March 23, 2006
3/23: A Nice Blogouillabaisse, Served With Blogoulash And A Side of Blogumbo
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."
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!"
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.
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.
Posted by at March 23, 2006 12:56 PM
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
