoff makes an international point: "It's interesting, but not heartening, to compare these fragmented election results, in the context of low voter turnout, to the crystal clear Palestinian election results. A people who knows what it wants has a big advantage over a people who is unclear. And when the former wants destruction of the latter, things become scary."
IRAQ: Maybe It Was Just An Advisory Election
3/28's report in the New York Times that the U.S., through Amb. Zalmay Khalilzad, is pressuring Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari to step aside had the left up in arms. AMERICAblog gets the most worked up: "Clearly Iraq is such a mess that Bush is now getting desperate. There is no other way to explain why he would take such a drastic, heavy-handed, and full-of-potential-backfire approach to dealing with the Iraqi prime minister. I think the administration has decided that it's going to be all out civil war - well, it already IS all out civil war, but what Bush now has decided is that Iraq is LOST if the current guy remains in power, and thus they aren't worrying about harming Iraq's democracy, or provoking the shi'ites into joining the anti-American insurgency, simply because Bush already knows we're toast, Iraq is toast, if we stick with the status quo." DailyKos' SusanG: "So those vaunted elections were for ... what exactly? Remind me again. I thought it was to usher in an era of democratic self-determination for Iraqis." Brilliant at Breakfast: "The Bush Junta believes that democracy and free elections are only a good thing when they produce the desired result." Lefty Bluememe concurs. Righty Outside The Beltway agrees to some extent, but offers an alternative explanation: "Such interference goes against the very idea of 'democracy' that we are supposed to be fighting for. On the other hand, installation of an inept government unable to meet basic security needs is in no one's interest." Lefty Road To Surfdom, tounge firmly implanted in cheek, concludes: "If the Iraqis don't accede to Mr. Bush's request, the solution is obvious: invade and force regime change." The Lunch Counter supports the move, linking al-Jaafari to radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
Meanwhile, Power Line thinks there's more evidence of Saddam Hussein making deals with Russia, and moving nuclear materials out of Iraq.
AFGHANISTAN: Disappearing Act
The AP's Shaw reports that Abdul Rahman, the Muslim who converted to Christianity and was threatened with death in Afghanistan, has disappeared. California Conservative notes that Rahman sought asylum in several countries, and that Italy had offered him a home, though it's unclear if he's left Afghanistan already. A Blog For All, Jihad Watch, "Jack Lewis", Michelle Malkin, Sister Toldjah, In The Bullpen, Freedom Folks, Justin Gardner, Ace Of Spades, Below The Beltway, Jawa Report and dozens of others all comment. The Volokh Conspiracy sees Afghanistan's treatment of Rahman as part of a larger problem of democracies that continue to oppress people. Glenn Reynolds points to a report that claims that Rahman's case has generated interest about Christianity in Afghanistan.
SCOTUS: Did Hamden Wear The Same Thing As Anna Nicole?
Justices heard oral arguments in the case of Hamden v. Rumsfeld 3/28, and the Los Angeles Times reports some bad news for the WH on the matter, which deals with presidential authority to set up military tribunals for purported war criminals. Despite being asked by a group of retired admirals and generals to recuse himself from the case (per Washington Post), Justice Antonin Scalia heard the case "and appeared to be the Justice most amenable to the government's position," according to the American Constitution Society. SCOTUSblog, whose author's firm is co-counsel to Hamden, reports on the case and recaps the hearing. Lawyers, Guns and Money calls Scalia a hypocrite and offers previous instances in which Scalia has chastized other members of the court for straying from judicial norms. Even with Scalia still on the bench, Donklephant notes, based on other justices' questions: "It doesn't look good for the government right now." The Left Coaster and TalkLeft reach similar conclusions.
BLOGS VS. THE MACHINE: ACLU Gets More Biz
Jeff Jarvis laments: "The FCC has outlawed the single most essential word in political discourse and protest: bullshit. This is not only an absurd misinterpretation of our community standards and another perilous attack on our First Amendment, I also believe it is a violation of our civil rights worthy of court challenge. Get me to a lawyer, I think we now have the basis for a citizens' suit."
BLOGS VS. THE MSM: DeLayed Quotation
Washington Post's Milbank writes on the redemption of Ex-House Maj. Leader Tom DeLay and his appearance at the Vision America conference in NW DC 3/28. Milbank's piece is taken to task for misquoting The Corner's Tim Graham, who responds to the piece and to what he sees as an anti-evangelical, anti-conservative bias in the Post. NewsBusters piles on.
MISCELLANY: Seriously, People Go Crazy About Their Time Zones
Some quick hits: Hit & Run thinks the FCC needs a lesson on the IN time zone system. Captain's Quarters celebrates the end of anonymous holds in the Senate, but is discouraged by other reforms being tabled in a bill passed 3/28.
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: So Is This Civil War?
For those of you in need of some serious mental exercise, an interesting debate between two pillars of the modern Neoconservative movement continues to simmer in the MSM, but lately it's spilled over into the blogosphere as well. First brought to our attention through a New Yorker review of his new book, "America At The Crossroads," the debate centers on Johns Hopkins Prof. Francis Fukuyama's split with Neoconservatives. His main target: Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer. Round I: Fuyukama's book. Round II: Krauthammer's response, posted at RealClearPolitics and elsewhere, in which Krauthammer derides Fukuyama's "Road to Damascus moment." Suffice it to say, the debate gets nasty quickly, though the fundamental philosophy of neoconservatism is laid bare for all to see, and it's pretty interesting. Just about all the bloggers weighing in, though, take Krauthammer's side, including Wizblog, Jim Rose (who holds an "ideological funeral"), D.C. Thornton, Captain's Quarters, Instapundit, Sister Toldjah and Hugh Hewitt. Just a few come down with Fuyukama, including JustOneMinute, lefty Matthew Yglesias.
Round III still to come.
LEST WE FORGET: "D'oh!"
Ever written a long post, paper for school, article, letter to Mom, etc., just to delete it by mistake right when you've finished? Well, you're in good company.
Also, Fat Dude is on vacation in Iraq. That reminds us, it's a good thing the State Department issued those travelwarnings . And we'd heard Fallujah was lovely this time of year.
NOTES AND ERRATA
Have you subscribed to the Blogometer e-mail alert? No? Well click here and be the first to know when we've posted.
Sometimes bloggers have a knack for being ahead of the curve. But as we find today, they just as often reflect the prevailing CW on the day's dominant story. The reemergence of immigration as a dominant topic nationally, especially after this weekend's mass demonstrations and yesterday's developments on Capitol Hill, has provided a flashpoint again. And while there are some key distinctions between the left and right on policy, no one seems quite sure just how much of an impact any moves will have come 11/06, or whether the issue itself is a decisive one among voters. But these things have a way of working themselves out, so perhaps better indicators are to come.
Elsewhere, today is another day where any number of subjects compete for second billing. Andy Card's resignation as WH CoS is sure to be big talk. The Ben Domenech blogswarm has died down, as AP finds itself scrutinized for its supposed policy not to cite blogs. Also: developments in the Moussaoui case raise some questions; FEC makes moves on regulating the blog world; Antonin Scalia's finger gets some love, and don't miss our latest Blogger Spotlight.
IMMIGRATION: Hot Topic Du Jour
Late 3/27, the Senate Jud. Cmte. voted on comprehensive immigration reform legislation. The cmte's bill, which passed 12-6 and heads to the floor today, is widely seen as more moderate than a version the House passed in '05. In the wake of this weekend's massive protests around the nation (see 3/27 Blogometer), immigration remains a hot topic in the blogosphere. Joe Gandelman at The Moderate Voice covered immigration issues as a reporter and shares his views on the whole spectrum of issues immigration brings up. Reaction on the left was mostly upbeat, as Dems felt like they'd beaten back amendments that were perceived as anti-immigrant. Polimom was one of the optimists, and offers a breakdown of the issue through several issue lenses. She concludes: "The Senate did the right thing yesterday when they put the brakes on this emotional roller-coaster." Ezra Klein sees a move away from "the failed, moralistic, xenophobic policies of the past." Lefties had a fun time debating the politics of immigration as well. DailyKos' Georgia10 thinks the debate helps Dems by hurting GOPers: "Republicans want to make immigration a 'wedge' issue for the midterm elections -- but it appears it is acting as a wedge for the Republican Party itself." The Left Coaster: The bill "will be too much for conservatives, but Democrats are able to get this to the floor now. All eyes turn to Frist now to see if he will blow this up." Everything Between and The Democratic Daily offer similar political analysis. Meteor Blades at The Next Hurrah criticizes Dems for their lack of a coherent position: "I have no hopes that, even if they could, elected Democrats would follow the Iroquois model of looking ahead seven generations in evaluating the possible effects of any policy decisions they make in this matter. Can I at least suggest they look beyond the November elections in choosing a stance?" American Street's Kevin Hayden and Low On The Hog think eliminating the word "illegal" will take the wind out of GOPers' sails. Several conservative blogs follow Meteor Blades' lead, but criticize GOPers in the Sen. John Hawkins, of Right Wing News: "Sometimes, you just have to scratch your head and wonder what goes on in the vast empty space between the ears of some of the Republicans in the Senate." The bill passed, he said, "might as well have been written by Vicente Fox." Jawa Report's Bluto: "Presumably, the Republicans are motivated by the prospect of dirt-cheap labor, while the Democrats hope to harvest votes from the illegal immigrant 'community'." Red State's California Yankee blames the four GOPers who joined Dems to pass the bill out of cmte. Hugh Hewitt blames Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). But Mickey Kaus thinks the issue will work for Republicans. "1) Voters say it's an important issue; 2) A majority wants some sort of border-control action; 3) The GOP base feels intensely about it; 4) Many Congressional Democrats are -- by ideology or interest group pressure -- locked in to a pro-immigrant, non-tough stance (or if they strike a tough pose it seems just that). In all these respects, immigration resembles welfare reform, a key hot-button base-mobilizing issue for Republicans in the 1994 midterms." Glenn Reynolds calls immigration on the whole "poison for both parties." For his part, Wizbang wins our Creative-If-Futile Idea of the Day award with his proposal to scrap the 13th Amendment. Mark Noonan at GOP Bloggers is still peeved about the weekend's demonstrations: "The more these illegals and their foolhardy allies demonstrate, the more likely the House immigration bill (the one that makes it a felony to be in the US illegally) will eventually be signed into law." Euphoric Reality's Heidi thinks L.A., where 500K people protested over the weekend and thousands more walked out of school 3/27 and today, "is fast becoming a Third World dump." Michelle Malkin wonders about Pres. Bush's "shadows" rhetoric in light of the eye-popping number of demonstrators.
BUSH: Knows When To Fold 'Em
This a.m., AP broke news that WH CoS Andy Card resigned. Replacing him will be OMB dir. Josh Bolten. Surprisingly, perhaps, few celebrated Card's tenure. Macs Mind, one of the few offering a handshake on the way out: "Thanks Andy for the service." Other GOPers greeted the news happily. RedState, citing Harriet Miers, the Dubai ports deal and other fiascos, is pleased: "It is about time Mr. Card resigned." More, on the new CoS: "Mr. Bolten has been a forward thinker and we welcome him to the job." Decision '08: "The President has been the victim of poor political handling, beginning at least with Katrina and perhaps before. Anything that will change the personnel dynamic can only be a good thing at this point." But some on the right don't think Bolten will make for much change: Power Line header: "Yawn." More: "I doubt that the change will make any difference, except maybe cosmetically, but it may satisfy some of those who have been demanding 'change' in the administration." Outside The Beltway notes: "Unless Bolton comes up with some bold new policy initiatives, it is unclear how this move will bolster the president's sagging poll numbers." The Moderate Voice: "The Card resignation which just so happens to come amid continued suggestions that Bush change his staff, coupled with the change in approach to dealing with the press, indicate the White House is moving to stem political damage and try to rebuild support in some areas." The left is at once dismissing Card and welcoming Bolten with, erm, open palms. Lefty Firedoglake welcomes the "new" guy: "Bolten has worked with Bush since his time in Texas -- nothing like looking to your circle of cronies first for someone. Wouldn't want anyone who would irritate the President with pesky truthiness or anything." More hits on Bolten from the Booman Tribune: "Since Bolten has done such a bang up job as budget director, I believe it's probably safe for all of us to put bags over our heads and pretend that the next three [years] aren't happening. Think of puppies and kittens. It's better that way." Middle Earth Journal, one of many to sound a common refrain: "Another case of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic." And Georgia10 chimes in: "There's no saving this failed Presidency now." Blogging of the President also piles on.
In other news, some righties are still talking about Sen. Russ Feingold's (D-WI) censure measure. Matt Margolis: "President Bush actually fights the war on terror, and the Democrats consider that reason for censure, if not impeachment. While Feingold's censure resolution has received little support, some Democrats won't rule it out either."
WAR ON TERRORISM: Tales From An Arlington Courtroom
Convicted Al Qaeda conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui made a splash 3/27 p.m. when he told a jury that he and convicted shoe bomber Richard Reid were to be two hijackers on a fifth plane on 9/11/01. Their target? The WH. Plenty of bloggers responded to the AP's version of the story. Moussaoui's "revelation itself isn't all that shocking. The fact that Moussaoui blurted it out in court is," says righty PunditGuy. Fellow righty Outside The Beltway: "One suspects this will not make the jury sympathetic to his cause." Below The Beltway thanks him for salvaging the gov't's case: "Before today, the government's case looked like it was a loser, especially after the fiasco with the coached TSA witnesses. After this testimony, though, I will be surprised if he doesn't get the death penalty." Instapundit thinks, however, that the testimony "underscores the damage done by the inept investigation after his arrest." Gina Cobb forsees the left's reaction: "Only the very naive or the very anti-American will be surprised by Moussaoui's testimony." Strata-Sphere agrees. Righty Debbie Schlussel takes the opportunity to bash the FBI again.
Others are skeptical that Moussaoui, who once stated that Muslims are permitted to lie in three circumstances, including in the execution of jihad, is telling the truth now. In The Bullpen's Chad Evans: "Richard Reid? I have a hard time believing that." Lefty Newshog smells a ploy: "My gut feeling is that this is a man who has given up the will to live or has discovered the will to die. He is trying to force the jury into making him a martyr." Viking Pundit reaches the same conclusion. Righty Ace of Spades, A Blog For All and Confederate Yankee are likewise skeptical. Captain's Quarters: "I'm rather suspicious of the testimony today, and in the absence of corroboration, I'm inclined to chalk this up to a streak of egotistical, suicidal idiocy on Moussaoui's part." Gates of Vienna also questions Moussaoui's veracity through the lens of a paradox written by Epimenides, a 6th-century Greek prophet and philosopher.
IRAQ: Interviewing The Interviewer
Democracy Project talks with retiring Knight Ridder military editor Joe Galloway. He says the U.S. military has, in Bruce Kessler's words, "painfully earned successful experience that's coming to bear," but the problem is: the "American people are fed up with it." Asked to compare Saigon with Baghdad, Galloway says South Vietnam had a "semi-orderly" military dictatorship, compared to the "not even semi-orderly" early democracy in Iraq.
Daily Kos' SusanG cites Reuters' report that the ruling Shiite majority wants U.S. forces to return control of security to the Iraqi gov't after the latest mosque attack. She the refers to Bush's 1/05 statement, that he'd withdraw forces from Iraq if the new gov't asked him to. "Mr. Bush, Can We Go Home Now?"
SCOTUS: The Sicilian Wave
Not content with expressing his views on a case yet to be argued (see 3/27's Blogometer), SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia responded to his critics by flipping them off. Boston Herald reports. Lefty No More Mister Nice Blog comes out firing: "If Ted Kennedy had done something like this thirty years ago, they'd still be attacking him for it." The Carpetbagger Report makes a similar point: "Classy guy. I wonder what conservatives would say if Ruth Bader Ginsburg had done something similar." Two Glasses and The Washington Note make similar points while calling for Scalia's recusal, and AMERICAblog, which first started talking about the incident, wants an apology for "every Christian." Stop The ACLU: "So what if he did [flip the bird]? They deserved it."
Going back to yesterday's argument about whether Scalia ought to recuse himself from Hamden v. Rumsfeld, Joe Gandelman of The Moderate Voice changed his mind and doesn't think Scalia should step aside.
BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Plagiarism The New Black?
Brad DeLong wants WashingtonPost.com exec. ed. Jim Brady to provide examples of Ben Domenech's work that justified his hiring. "I haven't gotten an answer. Somehow I don't think I [will]." Meanwhile, INDC Journal has posted a poem to mark the occasion. But elsewhere, the topic seems to have died down completely.
The AP, apparently, doesn't value blogs as much as their other sources. That, predictably, has bloggers mad. When Raw Story ran a piece 3/13 claiming the Bush admin was changing certain rules relating to granting security clearances, especially based on sexual orientation, several GLBT groups approached the authors and asked for their notes. Given the notes, those groups went to the AP, which followed up with an article of its own. The problem: AP didn't bother to cite Raw Story or the authors who wrote the piece. The AP told one of the authors, Larisa Alexandrovna, that they don't credit blogs. She provides a breakdown of the situation at Huffington Post. Roger L. Simon writes: "This is more than picking on the small fry. This is fear of the small fry -- the media class struggle in its MSM vs. blogs essence." Matt Stoller, Jim Lindgren, Majikthise and L'Ombre de L'Olivier call AP's actions either stealing or plagarism. Captain's Quarters: "After seeing the pillorying that Ben Domenech received -- and rightly so -- for plagiarism, this arrogant dismissal of outright theft by the supposed "professionals" of the mainstream media puts the whole issue in perspective. This implicates not just the AP, one of the world's largest newsgathering organizations, but every client of the AP that runs their stories on their sites and in their newspapers."
FEC: They Let Me Be Me
The FEC ruled 3/27 to exempt blogs and other internet communications from political advertising laws. Those weighing in were resoundingly positive. RedState, as always, has coverage of the meeting, complete with remarks from FEC chair Michael Toner. Wizbang called the new rules, which were approved on a 6-0 vote, "excellent news for all those who opine about politics and politicians on the internet." DailyKos' Adam B: "The netroots have won."
In other campaign finance news, Tim Chapman, one of the bloggers on a conference call with top GOP members discussing 527 reform, concludes that, instead of properly regulating 527 groups under McCain-Feingold, "I think in their zeal to come up with a 'temporary fix' to a real problem," Reps. Eric Cantor (R-VA), Tom Price (R-GA), Tom Cole (R-OK), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Patrick McHenry (R-NC) "have chosen more regulation instead of less." Hugh Hewitt agrees: "This seems like a cough syrup nastier than the cough." Of note, Club For Growth is adding the bill, HR 4975, to their "key vote" list. They're calling a "No" vote one that is pro-economic growth.
BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: Comments From The PunditGuy-llery
Today, the Blogometer talks to Bill Nienhuis, also known as the PunditGuy.
What is your full name?
Bill Nienhuis
What is your age?
40.
Where did you grow up?
Northwest Washington State.
Where do you live now?
Same.
What is your occupation?
Director for an electronic book publishing company.
Have you ever worked on a political campaign or for the mainstream media?
No.
When did you start blogging and why?
I started blogging in October of 2004 because I was interested in the '04 Presidential Election.
What has been your favorite post, or favorite story to write about, in that time?
2005 Tsunami, because I was one of only a couple of bloggers to post amateur video of the destruction as it happened.
Describe your typical blogging schedule.
I blog in the morning, then sporadically as stories develop during the day.
And what is your average output?
More or less, 4 to 6 posts per day.
Who is your favorite political blogger?
Michelle Malkin.
Favorite non-political blogger?
Guy Kawasaki.
Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?
Charles Krauthammer.
What is your favorite television news program, either network or cable?
Meet the Press.
What MSM-produced websites (i.e. newspapers, magazines) do you visit on a daily basis?
The Washington Post and Yahoo! News.
What non-MSM websites (i.e. blogs) do you visit on a daily basis?
25 to 30 different blogs, mostly political or current event focused.
How often, or do you ever, read a newspaper in its dead-tree (i.e. print) form?
Only when I'm on a flight (USA Today).
How do you see the new media and old media affecting and influencing each other in the next five years?
Old media is learning to react to stories faster, and they're now browsing the blogosphere in order to gauge what the "buzz" is as news happens. Bloggers who are serious about what they write are trying to be as thorough and accurate as possible so they can gain recognition among the MSM. Some hope that they'll be picked by MSM sites to submit regular editorial pieces, etc.
MISCELLANY: Likud In Trouble?
Today's elections in Israel is expected to bring out two-thirds of registered voters -- a mark called low for average Israeli elections. Roger L. Simon is blogging from the U.S., while An Unsealed Room and IsraellyCool liveblog from Israel. So is The Guardian. Of note, Vital Perspective is reporting that ex-PM/Likud party head Benjamin Netanyahu is expressing concern about winning just 14 of the Knesset's 120 seats.
Mark Tapscott pays tribute to ex-Reagan aide Lyn Nofzinger, who died 3/27 at the age of 81: "It's just not possible to try to put into words at such a moment what Lyn represented, either to America or to hundreds of us who worked with and for him during the Reagan years. He was the truest and the toughest of the Reaganauts. And so much more. For many of us, Lyn was also father, confidante and friend and we would walk through fire for the man. Even now years later, tears are being shed all over America by those who knew and loved him." Tapscott includes links to obits from major papers.
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: We're All Patriots
George Mason is one of the top searches at Technorati, proving perhaps that everyone in the blogosphere can rally around the underdog. Power Line breaks down the tournament and why he almost didn't watch. And The Volokh Conspiracy's writers -- most of whom are George Mason U. profs., are beside themselves at the "stunning, breathtaking results, and magical games."
LEST WE FORGET: Wallowing In Wealth
The New Editor links to an IL Daily Herald report, on Univ. of IL researchers who "may have learned how to turn pig manure into crude oil more efficiently by using a continuous reactor." Ace of Spades HQ reads on with interest, and provides this ironic twist of fate: "Let's see. Muslims have most of the oil. Muslims use the oil weapon against us. Muslims hate pigs, considering them 'unclean' because they root in their own feces. Pig feces can be used to make oil. I love it when God decides to get funny."
Ace also does a funny breakdown of the top 10 differences between Sen. John Kerry's and VP Cheney's riders. Number 3: "For exercise, John Kerry requires a yoga mat and aerobic "step" platforms; Dick Cheney requires a set of nunchucks and a kidnapped hobo."
So what is there to be learned from the Ben Domenech saga? For one, that you can't please all sides at the same time. WPNI was sensitive to complaints about the lack of a right-leaning view online, hired one, and then found itself inundated with complaints from those on the left who want an explicitly liberal view to counter it. In the process, plagiarism allegations surfaced, which leads to another lesson: Look before you jump. The MSM is trying to embrace online media for fear of being replaced entirely. We've seen some top bloggers picked, absorbed or heavily featured on MSM outlets, mostly with success. But as we see with Red America, "successful blogger" does not equal "successful journalist." The voices we feature in Blogometer are a mix of the expert who blogs part-time as an extra outlet, and the amateur whose blog is his/her only way of being heard. Some of the latter, perhaps, become successful beyond their ability, and while it's unfair to say Domenech was 'amateur,' his case shows there's a lot of vetting that should be done before a blogger is plucked from obscurity -- whether they're ready for prime time.
Clearly, the Domenech case was a focus this weekend, and reaction today is broken down in several categories. But as always, there's more to talk about, including the latest Scalia controversy, an update on the Abdul Rahman case, and talk on this weekend's immigration protests across the country.
DOMENECH I: (Less Than) A Week Performance
Just after 1 p.m. 3/24, WashingtonPost.com exec. ed. Jim Bradyannounced : "Domenech has resigned, effective immediately." He adds that the site was "not aware of any allegations that he had plagiarized any of his past writings. ... We appreciate the speed and thoroughness with which our readers and media outlets surfaced these allegations. Despite the turn this has taken, we believe this event, among other things, testifies to the positive and powerful role that the Internet can play in the the practice of journalism."
A sample of the comments: "Here's an idea for your next 'red america' hire: have someone google his clip file. And if you ever get around to hiring a 'blue america' blogger, you could do the same." "If you insist on having an additional right-wing voice on this site, here's hoping that you try to find someone with just a smidgen of integrity." "Mr. Brady's communication above is absolutely astounding. It reaches a height of irresponsibility that, in my opinion, disqualifies him from his position." "I think it's a powerful statement on the state of media in general that a journalistic institution with a repute for investigative reporting does not have the resources to do a simple background check on a new employee." There are many, many, many more.
Meanwhile, at Red State, Ben "Augistine" Domenech gives his side of the story. "I know that charges of plagiarism are serious. While I am not a journalist, I have, myself, written more than one thing that has been plagiarized in the past. But these charges have also served to create an atmosphere where no matter what is said on my Red America blog, leftists will focus on things with my byline from when I was a teenager." Among his explanations for alleged plagiarism: "The most recent accusation, is that I stole a music review from Crosswalk and passed it off at National Review Online. In fact, I wrote both lists myself; I was one of Crosswalk's music review contributors at the time. ... Virtually every other alleged instance of plagiarism that I've seen comes from a single semester's worth of pieces that were printed under my name at my college paper, The Flat Hat, when I was 17. ... The truth is, a more responsible teenager would've nipped this sort of thing in the bud. A less sloppy writer would have made sure that material copied from other places never made it into a published piece, and never necessitated apologies or explanations that will do nothing to stop the critics. I was wrong not to do so." He concludes: "To my friends: thank you for your support. To my enemies: I take enormous solace in the fact that you spent this week bashing me, instead of America."
Later, he offered an apology. Red State's Krempasky: "A young man took something and called it his own. He owes apologies to those writers, his editors, and especially his friends who have rushed to his defense in the past 48 hours. It is an embarrassing offense -- and one rightly criticized. All of the leadership of RedState has struggled mightily over the past few days, and have tried at every step to take the right course of action. Now that the story is complete, we can move on."
DOMENECH II: This Is Why Bloggers Aren't Armed
A sample of some of the reaction, first right, then left. Protein Wisdom: "[T]hose on the left who have been braying all day over Ben's downfall have two choices, as I see it: they can continue to gloat and carry around his scalp as a trophy to their own viciousness ... -- showing themselves to be the very fetishists of schadenfreude I accused them of being; or they can now explain to us why they don't hold their own to the same ethical standards." Sister Toldjah: "While Domenech did the right thing by resigning, and the conservative blogosphere has done their part in rightly condemning what Domenech has done and praising his resignation, one thing that should not be lost on this is that the people who viciously went after Domenech did not do so in order for the Washington Post to have an 'honest conservative blogger' at the Red America blog. ... The ultimate goal in all this after in all this was not just Domenech's resignation or firing, but the removal of the Red America blog from the Washington Post's website altogether." Decision '08: "Let's have none of this half-hearted grudging acknowledgment -- we were right with RatherGate, and they were right here. Furthermore, they did us a service, believe it or not, by finding these examples of 'idea theft' and bringing them to light. We don't want the conservative viewpoint, in such a high-profile outlet, to be represented by a plagiarist." The Unalienable Right: "It looks like the Washington Post simply hired the wrong guy. They did the right thing securing his resignation, there's just no excuse for plagiarism." UNCoRRELATED: "I feel bad for him, but frankly I wasn't all that pleased with the Washington Post's move--one of the most subtle but damaging things that can happen to any movement is having someone else pick your standard-bearer."
Talk Left: "Those on the right who have tried to justify's Domenech's alleged plagiarism by calling it an act of youthful indiscretion or somehow justifiable because they mostly pertained to movie reviews, are way off base. High school journalism students have had plagiarism drummed into them. He was writing for a college newspaper and a national publication. Matt Stoller's take: "It doesn't matter if it's hiring Ben Domenech or listening as Bush tries to convince you of the link between 9/11 and Saddam or that Iraq is now named 'flowers and candy land', journalists should no longer listen to the right-wing. ... When you do, and when you treat the conservative movement as if they are a legitimate source of information, you end up with WMDs in Iraq, 9/11 linked to Saddam, or on a small scale, an unethical racist trashing the brand of the Washington Post and the career of Jim Brady." Atrios: "[I]f the Post had announced a 'Blue America' along with 'Red America' Ben's plagiarism likely would've never been discovered. The outrage was over the fact that once again conservatives succeeding in mau-mauing a mainstream media outlet into balancing reporters with conservatives." Oliver Willis: "This prompts larger questions about conservative 'journalism'. This is a guy who - Wrote for National Review - Edited books for Regnery (Hugh Hewitt, Michelle Malkin) - Was a speechwriter for a U.S. Senator .. And consistently got kicked up the conservative food chain. Yet the minute he got work in the supposedly liberal mainstream media, that was the first time anyone scrutinized his past work (and the Post was asleep at the wheel, too) and it turns out he was a serial plagiarist."
From the "we're becoming mainstream" file, Markos Moulitsas of DailyKos appeared on CNN's "Reliable Sources" 3/26 and spoke to host Howard Kurtz about Domenech. Crooks and Liars has video and a partial transcript.
DOMENECH III: Picking Up The Pieces
The Woodchuck says that Brady's post.Blog info "does not indicate whether the Washington Post has learned any lessons from this debacle. Will its editors be more careful in the future? Will management think twice before trying to prove its bona fides to the howling harpies of the right wing?" Captain's Quarters disagrees: "The left-wing blogosphere came out in full attack mode from the moment this project was announced, and Jim stuck by his decision to hire Domenech and gave him a fair opportunity to prove himself. When the hysteria gave way to real problems ... Brady took the proper action in starting an investigation. If Domenech resigned on his own, or if the Post pushed it, the correct result has been achieved." FishBowlDC: "Even though dust hasn't settled yet, it's never too early to ask an all important question: Who would make a good author for the Red America blog? ... Before the plagiarism revelations surfaced, the best arguments against Domenech addressed the fact that Domenech's political philosophy/tone/comments didn't rise to a level commensurate with (what ought to be) the Post's standards." MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy: "I hope they still plan to run a right-of-center blog, but you know that no matter who they hire, that person will be viciously attacked. Hopefully that person will be more well-known/more 'tested' by the public." At CBS' Public Eye, Vaughn Ververs writes: "Let's say another conservative is hired to take over for Domenech. Is the Web site obligated to launch a 'Blue State' blog? Most editorial pages contain a mixture of voices, some conservative, some liberal some sort of moderate. But is there any obligation to operate under some formula? They may alienate a large segment of their audience, but they are free to print whatever voices they choose." Riehl World View offers this suggestion: "Create a predetermined number of slots -- 3, 6, 8, or whatever -- and audition and screen a small team of conservative bloggers to blog for washingtonpost.com, or a washingtonpost.comRight? The model would also work for the Left, should the site decide to do both." TAPPED: "I believe this episode with Domenech clearly shows why members of the press, for their own good, need to understand, support, and strengthen the distinction between journalism and online partisan activism."
IMMIGRATION: Get On The Bus
Following rallies this weekend in L.A., where 500K people came out, as well as Denver, Phoenix, Atlanta, Reno and other cities over immigration bills pending in the Senate and House, the blogosphere is talking about a major '06 and '08 issue. Los Angeles Times and the AP report on the story. Slate's Mickey Kaus writes a wrapup of the L.A. march and an overview of immigration as it will effect the '06 midterms. Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds thinks the rallies hurt immigration proponents' cause: "Illegal immigrants as individuals just trying to make a better life are sympathetic. Illegal immigrants as a mass movement making demands on the polity are considerably less so." Leon Wolf of RedState opines on the matter under the header "In Case You Thought This Was Going Away." The Corner's Mark Krikorian agrees, but sees the positive on the world stage: "The shape of immigrant protest in Europe is a sign of how much more intracable their immigration problem is than ours, and for that we should be grateful." Believing that most who participated in the rallies are illegal immigrants themselves, righty JunkYardBlog is shocked: "The mind reels at the arrogance of these scofflaws." PA Pundits, Power Line, Blogs For Bush, American Digest and Bill Bradley at New West Notes agree. Conservative Don Suber has a different, more immigrant-friendly approach: "They yearn to breathe free? Come on in. The 11 million illegal aliens in the nation pose little threat to national security. The 19 hijackers on Sept. 11 all were here legally. None were Mexican." Marc Cooper agrees, reporting that the L.A. protest was the largest in the city's history: "It seems to me that when an entire population -- who, after all, cleans our offices, cuts our lawns, serves our food, makes our beds, tends to our children and pays taxes but gets no refunds -- is threatened with criminalization they have the right and necessity to politically mobilize." Noting the blowback from Prop 187 in CA in '94, after which Latinos flocked to register as Dems, Pensito Review notes: "I hope the GOP follows through on its plan to "nationalize" the immigration issue this year. Let them reap the whirlwind." Huffington Post's Max Blumenthal has a report on "the largest, most energized demonstration I have ever witnessed in my life."
Newsweek profiles Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), his drive to keep immigration bills alive, and his own '08 ambitions. Lefty Pam, at Pam's House Blend, on Tancredo's '08 hopes: "That's got to make Karl and Kenny Mehlman feel queasy." Slublog makes an historical analogy: "Tancredo is the second coming of Joseph McCarthy." Another Progressive Voice agrees: "This guy does not deserve to be a Representative of our government with the kind of hate he breathes." Andrew West, though, is on Tancredo's side.
In other immigration gossip around the blogosphere, Nathan Newman at TPM Cafe notes recent polls on the matter and comes to a conclusion: "Those who think humane approaches to immigration are "political suicide" are ignoring public opinion." ReasonOnline's Hit & Run notes the WH '08 implications of pending legislation, and notes that Pres. Bush speaks on immigration this a.m. at DAR Constitution Hall in DC. Michelle Malkin focuses on Bush's weekend radio address, which dealt with immigration, and dispells a popular myth: "We are not a 'nation of immigrants.'" And anti-immigration advocates are noting that a Minuteman volunteer was pushed to the ground at a protest in IN. Freedom Folks and Miff's Chronicles have details. And DailyKos' Cafeoz profiles (satirically) those guarding our northern border.
IRAQ: Old Gray Lady Gets New White Papers
The New York Times reports on a 1/31/03 meeting between Pres. Bush and British PM Tony Blair, at which Bush "made clear" his intentions to go to war with or without a second U.N. resolution and set a 3/10/03 date for entering Iraq. The story is getting a lot of play. Many in the blogosphere see the report as proof that the infamous Downing Street Memo was accurate, including Truth or Consequences, The Peking Duck, DailyKos' Georgia10, Bark Bark Woof Woof and NewsHog, who notes that NYT is catching up to the British media, which reported the story in 2/06.
The left is up in arms over the story. Norwegianity asks: "Can we impeach him now? Not that that would represent any kind of justice. For that we'd need something more like the last fifteen minutes of Braveheart." Brilliant At Breakfast: "Now the rest of the country should know [that the war was fought on false pretenses]. The question is whether they will still choose not to know, because to know is to be obligated to get involved with the political processes necessary to do something about it." Jonathan Schwartz notes that, after this and the original Downing Street Memo, 9 other documents detailing planning of the war in Iraq far in advance of the second U.N. resolution have come to light thus far. Seeing The Forest, Kevin Drum, The Liberal Avenger, The Carpetbagger Report and others post long missives about the story. The Mahablog sums everyone's arguments up and fires back at a few.
Sister Toldjah reasons that Bush knew Saddam would mislead the UN, so of course war was inevitable. Her conclusion: "As usual, the NYT is all about sound and fury, signifying -- well, here I go repeating myself." Captain Ed agrees: "The Times presents us with a memo that shows the US and UK understanding that Saddam would not cooperate with the UN nor voluntarily disarm or step aside; history proved them correct on all those assertions." Confederate Yankee gives NYT credit for "a huge non-story."
SCOTUS: No Need For Argument
SCOTUSBlog, reporting a story that Newsweek has in this week's issue, discusses SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia's controversial comments at a 3/8 talk at the University of Freiburg, including everything from Bush v. Gore (Scalia: "Come on, get over it") and Guantanamo detainee rights ("Foreigners, in foreign countries, have no rights under the American Constitution"). The left wants Scalia to recuse himself from the forthcoming review of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the detainee-rights case stemming from treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. Jonathan Singer at MyDD says "Antonin Scalia must recuse himself for prejudging the case." On the right, Captain Ed agrees: "Scalia is, without a doubt, one of the more brilliant legal minds on the bench at any level. However, when it comes to decorum and judicial temperament, it seems that Scalia has some room for improvement." Captain Ed and Singer both point out that Chief Justice Roberts, who wrote the opinion being reviewed while he served on the 4th circuit, has already recused himself. Lefty Big Brass Blog laments the lack of accountability on the court: "Because of the virtual blanket immunity of Supreme Court Justices to consequences from the decisions they render and the conditions of personal belief and professional conduct under which they render those decisions, Mr. Scalia will likely face no material sanction should he proceed with what is now his apparent intention to participate in the adjudication of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld." Righty Ed Whelan, at NRO's Bench Memos, doesn't think Scalia needs to step aside: "The mere fact that a justice has made public comments that would or might have some bearing on a case that comes before the Court has never been regarded as requiring recusal." Stop The ACLU and JunkYardBlog are on Scalia's side. AMERICABlog, Daffodil Lane and Raven's View want him gone. Lefty La'Ikoa offers some advice: "Maybe he should use that "no comment" thing more often." Matthew Franck at NRO's Bench Memos thinks SCOTUS shouldn't take the case to begin with.
AFGHANISTAN: Free At Last
While we briefly mentioned it on Friday, Afghan Abdul Rahman, the Muslim who converted to Christianity, was released this weekend. Captain Ed says the story isn't over: "His best bet is to apply for asylum to the West, preferably the US." Michelle Malkin agrees, and includes a roundup of world reaction to the story. Think Progress faults Sec/State Condoleezza Rice's explanation of why Rahman was release, and offers video of Rice on "Fox News Sunday." RJ Eskow also blames Rice at Huffington Post. Others discussing the situation: Below The Beltway, Jihad Watch, Blogs for Bush, PunditGuy, Power Line, A Blog For All, The Belmont Club and dozens of others.
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Gettin' Better All The Time
There was also a lot of buzz this weekend about draft regulations for political blogging, to be voted on by the FEC this a.m. The rules are posted on the FEC's website [PDF]. Election Law's Rick Hasen calls the new rules "the product of thoughtful---and extended---deliberation," and is generally upbeat about them: "This is about everything that the Internet political community could hope for. ... These are very good rules in preserving robust political speech on the internet that takes place without much danger of the corruption of candidates." Hasen's only point of concern is that the FEC failed to require bloggers to post disclaimers when they receive payment from campaigns. Ex-FEC chair Brad Smith, Captain's Quarters, Everything I Know Is Wrong, Adam B at DailyKos, Bob Bauer and Allison Hayward all post interesting takes on the new rules.
LEST WE FORGET: The Secret's Out
Fans of NBC's "The West Wing" (there are some of you out there still, no?) caught a glimpse of the one and only Atrios in the 3/26 episode. Rep./Dem WH nominee Matthew Santos (D-TX) is in the midst of a Philly swing, and his camp arranged a Q&A with the well-read local blogger. It's not exactly the most flattering presentation, however. Coeruleus has a screen capture, and points out: "NBC tells us Atrios is 'not much of a people person.'" Atrios previewed: "Watch NBC make me look like an idiot. ... Ideally it would star me, as me, the dashing young blogger who smites evil, saves the world, and gets the girl, but in reality it's just a brief bit with an actor playing 'Atrios.'" He later jokes: "Not quite as bad as I thought -- Jon Bon Jovi did a really convincing Atrios."
The one-year anniversary of the Blogometer will arrive next Thursday, March 30, but I -- William Beutler, the guy who's hidden behind that annoying "editorial 'we'" for all this time -- won't be here to mark the occasion. Today is my last day compiling the Blogometer; I recently accepted a position with a different company doing something else blog-related -- and the catch is, they won't let me do that unless I give this up. It's a tough call, but an inevitable one -- this is a heck of a beat, but a hell of a grind.
Thanks go to Hotline editor Chuck Todd, who gave me the chance to create this thing last February, and then in June consented to publish it on the web for free. Definitely a big step -- you can have a Hotline subscription for a song... and by that I mean buying the rights to "Hey Jude." Thanks to my backup/assistant Blogometerers Mike Memoli, and now Reid Wilson. Thanks also to my tipsters; don't forget to tip my successors as well -- just direct them to the address above right. And thanks to the bloggers I've gotten to know or gotten to know better. I hope I've done a truthful job of tracking and telling of your travails, and I plan to keep watching this community develop -- brilliant and infuriating and everything else it may be. As a writer, I have to look at the blogosphere as a unique group -- or collection of groups -- on a new literary scene with a new literary scheme: It's certainly not the most eloquent, but it is perhaps the most honest and -- for communicating ideas -- certainly the most effective.
I won't be here anymore, but I won't be far; I'll be around in other endeavors. The decision to leave doesn't come lightly, but as Homer Simpson once said: Meh. I've had a good run. So let's do this one last time:
° ° ° ° °
Today is nearly one big edition of our recurring category subhead "Blogs vs. the MSM." The controversy surrounding GOP activist/Post.com blogger Ben Domenech has gone from major blogswarm to critical mass since early last p.m., and we could have written this entire edition about him. But we also touch on comparatively minor controversies involving the New York Times and ABC News. Both cases are all about, or ultimately about, media bias to the bloggers concerned (and they are concerned). The right is reacting to reports that to them confirm MSM bias against Pres. Bush at the NYT and ABC. The left continues investigating Domenech and putting pressure on the Post; to their mind his hiring is an example of the MSM diminishing itself to quiet conservative critics. The Domenech debacle is in fact alarming to both sides, as both fear the negative attention it's getting will dissuade other media companies from making hires out of the blogosphere.
We also touch on recent days' events in Iraq and Afghanistan, and don't miss our coda proposing a grand unified theory of the political-media establishment. Plus, Hotline's poll editor takes a look at the latest Hotline/Diageo poll, which asked 600 GOPers to name their favorite blogs. The responses were very, very perplexing. Very. Try as we might, an adequate explanation of the results escape us. If you have a theory, well, as we said -- the e-mail address can be found in the sidebar just to the northeast of this entreaty.
DOMENECH I: Under Attack By Commie Nazis!
Update: Shortly after deadline, Domenech resigned from the Washington Post.
The saga of Ben Domenech, the Washington Post and their left-wing critics continues apace. What was a big story the morning his blog Red America launched quickly became fodder for politicians and the MSM. Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) sent a letter to the Post in the p.m. on 3/22, as noted at Eschaton and dismissed at RedState. E&P has been on the case. Header: "New 'Wash Post' Blogger: OK, Coretta King Was Not a Communist, My Bad." The Post's Howard Kurtz covered it as well this a.m.
The controversy has already been inspiration for discussion as well, where at Real Clear Politics, Dave Mastio points out that MSM reporters often come from liberal magazines such as The New Republic, Washington Monthly, and American Prospect. He counts current NYTer Nicholas Confessore, Posties Katherine Boo and David Segal, and others. Then he shifts gears: "Can anyone name for me a current New York Times or Washington Post reporter who was previously on the staff of National Review, The Weekly Standard or The American Spectator? No? Maybe that's because there are none. And over time, this imbalance has consequences for the press."
The development that really sent it this into overdrive was the discovery that Domenech had posted at RedState as "Augustine." The left is on a mission, and so far they've been firing on all cylinders -- although the level of vitriol directed at Domenech could have undercut their claims about Domenech/Augustine's intemperate rhetoric, for which he apologized at his Post blog yesterday.
For using the descriptor "Communist" to describe Coretta Scott King, Media Matters' David Brock sent a letter to the entire Post management calling on them to fire this "bigoted blogger." OR-based film producer Jane Hamsher wrote a much harsher letter to Post.com's Jim Brady -- her 2nd this week -- calling on him to admit that Domenech is the author who writes as "Augustine." That can be found at her own Firedoglake as well as at Huffington Post.
Full disclosure: She also mentions us (although her insinuation that the Blogometer itself is a conservative publication is incorrect). As it happens, the Blogometer had an unwitting role in exposing Domenech's name. We've known for some time that Domenech was Augustine, and thought nothing of it when we described him as "Ben 'Augustine' Domenech" in our 1/26 edition. Not long after a diarist at Daily Kos noticed that he couldn't figure out where Domenech's RedState posts were, someone turned up the connection at Google. Here at the Blogometer we never like being part of a story -- but sometimes it's unavoidable. The meta can become the subject, especially in the blogosphere.
In RedState's Corner-esque RedHot, pseudynomous contributor Blanton -- himself recently accused of racism by MyDD's Matt Stoller -- called the appellation absurd: "The same people who have cheapened usage of the word 'nazi' will do the same for the word 'racist' and we will all be worse off because of it. In the meantime, people will start ignoring them because they seem too comfortable screaming racism every chance they get." Meanwhile, Augustine himself posted about the Cowboys picking up kicker Mike Vanderjagt.
DOMENECH II: Gimme A Lift?
All that became moot when the scrutiny applied to Domenech's past writings turned up something that had nothing to do with invective: a history of plagiarism. So far, lefty bloggers have turned up multiple instances stretching from '99 (when Domenech was about 17) to '01. The Kurtz story above mentions it, but apparently was put to bed before the extent of it became clear. Lefty bloggers had already made a project of finding the most damning passages of Domenech's past writings, but now they're zeroing in on this "damned" thing.
Here's an as-complete-as-we-can-manage list of alleged incidents:
- 3/99: Article on Waco investigation in the Flat Hat (the weekly student paper at Domenech's alma mater, William & Mary), with info lifted from the Washington Post (via Daily Kos).
- 10/99: "Bringing Out The Dead" review in the Flat Hat, from Salon (via Eschaton).
- 11/99: "The Bachelor" review in the Flat Hat, from Salon (via Eschaton
).
- 11/99: David Bowie review in the Flat Hat, from Q, as cited by teenagewildlife.com (via Daily Kos).
- 11/99: Review of "The Messenger" in the Flat Hat, from Dallas Morning News, as cited by RottenTomatoes.com (via Daily Kos).
- 11/99: Counting Crows review in the Flat Hat, from Rolling Stone (via Daily Kos).
- 11/99: Party op-ed in the Flat Hat, from conservative humorist P.J. O'Rourke (via Daily Kos).
- 12/99: "The World is Not Enough" review in the Flat Hat, from IMDB (via Eschaton).
- 12/99: "Toy Story 2" review in the Flat Hat, from AllMoviePortal.com (via Obsidian Wings).
- 7/00: NRO article on Britney Spears, from Salon (via Atrios' HaloScan comments).
- 12/00: Domenech's music picks on NRO, and Crosswalk.com (via Eschaton).
- '01: New York Press story on '98 Capitol shooting, lifted from A-1 of the Washington Post (via Daily Kos).
- 7/01: NRO article on "Final Fantasy," lifted from Cox News Service (via RedState).
As Daily Kos' Hunter described the shift: "We've moved on from Domenech's funeral-day assertion that Coretta Scott King was a communist, or his comparison of the Supreme Court to the Ku Klux Klan. Those are small things. Now it's getting bad." Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings expounds on the seriousness of plagiarism -- the "mortal sin" of the writing profession -- and says, "if these charges pan out" and the Post doesn't "fire him, they have no standards at all."
This a.m., The Flat Hat itself carries an editorial titled: "Poison of plagiarism."
All this breathes new life into Brendan Nyhan's suspicion that he fabricated a Tim Russert quote, which he'd originally written for Spinsanity in 6/02. Salon's Joe Conason covers this angle and the plagiarism, too. Nyhan himself asks at his personal blog: "Talk about a lack of due diligence by the Post. Will the newspaper investigate the plagiarism charges and the mysterious AP article? Or will they just fire Domenech and try to salvage what's left of their reputation?"
Unsurprisingly, the controversy has consumed the Domenech co-founded RedState this a.m. There, Erick Erickson writes under the header "We Must Defend": "It's true. Ben Domenech is Augustine. And I stand behind him 100%. He has said nothing filled with racism or hate, or bigotry. In fact, Ben has been a leader in keeping those he dubs the 'evilcons' off RedState." More: "Ben is accused of being a racist, gay, homophobe, an incestuous lover of his own mother, a partisan, evil, and now a plagiarist. ... Should these people succeed, how many bloggers from either side will ever again get so far? I would suspect none -- not when there are people closer to the media who would fit the bill. ... What media company would want to take the risk of a blogswarm?" Dem-leaning blogger Bob Brigham, sometimes of Swing State Project, shows up in the comments and agrees with this point, but that's about all. Hitting the same point, liberal Sadly, No! whips up a Photoshopped Washington Post cover featuring a photo of Domenech and the header "Plagiarism Threatens Credibility of 'Blogosphere'"
Erickson continues in the same post: "And now those opposed to Ben have googled prior writings that on the surface appear suspicious, but only because permissions obtained and judgments made offline were not reflected online by an outdated and out-of-business campus newspaper." From the conclusion: "Ben Domenech deserves our full advocacy and defense. He has done nothing wrong and does not deserve urban legends about his wrong doing solely because of the lies of those who are jealous of his success."
Scott Shields, MyDD: "RedState responds, foaming at the mouth. Apparently, we're either making up the plagiarism charge or we're misinformed about the fact that all of those writers actually gave Domenech permission to copy their work." Shields is "pretty sure" the claim "will be debunked by morning. Just a hunch."
Erickson was followed soon after by the anonymous RedStater Machiavel: "In 2006 in America, we see perfect replicas of Stalin's drones at work in response to about the only decent thing said about the Domenech affair on Daily Kos" -- a diary posted by a liberal friend of Domenech's titled "I Know Ben Domenech," saying: "tone of the comments I've seen here and around the blogosphere about Ben, by people who surely haven't met him is sad." The Kossacks vigorously object. Back to Machiavel: "Now is the time to close ranks, and not give in to the temptations of the circular firing squad. Chris Bowers tells us that Ben's hiring signifies the death of the right-blogosphere. To the contrary, the scurrilous attacks on Ben signal the demise and fall of the left-blogosphere as an authentic alternative voice. They are now shills for traditional media and no more. ... Michelle. Hugh. Rush. Glenn. This is the moment. Where will you stand?" Hewitt has said nothing so far, while Glenn -- that being Instapundit's Reynolds, hasn't either -- but does link to a story about plagiarism at Chinese universities. Of the ones named, by Machiavel, Michelle Malkin quotes Atrios commenters attacking home-schooling, and comes up with a new apothegm: "First, Bush Derangement Syndrome. Now: Ben Domenech Derangement Syndrome."
And all subsequent posts on the front page dealt with the issue: "We Must Continue" by Moe Lane, "Pathetic" by Clayton Wagar, "The midgets' fury, part 2: homeschooling" by Josh "Tacitus" Trevino, and "This is About Decency" again by Machiavel.
Otherwise, the right has pretty much stayed mum about it. But those who do are split between their objection to the invective leveled at Domenech and what appear to be the plain facts.
WV-based journo Don Surber was ready to throw him overboard even before the plagiarism: "[T]his is the sort of 'blogger' that Jeff Jarvis and Glenn Reynolds want to replace actual journalists like me -- guys who have covered a fire and who have withstood attacks from the left ([Dem Sen.] Bob Byrd big enough for you?) and know you don't go running into the fray screaming 'Bring it on!' at the top of your lungs. They will and how." More: "Blog revolution? Marketplace politics? Sure, this guy got the blog gig the old fashioned way: He had connections. Daddy. Republicans. Regenery press."
He certainly does -- or did -- have other defenders, though. Dan Riehl defended him against Media Matters -- but when the charges of plagiarism arose, declined to continue. Likewise, Confederate Yankee expended a great deal of time rebutting Brock's letter forcefully -- but when he learned of the new charges via Riehl, stood down, calling it a "strong argument for Domenech to resign." Late this a.m., Malkin joined them: "And, painfully, Domenech's detractors, are right. He should own up to it and step down. Then, the Left should cease its sick gloating and leave him and his family alone."
At press time, there was nothing further from Domenech, but watch Red America -- as well as the sites linked above -- to see what comes next.
BLOGS VS. THE MSM I: Amusing Himself To Death
On 3/23 Drudge Report splashed the all-caps headline "ABC NEWS EXEC: 'BUSH MAKES ME SICK'; E-MAIL REVEALED" underneath the scan of a 9/30/04 -- during the 1st debate between Bush and John Kerry -- Berry'd e-mail from ABC prod. John Green (now with "GMA"), to a person or persons unknown: "Are you watching this? Bush makes me sick. If he uses the 'mixed messages' line one more time, I'm going to puke." Subsequent updates note an e-mailed apology from Green to ABC News staff, and a friend of Green saying: "John feels so badly about this email. He is a straight shooter and great producer who is always fair." Hugh Hewitt hosted Instapundit's Reynolds and Kausfiles' Mickey Kaus on his 3/24 show; Radioblogger has the transcript. Kaus, often friendly to conservative arguments, writes later: "I tried not to agree with everything Hugh said." USS Neverdock notes that "GMA" itself noted that a viewer survey showed "the vast majority believed the media were biased in their Iraq coverage." Considering the Green revelations: "That's not surprising." At IMAO, Laurence Simon has fun coming up with fantastical, just-shy-of-impossible alternate explanations for the meaning of Green's e-mail. On last p.m.'s "Countdown," host Keith Olbermann appeared to pin the leaked e-mail on the WH. While left-leaners are mostly occupied with Domenech or other issues, new Huffington Post hire (from Media Bistro) Rachel Sklar pushes back: "This just in: a voter had opinions about a presidential candidate. ... He provides no examples and no further evidence of how Green or any other ABC staffer prepare reports that were biased or presented conclusions that were unsupported by fact." She adds: "For the record, Bush made reference to 'mixed' messages and/or signals 8 times during the debate, and Kerry made 4 in response." Right-trending Dem Roger L. Simon agrees in part, but arrives at a different conclusion: "Frankly, Green should not be so upset. This is his opinion and he's welcome to it in a free society. The idea that he would be impartial is simply a myth. Last I heard John Green was a human being. Only machines (so far) are impartial. In fact, it's good viewers of ABC are informed of the opinions of those producing the network's shows. It gives those viewers much more ability to evaluate what they are seeing."
Those linking to the story include Blogs for Bush, Weapons of Mass Discussion, Conservative Outpost, The Aurora, Misguided Roses, Bile, Snark and Sneer, Andi's World, Expose The Left and just about every other conservative blog on the planet.
BLOGS VS. THE MSM II: St. Nicholas The Confessore
A week after the New York Times erred in identifying the wrong man as the hooded detainee in the infamous Abu Ghraib photo (see 3/15 Blogometer), as of 3/23, New York Times' Confessore is re-reporting a 3/8 story on a Brooklyn woman who claimed to be a Katrina victim, but was not. She now faces charges of fraud. E&P reports on the latest controversy. The right never misses an opportunity to hit the Times, but some liberal bloggers jump in, too:
Conservative Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Now the Times has fallen for another fraud. And, curiously enough, it ties in with another of the Times' favorite opportunities to bash the Bush administration -- Hurricane Katrina!" Decision '08's Mark Coffey makes the same point, and calls this "a rather good argument for extending diversity beyond accidents of birth like race and gender towards items of choice like, oh, say, political preferences..." And Mary Katherine Ham adds: "And, they let the same reporter who goofed on the original story write the follow-up. That seems like a bad practice. So much for any disciplining."
On the left, Derek Smalls/Montgomery Burns/Waylon Smithers/Ned Flanders/Kent Brockman/Rev. Lovejoy/Principal Skinner/Dr. Hibbert/Rainer Wolfcastle Harry Shearer writes in his Eat the Press column at HuffPo: "Howell Raines is starting to look good in the rear-view mirror. Bill Keller's NYTimes is turning page two into a regular Sorry We Didn't Check That Department. ... But what, in fact, is going on at the Times? A (pardon me) rational organization, in the wake of the Judy Miller debacle, might have wanted to ratchet up its fact-checking." Penraker snarks: "Please, rehire Jayson Blair, it can only improve the quality of the paper at this point."
AFGHANISTAN: The Afghan Wig-Out
After buzzing around the blogosphere for several days, we have to make mention of Abdul Rahman, the Afghan Muslim who converted to Christianity and now faces the death penalty. New York Times has today's updated story, in which the presiding judge promises to resist foreign pressure. This story's been a swarm for days. A sampling of today's commentary: Mahablog says Rahman's death would "likely stir up more anti-Islamic feeling in Europe and cause the Christian Right to re-evaluate our military adventures in the Middle East, which would be a disaster for the Bush Administration." Sec/State Condoleezza Rice "is pulling every string she can pull to set Rahman free." Below the Beltway also applauds Rice. Donklephant asks: "Aren't these Taliban tactics?" The Jawa Report thinks we still don't understand Islam well enough: "Our liberation of Afghanistan and our hopes for it must be tempered by the reality of Islam as more than just a religion as understood in the West -- it is a political ideology." John McIntyre at Real Clear Politics wants to know, "Is democracy compatible with Islamic law?" California Conservative asks: "Where is the outrage from the Left?" He raises a good point. The liberal blogosphere hasn't weighed in on these pieces nearly as much as the right. Captain Ed thinks even the Bush admin isn't doing enough.
IRAQ: CPT Ain't Down With The USA
Christian Peacekeeper Teams announced the release of two Canadians and a Briton and once again mourned the death of American Tom Fox. AP and Wall Street Journal's Taranto write it up. Mostly happy ending, right? Not in the least. CPT's first release didn't mention their rescue by U.S., British and Canadian soldiers, and that got conservative bloggers swarming. Gina Cobb notes with discontent the absence of gratitude towards the rescuing troops. Michelle Malkin does too, but notes with smugness the CPT's revised release late last p.m. expressing thanks to the troops. Here's her post before the updated release came out. Hyscience, Relapsed Catholic, Big Pharaoh, Outside the Beltway, The Belmont Club and Stop The ACLU pile on. Blogs for Bush's Mark Noonan compares the CPT and other "peacemakers," which he puts in quotations, to isolationists pre-WWII. Jawa Report keeps an updated list of all U.S. hostages in Iraq.
Jeanne at Body and Soul wants to know how a suspect gave information to U.S. interrogators in such a short time: "Does a frightening implication -- You guess how we got information out of a captive in well under three hours -- hang in the air after that claim?"
Other insights into the operation: Murdoc Online first posted a simple news report, then criticized the CPT's reaction, then became skeptical of MSM reports of the rescue, noting differences in coverage. The Green Knight notes with interest the involvement of the top-secret Joint Task Force 2, a Canadian military team "so secret that the Canadian government doesn't generally even acknowledge their existence."
Well, He Is A Dreamboat ...
Special to the Blogometer [Update: Er, not quite. Also available at Hotline On Call], by Hotline poll editor Aoife McCarthy:
Raise your hand if you knew Anderson Cooper had a blog. Now raise your hand if that is your first stop for news on current events. Yeah -- didn't think so. But don't jump too quickly -- a couple of things need to be kept in mind when looking at this question.
Which Political Blogs Do You Read Regularly?
(multi. accepted, top 4 listed) -Bush Approve- -Evang-
All Strg Smwht Dis Yes No
360 Blog/Anderson Cooper 21% 28% 15% 19% 23% 16%
AMERICABlog 3 1 4 3 2 4
blogsforfox.blogspot.com 3 1 5 3 3 2
Daily Kos 3 2 5 - 2 4
First of all this was only asked among those who said they read blogs (every day, few times a week, few times a month, or less often than that). The total of this sample is 197, placing the MoE above 6%. Of that 197, a plurality (74) could not name a specific blog or refused. Now that brings our total of blog-naming respondents down to 123 or 62% of all blog reader. This is just 20.5% of our original sample (think small).
The question was open-ended, and all responses were recorded verbatim. An exhaustive list of pre-coded options was given to interviewers that ran the full spectrum of ideology/partisanship. After the survey was completed, any pre-codes from the list that did not receive responses were deleted.
So how did Anderson Cooper come out on top? There are countless reasons this could have occurred, the most likely being name ID. First of all, CNN promotes their blogs -- a lot. Many of the blogs on the list were TV based. This could be a blog that they had heard of before, and subsequently were able to name. Keep in mind that respondents had to offer up responses for this question -- they were not offered a list to choose from. If they were, the results would vary drastically from what we see here. This is not the equivalent of asking "which newspaper do you read." That is a daily occurrence and an institution that readers grew up with, making them far less likely to forget a name or offer a skewed response. Blogs are a new medium, particularly among people outside the Beltway (i.e. our universe). This is a game of memory to offer a response that is appropriate.
To obtain complete poll results, go to www.diageohotlinepoll.com.
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Notes Toward A Grand Unified Theory Of The Political-Media Complex
For some time we -- all right, let's ditch that "we" stuff -- I have entertained something of a grand unified theory to describe the current political-media landscape as well as explain institutional motivations and account for the political bias ascribed to them. This may strike one as obvious, or maybe too simplistic, but we do think it's a useful way to look at it. Here's a pared down version:
Within the Beltway and those outside who engage it, I count 3 discrete categories that can describe almost any media or influence-based organization. Let's take 3 examples among think tanks, one from each category: Brookings, AEI, and the Center for American Progress. Here are 3 more, from mixed media formats: Washington Post, Fox News, and Air America. Each fits into 1 of the 3 categories, respectively. We'll call these 3 categories the Inert Institutions, the Conservative Alternatives, and the Aggressive Progressives.
The Inert Institutions (IIs) -- Brookings and the Post -- comprise long-standing, major American establishments whose personnel and productions generally lean left, though they do not self-consciously think of themselves as such. They try to be fair, but fail often enough to be noticed, and targeted, by the... Conservative Alternatives (CAs), which is smaller and composed of groups younger than those in the 1st category. These groups are self-consciously conservative, if not always "movement." They are more popular in some ways (see: FNC's ratings) but not always respected across the spectrum. The Aggressive Progressives (APs) are a reaction to the CA's influence on the IIs -- part of the movement left, either quite recently founded or newly reinvigorated. More often than not, they self-describe as "progressive" instead of "liberal," and like the CAs, they are often viewed skeptically. Nor have they as large an audience yet as the CAs -- in large part because their natural audience is largely satisfied by the IIs. (Compare, in the same order: NPR, Rush Limbaugh and Pacifica.)
Where do bloggers fit? They're in all 3 categories, of course. Bloggers aligned with the CAs came to prominence in the aftermath of 9/11 (Instapundit), bloggers in the AP group sprang up during the WH'04 pre-primary season (Daily Kos), and only in the past year have the IIs gotten into the game (see: just about every single newspaper). Pressure groups and think tanks have been a bit slower, but they're getting in, too.
I actually think this is a rather even playing field -- though the GOP's current dominance may undercut this take -- even as it's balanced all wacky like a child's mobile. And just because it's evolved to this point doesn't mean it cannot evolve further. The APs category could become just as large as the CAs group. The IIs have been seeing its influence diminish. The safe bet is that those trends will continue, but you can never be sure.
Agree? Disagree? Agree to disagree? Drop me a line.
LEST WE FORGET: The Big Crunch
Like potato chips, we couldn't have just one:
- Church sign generators are nothing new to the Internets, but Wuzza Dem makes it all seem new again.
- At Words For My Enjoyment, Paul Davidson mourns the passing of the piggy-back ride.
- Noting that Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH) is proposing legislation prohibiting publication of stories about the NSA wiretap program, Fafblog! says DeWine doesn't go far enough: "It's one thing to ban journalists from talking about the NSA program, but what's truly needed is a law to prevent the public from thinking about it. ... The occupation of America's frontal lobes by the United States military may be long and costly, but the cause of freedom requires many a sacrifice."
- And you already know whether you love Greg Gutfeld or whether you hate him.
- Guess it's a good thing this is our final Blogometer -- apparently we humans are already marked for extinction.
NOTES AND ERRATA: Going Once... Going Twice...
Job Opening: The Hotline is seeking a staff writer to take over The Blogometer. Applicants must consider themselves regular consumers of political blogs (min. 2 years reading them, also must be a fan of blogs), be familiar with nationally read blogs from across the spectrum; know how to use blog search engines/aggregators (such as Technorati and Memeorandum); be able to quickly analyze and synthesize developments in the news as well as summarize ongoing blog activity with brevity, clarity and accuracy. Excellent writing and time-management skills are also a must. As with every Hotline position, we don't expect our writers to not have an opinion, we just expect them to keep it out of their work. Interested applicants should send their resumes to jvu@theatlantic.com.
Today's a weird day. There's not much news out there and not much debate about Beltway issues. The FEC has pushed back its vote on new rules affecting bloggers. The right-blogosphere is focusing on issues in Afghanistan and Iraq that do not directly affect U.S. politics. The biggest swarm is probably still the left-blogosphere's objection to the Washington Post's hiring of GOP blogger Ben Domenech, but that is diminished as well.
So today we cover a few interesting tidbits from the WH'08 race and '06 midterms, follow a few blog-based intellectual arguments partly carried out by DC-based political writers, and revisit the left's take on Domenech and the right's take on AP's Jennifer Loven. We also file a brief report of our own on a low-key but noteworthy blog network in Oregon, and our latest Blogger Spotlight features blog veteran Matt Welch.
But perhaps most important of all -- 3/22/06 will apparently go down in history as the 1st time a U.S. president used the word "blog."
IMMIGRATION: Dropping The F-Bomb
AP reports that Senate Min. Leader Harry Reid may filibuster Senate Maj. Leader Bill Frist's proposed immigration reform, providing fodder for the right. Hyscience says Reid "cares more about getting 11 million votes worth of illegal immigrants than about his nation's national security." Mark Noonan thinks Reid is "hand[ing] the immigration issue to GOP on a silver platter." Riehl World View: "I doubt we'll see an immigration bill without some accommodation for illegals already here and productive. But taking a stand against tighter borders is still playing political Russian roulette with an election coming up." The Strata-Sphere: Dems "are being two-faced opportunists after how they acted on the DPW disaster. At least Buchananites come by their dislike of all things foreign honestly."
WHITE HOUSE '08: Two Hot Seats
On 3/21, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) took calls on a Seattle radio station, and now TPM Muckraker shares part of the transcript. One caller asked about McCain's hiring of Pres. Bush adviser Terry Nelson: "For a reformer, I'm kind of curious why he would hire a guy like Terry Nelson as a senior advisor. Here's a guy who was actually in the indictment of DeLay on his money laundering charges. ... And he was also, this guy Nelson was also the supervisor of James Tobin, who was the guy convicted last year for helping jam the Democratic get-out-the-vote lines in New England a couple years ago." McCain denied the charges, the caller disagreed, and McCain said: "I will check it out. But I've never heard of such a thing. I know that he was a grassroots organizer for President Bush year 2000 and 2004 ... but the other charges I will go and look and see if any of them are true, but I've never heard of them before." At Talking Points Memo, Josh Marshall adds: "Needless to say, what the caller said was precisely true, as you can see demonstrated in this post about the DeLay case and this one about the phone-jamming case. I'm curious to learn what the senator's investigation turns up about his new right hand. "
Sen. George Allen (R-VA) attended a recent town meeting in Culpeper, VA, and there as well was Tullysatre, a gay 16-year-old who stood up and asked Allen about his opposition to adding "sexual orientation" to hate crimes statutes -- and sparred with him further on gay marriage. Tullysatre reports: "Senator Allen gave a response unlike any other I have received from anyone. His response was in agreement to my statement on history and majority rule -- contrasting his previous statement, but a continuation on support of un-constitutional legislation. ... Senator George Allen has every right to defend his views as he sees fit - however no man has the right to attempt to redefine a constitution established in order to protect the basic civil liberties of all citizens equally under the eyes of the law in our great country."
MIDTERMS I: What 06 Means For '06
Post-mortems on IL 06 are grim and contentious. At MyDD, IL 06 Dem House nominee Tammy Duckworth's narrow win has Chris Bowers "very worried" about '06: "I travel to DC often these days ... and from everyone I had talked to down there, I was told more or less the same thing: Duckworth will win this primary, and win it huge." More: "We can't win if we continue to operate like this. The netroots and grassroots can't win by themselves, and the Democratic electoral establishment is hardly any better. At some point, there is going to have to be a way for us to work together, or we are just going to keep losing and losing and losing. We can't go on like this. We can't win without them, and they can't win without us." Shakespeare's Sister agrees: "I'd turn up to vote, but I'd be damned if I'd contribute an ounce of my time or treasure helping a DCCC-approved candidate after the DCCC deliberately undermined a viable candidate for no good reason, except their usual, pathetic We know best. Stuff envelopes? Stuff dis. ... Now instead of what could have been a surge of momentum behind [Christine] Cegelis, they've got a disillusioned and disaffected group of people who are unlikely to expend a smidgeon of the effort they put toward the primary to the actual election. Way to go."
But for liberal Fact-esque, this doesn't add up: "Of course they are better and they most certainly can win without us. Where did Chris or anyone for that matter ever get the idea that the reverse was true? But the point of his post is a call for a truce in what he calls the activist class war in the Democratic Party and that's a great idea -- from our perspective. Who wouldn't like a seat at the grown-up's table? ... It's just not going to happen because giving up power willingly isn't the long suit of the Party leadership -- or of most human beings." At Swing State Project, DavidNYC doesn't buy the notion that Duckworth's "small margin" of victory should be taken as a "sign that the establishment powers are in weak shape": "I consider any 'blowout' talk to have been mostly bluster -- was any of it even on the record? -- and I always expected this one to be relatively close." Dem speechwriter Dan Conley, at Political Wire: "Chris Bowers of MyDD suggested last night that the Duckworth campaign pay for a primary recount as a way of buying off Cegelis's support, which has to rank as the wackiest political idea of the day."
Meanwhile at American Prospect's Midterm Madness, Alec Oveis notes Duckworth's too-narrow win was only part of a bad sign for the "Fighting Dems" -- '06 candidates who served in Iraq. In NC, "the highly touted Tim Dunn ended his bid for the seat currently held by Robin Hayes, citing problems with his personal finances. But from the looks of it, the real trouble was a shortage of donors; Dunn finished 2005 with just $47,000, while Hayes had $733,000 on hand. What happened to all the netroots support that Dunn was supposed to receive?"
MIDTERMS II: And I Would Have Gotten Away With It If It Wasn't For You Meddling Bloggers!
In the 3/19 Hartford Courant, radio talker/columnist Colin McEnroe criticized Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) and indicated his preference for primary challenger Ned Lamont. On 3/22 Lieberman appeared on McEnroe's WTIC radio show.
In the words of MyDD and others, Lieberman "flipped out" on the air, growing impatient with McEnroe's questions -- Firedoglake has a partial transcript. And Crooks and Liars has the exchange in MP3. At one point, Lieberman said: "This quote is totally out of context. You might have gotten it from the bloggers, who love to do this." FDL's Jane Hamsher: "I have to say I'm shocked. I thought we would be a lot further along in the campaign process before Holy Joe wigged out, but it seems we've gotten deep under his skin."
BLOGS VS. THE MSM I: That Loven Feelin'
The controversy surrounding AP reporter Jennifer Loven's report on Bush's use of "straw men" arguments (see 3/20 and 3/22 Blogometers) surges once more (see 3/20's Blogometer), this time owing to a report on said controversy by Editor & Publisher. As conservative Media Blog's Steven Spruiell puts it, the article "was so clearly one-sided, even liberal-friendly industry trade Editor & Publisher is taking another look." The E&P story notes Loven "cited the president's habit of using phrases such as 'some say' or 'some believe' when introducing a viewpoint that challenges his own." Spruiell: "You know, because reporters never use that device." In fact, as E&P continues: "Loven then contends that 'hardly anyone in mainstream political debate has made such assertions.'" Spruiell again: "Hardly anyone? I think that qualifies as a 'straw non-man' argument." E&P notes that one dimension to the controversy is that Loven's piece was not labeled either "analysis" or "commentary." TigerHawk thinks the MSM "would do well to abandon" the labels: "News and opinion flow seamlessly together in all media other than newspapers, wire services and tiny corners of broadcast journalism, the last bastions of the old idea that the press should at least aspire to objectivity. Why not just admit the obvious -- that the failure to label everything as 'opinion' or 'analysis' is itself a deceptive trade practice. Who are we kidding?" Don Surber quotes AP's official news standards, which he does not believe the Loven story met.
As others did earlier in the week, Ace of Spades HQ points out that "Loven is married to an environmental activist and major Kerry supporter in 2004."
Vital Center is on Loven's side. Jeff Gannon is not. Neither is a much more verbose Justin Cawley.
BLOGS VS. THE MSM II: Domenech-ing The Debate
Yesterday's top story isn't quite the rager it was before, but lefty bloggers are digging into Domenech's RedState posts for as much fodder as they can find. The site of the moment is clearly Your Logo Here, an established but low-traffic site that posted on the subject early, got a few links, and has kept on digging.
As noted by RedState's Moe Lane, Ben Domenech's Red America blog is down this a.m. -- in fact, so are other Washington Post blogs, though not all. Writes Lane: "I certainly hope that this is not a DOS attack" -- i.e. denial of service -- "If my above hope turns out to be dashed, my response is: monkeywrenching the WaPo won't help matters any, nitwits." A subsequent update relays info that the service interruption was not "nefarious."
Your Logo Here finds a comment on a RedState thread where Domenech, posting under his pseudonym, referred to Coretta Scott King as a "Communist." At Firedoglake, Pachacutec writes an snark-laden, link-heavy open-letter to Domenech -- and refers to him repeatedly as a racist. Among the more printable sections: "I really can't pity you because your 101st Fighting Keyboardist bravado is not just pathetic, its deadly, given your politics, war cheerleading and prime fighting age. Call of Duty II doesn't count." Confederate Yankee: "Predictably, the leftists making this charge" -- he links to Pachacutec -- "said far more offensive things then Domenech did when leveling their charge against him, but their hysteria basically boils down to one simple question: Whether or not Domenech was right about King's politics, when did communism become a race?"
Liberal Publius at Legal Fiction steps back and assesses the scene: "I think the Domenech lovefest has now officially graduated up to the status of 'significant cultural event' -- and one that needs to be explored. After all, when a reaction is that widespread and emotional, it probably means there are some larger, more interesting issues bubbling underneath." One conclusion: The bottom line is progressives are objecting not because he's conservative, but because of the merits of the individual writer and of his individual posts." Another: "I don't think that progressives got upset because they think the Post is 'biased' toward the GOP. If they do, they're wrong. What progressives think is that people like the Post editorial board are self-hating liberals." It's a lengthy post, with more conclusions.
At Tapped, Ezra Klein thinks the lefty bloggers have inadvertently done Domenech and Post.com a service: "Here's a game: Any idea who Emily Messner is? How about Joel Achenbach? William Arkin? Give up? They're all bloggers for WashingtonPost.com. And so far as the blogosphere is concerned, they toil away in obscurity." And so would have Domenech," except that "the left side of the blogosphere stood up and, in a rare show of unity, roared against the selection. Suddenly, WaPo was in the enviable position of courageously defending conservative expression on their site. Domenech became infinitely more valuable, instantly mutating from a Republican hack into a conservative symbol. He's their ideological protection now, proof that they value and protect Republicans in their midst. And he's visible, too, which gives his poorly formulated opinions a power and reach they shouldn't possess. In punditry, all publicity is good publicity, and the past few days gave Domenech and his employers the best publicity they could've hoped for."
GREAT DEBATES: Blockhead
As 1st reported in the Toronto Star this weekend and Drudged yesterday, a UC-Berkeley prof Jack Block's study published in the Journal of Research Into Personality claims that "whiny" children tend to grow up and be conservative, while "confident, resilient, self-reliant kids mostly grew up to be liberals." The Star notes the similar findings of another prof recently led to his being "excoriated on right-wing blogs" and the subject "of a a Congressional investigation into his research funding." Dr. Helen Reynolds: "What about people who change their political orientation over time -- were they really just whiny kids or self-reliant ones originally who fooled themselves?" Wizbang's Paul: "I don't even need to read the rest of the article to spot the obvious problem with this study. If there were any conservative kids in Berkley then everyone really was out to get them." Liberal John Aravosis thinks differently: "More than a kernel of truth in this study. What do Bill Frist, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Limbaugh, George Will, Dr. Laura, the Republican bloggers all have in common? Whiny insecure brats. And that, my friends, comes from growing up a bit of a twit." As Wonkette points out, "[c]hurning out scientific studies connecting personality traits with political views ... has turned into a veritable cottage industry." Both Wonkette and Matt Yglesias at Tapped recall another dubious study from '05, purporting to demonstrate that conservatives are better lovers. Michelle Malkin has the study (PDF). Earlier, one of her readers wrote: "In the end I wonder if the study doesn't merely reveal the fact that conservatives get the whining out of the way early and move on, while liberals never really get over it."
Picking up on 3/21's action, Matthew Yglesias takes up Andrew Sullivan's claim that Yglesias' goal is to discredit all conservatives -- and agrees: "Conservatism, as its currently understood in the United States and as Sullivan seems to understand it -- basically a dogmatic resistance to the idea of the federal government having revenue -- is basically a bankrupt ideology that's more than worthy of being discredited, notwithstanding the fact that many bright and engaging people embrace it." Mother Jones's Bradford Plumer piles on: "If a Republican ever came to power who was more willing to cut government programs than George W. Bush, it would be catastrophic." Sullivan takes the next step in the debate and wants his readers to email him spending savings ideas. Sullivan, getting back on message: "The main point of this is to cut spending -- on entitlements and discretionary spending, including parts of the defense budget, if needs be."
Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson is worried about the state of the U.S. economy, thanks to "the threat of globalization and the reality of de-unionization." Hugh Hewitt takes on Meyerson with an advertising pitch made by WaPo itself. Hewitt evicerates Meyerson "gracefully and with calm understatement," per John Podhoretz. TNR's Jonathan Chait takes the conservatives on: Hewitt "can't be serious, can he? First of all Hewitt should note that those numbers are a 2008 projection. ... I could do a projection that in 2008 the United States will be an uninhabitable wasteland where a few desperate survivors are bartering sharpened sticks, but this would not, technically speaking, refute the Bush administration's economic policies." Those against Meyerson's column point out the benefits of globalization (including Blueberry Tofu). Those with him include Seeing The Forest's Dave Johnson and Stowe Boyd of /Message.
REPUBLICANS: Census Time Already? No Wonder Government Is Out Of Whack!
Valparaiso student/self-described moderate conservative Daniel Jarratt posts the text of a leading, "useless," insulting "census" he received from the RNC. He writes in a lengthy, snarky non-blog post to his website: "Apparently, I am among a select group of Republicans who have been chosen to take part in the official census of the Republican Party." My answers on this questionnaire represent the views of thousands of party members in my voting district, and without my answers, the Republican National Committee will 'not be able to help President Bush win passage of his reform agenda in Congress.' Well, if my answers to this academically worthless survey are critical to the President's agenda, we've elected the wrong party." One of the questions: "Do you think Congress should focus on cutting the federal budget deficit by reducing wasteful government spending?" Jarratt replies: "Why do you think I elected them there? I don't think Congress should focus on it, I think they should do it by nature and focus on getting our tax money to relevant and worthy services. Another question that begs a 'yes,' and another question that has little to no meaning in any sort of meaningful political discussion." Toward the end, he adds: "Even as I realize the 100%-politics nature of this document, I condemn you for pretending to give out a census, for pretending that you actually care about the opinions of the 'faithful' when the grade-school level and illegitimate surveying of many of the questions plead otherwise, for disguising fundraising as policy-making!"
NETROOTS: Network
The OR GOV primary is a few months off yet, but 1 group of bloggers cast its vote in the blogosphere nearly 6 months ago. It's called the Atkinson for Governor Blog Network -- in support of state Sen. Jason Atkinson (R) -- and while it's certainly not a new thing of itself, it is a new iteration of blogger activism. Like the liberal bloggers who came together in early '03 to support Howard Dean, bloggers selected the candidate prior to the campaign reaching out to them. Like the Blogs for Bush effort led by the still-operational namesake/flagship blog, bloggers have volunteered to associate themselves with the campaign. What's also notable is that this is happening at the state level. In '04 most blog activity was concentrated on the WH contest, but the rapid growth of the blogosphere has enabled parallel blogospheres (of varying size) in each state.
The genesis of the group dates to nearly 1 year ago, when Ted Piccolo, leader of the group blog NW Republican, heard rumors that Atkinson -- son of ex-state GOP chair Perry Atkinson -- was preparing a GOV bid. Piccolo declared his support in a 4/4 post. Piccolo subsequently noted Atkinson's 8/19 announcement, and less than a week later started compiling a list of bloggers who had made their support known. With the help of the more technologically astute David "Gullyborg" Gulliver of Resistance is futile!, this list was shared with the other bloggers and ported to the sidebar, where it remains.
Both the bloggers involved and the campaign tell us that communication between them has been minimal. Atkinson has made himself available to meet with bloggers in recent months, and some have taken him up on the offer. But even now, coordination between the campaign and the bloggers is minimal -- there is no weekly e-mail separate from the one Atkinson's team sends to all comers, although there is occasional one-to-one e-mail correspondence. Nor do the pro-Atkinson bloggers coordinate much among themselves.
On the Dem side, there is comparatively little Internet activity surrounding embattled Gov. Ted Kulongoski. Portland Dem consultant Kari Chisholm's Blue Oregon is a popular clearinghouse for info on OR Dem politics, and Kulongoski gets mixed attention. Chisholm compares the race to this week's IL 06 primary, where lefty bloggers backed the lefter-leaning underdog challenger while voters were content with the establishment's "moderate pick." Chisholm says, "the loudest voices are those against him -- since they're the most animated."
Atkinson spokesperson Matt Evans tells the Blogometer that the rise of political involvement by bloggers is interesting from a campaign perspective because they "occupy a middle ground between the traditional media and political activists." Of course, some of them may hail from both. Piccolo made a name for himself in the late '90s, sponsoring ballot measures aimed at curbing gov't projects and limiting politicians' power. And in January, he was quoted by the Portland Oregonian in his capacity as a blogger.
But to what effect? As Chisholm puts it, so far "the Atkinson kids are just blogging amongst themselves." Nobody can point (yet) to any major breaking news story or campaign development that owes a significant debt to the bloggers, but MSM outlets like the Oregonian have taken to quoting bloggers more and more. Evans thinks the site has been useful in generating buzz, and that's probably all it needs to do.
No one has made any great claims for the network. It's more of a virtual bumper sticker, where one can easily find out who else has the bumper sticker on their vehicle. A blogger network isn't going to change an election, but it is part of the intangibles that form the landscape for a political race. And in the next cycle, it's possible -- even probable -- that their involvement will grow.
BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: Mattewan
Today the Blogometer talks to libertarian Matt Welch, who writes an eponymous blog, and was a recent contributor to Reason's Hit and Run.
What is your full name?
None of your business! But my pen name is Matt Welch.
What is your age?
37
Where did you grow up?
Long Beach, California.
Where do you live now?
Los Angeles, California, in the neighborhood of Silver Lake.
What is your occupation? Have you ever worked on a political campaign or for the mainstream media?
I'm the assistant editorial pages editor for the Los Angeles Times.
Yes to the latter. I have also covered campaigns, including Ralph Nader's 2000 presidential run (for WorkingForChange.com), and the 2004 major-party political conventions for Reason magazine.
When did you start blogging and why?
For my personal site, on Sept. 16, 2001, because I was pissed off about the massacre five days prior, and felt that I had things I wanted to both say and collect that my jobs at the time didn't really allow me to do. I had actually co-founded a group blog six months previous called LAexaminer.com, because I wanted there to be a site that paid attention to what Los Angeles media was saying and doing. (That mantle has been taken -- thank God -- by Kevin Roderick's LAobserved.com).
What has been your favorite post, or favorite story to write about, in that time?
I think my blogging for Reason.com from the Democratic Convention in 2004 was particularly good (for me), but it was hellaciously unpleasant to do.
I enjoy (even/especially though my readers don't) blogging in absurd depth about Angels baseball history; and I'll always treasure the emotional connections I made with readers and fellow bloggers in the first three or six months after Sept. 11.
Describe your typical blogging schedule. And what is your average output?
Don't have much of one, now that I'm working at the L.A. Times (Reason had a full-time blog to feed daily, though don't be surprised to see some stuff emanating from Spring Street sometime soon). For my personal site, I peck a few grafs away when I have the time and energy, which is to say, not so often. Maybe an hour or two on weekends, and 10 minutes here and there on weeknights.
Anymore, it's 3-6 posts a week, if that. When I was at Reason it was 3 posts a day.
Who is your favorite political blogger? Favorite non-political blogger?
That's an oxymoronic phrase. I guess these days it's whoever can write passionately about politics while still making me laugh, and one of the last people left who can do that with any regularity is "The Editors" of ThePoorman.net. Non-political: Dr. Frank.
Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?
I'll recuse myself from those who write for the L.A. Times ... So, I like that Mike Zwerin weirdo for the International Herald Tribune
What is your favorite television news program, either network or cable?
"The Colbert Report."
What MSM-produced websites (i.e. newspapers, magazines) do you visit on a daily basis?
Again excepting my employer, probably the only one I visit every day is the blog of my *former* employer, Hit and Run.
What non-MSM websites (i.e. blogs) do you visit on a daily basis?
Sploid, Tony Pierce + Busblog, Emmanuelle Richard, Halo's Heaven, 6-4-2, L.A. Observed, Baseball Think Factory, Colby Cosh, Cathy Seipp, Atrios, Instapundit, Secrecy News, Chronicles of the Lads.
How often, or do you ever, read a newspaper in its dead-tree (i.e. print) form?
At least once a day.
How do you see the new media and old media affecting and influencing each other in the next five years?
To the extent that we won't really be distinguishing much between the two phrases anymore; maybe we'll use "legacy media" to talk about the big newspapers/broadcast networks. The whole End of Mass Media period will continue to produce fascinating paradoxes (such as: even while bleeding audience, Legacy Media companies will continue printing money) and conflicts with the upstarts. It will continue to be the best time for journalism and media in our history.
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Reclamation Project
At Huffington Post, Liberal Oasis' Bill Scher explains "Why I Am Not A Progressive": "For better or for worse, 'liberal' and 'conservative' are part of the American political lexicon, and the mainstream media reflexively uses those terms to define our ideological spectrum," and "despite the pounding 'liberal' has taken from Republicans, the solution is not to run further away from the word. That only makes the problem worse. As much as we may dislike labels, we can't dismiss them." More: "By taking to the airwaves, the letters page and the blogs, we can take the lead in re-associating "liberal" with the values and beliefs that speak to Americans' struggles and desires in an insecure economy and a destabilized world: responsive government, sound management, shared responsibility, personal freedom and the spread of liberty and prosperity, not destruction and hypocrisy, across the globe."
LEST WE FORGET: But Which Internets Did This Appear On?
John Hawkins notes, "For the first time in American history, the President has mentioned blogs. I have a feeling it won't be the last time." Said Bush, in a WV meeting with military families: "One of the things that we have to value is that we do have a media... there's blogs, there's Internet, there's all kinds of way to communicate which is literally changing the way people get their information and so if you're concerned I would suggest that you reach out to some of the groups that are supporting the troops, that got internet sites and just keep the word moving." There's video at Expose The Left.
NOTES AND ERRATA: You Know You Want It
Job Opening: The Hotline is seeking a staff writer to take over The Blogometer. Applicants must consider themselves regular consumers of political blogs (min. 2 years reading them, also must be a fan of blogs), be familiar with nationally read blogs from across the spectrum; know how to use blog search engines/aggregators (such as Technorati and Memeorandum); be able to quickly analyze and synthesize developments in the news as well as summarize ongoing blog activity with brevity, clarity and accuracy. Excellent writing and time-management skills are also a must. As with every Hotline position, we don't expect our writers to not have an opinion, we just expect them to keep it out of their work. Interested applicants should send their resumes to jvu@theatlantic.com.
With the week's events largely focused on multiple Pres. Bush pressers, the latest debates have been more blogocentric -- with the right either scoring a long-term victory and/or completely ceasing to matter, and the left either rising again to influence the media-political landscape, or just making themselves sound silly.
Thanks to the Washington Post's launch of a conservative blog, the paper and its dot com counterpart finds themselves re-fighting battles from late 1/06, when ombudsman Deborah Howell's error in favor of GOPers aroused the activist attention of liberal bloggers (see the 1/18, 1/23 and 1/26). The Dem analysis goes, a) the media gives into the conservatives' complaints, who b) continue complaining anyway, as they seek to subvert rather than improve the media. Not to mention, the Post has a Bush-sympathetic editorial this a.m., and it draws some fire from the left as well.
Meanwhile, conservative bloggers -- who focus on foreign issues much more than the left does -- are swarming on an anti-racism poster prepared by the U.N. Human Rights commis. which makes curious use of puzzle pieces and a Lego. The building block empire is based in Denmark, which leads many to think the U.N. is making a subtle allusion to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoon controversy (see previous coverage). Many on the right, and some on the left, are also following the case of an Afghan man who faces possible execution for converting to Christianity -- a situation also recalling the cartoon furor. The Blogometer generally avoids issues that do not pertain to Beltway politics, but these debates are worth the summary.
Plus, we cover the IL primary coverage, a bold claim from the left about the right-blogosphere's importance (or lack thereof), and the intriguing results of Daily Kos' latest WH'08 straw poll. And check out the job listing while you're at it.
DOMENECH: The Republican Noise Machine, Washington Edition?
In yesterday's edition we noted the launch of the Washington Post's latest blog, Red America, written by ex-Bush appointee/ex-Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) speechwriter/RedState co-founder/Regnery editor Ben Domenech. We should have looked around for comment, as it didn't take long for the left-blogosphere to take note, and offense, and made it the story of the day. It's possible we've gone overboard with a story that naturally appeals to us as blog- and media-centric, but it's a genuine swarm and recalls the Post's troubled period in late 1/06. The Post has long been viewed by lefty bloggers as GOP-leaning, -sympathetic, or -cowed -- similar to conservatives' dislike of the New York Times -- and to them Domenech's hiring is proof positive that the Post has serious problems.
As many involved in the controversy linked back to Eschaton, we're pretty sure Duncan "Atrios" Black hit first, directing readers to ask Post reporter Tom Edsall (in that a.m.'s live chat) "if they have any plans to hire a 'Blue America' blogger." The very 1st question addressed was indeed about Domenech. Edsall replied: "The hiring of Ben Domenech of RedState has provoked a firestorm, if the volume of questions this morning is any measure. ... I am told that this is part of the Post's web operation's efforts to provide diverse views." Edsall notes that he has no hiring power; in fact, Edsall works for the Post, not Post.com. The distinction is easily lost to many if not most, particularly as the Post.com is how the vast majority of bloggers read the Post in the 1st place.
Crooks and Liars noted that the anti-Post.com columnist Dan Froomkin and anti-Post reporter Dana Milbank sentiment among conservatives, widely believed on the left to have precipitated Domenech's hiring, was voiced early on by ex-BC'04 blog guru/now-RNC eCampaign dir. Patrick Ruffini -- and that the Post's John Harris adopted this criticism "as his own." Tapped's Greg Sargent cites Domenech's assertion that the MSM treats conservatives as an "alien and off-kilter group," responding: "Domenech's MSM-bashing, of course, is belied by his own apparent hiring. ... Indeed, one way to think about the right's 'media-is-liberal' campaign is as a kind of crude protection racket." NRO's Steven Spruiell disagrees with Sargent
"Domenech didn't 'bash' the media for being liberal. He simply pointed out" what an '04 Pew poll showed, that nat'l journalists describe themselves as liberal more often than conservative. Sargent colleague Garance Franke-Ruta makes the point that Domenech is more of an "operative," unlike Froomkin, who has a reportorial background. She says the liberal blogger equivalent of Domenech would be AMERICAblog's John Aravosis; the conservative equivalent of Froomkin would be The Atlantic's Ross Douthat. In addition to the bloggers, Media Matters' David Brock wrote a letter to Post.com's Jim Brady, which was covered by Editor & Publisher. Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher writes a "letter" to Brady as well, although much heavier on the insults: "Oh, lordy Jim. I have to tell you, if I'd been writing a send-up of a right wing blogger I could not have done a better job. You went straight to the Red State racist woodpile and extracted a full-on jingoistic feces flinger to feature on the Post web site, an unrepentant GOP operative without a shred of journalistic credibility. Nice touch. Because he balances out what, Froomkin's IQ?"
Sargent also e-mailed the Post with a few questions, and Post.com's Hal Strauss replied via spokesperson Eric Easter. A Sargent question: "Was the hiring of Ben Domenech motivated by a desire to placate right-wing critics upset with Dan Froomkin's frequent criticism of George Bush or upset with the recent Dana Milbank appearance poking fun at the shooting episode involving the vice president?" Straus: "When WP.com launched Opinions we said we wanted this new area to be about a variety of voices across a broad spectrum of political and cultural thought. Ben Domenech's Red America is simply another reflection of that effort. ... Subsequently we returned to spokesman Easter and asked him if WashingtonPost.com intended to hire a liberal blogger to act as a counterpart to Domenech. In response, he referred us back" to Straus' answer.
Most of the early conservative reaction was little more than welcoming the Domenech blog, including Jeff Goldstein and Ed Lasky at The American Thinker, who
wrote: "I am tempted to quote Bob Dylan and note that 'the times, they are a changin'.' But the New York Times, often abbreviated as 'the Times' isn't changing. However the Post is." But MRC's NewsBusters was 1 of the early responders to the liberal complaints, and noted that a couple participants of Post humor columnist Gene Weingarten's live chat also complained about the hiring: "The devoutly liberal Weingarten's perfectly reasonable response: 'One solution -- this is crazy, I know -- might be not to read it.'" T. Longren wrote: "The launch of this new blog has apparently upset some liberals. Not sure why, I thought these types were all about 'letting people choose' and providing un-biased information. I guess that only applies to media outlets they deem to be 'conservative.'" Don Singleton, on the distinction between reporting and opinion: "We would rather have some conservative editors and reporters. ... WaPo is filled with Left Wing editors and reporters. Try for a Fair and Balanced news room, and you can have [back] your token right wing blogger."
Some on the left have moved on to focus on Domenech's previous writings, specific views and even his upbringing. Your Logo Here collects a number of links to and excerpts from Domenech's mostly-retired personal blog, Ben Domenech Online. and Pharyngula, which tags him a "creationist" and makes an issue of his home-schooling -- 1st noted by Atrios, who located a CNN transcript from '97 featuring the Domenech family. Lefty economist Max Sawicky doesn't defend Domenech, but does defend home-schooling. Also lefty economist Brad DeLong was among several to take issue with DeLong's referencing of "Red Dawn" -- a cult classic among conservatives, but not regarded by anyone else as a great movie. With tongue-perhaps-in-cheek, DeLong offers an alternate theory -- that the Post is making the right look bad by hiring Domenech, whom he describes as "an unarmed man in a battle of wits." As for "Red Dawn," at Domenech's own RedState the comment thread on the post about his debut contains a small debate about the film's merits (or lack thereof).
Meanwhile, Jack Abramoff-minded reporter-blogger Josh Marshall brings in a whole new angle: "[I]t turns out the Domenech family came in for a number of Bush administration appointments. Not only Ben, but Ben's dad, Doug, who was White House liaison to the Department of Interior. Or to put it more colloquially, White House guy to make sure Jack Abramoff got what he wanted with the Indians and the Pacific Island stuff." Markos Moulitsas adds: "I wonder if the Post thought their lame efforts at "balance" would result in such tragic hilarity. I wonder how the paper's staff are feeling about their paper's credibility right now." Brendan Nyhan, former co-editor of non-partisan spin-unspinning blog Spinsanity, recalls debunking a Domenech claim in 6/02 that Bush had earlier said he'd hit the "trifecta" for running deficits.
Donklephant's centrist Justin Gardner had been looking forward to the blog as a "meditation on what it means to be a red-stater," but was dismayed at what he actually found the 1st post to be a "very partisan shot at the MSM." He writes: [T]his is the trap that so many in the blogosphere fall into. They think just because the extreme left brands red staters as crazy, it must also mean that the media does too. Because after all, many reporters self-identify with liberal values so they must be extreme too." More: "Ben, that horse is dead. Quit beating it or else you're going to become very uninteresting in very short order." In part of a longer post, moderate Joe Gandelman tries to sort out the competing interests, going back and forth between lefty and righty perceptions of bias.
This a.m. at Red America, Domenech ironically acknowledges his critics at Red America: "I'm happy that no one's engaged in any ridiculous hyperbole, unfounded accusations or unintentionally hilarious name-calling. We can all agree that such things lower the quality of debate on the Internet, play to the worst side of our knee-jerk partisan nature and have no place in the modern public square. I look forward to engaging you in a serious, respectful discussion on the issues that matter most to the future of our nation." Some have noticed that Red America has no comments, only a link to e-mail the Post. Referencing the flood of allegedly abusive e-mails the Post received following the Howell controversy, he writes, the site "is sure to spark responses from a few fringe members of this Internet political community, who might be motivated to deluge comment systems with offtopic concerns (or perhaps go after other members of the Washington Post family, who have nothing to do with this blog -- silly, I know, but I'm told it happens)."
BUSH: Hardcore Encore
On 3/21, Bush took unscripted questions for the 2nd time in 2 days -- 1st at a Cleveland hotel, and yesterday from reporters in the WH press briefing. It's certainly one of the bigger topics, and also one both the left and right are following about equally.
The Washington Post has an editorial on Bush's pressers, stating in the 1st graf that Bush "should hold more news conferences. In his hour-long exchange with reporters at the White House yesterday, he was considerably more effective in explaining and defending his commitment to the war in Iraq than in the three carefully worded speeches he has delivered in the past week," also praising his "sometimes blunt, sometimes joking and sometimes unpolished way," which "sounded authentic." Although the editorial is unsigned, John Aravosis assumes it was written by Fred Hiatt -- lefty bloggers consider him a stealth right-winger at the paper. He writes: "More editorials from the conservative establishment media lavishing raspberries on Bush and his Iraq policy. I guess 2,000 American dead and a civil war isn't enough of a disaster for the Post. Then again, they own this war as much as Bush does, and they know it ... The war is over. We lost." Conservative Betsy Newmark agrees with the Post, adding: "And he should call on Helen Thomas every single time. The sight of her sparring with him and interrupting him before he could get a couple of words out of his mouth did more to remind people of what they like about Bush than any of those speeches that he gives around the country that few people hear about because the media will only show a couple of seconds. But they all wanted to show that interchange with Helen Thomas. It was great." Bark Bark Woof Woof cites Bush's exchange with Thomas on pre-war intel, asking: "So the question comes down to this: is the president deliberately lying and hoping that the American public has such a short-term memory that they won't remember what was going on three years ago, is he so thick in terms of his knowledge of international politics that he conflates religious fanatics in Afghanistan with a secular Iraqi dicatorship ... or is he just delusional? I would prefer to find out that he is just lying. That would mean that at least he is aware of the facts of the case and chooses, for his own political fortunes, to prevaricate."
Foreign policy hawk OxBlog's David Adesnik notes his prior criticism of the rhetoric from Rumsfeld and Cheney on Iraq, but thinks Bush's take is "[m]uch, much better": "He did not speak about the insurgents' "desperation" or invoke unhelpful analogies between Iraq and Nazi Germany. Instead, he made the case for how Americans and Iraqis working together can beat the insurgents." Although he hedges his praise a bit: "I agree that the new strategy represents a significant improvement. But it is also interesting to note the President's assertion that the old strategy was still in place -- and failing -- in November 2004. The same month Bush was re-elected. I don't recall from that time much talk of a failed strategy. Interestingly, public approval of the President's strategy was much greater back in November 2004." Kevin Drum writes of Bush's word choice: "The phrase 'open-ended commitment' is the right one to use. It's the logical equivalent of refusing to set benchmarks for withdrawal, and it's not something the American public is very comfortable with. An open-ended commitment during the Cold War was one thing, but Iraq is quite another. An open-ended commitment there sounds way too much like Vietnam."
On a tangent -- As we noted on 3/20, AP's Jennifer Loven wrote an influential (and controversial) report citing instances of Bush using "straw man" arguments in speeches. To the left, it was commendable reporting. To the right, it sounded like a "DNC memo."
Liberal The Carpetbagger Report notes Bush attributing a belief that people in other countries don't deserve the same rights as Americans to "people," and adds: "Yes, Bush gave those rights-denying enemies of freedom a lashing of a lifetime. If this reflected reality in even a tangential way, it'd really be impressive." Conservative Captain's Quarters also references the Loven piece, noting, if Bush uses "strawmen, then apparently the practice isn't limited to Bush. A few of Loven's colleagues use them as well, as evident in the President's press conference this morning" -- he quotes a few from the transcript, including one reporter who opens a question: "There are some in Washington who say..."
UNITED NATIONS: The Poster Service
As mentioned above, this Internet-posted advert/poster U.N. Human Rights commis. poster has caused a lot of commotion on conservative blogs.
Conservative Steven Taylor disagrees with the general thrust of arguments: "First, I would note that the Lego is the one being left out. If the goal was to attack the Danes, surely a bunch of Legos would be shunning a black puzzle piece. That would make more sense if the Legos are supposedly represenitng Danish intolerance, yes?" == Michelle Malkin disagrees completely: "With all due respect, those giving the U.N. the benefit of the doubt and advocating this benign interpretation are looking at the graphic bass-ackwards. The puzzle pieces represent unity and tolerance; the red LEGO represents a blaring, non-conformist, and unacceptable 'shape of racism.'"
JunkYardBlog's Bryan Preston sides with Malkin: "Unity is such a buzzword these days that you can't escape it. ... Unity for its own sake, not unity toward any worthwhile goal like stamping out the likes of bin Laden and Zarqawi, but unity in a non-judgemental let's-all-hold-hands-and-sing-kumbayah context." == So does Jan Haugland: "The UN denies it had any such intentions. I doubt it had anything to do with the LEGO Company, but it is hard to believe this is anything but a dig at Denmark, using its most famous international symbol." == Liberal No More Mr. Nice Blog does not, and provides a reason for Haugland to doubt: Malkin thinks we should all buy Danish products to prove we don't stand with the cartoon rioters (OK, fine so far). Beyond that, however, she says that the use of a Lego in this ad makes this a 'vile poster portraying Denmark's most famous company as racist.' Michelle, you're nuts. Just so you know, Michelle -- Legos have been part of UNHCR anti-racism ads since at least 1994."
Elephants in Academia has a novel take: "I don't think this is the Commission's intention, but their ludicrous picture actually makes a good point. There is a dark and deadly subculture of racial discrimination spreading thought the world, and that LEGO is not part of it. It is completely out of place in such company."
Agora gives more reason for suspicion of the U.N.'s human rights body re: Denmark -- namely, a U.N. official recently criticized the cartoons' publication, or in Eugene Volokh's words, "demanding speech restrictions." == In the Bullpen ties the 2 together: "The United Nations should be against censorship, but instead they are promoting the very self-censorship the cartoons were supposed to help eliminate. The UN should be promoting Democracy whose core values are a free press, free speech and free expression. Throwing in a Danish company, Lego, by suggesting that it is Lego that is racist forgets the entire free press, free speech and free expression ideas of a Democracy."
AFGHANISTAN: High Infidelity
A case touching on the same themes as the Jyllands-Posten is the case of Afghan man Abdul Rahman, a Christian convert who faces death because of it -- as per sharia law. Conservatives are leading the way in getting word of this story out, and not a few criticize the Bush admin., although not in the full-throated manner as would the left.
Conservative-columnist-recently-turned-blogger Debbie Schlussel: "Yup, that Afghanistan. The one where our mostly Christian taxpayers sent a boatload of money and soldiers to install democracy and freedom. Clearly, nothing has changed from the days of the Taliban." Like the U.N. story, it's right up Malkin's alley, and she covers it in multiple posts, 1st on 3/19, and more yesterday here and here. Heritage's Mark Tapscott asks, "President Bush said nothing about Rahman during his news conference this morning. But then none of the mainstream media reporters there asked him about it, either. Where is Bush? Where are the mainstream media? Where are the men and women of faith in Congress? Where is Secretary of State Rice?"
There may be a way out, as Jihad Watch reports via AP and comments -- Hamid Karzai's advisers are "floating this idea" of declaring the man mentally unfit to stand trial "to extricate the Karzai government from the tight place this case has put it in. It is a common view among Muslims that only someone who is insane, corrupt or under immense pressure would convert from Islam to Christianity, so this angle will make sense to those in Afghanistan who want Abdul Rahman's blood."
Liberal Booman Tribune finds strange bedfellows: "The right-wing blogs are flogging the story of Abdul Rahman for all its worth. This time, they have a point. ... At a minimum Rahman should be offered exile and a comfortable life anywhere it is still legal for him to be alive. No government should take away freedom of conscience for its citizens. I don't care what the Koran says."
BLOGGERS VS. BLOGGERS: Tales From The Crypt
MyDD's resident blog analyst Chris Bowers declares in a provocative header: "There Is No Right-Wing Blogosphere Anymore." He argues: "There is almost nothing in the way of an independent right-wing blogosphere operating outside of existing, established news media outlets." He says most major right-wing bloggers "have now been incorporated into the established news media apparatus," most recently Domenech joining the Washington Post. Most "A-List" "progressive bloggers," on the other hand, "are working with other emerging progressive institutions: MoveOn, Air America, Media Matters, etc. While conservative bloggers are looking to be absorbed within established institutions, progressive bloggers continue to build new ones. ... The right-wing blogosphere is dead. Long live the progressive blogosphere."
It meets a bit of disagreement in the comment section, but most concur. One commenter: "I think it's the nature of the right wing blogs that they would die out. I think blogs and the communities they create are a viral event. This by definition would favor those who think with a more flexible thought process." Another writes, "sure hope you are wrong about this elegy, for that would make the Web so much less interesting."
Perhaps not surprisingly, it does get significant pushback from the right -- Sigmund, Carl and Alfred: "Apparently, the 'progressives' have slain the right- because conservative bloggers have made a big enough impact on the MSM, who, like most Americans, have found their message compelling." RedState's Trevino says Bowers is "apparently unaware that his thesis is more or less one of crushing defeat for his side." Hugh Hewitt has precisely the opposite take: "In fact the blogging movement remains vibrant and far more productive on the right than on the left, where the leading blogs continue to spread venom and habits of expression and thought that are ruinous to the short-, medium- and long-term interests of the Democratic Party. Not only is the center-right blogosphere stronger and deeper than it was even a year ago, its counterpart is falling deeper and deeper into an abyss wherein very little in the way of logic or fact penetrate." Mick Stockinger at UNCoRRELATED: "If the left took time out from patting themselves on the back for their prodigious comment streams, they might recognize something ominously important about their conservative brethren--we don't comment, we link. Its such a subtle difference but with enormous importance."
WHITE HOUSE '08: Fein And Dandy Like Sour Candy
This week Daily Kos held its latest WH'08 straw poll; voting has closed and Moulitsas has posted final results. Sen. Russ Feingold's (D-WI) censure resolution has clearly paid off in terms of liberal netroots support -- in a wide-open field, he nearly pulls down a majority of the 11K+ voters, with 48%. Runners-up were ret. Gen. Wesley Clark and ex-VA Gov. Mark Warner, far behind at 15% and 11%, respectively. NY Sen. Hillary Clinton finished with just 2% a few more places back. At the top, the order is unchanged from the 1/05 poll, but Feingold's lead was considerably slimmer at the time. Feingold, Clark and Warner then picked up 30, 22 and 12. HRC actually had 1 point more at that time, down from a high of 10% in the summer of '05.
DEMOCRATS: With Numbers Like These, Why Don't We Hear More Pelosi-Bashing?
There were 3 other concurrent polls, asking readers to rate the job performances of DNC chair Howard Dean, Senate Min. Leader Harry Reid, and House Min. Leader Nancy Pelosi. Dean clearly has lost none of the appeal he held as a WH candidate, and perhaps has seen his stature rise among the activist left more generally since taking over -- his job approval was 89% yes, 9% no -- and 16K+ voters participated, more than any other. Reid received an adequate 50% to 32%, but Pelosi performed dismally, with 19% approving and 67% disapproving. About 13.5K voted in each of their polls.
ILLINOIS PRIMARIES: Point By Point
Hotline On Call has the latest results. Some highlights:
Lefties are upset with Iraq war vet Tammy Duckworth's (D) narrow victory in the IL 06 primaries over '04 nom. Christine Cegelis. Like the TX 28 primary see 3/8 Blogometer), Bowers provides a big chunk of the coverage at MyDD. He learns from the loss:
- The Dem "establishment is weak. I haven't seen this much establishment support line up against someone [Cegelis] since" DNC chair Howard Dean. "Considering the massive amount of fundraising, big name support, advocacy group support, free media, and direct DCCC contributions, Duckworth will finish way, way under 50%. The Democratic and progressive establishment, even the vaunted Chicago machine, is clearly losing the ability to control and influence its own base."
- Noting that Cegelis concentrated on turnout: "Strong ground games in primaries and other low turnout elections work." Ex-Rep. Ciro Rodriguez's (D) "ground game in TX-28 was weak." Iraq war vet Paul Hackett's (D) "in OH-02 was strong." Businessman Ned Lamont's (D) "ground game in CT [against Sen. Joe Lieberman (D)] could result in an enormous surprise."
The Almighty Ajax agrees with Bowers' frustration at the DCCC: "Maybe I'm a parochial clod with dung on my shoes, but I flatly resent the DCCC airlifting in a gimmick candidate." Philosopher's Armchair's Steve, who supported college prof. Lindy Scott (D), doesn't like that his candidate wasn't ever considered by the MSM: "Being ignored is the worst form of insult, worse than hatred." We The People and Bowers want the DCCC to pay $75K for a recount, just to "make nice." Musing's Musing is over the loss: "I just hope the district will unite behind the eventual winner, because this would be a huge pickup."
The Republic of Biloxi is mad about the GOP Gov primary: "With Judy Baar Topinka's primary victory over conservatives Jim Oberweis, Bill Brady, and fiscal conservative/social moderate Ron Gidwitz, we are assured a spirited race of business as usual versus more of the same." American Moderate Party's Peter sees it differently and likes the result, "particularly because Baar-Topinka is a moderate Republican - so she resonates with voters. Incredible, really, that the IL GOP has found a candidate for a high profile race after the debacle that was Alan Keyes for Senate." Dan Conley, on the Dem primary: Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D), "are you listening yet? Some guy off the street just picked up 30 percent against you in the" Dem primary. "Okay, he had some experience. But no one who voted for Edwin Eisendrath took him seriously. His ads were terrible. His resume is thin. The one thing he had going for him is that he isn't you."
There's not much buzz on the IL 08 GOP primary, where banker David McSweeney (R) beat out atty Kathy Salvi 42%-33%, or on the IL 03 Dem primary, where Rep. Dan Lipinski (D) shrugged off two challenges, netting a majority.
:LCRR_KHS is just peeved about how backward IL is: "That 'new' system of voting where you expect me to fill ovals and WRITE on my ballot? Could it be any more stone age?"
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Singularity Is Over Here
Not one, but many -- there's a lot of interesting stuff in Mickey Kaus' stream-of-consciousness review of Glenn Reynolds new book, "An Army of Davids." Here's one especially happy thought: "I'm especially not persuaded, for example, that when technology puts greater and greater destructive power into the hands of smaller and smaller numbers of individuals it won't ultimately lead to some sort of doom. Imagine a rowboat with ten people, of varying religious beliefs, all of whom have their fingers on the trigger of a personal nuclear device. They try to get along and run a little society. How many times will this scenario result in a big explosion? More often than not, I suspect."
LEST WE FORGET: Have It Your Way
Let's see what's on the menu today:
- The meat-and-Steelers-loving folks at A Hamburger Today claim victory in their quest to create a -- wait for it -- Roethlis-Burger, and they have video to prove it.
- Wuzza Dem depicts Chris Matthews interviewing actor/conspiracy buff Richard Belzer and actor/apparent 9/11 revisionistCharlie Sheen .
- Fafblog commits "six counts of treason in this article alone."
- Steve from The Sneeze thinks his wife may have cheated on him with "Hot Dog Eating Champion Takeru Kobayashi," but possibly Augustus Gloop.
- Spoiler alert! Tony Soprano dies. Kind of.
This one's on us.
NOTES AND ERRATA: While Supplies Last
Job Opening: The Hotline is seeking a staff writer to take over The Blogometer. Applicants must consider themselves regular consumers of political blogs (min. 2 years reading them, also must be a fan of blogs), be familiar with nationally read blogs from across the spectrum; know how to use blog search engines/aggregators (such as Technorati and Memeorandum); be able to quickly analyze and synthesize developments in the news as well as summarize ongoing blog activity with brevity, clarity and accuracy. Excellent writing and time-management skills are also a must. As with every Hotline position, we don't expect our writers to not have an opinion, we just expect them to keep it out of their work. Interested applicants should send their resumes to jvu@theatlantic.com.
While there still isn't a great deal happening out there, Pres. Bush is certainly at the center of what debates are going on. His speech/Q&A session in Cleveland got lots of attention, due to the pointed and wacky Q&A session. Fred Barnes' WSJ piece proposing a massive reshuffling of the exec branch is the launching point for many discussions, and liberal bloggers are again debating the pros and cons of Sen. Russ Feingold's (D-WI) censure resolution. The Iraq war itself remains a huge topic, in part due to increased conservative criticism, but also because of a new report that U.S. soldiers may have committed a crime in a firefight that left 15 Iraqis -- including children -- dead. On a less newsworthy but more cerebral note, there's a small debate going on between lefty and righty bloggers about the present realities and possible future of fiscal conservatism. Plus, our latest Blogger Spotlight.
BUSH I: It's Be The End Of The World As We Know It, And Bush Feels Fine
On 3/20, Bush delivered a speech on Iraq in Cleveland, OH. Afterward, he took unscripted, at times hostile, questions from the crowd. Perhaps the most memorable question was also the very 1st. Quoting ex-conservative/"American Theocracy" author Kevin Phillips alleging the Bush admin. has "reached out to prophetic Christians who see the War in Iraq and the rise of terrorism as signs of the apocalypse," the audience member asked: "Do you believe this: that the War in Iraq and the rise of terrorism are signs of the apocalypse and if not, why not?" Expose the Left has video.
Since Bush didn't actually answer the question, RightWinged expects "lefties will go nuts with the fact that he didn't say 'I don't believe that.'" More: "Whether this was an honest question (possibly), or a moonbat plant (likely), it was pretty funny. To hear the POTUS asked that question directly was really weird." A few on the right linked to this Photoshop job from Outside Normal. Stop the ACLU: "One reason that the question stuck in my mind is not because it was so nutty, but because there is a major player in all of this that believes just that. Mr. Ahmadinejad is devoutly motivated by apocalyptic religious beliefs that is driving much of his motivation." Lefty John Amato at Crooks and Liars also has video, and also zeroes in on Iran: "He didn't answer the question, but rather went into a long rant about 9/11 and his most important talking point. The one that paves the way for the U.S. to attack Iran -- 'pre-emptive strikes.' He threw in the word diplomacy to make believe that was on his mind, but the whole neocon game is to change the face of the Middle East and I don't think diplomacy is part of that equation." A Daily Kos contributor has some fun with the question, asking: "I have been dying to ask: Where does FEMA stand in relation to the Rapture? What is the federal government's plan for Rapture response? ... Will Abramoff get his job back? Will Dominos still deliver?"
The very next questioner asked Bush about the admin's 3 main rationales for war -- WMD, Iraqi involvement in 9/11, and the Iraq-Niger yellowcake connection: "All three of those turned out to be false. My question is, how do we restore confidence that Americans may have in their leaders and to be sure that the information they are getting now is correct?" In the course of his response, Bush denied tying Saddam to 9/11.
Liberal News Hounds disagrees, quoting Bush's 3/21/03 letter to Congress, which describes using "armed force against Iraq" in the same sentence as saying he would "take necessary actions against international terrorists," including those who "planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.'" Blogs for Bush's Mark Noonan was impressed, and in no small part amused: "Here we a large part of the leftwing litany against the President, each one of them an actual lie, asked directly to the President most certainly by a member of the left. You got your dream, lefties, you got to ask the President about your absurd views on the war." More: "This is just great -- perhaps President Bush should have met [Cindy] Sheehan... but only live on prime time television."
Flopping Aces was more than impressed with Bush's Q&A, posting several exchanges, adding: "The man is on fire! He needs to be doing this EVERY day." But The Carpetbagger Report doesn't think that's likely: "One got the impression that Bush didn't exactly enjoy pointed-but-polite questions when he eventually asked, 'Anybody work here in this town?' ... At this point, it's safe to assume we may not see the president in an uncontrolled public discussion again for a while."
BUSH II: Third Term's A Charm?
In the 1/20 Wall Street Journal, Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes -- author of the recent pro-Bush bio "Rebel in Chief" -- proposes Bush shake up his cabinet by having VP Cheney step down, replace him with Sec/State Condoleezza Rice (who would then be the standard-bearer for WH'08), replace her with Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT), perhaps move Cheney to the Pentagon, have Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman trade places, and make a few other lower-profile cabinet-level changes. Headline: "A 'Third Term' For Bush?" It gets a lot of attention from both sides, but mostly from the right, where many are intrigued by the idea but few think it should actually go forward.
At NRO, ex-Bush speechwriter David Frum finds the idea "fascinating," but warns: "Installing one candidate who has never run for office in the vice presidency overtop all the party's other leadership contenders cuts short a necessary process of renewal, reinvention, and regeneration. It will buy a few days of positive publicity at the price of longer-term stagnation and ultimate failure and defeat. Worse, it will confirm a destructive internal tendency toward royalism in party affairs. The 2008 presidential nomination is not George Bush's prize to bestow." L.A.-based Joe Scott sees a different future for Rice. He doesn't think she'll be chosen to replace retiring NFL commish Paul Tagliabue; instead, "I see her as owner of the new NFL Los Angeles Bulldogs when the 1940s' era Pacific Coast League franchise is reborn on the Coliseum gridiron in 2010." Mark Coffey admits to being "the choir" on this, adding: "I'm all a-tingle... it'll never happen, of course, but it's a nice dream, isn't it?"
Poliblog's Steven Taylor is skeptical about the Rice move as well, and adds: "Cheney has been even more hawkish than Rumsfeld, first on Iraq, now on Iran -- so I am not certain how Cheney to the Pentagon constitutes new blood." Repentant Iraq hawk Belgravia Dispatch: "For Christ's sake, if Fred Barnes is pushing for Rummy to step down, who else is left (save uber-apologists like Hugh Hewitt or sad, rabid nutters like Charles Johnson?)." James Joyner: "While getting rid of unpopular figures like Don Rumsfeld might help a little, it strikes me as highly unlikely that this would achieve the desired reaction. Indeed, it might be seen as further sign of collapse." He notes that contra Barnes' claim, Gerald Ford's reshuffle did not "work," insofar as he lost the WH.
Bring it On!: "The governance of this country is a matter only of political importance to Barnes. In recognizing that the administration is adrift in failures and ineptitude, in large part brought on by the policy advice he has received from his cabinet and staff, Barnes proposes 'smoke and mirrors.'" NDN Blog agrees: "Regardless, I can think of more than a few Democrats who'd agree with the article's sub-head: 'Condi Rice, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove need new jobs' (the headline on the other hand may just send them running for the hills)."
CENSURE: It's Just Plain Common ... Okay, We're Out Of Puns
Jane Hamsher notes that as more polls emerge showing substantial, if not majority, support for a censure resolution, more in the media are waking up to what the lefty blogopshere was saying a week ago: "While there were a few in the blogosphere who decided to sit this one out, the people who took a stand to back Feingold came out looking pretty good. ... I guess we're not so fringe after all." Cokie Roberts, with a commentary on NPR, is the latest; Digby adds: "She has spent her life in Washington DC and is as much a part of the firmament as the Arlington cemetary. When she speaks, the poobahs have issued an verdict." As for the poll-delayed commentary, he adds: "Apparently the establishment needed some numbers in order to know what to think."
Finding that liberal Newsweek columnists Eleanor Clift and Jonathan Alter criticising the wisdom of the censure resolution, Matt Yglesias responds at TAPPED with a challenge: "I find the idea that this gambit will influence the midterms significantly one way or the other to be a bit daft -- it's just not that big a deal. So how about a column by someone -- anyone -- trying to explain why the president does not, in fact, deserve to be censured for his lawbreaking ways? If no members of the Washington Generals faction of American liberalism has a viable argument to that effect, then why not maybe a column or two explaining to readers why they should change their mind and support Feingold?" Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum takes him up on the offer, arguing that the censure push is "not increasing public awareness of the NSA's domestic spying program. All it's doing is increasing awareness of Russ Feingold's censure motion." All the stories he's seen are about "Feingold the maverick" and his WH'08 chances, "the disarray his motion has caused" among Dems, "whether the censure motion was politically smart," or the GOP's "glee that Feingold has shifted attention away" from their problems. More: "Is this really helping convince the public that Bush deliberately and repeatedly violated the law when he approved the NSA program? I'm not seeing it." At Pandagon, Jedmunds responds to Drum point-by-point, and asks: "What is with this subset of liberals who have completely internalized the notion that any scrap for the so called 'base' is dangerous? ... Good God, Go read some f---ing white papers. That's what you're good at.
IRAQ: So We Have Some Bad News, And We Have ... No, Wait, Just Bad News
ABC News' Jonathan Karl reports, upon the release of an Iraqi-shot video alleging that U.S. troops shot and killed 15 Iraqis in the city of Haditha, the U.S. military is opening an investigation into the incident.
At The Washington Note, Steve Clemons asks: "When will Rumsfeld be held accountable and fired? ... One question is why is the Pentagon investigating? Why not the FBI or Attorney General, or prosecutors empowered by Congress? The Pentagon is proving to be an incapable investigator of its own offenses." The 1st commenter replies: "Steve, you just answered your own question." Confederate Yankee finds Clemons' response prima facie evidence that he doesn't support the troops: "There is the possibility that the Marines did gun down innocent civilians as local Iraqis claim. But it is equally as possible that one or more people inside the house opened fire upon the Marines in an ambush after the IED went off. It has happened that way frequently ... A crime has not even been established, and yet Clemons and his nauseous ilk have already deemed our Marines guilty, and presume to pass sentence."
Richard at liberal The Peking Duck remains cautious: "If this story is true -- and it sure sounds like it is -- we may have another Abu Ghraib brewing. US Marines are being accused of the wholesale slaughter of 15 innocent Iraqis, for virtually no reason at all. Kids, too. Parents and their children. ... If so, brace yourself for the next big Iraq scandal." Juxtaposing reports without commentary, Needlenose's Fubar compares Haditha to My Lai.
At Democracy Arsenal, Heather Hurlburt argues, "three years on, Americans across the political spectrum, including quite a few 'experts' and 'influentials' are done with Iraq" -- and notes that a bipartisan poll by Bill McInturff and Peter Hart find 52% say we've done "all we can there," and 62% want to reduce troop levels. More: "There's a critical need ... to think hard about what the public mood tells us about the limits of the possible. Note, I said nothing about smart, just or fair here. These are ugly, sad calculations. We have to make them because of the failures and hubris of this Administration. But someone is going to have to make them."
In recent weeks, war opponents have satisfactorily noted the conversion of several conservatives and other war supporters to criticism of the war and the Bush admin. Middle Earth Journal lists George Will and points to Running Scared's recounting of the transformation of Independent columnist Johann Hari from supporter to opponent. MEJ: "But fear not, the moronic Fred Barnes has a plan; rearrange the deck chairs on the sinking ship of state."
Meanwhile, Trent Telenko at pro-war Winds of Change writes, "It is a wonder that the Blogosphere hasn't picked up on the latest media 'Frame' on the war in Iraq -- that Iraq is in purportedly in the middle of a civil war -- and taken it apart like the propaganda it is. ... If the civil strife in post-liberation Iraq matched that of real civil war in Bosnia ten years ago, there would be 650,000 Iraqi fatalities per year -- say 1800 dead Iraqis a day from 'sectarian strife.'"
SPENDING: Pile On!
Starting last p.m., Political Animal Kevin Drum and Time's Andrew Sullivan are debating the meanings of fiscal conservatism. Drum argues for cutting $400B from the budget, noting: "[I]f you support the tax cuts, and you don't want to cut defense spending, and you want a balanced budget, you need to slice about" that much "out of the" $500B "that's left. ... Cutting a few agricultural subsidies and eliminating Amtrak isn't going to do the trick. Even taking an axe to social welfare programs wouldn't do it. You'd need to eliminate about 80% of the federal government outside the" DoD. Sullivan responds, offering what he calls a "back-of-the-envelope wish-list" -- which turns out to be pretty long. Noting that he's made just about everyone mad, Sullivan concludes: "I look forward to conservatives continuing to insist I'm a lefty. I also look forward to ferocious opposition from the left. But the bottom line is that the middle class and the prosperous elderly are far too pampered by government in this country. They need to get rid of their debilitating and unaffordable dependency."
Atrios piled on in the beginning, with Angry Bear calling for tax increases, Preemptive Karma's Carla calling for an audit of the DoD, while Gryphmon's Patrick, posts a comment at Gay Patriot in Sullivan's defense. Left Coaster's CA Political Junkie offers nice tables with FY 2005 CBO data to assist in accusing Sullivan of indulging the "classic 'If I were king' fantasy, where one does not need to conform to reality."
BLOGS VS. THE FEC: Freepers And Kossacks Have Too Agreed Before
While the Online Freedom of Speech Act is on hold until after the cong. recess, the FEC may take up the issue of how to bring the Internet into compliance with McCain-Feingold/BCRA, and there is even some interest outside the Beltway. One report getting some commentary this a.m. is from the Minneapolis Star Tribune [note: seems the Strib moves its stories after 24 hours; it did work earlier]. It notes the infamous case of the bloggers paid by now-Sen. John Thune (R-SD) in '04, prompting Danny "Jack Lewis" Carlton to comment: "I can see a requirement that bloggers reveal their funding, but then again, when the government is allowed an inch into regulating a group, they come back quickly demanding a mile. So far the Blogosphere has done a pretty good job of policing itself, by exposing those that would do thing that make their message questionable. Congress can't even boast of that, so who are they to demand we come under rules they won't adhere to themselves." Norwegianity: "I'm impressed by the Strib's John Reinan who had enough insight into blogging to begin his article with, 'This might be the first time Freepers and Kossacks have agreed on anything.'"
Meanwhile, RJ Eskow at Skippy the Bush Kangaroo objects to bloggers' disdain for "reformer" groups like Democracy21: "I think Kos and Atrios are absolutely right, and that regulating Internet political speech is a very bad idea. But I'm getting very tired of hearing progressives who disagree being called nasty names like stupid goo-gooers. An otherwise stalwart ally becomes an object of contempt overnight. That's not good politics, and it leaves out the self-examination part. The right question may be: Have I explained myself clearly enough?"
INTRODUCING: RGB Monitor ... i.e. Red, Greenwald And Blue
Washingtonpost.com rolls out its latest blog this a.m., which happens to be its 1st avowedly conservative blog -- Red America, written by RedState co-founder Ben Domenech. He writes in his inaugural post: This is a blog for the majority of Americans. Since the election of 1992, the extreme political left has fought a losing battle. Their views on the economy, marriage, abortion, guns, the death penalty, health care, welfare, taxes, and a dozen other major domestic policy issues have been exposed as unpopular, unmarketable and unquestioned losers at the ballot box. ... Yet even in a climate where Republicans hold command of every branch of government, and advocate views shared by a majority of voters, the mainstream media continues to treat red state Americans as pachyderms in the mist - an alien and off-kilter group of suburbanite churchgoers about which little is known, and whose natural habitat is a discomforting place for even the most hardened reporter from the New York Times. ... Red America's citizens are the political majority. They're here to stay. It's time to start paying attention to what they believe and why."
And Firedoglake, which made its debut in late '04 and rose to prominence during the intense Plamegate scrutiny during the summer of '05, has made official its move from Blogspot to its own TLD, with the blog powered by WordPress.
1st Amendment atty/blogger on the move Glenn Greenwald has been hinting for awhile that he would soon announce a big project, and in a lengthy post last a.m., he did just that: "Roughly six weeks ago, I was approached by an editor with a proposal to publish a book based on the ideas and arguments which have been the subject of this blog for the last several months. ... I have been writing the book for the last five weeks and am about 80% done. The book is entitled 'How Would a Patriot Act? Defending American Values from a President Run Amok.'" The book will be available in about another 6 weeks from Chelsea Green; the editor he mentions is Jennifer Nix, who is also behind George Lakoff's "Don't Think of an Elephant" and the Markos Moulitsas/Jerome Armstrong book "Crashing the Gate." Greenwald posts a JPG of what the cover will look like, and explains his main thesis: "At its core, this scandal is not and has never been about the scope of eavesdropping powers which the Government ought to have. It is much more significant than that. We face a genuine and profound crisis as a country because we have a President who has continuously exploited the threat of terrorism and engaged in rank fear-mongering in order to expressly claim the power to act without any checks or limits at all -- including, literally, the power to break the law."
Also on the book front, mistercritter.com has launched to support an e-book and coloring book version of the inside-the-Beltway children's book "George Washington Beaver and the Cherry Tree." Full disclosure -- the book's author, Mister Critter, is actually our National Journal colleague Danny Glover, author of Beltway Blogroll.
BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: Roggios Gallery
Today the Blogometer talks to milblogger Bill Roggio, who writes The Fourth Rail and previously contributed to Winds of Change and ThreatsWatch. He was also the subject of a 12/26 Washington Post article about his blogging from Iraq.
What is your full name?
William Frank Roggio
What is your age?
36
Where did you grow up?
Blackwood, New Jersey
Where do you live now?
Medford, New Jersey
What is your occupation? Have you ever worked on a political campaign or for the mainstream media?
Mainframe Software Analyst.
I have not worked for a political campaign. I have had articles published, but I don't think this counts as working for the mainstream media.
When did you start blogging and why?
I started blogging in March of 2004. The coverage of the war was (and still is) sub-par in my opinion, and lacked context, particularly in the area of military operations and the fight against al-Qaeda. I decided to write to help sort out my own thoughts, and for friends and family to see what I have to say. Since I am prior military, they tend to ask me questions.
What has been your favorite post, or favorite story to write about, in that time?
My favorite post (or series of posts) was the "The Anbar Campaign," which described the joint Iraqi and Coalition effort to disrupt and uproot al-Qaeda and the insurgency in western Iraq, and establish a permanent presence in each of the major towns and cities along the Euphrates River. The was a story the media was missing. By closely tracking the operations over time, I was able to predict the order and timing of future operations in the region. I also created a Flash presentation to give a visual on the operation. The reporting and analysis gained the attention of the Marines fighting in Anbar. I subsequently was invited to embed with the Marines by Colonel Stephen Davis, the commanding officer of Regimental Combat Team 2, and took him up on the offer. I embedded in Anbar province for one month, witnessed the historic December 15, 2005 election and was able to see the progress made in the region I covered from afar. The embed reports from Iraq are also some of my favorite posts.
Describe your typical blogging schedule. And what is your average output?
Writing is the easy part which typically only takes a few hours a day. It is the reading, research and gathering of links which occupies the most time. I am constantly monitoring the news for information, as well as reading military blogs and military press releases. As I work a full time job, this often mean late nights reading and writing.
I typically post once or twice a day, depending on the day's developments, and the posts are typically 600-800 words in length, with hyperlinks footnoting all of the articles or posts I have read that pertain to the post.
Who is your favorite political blogger? Favorite non-political blogger?
I'm not sure this is a blog, but I'd say James Taranto at The Wall Street Journal's "Best of the Web" is my favorite political blog. Non-political: The Counterterrorism Blog
Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?
Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?
I have several: Charles Krauthammer, Jack Kelly, Christopher Hitchens, Victor Davis Hanson, Mark Steyn, for starters.
What is your favorite television news program, either network or cable?
I never watch the network or cable news. I have found they are often days behind what is available on the web.
What MSM-produced websites (i.e. newspapers, magazines) do you visit on a daily basis?
What MSM-produced websites (i.e. newspapers, magazines) do you visit on a daily basis? Wall Street Journal
, Weekly Standard,National Review Online , New York Times, Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor, Associated Press, Reuters, Daily Times (Pakistan), Asharq Alawsat... and a bunch more. The RSS news reader is a great tool...
What non-MSM websites (i.e. blogs) do you visit on a daily basis?
What non-MSM websites (i.e. blogs) do you visit on a daily basis? The Counterterrorism Blog
, Instapundit, Belmont Club, The Adventures of Chester, Rantburg, Regnum Crucis, Security Watchtower, Best of the Web, Blackfive, Mudville Gazette, Real Clear Politics, Irish Pennants, Terrorism Unveiled, Thomas Joscelyn, Soldier's Dad.
How often, or do you ever, read a newspaper in its dead-tree (i.e. print) form?
Only if I forget my laptop when going to an office visit and have to pick up a Time or Newsweek (cellular wireless Internet is another wonderful creation). Most of the papers publish their stories online, and I would rather read articles on the computer. No ink, no folding papers, and no place for the cats to sit while reading. Plus, since I save the links I will use in future posts, it would be additional work to actually look up that article I read.
How do you see the new media and old media affecting and influencing each other in the next five years?
There is certainly a lot of hostility between the two parties. I feel that both parties have much to offer each other, and there will be some form of intersection between the two groups. The good blogs are focused and provided a unique perspective, expert analysis and unique content often missing from the media sites. The old media has a vast amount of resources bloggers can only dream of having. The more creative news and media organizations are starting their own blogs and some are even inviting outside bloggers to join. I believe there will be further a co-opting of blogs and integration of blogs into the media websites. But many blogs will continue to scorn the media, and vise versa. I do not believe the blogs will overtake the media, or the media will collapse, or the blogs will fade away.
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: When Is A Blog Not A Blog?
When it's a blog post. As blogs become more popular and garner more coverage, the more that reporters and others among the uninitiated will be commenting on them. And the more they do so, the more terminology that bloggers and blog readers will be misused. This struck us particularly during the recent argle-bargle over George Clooney's manufactured contribution to Huffington Post. Most of the reports we saw failed to make a distinction between a "blog" and a "blog post" (or "blog entry"). Needless to say, a blog is made up of many posts or entries. One post does not a blog make. Does this really matter? We'd say it's always worth preserving meaningful distinctions between words -- lest soon enough educated people won't know the difference, just as many can't identify the difference between "jealousy" and "envy." But tell that to the New York Times, which reported on 3/20, "Mr. Clooney dropped a bomb, asserting that although the sentiments in the post were his, they were cobbled together from past interviews with Larry King of CNN and The Guardian, a British newspaper. And more important, the blog was not written by him." Is this not redundant? Or did Clooney have "a blog" on Huffington Post by the very fact of posting there? Well, actually... that does seem to be the case -- here's the page where you can find all of Rep. John Conyers' (D-MI) posts in a traditional blog column. But it's unlikely the Times meant this. It's a mistake Arianna Huffington also made in her mea maxima culpa on 3/18: "I now realize that I made a big mistake in posting a blog without clearly identifying that the material in it didn't originate as a blog post but was pieced together from previous interviews." In fact, she seems to be using "blog" and "blog post" interchangably. So what is the Huffington Post, exactly? It is clearly not a blog in the classic sense -- there's no single column on the front page. So is it a collection of blogs? Perhaps. And all of those posts are also united on one single blog? That much is certain. But there's also Drudge Report-like news on the front page, as well as a separate blog, The Newswire, which many would not call a blog. Of course, it has always been clear that HuffPo is something more than a typical blog. LAT's Elizabeth Snead made the same blog/post error in her report that started all the fuss, but then she also used another term that maybe should become more prevalent in describing similar in the future -- "blog site." The Blogometer is of the opinion that a blog is merely a content delivery system, that all something needs to do to be described as a blog is utilize software roughly consistent with a an organizational model. Of course, a particular blog may not necessarily be part of the blogosphere in the sense that it does not link to other blogs or otherwise interact with them. And we think that in the future this will be all the more true. More websites begin to integrate blogs into their pages, such that blogs will simply become a tool on these blog sites. While the blogosphere as a social and political entity will probably continue to exist, much as it will change, for many the definition of what a blog is and is not will cease to matter. Before long, everything will become a blog -- at least, it will seem like it. And at that point, who knows if there will be a meaningful distinction left to be made?
LEST WE FORGET: We Laugh Now, But Just Wait Until This Generation Takes Over ...
At Huffington Post, DC-based novelist Danielle Crittenden publishes a transcript between George "Kickass43" Bush, Karen "IheartUSA" Hughes and Karl "Wonderboy" Rove. Sounding more than a little like a presidential Herbert Kornfeld, a clearly upset Bush complains about his poor ratings despite positive economic figures:
Kickass43: approvl ratins: DOWN
Kickass43: supprt 4 iraq: DOWN
Kickass43: congreshunal approvl: DOWN
Kickass43: "direcshun of country": DOWN
Kickass43: direcshun of effin UNIVRS: DOWN!!
Kickass43: merikans r drivin, eatin, shoppin, drinkin...
Kickass43: pimpin ther rides...
Kickass43: trickin out ther cribs...
Kickass43: takkin ther frikkin mistresses 2 vegas...
Kickass43: & I get NOOOOO credit!!
Crittenden also makes public Bush's iChat Buddy List (who has been known as a Mac user), including such friends as "Ladeezman42," "Hot_Librarian," "LaGrandeFromage," "Supremegrrl" and "Sexybritguy10."
NOTES AND ERRATA: Wanna Get Paid To Read Blogs*?
Job Opening: The Hotline is seeking a staff writer to take over The Blogometer. Applicants must consider themselves regular consumers of political blogs (min. 2 years reading them, also must be a fan of blogs), be familiar with nationally read blogs from across the spectrum; know how to use blog search engines/aggregators (such as Technorati and Memeorandum); be able to quickly analyze and synthesize developments in the news as well as summarize ongoing blog activity with brevity, clarity and accuracy. Excellent writing and time-management skills are also a must. As with every Hotline position, we don't expect our writers to not have an opinion, we just expect them to keep it out of their work. Interested applicants should send their resumes to jvu@theatlantic.com.
*The catch is that you have to write about them, too.
Friday was a busy day, but the weekend was actually rather slow. The top story this morning is the 3-year anniversary of the Iraq invasion, and a few of the other blog swarms we're covering are Iraq-based as well. Meanwhile, bloggers debate the GOP and Dems' competing strategies -- or lack of them -- for the midterms, conservative bloggers tear into AP's coverage of Pres. Bush, and Arianna Huffington comes to a blogospheric epiphany.
IRAQ I: Are We There Yet?
AP's Nedra Pickler points out that Bush's 3/19 speech marking the anniversary didn't mention the "the daily violence that rages" in Iraq, nor did he use the word "war." Liberal Taylor Marsh: "The president is so weak he thinks by changing the subject and leaving out one word his problems and ours will all go away." Centrist Joe Gandelman: "Did they think that no one would notice? Just what do they think Americans think is going on over there?" Conservative Dan Riehl: "Heavens!! Not only that, but the wire story goes on tell us that Bush didn't walk everyone through every last car bombing, or mosque attack which has taken place. But then, why should he have?" Cheat Seeking Missiles writes, "Is AP saying that the President copped out and tried to pretend that there wasn't a war going on? If it was a long, detailed speech without the word 'war' in it, AP might have a point," but the speech was only 252 words long.
Conservative Gateway Pundit assembles a timeline of the war, including off-base predictions by Dems and foreign leaders, along with the "reality." Liberal Think Progress posts a timeline of the war, one that's certainly less positive, but is sans commentary.
Antiwar protests got relatively little attention; none from the left that we could find, and just a few on the right noting their small size with some approval. USS Neverdock: "Well, at least a few in the media are reporting" on the "disastrous" antiwar protests; MSNBC describes them as "micro-protests." More: "Of course, major MSM don't want to report on the Left's failure to attract people to their cause. Seems like people have wised up to the fact that these protests are organized by Communists." Dumbshit of the Week: "Too bad, so sad. Earned media is so hard to get these days, huh?"
Reason posted short Q&A's with libertarian-minded writers and leaders, asking for their takes on the war. At Crooked Timber, Belle Waring singles out Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds, Christopher Hitchens and Wired founder Louis Rosetto, all of whom continue to support the war. Borrowing from Atrios, she asks readers to vote for the biggest "wanker." Steve Gilliard: "These people want to relive World War II and that is fantasy. ... I swear to God, I'd like to teach these people real history, so they can stop with this Islamofascism bullshit."
More takes on the war from around the blogosphere:
- War supporter Gregory Djerejian, who has become increasingly critical of the U.S. handling of the war, writes: "By the way, it's no secret that U.S. commanders in Iraq are under tremendous pressure to keep U.S. casualties down. Our force posture in country has become more and more conservative of late, and, yes, this has helped save coalition lives. But let's not kid ourselves about the result."
- TBogg: "I won't live to see the United States finish cleaning up the mess that they have made of the world."
- Conservative TigerHawk: "Jack Murtha's absurd ranting on "Meet the Press" this morning is symptomatic of the problem -- one can think of all sorts of criticisms of the war in Iraq, but when the most prominent public critics incessantly analogize to a flawed conception of the alleged lessons of Vietnam it is almost impossible to promote a dispassionate discussion of the state of play and the best policy for the future."
- Liberal Rob Schumacher: "Where does it stop? How many dead before the mistake of this war is acknowledged? And before the mistake of leadership, the lack of leadership, is recognized and corrected?"
- Libertarian radio talker Neal Boortz: "No, Iraq is not in the grips of a civil war. In fact, the majority of the country is at peace. And yes, the country is vastly better off than they were under Saddam Hussein. ... Right now is a critical time in Iraq, as a new government is formed. Things could have been done differently and better after the invasion. ... I believe, though, that America is safer because George Bush invaded Iraq and overthrew Saddam Hussein."
- The Left Coaster quotes Bush's 3/18 letter to Speaker Denny Hastert on the war: "The fact that this letter was riddled with lies has never been in much dispute in the center-left blogosphere. But you would hardly know about this certification from listening to our Democratic leaders these last three years, as they have never brought this falsehood out in the open and shown it to the American people for the impeachable offense that it is."
- Jim Lindgren at the Volokh Conspiracy: "According to the website ICasualties.org, which tracks U.S. military deaths in Iraq, the total U.S. military deaths in Iraq since March 20, 2003 is 2,317 lives, one more than the worst month in Vietnam."
- GOP Bloggers: "America spent many years pursuing a strategy of "stability" that only offered superficial and illusory, not to mention imperfect, quiet while a violent undercurrent of Islamic radicalism grew. That 'status quo' strategy had five decades to prove itself and was clearly a failure, but the Scowcroftian realpolitik adherents still have the nerve to declare the Bush Doctrine as dead after only three years."
- Billmon: "After three-and-a-half years and three elections, this is what "democracy" has achieved in Iraq: a chronic case of deja vu. And, of course, approximately 100,000 to 150,000 casualties. And the death squads. Shouldn't forget about them. I just wonder: Does Zalmay Khalilzad wake up every morning, like the Bill Murray character in Groundhog Day, wondering why he's been condemned to live the same day over and over again?"
- Instapundit: "I think that attitudes on the war have more to do with attitudes on Bush than with realities on the ground, among a lot of people on both left and right. As Bush's popularity has sunk -- largely for non-war reasons -- it has pushed the war's popularity down, too."
IRAQ II: Rumsfeld's War
On 3/19, Defense Sec. Donald Rumsfeld had an op-ed in the Washington Post, and it got a lot of attention from both sides.
Sister Toldjah, quoting Rumsfeld's closing bit about how his points are "well worth remembering on this anniversary of Operation Iraqi Freedom": "Amen. Many thanks to our fine men and women serving, who have served, and/or who will be serving again." Conservative Tom Maguire takes some issue with the op-ed: "The 'tough love' timetable strategy -- announce a withdrawal plan and challenge the Iraqis to form a government and train the heck out of their security forces -- looks like a proposition that will become increasingly popular in the US. ... I have no problem with [Rumsfeld's] re-statement of the urgency of the mission, but 'retreat now' is not exactly what is meant by 'set a concrete timetable.'"
AMERICAblog advises, "Given Rummy's failed leadership, it's hard to take his nasty op-ed seriously anyway. But it's even worse after reading the op-ed" by ret. Army Gen. Paul Eaton in the New York Times, "who castigates Rumsfeld." At his Bull Moose Blog, Marshall Wittmann also recommends the Eaton op-ed, which ends by calling on Rumsfeld to "step down": "Firing Rumsfeld, of course, will by no means guarantee that Iraq will improve. That is not the point. It is imperative that President Bush take concrete steps to demonstrate to the American people that there is a genuine change in course and that from now on he will require accountability. Republican leaders must go to the President and demand this change."
CNN.com later ran a report quoting Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski from "Late Edition" as disagreeing with Rumsfeld's WWII analogy. Elephants in Academia points out that CNN truncated Kissinger's quote, excising his elaboration upon Rumsfeld's point: "This is hardly a condemnation of what Mr. Rumsfeld said -- it is a sophisticated and nuanced interpretation of his op-ed and, more to the point, an expression of agreement." Solomonia: "It's an analogy. It either works for you or it doesn't. For me it does." Wizbang's Kim Priestap agrees with Rumsfeld's analogy, in another way, recalling an old Saturday Evening Post article calling German rebuilding a failure in '46: "The 1946 perspective of post war Germany was that it was going so miserably that even American military in Germany were complaining, yet decades later, the rebuilding of Europe in general and Germany in particular is seen as one of the greatest achievements in American history."
IRAQ III: Getting Swarmer ...
Op. Swarmer took a good deal of criticism, particularly with the Time article explaining how it "fizzled." At Back to Iraq, ex-AP reporter Christopher Albritton writes, "'Operation Swarmer' is really a media show. It was designed to show off the new Iraqi Army - although there was no enemy for them to fight. Every American official I've heard has emphasized the role of the Iraqi forces just days before the third anniversary of the start of the war. That said, one Iraqi role the military will start highlighting in the next few days, I imagine, is that of Iraqi intelligence."
On the left, there is little surprise -- Daily Kos' Georgia10: "Today, we learn that eight civilians, including a child, were killed in clashes between U.S. troops and gunmen in Duluiyah, part of the area targeted in the air assault campaign. It's unclear what exactly is transpiring; there is a media blackout. However, what little information is trickling out from the operation reveals the true cost of this PR campaign." David Anderson, at In Search of Utopia: "I don't blame 'em though. I mean with Bush getting his ass handed to him on the issue of Iraq, and the fact that after three years we still don't have a plan. ... Not to mention the hundreds of Iraqis that have died in the last couple of weeks..."
Meanwhile, some conservatives are arguing that it was the media who mischaracterized the point of Swarmer -- Captain's Quarters: "Sometimes the press demonstrates such incompetence as to be actually dangerous. The coverage of the latest effort in Samarra in clearing out the terrorists is just the latest example. ... Since its beginning, however, the press has both hyped the operation and attempted to tear it down as a publicity stunt by the White House. Described as the biggest air assault in three years, the press completely misunderstood this as the biggest air strike since the beginning of the war." Dafydd Ab Hugh explains: "Time complains that planes and helicopters didn't come screaming in like a World War II strafing run. But this operation was never supposed to be an airstrike; it was an air assault," and yet Time itself "already knew that we weren't planning a huge, Clintonian barrage of missiles," and in the article noted that air assault "is a military term that refers specifically to transporting troops into an area."
MIDTERMS: Unification Theories
Washington Post reports on the GOP's inability to come up with a unified message for the midterms. ConservativeBetsy Newmark: "I suspect that this will become yet another election when people are more likely to vote against the other party than for their own party. ... That is why the Feingold censure resolution was such a gift to the Republicans, because it was a reminder to disgruntled Republican voters of what they would face if the Democrats took control of Congress." Outside the Beltway: "Parties in power tend not to have a lot of new ideas beyond 'stay the course.' They have either done, failed at, or abandoned the policies that carried them to power. The Democrats' failure to assemble a unified message is more of a head scratcher." At MyDD, Jonathan Singer argues, "the inability to create a cohesive strategy is not a strategy. If the Republicans can't come up with a positive agenda, they are not devilishly smart for localizing the election -- they just can't come up with a positive agenda." Liberal Prairie Weather notes that the story suggests "dangerous incompetence" as the Dems' best theme against the GOP, adding, "The right wing has been successful in the past when it groups concepts together: Kerry's "flip-flopping" became linked to "cowardice" in Vietnam. ... Most Republicans are uneasy about their recent alliance with religious extremists. When the incompetence and extremism are linked in their minds to those extremists, it's a short step to separating the Republican Party from evangelicals. ... All we need to do is group the words and concepts which so aptly describe the Republican Party's performance in Congress and the White House during the past five to fifteen years."
Newsweek's Jonathan Alter reports that DCCC chair Rahm Emanuel plans to portray GOPers as the "rubber stamp congress," similar to how GOPers portrayed Dems in '94 as the "do-nothing congress." Kevin Drum adds: "That all sounds good, but I still think we need a stronger focus on Iraq (i.e., withdrawal from) and national security (i.e., what we'd do if we're not up for invading Iran). I hope we're not planning to ignore that stuff again, like we did in our famously winning efforts of 2002 and 2004."
Alter writes, "In 1994, the big issue powering the Gingrich Revolution was widespread dislike of Clinton." California Conservative disagrees: "That played a part in the revolution but it was hardly the thing. More than anything else, 1994's revolution was spurred by Newt's vision, something that the Democrats sorely lacked."
BLOGS VS. THE MSM: I'm Loven It
The Pickler story above was not the only AP report on Bush to draw conservatives' ire -- previously, AP's Jennifer Loven wrote an article titled "Bush Using Straw-Man Arguments in Speeches." Loven quotes Bush as saying, "Some look at the challenges in Iraq and conclude that the war is lost and not worth another dime or another day," and "There are some really decent people who believe that the federal government ought to be the decider of health care ... for all people," and adding: "Of course, hardly anyone in mainstream political debate has made such assertions." Conservatives disagree vehemently -- Power Line: "Apparently Ms. Loven hasn't been reading the prominent Democrats and influential columnists who have said repeatedly that "the war is lost." And maybe she hasn't read John Murtha's resolution, with its recitations of purported failure in Iraq and its demand that the war be 'hereby terminated.'" The Unalienable Right: "Of course, many people believe the U.S. ought to implement a nationalized, single-payer health care system ... The Clinton Administration actually tried to implement it." Brainster's Blog: "Note that there is no effort to provide balance in the article; nobody is cited who mentions that the Democrats do the same thing frequently. Nobody notes John Kerry's straw-man arguments."
Dinocrat's Jack Risko analyzes the New York Times' acquisition of About.com 1 year hence, amidst news that Moody's may downgrade the Times company's rating: "Not only have the Times' editorial and news policies come under criticism, not only have the sufficiency and clarity of its SEC disclosures been criticized, but now the Times' business judgment in keeping the corporation on a sound financial footing has been questioned." Thomas Lifson: "The Times is already cutting back in the newsrooms of its papers. Newspapers and television stations (the biggest assets of the NYTCo) are not pulling down top dollars any more, so selling these are not attractive options for generating cash. Keep an eye on that dividend." Roger L. Simon writes, the NYT's "decline is not really a decline -- the newspaper was always as it is, more or less -- but rather a symptom of changing times and access. The Times is no longer able to function ex cathedra as it was during the era of Walter Duranty ... Jayson Blair, whose fairy tales were far less significant than Duranty's, was discovered relatively quickly ... History has been replayed as farce."
TORTURE: Sponsored By Mazda?
New York Times reports on a secret U.S. interrogation squad at Camp Nama in Iraq called Task Force 6-26, where there were "no rules" on detainee treatment, and a sign read "No Blood, No Foul."
Obsidian Wings' Hilzoy notes that 6-26 was formerly known as 121, "which also seems to have had chronic problems with prisoner abuse," and tracks down an '03 Washington Post story about it. Body and Soul: "Consider: American soldiers treated prisoners so viciously that even the CIA blanched, and prohibited its officers from taking part in interrogations at the prison. A knee-jerk response awaits: How bad does abuse have to be before the CIA would object?" Andrew Sullivan compares this to the official line on Abu Ghraib: "The troops doing the abuse and torturing were not reservists on the night shift. They were an elite group either doing what their civilian masters wanted; or beyond their civilian masters' control. Fire Rumsfeld."
Disturbing the Comfortable: "We know that right after 9/11, there were some instances of physical abuse happening to people arrested here in the States. We know that Gitmo has documented physical abuse of prisoners. We know the Secret Police have been tapping phones and putting people under surveillance and even arresting them without bothering about legal baggage. So when does this stuff begin here? Or has it?"
BLOGGERS VS. BLOGGERS: The Whipping Post
On 3/16 we covered the dispute between actor George Clooney and Huffington Post founder Arianna Huffington about whether she had permission to run interview answers as a blog post. Aside from that, a number of bloggers objected simply to the fact that Huffington had committed a deception that rendered all HuffPo contributions suspect, and even devalued other bloggers' work. This a.m., the New York Times has a story about the dustup.
A prominent critic was Jeff Jarvis, who called her the "unrepentent Dr. Frankenstein of celebrity blog posts": "I believe this betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning of the medium: Blogs are people and the blogosphere is a conversation. If you're not really writing your blog, if you're having or allowing someone to do it for you, then you're gaming me, lying to me, insulting me." By 3/18, Huffington changed her mind: "I now realize that I made a big mistake in posting a blog without clearly identifying that the material in it didn't originate as a blog post but was pieced together from previous interviews." Huffington promised to acknowledge source material if there is any, to not coach contributors, adding: "When I read something or hear something in an interview or have something said to me in person that I think is really important and should have as wide an audience as possible, I will put it in my own blog, becoming Boswell to all the Dr. Johnsons out there just as I did once with Arthur Schlesinger." She concludes: "We've been doing this for ten months, and the learning curve has been enormous. Consider this a major lesson learned. I get it and have taken it to heart."
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Coming Hurricanosphere?
Confederate Yankee writes, "By now, the importance of the information provided by bloggers before, during, and after a major disaster such as a hurricane, earthquake or a tsunami is well-established," and in "up-coming hurricane seasons selected bloggers will have even more front-line access." He links to the O.E.S. Project Web Log, which notes that bloggers were recently admitted entry to the former USNS San Diego to cover Hurricane Beryl. CY asks: "Who among us wouldn't like to see someone like hurricane blogger Brendan Loy on board these ships, blogging in real-time as events unfold, or crisp, riveting post-landfall reporting from someone like Michael Yon?"
At
LEST WE FORGET: Still Not Clear On The "Web" Concept ... And What Is This "Log" You Speak Of?
It would appear that our prediction from the 1st paragraph of the Blogometer's '05 year-in-review edition has not yet come to pass. Then again, we're not doing so hot in our NCAA brackets, either. Perhaps we've been wasting too much time with this.
NOTES AND ERRATA: Think You Can Do This Job?
Job Opening: The Hotline is seeking a staff writer to take over The Blogometer. Applicants must consider themselves regular consumers of political blogs (min. 2 years reading them, also must be a fan of blogs), be familiar with nationally read blogs from across the spectrum; know how to use blog search engines/aggregators (such as Technorati and Memeorandum); be able to quickly analyze and synthesize developments in the news as well as summarize ongoing blog activity with brevity, clarity and accuracy. Excellent writing and time-management skills are also a must. As with every Hotline position, we don't expect our writers to not have an opinion, we just expect them to keep it out of their work. Interested applicants should send their resumes to jvu@theatlantic.com.
In this too-busy-for-a-Friday edition: Under pressure from conservatives, the Pentagon has released the 1st of what should be many documents the U.S. seized from the Saddam regime, and some pro-war bloggers already think they've found what they were looking for; meanwhile there's a major military offensive happening in Iraq, and the U.S. and Iran have agreed to hold direct talks on how to quell sectarian violence in Iraq; an ARG poll finds that a plurality of registered voters actually support Sen. Russ Feingold's (D-WI) move to censure Pres. Bush -- and while bloggers are certainly paying attention, the MSM so far has not; on the terrorism beat, port security comes up again in the form of a House amendment to search all incoming containers, and lefty bloggers are hitting GOPers hard for voting it down -- and did we add that the so-called al Qaeda "chatter" is apparently at pre-9/11 levels?; H.R. 1606, a bill that bloggers on both sides of the partisan divide see as protecting them against campaign finance regulations, is on hold until after next week's recess -- and now some Dem-leaning bloggers are pressuring House Min. Leader Nancy Pelosi to back off her opposition. There's also an erroneous report that is still floating around the blogosphere which has not yet been properly debunked -- so we might as well be the ones do it. All that and more:
IRAQ I: The New Pentagon Papers
Ex-Hotliner Steve Hayes' 3/20 Weekly Standard report on DNI John Negroponte's reticence to make documents seized from Saddam's regime publicly available has paid off -- in the last 24 hours, the 1st batch has been posted to a Pentagon website. And conservative bloggers -- some of whom argue still that Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda had more extensive ties than has become the CW -- are diving right in. The MSM is picking it up too, albeit carefully -- ABC News posts document summaries to its site, with little editor's notes after each paragraph, generally tamping down expectations. One goes: "The controversial claim that Osama bin Laden was cooperating with Saddam Hussein is an ongoing matter of intense debate. While the assertions contained in this document clearly support the claim, the sourcing is questionable ... without further corroboration, this document is of limited evidentiary value."
Power Line's John Hinderaker quotes from 1 document: "So Iraqi intelligence conducted 'covert offensive operations' involving 'poisons' as well as explosives, carried out 'sabotage and assassination' outside of Iraq, and trained agents in 'the use of terror techniques' abroad. Not bad for a single eight-page document." He had initially thought the document was a translation; he updated after readers pointed out it was actually summary -- but he notes that Investors Business Daily made the same error.
The Politburo Ditkat is one of a few sites to quote the following section from the Iraqi docs: "Our source in Afghanistan No 11002 (for information about him see attachment 1) provided us with information that that Afghani Consul Ahmad Dahestani (for information about him see attachment 2) told him the following: 1. That Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan are in contact with Iraq and it that previously a group from Taliban and Osama Bin Laden group visited Iraq. 2. That America has proof that the government of Iraq and Osama Bin Laden group have shown cooperation to hit target within America." Beth at MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy reacts: "OK, am I reading that right? Have I just gotten used to expecting nothing? " Ed Morrissey: "What this doesn't suggest -- and we can bet we will see this spin -- is that Saddam Hussein was complicit in either effort. If the Mukhabarat had to go investigate AQ's penetration and recruiting in Iraq, it suggests that the Iraqi intelligence structure was unaware of the situation. It really doesn't much matter. ... What Saddam doesn't do -- and which would have gained him a great deal of clout at the UNSC -- is turn the AQ cells over to a third party. It would be impossible to imagine the US invading Iraq after Saddam had surrendered the AQ terrorists."
The Anchoress: "The WaPo puts the most boring headline on the story" -- "First Declassified Iraq Documents Released" -- "which indicates to me that the documents do not hurt, and may actually help, the president. If they could hurt him, the headline would reflect that. ... My prediction: we'll be out of Iraq sooner than anyone thinks, and the press has been sort of rope-a-doped today. Instead of reporting on Iraqi documents, his commitment and the air assault, they are fixating on... polls. He's making the press look very, very bad." Linking to that same Post story, AJStrata sums it up: "Consider this the final nail in the coffin of the liberal fantasy about Al Qaeda [not having] ties to Iraq." Having sifted through the documents a bit, he adds later: "As I am glancing through the newly released documents it is hard to believe this is a Iraq stash and not an Al Qaeda stash. Either someone in Iraq was on the distribution list for a lot of operations reports or Iraq had someone inside Al Qaeda sending these back for intelligence purposes."
Bluto at The Jawa Report posts a photo taken from the Iraqi files -- it's Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. It's an interesting find, and gets a few links from other blogger. However, one is The Mahablog's Barbara O'Brien, who rejoins: "OF COURSE Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Iraq before the invasion. And he was running terrorist training camps in Iraq before the invasion. This is not a secret. Everybody knows this. ... But here is the part the bleepheads of the Right never get through their impenetrable skulls: Zarqawi was operating in Iraqi KURDISTAN, an area of northern Iraq that had become a safe haven for Kurds. He was in a part of Iraq over which Saddam Hussein had no control. He was, in fact, in part of Iraq controlled by our buddies, the Kurds."
Abu Aardvark's Marc Lynch writes that while he and Hayes don't see eye to eye on Iraq's possible al Qaeda connections, he gives him credit for getting the documents out. But he adds, their "value depends entirely on their comprehensiveness, and that they are vetted on a nonpartisan and scholarly basis. If all the released documents support the administration's case for war ... then the release becomes worse than useless." More: "The only prediction I'm confident making: a lot of people are going to dive into these things, and find what they're looking for. ... Here's one that proves, proves, that Saddam had nukes! Here's one that proves, proves, that Saddam didn't have nukes! I'd advise people on both sides of the issue not to get too excited over individual documents..."
IRAQ II: Bloggers Know A Thing Or Two About Swarms ...
Op. Swarmer in Iraq, planned by the U.S. military but led by Iraqi forces, is getting perhaps less commentary than we might have thought. It is getting plenty of links, primarily from bloggers on the right, but from those we saw, most just noted with approval that it was going on. What we found a bit more of was press criticism:
Bill Roggio counters pundits who claim Swarmer is just "theater": "If the Iraqi Army and Coalition wished to conduct a show of strength, there are easier, safer and cheaper ways to do so. An armored assault immediately comes to mind, and the Iraqi Army possesses their own armored units, which would be an impressive and accurate show of the Iraqi flag as opposed to riding shotgun on U.S. Blackhawks. But claims the dog was wagged makes for far more entertaining reporting, and far shallower reporting, too." Stop the ACLU is very cynical about press coverage of Swarmer, noting "this little jab" from the Washington Post: "But the crackdowns have failed to ease a raging guerrilla campaign that has killed thousands of U.S. soldiers, Iraqi security forces and civilians." And adding: "Good luck to our troops. We can already see who the MSM are rooting for. I'm sure the MSM will try to wrap this into their ever hopeful civil war talk."
With all the latest developments, conservative Macsmind exults about Swarmer: "This on top of Rumsfeld INCREASING troop strength. ADD to this, Iran is next on the chopping block. Not to leave out those 'pesky documents' that show Saddam DID have contact with Al Qaeda, prior to our invasion in 2003 -- AS WE HAVE BEEN TELLING PEOPLE ALL ALONG. I can hear the leftist MSM now ... 'But, what? We had him on the run!! Doesn't he know his poll numbers??' 'He can't possibly be talking about attacking Iran!!!'"
IRAN: Just Coffee Talk, No Big Whoop
Iran and the U.S. will soon open negotiations on Iraq; there's some optimism on both sides of the Iraq debate, although not everyone agrees what this exactly means:
Juan Cole, an Iraq war opponent and generally a pessimist on the situation, is rather encouraged: "Such talks have been sought by US ambassador in Baghdad Zalmay Khalilzad, who is the first Bush administration official in Iraq who seems to know what he is doing, and some important part of whose activities are likely to bear positive results. Note that the Neocons would never have agreed to talk to the Iranian government, which they just want to bomb."
War supporter/Bush admin. critic Andrew Sullivan: "It is not in Iran's interests to see Iraq descend into civil war, and for the conflict there to broaden into a regional Shiite-Sunni conflict. And so, as I put it the other day, 'sometimes the darkest days are inevitable -- even necessary -- before the sky ultimately clears.' Here's hoping -- but still not confidently expecting -- that those skies may be clearing."
Conservative QandO isn't thrilled, but can go along with it: "It appears a little tit-for-tat negotiation might be in the offing. Why would the "chief nuclear negotiator" be interested in discussing ways to halt sectarian violence in Iraq? Seems to me he'd only be interested if he thought he'd somehow be successful in wringing an agreement out of Washington to back off a bit on the present policy of confrontation over nukes. Frankly (and pragmatically) this is probably something we should seriously consider. If estimates are correct, Iran is quite a way off in terms of nuclear weapons whereas our need to dampen the sectarian strife in Iraq is pretty immediate." Alexandra von Maltzan: "Iran wants to talk about Iraq. Ask yourself, why? Could it be that Iran has realized that it has overplayed its hand? That it has just needled the Great Satan one too many times by blowing up the shrine and hoping to throw Iraq into civil war? We don't know, but we do know, that something major is up and that Iran knows it."
At Donklephant, Denise Best notes that a U.S.-Iran standoff "has been in place for more than a quarter of a century," and in fact: "History is brimming full of seemingly hopeless standoffs among warring factions that took centuries to resolve into more peaceful coexistence i.e. France, England, Spain, and the Holy Roman Empire." More: One has to wonder, is there a place for technology to speed along the process of marrying interests to create ties that strengthen, rather than choke, relationships among today’s world power brokers?
Liberal Edward Copeland: "Maybe that will be the U.S. exit strategy -- just give up and give Iraq over to Iran." Fellow liberal Tristero at Hullabaloo has a different take: "Hooyah! Iran is now the new Iraq."
TERRORISM: Chatterbox
Header at Gateway Pundit: "Al Qaeda Chatter at Pre-9-11 Levels." Wizbang, which noes the bomb scare prior to the Marquette-Alabama game yesterday, carries a similar header. Ex-Washington Post reporter Douglas Farah adds at The Counterterrorism Blog, "the question in many parts of the U.S. and European intelligence communities is not if al Qaeda will strike again, but when. Much of the thinking centers on the near-term. This is also reflected in current corporate security alerts being circulated among elite business establishments."
Instapundit, on the "pre-9/11 level" chatter: "I'm not sure what that means, but unless they're saying "this whole terror thing sucks, let's quit," it's probably bad news." Rusty Shackleford guesses, "in light of today's offensive against Samarra, perhaps the AQ gang got wind of something?"
EAVESDROPPING: Censure-ational!
An ARG poll finds registered voters favor "passing a resolution censuring President George W. Bush for authorizing wiretaps of Americans within the United States without obtaining court orders" by a margin of 48% to 43%. For the left, which wants Dems to back Sen. Russ Feingold's (D-WI) censure proposal, this is verifiable evidence that the Dems are making a big mistake by not signing on. While the poll has so far gotten plenty of attention from bloggers, the MSM has barely reported on it at all.
Matt Singer: "Keep in mind, that for the most part, the drum beat hasn't even begun. For Clinton's entire Presidency, there was a drum beat for impeachment and they only got the support of roughly a third of the nation. Without any help, 2/5 of voters have decided that this President deserves equal treatment." Matthew Gross: "The public is way ahead of their representatives on this one. Imagine what the numbers would be if Democrats stood together ... on the issue, and actual surrogates went out on the air to make the case on behalf of Feingold."
But that's not happening, and it leaves liberal bloggers simply asking where the Dems are on this one. State of the Day: "The key number here is that 70% of Democrats are in favor of censure. Not to mention 48% of voters overall. ... C'mon Dems, jump on board the censure train. The American people are already going for the ride; why don't you join them?" The Carpetbagger Report: "Will this affect the debate on the Hill? Will Dems start warming up to the resolution once they see the numbers? Do nearly one-in-three Republicans really support censure, or is this just considered a less-severe option than impeachment? Will news networks start conducting some additional polling on this?" Daily Kos' Georgia10 points out: "There are no polls to support the contention that censuring the President for his lawlessness would negatively affect Democrats."
At MyDD, Chris Bowers compares Google News searches for "Feingold censure" and "'American Research Group' censure" -- the former has 1000+ results, while the second has only a few hits. When we followed the links this a.m., Google News showed bloggers linking to the story but only 1 MSM source -- an opinion column by David Sarasohn of The Oregonian.
Hotline On Call reported early last p.m., just as Rightwing Nuthouse predicted, Senate Maj. Leader Bill Frist will "will force a floor vote on Sen. Russ Feingold's censure resolution after Congress returns from its next recess ... to put Dems on record." Frist "believes that the best tactic for Republicans heading into a midterm where the environment favors Dems is to heighten the contrast on issues where Americans perceive Dems to be weak." Marshall Wittmann: "Here is the bottom line -- the American people are not going to penalize the President for being overly zealous in preventing a destruction of an American city. That is what the Republicans know and they are gleeful about a debate on this issue. And they are co-dependent on the Democratic left to keep this issue alive." The Moderate Voice: "So it hasn't reached critical mass in the country yet. But those who've supported Feingold's resolution feel a sweet sense of vindication."
PORT SECURITY: Seriously!
As Think Progress reports, the House GOP voted down an amendment by Rep. Martin Sabo (D-MN) to provide $1.25B in desperately needed funding for port security and disaster preparedness.
Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum ties the issue of port security to a nuclear Iran, arguing, "if you were truly concerned about" the chance Iran could ship a weapon to the U.S., "you would support more than preemptive action against Iran. You would also support funding to increase security at American ports." Noting the GOP "almost unanimously" rejected the amendment, he writes: "I think this tells you just how seriously they take the actual threat of a nuclear Iran." He advises reporters, the "next time a Republican politician tells you that a nuclear Iran is intolerable, the first question you should ask is whether said politician supports funding for serious port security." Ed Kilgore, Seeing The Forest, AMERICAblog, and others concur. Oliver Willis heads a post: "They Were For It, Before They Were..."
Having read Drum's take, Marc "Armed Liberal" Danziger writes, "I was kinda concerned when I read" about it -- "Then I looked at the bill itself -- which would require 100% of cargo to be "scanned using the best-available technology" by American personnel and more. Danziger continues: "Come on Kevin -- you know that's not a serious security proposal, it's a trial balloon. You can't implement this proposal without shutting down global trade."
BLOGS VS. THE BELTWAY: 1606 Blocks
Campaign finance bill H.R. 1606, backed by a bipartisan group of campaign-focused bloggers, has stalled for the moment, as its rival bill, H.R. 4900 will get a further airing. No action will be taken until recess is over Mary Katherine Ham explains: "Reformers still want their substitute to be offered on the floor, too, despite the fact it hasn't been through committee, so 1606 was pushed back until after recess because reformers and freedom-lovers couldn't come to a compromise." Election Law's Rick Hasen gives a rundown of the facts with links to bloggers involved, adding: "I would link to posts by those opposing 1606 and supporting the CDT alternative, 4900, but I haven't found any such posts or press releases yet."
RedState's Blanton quotes
Rep. Tom Allen (D-ME) in The Hill saying large blogs "might well have to file ... but that's the point. If the Internet becomes more important, the types of financial abuses that occurred within the campaign-finance system in general [are more prone to occurring]." Blanton adds: "That my friends would be bad for free speech. What this would do is say the more popular a blog becomes the more it's speech must be regulated. So don't get tired of us beating this drum. It's important and we need your help." A commenter writes: "I'll tell you what I am tired of. When I call my congresscritter's office, that sweet little staffer who answers the phone absolutely blows me off. There is absolutely no question in my mind that not only does she not pass on my message, she doesn't give a flying rat's @$$ if I like it or not." Another RedStater inquired who the person's "critter" was -- House Maj. Whip Roy Blunt, not a popular figure on the site.
At Daily Kos, Markos Moulitsas responds to the same Allen statement, and points out that House Min. Leader Nancy Pelosi is among those "fighting hard" to defeat 1606: "For all the talk about 'protecting bloggers,' we now have proof that their agenda is none of that sort. This is intended to squash citizen media. Pelosi and company are complicit, no matter how much they lie about their intentions. ... When they can point to an example of this undermining of the entire campaign-finance-reform legislation -- an undermining so drastic that the blogosphere's freedom must be compromised -- then we'll talk." Matt Stoller has a "Simple and Non-Legal Explanation" that ends up being actually quite long, and requiring an update. But bottom line, he asks readers to contact Pelosi's office as well: "Bother Nancy Pelosi." Atrios endorses Stoller's explanation, and adds: "The legal discussions get a bit complex, but basically there are people who think the Daily Kos should be treated differently the Slate.com or TNR.com. I have no idea why."
REPUBLICANS: Some Politicians Don't Get Blogging -- And Names Will Be Named
At Human Events' Right Angle blog, Robert Bluey reports, "I've been to plenty of Capitol Hill events over the past four years, and today's quasi-presser for bloggers -- staged by the Senate Republican Conference -- was by far the most bizarre. As I attempted to live blog the event -- I gave up on after the first senator spoke -- it struck me that Senate Republicans (with the exception of Majority Leader Bill Frist and Sen. John Cornyn) really have no idea about blogging." For example: "Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) looked befuddled, saying, 'Someone ask a question.' Bond quickly recovered when a staffer handed him a script that had been prepared for the event. It may have been a savior for Bond, but it was an instant turnoff for me."
Wary that his criticisms could be taken too harshly, he adds: "With that being said, I'm sorry if the SRC staff perceives this as unfair badgering, but I hope my criticism is viewed constructively, not as a cheap shot toward their boss, [PA Sen. Rick] Santorum. I also hope they don't exclude me from future events."
And he closes out by offering advice: "What's the best lesson Hill staffers can learn from today's event? Involve bloggers in the planning of your events. Unlike the herd of Capitol Hill reporters who travel in packs, bloggers don't think the same way. Engaging them -- as Rep. Jack Kingston's staff did for the March 3 blog workshop -- will make everyone happier, and probably result in better coverage for your congressman or senator."
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Self-Corrections
We revisit a point we raised briefly on 3/16, namely that primarily lefty bloggers mistakenly believe, and keep repeating the claim, that Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) has already come out in support of Feingold's censure resolution. Problem is, Hotline hasn't seen a single press release or news report to back this up. Meanwhile, the Bergen Record today quotes Menendez saying: "I think we've got to get the facts first. One of the challenges is getting the oversight necessary so the facts can become public. ... If the facts rise to that the president has violated the law, then [censure] may be an appropriate action of the Congress." Considering there are Dem sens. who have expressed more confidence in the notion that Bush's actions violated the law but still don't back censure, Menendez is clearly not one of the chief backers of the proposal -- not yet, at any rate.
The erroneous claim originated with a post by Jane Hamsher, where she mentioned (with link citations) that Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Tom Harkin (D-IA) are behind the censure resolution, then added (without a link citation) "and so has Menendez." But we could find nothing to buttress this claim. As we noted yesterday, Blue Jersey expressed some skepticism, but hasn't addressed it since, and as yet remains the only blog to do so.
Yet numerous bloggers, including some influential ones, still attaching Menendez's name to the list of censure supporters. Among them: Chris Bowers at MyDD, Blue Mass. Group, Booman Tribune, State of the Day, Preemptive Karma, Dependable Renegade, and probably others Technorati hasn't picked up.
As Glenn Greenwald asked in Feb. when conservative bloggers kept repeating an erroneous report claiming Cindy Sheehan broke the law when she was removed from the SOTU, "when does the 'self-correcting' blogosphere start to self-correct?" If it happens, we'll be sure note that in an update (though we should make it clear, we're not trying to harp on anyone here, and we aren't e-mailing those who slipped up; it's about the phenomenon, not the individuals).
First correction: State of the Day. Second: Blue Mass Group.
LEST WE FORGET: The Truth Behind The Lies That Are Behind The Truth
Still on the comics kick, we'd like to add that Bad Reporter, by Don Asmussen of the San Francisco Chronicle, is brilliant pretty much week in and week out.
Less than a week after Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) proposed his resolution to censure Pres. Bush, the measure is now splitting the liberal blogosphere. Some say it will likely have -- and already has had -- a deleterious effect on Dems' strength. Others argue this view assumes public opinion cannot be changed, and in any case the substantive (i.e. Bush broke the law, they argue) should outweigh the political. Meanwhile, it may also help the GOP overcome its recent divisions and rally behind the president.
Speaking of Bush, there is now yet another poll finding him at his lowest levels recorded, and while there's no silver lining for him there, a few center-left bloggers are asking whether the way those polls are reported might actually be distorting the results. Meanwhile, bloggers react to news that Rep. Katherine Harris (R-FL) is not dropping out of the SEN race, MSNBC's Chris Matthews is under fire from bloggers again, a House bill that would protect bloggers from campaign finance regulations is delayed once more, and George Clooney says he never blogged for Arianna Huffington. Plus, we present our latest Blogger Spotlight.
EAVESDROPPING: Democrats' Reasons Why Not
The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen talked to some friends on the Hill about why the Dems acted as they did -- and calls the reasons "more compelling than I expected": "Dems were bothered by the fact that Feingold took the party off-message"; "there's a sense that Feingold helped bring Republicans together"; "there was not even a hint of party strategy on this"; "Dems saw that Bush was starting another series of Iraq speeches, and the party was ready to pivot from ports to the war"; and lastly, he quotes a Senate staffer saying Dems should hold a "hearing with a panel of experts discussing whether Bush's behavior deserves censure. Wouldn't that be much better as a first step then a rushed vote in which we lose and R's declare victory and say we were silly?" Conservative QandO arrived at one of these conclusions independently, writing: "I'm not sure what he expected, quite honestly. Most politicians, regardless of party, hate surprises." Hullabaloo's Digby feels differently: "None of these reasons hold up for me. They do not denote timidity, so much as a kind of political blindness" -- he goes through them, rebutting each one by one. And he warns: "If Democratic pols don't understand that they are flirting with terrible grassroots defeatism, then they are going to lose ... demoralized Democrats are not going to bother with them. Come on. Speak for us. If not now, when?" At Interesting Times, Chris Andersen concurs: "Many in the party leadership don't seem to realize just how precarious is the coalition of interests backing the Democrats this Fall."
Lefty economist PGL at Angry Bear: "The good news is that Senator Harkin has a spine. As for the lack of support from other Democratic Senators, see the debate between" Kevin Drum and Glenn Greenwald -- Drum argues this is not "good political theater," while Greenwald calls that "baseless" CW that discounts picking up more support. PGL: "I'm with Glenn on this one." Uggabugga sides with Drum: "At this blog, we have one and only one standard for behavior in this election year: 'Will it increase the chance that Democrats gain control of one of the chambers of Congress?' That's it. Nothing else matters. If anti-abortion Bob Casey becomes the senator from Pennsylvania, fine. If Feingold's censure motion diminishes whatever political standing the Democrats have, then that's not fine." Though not directly responding to this debate, Legal Fiction's Publius proposes a 3rd way: "[S]ometimes your goal must be to move the polls, not merely react to them. My argument, then, is that the Feingold censure resolution is not a good way to go about moving the polls, not that Dems shouldn't try to move them on this issue. It's not a question of whether, but one of how." Liberty Street is "disappointed" with both Drum and Publius: "We don't need bloggers to act like the Democrats, who are such jellyfish that they measure everything by whether it will open them to Republican charges of being 'soft on terror.'"
Meanwhile, New York Times' David Kirkpatrick reports, GOPers, "worried that their conservative base lacks motivation to turn out for the fall elections, have found a new rallying cry in the dreams of liberals about censuring or impeaching" Bush. Liberal Brendan Nyhan sees the story as one in a continuing series of "impeachment hype" reports floated by GOPers including Paul Weyrich, talking up the possibility although no one inside the Beltway has endorsed the idea. Conservative Brainster's Blog agrees in part: "What Nyhan is essentially saying here is that while the netkooks may holler for impeachment, the grownups in the party -- the elected representatives -- are not that stupid. I suspect he's pretty close. Of course, Conyers will hold impeachment hearings, and the New York Times will pretend that every day produces new revelations, so there's no room for Republicans to be complacent." Liberal Yale law prof Jack Balkin is more cynical: "So children, here's the moral of the story: If you are the President, feel free to violate the law, early and often. Just make sure you do it when your party controls all three branches of government. Because just as blood is thicker than water, party is thicker than law." Conservative Rick Moran predicts the fate of the censure move: "Expect the motion to be voted down in Committee but brought to the floor by Bill Frist himself who, like Speaker [Denny] Hastert's ploy of bringing Representative [Jack] Murtha's cut and run resolution on Iraq to an immediate vote, will seek to hold Democratic Senator's feet to the fire and dare them to vote to punish the President for running a program they want to see continued."
BUSH: The Pony Express
Now Pew Research finds Bush at a new low in their poll -- 33% approval overall:
Liberal Mustang Bobby at Bark Bark Woof Woof: "As much as we'd like to, the progressives and the blogosphere can't take credit for finally getting the word out to the electorate just how badly Mr. Bush is doing; if we had that much impact, John Kerry would be president. No, he's pretty much done this all on his own, and quite effectively, I might add." The Left Coaster: "Are the Democrats going to step up to the plateful of opportunity, or will they swing and miss the ball again? What of the opportunists in the GOP? Will one of them see fit to fill Jeffords' shoes?" Pastordan at Street Prophets: "Bush at 33%! Cripes, when do the Four Horsemen appear?" Atrios quotes from the Pew report, including this bit: "The single word most frequently associated with George W. Bush today is 'incompetent,' and close behind are two other increasingly mentioned descriptors: 'idiot' and 'liar.' All three are mentioned far more often today than a year ago." Referring to what he and many others on the left see as a Bush-compliant press, he adds: "It's enough to give our press corps the vapors." Noting a Reuters report that singer/actress Jessica Simpson has cancelled an appearance at a GOP fundraiser over concerns about "politicizing her favorite charity," TBogg asks: "How low do you have to sink that someone who starred in a movie with Seann William Scott and Johnny Knoxville doesn't want to be seen in the room with you?" Header at Hippie Librarian: "Even Jessica Simpson gets it."
Conservative Flopping Aces takes a close look at the methodology: "Oh no! What are we gonna do? But wait, lets take a look at the bias once more in the polling organization ... once again they over sample Democrats by 6% this time, and guess what? We're these registered likely voters? Nope, just adults." More: "Will these MSM outlets EVER do a poll again where they poll registered likely voters and keep the sample within one point? I doubt it. They want to be able to make news instead of report it and what better way then to print a headline that say's Bush's approval rating is at a all time low?"
POLLING: Is This Something Like Steve Carell Not Being Able To Mention Which Network His Show Is On When He Drops By Letterman?
Speaking of Bush's bad polls, Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz wrote earlier this week, each separate poll has been finding Bush at new lows in their own separate polls, "but they give the collective impression that Bush is sinking week to week" and never compare other polls "to their own past surveys, when they're fully aware of the others." Mickey Kaus adds: "The drumbeat of separate, self-referencing 'new low' polls may become a factor driving poll numbers even further down. ... If these outfits polled every week, maybe this wouldn't be a distorting factor. Any turnaround would be quickly picked up and acknowledged." Mystery Pollster Mark Blumenthal adds a lot more, including a chart showing all the polls' trendlines for Bush's ratings. He writes: "Why does each intra-pollster comparison herald a new 'new low' headline, when the more accurate read (for now) would be to treat each new survey as confirming the same drop since February recorded by all? Such an approach does not require a snazzy graphic like the one above (though it couldn't hurt). It could be done in a sentence: 'Our results are consistent with those last week by ...'"
MIDTERMS: 2 Legit 2 Quit
Ex-FL Sec/State/FL SEN candidate/Rep. Katherine Harris (R) appeared on "Hannity & Colmes" last p.m. to quash rumors that she would drop out of the race, and to announce she would put $10M of her own money behind her campaign. Ian Schwartz at Expose the Left has video of Harris' announcement. At MyDD's Breaking Blue, Taegan Goddard notes that Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) now "will get to trigger the 'millionaires amendment' to McCain-Feingold and raise money in $12,000 chunks."
Centrist Joe Gandelman asks: "You have to wonder what Harris is thinking. Her poll numbers are down, this will likely be a tough Republican year, and members of her own party have tried to get her to drop out. It's not just a question about where the winning voters will come from -- but where needed unfettered and enthusiastic party support will come from. She can't expect many Democrats to vote for her. What -- and where -- is her constituency?"
Liberal News Hounds: "Hannity asked about" ex-MZM pres. Mitchell Wade, who "bribed" ex-Rep./convict Duke Cunningham "and admitted funelling" $32K of "illegal campaign contributions to her. Harris said, 'The authorities say that I could not have known. I did not know.' But, as Think Progress reports, a review of the facts makes her story lose credibility."
Conservative Lorie Byrd: "I am not crazy about Harris staying in the race because I think she has far too many negatives, but when I read stuff like this calling Harris 'Cruella' it makes me want to stick up for her. Maybe if Democrats attack her like those in the moonbat blogosphere do, she will actually get some sympathy votes and win the seat after all."
BLOGS VS. THE MSM I: And Sometimes You Can't Make Anybody Happy Any Of The Time
AP's Laurie Kellman reported on 3/15: "Feingold introduced censure legislation Monday in the Senate, but not a single Democrat has embraced it." Header at Firedoglake: "Why Can't The AP Count?" Jane Hamsher, on Kellman: "What a lazy, dishonest hack job. John Kerry has been saying right out of the gate he would support the resolution, [CA Sen. Barbara] Boxer's office has been confirming that she would and so has" Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ). We'll add here that Kellman's article was filed hours earlier, none of those sens. had committed by Hotline's publication on 3/15, and what Kerry actually said was less decisive: "I'm interested in it. ... The president ought to be held accountable, and I think he broke the law." But Hamsher also identifies Kellman as having covered Cindy Sheehan's SOTU ejection, where Kellman described support of the troops as "just the opposite" of Sheehan's protest message, and posts an e-mail address for readers to contact AP with complaints. Blue Jersey is skeptical of Menendez's part, adding that if he does, "It doesn't quite offset the Patriot Act vote, but together with his cloture vote on Alito it shows he is willing to stand strong against the national Republicans."
On the other side of the aisle, MRC's Newsbusters complains that the Washington Post is helping to "publicize" Feingold's proposal: "The front page of the Washington Post blows the hot air of publicity on Feingold's leftist crusade, but the headline is "A Senate Maverick Acts to Force an Issue." Why are the "mavericks" always to the left of the party mainstream? ... Don't let the Washington Post ever argue they don't cover legislative proposals that don't stand a snowball's chance in Hell. And what is this censure resolution if not a Wisconsin snowball aimed at President Bush's head?"
BLOGS VS. THE MSM II: Another Hardball
Think Progress claims an exclusive, reporting that MSNBC's Chris Matthews "has received tens of thousands of dollars in exchange for delivering speeches to corporate interest groups," which appears to be "in direct violation" of NBC policy. Three trade assns -- The Nat'l Venture Capital Assn, The Nat'l Assn. of Chain Drug Stores, and the American Hospital Assn. -- independently confirmed to TP "that Matthews spoke for hefty fees on several occasions, as recently as last year." MSNBC pres. Rick Kaplan said the info was, "Totally untrue ... totally," but he "provided no evidence to support his claim." AMERICABlog: "Now, before Mr. Kaplan starts saying that the groups Matthews spoke to are not 'interest groups,' let's see how the first group ... describes itself: 'The venture capital community's leading source for information, networking, advocacy, professional development and industry statistics.' Advocacy. They're the lobbyists for the industry. That's what trade associations are. They're lobbyists. Or to use Mr. Kaplan's phrase: interest groups." Anti-Matthews blog Open Letter To Chris Matthews: "Rick Kaplan isn't looking too great right now. He's either a liar, he doesn't know his own ethics policy, or he has no idea, nor interest in, what his stars are doing in clear violation of his own network's ban on accepting speaking fees from interest groups." The site adds that Tim Russert is "also listed as being available for speaking fees, potentially also in violation of NBC policy." Philly Daily News' Attytood: "Many observers think that Matthews, a former Democratic aide, has been veering to the right in recent years. We doubt he'd change his political tune just to line up big speaking fees. But that's why these things are banned -- the appearance is not good." And a commenter adds: "Speaking fees may be only part of what he's receiving from the right. Two words: Armstrong Williams." Taylor Marsh: "I think he's helping his brother run for office in Pennsylvania instead of doing his job." [Matthews' brother is the presumptive GOP nominee for PA LG].
BLOGS VS. THE BELTWAY: 1606 Oz. To Freedom
A vote on H.R. 1606 (see 3/9 and 3/10 Blogometers), aka the Online Freedom of Speech act, aka the Blogger Protection Act, was scheduled for 3/15, only to be delayed until 3/16. But now the vote has been delayed yet again, by a week.
Earlier in the week, Daily Kos' Adam Bonin challenged 1606 opponents Democracy21, the Campaign Legal Center and GWU prof/IPDI dir. Carol Darr -- who support the rival H.R. 4900 -- to answer questions such as: "Do you pledge that you would not file a complaint with the FEC or in any other venue against Daily Kos seeking to restrict its current activities if HR 4900 passes?" When it seemed the bill was headed to the 3/16 vote, RedState's Mike Krempasky implored readers to call Hill offices making points such as "you can support BCRA and still believe that this little tiny section of American politics ought to be free." MyDD's Matt Stoller, on the old reform groups: "Common Cause was founded in the 1970s, and today we have a government that is more corrupt and money-dominated than it has ever been. In other words, I think new strategies other than 'restrict! restrict! restrict!' are in order." Later that p.m., the bill was pushed back again.
This a.m., ex-FEC commish Brad Smith posts to RedState: "The good news is this. The speech regulators are on the defensive. They've been able to hold this bill off only with a series of half-truths and lies, and their hypocrisy is being steadily exposed. ... We want to win, to be sure. But at least we are fighting on our battlefield. This is an issue on which popular opinion is against them." And he adds, at the very least 4900 "is a better bill (from the freedom point of view) than what the reformers trotted out as an 'alternative' last fall."
BUSH ADMIN: Fun With Doppelgangers!
At Chris Nolan's Spot On, Josh Trevino notes that MD "has had a 'three strikes' criminal sentencing law since 1994. Might" ex-WH adviser Claude Allen be taking the rap to save" twin brother Floyd Allen "from his third strike? This, unlike the shoplifting, would be eminently in keeping with Claude's public character." Trevino isn't quite sure what to make of this, but adds: "Don't underestimate the strength of family ties. And don't discount the weird."
BLOGGERS VS. BLOGGERS: Are You Now, Or Have You Ever Been A Blogger?
We mentioned on 3/13 that actor George Clooney had written a blog entry for the Huffington Post, but on 3/15 Elizabeth Snead at the LAT's Styles and Scenes blog reported that Clooney's post (now removed) was not written by him, and was instead cobbled together from a couple different interviews. Soon after, HuffPo proprietor Arianna Huffington posted an explanation, saying she was told she had permission to run the interview excerpts as a blog post: "This was an honest misunderstanding. But any misunderstanding that occurred, occurred between Clooney and the publicist. We based our decision to post on the unambiguous approval we received in writing. There was no room for misunderstanding in that." Wonkette imparts that Huffington and Clooney's relevant meeting occured the "same night that our boss, Nick Denton, threw Arianna a party at his stylish-but-tasteful SoHo loft. And we happen to know, having attended said party, that there was a shitload of free champagne ('free' = 'in lieu of actual benefits'). Which explains just how Arianna could've so completely misunderstood George -- she was wasted!" At The Corner, John Podhoretz apologized to Clooney "for calling him 'illiterate' for a work of ghost-writing he did not approve."
Conservative PunditGuy: "This calls into question EVERY post on Arianna's 'blog.' How many of the articles were written by the people their attributed to? How many were written with the permission of the people attributed? How many blog posts were written just like Clooney's? Arianna calls this an 'honest misunderstanding.' I call it fraud." Huffington added in an update to the above post that "99% of our bloggers blog directly onto the site." TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt: "The important aspect, if there is one, is that Clooney stands by the statements in the post. What he says is that is we should take pride in being liberals. That's the part we should focus on, not whether he intended it to be a quote as opposed to a blog post."
Clooney spoke to New York Daily News' "Lowdown" saying: "I feel abused ... Nobody has ever written an op-ed piece for me. If I say I've written something, I've written it. When I go to the Oscars, I write everything I say... I stand by what I do, but I'm very cautious not to take giant steps onto soapboxes because I think they're polarizing."
BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: Bloggin' And Hobbs
Today the Blogometer talks to TN-based conservative Bill Hobbs, who writes BillHobbs.com, which is on temporary hiatus.
What is your full name?
William Howard Hobbs
What is your age?
41
Where did you grow up?
Delaware County, PA, a suburb of Philadelphia.
Where do you live now?
Franklin, TN, a suburb of Nashville.
What is your occupation? Have you ever worked on a political campaign or for the mainstream media?
I currently work in the public relations office of a private university in Nashville. I served as a press assistant for mayoral candidate Jay West during the final four months of the 1999 Nashville mayoral campaign until the primary. He came in third. My first career was as a newspaper journalist -- I have worked for, in order, the Abilene (Texas) Reporter-News, The Lubbock (Texas) Avalanche-Journal, the Clarksville (Tenn.) Leaf-Chronicle, the Nashville Business Journal, and the Nashville Tennessean, all of that as a reporter covering crime and courts, general assignments, and a variety of business beats. From 1994-1997 I worked as a writer and then managing editor of a monthly country music magazine, and from 1993-2000 I also freelanced for a variety of publications including industrial trades, daily newspapers and business magazines. For a few months in 2001 I worked for a now-defunct Tennessee policy think tank.
I wrote a weekly column from January 2001 to May 2002 on business, public policy and economic issues for Nashville City Paper, and made numerous radio and television appearances in connection with the column. I currently do freelance corporate blog consulting for several blue-chip clients, and have edited two business books.
When did you start blogging and why?
November 2000. I started my blog as an adjunct to my City Paper column, where I could provide my column readers with more information, links to documents I mentioned in the column, longer analysis, etc. After the column ended in May 2002, I simple kept writing the blog. Also, from March through May of 2002 I wrote a satirical blog, Osama's Bin Bloggin.
What has been your favorite post, or favorite story to write about, in that time?
I've done extensive original journalism and research-based commentary on Tennessee's tax and budget situation that has helped influence MSM coverage in a more accurate direction, and also helped put the Taxpayers Bill of Rights firmly on the political radar screen in Tennessee, so that would have to be my favorite overall focus on my blog. I also write about religion, the war, the media and much more. Being an ex-journalist, or should I say a reformed journalist, I love examining media bias and doing media crit. In that vein, my favorite post would be this one, in which I took a Maureen Dowd column and added a few helpful hyperlinks to help Ms. Dowd make her points more effectively.
Describe your typical blogging schedule. And what is your average output?
Until a couple months ago, I would post 8-12 times per day, ranging from short items to longer, in-depth pieces that took a lot of time to research and compile. Late in 2005 I scaled back somewhat, doing fewer long pieces and more simple linking to things in the press and the blogosphere that I think my readers should read. On Jan. 10 I put my blog on hiatus thanks to a crushing work and freelance load and an ongoing medical-crisis situation in my family, and also to reevaluate where I go from here. I do expect to resume blogging at some point, and am in the beginning stages of launching a multi-author site, TennesseeVoices.com, focused on Tennessee politics, and perhaps a couple other sites. There is a very healthy Tennessee political blogosphere now with several other bloggers now also doing the same kind of work that I had done and, as my goal is to have a large number of skilled volunteer blog-journalists doing the kind of in-depth reporting and analysis that the Tennessee MSM does less and less of, I'm happy to see others doing the kind of daily blogging that I had been doing.
Who is your favorite political blogger? Favorite non-political blogger?
Captain's Quarters is awesome, as are the Powerline guys. At the Tennessee level, it would be Bob Krumm and Blake Wylie of the Nashville Files blog, and Jeff Cornwall of The Entrepreneurial Mind. My favorite non-political blogger would be Tod Bolsinger of It Takes a Church and Terry Heaton's Pomo Blog, where he writes about post-modern media.
Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?
It used to be George Will, but I rarely read him any more. Now it's Krauthammer. And Ledeen. And Mark Steyn. And David Warren. And Victor Davis Hanson.
What is your favorite television news program, either network or cable?
I don't watch TV news very much. Too shallow and repetitive. Plus, my son is usually watching "Barney" or "Jay Jay the Jet Plane."
What MSM-produced websites (i.e. newspapers, magazines) do you visit on a daily basis?
Tennessean.com, NYTimes.com, NashvilleCityPaper.com, WashingtonPost.com, Google News (which leads me to all kinds of sources from all over the world).
What non-MSM websites (i.e. blogs) do you visit on a daily basis?
Instapundit, Powerline, Captains Quarters, Nashville Is Talking, Donald Sensing , Thunder 6 and Dr. Jeff Cornwall's The Entrepreneurial Mind, which I helped him start.
How often, or do you ever, read a newspaper in its dead-tree (i.e. print) form?
It's part of my job to scan the local papers every day, but most of my "newspaper" reading is online.
How do you see the new media and old media affecting and influencing each other in the next five years?
Newspapers and old media will become more blogcentric, and independent bloggers acting as journalists will increasingly impact MSM coverage. I write often about the interplay of blogs and media, and the rise of what I call "collaborative peer-reviewed journalism." Some of those posts are here, here and here.
My interest in the interplay of blogs and media is what led me to help organize the May 2005 BlogNashville conference at Belmont University in Nashville. ( www.blognashville.org ). About 300 bloggers and new-media people came, including Glenn Reynolds, Dan Gillmor, J.D. Lasica, Hoder, Rebecca McKinnon, Ed Cone, Mark Tapscott, Henry Copeland, Robin Burk, Dave Winer, LaShawn Barber, Robert Cox, Linda Seebach, Mark Glaser and many more.
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Podcast People
Our colleague Danny Glover writes at Beltway Blogroll: "Politics in the information age increasingly is marked by efforts to best one's opponents in the technology arena, and the smart losers in those innovation battles are quick to study the successes of their political enemies." He notes the work of MyDD founder Jerome Armstrong on the Dem side and Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) aide David All on the GOP side in blog organization and outreach. The number of politicians who maintain an official blog is growing, and some are getting into podcasting: "Republicans appear to have taken more of an interest in podcasting, particularly Senate Republicans, but lawmakers from both parties are using the technology." Glover compiles a list of members of Congress with their own podcasts -- 18 of them, mostly sens. And if he's missing any, Glover wants to know.
LEST WE FORGET: More Cartoon Violence
If there's one thing the Blogometer likes, it's bad old comics rendered incomprehensible and hilarious by means of Photoshopic intervention. Lucky for us, Jim Treacher is back in the game.
NOTES AND ERRATA: Why You Frontin'?
In our 3/15 edition, we mistakenly gave the impression that it was standard practice for Daily Kos-posted diaries by pols to me bumped up to the front page. We had in mind an exception, as reported in the 9/30 Blogometer, where Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) message to the dKos community was placed on the front page. Click here to return to the corrected text.
In this relatively slow week, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) and his lonely but much-discussed censure resolution are the only topics to engage the full spectrum of the blogosphere. Not much has changed since yesterday; liberals continue to support Feingold and criticize the GOPers who attack him, plus the Dems who haven't followed him, but they didn't expect much better. Conservatives, used to the left having field day after field day with the troubles of Pres. Bush and the cong. GOP, are finally getting out of class themselves (and taking the left to school, if you can stand the metaphor reversal.) Perhaps the biggest development is the report that Sen. Wayne Allard (R-CO) accused Feingold of "siding with terrorists" in a FNC radio interview, and lefty bloggers are now circulating a petition asking him to apologize.
As we said, it isn't a very busy week -- but there are some interesting things going on: A new GOP straw poll for WH'08 is one, another is VA SEN Dem candidate Jim Webb participation in the comments at Daily Kos, underreported anti-conservative comments by ex-SCOTUS justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the New York Times' apparently botched Abu Ghraib reporting, and -- in a rare Blogometer scoop -- we have excerpts of Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas' revealing interview in next week's New York Times Magazine.
EAVESDROPPING: Spinning Feingold Into Hay
While not much has changed re: Feingold's proposal since our last edition, it's still getting plenty of commentary:
Ex-Spinsanity co-editor Brendan Nyhan finds GOPers responding to Feingold with "attacks on dissent" and "absurd straw men." In one example, he criticizes a claim from WH spokesperson Scott McClellan, which GOPers "have repeated before, [and] bears no resemblance to reality": "No major Democrat has said that 'we shouldn't be listening to al Qaeda communications,' and censuring the President for breaking the law governing wiretaps certainly doesn't indicate opposition to such wiretaps." Liberal Watertiger writes a post as an open letter to the "DLC, DNC and Senate idiots": "I'm going to say this very, very slowly so you can understand. Bush is an unpopular president who is administering a highly unpopular war and who admitted to committing a crime. What part of this don't you get?" Slartibartfast at Obsidian Wings doesn't think much of Senate Maj. Leader Bill Frist's assessment that the Dems' rejection of the censure resolution proves it was a "shameful political stunt": "Bill, here's a possible alternative: perhaps Democrats want to see this resolution subjected to some debate ... I'd suggest that your capacity to diagnose illness at long distance without an involved sit-down with the patient...well, it hasn't been good. Your credibility in diagnosing this as a political stunt, while nonzero, is far too low for me to give your opinion much weight." Glenn Greenwald writes, "at bottom, what this whole episode illustrates, yet again, is that if Democrats want to be perceived as strong, and if they want to lose the albatross of being perceived as weak, what they have to do is extremely simple and clear -- stop being weak and be strong."
Centrist Joe Gandelman adds running commentary to excerpts of reports from the AP and Dana Milbank on Dems and the censure move, and comments: "The problem is: until Feingold presented his proposal Bush was under fire from attack dogs from the GOP's base. A censure resolution could send them back to Bush's support if it comes to a vote, particularly if top Democrats are forced to take a stand. If the measure comes up and they vote for it, they could lose the support of some of the party's liberal base. It is a political monkey wrench -- one thrown, this time, from within the Democratic party's own political tent."
Dave Wissing at The Hedgehog Report notices that the Milbank column makes light of Dems' reax to Feingold's proposal, and considers: "I initially thought this would at least help Feingold among the extreme left, but I am beginning to wonder whether this single incident managed to turn Feingold into a national joke on the same level with Howard Dean." Conservative Mark Coffey thinks it more likely is a political stunt, after Feingold told FNC: "I'm amazed at Democrats, cowering with this president's numbers so low." Coffey replies: "The numbers so low? What do numbers have to do with it? It's not a stunt, is it? I mean, it's the principle of the thing, right, Russ?... Russ?" Captain's Quarters: "Feingold has discovered the key difference between leadership and grandstanding. The former involves motivating a group of people to follow your lead by engaging the group's enthusiasm for your direction. The latter involves making decisions for others without bothering to consult them." Conservative AJ Strata, on the Dems: "They can't run for from their base. They are trapped in a trap of their own making. And it will get worse. The new litmus test is impeaching Bush." Right-leaning Steven Taylor does think the motion deals with a legitimate issue: "I would like to see a full investigation of the President's action on this matter to determine if he did, in fact, violate the law. If he did, I would actually like to see a censure resolution voted out. If a President misbehaves, a President ought to be called on it by the Congress." However, he also realizes "that partisan and electoral politics so infuse this issue that true and an honest communication from the Congress to the President is not going to happen." Tom Maguire summarizes, "Feingold positioned himself nicely for 2008 by staking out a position only a certain segment of the left could love -- 'Hey, gang, let's censure the President for trying too hard to protect us!' NO, that's not what Feingold said! But its what polls say people are hearing..."
Meanwhile, 1 GOP sen. and 1 Dem sen. are getting hit from the left over their opposition to Feingold -- although it's certainly the GOPer getting hit harder -- According to some liberal bloggers, Sen. Wayne Allard (R-CO) accused Feingold of "siding with terrorists" in a 3/13 interview on FNC radio.Senate Majority Project
points to the audio on Boulder's "progressive talk" station here [WAV file]. Otherwise, w've seen no press releases or MSM reports about it -- but plenty on the blogs. CO-based ProgressNow Action has posted a petition calling on him to apologize. Many pick up word of this from Matt Stoller at MyDD pronounces: "Senator Feingold, you are a man of integrity and a real Democrat. I'm proud of your strength and your leadership. Senator Allard, your weak, cowardly nature means that you don't know what it means to fight the fear that terrorists seek to spread. You and conservatives like you enable terrorists with your weakness and posturing." The Agonist, on Allard: "Scoundrel? Last refuge? How about plain ol' pathetic." David Sirota actually welcomes Allard's response: "That's the kind of over-the-top, wildly-out-of-control response Democrats should want from Feingold's move, because it shows the GOP to be so maniacal, so desperate to hold onto power that they will say absolutely anything, no matter how ridiculous." A commenter to Stoller's post adds: "I just spoke to a staffer in Allard's office. I asked if Allard was saying that Feingold is 'traitor,' or that he is guilty of 'treason.' I was told the senator had not made that remark. I then quoted the senator's actual remarks to the staffer, and the staffer suggested the senator would be issuing a clarification of his statement later today."
Busy Busy Busy locates the censure resolution promoted by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) in '99. A commenter "suggests that Sen. Feinstein's proposed censure resolution against President Clinton should not be held against her because it was offered as an alternative to impeachment. Alas, this was not the case. A completely different censure resolution proposed by House Judiciary Committee Democrats in early December 1998 was, in fact, intended to substitute for impeachment." Liberal Oasis follows up: "But why just pick on Feinstein? She had many co-sponsors. In fact, there were 24 other sponsors who are still in the Senate -- 19 Dems, 4 GOPers and 1 GOPers turned Dem-friendly Independent. ... The question for all of them is: why would you censure a president for an office affair but not for illegal wiretaps?"
WHITE HOUSE '08: Turkeys In The Straw
GOP Bloggers is hosting a straw poll for the WH'08 primary, featuring all GOPers currently seeking the nod plus ex-NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani (and thereby eliminating Sec/State Condoleezza Rice, to one commenter's complaint). The poll asks readers who they "would like to see" as well as who they "would not like to see" get the nod. These answers have been averaged together, and with 4700+ ballots cast, only 4 are in positive territory: VA Sen. George Allen by a healthy margin, Giuliani is not far back, MA Gov. Mitt Romney trails by a bit more, and ex-Speaker Newt Gingrich is just barely above the line. Candidates with the biggest negatives are NE Sen. Chuck Hagel, NY Gov. George Pataki, Frist and AZ Sen. John McCain.
MIDTERMS: Naturally, You Would Expect A Candidate Named "Webb" To Get The Blogging Thing
From 7-8:00 p.m. on 3/14, ex-Reagan Navy Sec./VA SEN candidate Jim Webb (D) appeared live in the comment threads of a diary posted to Daily Kos. It didn't get the front-page treatment other pols often get that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) got last year, as is the general rule not to, but it nevertheless picked up 128 comments -- more than most diary entries on the site, but not a blockbuster. The site uses a moderated comment system allowing participants to grade up or grade down a particular comment; Webb contributed 14 comments, and all were graded highly by readers (who don't always bother to use the system). Only one comment received a single demerit -- that was Webb, on censure: "I'm not sure I would support a censure over the NSA surveillance issue, but I do believe that people need to keep connecting the dots on the widespread abuse of power in this Presidency. Too many people in the Congress want to 'kiss that issue' as it goes by." That comment otherwise received votes up like his others. Netroots figure Bob Brigham asked which current sen. Webb would "most like to have dinner with and why?" Webb replied: "Well, right now I'd love to have dinner with Harry Reid, and ask him to endorse me. That would make my life a lot simpler..."
At The Corner, K.J. Lopez spies -- and posts a screen shot of -- Sen. Debbie Stabenow's (D-MI) "Anti-Photo Op": "Senator Stabenow is on the Senate floor right now speaking next to a sign that says 'dangerously incompetent.' Will make for a cheap commercial later this election year." GOP and College has started a Photoshop contest based on the image. Ed Driscoll: "Now this is how a Karl Rove sting operation works, when it all comes together!"
At The Next Hurrah, DemFromCT cites a Gallup report carrying the header "Democratic Congressional Lead Among Registered Voters Largest Since '82" and suggesting a "fairly competitive election." DemFromCT: "That's assuming that Republican turnout is like it was in 2002 and 2004. And that's where you figure in the current state of nervous Republicans, already making excuses for the losers in power." More: "2006 is all about Bush's disastrous decision to invade Iraq instead of finishing the job in Afghanistan. ... Americans aren't going to vote Republican because they're afraid of Hillary. They know who rubber stamped the Bush agenda, and they'll vote for anyone who represents change."
NETROOTS: Crashing Into Kos
Next weekend's "Questions for" column by Deborah Solomon in the New York Times Magazine will feature Markos Moulitsas, founder of Daily Kos and co-author of "Crashing the Gate" (see previous coverage). A few noteworthy excerpts -- Kos, on his WH'08 preferences: "I like Mark Warner. I like Russ Feingold. I don't hate Hillary, but I don't like anyone who is declared by fiat to be the front-runner." On his military service: "Joining the Army was the best decision I ever made, and leaving the Army was the second-best decision I ever made. I went into the Army weighing 111 pounds, at 5 foot 7, and I had no self-confidence. I came out thinking that I could conquer the world." On whether the site earns him enough to "be able to eat": "Last year, I probably earned somewhere between $70,000 and $80,000. I live comfortably." On meeting John Kerry: "I was in a bathroom stall next to him at the Democratic National Convention. I didn't say hello. It was a private moment for him."
"Crashing the Gate" has been receiving mostly positive notices from the MSM and their fellow lefty bloggers, but one with a different take is Lindsay Beyerstein of Majikthise. Some excerpts from her lengthy post: "'Crashing the Gate' says surprisingly little about blogs. I was expecting a crash course on the theory and practice of netroots democracy written by two pioneers of the movement. ... However it is ironic these self-proclaimed populists' main suggestion for improving the electoral fortunes of the Democrats is to revitalize its consultant class." More: ""The authors' all out attack on the party's corrupt and antiquated electoral machine is by far the strongest part of the book. Unfortunately, it often seems as if they regard the netroots primarily as a means to end the Democratic establishment's stranglehold on campaigns rather than as an engine for social change in its own right. ... The authors don't seriously discuss the blogosphere as a source of ideas or as a nexus for activism. They seem more interested in the blogosphere as a medium for placing targeted ads than as a new engine for independent news or as a novel brake on the power of the mainstream media and politicians."
BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Abu-Boo
New York Times ran an item 3/14 noting that Salon challenged the ID of a person profiled in the newspaper "who says he is the iconic hooded figure" in the Abu Ghraib photo. Army Criminal Investigation Command spokesperson "confirmed" to the Times: "Our investigation indicates that the person you have is not the detainee who was depicted in the photograph released in connection with the Abu Ghraib investigation." Mediacrity: "In addition to questioning whether the fellow interviewed by the Times was the one in the photo, Salon also found that other details in the ex-prisoner's story were apparently wrong. ... Too bad the Times didn't mention that. I guess saving the paper from embarrassment is a lot more important than admitting that it ran a piece that is looking more and more like a lot of hooey from start to finish." Bill Millan: "This has the same ideological basis as 'Rathergate.' They were so eager to smear the administration that they went with a 'fake but accurate' story." Little Green Footballs, noting that the clarification says the paper "spoke with representatives of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International" who believed the man in the photo was the person ID'd by the Times: "Interesting. When the Times wants to check a story about Abu Ghraib, they don't call anyone in the US government. They call Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, two of the most politicized left-wing NGOs in the world."
Objecting to the characterization of Bush criticism as coming solely from the Dems' "liberal base" by Shaiglagh Murray in the Washington Post, AMERICAblog's John Aravosis aims to explain succinctly "why liberal blogs are constantly berating the traditional media": "Because the traditional media is made up of a growing number of increasingly sloppy children. And their sloppiness is now jeopardizing our democracy. It's gotten us into a war that's a disaster, and it's helped re-elect a president who isn't capable of managing our country. All because the traditional media let themselves be emasculated and lobotomized rather than simply doing their job."
JUDGES: Sandra's Day Out
One story going around the blogs but not much by the MSM concerns a 3/9 speech by ex-SCOTUS justice Sandra Day O'Connor at Georgetown. As reported by NPR, O'Connor "took on conservative Republican critics of the courts," saying that GOP "proposals, and their sometimes uncivil tone, pose a danger to the independence of the judiciary, and the freedoms of all Americans." So far it's been picked up by The Huffington Post, a diarist at Daily Kos, Philly Daily News' Attytood
One of the few MSM types to pick up on the story was lefty blog favorite Keith Olbermann; on 3/13 Crooks and Liars made the video available. Eric Alterman, at his MSNBC-hosted Altercation: "The only reporter present was NPR's Nina Totenberg. Nobody else covered the speech, but here's what she said: attacks on the judiciary by some Republican leaders pose a direct threat to our constitutional freedoms. No really. And while she didn't name Tom Delay, you could not mistake her target. She quoted his attacks on the courts at a meeting of the conservative Christian group Justice Sunday last year when DeLay took out after the courts for rulings on abortions, prayer and the Terri Schiavo case."
Among the few conservatives to pick up the report was The American Princess, who heads her post: "No Wonder Democrats Loved Her." Center-right law prof Ann Althouse ended up writing about it only after people kept asking why she hadn't commented, explaining: "I agree with O'Connor's points ... but it felt like a report from last year, too stale to address. Cornyn and DeLay haven't continued with that idiocy, and a lot of things have happened since then. Why not address those things? Why not say something about how the push-back against Cornyn and DeLay changed their behavior?"
IN THE STATES: The Bell Hop
TX-based Dem blogger Charles Kuffner comments on receiving an e-mail about a local fundraiser for MO SEN candidate Claire McCaskill: "I could whine about Texas being everybody's donor state, but this happens all the time around the country. Besides, McCaskill is a strong candidate with a real shot ... What does bug me is seeing the names Ben and Melanie Barnes at the top of the host list. If you search for the Barneses on the TEC contributions page, you'll see that they've given a lot of money to fellow Democrats over the past several years. They've also contributed" $7OK+ to ex-GOPer/indie GOV candidate Carole Keeton Strayhorn since 12/02: "Which makes me ask why, in a year where the incumbent Republican Governor is polling at 40% and less everywhere you look, are they not supporting [TX Dem GOV nominee] Chris Bell?"
Commonwealth Conservative gives props to Gov. Tim Kaine (D-VA), one of several govs. paying a visit to Iraq: "Kudos to Governor Kaine for visiting Virginia National Guard troops serving in Iraq. It's possible he may also make a stop in Afghanistan before returning home on Friday."
ETHICS: Follow The Oregon Trail?
Via The Oregonian, Gerik at Left in the West: "The word out in Oregon is a bipartisan proposal to create an independent ethics commission," sponsored by Reps. Greg Walden (R-OR) and Earl Blumenauer (D-OR). The bill would create a commis. "made up of former members of Congress, to replace the current House ethics committee." As Walden puts it, "we simply don't have the time or, frankly, the objectivity to provide the necessary oversight over our colleagues." "have put together the latest in a series of attempts to reform the way Congress passes or does not pass the smell test. Now I can admit to not being up on the latest good, bad, and ugly attempts at reform following the wrath of Jack Abramoff and the Republican Culture of Corruption but this one looks half decent. Decent in a 'this stands a chance of passing' kind of way.
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: What Do You Call 1,000 Lawyers Blogging? A Joke That No One Understands
Hugh Hewitt quotes from an '03 Joseph Epstein essay on attys' low perceived low stature in the U.S., "Why I Am Not A Lawyer": "How did lawyers go from Americans natural aristocrats, from an almost priestly cast, to figures an increasingly large share of the population look upon as, chiefly, disastrously expensive to do business with, hopelessly pugnacious, and people for whom life is much better when they play no part in it." Hewitt, a law prof himself and organizer of an upcoming panel on blogging and the law at Chapman Univ.: "I think the reason lawyers have flocked to blogging is because of the very decline Epstein pointed to, and that among the country's hundreds of thousands of lawyers -- approximately 600,000 all told -- are those who are attempting to redeem their careers via the public engagement that blogging allows while fulfilling the deep desire to write in the manner that briefs and law review articles will not permit because of their rules."
LEST WE FORGET: The Butterfly Effect
The Oscars are over a week past us now, but this only just came across our virtual transom, and it's worth sharing -- Nick Starr discovers the very Florida-like shenanigans which may explain this year's upset in the Best Picture category.
If anyone thought the failure of the Dubai ports deal marked a paradigm shift in the natl security debate, yesterday's developments in the Senate set up the left-moderate-right script we've seen in similar debates. Liberals reacted with great satisfaction at an officeholder having the courage of his convictions. Conservatives are disgusted with the obstructionism and even treasonous tactics that "give comfort to our enemies." And skittish Dems/mods wonder if those to their left aren't playing right into the hands of their enem ... er, rivals. Today, the role of leading Dem is played by Sen. Russ Feingold (WI). Supporting cast: Senate Maj. Leader Bill Frist, VP Cheney, Sens. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) and Arlen Specter (R-PA), with a few thousand bloggers as extras.
Otherwise, one of the lighter days of late. As his poll numbers continue to slide, Bush lays out a timetable (or ... does he?); Lieberman's primary opponent makes his debut in CT. And, a new twist on the TPS report.
EAVESDROPPING: (Cen)Sure This Was A Good Idea?
Shortly after 4 pm, Feingold introduced a resolution to censure Pres. Bush over the wiretap issue. The GOP leadership quickly tried to force a vote, but Dems used procedural tactics to block one. Before he made the motion, Feingold wrote at Daily Kos: "Censuring the President is not something that should be taken lightly. But the President has BROKEN the law and there needs to be action and accountability."
Today's coverage, mostly from AP via the Drudge-favored Breitbart, seemed to indicate that other Dems tried to distance themselves from Feingold. A frustrated Creature: "Senator Feingold's censure resolution is not even a day old and the debate has already been framed. The Democrats are overreaching. The Democrats are weak on national security. Will anybody mention that the president broke the law?" Daily Kos' Georgia10: "The press is once again manufacturing a self-fulfilling prophecy to make this scandal go away. It hasn't even been 48 hours since Feingold announced his motion. We're in for the long haul." Carpetbagger Report: "It's one thing for a maverick Dem to stick his neck out, but couldn't the party approach this in a slightly more organized fashion?" California Conservative starts a post: "Just when Democrats looked like they were sorta getting their stuff together ..." Flopping Aces calls his post "The Gift's [sic] Keep Coming." He updates: "I have to say the more I think about it the more I'm amazed that two pretty weak leaders (Specter & Frist) on the Republican side stood up without hesitation and showed the country that they actually have a pair." Hugh Hewitt thanks Arlen Specter for "deftly exposing the poser for what he is."
Mark Noonan is among those on the right trying to rally like-minded individuals behind a "Censure Russ Feingold" movement. Noonan writes: "What Feingold did was to damage the unity of the United States in face of armed enemies merely to curry personal political favor. This is a despicable act." Skippy, for one, is tired of hearing the "wartime president" argument from conservatives, and lays out why it's not valid in Bush's case. American Street agrees: "Properly chastened, a wartime president might become more effective. There's no evidence at all that censure would harm the war effort or the country. And the irony is that if the people protecting Bush put the same energy out to protect the country, the war would likely already be over."
Differing views of Feingold's motiviation. The Political Pit Bull: "I give Feingold some credit -- not because I think Bush broke the law, I certainly don't -- but because this resolution is to some extent, anyway, a matter of principle for Feingold and he is willing to fight for it." Protein Wisdom: "I'd write more about this, but why bother? It is self-important grandstanding meant to drive the news cycle and help Feingold among the liberal left Democrats as he prepares a run for the presidency."
So how will this play out? Iowa Voice: "Dems like to complain that Republicans can't govern, and they have a point. It's nearly impossible for Republicans to run the country on important matters because, quite simply, the Dems have done nothing in the last five years but thrown up roadblocks." Democratic Daily Blog: "It seems that the Republicans who were quick to decry Bush over the Dubai port deal are not ready to go the full measure and admit that he's a miserable failure as some Republicans have recently." Busy Busy Busy cites Sen. Dianne Feinstein's (D-CA) censure resolution against then-Pres. Clinton, and calls on her to support Feingold's. Anonymous Liberal: "When was the last time the Republican party let fear of appearing 'extreme' stop them from doing anything? And they now control every branch of government. GOP strategists long ago realized that, in politics, the only difference between an 'extreme' idea and a "reasonable" one is the number of politicians willing to endorse it." Rowhouse Logic: "At one point or another today, seemingly every elected Democrat, with a national profile, said something along the lines of 'Russ Feingold? Never heard of him. Censure? You speak with a forked tongue crazy journalist,' to the national press." James Joyner notes: "One gathers from the coverage that Hillary Clinton remained silent on the matter, as her name is not mentioned. She has been remarkably canny in guaging the mood of the public on issues, even as she alienates the netroots." Captain's Quarters: "If anyone expected the Democrats to make significant gains against the GOP, which has seen its popularity buffeted by scandals the past few weeks, that analysis obviously excluded the capacity for Democrats to shoot themselves in the foot. Only an idiot would attempt to make a president the enemy during wartime, especially for an action that he performed in defense of the country." Jeremy Dibbell at The Moderate Voice: Lieberman "got it about right this afternoon; he told the AP: 'I'd prefer to see us solve the problem,' rather than simply slapping the president on the wrist with a politicized censure resolution. A nasty debate over a censure resolution will not solve any problems, nor will it change the way the president does business; it will only make things worse." More on Lieberman's reaction in the In the States section.
Left Wing = Hate praises Cheney for his remarks in Feingold's home state. The veep said: "Do they support the extreme and counterproductive antics of a few or do they support a lawful program vital to the security of this nation? The American people already made their decision. They agree with the president."
BUSH: Down. To The Ground. To Get Out Of The Rain.
The latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll shows Bush with a 36% approval rating, tying his lowest previous mark in that poll. Dems have a 16-point generic Congressional ballot lead. And, according to the poll, 51% of Americans now see Bush as a "weak" pres. Carpetbagger Report: "'Weak' is perhaps the one word Karl Rove fears most. The Bush gang can live with 'unpopular.' They're only mildly troubled by 'incompetent.' But when a majority of the country believes the president is 'weak,' it suggests Bush really has given up every advantage he's enjoyed for over four years." Conservative PunditGuy: "It seems that CNN feels it's necessary to do a story every time a CNN/USATODAY/Gallup poll comes out showing Bush's approval rating going lower than the previous poll. Yet, when his rating goes up, they take a pass." Lefty Pam Spaulding, on GOPers spinning the poll: "The Kool-Aid is s-t-r-o-n-g." Democratic Daily's Ron Chusid spins left: "Yet another poll shows what all the others are showing -- this time reported by that notorious left wing publication, The Wall Street Journal." Below The Beltway: "There is one issue, and one issue alone, that appears to be responsible for the current political climate. Iraq. ... The Right can complain that the media is biased. They can complain that that the true story of what's happening in Iraq isn't being portrayed. They can complain, but it doesn't matter. In politics, perception is reality and, for the moment at least, the public clearly perceives the current conditions in Iraq to be abysmal."
IRAQ: What Are You Benching?
Washington Post reports that Bush "set a specific benchmark" for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. It was the first in a "series of speeches intended to lay out his strategy for victory." Gene Cowan: "Does anyone buy this transparent ploy? With elections in November, he's claiming that he'll be 'transitioning' Iraq just after the vote? And does the White House think that malleable American minds will think that 'transition' means the same thing as 'withdrawl?'" Carpetbagger Report: "Benchmarks and target dates have been a Bush anathema for years now. Did the president suddenly join the cut-and-run caucus?" But Penraker calls the Post account "an exercise in twisting words so they can be thrown back at the President."
BUSH ADMIN: Confessions Of A Target Addict
The New York Times and Washington Post each follow up on ex-WH advisor Claude Allen's arrest and (according to WaPo) confession (see 3/13 Blogometer). TPM Cafe's Josh Marshall notes that Allen has an identical twin brother. Marshall: "I have to tell you this new story seems so insane and ridiculous that I have suspect it's actually true." Lefty/non-FNC exec. Roger Ailes notes reaction to the story: "The most amusing part of the story is all the wingnuts, from Bush down to the idiot bloggers, moaning about how sad the Allen story is. Apparently Claude is the archetypal 'good man who did a bad thing.' If you're a bad person who does a bad thing, you deserve prosecution, ridicule and hellfire. However, if you espouse righteousness and damn others for their moral failings, it's merely a bummer if you don't act accordingly."
WHITE HOUSE '08: Don't Call It A Comeback
After reading the New York Times Magazine profile of ex-VA Gov. Mark Warner (D), DLCer Marshall Wittmann writes in support of ex-VP Al Gore: "There is a huge vacuum in the Democratic Party and only the former Veep can fill it. The donkey has a big itch and only Al can scratch it." Warner is an "able politician who could probably do quite well" in the general, but he's "admirably repelled by knee-jerk liberalism. That positive trait is likely a show stopper for the hard core donor and activist class of the party who yearns for the real deal." Gore "opposed both the war from the start and the Patriot Act. Yes, Feingold took the same stances, but he never won a Presidential popular vote."
MIDTERMS: Meet Joe's Foe
Jane Hamsher posted often about Lieberman 3/13, and, noting the timing of his reaction to Feingold's censure resolution with Telecom Exec Ned Lamont's entry to the SEN primary, urges donations on Lamont's behalf. DownWithTyranny! reviews the Lamont event, and closes with this take: "Lieberman is too dial-up and culturally, too pre-9-11 for a progressive, educated state like Connecticut. I wish there were Ned Lamonts willing to get involved in politics all over the country!"
New Republic's Crowley blogs at The Plank about persistent speculation that Rep. Katherine Harris' (R-FL) is dropping out of the SEN race: "My advice is not to leap to conclusions. The woman is strangely driven."
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Straight From The Source's Mouth
When speculating on the impact of the blogosphere in '08, it's often a good idea to head straight to the source. Extreme Mortman asks Peter Glenshaw of Democracy for New Hampshire which candidates will have best netroots support: "Feingold will go over well. ... If he runs, Gore will, too. Maybe Warner. I don't see [NM Gov. Bill] Richardson, Clinton, or [DE Sen. Joe] Biden breaking thru to this constituency." On the GOP: "[Sen. John] McCain, just because his brand says 'maverick.' Forget Frist, [NY Gov. George] Pataki, or [MA Gov. Mitt] Romney. They will have their thing, but it will be empty. Wildcard: [Sen.] Chuck H[a]gel of Nebraska."
LEST WE FORGET: I Believe You Have My Stapler
It isn't quite as smooth as some of the others we've seen, but Gorilla Mask provides the latest in the series of trailer spoofs. Today's offering: "Office Space" as a thriller.
This was a more eventful weekend than most. Friday evening was full of intrigue, as news broke about the arrest of recently departed WH adviser Claude Allen on "refund fraud." Simultaneously and through the weekend there was speculation about the Hotline-conducted SRLC GOP straw poll, the 1st such test of the coming cycle and Sen. John McCain's late maneuver, and then MA Gov. Mitt Romney's strong showing. And then on Sunday morning Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) announced his intention to introduce a motion to censure Pres. Bush. We'll take them in reverse order. There's also plenty of other WH'08 discussion, as well as about the '06 midterms (including 1 pair of duelling parody sites), and scattered attention to the volatile situation in Iraq. Plus, George Clooney enters the blogosphere.
EAVESDROPPING: Sounds Like A Great Wedge Issue ... But For Which Side?
The censure resolution (PDF) is available at Feingold's Senate page. Crooks and Liars has video; Raw Story posts the relevant sections of transcript from "This Week."
Daily Kos' Georgia10: "The mere fact the media is now discussing censuring the President of the United States is a huge f---ing deal. Sure, the debate will center around "political stunts" and "partisan politics," as Frist alleged. But hey, if it takes a "stunt" to bring attention to one of the most egregious violations of privacy and due process perpetrated by the Executive, then bring on the stunts." More: "The beauty of Feingold's move is that it also forces Democrats to go beyond mere rhetoric. I think it goes without saying though that there better damn well be 44 co-sponsors on Feingold's resolution." Shakespeare's Sister: "How long do you think it will take for other Dems to go running in the other direction? *sigh*"
Feingold regularly finishes at the top of '08 straw polls hosted on sites like dKos and MyDD; he has credibility with and support from activist-minded bloggers on the left, and already some are organizing to pressure other sens. to sign on -- Firedoglake's ReddHedd called it a "gutsy move, not without risk in the polarized environment that is Washington these days and with the hatchet squad that Rove and his ilk generally deploy when their actions are questioned," and implores readers to "call both your Senators first thing in the morning and ask if they support Russ Feingold's censure proposal. If they don't, ask what their position is on the issue -- and why. ... We're going to keep track of it here on Firedoglake, so once you've called, please report back to us -- either through e-mail or in the comments -- and we'll put up a tracking list of yes, no and no comment." Blue Jersey posts info for NJ Dem Sens. Frank Lautenberg and Bob Menendez: "We have to FLOOD their offices with phone calls, faxes, emails! They did not join Feingold in voting against the Patriot Act in the final vote, so they are obviously susceptible to GOP pressure or posturing for the next election."
Corrente recaps Feingold's appearance: "Some dialogue is swapped over whether censure is itself in the Constitution, it was noted it has been used on presidents including Andrew Johnson and B. Clinton, so it has precedent and meaning. And would avoid putting the nation through a Constitutional crisis, while still allowing those Congresspersons who were tired of serving as the Preznit's personal roll of toilet paper to register their desire to cease this function. And stand up for the Constitution and the Rule of Law too." TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt applauds: "My view: Great move by Feingold. I'm against wasting time and energy on a doomed impeachment mission. The censure motion will continue to heap bad press on Bush and his autocratical presidency. More and more Republicans will fear being aligned with him in 2006. It might even sway some voters."
The right-blogosphere doesn't sound all that concerned about the development, and in fact a few speculate it could redound to their benefit -- Mark Noonan at Blogs for Bush: "Given that the only possible beneficiaries of such an action are the terrorist enemies of the United States, I believe that we should urge the Senate to censure Senator Feingold for giving aid and comfort to the enemy." WI resident Uncle Jimbo from Blackfive quotes Feingold saying: "The President must be held accountable for authorizing a program that clearly violates the law and then misleading the country about its existence and its legality." And responds: "Senator, you ought not make factual statements that are not factual. It is not clear by any stretch of the imagination that the President violated the law. It is hyperbolic and prejudges a program that has never been adjudicated, you see Senator, that is when an action is clearly in violation of a law." More: "I will always enjoy watching the extremely infrequent instances of principle prevailing in Congress, even as it ensures its actor will suffer defeat for doing so." Right Wing News' John Hawkins observes, "it seems to me that we have a pretty clear split between both parties that needs to become an issue in the 2006 elections. Republicans believe that we need to act aggressively to defend Americans from terrorists who want to harm us and Democrats believe that the President should be impeached for acting aggressively to defend America from terrorists." And he argues: "That's why all Democrats running for reelection in 2006 need to be asked, for the record, if they support the impeachment of President Bush. In other words, do they support the partisan attempt to undercut the Commander-in-Chief, in a time of war, for purely political purposes or are they concerned about defending America?" Betsy Newmark: "The so-called liberal netroots might get all upset at candidates who refuse to sign on to Feingold's measure, but is that necessarily a move that would play well among the general public where presidential elections are waged and won? I sincerely doubt it."
SRLC STRAW POLL: The Peabody Awards
This weekend The Hotline oversaw the GOP WH'08 straw poll at the SRLC in Memphis, where Senate Maj. Leader Bill Frist (TN) finished 1st as expected, MA Gov. Mitt Romney placed a surprising 2nd, followed by VA Sen. George Allen. But as of 3/10 p.m. all the talk was about how AZ Sen. John McCain had called upon SRLCers to show their support for Bush by writing in Bush's name in place of McCain's own.
Perhaps the 1st hint of this strategy came from Pat Hynes of Ankle Biting Pundits, who wrote that "more that a couple friends of mine on hand in Memphis are considering using the straw poll as a device to show consistent and strong support for President George W. Bush. If just enough people write in the name of George W. Bush on their straw poll ballots, their thinking goes, maybe they can show the snarky media that Republicans are unfazed by its relentless and dishonest negative assaults on the President and his administration. I think this is a fine idea, and I hope it catches on in Memphis."
Decision '08's Mark Coffey was impressed with the idea: "I like the cut of that man's jib... let's see George Allen top that." His readers seemed to agree. Over at the much, much-more widely-read Drudge Report, Matt Drudge put a negative spin on it, with the header: "MCCAIN IN REPUBLICAN STRAW POLL EMBARRASSMENT." As Drudge "reported": "One activist said, 'McCain voted against all the Bush tax cuts... maybe he should have voted for the president then, instead of waiting for a political stunt to try and distract.'" In the end, Bush actually tied Allen for 3rd, and McCain finished 5th. Radio talker Hugh Hewitt : "McCain's transparent dodge only reinforced the undeniable reality that he cannot be considered a frontrunner to win a GOP nomination after his primary meltdown in 2000, McCain-Feingold, and the Gang of 14. ... But now there's a second storyline as well, which will trumpet Romney's second place finish. True, it isn't a huge sample, but it is in the south and it is in the Majority Leader's back yard." Hotline On Call asked Frist if he thought McCain's "gambit ... backfired, Frist observed that the delegates did want to support their President, but noted that many of them had "driven 6 to 8 hours" to participate and wanted to take part in choosing their party's next WH nominee."
Nashville Tennessean reports on how Romney worked quietly to move supporters into the SRLC, but a commenter at Hotline On Call points out the organizers say it was "pure grassroots." A contributor to RedState's RedHot: "All the same, the Romney supporters were brilliant -- possibly more brilliant than the McCain's 'Write in Bush' strategem. ... As we've seen, the blogosphere is not very good at swarming a Congressional district from the outside and making things go their way. But quietly getting a couple of frat houses to a straw poll -- and scoring a small media coup -- is eminently doable." Alexander McClure, at Polipundit: "While I would not object to Romney as the nominee, I think he would be best served considering a bid for the Senate when Kerry decides to call it quits in 2008. If John McCain were the GOP nominee, recent polling shows he would easily defeat Hillary Clinton in the Bay State. That could bode well for a Republican pick-up opportunity in Massachusetts of all states!"
Frist gave an interview to bloggers present; AlphaPatriot summarizes: "Even if I didn't like all of his answers, talking to the Senator was a very pleasurable experience and his staff was unbelievably nice." Mick Wright posts photos from around the SRLC event. Rob Huddleston of VOLuntarily Conservative wrote, ex-Rep. J.C. Watts "delivered what many on Blogger Row feel was the best speech of the event. Of course, Watts has always delivered fantastic speeches, and (unfortunately) he isn't running for any elected office at this time."
Reaction to the vote from a few on the left -- Scott Shields: "Earlier, I'd said I was really looking forward to finding out the results of the 2008 straw poll being held at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference this weekend in Memphis. I take it back. It seems that Republican infighting has likely rendered the results largely useless." Reed Hundt, for TPMCafe: "It is unlikely that their nominee will be from outside this group. Only Sen. Frist would be relatively easy to run against. The other two pose big challenges for any D. What should the DNC do now about them?" Duncan "Atrios" Black thinks the write-in Bush move was a mistake, now that the "post-Bush age is upon us," the GOP "faithful are basically done with Bush, disappointed with what he's failed to provide them with and at least vaguely aware of his detached incompetence."
WHITE HOUSE '08: Start Your Own "Anybody But" Movement!
Scott Lemieux of Lawyers, Guns and Money considers George Allen's abortion stance, as per his appearance on "Meet the Press": "Russert asked about overturning Roe, and Allen talked about how Roe has been 'interpreted' to prohibit parental notification statutes. (I assume most of you know this, but ... sadly, no!)" He sums up the GOP on this issue as: "Q: Do you think first-trimester abortions should be banned? A: We need parental notification laws!" And adds: "Unless we assume that the Republicans are irrationally keeping an extremely popular position under wraps, and that every public opinion survey is wrong, we should make knowledge of the Republicans' actual position on the issue as clear as possible, as often as possible." A contributor to conservative Daily Pundit notes Allen's "whiffs" and "ducked questions on immigration, judges and Dubai: "Speaking for myself, this pattern of politics-before-principle has shifted George Allen onto the wrong side of my opinion. In six months he's gone from me wanting him to be our candidate to him having to prove he deserves to be. If he tacks the wrong way on open borders/amnesty, he's irredeemable. If he treads water like he did on Miers and Dubai I'll figure him for another double-talking fake who lacks a conservative compass."
The GOP activity spurs a look in the mirror for Dems. Crooks and Liars sizes up the field as it matters to the liberal netroots: "New faces to be the Anyone But Hillary (ABH) candidate from the left: Feingold. New faces to be the ABH candidate from the center-right: Warner. If you don't ascribe to the "new faces are needed" school: Edwards, Clark, Kerry. The 800-pound gorilla ABH: Gore."
Noting that a profile of ex-Gov. Mark Warner (D-VA) in the New York Times Magazine refers to Feingold as a "protest candidate," Jeanne D'Arc of Body and Soul: "There are advantages to being a protest candidate, though. You get to protest." As for Warner, she writes in sotto voce (or whatever the written equivalent would be) "[O]only possible alternative to Hillary my royal..." Health care wonk Ezra Klein writes, Warner is "taking a more hardheaded and business-oriented approach to selling universal health care. And I think it's the right one."
MIDTERMS: Will Harris N' Ford Shoot Greedo First?
The directors of RedState are calling on Rep. Katherine Harris (R) to drop out of the FL SEN race: "A contingent among the left is backing an election year strategy of having a Democrat run in every congressional district across the country regardless of their chances of winning. This strategy will consume resources that could better be spent elsewhere on viable candidates. Some people have no chance of winning. Katherine Harris is the Republican version of this strategy. ... It is time for Katherine Harris to drop out. A hero in 2000, she seems to have mistaken thanks for a fan club. Even this far from the election, it is painfully obvious that Katherine Harris is not going to win. She will, however, drain valuable resources from winners -- both in her race and others." Polipundit's McClure concurs: "While Harris has been a loyal Republican, this is just not her year, and this is too important a race for Republicans to miss. If Harris does indeed drop out this week, then my hope is that one of four Republicans will jump into the race - Chief Financial Officer Tom Gallagher, former General Tommy Franks, Governor Jeb Bush, or Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart. Any one of these four would send Nelson to an early retirement."
On 3/10 ex-DNCer Jesse Berney called attention to the NRSC site FancyFord.com, which portrays Rep. Harold Ford (D-TN) as enjoying "the good life... perhaps a little too much ... all on his campaign contributors' dime." Berney's header: "[NRSC chair] Elizabeth Dole is a racist." He argued: "What's the message behind this site? The line of white women on the front page, the fact that it highlights his attendance at NBA All Star events featuring Biz Markie, the emphasis on opulence all combine to portray Ford as a pimp. The site tries to be subtle in its racism, but it fails." Before the afternoon was out, the DSCC had responded with VeryFancyFrist.com, looking almost identical to the anti-Ford site, and highlighting a different set of foibles, such as "Investment schemes with the family fortune." Ford himself writes at TPMCafe, "The 'facts' of the site are the most mundane imaginable. I know they are mundane, because they all come from my own campaign finance disclosures. ... frankly don't know what their site is trying to say. Many of you have speculated here and elsewhere what the Republican point is. I do know this much: Our nation is experiencing record budget deficits under their watch and their site says nothing about that. Our nation has nearly 50 million people with no healthcare and their site says nothing about that," and so on.
OH SEN-focused Plunderbund points out a new Suffolk Univ. poll (PDF) showing Rep. Sherrod Brown (D) trailing Sen. Mike DeWine (R): "The good news? Most in Ohio are leaning away from Republicans, both statewide and nationally. The bad news? Sherrod Brown is getting pounded!" Sheds more light on the Hackett/Brown poll that talked about what voters thought once their messages got out... and that didn't include I's and U's. Wow. Game over in the Senate race."
At Daily Kos, Ed in Montana posts a bit of what he acknowledges may be scurrilous gossip: "I don't like posting flyby-night rumor diaries, but this is too juicy to pass up. The Montana political rumor mill is saying that Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT) will announce in the next ten days that he will retire from his senate seat and not run for re-election in November. What makes this rumor so juicy are some signs that it may be true."
BUSH ADMIN: Claude, You Clod!
Slate, not a breaking news outlet by any means, was 1 of the 1st news outlets to report the arrest of ex-WH adviser Claude Allen -- at least 1 of the 1st that came to the attention of bloggers. CAP's Think Progress got there fast as well, and kept updating as new info and reax were available.
Among the 1st to weigh in was John Podhoretz at The Corner: "I wrote a book about the Bush White House. I know the names of many people who worked in the Bush White House. I've read every story there is to read about the Bush White House. I've been a political journalist for almost a quarter century, worked in a Republican administration, and gone to many right-wing parties. So let me say this about accused thief and former White House policy bigshot Claude Allen: WHO?" Atrios quickly followed up: "Uh, Jpod, he was deputy HHS Secretary, Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and was nominated by Bush to be a federal judge, and his name has made a few appearances at The Corner."
Josh Trevino, an ex-speechwriter under Allen at HHS: "Claude Allen's fall from grace is, for the most part, a DC inside-baseball event affecting none of the great issues of the day, and certainly not life in Peoria. That's why you'll see a few people following John Podhoretz's lead and claiming to have never heard of Allen. (Podhoretz is either lying, or not the political journalist he should be after a full quarter-century.) They can get away with it, because most Americans outside the Beltway have also never heard of Allen. And that's why the left-wing attempts to exploit this incident will come to nothing -- particularly as the White House quite obviously forced him to resign upon learning of his troubles."
Liberal Keith Boykin: "If Claude Allen committed the crime, he should pay the penalty. But it does strike me as odd that Allen would go to jail for stealing from budget department stores while George Bush and Dick Cheney go free after years of fraud, deceit and deception to the American people." Brilliant at Breakfast: "What is it with these good, churchgoing Republicans anyway? A Bible-thumpin' fundamentalist Christian once explained to me that there are so many instances of Christians falling into sin because Satan targets them directly. Apparently the model is some kind of cosmic video game; something like the old 'Death Race 2000,' in which the ol' forked-tongued demon gets bonus points for getting Christians to sin, whereas getting plain ol' heathen to sin is just a simple one-pointer."
Conservative Will Franklin mocks the lefty theories that surfaced when Allen left the WH: "You mean Claude Allen didn't abruptly resign to protest Katrina, or because he thought Bush was not conservative enough for him? ... So he was basically just one of those messed-up-in-the-head wealthy housewife types who shoplifts lotion and greeting cards and other petty merchandise for the thrill of it. Not a scandal. Not anything. Just (if convicted) a weird dude with some mental instabilities."
IRAQ: Withdrawal In Disgust Actually IS The Same As Apathy?
It was a bloody weekend in Iraq, with at least 44 killed and 200 injured in car bombing attacks on the slums of Sadr City, just northeast of Baghdad. Shortly after it happened 3/12, Juan Cole relayed to his readers: "Two of the big blasts targeted the poor Shiites of Sadr City, who have proven in the past especially willing to engage in reprisal killings against Sunni Arabs. It seems likely that this is the guerrillas' further attempt to bait them into sectarian civil war." THE TENSION posted photographs. BooMan Tribune: "If I were a Shi'ite living there my inital suspicion might very well be that insurgents had infiltrated the official Iraqi forces and that such insurgents, operating under their cover as the official Iraqi units in charge of security in Sadr City, had set off these bombs." Mordant header at Daily Kos: "Things are Going Very, Very Well."
The attack hasn't made anywhere near the kind of impact as the recent Samarra mosque bombing; just a few of the top liberal blogs and no conservative blog that we saw has mentioned it. Which is not to say there was no discussion about Iraq:
Scott Johnson at Power Line consider's National Review editor Rich Lowry's cover story from the latest issue, "The 'To Hell With Them' Hawks -- and What's Wrong With Them" -- conservatives now ready to leave Iraq to the Iraqis: "Lowry does not identify who the 'to hell with them' hawks are. Whom is this essay about? Perhaps in writing the essay, Lowry found it easier to describe the tendency he discerns without engaging personalities and particulars. Nevertheless, the single most prominent conservative who answers to Lowry's description of the 'to hell with them' hawks is National Review founder Bill Buckley. Other National Review personalities who answer to the description in one way or another are Jeffrey Hart, John Derbyshire and Andrew McCarthy. Outside the precincts of National Review, the only prominent conservative who comes to mind is George Will and, like Professor Hart, he has articulated a variant of the 'to hell with them' critique for quite a while. Given the NR-affiliation of most of Lowry's antagonists on the theme of the essay, Lowry's silence on personalities may be diplomatic."
Needlenose's Swopa: "As a footnote, it's worth remembering that the post-Saddam restoration of pro-government" -- "death squads" is snarkily struck out, replaced by -- "elite commando units began with American support more than a year ago under temp prime minister Iyad Allawi's regime. When the Shiite government took over, they inherited the infrastructure and re-stocked the units with their own militias -- which is apparently the part the U.S. hadn't anticipated, and is now desperately trying to undo. And now that they've been caught bloody-handed, Team Shiite is expertly pinning the blame on an ever-shrinking handful of obscure scapegoats. In a loathsome way, it's touching how much they've learned from us."
Michelle Malkin: "Believe it or not, CBS News ran a nice piece on 60 Minutes tonight about US troops clearing out Al Qaeda from the Iraqi town of Tal Afar and reestablishing order there." She posts video. Kim Priestap at Wizbang: "It's about time the MSM reported on the accomplishments that have taken place in Iraq."
Oliver Willis: "We're headed into three years in Iraq and George Bush is about to begin yet another p.r. offensive about the Iraq war, telling Americans that they're just imagining the violence on TV and the dead soldiers are just an invention of the 'liberal media.' But the great tragedy is that the Democratic party still refuses to speak up about the war. It's not that their position is unpopular or popular -- but it is simply nonexistent."
DEMOCRATS: How Is The Netroots Like Hollywood? Dems Want Their Money, But Not Necessarily Their Input
Noting a positive review in the New York Times for the Markos Moulitsas/Jerome Armstrong book "Crashing the Gates," Glenn Greenwald writes for Crooks and Liars: "With very few exceptions, national Democrats in Washington see the blogosphere as composed of uninformed, ranting, dirty masses who need to be kept as far away as possible. While they are willing to take your money, many of the Beltway Democrats see the vibrant activism in the blogosphere as some sort of an embarrassment, while others see it as a threat to their fiefdoms." Greenwald illustrates his point by posting excerpts of correspondence with an unnamed aide to an unnamed Dem sen., and notes that the same is not true on the GOP side: "Bush followers, along with their media allies, recognize the lurking power of the anti-Bush component of the blogosphere and -- for that very reason -- have been expending considerable efforts recently to demonize it as nothing but fringe, extremist lunatics who are political poison. Rather than combat that demonization, national Democrats -- as usual -- have meekly acquiesced to it -- even internalized it -- and are now intimidated to go anywhere near one of the very few vibrant, living and breathing instruments of political activism available to them." Ron Chusid at The Democratic Daily disagrees: "If bloggers expect to be taken seriously by the political establishment, they are not going to do so by setting up their relationship as an adversarial one. If we look at this as one side against the other, neither side is without fault. There is no doubt that the Democrat leadership was poorly prepared to take on the role of an opposition party. This does not mean that criticism from the blogosphere is universally correct. One mistake is to lump the entire party establishment on one side and all bloggers on the other." More: "The blogosphere is of value when it reminds political leaders of important principles, but is counterproductive when it confuses attempts to attract voters from the middle with selling out."
When Huffington Post launched, it was promoted as a place for the Hollywood elite to join the blogosphere, though the typical contributor soon became un-famous L.A. and DC-based writers and activists. Today there's one genuine A-lister posting -- recent Oscar winner George Clooney. Title of post: "I Am a Liberal. There, I Said It!" It's actually a rather critical take at fellow liberals, primarily Beltway Dems whom he says hide their affiliation: "The fear of been criticized can be paralyzing. Just look at the way so many Democrats caved in the run up to the war. In 2003, a lot of us were saying, where is the link between Saddam and bin Laden? What does Iraq have to do with 9/11? We knew it was bullshit. Which is why it drives me crazy to hear all these Democrats saying, "We were misled." It makes me want to shout, "Fuck you, you weren't misled. You were afraid of being called unpatriotic." Meanwhile, Matt Yglesias and Mickey Kaus were debating the effectiveness of celebrity politicos. Kaus summarizes Ylgesias' argument and elaborates, "well-known figures from the arts and entertainment world are 'terrible spokespeople' for Democratic causes. It's nice that they give money -- but as Yglesias points out you don't see rich Republican businessmen trying to become GOP spokesmen themselves and you don't see GOP politicians publicly celebrating their ties to rich businessmen. Yet Democratic music and movie stars are still under the illusion that they can 'use their celebrity' wisely for the cause."
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: What Happens When Neo Isn't So Neo Anymore?
At The Corner, John J. Miller quotes from a vexing section of a New York Times news analysis by David Sanger: "Now, a rising chorus of neo-conservatives, who urged Mr. Bush to topple Mr. Hussein, say that, having liberated Iraq, the rest is up to the Iraqis. 'The administration has, now, to cope with failure,' William F. Buckley Jr. wrote in February. 'The kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat.'" Miller comments: "This is the height of silliness -- not what WFB said, but rather the labeling of him as a neocon. I've thought for a long time that perhaps we should impose a moratorium on the use of this word, simply because most of the people in the MSM who now use it don't even have the slightest idea of what it might actually mean. I'm not sure I've ever seen a more flagrant example of it than this."
LEST WE FORGET: Say It Ain't Joementum
"Strategery" has had a good run as a political neologism that retains some currency after a half-decade, and "Truthiness" seems as if its best days are ahead of it. But 2 years after its unwitting coinage, "Joementum" is still going strong -- that is, displaying anything but Joementum. And so now is as good a time as any to call attention to the relevant Wikipedia entry: "Joementum is a portmanteau referring to the perceived lack of potential for success of a campaign or endeavor. The term is a satirical reference to a quote by 2004 Democratic presidential candidate Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), who, shortly before coming in a disappointing fifth in the New Hampshire Democratic primary, insisted that his campaign was "picking up Joementum." Since then, the term has become popular among some bloggers, who might say, for instance, that a rapidly failing political campaign was showing Joementum. The term is also sometimes used to refer to the senator himself in a lightly mocking or derogatory fashion."
Dubai Ports World (DPW) has ended its bid to acquire rights to ports in 6 U.S. cities, and that unexpected announcement is far and away today's top story. We've got it covered from just about every angle -- where it was headed before the announcement, initial confusion about what it really meant, speculation about what it could mean for U.S. relations with Dubai, for Pres. Bush, for the Dems and GOPers in '06 -- and who might be picking up the port contract instead.
Otherwise, Bush's unpopularity is a popular subject itself, some GOP-leaning bloggers are closely following a bill termed the "blogger protection act," some Dem-leaning bloggers subject their cong. leaders to harsh criticism, and an MN SEN campaign tries to make the blogosphere itself an issue.
PORT SECURITY I: A Lose-Lose-Lose-Lose Situation?
Captain's Quarters hands out demerits to all parties involved: To the Treas. Dept., who "should have understood the political implications" and should have "prepared their superiors" for possible controversy; the media, who saw it as "boring bureaucratic transaction" until "radio blowhard Michael Savage grabbed onto the story" and "managed to fan the deal into a veritable blaze of hysteria -- and instead of informing the public of all the nuances of the story, the initial reporting followed Savage's lead"; the WH, "went into what can only be called Harriet Miers mode. They accused critics of being xenophobes and anti-Arab bigots, including a large number of conservatives upset at an apparent lack of focus on national security"; Congress, for "demonstrating an embarrassing level of ignorance of the ports deal" -- singling out Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) in particular; and to the blogosphere: "Too many of us jumped to the conclusion we saw when the media first reported this deal, myself included." At A Chequer-Board of Nights and Days, Pejman Yousefzadeh lists several downsides of this "Keystone Kops operation," and closes out: "Did I miss anything? Or are there even more reasons to be upset about the way in which this farce played itself out?"
Before the announcement, UCLA public policy prof Mark Kleiman and Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum both tried to predict what would happen; neither anticipated the DPW pullout. Kleiman thought it was most likely the port deal would be attached to an un-amendable conf. report perhaps including money for Katrina relief and money for troops in Iraq/Afghanistan. Drum leaned toward Bush backing down the emergence of "some kind of 'new information' that Bush claims to have been previously unaware of."
Also prior to the calling off, The Hill had reported that Dubai was "threatening retaliation against American strategic and commercial interests" if Congress blocked the deal. "A source close to the deal" said members of Dubai's royal family were "furious" at the hostility of Dems and GOPers toward the deal. Though this would seem to be a non-issue now, it still sparked a lot of discussion. Riehl World View: "I wouldn't blame them, though I suspect some of this is for pressure purposes and like all multi-nationals, they'll make decisions in their best economic interests above anything else. But be sure and read the full article to see how significant our business interests actually are." Jonathan R. at GOP Bloggers: "Unless the political hacks inside the Beltway begin to act like adults instead of pea-brained fear-mongers, we are in for very bad economic news as a trade war erupts." Steve Verdon at Outside The Beltway also notes a pending UAE deal with Boeing: "Well killing these deals only makes sense, after all we don't want to arm a rogue terrorist nation right? And who knows maybe the UAE will decide to move forward less vigorously now on reforms to reduce money laundering as well."
When DPW 1st announced its withdrawal, DPW said the port rights would be sold to a "US Entity" -- a phrase too vague for comfort. As Andrew Sullivan put it, "surely, we need to know what this entity is before being relieved. The idea that simply because an entity is American it is categorically likely to be more concerned about security is an almost clinical example of mindless nativism." For a time, NZM at the UAE community blog thought DPW was just transferring rights to a subsidiary: "They're still buying P&O, it's just that the US operations will be run by a 'US entity' -- whatever that means." Numerous other bloggers were confused on this point, but soon enough, as per Reuters, a "U.S. official" clarified the meaning. The Emirates Economist: "Engagement with a friend of the US is such a better course. This is a shameful hour for the US Congress."
Shakespeare's Sister: "Forgive me for being an apathetic lout, but I just don't even care about this anymore. If the Bush administration isn't serious about port security, starting with making sure that every container that comes into the US via our ports is safe, what difference does it make?" DLC's Ed Kilgore is in the same boat: "[M]y own hope is that none of us get so hung-up about the identity of port operators, or are so tempted to declare victory if a U.S. firm replaces Dubai Ports World, that we forget the underlying security issue this brouhaha exposed." CA-based Joe Scott agrees, the "real national security issue involves container inspection."
Jeff Goldstein: "Is this a national security question? My sense is that while it has been hyped as such ... it never really was. And from a free market perspective -- which, along with the promotion of liberal democracy, is part of the memetic message we are trying to sell abroad -- this is a set back. To win this war, we must insist that our way of life is worth defending. Congress has damaged our relationship with the Gulf states (and with the UAE, we have a very good working relationship), determined our economic policy, and shown us to be unwilling to practice what we preach." Decision '08: "A sorry day, and a victory for jingoism..."
PORT SECURITY II: Fall Out Boys
Rightwing Nuthouse writes, the UAE may feel "double crossed," but they "shouldn't blame the Congress or the American people. The blame is ultimately the President's to shoulder as are our other problems with border control and gaps in security at our airports." Conservative Xrlq disagrees: sure, Bush "should shoulder some blame for failing to anticipate Congress's opportunism or the American people's gullibility, but the principal blame lies with us, not with our President for failing to cure our collective idiocy, and not even with the opportunistic Congressmen who preyed upon it."
Liberal Barbara O'Brien: "Years ago I heard some Republican pundit say that the difference between presidents Carter and Reagan was that Carter got bogged down in the details of operating the ship, but Reagan stayed at the wheel and steered. Well, our Dubya acts as if he's just a passenger on a luxury cruise, and he spends most of his time rolling dice in the ship casino."
At Huffington Post, ex-Kerry '04 MI chair/ex-DNC chair candidate Donnie Fowler suggests Dems "try this approach, accomplishing two goals at once -- making the point that Bush has made our nation weaker and less safe while untangling ourselves from the mess the neocons have made in Iraq. The overarching theme is security. The sub-theme is effectiveness and accountability."
Expose the Left posts video of Senate Min. Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) "calling for one of those 'up or down' votes on the Dubai deal, even though it's basically been killed. Rush described it perfectly today, the Democrats are trying to make a race out of national security and say that they are the winners."
Middle Earth Journal: "While the Republican lawmakers can take some credit for halting the deal and standing up to Bush they are still hurt because a damaged Bush is bad for them in November." RedState's Leon H Wolf: "I'm also more than a little disappointed with the Republicans in Congress who didn't even make a very concerted effort to either (1) make an honest inquiry into the deal or (2) expose the hypocrisy of the Democrats who are going to try to pry this issue wide open in November."
PORT SECURITY III: Dubai, Where's My Cargo?
Centerfield: "There is not a strong relationship. When one's relationship depends on the actions of political leaders that have become so cloaked in partisanship and security hysteria, there is not a strong relationship. When your actions since September 11th are meaningless because of those you took before September 11th and you just happen to be the wrong skin color and from a part of the world that doesn't have the right faith, there is not a strong relationship."
NBC News' David Gregory, at The Daily Nightly: "No one here wanted the President to veto his own party, so leave it to DPW, the state-run company no one apparently trusts to manage U.S. ports, to be the great peace broker in Washington!"
More from the UAE community blog: "I'm just disappointed that this decision will most likely be seen as a victory by the opposers, and that DP World and the UAE seemingly did not stand up and vigorously and publicly defend themselves against the accusations that were being made."
PORT SECURITY IV: H_ll_b_rt_n
NV-based Taylor Marsh, guest-blogging at Firedoglake, on who might take over: "No one is saying yet, but could it be? Nah, that "U.S. entity" wouldn't be Halliburton, would it? Nah."
A reader writes in to Michelle Malkin: "Please, please, please let Halliburton get the ports contract. Sure, they have no experience at running ports -- I just want to see moonbat heads explode." Outside the Beltway concurs: "Now that would be sweet! And here you thought Rove and Cheney were losing their touch!" Instapundit: "If Halliburton gets the deal, will people think the whole thing was a sucker-punch?"
Liberal Why Now? has a somewhat different theory: "Whatever happens, it is sure to involve James Baker, the Bush family consigliere on all things Mideast, and don't be surprised if there are references to the Carlyle Group."
BUSH I: Low And Behold!
AP's new poll is the latest that puts Bush's approval ratings at their lowest level ever. The Strata-Sphere: "What is clear is the extreme ends of the spectrum are both fed up and frustrated. ... The damage is done and spreading. The conservative movement destroyed itself again with the far right going off the deep end, this time hand-in-hand with the liberal democrats!" State Of The Day: "While I am happy that everyday Republicans are sick of the incompetence, until their elected representatives stand up and fight BushCo on all fronts I will reserve my happy dancing* until November." Uggabugga: "It appears that Bush's handling of the Katrina hurricane made a deep and lasting impression on people, perhaps because it 'confirmed' the ineptitude of the management of the Iraq war"
BUSH II: Do They Dare To Say Impeach?
Over the last few years arguments for impeaching Bush have moved from the fringes of the left toward the mainstream of liberal online activism. Now the Board of Supvs. in SF and a number of VT towns have endorsed the idea. Perhaps it's now been successful enough to provoke a backlash from the left -- and if so, Harold Meyerson leads it with his 3/9 Washington Post column arguing that such a move would be a mistake. Although impeachment has indeed been a popular goal in some quarters of the left, most bloggers linking to it agree, if reluctantly.
At TPMCafe, Matt Yglesias concurs with Meyerson, adding: "To regain my progressive cred, let me offer links to ... articles that seem to indicate that the Iraq War is a huge fiasco." Josh Marshall drops in at TPMCafe to offer his agreement: "It's a bad idea on policy grounds. It's a bad idea on political grounds. And it's a bad idea on the most important ground of all, which is keeping your eye on the ball and doing what's necessary to create a political force to counter President Bush during his last two years in office and replace him with someone much better in 2009." Liberal Walrus: "Even though I understand the tactical merit of remaining focused on the elections, it is a tragedy that the laws of our nation have stopped applying to the President. The Republicans should be ashamed of themselves. Their constituents should be ashamed of them. So ashamed that they do something about it. In November." Byzantium's Shores: "I agree, from the "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer" perspective. George W. Bush is an albatross around the Republicans' necks, and I like him right where he is." Bartcop offers a parody movie poster promoting the impeachment meme. Conservative Greg Tinti scoffs: "Apparently Meyerson doesn't read his own paper, however, which just yesterday printed an A1 story on Democrats' inability to work together to create an agenda for 2006."
Meanwhile, a quote from Vanity Fair's Graydon Carter on HBO's "Real Time" last weekend is getting picked up around the left-blogosphere right now, explaining Bush's speaking style: "He speaks to the audience as if they're idiots. I think the reason he does that is because that's the way these issues were explained to him." Digby adds more thoughts: "The funny thing is that he sounds irritated too. It has always puzzled me why he seems so inappropriately impatient in his town meetings, as if his rapt audience needs some sort of time-wasting remedial education before he can get to the subject, which he never does." Atrios: "I'm with Digby. That's something I've never quite been sure of."
BLOGS VS. THE BELTWAY: Will Hill GOPers Love Blogs This Much When There's Another Trent Lott Situation?
As we noted here 3/9, Townhall's Tim Chapman attended the markup session for H.R. 1606, aka the Online Freedom of Speech Act, which Chapman also terms the "blogger protection act," and reports: "Only one member ... seemed to oppose (she left before the vote). When the committee called for a vote all members present voted to report the bill favorably out of committee. HR 1606 now moves to the House floor."
At Division of Labour, ex-FEC commish Brad Smith gives background info on the bill. At Beltway Blogroll, Danny Glover explains why we're here now: "Last November, the full House failed to garner the two-thirds majority necessary to pass the bill under expedited procedures. That 225-182 vote kicked the legislation back to committee."
As Chapman notes this a.m., and as can be found on the VOLPAC quasi-blog, Senate Maj. Leader Bill Frist delivered a speech to Congress on 3/9 comparing bloggers to "the Revolutionary-era pamphleteers": "And, today, it's bloggers whom we now have to protect. ... In an era where technology has made instant, unfiltered communication possible, I believe that the Congress has a fundamental responsibility to allow this new medium to flourish." Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) posts to RedState: "As I've said before, the Internet -- especially blogs -- has helped promote grassroots political involvement across the country by giving Joe or Jane Citizen their own bully pulpit to discuss and debate the topics of the day. Today your neighbor is more likely to ask you if you saw something on the web than whether you read it in a newspaper. We need to be encouraging, not discouraging, political involvement online and any FEC regulation could have a frightening effect on one of our most cherished rights - freedom of speech. It is important that RedState continue to educate Members of Congress on this important issue. We must ensure that free speech remains, well, free."
MIDTERMS: Trying To Create A Gilliard/Kaine Moment Out Of Thin Air?
Mid-p.m. on 3/9, the SEN campaign of Rep. Mark Kennedy (R-MN) sent out a release announcing: SEN candidate Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) "Pulls Ad from Hate Website" -- that an ad recently placed on Daily Kos had "mysteriously disappeared." Said Kennedy spokesperson Heidi Frederickson in the release, as quoted by some bloggers: "[Site founder Markos Moulitsas] has compared President Bush to Osama Bin Laden and has vocally called for the defeat of Senator Joe Lieberman, Al Gore's running mate in 2000, because he isn't liberal enough." Ex-MN GOP operative Michael Brodkorb speculates at Minnesota Democrats Exposed: "Did Ms. Klobuchar pull her ad due to pressure after yesterday's release from the [NRSC]? Was Ms. Klobuchar's ad simply on rotation and that is why it isn't up today?" Kennedy v. Machine, which had previously noted the Klobuchar ad, thinks instead that the ad fulfilled its fundraising goals: "I do not find it likely for the ad to be pulled out of embarrassment due to the site's content and exposure by the Republicans, but rather, her mission was accomplished!" Worth noting: As of this a.m., a Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) ad was still running on dKos.
In 1/06 Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) pledged to cut off his regular Tuesday a.m. meetings with K Street lobbyists, but as Washington Post reported on 3/9, has in fact continued to do so. At Daily Kos, Georgia10 comments: "He is sneaking around with the same crowd of influencers, riding the high of peddling power. Well, not the same crowd. Because when you relapse, you relapse hard. So Santorum's new lobbying gang includes extra special 20 to 30 people, in addition to about 40 of his old friends." Header over the post: "Santorum To Lobbyists: I Wish I Knew How To Quit You."
ROOTS PROJECT: Do Senators Turn In Clusters When The Netroots Contact Them?
Despite the Senate Intel Cmte's agreement with the WH on new oversight rules, the liberal netroots haven't given up pressuring cmte members to provide better oversight. Starting this a.m., they have a new project going -- PSoTD explains: "What are your guarantees, as an American, that this spying isn't abused for domestic purposes and not for national defense? What are your protections, as an American, from the government? Is a faith in big government enough? One would think that Republicans would be much more concerned about the NSA project than they are. ... I just don't understand that kind of blind trust. And if you're a Pennsylvanian, perhaps there is one Pennsylvanian that you should ask to explain why such blind trust by the citizenry is required. His name is Senator Arlen Specter." Vichy Dems: "The immediate goal: to encourage Pennsylvanians, and people with roots in Pennsylvania, to sound off about the upcoming Senate Judiciary Committee hearings concerning the NSA's unconstitutional, invasive, warrantless surveillance program."
WHITE HOUSE '08: A Hillary Of Beans
Lefty Marc Cooper: "How quickly America is, apparently, going to hell. Not more than a month or so ago we were a 'plantation.' Now, it seems, we're on the verge of becoming a 'police state.'" After Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) said this, "I simply have no choice. Too outrageous. Can't let it pass. Someone, somewhere has to take five minutes to underscore the gross and rather macabre hypocrisy that's involved here." He points out that current border policy with Mexico dates back to '93-'94 with then-Pres. Clinton and AG Janet Reno "most responsible": "Can anyone provide us, then, with a single, on-the-record statement from Ms. Clinton expressing, at the time, any concern for a police state? I'd love to see it. ... What we can show you are the memorial crosses for the 3500 migrants who died as they were pushed deeper into the desert by Clinton's various border 'operations' and the "deportation orders for literally tens of thousands of legal immigrants ... So Hillary, on this subject at least, have the minimal decency to hush."
DEMOCRATS: The Taking Of Pelosi One Two Three
Matt Stoller writes at MyDD: "A few weeks ago," lefty blogosphere favorite Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) "came out with a report called 'America for Sale' on the cost of Republican corruption," which was subsequently posted to House Min. Leader Nancy Pelosi's leader page. GOPers "smeared Slaughter with charges that writing the report itself was an unethical use of taxpayer funds, and not one Dem "came forward public to stand by their colleague." And then, "in a final insult, the report was removed from Pelosi's leader web site, apparently because of worries that the Republicans will file ethics charges against Pelosi for hosting it" because it might violate Franking rules. He continues: "Enough is enough. Whoever made the boneheaded decision in Pelosi's office is just out of touch. Leaders serious about ending corruption do not hang out to dry members who stand up against the looting of the country." More: "Standing up to this ineffective, anti-progressive, anti-meritocratic mechanism that coddles Democratic members is going to be key, whatever happens in 2006. The rallying cry for Democrats in the House should not be 'Universal health care for Democratic incumbent Congressmen', as it seems to have been since 1994. New candidates coming into office should realize that it's time for open elections for committee slots, for leadership posts, and for every other position of power in the House."
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Dear Diary
On 3/9 Hotline On Call noted the launch of ex-Sen. John Edwards' new blog, "more of a website, really," One America Committee. And it's not a new site, really, but a dramatic upgrade and relaunch of a blog that had been operating on the site since the end of WH'04 -- we last cited it on 7/25. On Call notes that the Edwards site is "bound to be copied," and that's probably true, but the key feature distinguishing it from previous campaign blog is its diary feature -- inviting members of its community to post their own blog entries to the site. Unlike diary-equipped blogs such as Daily Kos and RedState, partial entries of each diaries appear on the front page. Diaries present a unique challenge and must be well-moderated, as both dKos and RedState are often held responsible for the sometimes-impolitic views expressed by participants. But with '08 still an election cycle away, there's time to get it figured out.
Of interest: Some of OAC's pre-launch posts are still visible. On the "Featured Blogs" page, Daily Kos was used as a placeholder, as it's explained: "It's the 800 lb gorilla of the blogging world, and of course everyone knows it. It's the DailyKos [sic]. This is not likely to be a featured blog, because it's already so big and well-known, but I needed to set up the featured blog section, so here it is."
LEST WE FORGET: Ad Nauseum
Making a long-awaited return is "Adam Nagourney" -- the pseudonymous blogger doing what purports to be an impersonation of New York Times' Adam Nagourney at the blog AdNags: "I know I haven't been keeping up with my personal journal here. Well, it's because I've been working on a huge piece on the blogosphere and how stupid blogs are and how dumb blogs are and how they think they can do stuff about elections ... I am writing the piece that slammos the blogs that I bragged about to Tim Russert when I saw him at Starbucks." The fake Nagourney, you may have noticed, is barely literate.
But the fun isn't over yet! In the comments to his post, you'll find reax from such respected media figures as: "Jodi Wilgoren"; "Anna Marie Cox" [sic]; "Deborah Howell"; "Bill O'Reilly"; "Mike Barnicle"; "Elisabeth Bumiller"; "Byron Calame"; and even "Jeff Gannon." (Though possibly ... Jeff Gannon.)
Friday Bonus "Lest"! Greg at The Talent Show locates on YouTube the legendary scene from "Way of the Dragon" where National Review's John Derbyshire gets his ass kicked by Bruce Lee himself.
In today's edition, bloggers react to the House vote to kill the Dubai port deal, a House bill concerning online speech, Pres. Bush critics criticizing Bush, fallout from the TX 28 primary, and Sen. Hillary Clinton's anticipated WH bid. Plus, our latest Blogger Spotlight.
PORT SECURITY: Phew! No More Terrorist Attacks Now!
It's been a few days since the proposed sale of ports in 6 U.S. cities from a British firm to Dubai Ports World of the UAE showed up on most bloggers' radar screens. But now that the House Approps Cmte has voted 62-2 to block the deal, it's back all right.
Right-leaning Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit, who changed his mind from opposition to support, wonders if the vote "isn't really backlash stemming from the Cartoon Wars 'tipping point' effect, adding: "Perhaps it won't matter, and the UAE will just suck it up, attribute it to politics, and move on. Perhaps they'll still cut a reasonable deal. But just possibly, we're being had. ... I don't know, but I'm very unhappy with how this is going, and this lopsided vote has made me unhappier." Phoenix-based Martin's Musings: "Thank you, Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) for being one of the only two people to vote against the measure." Noting that Rep. Duncan Hunter's (R-CA) bill would restrict ownership of "critical infrastructure" to Americans, Daniel Drezner sarcastically one-ups him: "Hey, you ask me, Hunter is being too conservative. Why not require all employees as 'critical infrastructure' facilities to be red-blooded Americans? Why aren't airports and airlines included? Why, do you realize that, even as I type this, there are foreign-born pilots flying state-owned airliners within a few miles of our major cities???!!!"
Conservative deal opponent Michelle Malkin: "Nervous nellies will argue that the House Republican 'hotheads' should have waited for the 45-day review of the deal. But to many knowledgeable observers of the CFIUS [Cmte on Foreign Investments] process, the panel is the root of the problem -- not the solution. As I made clear in my first post on this subject on Feb. 18 and consistently throughout the debate, we simply cannot afford the business-as-usual attitude of the rubber-stampers at CFIUS. And if that means the UAE retaliates by pulling out of business deals with Boeing, as it is threatening to do now, so be it." Citing cong. testimony via Malkin, The Swanky Conservative notes that the Coast Guard "has acknowledged that DP World will be responsible for vetting the people assigned to its U.S. and other operations" and calls that "pretty bad, pretty damning. Bottom line -- I'm not sure I trust any" Persian Gulf "nation with anything like this on this side of 'our' oceans. Not yet."
As was the case last week, most conservatives support the sale, and think the opposition is largely driven by ignorance and xenophobia -- Sean Hackbarth at The American Mind calls Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) a "bozo" for saying we should "keep America's ports in American hands." Hackbarth: "DPW is buying a British company. If the deal is stopped the British company will still be handling loading and unloading at many U.S. ports. Also, in no way does the DPW deal hand over ports to anyone. Ports are owned by local governments. U.S. ports would never be in Dubai's (or any other nation's) hands." Also noting the Lewis statement, AJ Strata calls the anti-deal House majority a "strange and bad alliance" between a "desperate left willing to do and say anything to win votes, and a frightened, skittish right afraid of anything Arab" or even simply foreign. A disappointed Jonathan R. at GOP Bloggers: "House Republicans could have pragmatically examined the details of the DPW-P&O merger and educated the public as to why the MSM-driven hysteria is bunk. Instead, as is increasingly typical, they took the easy path by hitching onto mindless, xenophobic protectionism."
It's harder to characterize the left's reaction. There's not one consensus, but there are several positions. Some focus on the trouble for Bush and the GOP -- NewsHog writes, the bill "challenges Bush to veto a bill which would appropriate $90 billion for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's got to hurt. It's been a ploy used several times by Bush to pass legislation" -- challenging "opponents to commit political suicide by not voting the money for the soldiers. Now the tactic is being used against him, in a very clear sign that many Republicans in the House consider Bush a lame duck." Writes a commenter at TalkLeft: "No wonder he's fighting so hard for the line item veto." Crooks and Liars posts a screen shot from "Lou Dobbs Tonight" that "says it all" -- Frist, with the caption "Good Soldier or Lap Dog?"
Some supporters on the left have the same concerns about the opponents' motives -- Liberal Richard Silverstein at Tikun Olam supported the Dubai deal, and is "not normally one to sing the praises of American business, but he is "aware of the benefits that accrue from their commerce to their American workers" -- and he is worried the deal will lead to the cancellation of the Boeing Dreamliner. And while "I normally believe in the power of the ordinary person to make a difference in the political process, in this case the average American as adamantly opposed to the deal. So I'm not averse to bringing in the heavy guns. The DC pols can afford to ignore us as individuals. After all, we're not the fat cats writing their campaign checks. But American corporations are writing those checks and I don't care if they're the only ones who can have a real tempering impact on the idiocy that passes for political discourse around this issue. I hope they speak loud and clear and jawbone those congressional blowhards like crazy." On the other side is activist David Sirota, citing business leaders expressing concern about economic consequences if the deal is killed, commenting: "So there you have it in black and white from Corporate America: profits are more important than security."
Others fault the admin., or challenge press accounts -- Left-leaning Prairie Weather doesn't have a problem with the deal itself, were it to go through, but does have a problem with "how and why the Administration went ahead and did it without the knowledge of Congress." The Gun Toting Liberal disputes the Washington Post's assertion that there are 6 ports "at stake" -- "it's twenty-one ports at stake. 'Bout time somebody starts being a little bit more forthcoming about that. Including the mainstream media, including the Washington Post and the rest of their MSM cronies who have, for some strange reason, insisted upon intentionally ignoring these charges for some reason."
Conservative Mick Stockinger thinks their priorities are out of whack, pointing out an ABC News story about a DHS report finding that truckers "who transport much of the cargo" at NJ and NY ports were issued ID cards "with virtually no background checks." Writes Stockinger: "Amazingly, the DHS report did not generate outrage from Senators Clinton and Schumer. No sir -- the outrage was reserved for a business deal that had been through a complete review and DID in fact employ extensive background checks."
Centrist Joe Gandelman notes the odd coupling of Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Michael Savage on Savage's AM radio show last p.m., and the fact that the 2 were in "agreement virtually point-per-point" on the port deal. Gandelman writes, "a description that seemed trite a week ago is now coming true: Bush is becoming a "uniter not a divider."
BLOGS VS. THE BELTWAY: Marking Up Their Territory
GOP activist blogger Mike Krempasky and Dem activist blogger Markos Moulitsas signed a letter, available at RedState in support of H.R. 1606, colloquially the Online Freedom of Speech Act. With a largely new FEC this year, they worry any rules they promulgate will be made hastily and without all the facts: "The FEC has announced that if Congress does not act, they will vote on regulations on March 16. This is why Congress needs to act now. We are encouraged by the proposal from the Center for Democracy & Technology, but we cannot advocate its passage now. It is a solution in search of a problem which has yet to manifest, and therefore requires full study and consideration in Committee." It's not the 1st time they've teamed up to take a stand on an issue, but it's still a bit surprising to see Krempasky posting on the front page at Daily Kos -- although it's not the 1st time he's posted to dKos, either.
Noting that the markup session was set for 3/9, FEC-watcher Allison Hayward wrote on 3/8: "I'm not sure I can bear to watch..." Bearing to watch is Townhall's Tim Chapman, who was at the meeting in the Longworth HOB this a.m., live-blogging: "The committee hopes to report the bill out of committee today. Majority Leader John Boehner has indicated his desire to move the legislation quickly. The goal is to pass the legislation before the FEC makes their ruling on March 16. But, the Senate will have to pass the legislation as well."
Roger L. Simon, no great fan of Senate Maj. Leader Bill Frist, compliments him for bringing it up -- but adds: "Unfortunately, though the amendment is filed, there is no guarantee that Frist will be able to 'call up' ... the amendment (co-sponsor: Senator [Tom] Coburn) and get a vote on it. But this is hugely important since a threat to Internet freedom is coming not just from the Chinese and the United Nations, but from our own federal judiciary."
EAVESDROPPING: I For One Welcome Our New Subcommittee Overlords
As noted here yesterday, and further reported by the New York Times today, GOPers on the Senate Intel Cmte have proposed creating a seven-member subcmte to oversee the NSA's eavesdropping program. Legal experts say the plan "would also give legislative sanction for the first time to long-term eavesdropping on Americans without a court warrant."
Conservative The Strata-Sphere: "The speed with which the Congress jumped on the Administration's bandwagon to sanction the monitoring of Al Qaeda contacts here in the US is truly stunning." Liberal The Heretik: "If you read between the lines here, the NSA gets a free pass for fortyfive days of surveillance without any oversight at all. 'Probable cause' without judicial review means nothing." Booman Tribune: "We are watching our country slip into an authoritarian state."
Atty Glenn Greenwald takes issue with Senate Intel Cmte ranking Dem Jay Rockefeller, who had criticized the cmte's GOPers for being "under the control" of the WH, but now says the decision was a "step in the right direction." "I'm glad to see that Sen. Rockefeller feels bad about his impetuous remarks where he insinuated that Sens. Hagel, Snowe and DeWine -- "three of the most independent Republicans" in the Senate -- buckled under to White House pressure. That was a completely unfair accusation that had no basis to it at all. Why ever would he think that?"
BUSH: Critics Criticize, Film At 11
A report/column by Dana Milbank in the latest Washington Post -- on a Cato forum featuring libertarian-leaning conservative Bush critics Bruce Bartlett and Andrew Sullivan -- have more traditional/Bush-backing conservatives agitated. Mary Katherine Ham: "As a fiscal conservative, I get teed off at Bush. I have concerns about big-spending programs. It happens. It happens to every conservative on one issue or another, with every Republican president, ever. It's part of politics. Using" Sullivan and Bartlett "as a symbol for the rest of us who have quibbles with the administration, however -- as Dana Milbank does today -- seems like a HUGE stretch. Sullivan and Bartlett are both full-on Bush-bashers these days, not just conservatives with quibbles." Ed Morrissey: "I'm not sure why Milbank expresses such surprise -- nor do I understand why the Post headlines this event as a 'conservative forum.' The Cato Institute has always focused on a brand of respectable and rational libertarianism rather than a partisan Republican or generic conservatism. Milbank himseld notes that in the seventh paragraph as well as the fact that its constituency has always found itself on the outside looking in during this administration. Six years into the Bush administration, and Milbank is shocked that Cato criticizes the President, and that few of its members offer a defense?" Per Milbank, James Joyner notes that when Cato "invited 'a few members of the Bush economic team,' none took them up on the offer. Shocking. Why, exactly, would one expect otherwise? What would they have to gain by coming to a hostile forum that would otherwise be virtually ignored (save for this odd A2 placement in the Post)?"
NETROOTS: Where Do We Blog From Here?
2 days after the TX 28 primary loss by blogger-backed ex-Rep. Ciro Rodriguez (D), bloggers aren't done chewing it over. Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas puts the best face on it: "The bottom line: We helped a campaign that was the walking dead and gave it new life, pumped in resources, and made it competitive. We did much to even the playing field even if ultimately we came up tantalizingly short. And yeah, I know 'tantalizingly short,' alongside 'moral victories,' is about as desirable as the Bubonic Plague. We want more. But this is a long-term movement, building from nothing. And we are sending notice to Democrats that they can't be Bush's bitch and expect a pass."
Looking at the results, MyDD's Chris Bowers writes, the TX 28 race "looks like a repeat of 2004, where our GOTV operations only focused on heavily blue areas of swing states. As a result, like in 2004, we got great turnout in the areas that we targeted, but lost the popular vote because of poor performance in all non-swing states. When will we learn the lesson that it is not just where people live, but how they live, that matters? We can't just target our safe areas and hope that will be enough. While where someone lived was probably the primary motivation for most voters in this election, it certainly was not the only motivation." Bowers adds in a second post recapping the race, "it is important to remember that the netroots doesn't actually run campaigns -- we just have the ability to offer resources that can give candidates the chance to win. The rest, ultimately, is up to the candidate, the campaign, and the voters. I'm not saying this to throw Ciro under the bus, but rather so that we all get a little more perspective on the role we play online. We are not an alternative party apparatus unto ourselves."
At TNR's The Plank, Jason Zengerle hits the liberal netroots for subscribing to "ideology of winnerism" but in fact losing most, if not all the races they influence: "Which is why it's bizarre that these very same bloggers are always so eager to celebrate moral victories. After Howard Dean went down to defeat, they boasted about how they took a virtual nobody to the precipice of victory. Ditto for Paul Hackett. And the same thing is happening today." Zengerle adds, "more often than not, these liberal bloggers (especially Kos) act like they already have taken over the world -- writing manifestoes, issuing threats, and engaging in all sorts of chest-thumping behavior. But, like I said, their batting average is still a big fat zero." Laura Turner at Liberalism Without Cynicism disagrees with Zengerle's premise: "The blogs took a chance on the underdog Rodriguez. Isn't that the opposite of a blind Democratic 'winnerism'?" Kevin Drum disagrees with Zengerle, as "Rome wasn't built in a day," and also with Turner: "It's easy to take a cheap ideological stand when you know there's no danger of losing in November, so this race doesn't really say anything one way or another about the Kossacks' willingness to risk a loss in order to elect a better candidate." He adds: "In the end, of course, I suspect this is all a bunch of overanalysis."
WHITE HOUSE '08: Everything's Coming Up Hillary
At TappedGreg Sargent reports, on 3/6 Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) "convened a closed-to-the-press meeting of dozens of her top financial supporters at a law firm in Manhattan, and a source of mine who was present in the room" said that as HRC faces no serious '06 SEN opposition, the meeting "seemed like a loud-and-clear sign to these big-money folks that her 2008 aspirations were alive and well." According to the source, HRC pollster Mark Penn said: "She's emerged as the new leader of the Democratic Party ... she polls higher than Bill Clinton among Democrats nationally."
Conservative UCLA prof Stephen Bainbridge quotes Molly Ivins calling for a "progressive movement that can block the nomination of Hillary Clinton or any other candidate who supposedly has 'all the money sewed up.'" That's just fine by him: "After all, self-identified conservatives out number self-identified liberals in this country. ... Throw in her agenda of cutting and running from Iraq and imposing single payer health care ... plus the potty-mouthed secularism of Ivins, the Kosites and the like, and the Democrats will manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of the victory that self-inflicted GOP wounds ought to be serving up."
MIDTERMS: False Alarm
Josh Marshall's latest Talking Points Memo-related project, TPM Muckraker, hears that Rep. Katherine Harris' (R-FL) "top advisers are gathering in Washington to convince her to drop out of the race ... Calls to the offices of her pollster and another outside adviser revealed they were in meetings all afternoon." Harris' spokesperson said via Blackberry: "She is in the race until November." Hotline On Call heard the same: "The talk of Florida today is that the upper echeleon of Rep. Katherine Harris's Senate campaign is imploring her to drop out of the race." After Harris told the AP later that she would not be leaving the race, TPMM snarked: "I guess that Democratic call-in campaign worked."
PATRIOT ACT: Just A Friendly PAT Down
On 3/8, the PATRIOT Act was renewed to little media attention and not much comment in the blogosphere. Volokh Conspiracy's Orrin Kerr explains: "For the last few months, the debate over the Patriot Act has been over really small potatoes. To use a football analogy, the players were battling over inches instead of yards. But then everything associated with the Patriot Act tends to have a larger-than-life political significance. "Dog bites man" isn't a story, but "Patriot Act lets dog bite man" always gets splashed across the front page."
BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: Atlas Blogged
Today the Blogometer talks to conservative Pamela, author of Atlas Shrugs.
What is your full name?
Pamela aka Atlas
What is your age?
Uh... you're kidding right?
Where did you grow up?
South Shore -- Long Island, heh.
Where do you live now?
New York City and Long Island.
What is your occupation? Have you ever worked on a political campaign or for the mainstream media?
I am the former publisher of The New York Observer, I left that working world for the altogether different working world of shaping the future, raising, rearing my girls to be citizens of the world and to make a difference, tough when our culture deifies Lil Kim. I am a stay at home ma. And no, I have never worked in any political campaign or in any political capacity.
When did you start blogging and why?
The short answer, it's the end of the world as we know it. And the complacency and diversionary media's antics post 9/11 border on sedition. I finally started blogging a year ago out of sheer frustration with the lack of veracity -- intellectual honesty -- in the media at this most grave moment is history. The dearth-of-objective-news vacuum was huge and the Blogosphere came to my intellectual rescue and IMHO the rescue of the free world. Posting to Little Green Footballs just wasn't enough. I wanted to do something, Effect change.
What has been your favorite post, or favorite story to write about, in that time?
I wrote an op-ed piece as a rebut to a ridiculous, mendacious article on the presidential election in a small local newspaper and reposted it on Little Green Footballs (to which I owe all my blogging efforts). I subsequently posted it retroactively on my blog. That post was the zygote, the first cell of the birth of my blog. "The Case for War" cut through the left wing propaganda and asked America what hard choices we would make and why.
The media and the all news cable channels continue to abdicate their role as responsible disseminators of information, they avoid the most serious issues of the day, sedating a willing American public into this false sense of security. Their opinion (generally leftist) has replaced the news. There are a great many people in America that have been reeducated to believe that 9/11 was a couple of guys that got lucky. This, in spite of the wild rhetoric, daily terror and acts of war perpetuated by Radical Islam across the world. If anything Bush is a victim of his own success, protecting us as well as he has. And the "FISA" nonsense is the left's attempt to disable Bush's ability to continue to do that and to take him down as well.
Describe your typical blogging schedule. And what is your average output?
My blogging schedule is nuts and has taken over my life... any free moment for the blog, I blog. Get up, get outta bed, drag a comb across the kid's head. Head 'em up, move 'em out... hit the newspapers and best news sites, check the emails, start writing. Attend to personal biz... hit the blog, the emails, the news, the tips, everyday is different. I chose my social outings carefully, mostly War on Radical Islam will get my attention. Sometimes I find I have been blogging all night, it's 6 am and so I nod out for a half hour then do the kid thang.
I am so impassioned by it because we are working against a clock, a scary clock. And we have got to get the word to as many people s possible as fast as we can. The world is at war, pretending it to be anything else will be fatal.
Who is your favorite political blogger? Favorite non-political blogger?
Little Green Footballs. Hands down. When the history books are written, Charles Johnson will surely go down as a great American that made a critical difference between victory and defeat. His role has been largely ignored but so what? Most of the greats are ignored in their time. Van Gogh was ignored in his time too, although I don't think Charles can draw... but you get my meaning. The media wants Charles and the blogs for that matter to just go away. But just the opposite is happening, the blogs are dictating the national dialog. What's on the blogs today, is in the news 3,4 sometimes a week later.
Look, I ran those Mohammed cartoons u back in October. I cut the one with the turban out of The New York Post and scanned it and ran it back then but the MSM ignored it until it was rammed down their throat.
Nonpolitical blogs? You mean there is such a thing? I haven't a clue.
Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?
Thomas Sowell
What is your favorite television news program, either network or cable?
"The Beltway Boys," that Fred Barnes rocks, is such a stud.
What MSM-produced websites (i.e. newspapers, magazines) do you visit on a daily basis?
New York Sun -- best newspaper, hands down, WSJ's Taranto and Political Journal, my Yahoo newspage, Weekly Standard, YNET, Dr. Jack Wheeler's To The Point, Townhall, NRO's The Corner and honestly, I am so all over the map it changes but those are mainstays.
What non-MSM websites (i.e. blogs) do you visit on a daily basis?
Always Little Green Footballs, I check out Glenn, Roger, adore Wretchard's Belmont Club, Malkin (of course), Tom over at Bizzy Blog should have been Greenspan's replacement, CUANAS just started a brilliant little gem -- Infidels Bloggers Alliance, Jihad Watch, No Pasaran, Vital Perspective, there are so many... check my blogroll.
How often, or do you ever, read a newspaper in its dead-tree (i.e. print) form?
I dig the Sun, I can not lie...
How do you see the new media and old media affecting and influencing each other in the next five years?
The MOST SIGNIFICANT shift in the news paradigm is the role that media plays. No longer sufficient in merely bringing us the News, the American public must now choose its disseminator, its sifter, filter, prism and demand thorough and complete journalism but one with a moral compass because a press is prejudicial when they are unable (or unwilling) to distinguish between terrorists and the victims of terror.
I am not one that believes that big media is dead. Much like in marketing when direct mail became the big thang and that it would kill print, or that television would kill cinema, the blogosphere is an "in addition to." A critical piece of the media puzzle, one that will finally make "an honest woman" of the MSM. The MSM can no longer go off half cocked. Back in 2000, whe)n the MSM dropped the DUI bomb on Bush just days before the election, it really hurt him.
In 2004 when the MSM dropped that AWOL bomb on Bush, Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs was there to counter with the truth and it absolutely changed the course of the Presidency, and history. So the blogs are necessary. Most necessary and the blogosphere will grow exponetially and replicate the media landscape of Lincoln, crowded , loud, opinionated, electric and diverse. Yes, wildly diverse. We will all co-exist, feed off each other. The difference will be where the American people choose to get their news. The cat is out of the bag. hOOha!
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Funny, No One Mentioned Wikipedia ...
At Right Wing News, John Hawkins writes: "Have you ever wondered whether anyone in Congress actually reads blogs? Well, wonder no more, because that question has now been definitively answered. Below you'll find a list of nine members of Congress and the blogs that they regularly read and/or have their staffs monitor for them."
In the all-GOP group is TX Sen. John Cornyn and righty blog favorite Rep. Mike Pence, and like most who responded, they list a handful of sites. Rep. Jack Kingston -- who, like Pence, maintains an official blog -- lists 16 blogs, Rep. Bob Ney's office lists 33 blogs, including several top liberal sites, a few OH blogs -- and, it bears noting, The Blogometer.
LEST WE FORGET: It Ain't A Piano, It's A Synthesizer!
Well-worth a few minutes of your time at work when you should be doing something else: WuzzaDem doing his trademarked (well, not actually) photo-illustrated celebrity conversations, this time skewering two much-derided recently-in-the-news adult contemporary musicians.
In our corner of the blogosphere, the TX 28 Dem primary was a big event. In early 2/06, moderate-to-conservative Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX) picked up the unexpected endorsement of GOP-leaning group Club for Growth, and soon after was photographed real friendly-like with Pres. Bush. This spurred the liberal 'roots to pour money into the coffers of his challenger, ex-Rep. Ciro Rodriguez. With it came support from other members of Congress, including Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA), and stepped up support from traditional Dem groups such as the AFL-CIO. Like the blogger-backed OH 02 special election candidacy of Iraq vet Paul Hackett (D), they came very close -- but fell just short. It was a high stakes race for the liberal blogosphere, and there's plenty of reax this a.m. The right is on the smug side, but at least one GOP activist wonders if Dem bloggers' repeated electoral failures will reflect poorly on conservative blog activism as well. The left is trying to be philosophical. After all, this was just one race, and they're trying to build a long-term movement in the mold of the Goldwaterites.
Today we lead with that, lingering in TX briefly to pick up commentary on Rep. Tom DeLay's relatively painless primary win against 3 GOP challengers, then pick up the frustrated reax from lefty bloggers to the Senate Intel Cmte's compromise with the WH on NSA wiretap oversight, reax from all around on Defense Sec. Donald Rumsfeld's comments re: Iraq and increasingly-intertwined Iran. We also touch on a mysteriously disappeared post on an OH GOV campaign blog, a bit of Abramoff-related speculation, and evidence that speculation about the origins of CBS's TANG documents may never go away entirely.
TX 28: Ciro Hour?
TX districts held primaries across the state 3/7, but TX 28 was the main event.
Judging by known traffic levels and the number of comments piling up, Daily Kos was probably the go-to site for people following the election, where founder Markos Moulitsas kept tabs on the developments all night -- here, here, here, here and here.
More dedicated lefty activists headed over to MyDD, where Chris Bowers kept updating with meaty, bullet-pointed homebrew election analysis until 2:30 a.m. -- here, here, here and here.
And the die-hards checked in with the less-trafficked but well-connected Swing State Project, where site founder DavidNYC teamed up with Rodriguez staffer Tracy Joan Russo to blog live from HQ in the San Antonio area -- here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.
Gametime calls:
- Moulitsas, as the evening progressed: "Turnout has been low, but these things always have low turnout. The question is which candidate got a better turnout amongst his supporters. ... Still no results from Webb County, were voting box 'problems' suggest monkey business going on. ... Webb's early voting alone has blown out Ciro. This thing is over. ... This race may actually make the runoff. But even in Bexar, Cuellar gained ground and Ciro lost."
- Bowers, over the same period: "I just did some quick calculations, and I could be way off, but turnout might be as low as 35K. It was 49K in 2004. ... I would like to note that even though Cuellar is up relative to 2004 in all but one of the six counties that have reported early returns so far, he isn't up much. Because it is so close, Cuellar could lose even if he is up everywhere, depending on turnout. ... It's over. The early voting totals were terrible. ... Cuellar is up from his 2004 % in every county except Hayes. This includes several non-Cuellar controlled areas. ... This is so much like OH-02 it is scary. This has fraud attempt written all over it. Notice that I say 'attempt.' Trying to commit fraud and succeeding are different things. ... Man, we should have entered this race earlier. I reported a couple hours ago that we got beat pretty bad in early voting." More: "I'd like to point out that Texas apparently has an open primary system, where Republicans can actually vote in a Democratic primary, and vice versa. ... As someone who has always been an advocate of closed primaries, I submit this election as Exhibit A."
- DavidNYC kicked off early with a photo of a sign saying "Henry Cuellar is a Republican," adding: "Apparently, thanks to the Steelworkers, over a hundred of these signs have sprung up throughout the district overnight." Russo, later: "According to Commissioner's Court sources in Webb County they are unable to report Early Voting because their systems are down. Let's just hope Webb County doesn't wait to see the votes that they need to win before reporting. Locals claimed it has happened before. ... Note: they use touch screen voting." More David NYC: "Okay, this is getting a bit nutty. This SoS page (for TX-28 only) reports 128 precincts. However, this page (which lists all Dem races) says 143 precincts have come in. Which to believe?" Laredo Morning Times reported: "The machine built to read the personal electronic ballots was incorrectly programmed, and as a result the votes must be extracted from flash cards attached to each machine." DavidNYC: "I don't understand that second paragraph at all. The first half of the sentence refers to one machine, singular. The second half refers to multiple machines. What on earth is going on here?" Russo: "In 2004 Webb results didn't come in until the next day. I am headed out of the office now and will check in later."
- Most bloggers following the results turned in before it became clear that Cuellar had pulled above the necessary 50% to avoid a runoff, and Rodriguez's message to online supporters came before that point as well: "As far as I am concerned we are in a run-off. We will be picking up our signs from the polls and re-using them in thirty days. ... I wouldn't be here if I hadn't gotten the support of the online community. It's been overwhelming to see how people can make a difference, and make things happen by coming together, even if it an hour of blockwalking, a few phone calls or $20 and $40 dollars at a time. We must have the final word in who our leadership will be, not the special interests, and we must keep up this fight. ... Thank you from the bottom of my heart for each and every kind word, dollar bill and one cent."
Postgame analysis:
- Jane Hamsher, a big blogosphere fundraiser for Rodriguez, thanks her readers and bloggers in general for "how brave, how inspirational" they had been during the race. She counsels that there is a long road ahead: "It took Rove, Reed, Norquist and the College Republicans 20 years to gain power." And she directs her readers toward her ActBlue fundraising page, "where you can give" to CT Dem challenger Ned Lamont.
- Liberal Tiberius and Gaius Speaking...: "I think we have to describe this as a disappointing result for the netroots. ... I think the post mortem, minus any kind of discussions of fraud in Webb county, will point to what we already know. It is all about the ground game. ... I am beginning to think that there is something fundamentally wrong with Democratic GOTV programs. In close election after close election, we lose when we should have won." More: "I think rather than get into big establishment vs. netroots battles, we should at least be talking about this phenomena as well."
- Right Wing News' John Hawkins goes looking for the most outrageous quotes from posters at dKos: "Judging by what you're about to read from the commenters ... a lot of liberals seem to have come to the conclusion that the VRWC has gotten so good at rigging Presidential elections that they've actually decided to branch out and start stuffing the ballot boxes in Democratic primaries." One he cites: "Apathy and vote rigging. I guess it's time to give up on democracy. We've clearly got unchecked vote rigging (the 'errors' always favor GOP candidates, that's statistically very unlikely)."
- Header at Decision '08: "The (Feeble) Power of the Netroots." In the comments, Fargazmo's Fargus clarifies: "For it to be real impotence, I think, the 'netroots' would have to be a much more widespread, widely known thing. We out here on the interweb tend to forget that there's a huge segment of the population that still doesn't inhabit our world, and makes its decisions irrespective of what's bubbling in the blogosphere." And Pat from Brainster's Blog weighs in: "It doesn't matter yesterday, when there's only one race, but it will matter a great deal in November, when there are 469 +/- races around the country."
- RedState's anonymous GOP strategist Blanton: "Lefty netroots support continues to be the kiss of death and that support is, unfortunately, eroding the credibility of the netroots in general. It should be noted that the right side of the blogosphere has not been as aggressive in building and backing candidates (though [Sens.] Jim DeMint, Tom Coburn, John Thune, and others have seen help), but the right has managed to show itself more in touch with reality. By the way, congrats to the Club for Growth that aggressively pushed Cuellar and saw him win. Well done." RedState's Leon H Wolf puts the dKos candidate win-loss record a "0-19."
- Longtime Kos critic from the Dem side, Tim Russo (no relation, we presume) worries, "this is the crowd coming to our state in the fall," and "like TX-28, most of the people who are going to come play in our sand box have never lived here, never set foot here, never voted here, but will use Ohio as their own ideological purity playground, then leave after they get their jollies, consequences be damned."
- The Club for Growth had made Cuellar the 1st Dem they'd backed, and this a.m. their blogger, Andrew Roth, posted a release from Club pres. Pat Toomey congratulating him: "A united coalition of the biggest mouths and money on the tax-hiking Far Left couldn't defeat Henry Cuellar and his commitment to pro-growth principles."
DELAY: Ten Feet Tall And Bulletproof?
Rep. Tom DeLay's relatively easy victory in his primary didn't get anything like the same kind of attention, and those who mentioned it didn't add much in the way of commentary.
Conservative James Joyner: "DeLay is a master politician who has done well by his constituents for over two decades. It is not inconceivable that Nick Lampson, a conservative Democrat and former Congressman, could beat him in November as details from the Abramoff mess become public. But, despite their low approval ratings elsewhere, Tom DeLay, George W. Bush, and Dick Cheney are still quite popular deep in the heart of Texas." He updated later: "DeLay can still be a jerk, however: 'Before he was driven away from the fundraiser, a reporter asked why he chose to be in Washington. He said: 'Do you know what the Patriot Act is? Have you heard of it? I just voted on it.''" The Sundries Shack: "I'm not a big fan of Tom DeLay, but I must admit that this election result gave me a nice big smile ... not because DeLay won his primary battle but because Ronnie Earle, the hackiest hack prosecutor outside of Elliot Spitzer, is probably having a foam-flecked hissy fit wherever he is right now."
Liberal Brilliant at Breakfast: "I live in New Jersey, and even I'm appalled." But Steve Clemons sees a silver lining: "Tom DeLay has beaten three primary challengers tonight in Texas elections -- and this is actually good news for Democrats who want to run against DC's structural corruption. Frankly, I think it's good news for Republican moderates who want to run against the DeLay faction as well. They need a punching bag and foil -- and Tom DeLay has just given them that."
More from the left -- Daily DeLay writes that DeLay wins, "but not by the margin expected from a sitting incumbent in a Republican leaning district. DeLay remains as vulnerable as people have been saying he is." Panhandle Truth Squad: "We were shocked, shocked!, that Republicans had insisted that they wanted change, wanted to turn the bums out, but had voted for ... Tom Delay." TPRS: "In a primary where something like 7% of registered voters turned out, this represents a victory for the undemanding True Believers, of which there are no shortage in District 22. ... Now it's up to Nick Lampson to put the focus on DeLay and his immoral, unethical and illegal behavior. Get ready for a very interesting race." Rhetoric & Rhythm: "I'm actually glad that he won because I think it will be easier for Nick Lampson to beat him in November than some fresh Republican without the baggage that DeLay has." Truth Serum was at Lampson's primary night party: "This is a great night for Democratic Party here in District 22 and this is going to be one hell of a campaign. Nick Lampson, an honest respectable candidate versus an indicted, corrupt politician. No politics of personal destruction here ... just the God's honest truth."
A number of conservative blogs, including the pro-DeLay Some DeLay-watchers, including Tom DeLay v. the World merely post DeLay's post-election statement, or like the conservative Lone Star Times, merely the actual results.
EAVESDROPPING: Fire And Brimstone Coming Down From The Skies! Rivers And Seas Boiling! Forty Years Of Darkness, Earthquakes, And Volcanos! The Dead Rising From The Grave! Human Sacrifices, Dogs And Cats Living Together! Mass Hysteria!
New York Times reports, Senate GOPers "reached agreement with the White House on proposed bills to impose new oversight but allow wiretapping without warrants for up to 45 days," a move that "dashes" Dem hopes of a full cmte investigation.
Liberal bloggers are not at all happy with the situation -- Steve Soto figures this decision was based on a "reading of the polls": "[F]rankly, the polls on the Dubai ports deal are lopsidedly against the White House, as compared to the roughly 50-50 polling on the NSA spying issue." AMERICAblog: "No matter how much Olympia Snowe tries to spin this, she caved to Bush, again. There really are no Republican Senators who actually stand up to Bush -- and there is NO SUCH thing as a moderate Republican Senator." The Next Hurrah's Emptywheel focuses on the oversight subcmte promised by chair Pat Roberts, tentatively to include "himself, Hatch, Bond, and DeWine" on the GOP side. More: "Hatch and Bond, of course, joined Roberts in his pathetic attack on Joe Wilson in the conclusion of the SSCI Report on Iraq intelligence. They have proven they will put partisanship ahead of truth." As for the Dems, Emptywheel writes: "I wonder whether it wouldn't be more effective to put Russ Feingold, rather than DiFi, on this subcommittee. We need some principle and spine. ... Russ would be just the guy for it." The Intel Cmte sens. had been the subject of a lobbying campaign by left-of-center bloggers, nicknamed the Roots Project (see Blogometer coverage); Vichy Dems promises: We're not done -- not by a long shot" -- and asks readers to return the next day. Atrios labels them a "Republican Criminal Enterprise." Atty Glenn Greenwald: "Could our government be any more broken?" Mark Coffey counts this and the PATRIOT Act renewal as 2 big wins for the Bush admin. "and a failure of leadership for the Democratic Party, which still lacks the backbone to stand for its convictions in an election year for fear of being labelled 'soft' on terror.
Of course, conservative bloggers have a different take. Greenwald having been a leader among bloggers challenging the NSA program, he's a target on the right for bloggers like Confederate Yankee, who quotes him and responds: "In Greenwald's world, 535 members of Congress and the Republican-dominated press are complicit in Chimpy McHitlerburton's grand conspiracy (with the consent of the majority of the ignorant AmeriKKKan sheeple) against Glamourous Glenn and the Forces of Truth. I'm sorry, Glenn, that this reality presents a different picture than the one that you would star in." Alexandra von Maltzan of All Things Beautiful, who has tangled with Greenwald before as well, also links to Greenwald and declares in the header: "The Democrats Declare A National Day Of Mourning." Poli sci prof Steven Taylor finds the deal just adequate: "This strikes me, at first read anyway, as reasonable. As long as there is both adequate oversight of all such activities by courts and the Congress, this is acceptable. I still would like to have seen a more thorough inquiry by the Congress as to what the White House is doing and why they think that they can."
IRAN/IRAQ: Don't Trust The Media ... Trust The Government Instead?
Last p.m. Defense Sec. Donald Rumsfeld and JCS Peter Pace held a presser where they added to previous assertions that Iran is interfering with Iraq, and criticized the media's coverage of the war.
At The Belmont Club, Richard "Wretchard Fernandez notes that "enemy military action ... has always been keyed to support themes being promoted in the press," and predicts: "The 'Iraq is in a state of civil war' lead will continue to be emphasized but attacks may suddenly shift to American troops after a long period of being concentrated upon sectarian targets to create another theme: a Shi'ite insurgency. This plus a clamor to 'bring the boys home' may create a triple wave designed to entirely collapse public support for Operation Iraqi Freedom." Bill Millan warns: "The Media selectively quotes Rumsfeld's Press Conference." And provides a link to the DoD transcript; a number of conservative bloggers do. On a related note, Elephants in Academia contrasts the recent Tom Toles cartoon of "Dr. Rumsfeld" acting callously toward a limbless soldier (see 2/2 and 2/3 Blogometers) with an actual photo of Rumsfeld talking with a soldier who has lost his legs: "I find the straight compositional comparison fascinating. Looking back and forth between them, notice how the relative heights of the two principles have been transposed. And now the soldier is no longer the helpless victim; he's the active figure who engages Rumsfeld. The Secretary's fake doctor's tag has been exchanged for a lift ticket. Setting aside medium for a moment, what a differences these changes make."
Left I on the News is highly dubious of the claims of Iranian bombs being sent into Iraq: "What is wrong with this picture? These bombs were allegedly caught "at the Iran-Iraq border." If that were true, why on earth would you need to resort to obscure 'manufacturing signatures" of "machine-shop welds" to link them to Iran? They were captured at the Iran border! Or so 'they' say." Oliver Willis: "Yes, instead of Rumsfeld showing a little humility for the decisions he's made that have contributed to the loss of 2,500 lives, he's upset with the media for not being more upbeat about the fresh corpses coming in every day draped in U.S. flags." Daily Kos' McJoan: "Here we go again. We're not losing Iraq because of incompetent leadership, because our troops are understaffed and inadequately equipped, or because we went into the damn thing without any plan for finishing it. We're losing it because the media just isn't believing hard enough that we're winning."
Arianna Huffington: "Rumsfeld truly qualified for the absurdist pantheon when he put his media-trashing aside long enough to put the blame for the White House's Iraq troubles squarely where it really belongs: 'I think the biggest problem we've got in the country is people don't study history any more. ... There are just too darn few people in our country who study history enough.' There you have it, America's biggest problem when it comes to Iraq: lousy high school history teachers. Damn them!" Think Progress's Nico Pitney quotes Rumsfeld saying: "I will say this about Iran. They are currently putting people into Iraq to do things that are harmful to the future of Iraq. And we know it." And then Pace, asked whether it's "backed by the government": "I do not know." Pitney: "Confused?" No confusion -- Pitney pulls up Rumsfeld's famous meditation on "known knowns," "known unknowns" and "unknown unknowns," as placed into free verse by Slate in 2/02.
Captain's Quarters notices a Washington Post story about how Iranians are concerned about their govt's push for nuclear power, and comments: Most are now wondering why Iran has been so clumsy in its approach to nuclear research. While most support the sovereignty argument, a growing portion have begun asking why Iran provoked the international community by keeping a nuclear energy program secret and hidden from the IAEA. ... If Iran cannot get more uranium abroad because of its intransigence, then why start the program at all?" But the answer is "rather obvious -- once one stops thinking that Iran wants a peaceful nuclear-energy program. The mullahs have no concerns about the fuel supply because it wants to develop weapons, not generate power. Iran has all the power it needs in its vast oil reserves. That's why the program had to be hidden away from IAEA inspectors."
IN THE STATES: Rumored Attendees Include Sideshow Bob, Dr. Hibbert And Rainier Wolfcastle
The OH UAPA Ohio Politics blog noticed a post on the official blog for GOV candidate Ken Blackwell (R), a photo of him standing in front of a podium labeled "Council on National Policy," found via their RSS feed: "Sounds innocent enough, but I was curious why there was not more promotion of the speech and the group Blackwell was speaking to accompanying the blog post. When I went to Ken Blackwell's Blog, the post had been removed." Noting that the secretive conservative CNP's rules include this line: "The media should not know when or where we meet or who takes part in our programs, before or after a meeting," they add: "Is this the reason the blog post was scrubbed? What is this group, and why is it so determined to avoid the public spotlight?" The CNP entry at Wikipedia explains a bit.
AIR AMERICA: Silent By Spring?
On 3/3, Radio Equalizer's Brian Maloney noted that it appeared liberal talker network Air America was losing WLIB, its flagship NYC station. He wrote: "While the network's last day on WLIB isn't known for certain, an internal source providing backing documentation points to the end of March. At this time, Air America parent Piquant LLC has no firm back-up plan for where in the nation's largest radio market its programming will now air. Some inside the firm are already referring to WLIB in the past tense."Michelle Malkin
quotes from news accounts of Air America's denials by the Post and Sun of NYC, but notices who's "not commenting: Air America's cheerleading team at the New York Times."
ABRAMOFF: Spook-y
Despite the lack of general blogosphere interest, Josh Marshall has kept pushing ahead with the various scandals related to disgraced GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Today he asks: "Let me try an idea out on you. What if" defense contractor Brent Wilkes is "too big to go down? Now, whatever else Wilkes was, he was deep into all sorts of highly classified CIA and other intel agency programs -- and don't be surprised if not just as a 'contractor'. There are even telling signs he may have been involved in some of the administration's more creative domestic intelligence activities. If he's indicted, what might he threaten to reveal? More prosaically, what might his lawyer say he needs to bring into open court in order to be able to defend himself?"
MEMOGATE: Prove This Negative
At GWU's IPDI Politics Online conf. on 3/7, one blog panel included BlogAds' Henry Copeland, Daou Report's Peter Daou, AMERICAblog's John Aravosis and RedState's Mike Krempasky. At Human Events' Right Angle, Robert Bluey recounted, "perhaps the most interesting exchange took place on the topic of Rathergate. Krempasky, who created the website Rathergate.com days after Dan Rather's erroneous report on '60 Minutes,' recounted how bloggers changed the course of history. Judging from the reaction from the crowd, Krempasky was definitely speaking to a liberal audience. In fact, he had to answer his liberal counterparts on the question of whether he was the person who planted the documents. For the record, Krempasky said he had nothing to do with it. ... That didn't stop the conspiracy theories. Aravosis said it's still not out of the realm of possibility that the White House had something to do with it."
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Long Arm Of The Law Overreaches
NJ Assemb. Peter Biondi (R) has introduced a bill targeted at anonymous online bloggers and commenters that would force ISPs to "require any information content provider who posts written messages on a public forum website either to be identified by a legal name and address" and "enable any person to request and obtain disclosure of the legal name and address of an information content provider." Anonymity is a common state of being in the blogosphere, and concerned as many bloggers are, few are genuinely concerned.
Juan Melli at Blue Jersey: "There's one small problem: The NJ Supreme Court ruled that banning anonymous online speech is unconstitutional." More: "This is as ridiculous as it gets, but it displays the total disconnect that many elected officials have with the internet as a medium for speech." Sisyphus Shrugged urges readers to contact his office, in "businesslike" fashion: "I don't expect that the country's major internet providers are going to let this kind of massive increase in their administrative and legal costs go on the books, or that the courts would let it fly if it slipped by them, but get your two cents in anyway."
In fact, most are having fun with it: The Agonist: "What next, will he seek to have Joe Klein give his royalties back for Primary Colors? And will the Economist be forced to have by-lined articles?" PLAN's Daily Plan: "I wonder what's next? The banning of unsigned editorials? Perhaps we should posthumously arrest Publius for writing the Federalist Papers." Kevin Drum: "Of course, if anonymous posters are criminals, then only criminals will be, um, anonymous posters. Or something."
The bill may well go nowhere -- but as political blogs develop, will we see more like this?
LEST WE FORGET: You Gotta Keep 'Em Separated At Birth
Coming soon to a bookstore near you is "Crashing the Gate: Netroots, Grassroots, and the Rise of People-Powered Politics," by lefty blogosphere leaders Markos Moulitsas and Jerome Armstrong. But at Armstrong's MyDD, diarist Malacandra imagines what would happen if "Crashing the Gate" was coming soon to a theater near you.
Moulitsas is pegged as Wilson Cruz from "My So-Called Life," although others insist on Olympic speed skater Apollo Anton Ohno, Matt Damon for Armstrong, Wallace Shawn for Bob Shrum, Fred Willard for Rep. Tom DeLay, Ned Beatty for Karl Rove, and a number of others, including Claire Danes for Rep. Stephanie Herseth and Tom Arnold for MT SEN candidate Jon Tester. Malacandra puts the photos side-by-side, and while in some cases it may be the particular photos chosen -- Hotline's own Last Call! [sub. req.] knows something about arranging proper Separated at Birth sets -- they're all pretty impressive.
Just when things start to calm down, something else always comes up. In recent weeks it's been VP Cheney's hunting accident, the Dubai port deal, the Samarra mosque bombing, and the AP's Katrina videos. Today it's an ABC News report that cites U.S. authorities saying Iran are sending bombs into Iraq to be used against the U.S. and Iraqi forces. Even though that's the biggest story, it's followed closely by other stories. Regarding Iraq itself, debate continues to rage over whether Iraq is in a "civil war" or not. The argument looks quite a bit like the one over whether Iraq is a "quagmire." That debate has never been properly resolved, and unless things move dramatically one way or the other, this one probably has some legs, too. Meanwhile, the SCOTUS's ruling on gays in the military gets a great deal of attention, as does Gov. Mike Rounds' (R) decision to sign a bill banning nearly all abortions in SD. Plus, the The New York Times story on bloggers we mentioned yesterday is now out, the U.S. military has apparently banned Wonkette, the UNC-Chapel Hill attack continues to draw speculation, and we bring you our latest Blogger Spotlight.
IRAN: Has He Lost His Mind? Can He See Or Is He Blind? Can He Walk At All, Or If He Moves Will He Fall?
ABC News' Brian Ross reports, "U.S. military and intelligence officials tell ABC News that they have caught shipments of deadly new bombs at the Iran-Iraq border" -- bombs with "tell-tale manufacturing signatures ... indicating they are built by the same bomb factory." To the right-blogosphere, which gives the report a great deal of attention, it sounds like war. To the left-blogosphere, ABC's report sounds suspect.
Conservative Patterico's Pontifications: "Skeptical? I was cautiously skeptical myself. But even [ex-WH counterterrorism adviser/Bush critic] Richard Clarke is convinced." More: "The phrase 'Richard Clarke, Bush Administration shill' doesn't have the ring of truth ... which strongly suggests there is something to this. It feels like an act of war to me." Dave Price at Dean's World tends to agree: "I don't know what else you could call this, if it's true." Confederate Yankee: "I am not a legal expert, but I think it is clear that when a nation chooses to participate in warfare against another nation, that participation is nothing less conscious and calculated than a formal declaration of war."
Header at Captain's Quarters: "Iran Gives US A Casus Belli, If We Want It." Riehl World View wants it, heading a post: "It's Time For War With Iran." More: "The reality is that a state of war between the US and Iran already exists. Unfortunately, for too long now, only one side has been fighting." Kobayashi Maru considers a 2/17 NRO column by AEI's Michael Ledeen suggesting that Iran is looking ahead to something happening on 4/8, and suspects "something military is going to go down vis a vis Iran before the end of March." The Sundries Shack is not surprised, but less sure it will mean war: "Looks like the Mullahs finally got caught red-handed. Despite my desire that we let a few Tomahawks fly, I don't think you'll be seeing any sort of military action against Iran, though. Thanks to the Quisling Democrats and their persistent drive to destroy the Bush presidency, it's going to be painfully easy to cast doubt on this discovery."
Conservative Hyscience writes, "One would think that by now, even the Islamo-appeasers such as the liberal left, their media, and their academe would have recognized the global threat of radical Islam and their obsession to rule the world. But if they haven't got it by now, why don't they open their ears to the words of the Islamists themselves" -- he links to a Russian news source quoting Ahmadinejad as saying: "The world will be in the hands of Islam over the next few years."
Power Line's Scott Johnson points out there were news stories in the New York Times, BBC and CNN "that anticipate the ABC report."
But liberal NewsHog points to the same BBC report as a reason why this story is "actually old news from way back in October last year": "Back then, the British media were full of the accusations that improved IED's using motion detectors as triggers were being sent to Iraq from Iran." But the story died when it was "discovered that the new, deadly IED's were using a British design that had been stupidly given to the IRA by British intelligence and then passed around various terror groups the IRA were allied with. Major egg on faces -- story dropped." AMERICAblog's John Aravosis remains skeptical as well: "You have got to be kidding. Suddenly after 3 years we conveniently find 'evidence' of Iran arming the Iraqi insurgents, only a mere weeks after Bush starts laying the groundwork for attacking Iran. Gee, how convenient is that. This is EXACTLY how they led us into Iraq under false pretenses." On the other hand, The Heretik includes it in a good-sized list of other things going wrong in Iraq.
Lefty Dadahead responds to CQ's "casus belli" post: "Putting aside the fact that the only evidence for the accusation is the assurances of U.S. officials, it should be kept in mind that the U.S. has been conducting reconnaissance missionsinside Iran for some time now, which itself could be seen as an act of war and thus a casus belli for Iran to attack the United States. But we all know that the U.S. plays by its own rules."
IRAQ: What's In A Name?
Another ABC News report, this one by Jake Tapper, quotes a ret. Army general asserting that the situation in Iraq is indeed a civil war.
AMERICAblog's Aravosis was skeptical of the Iran report, but not this one: "Well, I hope Bush and the Republicans are proud of what they've created. We are on the path of the worst case scenario of what could happen if Saddam were removed from power. A full blown civil war and the country falls apart. And before Bush tells us that no one could have predicted it, I learned about this scenario in graduate school." NRO's Stephen SpruiellNathan Goulding quotes ret. Army Maj. Gen. William Nash from Tapper's article saying: "We're in a civil war now; it's just that not everybody's joined in." And disputes the assertion: "Doesn't civil war require the participation of a large portion of the population? According to U.S. reports, several hundred people have been killed in post-mosque attacks. In December, 8.5 million Iraqis cast their votes in the elections." The Mahablog: "Good thing Bush wasn't president in 1861, huh?"
In 3 posts at Spot On -- see one, two, three -- ex-RedStater Josh Trevino reconsiders his support for the Iraq war: "The bombing of the Shi'a al Askari mosque in Samarra and its aftermath have altered the war there sufficiently so that we may now consider it a different war than that in which we were previously engaged." He sees 3 total wars -- against the Baathists, against the insurgents, and now the civil war. He concludes: "We went to Iraq for the best of reasons. I believe that. I believe the mission was moral and achievable one. But it is as I wrote: I was wrong to think that the Administration of George W. Bush was competent to act upon any of the given beliefs. As we look into the abyss, we are forced to remember that someone had to dig it."
Mohammed of Baghdad-based Iraq the Model shares a conversation with his father, who thinks the situation will "further escalate": "People find solutions only if they wanted to and I think many of the political players do not want a solution." At Political Animal, Kevin Drum focuses on what Mohammed's father thinks could cause that escalation: "Virtually anything... assassinating a leader, a fatwa, attack on a shrine like last time; we do not possess the institutions that can abolish the effects of severe sentimental reactions." Drum: "So even diehard supporters of the American invasion agree: a single new incident could touch off full-scale civil war in Iraq. Got it. Now, what are the odds there won't be another incident?"
Even before Drum's post went up, Washington Post was reporting that the top commander of the Iraqi army in Baghdad had been killed by insurgents. Other left-leaning bloggers picked up on it fast. Like plenty of other lefty bloggers, Anything They Say puts these latest developments alongside recent optimistic statements by JCS Peter Pace and Gen. George Casey. On 6/5, PTCruiser dismissed Pace's "Meet the Press" assessment thus: "Perhaps they've extended the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy to include hallucinogenic drug use." State of the Day files it under "Last Throes -- Update."
Jim Robbins at The Corner: "Some large Sunni tribes in have declared war on al Qaeda. The resistance, they say, should be an Iraqi-only affair. 'All those who offer shelter to terrorists will be treated like terrorists,' they add. Tell me again why the media thinks Zarqawi is making progress?"
Over the weekend, Power Line's John Hinderaker wrote a post titled "Is Murtha Nuts?", saying of Rep. John Murtha's (D-PA) 3/5 "Face The Nation" apperance: "It's rather remarkable that a sitting United States Congressman would play so fast and loose with the facts, especially in the context of accusing [JCS Peter Pace] of being a liar. Pretty much every 'fact' that Murtha hysterically tossed out is wrong." Think Progress's Judd Legum writes: "Hinderaker then proceeds to 'fact check' Murtha's appearance, which for him seems to mean using words like 'absurd' and 'unbelievable.' But actually, it's Hinderaker who, with remarkable consistency, gets it wrong." It doesn't end there, of course. Riehl World View's Dan Riehl rebuts Legum's rebuttal of Hinderaker's rebuttal of Murtha, saying: "Sadly, either Judd at Think Progress can't read, or he's more likely intentionally manipulating his source materials in a fairly sad attempt at fisking Powerline." Meanwhile, Hinderaker himself responded: "One of the dimmest of the dimwitted left-wing web sites has tried to respond to this post. ... Sadly, I think a great many liberals are this stupid." And finally, for now, Legum responds: "In my experience, when you respond to criticism with a string of insults it usually means you have a really strong argument." He does credit Riehl World View for "a far more substantive rebuttal than Hinderaker."
SCOTUS: Solomon's Key
The SCOTUS ruled unanimously 3/6 on Rumsfeld v. FAIR in support the Solomon Amendment, requiring Yale law and other schools to allow ROTC military recruiters on-campus or lose federal funding. Yale argued that Solomon prevented them from exercising their freedom of speech -- many schools object to the ban on gays serving in the military -- but the SCOTUS did not agree with that interpretation. SCOTUSblog goes in-depth: "Today's decision is much more in keeping with PruneYard (which it favorably cites) than with PG&E and Dale. Together with Johans, it shows that the Court is cutting back on some of the excesses of its compelled-speech doctrine."
Univ. WI-Madison law prof Ann Althouse is quite impressed: "I want to express my deepest thanks to Chief Justice [John] Roberts for gathering the Justices onto one clearly written opinion. There is no blather or hedging in the prose. He has obviously taken great pains to put every sentence in plain English. He deals with all the precedents, handling most of the cases in one or two crisp sentences. You may not appreciate how beautiful this thinking and writing is, but I do, and I think generations of law students will."
Left-leaning Publius of Legal Fiction generally agrees with Roberts (and Althouse), but dislikes the part where Roberts wrote: "Congress' power to regulate military recruiting under the Solomon Amendment is arguably greater because universities are free to decline the federal funds." Publius comments: "The idea is that attaching conditions to federal spending is less coercive than directly requiring people to act in a certain way. While I agree that this practice might be less coercive, it's still coercive." WSJ online columnist James Taranto: "Will any institution of higher education respond to the Rumsfeld ruling by declining to accept federal funds? The answer to that question will show us all how much those principles are worth."
Self-described gay conservative Andrew Sullivan agrees with the decision itself, but adds: "On the substantive matter, I appreciate the efforts of many in universities to highlight and expose the stupidity and bigotry of the military's ban on openly gay service members. But we are at war, and the gap between military and elite culture needs bridging, not widening. Let them recruit; and let others debate. And, for Pete's sake, let's change this dumb policy." Liberal Mustang Bobby concurs: "Aside from the shameful nature of this policy on its face, it has also hampered our actual war efforts. It makes you wonder what's more important to the Department of Defense: defending our nation or making a bunch of right-wing homophobes happy."
ROE V. WADE: Coming A-Rounds Again?
SD Gov. Mike Rounds (R) has now signed the legis. bill banning abortion in all cases except to save the life of the mother; bloggers on the left make their opposition clear in no uncertain terms. Conservatives, even pro-life ones, are a bit more circumsepct.
Atrios: "It's time for more men to understand that getting rid of legal abortion increases by quite a lot the chance that one drunk evening will lead to 18 years of child support payments. Alternatively, it decreases the chance that they'll get laid." Jane Hamsher recalls Dem consultant Steve Elmendorf describing Dems as essentially an ATM, for which he got slammed (see 1/30 Blogometer): "These totals speak in a language so simple even Elmendorf can understand it -- if candidates want to harness our energy and our money, they better have their pro-choice credentials in order. [PA Dem candidate] Bob Casey need not apply." A commenter at Alas, a blog considers: "This strikes me as a really quandary for South Dakota doctors. Say you have a patient with eclampsia complicated by other factors (a heart condition, diabetes, etc.) How much can you cover your ass in terms of risking a felony conviction? On the other hand, if you wait it out and your patient dies when you could have intervened, can't you still be sued by the woman's parents or husband for malpractice?"
Conservative Ed Morrissey: "The anti-Roe activists are playing with fire; a loss at the Supreme Court could reinforce the precedent even further. However, it is clear that this battle will have to be fought at some point, and they're betting that this court will at least be open to the argument that Roe has no basis in law or constitution and should be voided. Let's hope the court can at least agree on that much." La Shawn Barber asks her readers to "Put on your thinking caps: 1) For 'pro-choice' readers, your assignment is to demonstrate how the Supreme Court will respond to Governor Rounds's challenge of Roe based on the decision itself and the Constitution. ... 2) For pro-life readers, based on Roe and the Constitution, lay out your argument supporting the ban on abortion and how you might defend it before the Supreme Court. Materials: Roe v. Wade and the Constitution." Martin's Musings: "What these laws will do, however, is magnify the public debate over the next two years and force Presidential candidates from both parties to take a stand. ... As a result, both Democrat and Republican voters will want an unambiguous abortion position from each candidate."
BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Babaro At The Gates
The New York Times report on blogs, PR and Wal-Mart by Michael Barbaro we mentioned on 3/6 is now out, and it's a bit bigger of a story than yesterday. Barbaro starts by quoting conservative Brian Pickrell of Iowa Voice criticizing Wal-Mart critics, then adding: "It was the kind of pro-Wal-Mart comment the giant retailer might write itself. And, in fact, it did."
At Iowa Voice, Pickrell responds: "I think he's referring to this post. You can read all my Wal-Mart related postings by going to this category. You be the judge. As I explained in my previous posts, I get a ton of email from a bunch of different sources. If I run a post specifically using information contained within an email, I will say so (you can see numerous instances of this being the case). Likewise, if I quote somebody or something, it's in a quote box. That's how blogs work (apparently, he didn't understand that)." For what it's worth, if the sentence Barbaro quotes came from the PR agency or Wal-Mart, that sentence definitely is presented as Pickrell's own writing. Later, Pickrell adds: "ust to clarify, I did use the line in question at the beginning of the piece. That I don't deny. But one, I didn't get that from [Edelman's] Marshall Manson, that was forwarded to me from another blogger and two, it doesn't change the fact that he's trying to say, in effect, that I took what was given to me by Wal-Mart or its PR people and printed it. That is blatantly false." PunditGuy's Bill Nienhus is also mentioned and quoted in the article, and he follows up with his own defense/explanation. Marquette Warrior, another player, wasn't impressed with the piece: "It's not as grossly unfair as one might expect. But it makes way too much of a very few bloggers who simply cut and pasted from Marshall Manson's e-mails."
Conservative Don Luskin is less than impressed by the story: "What... so unions, and everybody else who tries to get the mainstream media to tell its story isn't doing exactly the same thing? And what... when the Times writes a story stimulated or influence by a PR flack, it's supposed to be disclosed? Of course not -- so what's different in this case -- that it's Wal-Mart (the evil Wal-Mart!) or that it's bloggers?" James Joyner is annoyed that although the Times links to Instapundit in the online version, it doesn't link to the post being criticized: "Who the hell is Brian Pickrell? What blog does he write? Where’s the link to those posts? (Twenty-one paragraphs into the piece, we learn that Pickrell is the author of Iowa Voice, but are not given his URL or links to any posts.)" There are links to at least the front page of blogs mentioned in the story in a sidebar, but not the posts in question.
Centrist Jeff Jarvis: "First, I suggest you read the story and substitute the name of your local newspaper for any reference to bloggers." He advises bloggers to mention the fact if they get some info from a PR agency, adding that they "will be way ahead of the press" if they do: "Reporters do not tell you about the meetings, lunches, drinks, and help given them by flacks." Lefty Duncan Black agrees: "Unless I'm missing something this New York Times article is just another stab at holding bloggers to ethical standards and practices which don't apply anywhere else in the universe. ... I'm not defending all astro turfing practices or its practitioners, and there are certainly ethical issues that can be raised. But 'Wal Mart PR guy reaches out to bloggers' just isn't much of a story. PR people reach out to me all the time. So what."
DEMOCRATS: Can Hillary-Hate Be Halted?
At MyDD, Chris Bowers admonishes many of the site's readers/commenters for what he sees as knee-jerk hatred of Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY): "I am generally an optimist who believes that you can engage just about anyone online in a reasonable discussion. However, whenever I bring up Hillary, I honestly can't believe how many idiotic progressives there are who will clearly stop at nothing in order to assist the long-term Republican goal of making sure that no potential Democratic leader has a favorable image nationwide. I am absolutely flabbergasted by the level of stupidity and denial of reality who many progressive who trash Hillary Clinton in particular. ... I honestly think I am reading FreeRepublic sometimes when she comes up." Bowers says that while he personally wouldn't work for her in the primaries, he is afraid other Dems will become "exactly the same as DLC losers like From or Reed who happily repeat Republican lies about Howard Dean. If you can't recognize that, then you will do nothing but drag the progressive movement further down the festering rat-hole that we seem to perpetually find our electoral fortunes mired in. If you can't recognize that, I will also tell you, now that we are only eight months out from the start of the primary season, that I don't want you coming within several miles of making a comment or writing a diary on MyDD. This is one blog where Republican narratives will never be reified." 100+ comments follow, and quite a few disagree.
Centrist Joe Gandelman: A significant problem is that "there are several views of what the Democratic party should be" -- those on the left who want to "accentuate differences between the two parties so party members have a reason to get out and vote," and those in the middle who say Dems "must appeal more to the center to siphon off some disgruntled GOP votes and independents. ... The Democrats' two present dominant factions seem direct descendants of the old Vietnam-era George McGovern anti-war faction and Scoop Jackson support-the-war factions. Yet, even that explanation is too simplistic: polls show an increasing number of Americans are turning against the war. So perhaps this split will eventually morph into intra-party differences over defense issues in general." He concludes: "The GOP's biggest problem right now is the Bush administration's controversial policies and tepid and often incompetent performance; the Democrats' biggest problem right now seems to be themselves."
The Washington Post, like the New York Times a day earlier, has a story on the Dems' mixed situation heading into '06. Susie Madrak identifies part of the problem as Dems' poor marketing skills: "Liberals think marketing is beneath them, and 'yucky' unless it's wrapped in a doctoral thesis. They've forgotten how to talk to civilians (that is to say, non-wonks) and it's beneath them to learn. You know what I noticed about [George] Lakoff's book ["Don't Think of an Elephant"]? He identifies the problem, but the replacement slogans he comes up with simply suck."
TERRORISM: Isn't He Obviously A Closet Dukie?
Right-leaning bloggers continue to debate the case of UNC-Chapel Hill grad Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, an Iranian-born Muslim, who plowed an SUV into a crowd on the campus last week (see 3/6 Blogometer). Is it terrorism? Some say yes, some say no, and others aren't sure.
Athena at Terrorism Unveiled visited the campus to do some on-the-scene reporting: "After speaking with someone who knew Taheri-Azar, a little bit more interesting details come into view. The guy I spoke with said Taheri-azar pledged his fraternity, Sig Ep, and that the frat "blackballed" him, meaning kicked him out because he was such a recluse and antisocial. ... To me, his behavior pattern squares with empirical evidence (see Sageman) of the path other jihadists have taken. Social misfit, not extremely poor, well-educated, and a past involving drinking and drugs. ... Taheri-azar isn't a big deal because he planned and executed poorly, but he does make us ask 'what if?'" -- Chapel Hill prof Cori Dauber: "My position is that one sentence does not constitute sufficient evidence, that we need to know more, that we need more evidence regarding motive. You know, we seem to have gotten a bit more evidence regarding motive" -- she links to a WRAL report where Taheri-azar said he wanted to "punish the government of the United States for [its] actions around the world" -- and Dauber adds: "I would have to say the scales are starting to tip in a particular direction."
Andrew Cochran at The Counterterrorism Blog takes a counter position: "The cable news networks and some of my favorites blogs are in danger of trivializing real terrorism by trumpeting the case of the University of North Carolina graduate student from Iran, who tried to run down students to 'avenge the deaths of Muslims around the world.'" And emphatically adds, "no real terrorist turns himself in on a 911 emergency call!!!"
Either way, Mary Katherine Ham calls it a "very big story": "Attempted murder with an SUV on a popular campus quad is a big story even if it's not a terrorist act. Why's everyone being so quiet about this one? It was not mentioned during TV coverage of the UNC/Duke game Saturday night (carried on EVERY SINGLE ESPN channel), despite the fact that it happened just the day before."
LABOR: Fahrenheit AFL-CIO
NAM's Pat Cleary gives a shout out to UnionFacts.com -- "they are like a terrier with a bone when it comes to the AFL-CIO." He notes that the AFL-CIO held their mid-winter meeting at a hotel in San Diego involved in a labor dispute: "Apparently the Carpenter's Union has a running dispute with the Del Coronado, so the UnionFacts sleuths saw the picket line, and a hotel full of union chiefs. Hmmmm.... You don't think they ignored the picket line, do you? Can you say, 'double standard'? So much for solidarity."
At TPMCafe, labor consultant Frank Joyce focuses on UnionFacts.com founder Richard Berman, whom Business Week recently called "kind of like a Michael Moore for businessmen." Joyce concedes Berman's launch gimmick -- a giant inflatable dinosaur outside the AFL-CIO's DC HQ -- was "kind of clever," but argues Berman has ulterior motives: "If unions are extinct, how could anyone raise one nickel to fight them? ... Berman is a stone cold hustler and con man. When it comes to unions, a lot of employers do think like three year olds. So, for the combination of money and sport that Berman seems to like, there are plenty of suckers out there for the taking."
PENTAGON: The Republican Guard
Wonkette updates on a previous post, which cited a reader saying that the Marines blocked access to the gossip site. "The hyperbolic Call to Arms tone of the original post was just that -- hyperbole. We even got emails from US Military spokespeople kindly explaining that soldiers and marines are allowed to check their email ... and we were going to tell everyone to calm down, etc. etc." But the original e-mailer writes back, listing sites that are banned and those that aren't. Banned: Wonkette, Air America, Al Franken, and the Don & Mike Show. OK: Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, ABC's The Note, and G. Gordon Liddy. "And, uh, now we're just a wee bit suspicious. And even more upset than before, actually -- they're making them read the goddam Note? No f----- wonder 72% of 'em want to get the hell out of there." Daily Kos' Hunter: "Quite the standards, there. Color me shocked that they're allowing Republicans to use uniformed troops as props at campaign events, in direct and unambiguous violation of military rules."
MIDTERMS: Have You Polled A Ford Lately?
At RedState, Memphis-based J.A. Davis lists Rep. Harold Ford's (D-TN) negatives as "He's a Democrat," "He's from Memphis" and "He's the biggest star from a notoriously corrupt political family." He adds: "I believe Ford is an honest man who has been dealt a bad hand of cards. What is worse is that he's not playing them well either. He's giving up a free, unopposed House seat for nothing." More: "Tennessee will remain in the GOP column, and Ford will need to look for a job. I suggest he run for Mayor of Memphis in 2007. Mayor [Willie] Herenton is wildly unpopular and was elected when I was in the fifth grade (1991)." Looking at the Rasmussen poll showing losing to all 3 SEN GOPers, Alexander McClure at Polipundit bets: "It looks like the GOP will have little trouble holding the open Senate seat in Tennessee."
Josh Marshall notes that MZM pres. Mitchell Wade -- a key figure in the Jack Abramoff scandals and now a problem for FL SEN candidate/Rep. Katherine Harris (R) -- "was also the registered agent for something called the 'Iranian Democratization Foundation.' The date of registration was in April 2004 and it's now 'dissolved.' What's it all about? Your guess is as good as ours. But we're looking into it."
BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: MattDD
Today the Blogometer talks to liberal Matt Stoller, who contributes to MyDD. In '05 he ran the official blog for Gov. Jon Corzine's (D-NJ) campaign.
What is your full name?
Matt Stoller
What is your age?
28
Where did you grow up?
Miami, FL
Where do you live now?
DC
What is your occupation? Have you ever worked on a political campaign or for the mainstream media?
I am a full-time blogger in DC. I have worked for both campaigns and in the traditional media.
When did you start blogging and why?
I started in 2002 because I was bored at work and increasingly angry about politics.
What has been your favorite post, or favorite story to write about, in that time?
I enjoyed writing about the conventions.
Describe your typical blogging schedule. And what is your average output?
I write when I have something to say. That often means one or two posts a day, but it could be more or less depending on whether I have anything to add about the political environment.
Who is your favorite political blogger? Favorite non-political blogger?
Political blogger: Digby. Non-political blogger: Go Fug Yourself.
Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?
Paul Krugman
What is your favorite television news program, either network or cable?
"The Colbert Report"
What MSM-produced websites (i.e. newspapers, magazines) do you visit on a daily basis?
I like the Inside Edge from PoliticsNJ, the Hotline blog, The Fix from the Washington Post.
What non-MSM websites (i.e. blogs) do you visit on a daily basis?
Atrios, Daily Kos, Firedoglake, Digby, Political Wire.
How often, or do you ever, read a newspaper in its dead-tree (i.e. print) form?
Once every couple of weeks.
How do you see the new media and old media affecting and influencing each other in the next five years?
Well I'm not sure, because a lot depends on the funding streams. Getting good information is expensive. It just is, ask any scientist. Getting entertaining opinion is cheap. Yet the system compensates based on smooth bland opinionating, and so that's what is prioritized. It would be easy to say that there are two parallel systems, one that is MSM and one that is blogs, and they are fighting or they are complementary. The reality is that this analysis is facile and does not hold up. It's unfair to journalists and bloggers who spend their time digging up good information, and it's unfair to the punditocracy who are left accountable to nothing except cocktail party gossip and a royal courtier mentality.
Ultimately how media develops is a political question, not one of markets or business. As far as I can tell, neither Fox News nor MSNBC is profitable (cash flow positive, possibly, but neither has recouped initial investments). So there's a logic to their existence that goes beyond the 'free market'. There's no accountability there as far as I can tell, and that was true before blogs.
Do Tim Russert and Chris Matthews take massive speaking fees from trade associations? Do journalists/pundits/bloggers still aspire to eschew genuine expertise in favor of appearing on television? Is there a revenue model for local blogging? I don't know the answer to any of these questions. It just seems to me that there's a payola/accountability issue here that is largely unexplored because in one form or another, exploring it threatens the livelihood of those around you. Whether we address these important questions over the next five years will largely determine what happens to both internet and non-internet based media. A media system is only as honest as its moral underpinning and commitment to accountability.
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Not To Be Controversial Or Anything, But Let's Talk Race, Religion And Politics
A forthcoming article by Washington Monthly's Amy Sullivan on how Dems might attract more evangelical Christians, "When Would Jesus Bolt?" is already getting attention from the left and right. At Crooked Timber, Kieran Healy writes: "First, when political commentators talk about wooing the evangelical or conservative Christian base, they typically mean -- but do not say -- that they're talking about white conservatives. African-American Christians may look similar on theological issues like the veracity of the Bible, but they vote Democratic." He posts data (from an also-forthcoming book) showing the voting tendencies according to race and religion, pointing out: "African-Americans with conservative views on the Bible are more likely to vote Democratic than those who think it's just a bunch of stories." And he adds, "while it's clear that white conservative Christians lean heavily towards Republicans, the swing in some cases isn't as large as you would think. More than a third of white conservative christians who profess the literal truth of the Bible still vote Democratic."
LEST WE FORGET: Anvils For Dinner
Looking a bit like Tony Millionaire and feeling a bit like Max Cannon, we note the apperance of a new surrealist web comic, Married to the Sea, by the married creators of Toothpaste for Dinner and Natalie Dee. For the couple weeks it's been up, we've really liked goat fight and anvils for christmas -- but you can't go wrong with today's word up.
There's a lot of Oscar talk this morning, which (it should be no surprise) we're not covering. But the weekend did bring some interesting stories separate from the major stories of the past week. One in particular was a development in last week's widely-reported AP story about how Pres. Bush was warned about possible levee breaches -- the AP issued a late Friday correction which essentially retracted the article; conservative bloggers have been all over it, but the left hasn't said a thing. What animated them at virtually the same time was a letter from Senate Maj. Leader Bill Frist indicating that he could move to change the structure of the Senate Intel Cmte; the cmte is about to vote on whether to investigate the NSA wiretap program. Likewise, if conservatives have had much to say about it, we couldn't find it.
On a smaller scale, pro-Wal Mart bloggers are pre-empting a coming New York Times article about a PR agency sending them tips; the article will presumably portray it in a negative light, so the bloggers get their word in first. Bush's bad poll numbers get batted around, there's mutual antagonism between Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) adviser Dan Gerstein and the top lefty blogs. Plus, last week, Rep. Jack Kingston's (R-GA) office organized an event to promote blogging on the Hill, where the guest list included one Stephen Colbert.
EAVESDROPPING: Who Are The Plumbers Around Here, Mario And Luigi?
On 3/7, the Senate Intel Cmte holds a vote on whether to open hearings on the NSA wiretap program, and as we noted on 3/3, lefty bloggers have been putting pressure on moderate GOP cmte members to vote for the probe. And late last week, Frist and Min. Leader Harry Reid exchanged letters.
Glenn Greenwald points out that the substance of Frist's letter is a threat to "fundamentally change the 30-year-old structure and operation" of the Intel Cmte, which is the only Senate cmte run in a bipartisan fashion. Writes Greenwald: "Yet again, Republicans are threatening to radically change long-standing rules for how our government operates all because they cannot manipulate the result they want." In an update, he points out that AP story about the exchange of letters "never even mentions" Frist's threat.
Firedoglake's ReddHedd puts the letter up against a statement by Frist in 11/03, where Frist extolled the cmte's "nonpartisan tradition" to his letter this weekend, where Frist notes his interest in "restructuring the Committee so that it is organized and operated like most Senate Committees." Scott Shields: "They are so scared of accountability that they're willing to go to extreme lengths to avoid it, both for themselves and for their President." Laura Rozen: "The United States Congress as a co-equal branch of government, RIP."
Relatedly, Crooks and Liars posts video of ex-WH adviser David Gergen on CNN's "Reliable Sources" comparing the Bush admin. unfavorably with the Nixon admin. on secrecy issues. Liberal bloggers link approvingly and without much comment; conservative Dan Riehl pushes back: "The reality is that at no time in our history, including during the Nixon presidency, has the press ever undertaken such a bold and biased attempt to discover and reveal classified information the sitting administration had, not only the right, but the good judgment to try and keep secret. You cannot fight a war against the likes of propaganda savvy Al Qaeda and the obstructionist ACLU when the American headlines are feeding the fires of anti-war and anti-America propagandists." Meanwhile, Power Line argues that the New York Times' reporting on the NSA's al Qaeda is a felony under 18 U.S.C. section 798.
As the Washington Post reports that the WH
Centrist Joe Gandelman writes, "you have to conclude that the motive here is, at best, mixed: to protect national security info but also to clamp a tight lid on things the administration might be doing that are embarrassing, politically damaging or might possibly cross a line."
KATRINA: When The Levee Story Breaks
Late on 3/3 the AP released a correction to its mid-week story about Bush having been warned about possible Katrina flooding. Conservative bloggers had argued that the AP had confused levee "breaching" with levee "overtopping," and the correction agreed with the assessment. Media-savvy as bloggers tend to be, many of them see the timing as a way for AP to bury the bad news.
Mickey Kaus, a left-leaning contrarian who often lines up with the right, asks: "How much of the AP drive to over-sell its video was driven by a powerful business impulse -- to become something of a first mover, or at least a presence, in the Internet-video news business? At transition points, like the one we're now in, having a big scandalous story can do a lot to put you on the map." The correction said: "The story should have made clear that Bush was warned about floodwaters overrunning the levees, rather than the levees breaking." Generation Why? finds this inadequate: "Excuse me? If the AP had 'been more clear' that Bush wasn't actually lying, there would have been no story to write about in the first place." Brainster's Blog writes, "as usual, stuff like this backfires on the media; the Washington Post, duped by the original, runs with an editorial today" based on the mistaken AP story. Power Line's John Hinderaker assumes partial credit for getting AP to run the correction, but laments: "The correction (or 'clarification') will never catch up to most of the tens of millions of people who heard the original story. The news business is all about impressions, and corrections, days after the fact, never take away the impression that the original story falsely created."
Captain's Quarters compares it to Memogate/Rathergate from WH'04 in the abstract: "Any editor who actually reviewed the video or read the transcripts would have immediately realized that no one talked about levee breaches at all. This vaunted system of editors and fact-checking at Exempt Media outlets failed yet again, and yet again the hack job that emerged was intended to damage George Bush." Earlier, Wizbang located a connection to the CBS memo scandal in the details -- AP's Margaret Ebrahim was previously a producer on "60 Minutes II," though there is no evidence to suggest she worked on the Bush/TANG story. More recently, Wizbang's Kevin Aylward points out that the AP's policy is to issue "corrections" and not use euphemisms, but in fact this correction is headlined "Clarification: Katrina-Video story." He adds: "So they violated that principle with the first word of their release..."
At Huffington Post, Harry Shearer disagrees about the importance of the distinction: "[T]hose two terms have been confused for months, ever since the Army Corps of Engineers first reported that the cause of the flooding of New Orleans was the overtopping of levees. We later learned that the 17th St. floodwall had breached, and later independent forensic analysis showed that it had never been overtopped. But the confusion was situational: while the 17th St. floodwall breached, other levees in the area, to the east, were overtopped."
BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Barbaro The Elephant In The Room
Hinted at by Instapundit late last week and broken in a blog post by mid-tier conservative blog Marquette Warrior, New York Times' Michael Barbaro apparently has a forthcoming piece on how Edelman PR consultant Marshall Manson (a co-founder of On Tap) has been sending tips to bloggers that are favorable to Edelman client Wal-Mart. Philly Inquirer's Daniel Rubin characterizes it as "some bloggers have been cut-and-pasting copy from pr agencies that are working to improve Wal-Mart's image." RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh says that he is one of those bloggers, and says there's nothing untoward going on: "The whole of my reaction to the e-mails has consisted of taking links to stories that interested me and were passed on to me, and writing whatever I wanted in terms of commentary concerning those stories. At no time whatsoever was I asked to write or follow a script of some kind, and at no time whatsoever would I have complied if someone had offered me a script to follow." James Joyner interprets the impetus for the piece being that Barbaro is "apparently steamed that he is getting slammed by some bloggers for glaring mistakes and undisguised bias."
BUSH: George W. Carter
A Washington Post op-ed by Emory poli sci prof Alan Abramowitz goes into why Bush's poll numbers are so low -- he argues it's about a demonstrated lack of competence. Right-leaning poli sci prof Steven Taylor thinks there's something to it, and lists several issues which might contribute: Harriet Miers, response to Katrina, cong. spending, the Dubai port deal, and the ongoing war in Iraq. He adds, "the Carter comparison has, for the moment (and perhaps longer), a certain resonance." Donkey Rising, to which Abramowitz contributes: "Abramowitz makes a compelling case that competence could be the pivotal issue in upcoming elections, and his article is highly recommended to Democratic strategists at all levels." Mad as Hell: "More and more Americans are opening their eyes and seeing clearly, for the first time, what an incompetent ass their preznit is. Now if we could get the rest of the country off the Kool Aid..." Jonathan Singer at MyDD: "Anyone still believe the Democrats have no shot at picking up two or three House seats in Indiana this fall?"
REPUBLICANS: Kingston Of Comedy
As we mentioned last Friday, Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) sponsored a conf. on blogging for spokespersons of fellow GOP cong. members. Kingston himself posted about it on his official blog
Bloggers who participated on the panel wrote follow-ups: Suitably Flip: "There's a formidable blogward movement afoot among Republican legislators, which could have exciting implications." Human Events Online's Robert Bluey: "Kingston, a blogger himself, not only deserves credit for embracing this new medium, but also for making sure other Hill staffers utilize it." Mary Katherine Ham: "I don't envy the staffers. It's not an easy job. Getting a Congressman to see that there is a world beyond the safe, static press release is a challenge. Once you start telling him that world can include debate and disagreement-- woo, it's all downhill. The blogosphere is a place where messages get molded and tossed around and sometimes beaten to a pulp. It's boot camp for political messages." National Journal's Danny Glover, who participated in another panel, made a similar observation: "The questions asked by the press secretaries were the most enlightening part of the conversation. My favorite was this: Is there an expectation of engaging in debate if lawmakers start blogging? The question is telling both because it shows how disinterested that too many people within Congress, the heart of American democracy, are in the very idea of debate and because it shows how clueless they are about the blogosphere years into its development. The answer is 'yes,' folks, and shame on you for not realizing that your bosses should always have an expectation of engaging in debate, whether in the blogosphere, at town halls or within the halls of Congress."
But as Townhall's Tim Chapman noted the day before, "The real news is that Stephen Colbert will be there!" He was there indeed, Colbert wasn't there to tape a segment, but rather to persuade GOPers to come on the show; Kingston was the show's 2nd guest. Marc Ambinder covered the Colbert angle for Hotline On Call: "But seriously: why should Republicans go on his show? He plays a Bill O'Reilly-esque character who milks irony out of a superficial version of a Bushian worldview (as conceived of by smart liberals.) 'Stephen Colbert,' as described by Stephen Colbert, is an 'idiot' who generates laughs by making himself look silly. But Colbert was quick to remind the GOP press secretaries that audiences respect Republicans who play along. ... Colbert called himself a 'blogger with a camera and a comedic agenda,' not 'an assassin.'" Kingston's website features a number of photos from the meeting; most of them feature Colbert.
This a.m., Kingston has an op-ed at Real Clear Politics on the U.S.'s "addiction to oil." Kingston aide David All notes in an e-mail circulated among bloggers that they are using RCP "as opposed to a traditional medium... Another step in the Revolution."
MIDTERMS: Intra-Party Squabble Time, Excellent
American Spectator reports, pro-choice GOP group RMC is going on the offensive against Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) by running ads in PA newspapers. Unofficial Santorum Blog notes that fellow PA GOP Sen. Arlen Specter "is on the advisory board, although he does at least disavow what RMC is doing and states that re-electing Santorum is his 'number one priority in 2006.'" On the other hand, Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) "is also on the advisory committee, and refuses to denounce what RMC is doing. Why is the party supporting him again?" Yippee-Ki-Yay!: "Rick Santorum was stupid to help Arlen Specter win re-election to the U.S. Senate, and we all realized Specter was an ingrate very shortly after the 2004 elections. Now even Santorum knows it." Understandably, there is less consternation liberal BlondeSense: "It seems some Republicans are finally smartening up!" But Pennacchio for Pennsylvania, the official blog of PA SEN Dem Chuck Pennacchio, speculates about the effect of a Kate Michelman indie bid: If PA SEN Dem frontrunner Bob Casey wins the primary "and Michelman runs, she will take a big chunk of Pennsylvania's pro-choice majority with her, virtually guaranteeing that the Democrats would lose their 15th straight full-term US Senate election. Did they not see this coming? Perhaps not."
On 2/28, ex-record exec Howie Klein criticized Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) at Huffington Post. On 3/3, he followed up: "I got an e-mail from the Huffington Post saying 'someone formerly affiliated with Lieberman' had challenged my assertions that Lieberman had made 'racism quasi-acceptable by framing it as being against unfair affirmative action.' The secret accuser also took exception to my assertion that Lieberman was a homophobe for conspiring with Jesse Helms and other far right extremists. It's hard to believe any close associate of Lieberman's would take this action and make demands of the Huffington Post without his knowledge -- if not connivance -- so I assume it is on Lieberman's behalf that he insists I either retract my statements or back them up." At Daily Kos, Markos Moulitsas later announces that the plaintiff is Dan Gerstein, who writes his own blog, but as of this writing hasn't updated since before the weekend. A few other dKos contributors add updates to note previous run-ins with Gerstein, and Kos himself notes that Gerstein's official bio lists Lieberman's "renowned floor statement chastising" then-Pres. Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal, commenting: "He's bragging about this. He's proud of it. This is beyond 'wanker.' Lieberman and Gerstein give cover to Bush while stabbing a Democratic president in the back over absolutely nothing important."
IRAQ: The Military-Blogger Alliance
A dateline-Baghdad New York Post column by Ralph Peters, "Dude, Where's My Civil War?" is getting a lot of attention from conservative bloggers who argue, as does Peters, that the MSM is exaggerating the violence in Iraq. California Conservative: "Peters' column is proof that the American Agenda Media isn't willing to take risks to get the story that paints the accurate picture. They're more than willing to just 'phone it in' from their hotel rooms." The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: "We're sure that this excellent column is going to cause no end of grief at Al-Qaeda's U.S. headquarters at the New York Slimes." Austin Bay, on the actual situation: "I think the Iraqi civil war began in the late summer of 2003, when members of Saddam's old ruling clique organized to regain power. The KKK did the same thing after the Civil War. ... In fact, the KKK is a rough analog to both the Saddamists and Al Qaeda -- ancien regime resistance combined with a violent, heretical religious vision."
On a similar note, Mudville Gazette's Greyhawk wrote: "In a recent press briefing General George Casey ... countered virtually every inflated claim made by the media regarding Iraq's recent "civil war" in the wake of the Shrine bombing in Samarra." More: "The media is free to dispute the General's claims -- that's expected of them. But in this case they aren't, they are simply using his words selectively in a manner that supports their own previously published fictions." A lengthy post at Instapundit ties together some of the commentary; Glenn Reynolds writes: "The press had better hope we win this war, because if we don't, a lot of people will blame the media." Left-leaning Neil Sinhababu agrees with the statement on the surface, but means something different: "It's the media that got us into this war, swallowing down every WMD story that was handed on a presidential spoon. ... In their haste to carry the White House's message of fear, the media ignored the views of the people who actually knew what was going on -- weapons inspectors like Hans Blix and Scott Ritter. Actually, it's worse than that -- they actively ridiculed these people until nobody in America would listen to them.
MISCELLANY: Killer AP
- It may be 3/06 already, but the 1st round of voting in Wampum's 2005 Koufax Awards opened on 3/4. Although non-ideological, Hotline On Call is up for the Best Blog, Professional/Sponsored Division.
- Since a New York Times Magazine cover story on the enrollment at Yale of ex-Taliban spokesperson Sayed Hashemi last weekend, WSJ's John Fund has led conservative bloggers in staying on the story, with 2 columns putting pressure on Yale. NC-based schoolteacher Betsy Newmark: "Think of all those American kids who would have loved to have been admitted to Yale. Or, as Fund points out, other Afghans who weren't prominent members of the Taliban. How about an Afghan woman, freed from the restraints that Mr. Rahmatullah and his buddies had imposed on the women of Afghanistan?" Header at The Queen of All Evil: "No To ROTC, Yes To Taliban?" QoAE Rosemary writes: "They'll tolerate almost anything, except the U.S. military. Man, I hope both my boys go there when they grow up."
- At RedState's Red Hot, Nick Danger quotes from AP: "An SUV ran into a group of people outside a University of North Carolina dorm Friday, injuring six people before speeding away, officials said." Danger: "This was not an 'SUV.' This was a guy named 'Mohammed.' Keep an eye on this one. This appears to be 'cartoon' related." Jack Kelly at Irish Pennants: "This is the kind of guy who makes Americans suspicious of all Muslims." Michelle Malkin writes, "I am reminded of Hesham Hadayet" -- an Egyptian Muslim who shot and killed 3 people at the LAX El Al ticket counter on 7/4/02.
- Kevin Drum: "And what about the newly discovered email? "Campaign manager Jared Thomas declined to discuss the apparent inconsistency of Reed's earlier statements and the date of the 'elot' e-mail." I guess they need a few days to make up a new story." The Carpetbagger Report: "Of course, for me, it was that sentence in the fourth paragraph that stands out: 'The e-mails emerged as dozens of federal investigators have increased their focus on events surrounding the defeat of the Internet gaming ban. 'At this point, I'm afraid we may not have Ralph Reed to kick around much longer."
- Must be a bad week for AP; Neandernews makes fun of a "real nothing sandwich of an artricle": "''Peace Mom' Still Campaigning Against War' (no kidding) catches Cindy, between unhinged gigs, eating at a resteraunt in San Francisco. ... Given the dearth of new information in this article one must conclude that this was just a naked attempt by AP to keep Cindy in the news.
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Niche Nation
While we're generally avoiding oscar talk, but we were intrigued by an Ed Driscoll post arguing that technology explains as much about the decline of Hollywood as a values disconnect: "Hollywood is rapidly becoming just another niche entertainment product. And as it rewards films that are aimed at coastal niche audiences, and critically shuns the movies that reached the widest viewers, it has only itself to blame. At this point, I'm sure I risk coming across like my parents, wondering why so few people are making entertainment these days that interests me. ... On the other hand, my parents' generation had to rely almost exclusively on Hollywood for their entertainment: only the stars themselves could afford their own in-home recording studio -- and video production at home was strictly science fiction. But yesterday's science fiction has a way of becoming reality. And these days, reality is often much more enjoyable than Hollywood."
LEST WE FORGET: Tube-Tied
We don't use the term lightly, and in fact we don't think the phrase has appeared in this space, but really, the YouTube-circulated "Real Life Simpsons Intro" is "must see," and yes, it's exactly what it sounds like. (And the Natalie Portman rap from SNL isn't so bad either, but it's still no "Chronic of Narnia" rap).
As we head into the weekend, the landscape has changed dramatically from the start of the week. The Dubai port deal and the potential for civil war in Iraq were all but the only topics discussed 2/27. By mid-week, the specific port issue gave way to a meta story about Pres. Bush's presumably-related decline in popularity, and today the Iraq debate has moved to heavy criticism about yet another poll, plus a new National Journal report on WMDs. It's been awhile since the last subject was an issue, and it's been awhile as well since Katrina was taking up nearly half a Blogometer. But there's still fallout from the pre-hurricane videos, new videos and new arguments being made. So let's get to it:
KATRINA I: When The Levee Breaches ... Or Was That Tops?
As we noted yesterday, conservative bloggers disputed the AP's assertion that the Katrina preparation videos contradicted Bush's statement that "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." They argue that when Nat'l Hurricane Center dir. Max Mayfield said the levees might be "topped," that did not indicate a fear that the levees might be "breached." As other media outlets are reporting the same conclusion as AP, conservatives have stepped up their objections.
Leading the charge is L.A.-based Patrick "Patterico" Frey, who rips into the Los Angeles Times' widely-linked version: "The distinction is critical, because Bush never said nobody anticipated that the levees might be overtopped. He said nobody anticipated the breach of the levees -- a much more serious event. As I have already said, I believe some people did indeed anticipate the breach of the levees beforehand. I was not pleased with Bush's statement when he made it. But this video adds nothing to the story. And the L.A. Times (and the AP) have to completely distort what is said in the video to make it sound like news. Far from showing us that Bush lied, today's story tells us that L.A. Times editors and reporters are willing to lie to their readers." Power Line: "CNN and the Democrats -- sorry for the redundancy -- have jumped on the Hurricane Katrina bandwagon. ... President Bush said it wasn't anticipated that the levees would be breached; the famous video that everyone is watching doesn't contradict that statement." Wizbang's Paul -- who escaped N.O. just before Katrina struck -- points out that he's been making the distinction since Sept. '05.
The argument finds another supporter in neoliberal Mickey Kaus, who asks: "Is the despised, self-parodying MSM intentionally glossing over this important difference in order to exaggerate the anti-Bush shock value of the video? I don't know--but I do know that the actual 'topped' quote was hard to find in print, lending some of the stories an eerie, undocumented quality." More: "Shouldn't Bush's press operation, rather than Power Line and Patterico, be forcefully pointing all this out?"
Perhaps the only liberal blogger responding is Kathy Kattenburg at the mid-tier Liberty Street: "[I]n the narrowest, most literal sense, the two words have different meanings. What the bloggers linked above ignore, however, is the fact that overtopping and breaching are connected events; that overtopping can lead to breaching if the overtopping is serious enough" -- she cites and links a USGS report to demonstrate "that, indeed, is what appears to have happened in New Orleans."
KATRINA II: Drawing A Blanco
Now there is another AP story reports that another video shows LA Gov. Kathleen Blanco (D) "hesitantly but mistakenly" telling the Bush admin. "that New Orleans' protective levees were intact" when in fact the Nat'l Weather Service had received reports of levee breaches. Conservatives have long wanted to shift some of the blame from the fed'l to state level, and this tape gives them the chance to do so.
Instapundit: "Think it'll get as much play as today's story?" Generation Why?: "So a full 3 hours after the first reported breach, Governor Blanco was still assuring the Bush administration that the levees were in tact. Was Bush supposed to recognize her incompetence and immediately send in the troops?" California Conservative: "Perhaps it's time for Gov. Blanco to admit some responsibility." NC-based Betsy Newmark takes a different perspective, offering Blanco the leniency that liberals haven't given Bush and conservatives haven't given Blanco: "Gee, do you think that it might have been difficult for everyone to have gotten the complete story of what was happening?"
But Alexandra von Maltzan doesn't think this will change anyone's perceptions of Bush: "As I have said before, the President's failure during Katrina is already too woven into the public's consciousness to be overcome by anything, least of all reason. Now if there is even a remote chance of being able to use the favorite "Bush lied" mantra at any later stage, the party just goes on and on...."
KATRINA III: Semper Lie
The phrase "Bush lied" has been part of the popular conversation since the start of the Iraq war at least, and lefty bloggers want the point to stick -- the apparent contradiction in the AP video provides the proof they need, and they put the emphasis on it.
Header at The People's Republic of Seabrook: "Our Glorious Leader lied? Again?" Under the header "George Bush Is A Liar. He Lies He Lies He Lies. Seriously, He Lies A Lot. It's Becoming A Problem," Stephen Elliott writes for the Huffington Post: "Watching this video footage showing Bush in another outrageous lie made me ill to my stomach. At what point are the people that voted for this man going to get to work undoing the damage they have done? Where is the congress with the guts to impeach this fraud?" Matt Stoller at MyDD takes this in a slightly different direction: "Bush didn't just let down the people of New Orleans, Bush let down his own FEMA director who was pleading with him for more resources. Bush didn't take charge and back his own people. He was disloyal to his own cronies. Why? Because he was sitting alone in that room in Crawford and he was afraid to ask a single question. He was a liar, yes, but he was a liar because he was a coward."
Washington Post online columnist Dan Froomkin: "Apparently as a rejoinder to the new video, the White House yesterday suddenly sent around a transcript that it previously said didn't exist, from a conference call on the following day. It includes a second-hand account of Bush's activities from Michael Brown, the Bush-appointed FEMA director who later resigned in disgrace, describing the president as engaged, watching TV and asking questions."
AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "George Bush is not competent enough to be president of the United States. If another September 11 is being planned right now, we are dead as a nation with this man in charge. It is seriously time that Republicans joined Democrats in figuring out what to do about this man, because he is putting all of our lives in danger."
KATRINA IV: Brownie Points
One interesting side effect of the AP videos is a pan-ideological (if not blogosphere-wide) rethinking of FEMA dir. Michael Brown's handling of the situation. He's been a punch line for months -- think "heckuva job" and "fashion god" -- but now his taped statement that Katrina could be "the big one" has put his leadership in a whole new light.
Joe Gandelman goes so far as to write an open letter to Brown on behalf of the group blog he leads, The Moderate Voice: "We were wrong. And we owe you an apology. In watching the recent videos of videoconferences immediately before and during Katrina, we were struck by one fact: in these tapes you are the one virtually clamoring for government action. ... This is not to say that say you, local and state officials are off the hook for some of the mind-boggling failures during the storm. But it's not accurate to suggest that if you hadn't been there, a lot of what happened wouldn't have happened. Because the tapes and transcripts show you were trying to get the government to move faster." Liberal Marc Cooper concurs, asking: "How has Chertoff survived this?" On the other hand, The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler claims credit for not blaming Brown in the first place.
Conservative Jeff Goldstein, who picks up from the LAT piece mentioned above, which "rather than give 'Brownie' his good name back and disturb the forging of the narrative of Republican-run federal failure ... goes with a story" continuing the breach/top confusion.
But RedState's Augustine notes that the LAT does note: "The AP video does not include footage of Chertoff asking Brown whether he needs any other help or of Chertoff asking whether Brown wants him to approach the Department of Defense. Transcripts show that to both questions, Brown indicated that no additional assistance was needed." Think Progress singles out a different tidbit from the same LAT story, commenting: "What you won't hear on TV is that the media have had this tape for six months but haven't done anything with it. ... The contents of the tape are clearly newsworthy. Which media organizations obtained the tape and why wasn't it aired?"
ZOGBY: Pole Dance
The controversy over week's Zogby poll -- reporting that a majority of U.S. troops in Iraq want the war over soon (see 3/1 Blogometer) -- came to a head last night as righty radio talker Hugh Hewitt brought pollster John Zogby on the air. The result was a brief, contentious interview which Zogby ended early by hanging up. Afterward, Hewitt's producer Duane "Generalissimo" Patterson posted a transcript and MP3 of the interview at Radio Blogger. And Hewitt summed up afterward: "The 'poll' is quite obviously crap when one sees the questions, and Zogby's refusal to answer basic questions that do not go to security underscores his defensiveness. The survey instrument is shot through with absurd choices while missing obvious questions, such as 'How important is success of this mission?' and 'Describe your morale?' It would have been interesting to ask if the troops have heard of Cindy Sheehan, or their opinion of the antiwar activists, though of course an antiwar activist paid for this circus."
Mystery Pollster's Mark Blumenthal has been following the criticisms here, here, here and here. In his latest post, he concludes: "John Zogby insists it is enough that those of us who have heard more about his survey's methodology conclude that it was "honestly and objectively done." I think he misses an important point. Consumers of Zogby's Iraq troop poll data also need to understand where it fits on the continuum between strict probability-based sampling and non-random convenience sampling. Zogby certainly believes that 'security concerns' prevent further disclosure, that we do not 'need to know' more. Perhaps. But without knowing more, it is hard to decide whether to trust the results. "
James Joyner laments, "while I have frequently defended Zogby's work in the past ... and once considered him the best in the business based on a couple of noteworthy dead-on predictions ... I am increasingly troubled that he seems to put out polls deliberately aimed at getting results favorable to his clients. That's not what legitimate pollsters do."
>> Zogby's poll isn't the only one drawing attention -- the Fox News poll showing Bush down in the polls gets plenty of attention, too. Writes Sister Toldjah: "Republicans shouldn't change their tunes simply to garner votes on this or any other issue (of course some will, but that goes without saying) in an election year. ... I'd rather my candidates stick to their guns and lose an election than to switch gears in order to win it." The Left Coaster: "Oh yeah, 81% of those polled think that Iraq will end up in a civil war. ... Where did all the cultists go?"
INDIA: Never Get Into An Arms Race With Ganesh
Bush's nuclear agreement with India generally draws criticism from the left and praise from the right.
While it's not necessarily an either/or proposition, Liberal Oasis would "scuttle" the U.S.-Indian nuke deal before the U.S.-UAE port deal: "If the immensely unpopular port deal goes through, it'll make it easier for Dems to retake Congress, where they can quickly pass some comprehensive port security legislation and at least mitigate the risks of foreign government control of our ports. Whereas the nuke deal severely weakens the international effort to stop nuclear proliferation in the Middle East and Asia, and that damage is not as easily undone." Chuck Dupree at liberal Bad Attitudes: "I guess I have to say I find this new agreement somewhat scary. Basically the President seems to be announcing a de facto unilateral repeal of the Nonproliferation Treaty. If, as the article says, we're going to help India have nuclear power, why not Pakistan? Iran? North Korea? Not, of course, to say that India is an enemy, as most Americans think North Korea is (insert your favorite Team America quote here); but American and Indian interests often diverge."
Right-leaning foreign policy academic Daniel Drezner gives the deal a thumbs-up:
Conservative Blackfive offers a different assessment: "This is an brilliant foreign policy initiative, made with a country we ought to be very good friends with. ... It also shows that when we negotiate with potential nuclear states, and offer the possibility of real US help with nuke energy, it can actually happen." More: "It also gives us the opportunity to show the 137 million Muslims living there that partnership in the Great Satan Power coop may not be the worst thing." "If I had to make Bush's case to the rest of the world, I'd say, "Look, there's no way India is going to renounce their weapons, and if you lived in their neighborhood you wouldn't either. That said, they've agreed to open up their civilian nuclear program up to outside oversight, and they haven't aided or abetted anyone else's weapons program. So this deal acknowledges that the genie is out of the bottle in New Delhi, but keeps the bottle closed for everyone else."
IRAQ: Waas Happenin' Now
National Journal's Waas reports, citing knowledgeable sources, that two "highly classified intelligence reports delivered directly" to Bush before the war "cast doubt on key public assertions" made by admin officials "as justifications for invading Iraq."
The Brad Blog calls it "the most damning and direct evidence to date that Bush out-and-out lied this country into war." Firedoglake's ReddHedd concludes that Bush "either knew that Saddam posed no immediate threat to the United States and repeatedly lied to the American public ... or (2) he doesn't bother doing his job, and had no idea what information was contained in multiple sensitive national security briefs that he was given over a long period of time, and no one in the Administration bothered to clue him in on this." Steve Soto claims the info was reported previously on The Left Coaster, but nevertheless adds: "There goes the 'I was misled by the intel community' defense."
On 3/1, Iraq vet Zachary Iscol wrote a post for Huffington Post criticizing opponents of the Iraq war: "I have been home from my second tour in Iraq for roughly a year and I am deeply disturbed by the spiteful nature and viscous partisanship that has hijacked our nation's discourse of the 'long war' on terror and our war in Iraq. ... In an age when headlines can move markets or determine the outcome of a war, our success in Iraq will depend upon our ability to abandon partisanship and engage in a more informed and constructive dialogue of the many challenges our nation faces." Readers at the liberal site didn't take kindly to it, and that's reflected in the comments following the post. Ankle Biting Pundits collects some of the more vitriolic comments directed at Iscol.
Relatedly, Andrew Sullivan and Glenn Greenwald both noticed NR's John Derbyshire calling the war a lost cause at The Corner. Greenwald asks: "Isn't it going to become increasingly difficult for Bush followers to shift the blame for their disastrous war project onto "liberals" when so many conservatives are declaring the whole thing to be a smashing defeat?"
PATRIOT ACT: Wasn't This Supposed To Be Controversial?
Upon the PATRIOT Act's renewal, QandO's McQ praises legis. sunsets: "Congress will never pass the perfect piece of legislation. The Patriot Act is certainly no exception. So while it is fine for [Rep. James] Sensenbrenner to take some pride in the fact that no violations of civil liberties have been found to have resulted from old version of the bill, we should also be happy that it had to be renewed, and that renewal process made the law less likely than before to violate our civil liberties." Outside The Beltway: "The irony is that most of the civil liberties objections people have about post-9/11 enforcement measures are not in the Patriot Act -- and that the Act itself has probably not done much to stop terrorists." Resigned header at Reason's Hit and Run: "USA PATRIOT Is Here To Stay."
PORT SECURITY: Hunt And Peck
Via AP, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) will not wait for the 45-day period to "scuttle" the UAE port deal. Hunter: "I intend to do everything I can to kill the deal." RedState's Leon H Wolf: "I kind of thought we agreed on a 45-day period to, you know, mull this whole thing over. Not find ways to kill it before we get out of the gate. Duncan Hunter has a more than modest talent for grandstanding and soundbite-creation, and the media are going to eat this up for 30 days. This was a shaky situation from the get-go, but Hunter, et al are rapidly making into a no-win situation for ANYBODY in the GOP." Steve Soto, staying on top of the news: "Here comes the intraparty battle within the GOP over the Dubai ports deal that I have heard about the last two days. ... Get the popcorn."
BLOGS VS. THE MSM I: High And Dry?
Early 3/2 p.m., various Web sites began speculating as to whether NBC's David Gregory was under the influence when he called in to "Imus In The Morning" to discuss Bush's India trip. The I-Man himself believed he was drunk at the time. To see the video, click here. NBC officially denies it, and he apparently was coherent enough to blog at NBC's Daily Nightly. But not everyone is convinced.
FishbowlDC's Garrett Graff: "Now even though that wasn't the strongest denial ever (and didn't come from Gregory himself), we'll give it the benefit of a doubt. Thus the only remaining option is that he was high." At TVNewser see the talk as part of a right-wing plot, pushed by the likes of Drudge. NewsHounds notes that it was a topic of discussion on "The O'Reilly Factor." Mike Krempasky: "David Gregory needs a nap. ... Either that -- or a trip to rehab." Confederate Yankee: "While I'm not an expert in speaking Drunkenese, I don't think Gregory sounded drunk. I would be interested to see the results of a drug test to make sure it wasn't something else, however. Bad curry, perhaps?"
>> Hullabaloo's Digby gives CNN pres. Jon Klein some free advice: "Can someone tell my why Jack Cafferty doesn't have his own show on CNN? They should put him up against O'Reilly. He's the guy who's riding the zeitgeist right now. Between him and Lou 'I'm having an aneurysm' Dobbs, CNN could siphon off some of the Fox News "Dad who is always mad" audience they've coveted for so long. GOP and Bush worship is so 2004.
BLOGS VS. THE MSM II: Risky Business
New York Observer reports at its Media Mob blog, a 10-month study cmte formed in the wake of the Jayson Blair fiasco has released a 39-page report describing the Times as "a newspaper at risk" when it comes to diversity. There's more to the story than the "risk" angle, but that's where conservative bloggers take it -- NewsBusters snarks: "It apparently isn't just George Bush who doesn't care about black people." Discriminations: "Curiously, and I believe inconsistently, the NYT's preferred response to this 'perception' of 'diversity' run amuck is... more 'diversity.'" Don Luskin points out that the board "defined diversity in terms of employees' race, gender and sexual orientation. Religious and political differences were not accounted for." And comments: "I get it. Let's be sure we have enough people of color -- just as long as they're not Republicans. That would be a little too diverse."
NETROOTS: The Snagel Strategy
Crooks and Liars: "Our Kansas Roots effort last week was a real success. We managed to get lots of letters about the illegal NSA wiretaps published in local Kansas papers where the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Pat Roberts (R-KS) no doubt felt their heat, and now we're asking everyone to do the same thing" for cmte members Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE). Firedoglake and Vichy Dems provide multiple phone numbers for both Snowe and Hagel.
One new blog devoted to the cause is New Nebraska Network.
MISCELLANY: We Hope Someone Asked "What Does Blog Stand For?"
- National Journal's Marc Ambinder and Danny Glover were on the Hill today for a blog workshop organized by the office of Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA). Roll Call covered it on 3/2; we'll surely have more on Monday. Before the event, Kingston aide David All circulated guidelines for blog interaction (PDF) as well as a suggested blogroll (PDF) for aspiring politician-bloggers.
- At his personal blog, ex-Hotliner/ex-"Hardball" prod. Howard Mortman has been post a series of posts titled "Blogs The Famous Media Reads." Featured so far -- Bloomberg's Roger Simon, Salon's Walter Shapiro, Wall Street Journal's John Harwood, ABC News' Jake Tapper, Newsweek's Howard Fineman, and The Hill's Jeff Dufour.
- Atrios and TBogg agree with John Podhoretz's caustic assessment of "Atlas Shrugged." Atrios explains himself: "Once upon a time I had the weird experience of hearing JPod saying almost nice things about me on NPR. I figure I've owed him the return favor, so here's a shout out to JPod."
- Cenk Uygur at HuffPo and Scott Shields at MyDD both focus on mine safety and the Bush admin.
- Pandagon's Amanda Marcotte explains a new strategy by penny-pinching Salon: "I thought y'all would appreciate this -- Salon is setting aside certain blogs to be no-site-pass-necessary blogs. Basically, the blogs on the list can link to article at Salon as so long as our readers click through on our blogs, they won't have to sit through an ad to read the article. Pandagon is one of the blogs, so yea us!"
- For someone whose ideas are discussed often enough in the blogosphere, it was about time New Yorker's Malcolm Gladwell got himself a blog.
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Foer And After
We were a bit too busy over the last week to cover Franklin Foer's ascension to editor of The New Republic, so let's play catch-up. Foer is a popular guy on the left and right, although most liberal observers disagree strongly with its support of the Iraq war, and some fear he won't be as valuable as editor as he has been a writer.
One who wishes TNR would reverse course on Iraq is Kevin Drum from The Washington Monthly: "Unfortunately, that doesn't seem likely to happen, and as long as they decline to learn the obvious lesson from our current adventure in Mesopotamia they're just not going to find a very big liberal audience. And that's too bad, because an awful lot of good stuff is being held hostage between their covers by their stubborn insistence that the U.S. military can remake the world." TMFTML is less kind: "You know, whatever. How about making sure I can get your piece-of-shit-look-how-not-liberal-we-are-no-one-could-have-anticipated-all-of-our-dead-and-limbless-kids-in-Iraq magazine on the Friday that it's published, instead of a week later, okay, Frankie?" Ex-TNR editor Andrew Sullivan: "After the bloodbath that accompanied my own departure from the editorship, I'm delighted this transition has gone so amicably. ... I don't share Kevin Drum's assessment that TNR simply needs to abandon its support of the Iraq war to regain momentum and readership. I think its principled maintenance of a muscular internationalist liberalism is critical to its soul."
In the Times' write-up linked above, Markos Moulitsas notes, Foer "hilariously talks about the 'momentum' of the now-concluded [Peter] Beinart years. Any more momentum of that sort and the magazine will fold in four years hence. (Not that such a shuttering would surprise me any or elicit any tears.)" Atrios, on Beinart's plans to do more "long form" writing: "Foer is certainly an improvement over Beinart. Return to longer form writing? Um, how about, you know, enlisting?"
Liberalism Without Cynicism: "TNR isn't really 'neoliberal.' It's much better described as 'liberal-neocon.' ... New Republic liberalism, like the neoconservatism with which it flirts, has always been about power. And that's what makes it so much fun." More: "My own take on the Foer editorship is mild disappointment. That's because Beinart was, in my view and based on my zealous reading of the mag over the past few years, a damn fine editor but a generally lousy columnist," whereas now Foer "might cut down his writing time, while freeing up Beinart ... to write more columns. At The Corner, conservative Ramesh Ponnuru makes a couple similar points: "He's a good choice for TNR -- a smart, lively, honest commentator who commands respect even from people who disagree with him. My only concern is the same one I had when Beinart became editor: that his new duties would leave less time for him to write."
LEST WE FORGET: Fools Rush In
If it's Oscar coverage you want, the Blogometer is the wrong place to be. Fametracker, on the other hand, is exactly where you should be. In today's edition they hand out their own kind of kind-of Oscars, let reanimated Kark Malden quintuplets make Oscar picks, predict the televisual fate of this year's big movies, and place odds on the likelihood of Oscar hosts to come.
Because it's Friday, we're throwing in a freebie -- Not Fooling Anybody -- an oldie but a goodie. Well, it's an oldie where we come from.
And now for something not completely different, but nevertheless a change of pace -- Pres. Bush is under fire once again, this time over just-surfaced tapes showing WH briefings in late 8/05 on the eve of Hurricane Katrina. There is a factual dispute between the left and right over one of the central assertions in the AP story -- whether Bush was actually warned of levee breaches. Many cite Bush's assertion that no one anticipated levee breaches, which the widely-linked AP video calls a "seemingly direct contradiction" to what Bush heard from Nat'l Hurricane Center dir. Max Mayfield, who said: "I don't think anyone can tell you with any confidence right now whether the levees will be topped or not." The left takes it at face value and amplifies the message, while the right pushes back like it has this week against bad news in polls from CBS and Zogby.
Elsewhere, a thank-you note from Justice Samuel Alito to Focus on the Family's James Dobson is raising hackles, as is a report that ex-Pres. Clinton advised Dubai Ports World on their port bid; AG Alberto Gonzales' revisions to his Senate testimony on the wiretap program attracts scrutiny from a few legal-minded bloggers; MS follows SD with a possible Roe challenge; FNC and NYT get hit by different bloggers for opposite interpretations of the same story, and as usual, we've got our latest Blogger Spotlight.
KATRINA: Let's Roll Tape
Crooks and Liars has video of the newly-released video footage of pre-Katrina planning; according to Technorati, most blog readers are seeing it via C&L rather than the AP itself. AP calls the video an "inside glimpse into the government's fateful final Katrina preparations after months of finger pointing and political recriminations." The story says scenarios "were delivered in dramatic terms to all involved," and notes that Bush "didn't ask a single question during the briefing but assured soon-to-be-battered state officials: 'We are fully prepared.'"
>> Most of the commentary comes from the left, and most of it can be summarized as either outrage or resignation -- Ed Fitzgerald: "I've finally run out of superlatives to describe the hypocrisy, ethical and moral corruption, incompetence and outright inhumanity of the Bush White House. I'm just spent." Sivacracy: "I don't expect this to do much to public confidence in President Bush's performance; the last 34% seem fairly resolute despite" the list of admin. failures. Bob Geiger asks, "can you imagineBill Clinton or Jimmy Carter sitting silently with something of this scope about to happen in our country?" Tim Tagaris, at the DNC's blog: "This is exactly why you can't believe anything this administration says." TBogg compares the AP report of Bush's briefing to his assessment that no one knew the levees would breach: "Now, since those of us suffering from BDS ["Bush Derangement Syndrome"] might be somewhat inclined to say, 'People died, Bush lied' what would be the appropriate wingnutty response?" Pam Spaulding contrasts screen shots of Bush and FEMA officials in meetings with photos of Katrina casualties, and reposts "Actual Freeper Quotes(TM)" from FreeRepublic.com, such as "Yawn. Katrina is so yesterday." Driftglass rants: "Bush is in India on a visit and not there evading extradition because the Last Defenders of Plame-Alot will hang on to this failed criminal like grim death. ... They let cities die because they just don't give a shit, and anyway, what has a few thousand more dead negroes ever been to a Bush Republican but a cause for celebration?" Bark Bark Woof Woof doesn't see much news in this: "The most telling thing about this whole scenario is that it proves without a shadow of a doubt that the only thing the White House seems concerned about is that they come out of any controversy looking good and covering up bad news by any means necessary is Job 1." Carpetbagger Report cites NBC's reporting, that the WH says "the tape does not contradict anything the Bush Administration has said." "I suspect the Bush gang went from 1 to 10 on the damage-control meter as soon as the story hit the wires yesterday afternoon, but this defense needs a little work." The Heretik plays on Bush's infamous quote: "I don't think anybody anticipated this transcript of that meeting and this video would come out. What a sad day when you realize [FEMA dir.] Michael Brown did a heckuva job better than Bush on this one."
>> There's no single argument coming from the right; different bloggers have different gripes -- Dafydd ab Hugh: "In the first place, let's call a shovel a shovel: If the video footage offered by AP in support of this accusation is the best AP has ... then I have to flatly state that writers Margaret Ebrahim and John Solomon are liars. Because in fact, the video footage shows no such warning, either inside or outside the meeting, that Katrina might 'breach levees.'" Power Line raises the specter of another leak from within the fed bureaucracy and adds: "AP didn't release the documents or video footage so we could draw our own conclusions. It merely summarized them for us, in a way obviously intended to make President Bush and the administration look bad." Ed Morrissey agrees, and quotes Mayfield saying in these briefings that "the forecast we have now suggests there will be minimal flooding in the city of New Orleans itself"; he adds: "The media got it wrong yet again on Katrina. The notion that the experts warned of levee breaches is nothing more than a hack job initiated by the AP and continued by the rest of the Exempt Media even after the source material has proven it false." Ace of Spades HQ gives less than it seems at first: "With all due respect: Who the hell wasn't warned? I was warned. You were warned. Everyone in New Orleans, Louisiana, the entire Gulf Coast and, for that matter, every tuna-boat mate in Nome, Alaska was warned. ... Did Bush know the levees might be breached? Of course he friggin' knew." More: "But of course it's Bush's fault. After all -- he was warned the levees might be breached!" RightWinged: "What everyone is ignoring is that the levees never 'breached' or 'overtopped,' they broke because of design and/or construction flaws." Ian Schwartz at Expose the Left: "I wish the media would give as much attention to this video of Blanco making a campaign promise--which she obviously lied about--what she would do if a Category 5 Hurricane hit Louisiana" -- in the printed excerpt, Blanco essentially promises to protect LAns.
>> Toward the center of the spectrum, opinion leans strongly toward criticism of Bush -- Tim F., writing for Balloon Juice, a right-leaning site with a large number of left-leaning readers: "Needless to say, this video came from somebody who has a beef with the president. As Bush's star dims it'll be interesting to see how many more of those folks are out there and what kind of material they're sitting on." The iconoclastic Andrew Sullivan: "He was either lying or had slept through his pre-storm meetings. The latter is possible. The record shows he asked not a single question in the pre-Katrina briefing. Maybe he was miffed his vacation had been spoiled. Michael Brown seems on the ball in comparison." Joe Gandelman: "This credibility problem wasn't created by an evil mainstream media or by Democrats but by this administration's seeming inability to lay all of its cards on the table, be candid to the electorate and Congress, admit its own shortcomings when necessary and try to expand its support by governing more via consensus. This video will have far longer shelf life than any newspaper drawing, radio or cable talk show rant or weblog post." The Glittering Eye sees the predictable reaction of the left (blame) and right (defense), and says: "They may well both be right. I'm more concerned about moving forward on this and would like to see more progress than finger-pointing."
PORT SECURITY: The Clinton Wars
Financial Times reports, ex-Pres. Clinton assisted Dubai Ports world in their bid for U.S. ports, and, as most linking highlight, "It came even as his wife, Senator Hillary Clinton, was leading efforts to derail the deal." One is Roger L. Simon, who writes: "Now at first glance this is pretty funny. Mr. and Mrs. just didn't get their stories straight. But in truth they have no stories -- and there is nothing to get straight -- other than their own ambitions." Little Green Footballs calls it "triangulation": "Are the Clintons double-dealing with the United Arab Emirates? It certainly seems like it.." Sigmund, Carl and Alfred jokes: "You have to hand it to the Clintons. If the political gig ever goes down the drain, they have a great future in professional wrestling as a tag-team pair." Pajama Hadin recalls Clinton's advocacy on behalf of Chinese company COSCO, who wanted to run ports in Long Beach, CA, despite a "long and very troubling record of shipping both weapons and components of mass destruction around the world."
At The RCP Blog, radio talker Mark Davis writes, the port controversy is "the gut check of the year for conservatives," as the deal goes "against every shred of the post-9/11 war footing we have been instructed to adopt." He also argues: "Our 'alliance' with the UAE is a mirage if they would pull the plug on cooperating with us simply because we took a step to be safe."
>> More than once in recent weeks, Michelle Malkin dared her critics on the right to call her an "Islamophobe" (see 2/22 Blogometer) for her legitimate objections to the port deal. Having read her latest column echoing the same argument, Don Surber takes issue with her take. He writes, "coming on the heels of her insistence that American newspapers run cartoons offensive to all Muslims, maybe there is something to this. The lady needs to look back. Has she said one positive thing about an Arab or a Muslim in the past four years? If not, maybe she should. 19 Muslims flew those planes on 9/11. Not 1 billion." Fellow conservative Dennis The Peasant agrees: "What all this does do, however, is demonstrate just now unserious and limited Michelle Malkin is. When faced with the facts of port governance, operations and security – and being unable or unwilling to refute those facts -- she simply decides to play... the race card."
SCOTUS: A Charge To Keep?
Raw Story reports, Focus on the Family's James Dobson recently received a personal note from Justice Samuel Alito offering thanks for support during the confirmation process. Like many of the bloggers who pick up the report, Raw Story focuses on the final sentence: "As long as I serve on the Supreme Court, I will keep in mind the trust that has been placed in me."
Liberal Pesky'Apostrophe writes, "that last sentence sounds an awful lot to me like Alito will interpret the law sympathetically to the extremist Christians in our midst. To hell with those of us who might have other values." Andrew Sullivan: "So now we know, don't we?" Alternate Brain admonishes the "spineless Dems" who voted for cloture: "If the South Dakota abortion ban ever gets before SCOTUS, how do you think they're gonna rule? When anything faith-based gets before SCOTUS, how do you think they're gonna rule? Idiots." Sidney son Max Blumenthal, at Huffington Post: "Not only is it unprecedented for a Supreme Court justice to send a thank you note to an interest group, it is highly unethical. ... From now on, plaintiffs and defendants in cases dealing with issues from abortion to gay rights to school prayer should demand that Alito recuse himself. Alito is deeply embedded in the pocket of the Christian right and perhaps more compromised than anyone could have imagined."
At conservative News Busters, MRC VP Brent Baker thinks the network news coverage covered it about the same way, but points to the AP's version of the story, which includes a SCOTUS spokesperson saying the "note was in response to a letter" by Dobson and that the "keep in mind" line "was included in many replies he wrote to congratulatory letters." But Baker wonders why the AP "felt compelled to consider potential improprieties" -- the article quotes an Americans United spokesperson saying there are, and a law prof saying there aren't. Baker: "So why the news story?"
>> San Diego-based conservative Matthew Hoy notes that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dozed off during the TX remap hearings on 3/1: "If I were arguing the case before the court today, I'd be angry that a Justice who is supposed to decide the case can't be bothered to stay awake. At the very least, Ginsburg needs to make a public apology for her eye-resting behavior."
ROE V. WADE: A Roe Challenge By Any Other Name ...
Right on the heels of an SD bill banning nearly all abortions, comes a similar bill from the MS House, which would outlaw the procedure in all cases except to save the life of the mother. MS Gov. Haley Barbour (R), like his SD counterpart, says he's inclined to sign it. Liberals are not pleased, but somewhat intrigued by one aspect of the bill as it stands -- Shakespeare's Sister: "And although I in no way support this bill, I will give some credit" to the House cmte, which "approved an amendment suggested by Dem Rep. Omeria Scott which would require the state to 'provide free education and medical services to any child born in the state, until age 19.'" More: "That's at least a step in the right direction, although I find it rather disgusting that women must concede their right of choice in order to receive such support." Feministing is even less optimistic: "Wanna bet that the ban is passed without Scott's provisions attached?"
At The Moderate Voice, David Schraub snarks: "Banning all abortion: bad. Giving free health care and education to children in one's state: good. Accidentally doing the latter while trying (but failing) to do the former? Priceless."
Conservative Stop The ACLU: "It is a direct legislative move, challenging the word of the Courts. It is the system of checks and balances at work, and hopefully it will become a leading trend to put this issue back in the hands of individual states where it belongs."
EAVESDROPPING: From Cloak And Dagger To Link And Blogger
Pursuit of the exact timeline of and WH's legal reasoning behind the NSA wiretap program continues at a handful of blogs. The Anonymous Liberal: "Why is the Administration so reluctant to allow Congress to see these memos? My hunch is that it's because the Administration's current legal posture looks very different than the one it originally adopted when it authorized this program in late 2001. I suspect very strongly that the Administration's primary argument for the legality of the program -- that Congress authorized the President to take such measures when it passed the AUMF [Authorization for Use of Military Force] -- is of relatively recent vintage." Having looked at AG Alberto Gonzales' clarifications re: his testimony before the Senate Jud Cmte, GWU law prof Orin Kerr agrees: "Given that we now know the NSA program was approved by late October 2001, it seems at least possible (depending on how you read the letter) that the program may have been approved before the AUMF was even passed. That would have required really fast work, as the AUMF was passed about a week after 9/11, but it's at least a possibility. What changed that explains the current primary reliance on the AUMF argument? One plausible answer is the Supreme Court's June 2004 decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld." More from Tom Maguire and Glenn Greenwald; the latter studies Gonzales' letter and heads his post: "The NSA scandal now clearly includes interception of domestic communications, perjury and presidential lying."
Vichy Dems does its part to help out a number of prominent lefty bloggers' Roots Project (see 2/23 and 2/27 editions), which aims to "work with local bloggers in each state to mobilize local grassroots/netroots/'netboots' efforts"; currently the effort is focused on persuading the Senate Jud Cmte to hold hearings on the NSA wiretaps. Vichy Dems: "Today we're rolling out an ambitious plan: to turn out both national and in-state activists, for two states (Nebraska and Maine), on two fronts (calls to senators and letters to editors). ... The Senate Intelligence Committee meets next on March 7. We're hammering them between now and then, including at night and over the weekend."
BLOGS VS. THE MSM: MSM Reports, Bloggers Decide
Daily Kos, Huffington Post, Crooks and Liars and numerous others tip their hat to CAP's Think Progress for posting a screen shot of FNC's "Your World With Neil Cavuto" where the chyron says: "'Civil War' In Iraq: Made Up By The Media?" The question is one asked by many conservative bloggers. As Al Olson points out another recently-circulated FNC chyron asking if civil war in Iraq could be a good thing, a point very similar to one made just days earlier by right-libertarian Stephen Green (see 2/27 Blogometer). Writes Olson: "Last week, these dimwits acknowledge that there is an Iraqi civil war and ponder its 'upside.' Then, a few days later, these same dimwits say it is merely a media concoction and deny its existence. Which is it? Morons!"
On a related but different topic but going in the opposite direction, Mudville Gazette and Kausfiles point out that the New York Times ran the headline "More Clashes Shake Iraq; Political Talks Are in Ruins" when talks ended up resuming 48 hours later. The flip side to our observations above is that liberal bloggers beat the MSM to declare "civil war" was under way following the mosque bombing in Samarra (see 2/23 Blogometer). Mickey Kaus: "I'm not saying Bill Keller's headline and lede writers were amping up the Iraq hysteria in order to manufacture another Tet. Maybe they just have no judgment or perspective."
WAR ON TERRORISM: Friends Without Benefits
Re: the Bush doctrine, Matt Yglesias argues: "America's strategy for the Middle East is centered on transforming its states into liberal democracies, but our main local partners in this effort are... sharia-enforcing hereditary monarchs. Nobody seems to talk about it anymore, but this is obviously dumb. I used to think it reflected insincerity on Bush's part, but insincerity implies that there's some coherent 'real' policy that's being implemented behind the make-believe one." At Political Animal, Kevin Drum does the contrarian thing: "First, America has lots of strategic partners that aren't liberal democracies, and always has. What's more, everybody talks about this. ... Second, has the bulk of American elite opinion really bought into the Bushian view that democratizing the Middle East is Job 1? ... Third, is it really true that you "can't do both" -- i.e., support democracy and work with nondemocratic regimes in the Middle East? The Bush administration certainly pushes hypocrisy to the limits sometimes on this score, but what's the alternative? Outside of Israel, sharia-enforcing hereditary monarchs are the only partners available in the Middle East." Back at TPMCafe, Yglesias clarifies and responds: "The solution, I think, is to cut back both on the heavy democracy rhetoric and on the extent of our entanglement with these governments."
MISCELLANY: All The News That Didn't Fit
- Navy veteran Mattland Evolutions reports that Navy pilot friends still in the service are getting called to Iraq, with a strange twist: "They're manning up a new unit -- made up of a mix of personnel, to become field combat teams in charge of detecting IED's. ... That's like asking a surgeon to become the coach of an NFL Football team!! In my book, that's called a 'Desperate Administration in a Desperate Situation.'" AMERICAblog's John Aravosis gives the report a great deal more exposure by linking, and asks: "Any enterprising journalists or others want to follow through on this?"
- In 10/05, a student at the Univ. of OK blew himself up outside a Sooners game; conservative bloggers quickly raised questions about whether there was a terrorism connection, but before long the authorities shot down this line of speculation (see previous coverage). Now, questions are coming back up. Heritage's Mark Tapscott notes that a Norman, OK bomb squad official says he "believes Joel Hinrichs did not intend to kill himself." But he updates that the FBI dismisses the comments as merely those of "an individual," adding that the FBI "stands by its view that Hinrichs was not involved in any terrorist activities." Generation Why?: "If this was an 'accidental' suicide, then we're left to wonder if it was a dry run, or a failed attempt at the real thing. I guess we'll just have to wait for more of the truth to surface."
- Right Wing News' John Hawkins is upset that the House GOP is supporting a resolution honoring the NAACP on its 97th birthday: "Nothing could be dumber than for Republicans to honor a group like the NAACP that absolutely hates our guts and trashes us at every opportunity. Besides, what have they done of late that merits recognition? These day, the NAACP exists to try to exploit racial strife for fun and profit while delivering black votes to the Democrats."
- At Tapped, Ezra Klein writes: "I'm always a bit skeptical of these well-intentioned efforts to force Congress to post the final text of a bill 72 hours before it gets voted on. All other things being equal, they should do that, but the idea that squads of "citizens will search through proposed legislation for questionable items" is a bit insane. Ever tried to read a piece of legislation?" He quotes a particularly dense section of legislation, picking back up on the other side: "And that's for PATRIOT Act reauthorization, a fairly interesting piece of work that’s not a budget bill. Legalese, sadly, is awful, and while posting it online is better than not, no one should kid themselves into thinking such a measure is real reform, and no one should let congressional Republicans kid the press into thinking it means true transparency." His readers disagree; one writes: "Are you kidding me? This will be the internet version of C-SPAN."
BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: You Have Two Cowens ...
Today the Blogometer talks to GMU prof/econoblogger Tyler Cowen, co-founder of Marginal Revolution.
What is your full name?
Tyler Cowen
What is your age?
44 years old.
Where did you grow up?
Bergen County, New Jersey, with a brief stint in Fall River, Massachusetts and a birth in Kearny, NJ.
Where do you live now?
I enjoy the northern Virginia suburbs. Our home is in Fairfax.
What is your occupation? Have you ever worked on a political campaign or for the mainstream media?
I am a university professor and have been so since I started working twenty years ago. I have never worked on a political campaign nor for the mainstream media.
When did you start blogging and why?
Eugene Volokh asked me to join Volokh Conspiracy. After that, I started an economics blog, sensing a void in the market. Blogging is a good way to force yourself to learn something new every day.
What has been your favorite post, or favorite story to write about, in that time?
I most enjoy blogging about the economics of personal life, including love, sex, and marriage.
Describe your typical blogging schedule. And what is your average output?
I average three posts a day. I'll write drafts at all times of the day, and revise them periodically. Usually they are up first thing in the morning but drafted over the previous two or three days.
Who is your favorite political blogger? Favorite non-political blogger?
Who counts as a political blogger? I like Jane Galt, Matt Yglesias, Brad DeLong, Daniel Drezner, and many others. All of them are best when they do not fit comfortably into either the "political" or "non-political" categories. Jason Kottke is another favorite.
Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?
The mainstream media is not a good medium for serious analysis. I don't blame this on anyone in particular. I like Virginia Postrel's periodic columns for The New York Times.
What is your favorite television news program, either network or cable?
"Primer Impacto," on Univision. By far.
What MSM-produced websites (i.e. newspapers, magazines) do you visit on a daily basis?
CNN is about it. I love MSM but the web is not their comparative advantage. Slate.com is excellent and you could count that as MSM since it is now owned by the Washington Post.
What non-MSM websites (i.e. blogs) do you visit on a daily basis?
Check out the blogroll at MarginalRevolution.com, which includes most of the major economics blogs. Plus I read some science blogs and like to scan for new blogs, on more or less a random basis.
How often, or do you ever, read a newspaper in its dead-tree (i.e. print) form?
I love newspapers and read at least five a day. I think you can guess which ones. Few pursuits are for me more fun. I also get a good fifteen magazines or so, often in the areas of culture and food.
How do you see the new media and old media affecting and influencing each other in the next five years?
I don't see blogs overtaking old media. The real threat to old media is from Craigslist and eBay, which siphon off classified ads and thus revenue. I don't think the newspaper industry is in a feasible long-run equilibrium, but I don't blame blogs. Blogs are probably a bigger threat to paper niche media and Op-Ed pages. It remains to be seen how much blogs and mainstream media can merge. MSM is nervous about the different journalistic standards for blogs, potential legal liability, and damage to their brand. It is no accident that MSM is bland in tone and bloggers make jokes and offer up the occasional outrageous post. I see synergies, but MSM has to cope with declining readership and declining ad revenue.
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Honor Among Journalists
NYU j-prof Jay Rosen, author of PressThink and head of NYU's Blue Plate Special Team, posts the results of the team's search for the "Best Blogging Newspapers in the U.S.," from among the top-100 circulated. The top papers are the Houston Chronicle, "by a country mile"; Washington Post, whose Achenblog drawing "the most praise of any newspaper blog the Specials saw"; USA Today, which "set the standard for visual quality"; the Poynter-owned St. Petersburg Times, a paper not afraid "to be somewhat weird"; Atlanta Journal-Constitution, for its "massive selection of blogs"; and the San Antonio Express-News, which "won points for its break-loose feel, and long list of blogs." Honorable mentions went to the New Orleans Times-Picayune, "which for a while" post-Katrina "became its blog because nothing else worked as well," and The Oklahoman, whose bloggers consist primarily of "young people who have applied to become a featured blogger."
LEST WE FORGET: Dare To Care
The by turns insolent and truculent (and proudly so) Duncan "Atrios" Black told his readers last p.m., seemingly apropos of nothing: "Dear Mac users... I don't care." Before long, readers realized that he was referring to a video file he'd linked to, which Mac users were having trouble loading. In another post a few hours later, he added Windows users to the list of people/groups to which he's indifferent, as well as: "Your new blog that you started yesterday. Hey, it might turn out brilliantly. Or not. You'll likely tire of it in about a week. Or not. Feel free, however, to send me a note about something you've written for that new blog. Might be brilliant! The blog on the whole, probably not so much yet." Other things he doesn't much care about include "your hatred of musical genre [fill in the blank]." He concludes: "Probably lots of other things I don't care much about, but that should drive away a few more readers."
Alas, it doesn't seem to be working -- these 2 posts have each amassed 1100+ comments, 3 to 4 times the average for an Atrios post. Later that evening, Atrios does link to one new blog that hits the trifecta.
Today's topics look a lot like yesterday's, but subsequent developments have taken each in new and different directions. For example, Pres. Bush's poll numbers remain news, even as he sat down for an interview with ABC News last p.m. and was in Afghanistan today. Conservatives critics of CBS News' polling methodology are now targeting a Zogby poll showing deep disillusionment among troops in Iraq; liberal bloggers take this poll at face value as well. Whatever the situation in Iraq, the impression abroad is like a yo-yo -- civil war last week, Sunni-Shia reconciliation Monday, then back to civil war with the Washington Post's shocking Baghdad casualty count, somewhere in between today as the Post's numbers seem to be wildly exaggerated. NSA's once-secret eavesdropping program comes back to the fore, with news that the New York Times is suing the DoD for more documents, and other angles are being pursued as well. The energy surrounding the UAE port sale has dissipated some, but this lack of news actually allows one earlier argument to make a comeback. On the other hand, one story that had all but evaporated is back in force, at least for a moment -- the Jyllands-Posten cartoon controversy.
BUSH: Are We Surprised Yet?
Whether you'd describe it as "unannounced" or "surprise," Bush showed up in Afghanistan on his way to India. At Polipundit, Lorie Byrd enthuses: "I love it when he does stuff like this because it really is good for the troops' morale. (That it drives the Dems crazy is just a side benefit.)" Outside The Beltway: "If nothing else, this trip will give a day's attention in the news cycle to the continuing operation in Afghanistan, which has long fallen off the media radar screen. Indeed, even though I follow foreign and military policy much closer than most, I has been some time since I've written about Afghanistan from an operational perspective here."
Elsewhere, Bush's interview with ABC's Elizabeth Vargas provided some fodder on the left. Steve Soto sees some of Bush's statements "as delusional behavior and a detachment from reality." "Sure, some of this is the usual bluster we get from politicians who don't want to admit mistakes or weakness. ... But what does it say about a man who says there will be no civil war in Iraq, and who confuses political capital with political power over a sheepish party that is being led to slaughter this November?" These Impossible Days says Bush reacted to a question about possible Iraqi Civil War "as if the idea of a civil war was Elizabeth Vargas' wild and crazy idea that she had just concocted right there on the set." State of the Day: "I know the president, to some degree, must put on a brave face and keep hope alive, but behind the scenes plans must be made for alternate scenarios. ... They didn't plan for a post-war collapse. They didn't plan for a post-war insurgency. They are not planning for a civil war. What else are these incompetent fools not planning for?" Carpetbagger Report, on Bush claiming he still has political capital: "Maybe inside Bush's bubble, there's 'ample' political capital, but everywhere else, the president's support is practically gone. ... The fact that president believes otherwise is just bizarre."
At AMERICAblog, John Aravosis objects to Bush's characterization of what the WH knew in the early days after Katrina, not to mention his delayed return to DC on 9/11. Aravosis: "And he wonders why he's at 34% in the polls. Because he's a liar who refuses to ever take responsibility for anything." Penndit can hardly believe this line from the interview -- "I think the U.S. is better prepared than woefully unprepared." -- commenting: "Wow, better than woefully unprepared. Feel safer now?" Conservative Flopping Aces considers a segment where Bush says "And, you know, I've been up in the polls, and I've been down in the polls. You know, it's just part of life in the modern era" as possibly "the quote of the day since it was a day of polls."
In an unusually short entry at Huffington Post linking back to his own site, liberal UCLA prof Mark Kleiman writes: "George W. Bush's personal favorability is at an astonishingly low 29%. That's due in part to the labors of people the right wing mocks as suffering from 'Bush Derangement Syndrome.' Now is not the time to let up. Bush could be the anchor that drags the entire GOP under."
Kevin Hayden at The American Street considers what the CBS poll numbers would seem to mean: "Out of 100 voters, 25 are Republicans who still support Bush. 9 are Democrats and Independents who support Bush. 10 are Republicans who don't support Bush. So more Republicans -- in actual total numbers -- dislike Bush than the total Dems and Indies who approve of him." Kevin Drum thinks that much as cong. GOPers might want to run from Bush, they'll have a hard time of it: "This has been their show for the past five years, and it's their show now. Jumping ship now just makes them look like cowards."
EAVESDROPPING: A Ploy Named Sue
As Reuters reports, New York Times is suing the DoD for access to more documents related to the NSA wiretap program they reported on in 12/05. It's a puzzling development to nearly all the conservative bloggers who pick up on it; most of them think the Times is playing a game of some sort.
Header at Baldilocks: "Visions of Watergate Dancing in Their Heads." She summarizes: "The New York Times is suing the Pentagon ... for acting as if there's a war on." While Rob Port asserts that "the Pentagon needs to comply with the law," he also thinks the Times hasn't given them time enough: "There are no doubt reams of pages of documents that must not only be dredged up and copied but also reviewed so that classified information can be redacted. After all, its not like the Times can be trusted to, you know, obey the law and keep classified government information secret."
Liberal hawk Roger L. Simon is more alarmed: "If the Times succeeds with this suit, which I doubt, it will be a whole new era in government secrecy. Intelligence work, as we know it in our country, would virtually cease."
AJ Strata thinks the New York Times' source on the NSA hearings might be Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), and writes: "One cannot wonder about the timing of this act with the ongoing investigation into the NSA leak and indicators the NY Times' source is one or two high profile Democrat Senators. This act is a monumental waste of money. Even if they do find a rubber stamp liberal judge at a low level to give this case some life it will not survive. It is an idiotic move -- unless it is some kind of lame diversion attempt."
>> At Democracy Arsenal, Nixon enemies lister Morton Halperin approaches Sen. Arlen Specter's (R-PA) NSA/FISA bill suspiciously: "There is increasing evidence that there is more than one NSA program and that the program(s) not yet discussed publicly are far more extensive than the 'terrorist surveillance program' described" by Bush and AG Alberto Gonzales. More: "One can only assume that whoever drafted this text is aware of what is really going on and is seeking to have Congress authorize all of the new NSA programs without the administration ever describing and defending what it is doing. This underscores the need for a full inquiry by the Congress."
>> Per a "truly amazing" recent Survey USA poll, Glenn Greenwald notes that the plurality of a majority of U.S. states -- including several red ones -- think it is "clear" that Bush's NSA wiretaps broke the law. And he wonders why Dems are still looking for ways to work with Bush on it: "If we had a Democratic President and there were polls showing that a plurality of people across the country, in every region, had concluded that the President 'clearly' broke the law -- and that a majority of Americans overall believe he did so as well -- would Republicans be taking advantage of that fact as aggressively as possible, or would they be running away from that issue in fear?"
JYLLANDS-POSTEN: Rushdie Limbaugh?
Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper which ran the controversial Muhammad cartoons last fall, has now published "Manifesto: Together facing the new totalitarianism." Signatories include longstanding fatwa target Salman Rushdie and fellow targets Somali-born Dutch parliamentarian Ayaan Hirsi Ali, French "American Vertigo" author Bernard-Henri Levy, Canadian feminist Muslim Irshad Manji and a half-dozen others. Right-libertarian Agora -- which started in mid-Feb. to cover the Jyllands-Posten controversy -- makes itself the de facto hub for all bloggers linking to the piece, and adding the ominous comment: "I think we'll be seeing people die in the coming days. You know, from 'reactions'..." The Agora blogger reprints the Manifesto in full, includes an exhaustive list of right-leaning bloggers adding their assent -- many of them reprint the manifesto in full -- and even lists a couple liberal bloggers who disagree. One is ReidBlog, who sees things differently: "What a bunch of overblown, self-important, pretentious, indulgent rubbish. The people protesting those ridiculous, offensive cartoons aren't all Islamists, folks -- they're mainly ordinary Muslims who were freaking pissed off that Jyllands-Posten published the cartoons." Belmont Club's right-leaning Richard Fernandez signs on: "This represents a substantial -- but not a total -- departure from the strategic idea of treating Islam as a religion of peace and focusing on a narrow group of miscreants within it as the true enemy. The Manifesto shifts the definition of the enemy from a group of people to an ideology."
Right-leaning Brussels Journalalso criticizes the manifesto for calling Islamism "a new totalitarian global threat": "There is no doubt that Islamism is a threat to freedom and human dignity. However, as we have warned before, some people -- undoubtedly brave, but nevertheless mistaken -- are prepared to destroy certain basic freedoms, such as freedom of education, in their fight against Islam and religion in general."
PORT SECURITY: Ancient Homeland Security
One fact has been mentioned in days past -- Andy McCarthy made the argument at The Corner last week -- but is gaining momentum even among conservative bloggers who had reconciled themselves to the deal, is that UAE-based Dubai Ports World enforces a boycott on Israel. Its resurgence is in part driven in part by a report in the Jerusalem Post.
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler writes, "if a nation tries to call foul and unfair on anybody regarding trade deals and discriminatory behavior, it helps a great deal if they themselves live according to the standards that they insist to be treated in accordance with, and Dubai fails the smell test on that one, big time." Right-leaning Mary Madigan at Exit Zero: "Israel is a major source for innovative products, including medical technologies that have improved the lives of people worldwide. In the Middle East, they're the only local source of innovation. The UAE, like other members of the Arab League, won't allow these products into their country. I guess the UAE isn't as modern as they pretend to be." Thomas Lifson at The American Thinker thinks there could be a legal issue: "Probably doing business with Dubai Ports World would not be construed to be in support of the Arab Boycott, but there may be a legal argument" stemming from a '77 law signed by then-Pres. Carter "to be made." Liberals Taylor Marsh and Michael Stickings cite the boycott as an issue as well. And Egypt-based pro-American The Big Pharoah thinks this could be "the final nail": "I am so disappointed at how this issue developed. A recent poll found that 70% of Americans are against the deal. A quick look at the cartoons published in American print media show how nowadays anything Arab is being associated with Osama Bin Laden. And what have we done to correct this? Nothing."
Democracy Project has serious questions about the poll, as it "purposely leaves open too many questions, which combined with the performance and nature of the Zogby polling organization, raises many doubts as to the poll's reliability." The questions asked aren't revealed, "nor the preparatory statements to the questions." Also missing is survey methodology, and the specific demos of the military members in Iraq. And, "not a single visitor to Iraq from any media or political party, including critics of the Iraq war, has reported any such negativity among the troops there. ... Similarly, among the 1,246 military blogs, one would have to search hard and long to find such corroborating negativity."
But an Israeli business mag, Globes, reports that DPW does indeed deal with an Israeli shipping company. Conservative port sale proponent The Anchoress: "Again, it just seems to me UAE is a better friend than many understand."
Based on the ABC News interview, Blogs for Bush's Matt Margolis notes Bush's argument that the Coast Guard's objections were all part of the process, commenting: "He makes a good point. I doubt many minds will be changed though."
MIDTERMS: Sen. Joementum (R-CT)?
Hartford Courant reports that Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT) is endorsing Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) for re-election, and in fact the whole CT GOP might do the same. LamontBlog, an unofficial blog supporting Lieberman's likely primary challenger, businessman Ned Lamont, writes: "This is an absolute gift to the Lamont campaign if Lieberman isn't going to actually run on the GOP line. If Joe is planning on running as a Republican, what can I say? More power to him. But he needs to get the hell out of the Democratic party first." Connect Left: "The endorsement puts the final touches on Joementum's DINO crown. I wonder why the good people of Connecticut put up with this?" Daily Kos posts links to sites where readers can donate to Lamont, and comments: "Do we need any more evidence of how important Lieberman is to the Connecticut Republican Party? Lieberman provides them cover. They'd wither and die without him around."
LOBBYING REFORM: Ethic Cleansing
A dismayed Josh Marshall reports that of 2 ethics bills, the Dems' bill "went down on party lines, 10-8" while an earmark/lobbying reform bill supported by Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) "passed unanimously. In other words, in one short committee meeting, the Republicans completely co-opted the issue." Likewise, a plan by Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) to create an ethics enforcement commis. has picked up just 2 co-sponsoring Dems. Writes Marshall: "The Democrats want to run as the party of reform? Then they can't afford days like today."
Scott Shields at MyDD counsels: "I honestly believe the problem here is that, God bless 'em, the Democrats just want to do what's right. So if some Republican comes up with a piece of legislation that brings them 60% of the way," but that's "bad public policy. There's a lot of corruption Republicans can figure out how to shoehorn into that remaining 40%. And it's also bad politics. There can be no cooperation with Republicans on ethics."
IRAQ: (Fighting) Man (Or Woman) On The (Baghdad) Street
A newly-released Zogby poll is the "first ever" of U.S. troops on the ground in a war. Pollster John Zogby writes up his findings for Huffington Post, leading with the factoid, "72% of American troops in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year."
To Crooks and Liars and plenty others on the left, it's a wake-up call: "If anyone still doesn't believe that [Dem PA Rep.] John Murtha was speaking for the troops, there's this." But others focus on other findings. Seeing the Forest, Thomas Leavitt notes that 85% of U.S. soldiers believe U.S. mission in Iraq is "to retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9-11 attacks": "It also appears that the troops in Iraq are unaware of the fact that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and that Al Qaeda's presence in Iraq post-dates the invasion (one would think that the numbers might shift even more dramatically, if they did)." The Liberal Avenger, being acknowledgedly "assholish": "Maybe they aren't really our best and brightest?"
Conservatives disagree, among them Dan Riehl: "I don't get this at all -- and I absolutely don't trust it. Why the hell is a center for Peace studies" -- the co-sponsor is Le Moyne College's Center for Peace and Global Studies -- doing a poll like this? And the fact is I don't care if it's a trustworthy poll via Zogby, or not. What the hell is anyone doing polling troops in the first place? A military isn't a got-damned democracy." Pundit Guy's Bill Nienhuis, too: "It's all suspect as far as I'm concerned."
Anti-war Knappster predicts the fallout on the right: "The War Party diehards will publicly stomp on their own cranks as they usually do, but this time really hard. Look for them to blame the troops and start whining about how Patton wouldn't have given up and how all the boys and girls in uniform..." Fellow war critic Jim Henley doesn't think it'll come to that: "I think [war supporters] have a much easier time squaring the circle than he suggests. It's a simple matter of saying, 'Soldiers have always grumbled; it's what they do. Now they can grumble to pollsters. American soldiers in particular have a glorious history of grumbling through every one of the nation's successful wars.'"
>> The Mahablog highlights how difficult is even for a blogger to know which direction things are headed; she takes a screen shot of the automated blog aggregator Memeorandum, which shows how the "old news" and "new news" are "bumping into each other." As she puts it: "Old News: The violence in Iraq is subsiding. New News: Um, maybe not." At RedState, Pejman Yousefzadeh catches up with the new news: "There continues to be a great deal of violence in the wake of the recent mosque bombing, which may mean that American forces will have to clamp down on security the way they did for both successful Iraqi elections. Such a clampdown and the attendant lack of violence that would result would further pull Iraq away from the possibility of civil war. Indeed, it is somewhat hard to understand why a security clampdown cannot become more of a regular occurrence rather than a policy employed for specific and especially toughy situations."
>> KRT's Strobel and Landay are reporting the Bush admin. got word from its intel source in '03 that an insurgency with "deep local rots" could lead to "civil war." Pro-war Steven Taylor laments: "One would think that after the optimistic version of the immediate aftermath of the invasion did not play out, that a more sober mindset would have set in. But alas, this appears not to be the case." To centrist Joe Gandelman, "it seems like yet another indication that the administration had these vast info resources at its disposal but only would consider ones that fit into an established world view." Lefty Juan Cole recites Shelley's "Ozymandias" as a tribute to the WH and its "empire."
BLOGS VS. THE MSM I: The Third Casualty Of War Is Casualty Counts?
A major development in our previous edition was the 2/28 Washington Post report that deaths from Sunni-Shia violence since the mosque bombing topped 1300K. But now significant doubt has been cast on those numbers -- other newspapers and agencies have much lower body counts; as E&P reports via AP, the Post "cited figures from the Baghdad central morgue, but an official there told The Associated Press that as of Sunday night they had received only 249 bodies tied to the violence." FishBowlDC plays it cautious: "Seems like no one can quite figure out how many Iraqis have been killed following the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra. ... Is this an example of excellent reporting by the Post? Or misleading?" Conservative Ed Morrissey: "It looks as though the Post simply got their astronomical number wrong, which detracts from the reporting and undermines its credibility." He also ties it in with Bush's 34% in the CBS poll and its "major sampling problem." Liberal Publius at Legal Fiction: "I'd appreciate hearing from someone with some actual expertise on this -- but it seems like we're all blind to what's really going on in most of the country on everything from the recent sectarian violence to the consequences of our own bombings." And then later in the day, Publius finds out that the numbers may be too high: "Let's hope so. I think the general point still stands though."
BLOGS VS. THE MSM II: Arianna's Latest Incarnation -- The Carlsons' Meddling Neighbor
Arianna Huffington points out that while MSNBC's Tucker Carlson has been "unfailingly supportive" of indicted ex-Cheney CoS Scooter Libby on TV recently, "there is one thing that Tucker Carlson has failed to mention: That his father, Richard Carlson, is on the advisory committee of the Libby Legal Defense Trust, the GOP-heavy-hitter-laden group that has so far raised $2 million." She offers her "full disclosure" -- that she knows R. Carlson personally to be a "very charming and gracious man. In fact, he's blogged on the Huffington Post. And if he wants to give his money to Scooter Libby, that's certainly his right. See, Tucker, transparency is as easy as that."
Crooks and Liars posts video of the Washington Post's Dana Milbank on "Countdown" last p.m., observing: "Dana finished his Countdown appearance talking about Anna Nicole Smith's court room visit and poked some fun at a Supreme Court Judge. Will [Post ombudsman] Deborah Howell be censoring him again? Keith made a joke at the end of the segment suggesting just that and it's confirmed -- Deborah Howell is now the punchline to a joke."
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Push It To The Limit ... Walk Along The Razor's Edge
At Hit and Run, Reason editor Nick Gillespie encourages Bush to push it as far as he can go: "His buttery-smooth slide [down the polls] puts me in mind of a friend whose weight bumped up to around 265. My pal, an ambitious sort, figured he might as well push on up to 300 .lbs and then start the slim down in earnest -- when else would he have the opportunity to tip the scales at such a Brandoesque tonnage? In a similar ... way, Bush might as well drive as deep as Rommel did into Egypt and see if he can sink his numbers down to the single digits. That'd be a legacy for sure (and let's face it, Social Security reform is deader than, well, Rommel at 1:26PM).
LEST WE FORGET: Bull Session
According to atty John Welch, author of The TTABlog (covering the USPTO's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board), Austrian energy drink company Red Bull has been denied use of the word "bullshit" as a "trademark for alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages, and as a service mark for hotel, restaurant, bar, and various other services. Welch links to a copy of the decision, In re Red Bull GmbH [21 pp, PDF]. At the appeal, Red Bull submitted a copy of Princeton philosophy prof Harry Frankfurt's best-selling essay-length book "On Bullshit" as well as the critically acclaimed Showtime series "Penn & Teller: Bullshit!" Apparently the TTAB wasn't impressed. Red Bull even argued the TTAB's '88 decision in favor of "Big Pecker Brand" should apply, but again TTAB shot that down, arguing that "the primary meanings of 'pecker' to the general public are innocuous, rather than vulgar."
This TTABlog is a new one to us, but ite really repays extended perusal -- for the dry judgmentalism of post titles like "'GENTLE LIPS' and 'GENTLE GEL' Confusingly Similar for Lip Balm, Says TTAB, Unconvincingly," for the wacky antics of "frequent TTAB litigant" Leo Stoller, and even Welch's forays into lyric, as with "The TTAB Blues."
|
|
