3/2: You're On Candid Camera!
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.
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."
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."
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.
