March 21, 2006
3/21: Apocalypse Now?
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.'"
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.
Posted by at March 21, 2006 12:23 PM
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
