March 13, 2006

3/13: Raise Your Hand If You're For Censure

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."

Posted by at March 13, 2006 01:16 PM