April 2006 Archives

4/28: Two Ships Passing In The Night

Ideally the blogosphere can be a place where people with strong disagreements can come together and discuss the important issues of the day in a spirited, if not maniacal manner. And real debates do occur more often than blog-haters give the blogosphere credit for. But then there are days like today when each side grabs onto their favorite stories and then disapear into their own echo chambers never to be heard from again. Today the left is buzzing over a MSM article on Sen. George Allen (R-VA) as well as two GOP scandals. Meanwhile the right would rather talk about the television viewing habits of the WH press corps. Luckily Sen. GOPers were kind enough to volunteer a solution to our nation's gas prices that everybody could love to hate.

ALLEN: Yo Momma Wears Cowboy Boots

The left is teeing off on Allen after Ryan Lizza'sTNR piece hit the web 4/27. Under a header, "When I Was Young And Racist, I Was Young Racist" Ezra Klein at TAPPED describes the article as: "The sort of article that can sink a candidacy. Allen comes off as a garden variety of sadist, a high school bully and vandal."

Many lefties focussed on the origins of Allen's southern affectations. Hullabaloo: "What I didn't know was that he was a racist, sadistic prick. After all, from the non-Virginian cowboy boots to the tobacco spitting, he has self-consciously adopted these neo-confederate affectations. He's not a real son of the south." Brendan Nyhan: "One of the most striking aspect of the story is the extent to which Allen resembles George W. Bush. Like Bush, Allen was a non-Southern child of privilege who adopted a "good ol' boy" persona as an act of rebellion against the culture of the 1960s and 1970s, and then used that persona to get himself elected to office in a Southern state." Ed Kilgore at TPM Cafe: "But the revelation to me was the discovery that Allen's whole cowboy-boot-wearing, tobacco-chewing, country-music-loving Southern Man routine was something he cultivated during his formative high school years in the hyper-exclusive Southern California community of Palos Verdes."

The Political Animal hopes the MSM toughens up on Allen's style: "The press corps is a sucker for "authenticity," and it's something that both George Bush and John McCain have cleverly exploited. Allen's "authenticity" also turns out to be barely skin deep. See, Allen didn't grow up in the South at all. He grew up in Chicago and California. ... But the consistent evidence in Lizza's piece that Allen's red state good 'ol boy shtick is little more than a personal invention, carefully cultivated and maintained through the years, should at least give the press corps pause as they cover his campaign."

Other lefties just didn't care for the southern shtick at all. The Reality Based Community: "It seems that Allen liked to display a noose in his law office early in his career. Even if - stretching things a bit - we imagine that the noose was intended to refer to legal Western hangings rather than the more common informal variety, what kind of twisted character uses a replica of an execution device as office decoration?" Swing State Project, Greg's Opinion, and Amygdala had similar reactions.

The Carpetbagger Report thinks Allen's highlighted weakness makes him no worse than other GOP hopefuls: "The fact that Sen. George Allen (R-Va.), a likely Republican presidential candidate, has some "issues" when it comes to race is not exactly new. McCain is unprincipled, Giuliani is too liberal for his party, Gingrich has an entire decade to justify, Romney's religious tradition is a high hurdle for evangelical primary voters, and Bill Frist is, well, Bill Frist. But for Allen, it's all about race."

Everyone seems to agree the most damaging revelation is that Allen wore a confederate pin for a yearbook photo while in high school in California. Lefty Lawyers, Guns, and Money: "Since there will be a lot of diversion about the issue, it should be emphasized that Allen wearing a Confederate pin as a high school student is particularly odious, because he wasn't a Southerner. Allen was unambiguously making an endorsement of ideology, not heritage, and to be clear the ideology in question is treason in defense of slavery, and the symbol was later revived to defend post-Reconstruction apartheid."

Righty Outside the Beltway first posted to defend Allen writing, "The fact of the matter is that Southern politicians play to the cultural sympathies of their region, as do politicians elsewhere." After finding out about the confederate pin OTB wasn't as quick to excuse: "This one is harder to explain away, to be sure, although I tend not to be too concerned with high school behavior of people who have a long public record."

Meanwhile David Holman* writing at The American Spectator attacks Lizza for being dishonest. Lizza's crime: "So I find it curious that Lizza's very first sentence is "Senator George Allen is the only person in Virginia who wears cowboy boots." I wore cowboy boots that day, just feet from Lizza. ... Contacted yesterday, Lizza said he "didn't see any cowboy boots at Shad Planking except Allen's." Sadly, that poor reporting reflects the rest of his article."

* The Blogometer mistakenly originally credited Mark and not David Holdman. We regret the error.

CUNNINGHAM: Money For Nothing And Your Chicks For Free

Following up on a Wall Street Journal piece describing an expanded FBI probe into the dealings of Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA) that include stays at the Watergate and free prostitutes, Washington Babylon reports: "I've learned from a well-connected source that those under intense scrutiny by the FBI are current and former lawmakers on Defense and Intelligence committees -- including one person who now holds a powerful intelligence post. ...Apparently photographs were taken, and investigators are anxiously procuring copies."

Dots were quickly connected by fellow lefties. TPM Muckraker suggeted CIA Director Porter Goss could be the powerful intelligence figure. Newshog notes that this wouldn't be the first time Cunningham and Goss had been connected: "This isn't the first time that a connection between Cunningham and Goss has been alleged. Back on March 3rd, Steve Soto had reported that "Dusty" Foggo was already under investigation for his involvements with (contractor Brent) Wilkes and speculated that Goss might well be hip deep in the corruption." The Left Coaster is also on the case: "According to David Shuster of MSNBC, the federal prosecutors who are working the Duke Cunningham case are trying to get Cunningham and Wilkes to roll over on members of Congress who have been compromised by Wilkes' blackmail operation. And who may be one of those members with ties to Wilkes? None other than a man we speculated upon two months ago: Porter Goss."

Lefty blogger glee could not be contained. Whiskey Bar could barely compute the news: "I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the news (from Harper's via TPM Muckraker) that Porter Goss, director of the CIA, may be implicated in a hooker service for corrupt (and horny) congressmen paid for by defense contractors and run out of -- you really gotta love this part -- the Watergate Hotel. So what are we supposed to call this new scandal? Watergategate?"

Many are just happy to see that sex is finally making a come back in the nation's capitol. Balloon-Juice: "Some of you may feel disappointed that scandals in the modern Republican era have mostly involved corrupting the levers of government for profit and partisan gain. Where's the sex? You almost miss the days when reputable papers ran red with tales of Bill Clinton, Bob Packwood and Newt Gingrich crossing swords. Ken Starr's angry 500-page coda practically came with a brown paper wrapper. There's something cold about a party that transgresses for profit/partisan gain, and never for sex. It appears that Randy "Duke" Cunningham, the most awe-inspiringly corrupt politician in recent memory, and his equally-audacious defense-contracting partner-in-crime Mitchell Wade have ended our long, sad drought of illicit government sex." Obsidian Wings: "Now we have an enormous interconnected mass of scandals -- Abramoff, DeLay, Cunningham, Ney, Coingate, Ralph Reed, and so on and so forth -- but until now, alas, no sex! According to the Wall Street Journal, however, that might be about to change."

And of course, where there is sex in DC, Wonkette can't be too far behind: "Boring Ol' Congressional Corruption Case NOW WITH HOOKERS...Oh man, we are excited about Congress again." Wonkette then notes others connected with contractor Brent Wilkes including: Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis, Rep. John T. Doolittle (received more money than Cunningham!), Schwarzenegger (though he probably doesn't need a contractor to get him a hooker), Duncan Hunter, and (OMG OMG) KATHERINE HARRIS."

Wait there's more! Cannonfire comes up with a big curveball: "Here's the really intriguing bit: So far, none of these stories have specified the sex of the prostitutes. Read the WSJ piece carefully, and you'll see that writer Scot Paltrow goes out of his way to avoid assigning gender-revelatory pronouns to the "escorts." As I noted in a previous piece (scroll down to "Finally, our story goes gay"), the Washington Blade identified Cunningham -- who has made some rabidly anti-homosexual pronouncements -- as having, shall we say, a secret life."

BLOGGERS VS. MSM: Same Bat-time, Same Bat-channel

The right ran with a Hotline On Call item (go team!) reporting on this exchange between WH Pres/Sec Scott McLellan and Washington Post reporter Jim VandeHei. Michelle Malkin described the event as a "hissy fit" and the rest of the righties were equally unkind.

Some righties used the event to demonstrate a liberal MSM bias. Right Winged: " Apparently Jim VandeHei of the Washington Post felt that his whiney liberalism was being eclipsed by the likes of David Gregory and Helen Thomas, so he took it up a notch today and set the bar for future whiney liberal "journalists" a bit higher." MediaBlog at NRO: "A few quick points: First, if White House officials watch Fox News instead of its cable competitors, that just makes them like everyone else in this country. Second, "a lot of people" consider CNN to be a Democrat-leaning network and wouldn't be suprisedsurprisedn that it's the channel that White House reporters prefer. Third, Jim VandeHei is a frequent MSNBC contributor, but he would still rather watch CNN. I wonder if that will come up next time he's on Hardball." Church and State: "I returned home from my softball game tonight to find, to my pleasant surprise, the left wing media wacko's have blown their liberal cover by actually complaining about the White House TV's being tuned to Fox.

Others took more personal digs at VandeHei. Sundries Shack: "The best part, for my taxpayer money, was when the reporter called himself "--the Fox victim--" right after "officially" making it a complaint." Captain's Quarters: "Not only did VandeHei raise this "serious" question, but he continued to complain about having to endure Fox over CNN. Finally Scott McClellan put an end to this national crisis by changing the channel on the television. It's interesting to see what matters mainstream media reporters consider as "serious". Next time his family loses the remote at home, we hope to see front-page coverage at the Post.

Some hoped new blood could establish discipline in the press room. Macsmind: "Where was this clown during the Clinton Administration when CNN was coined at the "Clinton News Network"? Fact is that this is no doubt due to Fox News' Tony Snow coming on board and show the utter sophmoronic childishness of the White House prima-dona corp is." The Anchoress: "Filed under: The Fourth Estate, The Perpetual Adolescents. ...Please tell me that Tony Snow will do the right thing from this point on and gently mock these people back into some semblance of quasi-adult sanity.

The Wide Awake Cafe points out that Fox is also Jack Bauer's news source of choice, while Wonkette thinks that VandeHei's complaints will only make the channel options worse: "Scotty McClellan is going out, as he came in, dealing with tough questions from our top-notch press corps. ...But Jim, you really can't expect this complaint to accomplish anything. You know they're just putting on the TVs whatever will bug the press corps the most. If they could get away with it, it'd be nothing but footage of Three Doors Down's performance at the "America's Future Rocks" concert on loop."

ROVE: Waiting For Fitzgerald

Lefties were buzzing over reports that WH DCoS Karl Rove was forced to sweat a little during his 4/26 grand jury appearance. The Left Coaster: "David Shuster of MSNBC reported today that despite the sunny appearance from Rove after his grand jury testimony yesterday, he described the experience as "hell", and he now thinks it is possible that he will be indicted." For all their complaining about Chris Matthews LeftCoaster wasn't the only one watching MSNBC. Taylor Marsh: "According to reports on MSNBC, people around Rove think he's in real jeopardy. Only today, he delivered more than we could have hoped. Shuster went on to say that in looking at Fitzgerald's prior cases, "Official A" got indicted 100% of the time."

Other lefties took the time to speculate on the details of Rove's testimony. Whiskey Bar: "Consensus opinion among the Plamegate experts seems to be that Karl is still trying to talk himself out of a jam -- the one created by his sudden attacks of temporary amnesia during his initial FBI interview and in his first appearance before the grand jury." TPM Muckraker: "Everyone agrees this morning that Karl Rove testified about why he failed to tell prosecutors that he'd revealed Valerie Plame's identity to Time's Matthew Cooper in July 2003.Here's how Rove's story goes: Rove testifed in February 2004 that he hadn't spoken with Cooper. Sometime around then (after Rove's testimony, one would assume), another Time reporter, Viveca Novak, told Rove's lawyer Robert Luskin that she'd heard Rove had spoken with Cooper. Luskin was "surprised," according to Novak, because Rove hadn't remembered that conversation. This sparked a search of Rove's emails, unearthing one which showed Rove writing about his conversation with Cooper. So then Rove went back and told prosecutors that he'd spoken with Cooper. Prosecutors seem to be skeptical of all this and are said to be contemplating perjury/obstruction of justice charges. Think Progress and Greg Sargent at TAPPED point out other possible holes in Rove's story.

Firedoglake thinks the scandals gotten too complicated to carry an audience. Decision 08 and The Left Coaster are patiently skeptic. Oliver Willis sums up the sentiments of many: "I'm no expert on any of the whole Plame thing, but five times in front of a grand jury having to clarify your story and go over stories again and again-- it sure doesn't sound good. My guess: perjury, obstruction of justice. Who knows, though?"

GAS: Check Is (Not) In The Mail

Righties seem to hate everything elected GOPers propose on gas policy these days. Responding to a Sen. GOP proposal to give everyone a $100 rebate check Powerline asks: "Wasn't There a Time When Republicans Knew Something About Economics? ...Taxes are a large part of the cost of gasoline. How about if we cut them? There was a time when Republicans knew better than to engage in this kind of stupid demagoguery. If they don't know any more about economics than Democrats, why, exactly, should we keep voting for them? Well, there is national defense. But, still."

Others would like to know what happened to their party of limited government. Poliblogger: "While I like getting checks in the mail, I must confess that $100 isn't really going to alleviate my gasoline bill all that much. More to the point: since when is it the government's job to do so?" Professor Bainbridge: "Whatever happened to being the party of limited government? One is tempted to agree with Bill Quick's summation: We have to wake up the Stupid Party, before it completely merges itself into the Republicrat Statist Party."

Not everyone on the right thinks the idea is without any merit. Gawker takes the time to find something positive about the proposal: "(Hey, Senate, our bar tabs are too high lately; can we get some cash to cover that?) But then we realized it's even more ridiculous: The story we read says every taxpayer will get this check, even all us New Yorkers who don't buy gas in the first place. Which, come to think of it, is a kind of ridiculousness we can entirely get behind.

A neophyte could predict the left's reaction, so we bring you the more colorful thoughts. The Political Animal: "PANDERING FOR DUMMIES....A hundred dollar rebate! It's bad economics, bad policy, bad optics, and the palpable stink of election-year desperation all rolled into one fetid package."Demagogue : "I thought the Democrats were bankrupt of ideas, but the GOP is now giving the Dems a run for their money." The Talent Show: "The Republicans have finally come up with a winning strategy for November. Bribery. "Our free market system works", says the Senator who wants to give $100 handouts as an election gimick." AMERICAblog: "Hell, how far will $100 get you anyway and how much is it going to cost to actually implement this latest plan? It's a wonder they even have 22% support with this kind of thinking."

WH 08: Lovable Losers

Guest blogging at The Political AnimalAmy Sullivan points to Bob Novak's latest column on MA Gov. Mitt Romney (R) and sees similarities with her own earlier conclusions: "Most Christian Right leaders wouldn't be gauche enough to say it publicly, but they have a serious problem with Romney's Mormonism. I still find it likely that they would oppose him in the primaries but support him if he won the GOP nomination. But Novak says maybe not even then. ...For the record, I think that's pretty appalling. There is no religious test in this country, and we shouldn't tolerate the de facto application of one. But it has to be said that this is the bed the GOP has made for itself by emphasizing the importance of a candidate's personal faith and by making the Christian Right such a critical part of its political base."

AR Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) is not making any friends in the progressive media. SusanG at DailyKos criticizes Huckabee for cutting of all communication with the Arkansas Times.

James Boyce writing at Huffington Post thinks the hard lessons of losing make Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) and ex-VP Al Gore the best Dem candidates for 08. The Democratic Daily also shows Kerry some love for his Sen. work on energy.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Whoa Nelly!

As a huge college football fan the Blogometer was saddened by the news of broadcasting legend Keith Jackson's retirement 4/27. Jackson's booming voice and stock phrases could make any match-up feel timeless. Without Jackson the Rose Bowl will never feel as magic and all fall Saturdays will never feel as big. Note: it's the second time he's retired.

LEST WE FORGET: Baby Got Book

Andrew Sullivan links us to what he describes as a Christian dating hip-hop video. Sir Mix-a-Lot purists need not inquire.

4/27: A Tale Of Two Scandals

As much as the blogosphere dislikes them, the MSM is often the oxygen to the bloggers' flame. Without news items to comment and complain about, bloggers rarely have the resources to keep a story moving. WH Dep CoS Karl Rove's 4/26 visit to the grand jury was just the hook lefty bloggers needed to unload on one of their favorite villains. Meanwhile, righty blogger attention to ex-CIA analyst Mary McCarthy has petered out since neither the CIA nor McCarthy have spoken since a 4/24 Newsweek denial of any McCarthy role in the Washington Post's secret prison story.

Also in the Blogometer today, Pres. Bush can't please anyone on immigration, bloggers examine survey results from their readers, some webby big boys can't get along, and Blogometer Spotlight shines on Duncan Black.

ROVE: Just A Big Tease!

The possibility of a Rove indictment still gets some lefty bloggers hot and bothered, but for others the constant near-misses have taken their toll. "West Wing" EP Lawrence O'Donnell keeps the flame alive at Huffington Post: "Karl Rove's return to the grand jury today could mean the end of the Rove investigation or the beginning of the Rove prosecution. ... If Rove asked to return to the grand jury, that means Rove's lawyer, Bob Luskin, believes an indictment is imminent and is sending his client back to make a final desperate attempt to avoid indictment. ...For what it's worth, the buzz among the Washington press corps right now is that Rove asked to return to the grand jury."

Taylor Marsh is also optimistic: "The bottom line is simple. No one goes back to the grand jury a fifth time willingly unless he or she is trying to undo what has been mistakenly or purposely done. Karl's tried to make his prior statements clearer too many times it seems to me." And Shakespeare's Sister is tingling: "Very interesting. My spider sense is telling me Rove's about to have his ass handed to him. If anyone can finally nail him to the wall, it's Fitzy--and I feel it coming, yessir, I do." Other cautiously optimistic lefties: BarkBarkWoofWoof, The Carpetbagger, Anonymous Liberal, firedoglake, and TalkLeft.

Other lefties just aren't as confident anymore. The Political Animal recaps the Rove-saga and then parses Attorney Robert Luskin's 4/26 statement: "Luskin doesn't say that Rove isn't a target, only that he's not a target "in connection with this appearance." As for bringing charges, there's no telling what "no decision" means. Maybe he's waiting to see if Rove cooperates in testimony against someone else. Maybe that's just boilerplate stuff that prosecutors say until the day they hand down an indictment. Who knows?" But no better site captures the left's anticipation and then deflation better than Hullabaloo.

Some have given up all hope. Midtopia: "Besides, it's still not clear that any crime was committed in the first place.This may just be a matter of Fitzgerald tying up loose ends. If he's got something on Rove, I want to see it as much as anyone. But I don't think there's much to get excited about just yet." Balloon-Juice: "In general I refuse to get very excited about the Plame story because anybody who does eventually go down will spend a year and a half appealing the verdict and then walk off with a presidential pardon. In the following ten or twelve years Lewis Libby and whomever else will collect ideological welfare checks from some partisan thinktank."

Righty bloggers have no worries. The Real Ugly American: "Personally, I'm greatly encouraged. Why? Because if the best CNN can do for a cover story at 8pm on a Wednesday night is: "Rove says something. Nobody knows What. But we're sure it's bad. Like everything else. Bad. And Bush talked about uranium in 2003." Then the underlying Truth is: business as usual." JustOneMinute complains about Washington Post inconsistencies and Byron York at the the Corner also has thoughts.

IMMIGRATION: Not Covering Your Base

An AP story describing Bush as favoring U.S. citizenship for illegal immigrants set off resounding condemnations of the president on the right. Michelle Malkin posts some unkind reader responses under a header: "OPEN-BORDERS BUSH: THE FINAL STRAW?" More Malkin: "Not that this is a surprise to anyone who has actually listened to President Bush's open borders-sympathizing over the last five years."

Michelle was not alone in her unhappiness. FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog: "President Bush has been "SOFT" on illegal aliens and immigration from the start. Enforcement of border security laws have been restrained at best during his presidency." Webloggin: "I believe that the conservative base is being taken for granted. ...The worse part about this whole fleecing is that the man I defended for 5+ years is leading the pack. President Bush is once again proving that he is tone deaf on the issue of immigration." The Lonewacko: "Since Bush, Teddy Kennedy, Harry Reid, and Dick Durbin all see basically eye-to-eye on this issue, here's a dramatic solution to Bush's popularity woes: he should switch parties." The Republic of Biloxi: "How can the President be so right on the war on terror and so apallingly awful on his domestic policy?

Captain's Quarters believes the President is sensitive to these sentiments but will ultimately capitulate to Senate Dems: "An inside source to the negotiations between George Bush and the Senate on immigration reform report that Bush will not officially endorse the Hagel-Martinez compromise out of fear of the political backlash on the de facto amnesty program...The nature of legislation is compromise, but this appears to be closer to capitulation. Nowhere in this article does Bush appear to express any support for the House bill that strengthens the border even as a companion to the Hagel-Martinez compromise. Instead, we get this Republican president conspiring with Harry Reid to give him political cover with immigration hard-liners in his own party."

Even righties sympathetic to the difficulty of the issue are still unhappy with the president's leadership. Outside the Beltway: "While I am intellectually and viscerally opposed to rewarding lawbreakers by letting them jump ahead of those who have been waiting patiently in line, Bush is almost certainly right that, as a practical matter, we're not going to round up eleven million workers and expel them from the country. My problem with this is the president's lack of leadership."

It's gotten so bad on the right that some are even praising ex-Pres. Bill Clinton. Thoughtsonline: "Jeez, even in Clinton's most triangulating of days, I don't think the Democratic base had to worry about Clinton secretly selling them out on an issue that was as important to them as dealing with the illegal immigrants is to much of the GOP base."

All is not lost for Bush though. His immigration stance has convinced some that the president is less than pure evil. The Reaction: "See, however much I dislike Bush, I must admit that I don't regard him as evil incarnate. In his heart, he's probably a lot like his father: sensible, pragmatic, and fairly moderate. This is one issue where Bush clearly finds himself at odds with hard-line conservatives, be they in Congress, the base, or the blogosphere."

Cong. hopefuls see opportunity. At DailyKos, Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) foe David Harris takes his opponent to task: "As a Representative from a border state, Joe Barton has failed to craft, sponsor or support "reasonable immigration policy." By his own admission, his solution is that we send them all back. My immediate question is that given his concern for fiscal spending, how do we pay for the transportation and law enforcement needed to return any undocumented workers to where they came from? How do we explain separating parents from children that are citizens? Who will do the work of the estimated 11 to 20 million immigrants when they are gone?"

The draft Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) movement also hopes immigration can be a winner for their man.

BLOG SURVEY: Enough About You, Let's Talk About Me

BlogAds released their 2006 blog reader survey results on 4/26 and broke blog-readers down into "distinct communities." BlogAds explains:

The median political blog reader is a 43-year-old man with an annual family income of $80K. He reads 6 blogs a day for 10 hours a week. 39% have post-graduate degrees. 70% have contributed to a campaign. 69% have bought music, 87% have bought books. 58% say blogs are "extremely useful" sources of information. 52% leave comments on other people's blogs. Just 18% of political blog readers have their own blogs. (As you'll see, that's a lot lower than in other blogospheres.) Of these, 53% blog to keep track of their own ideas, 50% to let off steam, 36% to influence public opinion.

BlogAds is quick to point out their survey is self-selecting and highly unscientific. The results also skewed left this year since some of the bigger righties (including Michelle Malkin and Andrew Sullivan) did not participate.

MyDD looks at the results for "Democrat" bloggers and concludes: "Active readers of Democratic political blogs are very highly educated, highly politically active, quite well-to-do, voracious consumers of media, not very young, and skew male. Apart from the male part, these indicators fly in the face of stereotypes about progressive bloggers, who are supposedly drooling, rabid, anti-social, uneducated, teenage extremists with no political value and out of touch with current events." Atrios is not surprised by the results.

Preemptive Karma notes that the gender gap is closing slightly while Matthew Yglesias is surprised to learn that the median age is 46.4 years.

Science and Politics, Swing State Project, Burnt Orange Report, and Betsy's Page all focus on survey results from their readers specifically.

BLOGGER VS. BLOGGER: Drudging Up Sales

The Drudge Report went looking for a fight and found one. Under a header, "'PROGRESSIVE' MEDIA STALLS: 'AIR AMERICA' IN AUDIENCE PLUNGE NYC, 'DAILY KOS' BOOK SELLS ONLY 3,600 COPIES" Drudge notes that, "'CRASHING THE GATE,' has sold only 3,630 copies since its release last month. ...Meanwhile, the just released radio Winter Book [Jan-Mar 2006] from ARBITRON shows AIR AMERICA in New York City losing more than a third of its audience -- in the past year!"

Some righties were eager to blame the MSM for progressive media woes. Sister Toldjah: "As I've said before in conversations with people about the 'progressive' media, liberals don't tune in to the 'progressive' media nearly as much as conservatives tune in to conservative talk radio and other opinion outlets because because liberals already had plenty of media 'progressive' media outlets to turn to prior to Air America: ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, PBS, the NYT, WaPo, etc." RightWinged: "It seems that liberals get their fill of liberal media from the traditional mainstream liberal media (network news, CNN, NY Times, WaPo, etc.) and aren't bothering with the openly liberal outlets."

Others took the opportunity to attack Kos. Roger Simon notes that Glenn Reynolds book is selling better than kos' and then speculates: "It could mean one of several things: 1. Kos' audience has heard it all already; 2. Kos' audience is not "bookish"; 3. Kos' audience is not as big as it's cracked up to be; 4. Kos doesn't write particularly well; 5. Kos doesn't have anything new to say. 6. People are tired of all this political blather anyway." Right Wing News thinks kos' talents are wasted on politics: "Kos is a genius at building traffic, but he's not-so-smart when it comes to politics. Here's a guy who has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars through his blog and he has managed to funnel it to loser after loser after loser.

Little Green Footballs, Common Sense and Wonder, NewsBusters, Hit and Run, Blue Crab Boulevard, and Radio Equalizer all focus on the Air America angle.

Righty The American Mind had some questions on Drudge's numbers: "There may have been a promotion push today because Amazon has it ranked #25 today when it was #52 yesterday. Glenn Reynolds' An Army of Davids is only ranked #1237. Roger Simon, as of this moment, is wrong. Glenn Reynolds' book isn't selling better. (It all depends on how Amazon calculated its best seller list; something I don't know.) Either Nielsen's Bookscan is not very good at tracking total book sales or Amazon doesn't sell as many books as I thought."

Kos was not about to take Drudge's criticism lying down: "So to recap -- top ranking on Amazon, over 10,000 copies sold in three weeks the book has been out. Distributors have ordered 50,000 copies of the book, which has gone through three printings already (our small publisher can't afford to do large first printings). And we're just halfway through our book tour. And this is somehow supposed to be a failure?" Tbogg had kos' back: "Glenn Greenwald's book at #1 (admittedly with a big blog push), Kevin Phillip's American Theocracy : The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21stCentury at #13, and Cobra II, which is no love letter to the administration, at #18. Add to that Tom Tomorrow's Hell In A Handbasket at #518. Michelle Malkin? #1,172 Glenn Reynolds? #1049. Hugh Hewitt? #7,300. It's almost enough to make a man go 'heh'.

McCARTHY: Does This Scandal Need A Priest?

With little new to comment on some bloggers have looked back to find new angles. Riehl World View has compared a 2002 Dana Priest with her Pulitzer prize winning 2005 effort and finds no substantive difference. Under a header "Is The 2005 Priest Story A Fraud?" he concludes: "In 2002 the WaPo called the International detention (prison) story vital - in 2005 they quote another official calling it a burden. In 2002 they informed people that Clinton initiated the practice of extraordinary rendition. In 2005, they made it look like a creation of George Bush. What changed? And what did Dana Priest know and when did she know it? Evidently, not a terribly great deal changed from 2002 to 2005, given that many details of the program the WaPo broke in 2005 were actually published through a group reported piece in the WaPo in 2002.

Confederate Yankee reads both articles and thinks Riehl may be on to something: "If Dan is correct, and upon reading the case he makes, I have a feeling that he may be, then Dana Priest's Pulitzer Prize was awarded for recycling the content of an article she wrote with Barton Gellman years before." Dean's World isn't surprised by the change in the articles tone: "I wasn't surprised by this. I've noticed for four years now a decided shift in attitudes in the press and in some circles on the subject of torture."

Flopping Aces still wishes the MSM would focus on McCarthy's political affiliations: "The press will only pay attention to party affiliation if a Republican is involved. If not, all bets are off." Building on that sentiment The Politburo Diktat produces a ever-growing McCarthy-Dem-establishment matrix. Sister Toldjah, Macsmind, and Ace of Spades all have similar takes.

The Strata-Sphere points to an American Spectator piece quoting a DNC staffer on speculation that more Dems will get involved on behalf of McCarthy: "If Scooter Libby can have a legal defense fund website, then McCarthy should have one too," says a DNC staffer. "The DNC wouldn't set it up, we'd have some of our donors do it on the outside. There are plenty of consultants willing to help on this one, we think." Hot Air throws a wet blanket on the Spectator piece and thinks the DNC is too smart to get involved in this one

In From the Cold has a law school angle that could possibly put McCarthy in the clear: "As I understand it, departing CIA employees cease their normal duties soon after the announcement, and enter the agency's career transition program. ...That would suggest that Ms. McCarthy departed the IG's office in late January or early February. Factoring in the transition program and "terminal leave" (using up remaining vacation time or sick days), that would have carried McCarthy until the end of April. ...That means McCarthy potentially had access to the information. But again, a cautionary note: McCarthy had been attending law school at night for several years, and passed the bar last November. Given the rigors of that exam, I'm guessing that McCarthy took a lot of vacation time last summer and fall, preparing for the bar. That would make her a less likely source for Dana Priest."

BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: Light From Black

Today the Blogometer talks to Media Matters fellow Duncan Black, who writes ESCHATON as Atrios.

What is your full name?

Duncan Black

What is your age?

34

Where did you grow up?

Sydney, Australia; Los Alamos, NM; Minneapolis, MN, Zurich, Switzerland, Salt Lake City, Utah; finally settling in suburban Philadelphia.

Where do you live now?

Philadelphia

What is your occupation? Have you ever worked on a political campaign or for the mainstream media?

I'm currently a senior fellow with Media Matters for America.

When did you start blogging and why?

In part because it seemed healthier, or at least less annoying, than yellow at the television set. In addition I saw that there was this emerging new medium having an impact on a public discourse which was, at the time, dominated by conservative voices.

What has been your favorite post, or favorite story to write about, in that time?

My personal favorite was when I was actually funny in a way which I'm usually not (I envy the comedian bloggers). http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_11_20_atrios_archive.html#113284634221898261 Generally, I have the most fun when there's somewhat obsessive attention being devoted to a single topic in a way which unites the whole liberal blogosphere. The social security debate of late 2004 early 2005 is a good example of that.

Describe your typical blogging schedule. And what is your average output?

All day, basically. Probably 12-16 posts or so

Who is your favorite political blogger? Favorite non-political blogger?

Digby of Hullabloo

Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?

Alterman

What is your favorite television news program, either network or cable?

Countdown

What MSM-produced websites (i.e. newspapers, magazines) do you visit on a daily basis?

New York Times, Washington Post, Philadelphia Inquirer/Daily News, American Prospect, Washington Monthly

What non-MSM websites (i.e. blogs) do you visit on a daily basis?

Too many to name, but Americablog, Hullabaloo, Daily Kos, The Poor Man, Pandagon, Firedoglake, ACLUblog, Tbogg, Oliver Willis, ...

How often, or do you ever, read a newspaper in its dead-tree (i.e. print) form?

Oh, I think smart newspapers will take some of the best aspects of blogs - conversation and community - and use those to increase their relevancy to their local communities. At least I hope they do.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: 10 Million Registered Democrats Can't Be Wrong

The Political Animal sorts through the cross tobs of The Diageo/Hotline poll and finds that, "17% of the respondents read a political blog several times a week or more. In other words, there are roughly 10 million registered Democrats who read blogs on a regular basis. That's a lot."

LEST WE FORGET: Happy B'day To Me

Inspired by a friend's inquiry VodkaPundit has put together a list containing a favorite song from every year of his 37 year-old life. Making it even tougher he wasn't allowed to pick the same artist twice.

4/26: Bizarro World

Up is down, left is right, day is night ... that's what the blogosphere has been like lately. GOPers are questioning oil company tax breaks and calling for FTC investigations into price gouging while Dems are calling for ... tax cuts!?!? Then we learn that Dems outraised GOPers on Wall Street last year. Luckily both sides still know where they stand when it comes to ex-CIA analyst Mary McCarthy and new WH press Sec. Tony Snow.

GAS I: GOP Wants To Raise Your Taxes ...

Righty bloggers weren't crazy about the preview of Pres. Bush's 4/25 energy speech in front of the Renewable Fuels Association, and they were equally displeased with the speech itself. Instapundit: "I heard part of Bush's speech in the car, and the part I heard didn't impress me much. ...Ethanol's okay, though he talked mostly about ethanol from corn and I don't see much future in that. ...we haven't had enough investment in additional capacity, but news reports and political sloganizing about "record high" gas prices are mostly evidence of sensationalism and innumeracy."

Many on the right are still smarting about Bush's focus on price gouging. Knowledge Problem: "The outright demagoguery from DC is disgusting but not surprising. More FTC studies of "price gouging", more threats of "windfall profits" taxes, more ranting and puffery. Ladies and gentlemen (and I use that moniker to be polite, not truthful) of Congress, look within yourselves if you want a true explanation for the increase in gasoline prices this spring beyond their previous spring increases." Texas Rainmaker: "Can someone please remind President Bush, Speaker Hastert and Majority Leader Frist that we Americans elected a Republican majority so that we wouldn't have to live in a Democrat America. It's beginning to look more and more like we only have one political party in Washington-- and it's not one I really care for." Chequer-Board: "In 2000, with gas prices on the increase, the Clinton Administration decided to tap the Strategic Petroleum Oil Reserves in an effort to make it appear that government could implement some kind of long term fix to the "problem" of increased prices... Back in 2000, Republicans rightly criticized this move. Today...they imitate it." Poliblogger: "I am hardly happy about the gas prices, but my word, have we not been down this road before? Every time prices soar, politicians feel the need to "do something" (or at least appear to look like they are doing something) to bring the price down. Has there ever been proof of serious price gouging in one of these stories? I don't think so, yet every time we hit a high price, the price gouge business comes out."

Powerline links to a National Association of Manufacturers piece suggesting price gouging is not a good explanation. Meanwhile, Sundries Shack thinks he has a solution: "You know what's not in any one of those plans? More gasoline. Simple economics says that the price of anything is dependent on two things: how hard it is to get and how much people want it. ...So what are we to do? Simple. Get more oil. Drill for it, build new refineries to handle the increase, and get it into the domestic market."

Lefty bloggers were quick to mock, especially the president's call for repealing certain energy company tax breaks. Under a header, "Tax Breaks for Big Oil: Bush Was For it Before He Was Against It" TPM Muckracker speculates: "It's not clear just which "unnecessary tax breaks" in particular he's talking about repealing, but he'll be hard pressed to find any that he himself didn't sign into law. ...The only measure that he mentions specifically here, the "use of taxpayer money to subsidize energy research into deep water drilling," refers to former Majority Leader Tom DeLay's pet project, a $1.55 billion boondoggle to benefit the Texas Energy Center in Sugar Land." Bob Cesca at Huffington Post also sees a flip-flop: "And then there's this funny thing from the AP: "Bush, in his speech, urged Congress to revoke about $2 billion in tax breaks over 10 years that Congress approved and he signed into law to encourage exploration." Look out! He's going to suspend the tax breaks he and Congress gave them, which in conservative dogma means a tax increase. President George W. Bush is raising taxes!"

Arianna isn't going to be holding her breath on the price gouging investigation: "The president may turn to God when it comes to shaping his foreign policy, but his energy policy is strictly courtesy of the Men Upstairs at Big Oil. Which is why it is beyond comical to watch Moe, Curly, and Larry -- sorry, I mean Bush, Hastert, and Frist -- getting all blue in the face about skyrocketing gas prices, and calling on the Energy and Justice Departments to look into possible market manipulation by oil companies. It's the least believable call for an investigation since O.J. set out to find the real killers."

Think Progress notes a possible inter-administration disagreement, and kosser SusanG, firedoglake, and All Spin Zone also have takes.

GAS II: ... And Dems Want To Cut Them

Lefty bloggers were mostly enthusiastic but also a little but conflicted over reports of a Dem plan to temporarily suspend the federal gas tax. Those unconflicted include: Donklephant, "This is smart thinking by the Dems because it gives quick relief to Jane and John Q Public, while addressing the record profits the oil companies have been posting recently. Take from the super rich and give it back to those who need it;" and State of the Day, "Concrete action that would directly help the American people. This is politically brilliant. "Federal gas tax holiday," even the name works. ...It's politics, it's practical, and I'm pleased." Also impressed: The Carpetbagger Report and The Left Coaster.

Most of the lefty bloggers are happy to have an issue to beat GOPers over the head with, but wish their power had the power to do more. Taylor Marsh: "I'm all for temporary relief, which is part of what Senator Menendez is offering, but this isn't even close to being a long-term solution, but it's all we've got to give. Sure, it's politics, but the Republicans control Congress so we can't do much." Mahablog: "Of course, what we really need to do is get serious about alternate energy sources and put more money into mass transit -- the sort of thing Al Gore was talking about many years ago. But you know how it is -- conservation and solar energy are for sissies. Real men drill."

Democrats.com has their own plan: "Congress should cancel the $20 billion in giveaways to the oil companies included in the 2005 Energy Bill, and use that money instead to offer a tax credit to car owners of $100 for each MPG saved by trading in their current car for a more fuel-efficient car. Car owners would love this idea because they would save money immediately. It would quickly reduce demand for gasoline so the price could come down for everyone. And we would all feel like we were doing something concrete to reduce our dependence on middle east oil - and global warming. In addition, it would show voters that the Democratic Party is the real party of ideas. Congressional Democrats, are you listening?" Middle Earth Journal doesn't think GOPers are completely to blame.

Righty bloggers feel the world is turned upside down. Outside the Beltway: "Republicans are reacting to public outrage over high gasoline prices by dusting off the Carter-era "windfall profits" idea: Meanwhile the Democrats are reportedly considering a Reaganesque policy of cutting gas taxes. Something seems wrong about this picture but I can't quite put my finger on it."

Other righties want to call the Dems' bluff and raise. A Blog for All: "That's 18.4 cents per gallon. Sounds great. But why make that change temporary? If you believe the costs of taxes are too great for the average consumer to bear, make the cut permanent and make the changes you suggest permanent. Have the courage of the convictions. Temporary solutions are not solutions but pandering. TKS at NRO: "Please take this idea (eliminating the federal tax on gas and diesel for sixty days) and run with it. Take the support of Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey and argue that this is bipartisan and make the Democrats vote for or against temporary tax relief for American drivers. If everyone votes for it, then great. Let the Democrats argue that they thought of it first. All the voters will remember in November is that gas prices dropped 18 cents a gallon (unleaded) and 24 cents a gallon (leaded) and that a GOP Congress and a GOP president got it done."

SNOW: Tony Snow Has A Gigantic Head

Whether by accident or design, the WH managed to stretch the coronation of Tony Snow as new WH Press Sec. into a two-day story. Righties had the most to say on the matter:

• Media Blog at NRO: "The good news: Howard Kurtz is reporting that he only agreed to take the job "after top officials assured him that he would be not just a spokesman but an active participant in administration policy debates." Who knows? Maybe this will mean more sensible policies from the White House."
• Radio Equalizer: "Given his substantial background in politics and broadcasting, it's hard to imagine a better possible pick. That may be what has Democrats so up in arms over his selection."
• Ed Driscoll thinks Snow will: "(a) shake up the White House press corps again and (b) make them look even more like highly-partisan fools with a lead pipe tone when they react by sticking their claws into Snow and his classic nice guy Teflon delivery."
• Captain's Quarters: "Tony will make a more forceful and eloquent spokesman for the administration than either McClellan or even Ari Fleischer, who did an excellent job in the first term. ...Tony knows how to talk extemporaneously and engage in debate on a moment's notice. It would be hard to imagine Tony being at a loss for words or failing to present the best case for any position in which he believes."
• California Conservative: "Let's also not underestimate the value of having Karl Rove totally committed to sharpening the differences between Republicans and Democrats. I suspect that the Rove/Snow team will sharpen things a lot and they'll go on the offensive on a daily basis. If they do that, the GOP base will get charged, which will make a positive difference in a lot of races nationwide."
• Suitably Flip: "Keith Olberman will tear his hair out rip his own head off over this. Of course Tony Snow's White House credentials are unquestionable...but given his strongly-entrenched Fox identity amassed over the entire decade of the channel's existence, I suspect the carping about overt and manifest ties between the GOP/the Bush administration and the Fox News Channel is about to reach an unholy volume."
• Flopping Aces: "Just awesome news! This is exactly what the WH needs right now."
• Powerline: "His congeniality and media background will buy him some popularity with the reporters who cover the White House. But essentially all of them are partisan Democrats, so that good will will last for about a week. What the White House really needs is someone who can push back aggressively against the liberal tilt of the media, and make the administration's case directly to the people. Tony Snow is equipped to do this."

The Political Animal doesn't see what the WH sees in the guy and The Democratic Daily thinks this will only blur the line between WH propaganda and Fox News

Media Matters thinks Snow is a big liar and Think Progress has a round up of Snow digs at his new employer.

This Ain't Your Daddy's... has their own theory on why Snow was chosen. Hint: size matters.

McCARTHY: She's Got Legs?

Seemingly content with McCarthy's Newsweek denial, Lefty bloggers have mostly moved onto other issues. The Washington Note argues that there's nothing to the story since McCarthy has only admitted to "contacts" with reporters which are extremely common in the intelligence community.AMERICAblog just sees another example of WH hypocrisy while TalkLeft calls it a double standard.

Righty bloggers still see plenty of meat on the bone. Ace of Spades is unfazed by McCarthy's denials of being the source: "It could be that she's guilty of the "confirmation only" thing that Deep Throat did in All the President's Men. Perhaps she didn't volunteer information (which came from another source), but she did either confirm or deny that information to Priest-- which is still a fireable, and prosecutable, offense."

Protein Wisdom addresses those that think McCarthy's actions were justified: "Evidently, an emerging trial balloon being floated by some on the left is that confidentiality itself is the problem: in short, a government that has something to "hide" is a government that must necessarily be engaging in illegal and immoral activities. Therefore, it is the duty of national security officers and employees to leak secrets in order to undermine the war in Iraq. ...The problem is, nearly 60 million Americans voted for George Bush, not Daniel Ellsberg or Mary McCarthy."

Mark Levin, My Pet Jawa, and Rightwing Nuthouse all see McCarthy as just the tip of an unprincipled Dem foreign policy establishment. Mind in the Qatar provides them with a Swiftboat-Style matrix connecting all the Dem players involved. Michelle Malkin weighs in with videoblog at Hot Air.

Righties are also still unhappy with the MSM's coverage, especially the Washington Post. Mark Levin doesn't like the smell of it: "There's something unseemly about a newspaper reporting about a story of which it is a significant part. The Washington Post not only does this here but also spins the news of its source's firing as an unprecedented administrative act."

At the Corner Andy McCarthy thinks the Washington Post should get its story straight: "On Saturday, the Post published a story by Katherine Shrader of the Associated Press regarding the CIA's firing of intelligence officer Mary O. McCarthy. That story contained the following assertions, which certainly grabbed my attention (italics are mine): The official said the CIA officer had provided information that contributed to a Washington Post story last year disclosing secret U.S. prisons in Eastern Europe. Now today the Post has published an aggressive account strongly suggesting that Mary McCarthy is not a black-sites source. If McCarthy is not a black-sites source, the Post, better than anyone else, knows that. How in good conscience do they run a story so strongly identifying her as the source (in addition to other stories that transparently connected McCarthy's termination to the black-sites reporting even if they didn't directly cite McCarthy as the source)?" Allahpundit at Hot Air has similar questions.

Righty bloggers were also quick to jump over Dafna Lizner's on-line Washington Post damage control. Media Blog at NRO picked out a Lizner lament about the Post's failure to identify McCarthy's political leanings and retorted: "Talk about a double standard. A government employee donates a lot of money to Kerry and other Democratic fundraisers, and suddenly we can't question her motives? It's not reasonable? This, coming from the same media that analyzes every step the Bush administration makes with a suspicious and incredulous eye. This, the same media that essentially called the McCarthy leak investigation a witch hunt by the Bush administration. Give me a break, Dafna."

Just One Minute pulled out this exchange:

Ms. Linzer-You said earlier "we don't know exactly what was said and to whom ". That isn't entirely correct. Dana Priest would know the nature of her contacts with McCarthy, and Dana Priest is a Washington Post reporter. Why can't she just tell us? After all, she seems to feel comfortable exposing secrets. What are the ethics on this?

Dafna Linzer: Hi, you're up late. The compact reporters enter into with sources for information that they wouldn't get otherwise is often one of confidentiality, especially on issues of national security. That is the pact that Dana entered into with her sources.

and then commented: "But... but... if Ms. McCarthy was *not* a source for Dana Priest, then there is no compact, yes? Why can't Ms. Priest simply say, "Although I will never discuss my sources, I will occasionally discuss my non-sources; in this case, Mary McCarthy was not a source to me in my Pulitzer Prize winning secret prison reporting."

ELECTION 06: Strange Bedfellows?

Lefty bloggers were uncomfortably pleased with news from Bloomberg that Dems out raised GOPers on Wall Street last year. MyDD: "According to the Center for Responsive Politics, even the financial industry has had it with the Republican Party. ...I can't say I'm 100% thrilled with this development, though. For one thing, it's not as if the financial industry has been a force for progressive change in America. To say that their money is less than clean would be a vast understatement. And it's also not as if the majority of this money is going to the Paul Wellstones of the Democratic Party. According to the article, "the two most successful fund-raisers in 2005 on Wall Street" were Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton."

Other lefty bloggers welcomed the news as a sure sign that the GOP sky was falling. State of the Day: "When Wall Street starts to hand the Democrats cash the tide may really be turning. ...I'm not too thrilled with Wall Street or their cash, however the mere fact that the folks with the money are turning away from the GOP bodes well for the Democrats in November. The Bush administration's accountability moment may really be upon us." Skimble: "When leading wealth manager Merrill Lynch goes Dem, political dominance is in play: Why would Wall Street have a change of heart? Because Bush policies are bad for all business, even big business. ...And yet all these Wall Street donation-bets are hedged if not schizophrenic in their inconsistency. Morgan Stanley's CEO gave to Bush, Santorum, and (ahem) Hillary Clinton. Wall Street loves winners -- and that's why they're switching horses." Middle Earth Journal: "Wall Street wants change and they are putting up money to get it. The oligarchs are beginning to realize that a madman in the White House is bad for business."

IMMIGRATION: Your Invitation Was Lost In The Mail

Righty bloggers were not too happy about reports on a 4/25 WH meeting on immigration. Michelle Malkin cries amnesty: "Contact the White House. Send a message: No amnesty. Clean our own house first. The looming White House open-borders deal is the dictionary definition of amnesty."

Captain's Quarters notes that Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) didn't get invites: "It appears that the White House wants to build consensus through ignoring those who have a different perspective on immigration and pretending that they don't exist. The Bush administration is about to go squishy on a national-security issue, and unlike the overblown Dubai ports deal, this one actually has real security implications for the US."

Nobody else is happy either. Rightwing Nuthouse: "Whatever credit Bush is going to get from his corporate supporters and the US Chamber of Commerce will be lost in an avalanche of criticism from the center-right." Cassandra: "I am joining the chorus of those who oppose an amnesty deal for illegal immigrants. Michelle Malkin and the Washington Times post the story of a White House deal that would create amnesty without using the actual word.Hillary Clinton is celebrating this news because this issue gives her a big wedge to capture some red states in 2008. Hillary foresaw this opportunity in November of 2004. But the Republicans apparently can not see that far ahead." Church and State: "This must be a very sticky situation for the tough reputed Bill Frist to support such a bill. We could deport all 12 million at gun point, or we can let them all stay, putting them on a path to citizenship, or we can do a combination of both. The problem lies in where is the cutoff for deportation. It's an ugly sounding word, but it's not as bad as prison or execution. Do we deport those who have been here 2 years or less? Or 4 years or less? Or 6 years or less?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Gasometer

Not quite as informative as those county-by-county red v. blue voting maps, but still interesting: Gasbuddy.com presents a prices by county national map.

LEST WE FORGET: Sorry Charlie

We haven't figured out who is behind this site yet, but we do know some people in FL are not very happy.

4/25: Leak or No Leak?

The debate over the CIA's dismissal of analyst Mary McCarthy continues to dominate the blogosphere. Team McCarthy already has big-name surrogates issuing press denials and her atty's in full spin mode. Their statements might work at slowing the MSM coverage of the scandal, but every new person that joins McCarthy's defense just becomes another blogger target. Lefty bloggers can't quite figure out which of their arguments are the best yet, and are instead urging patience until more facts are out.

Also today, the blogs react to reports that Fox News analyst Tony Snow is the WH new press secretary, President Bush gets no blogger love for his gas announcement, a WH'08 candidate round up, and a new blogger spotlight.

McCARTHY: She Didn't Do It, But If She Did ...

Not that the story was in any danger of dying, but Newsweek's 4/24 report including former NSC staffer, and Kerry adviser, Rand Beers denial on behalf of McCarthy set the blogosphere in full tizzy. Captain's Quarters questioned Beers statement: "For one thing, if McCarthy feels that she has been railroaded, why have Beers issue the denial? Why not just hold a press conference and deny it in person? Why, it sounds almost like a leak!Beers has no real details to give the media as part of this denial, except to say that McCarthy never admitted to giving Priest the information on the detention centers, and that she had no access to that data anyway."

Having Beers play spokesperson turned out to be an open invitation for more conspiracy theories. JPod at The Corner: "So Newsweek is reporting that Mary McCarthy denies being the leaker. This despite stories in the press saying that she failed a polygraph and admitted to it. McCarthy's not the the one who told Newsweek. Do you know who did? Her "close friend" Rand Beers. Who's Rand Beers? The National Security Council staffer who quit in 2003 and went to work as John Kerry's senior national security campaign adviser. You know who else is Rand Beers's old friend from the National Security Council staff? Joseph C. Wilson IV. Just saying." California Conservative felt the need to do him one better: "Beers isn't the only Kerry activist that McCarthy worked with. She worked with Joe Wilson. In fact, they worked on African intel in 1997 & 1998. That isn't the only troubling thing about McCarthy, Wilson and Beers. It's been reported that Dana Priest's husband, William Goodfellow, runs an organization called the Center for International Policy. According to Rush, one of CIP's clients is the Fenton Group, which is an anti-war organization."

Righty bloggers also weren't terribly happy with the performance of McCarthy's lawyer either. Rightwing Nuthouse found her atty's claims that McCarthy did not confess and did not have access to the information "slightly disingenuous." He explains: "The way that a reporter like Priest gets a story like the one on secret prisons is by piecing together a hint here, a whisper there usually leaked as office gossip from low level staffers or by some intelligent guesswork using open sources. Then, when they think they have the outlines of a story, they sit down and have a drink with a Mary McCarthy and say something like "This is what the CIA is doing, right?" at which point our leaker will nod their head or shake it vigorously. She reveals no classified information, she simply confirms what the reporter thinks they already have. In short, by confirming or denying information, the leaker keeps the reporter on the right track without technically violating their oath of secrecy." Kesher Talk and Strata-Sphere agree.

Not all righties righty bloggers are ready to condemn McCarthy. Fresh from vacation Andrew Sullivan can't escape shake the Abu Ghraib prism through which he views everything: "And, in principle, of course, they're all right. It is against the law for CIA officials to be leaking extremely classified information - especially information as sensitive as secret detention facilities. But all these comments seem to me to have ignored the critical and unmissable context. Yes, leaking is against the law. But what if the leaker is exposing something as grave as illegal torture? Isn't that when a leak becomes the blowing of a whistle? In an inversion as hideous as at Abu Ghraib, Bush's CIA was twisted into a reflection of our former enemy."

While not a direct response, Captain's Quarters ain't buying: "Another defense argues that the nation's laws safeguarding intelligence has an opt-out clause, a "public-interest defense", the kind of argument made by people who have never held a clearance in their lives. The public-interest defense has no basis in reality, and clearances do not grant everyone who holds them the legal authority to decide whether classified information should be released in the public interest. Besides, if McCarthy really thought that the program either violated the law or the public interest, she had other avenues to take, as I wrote yesterday. She could go to the FBI or the Department of Justice, if the program violated US laws or international treaties ratified by the Senate." Blue Crab Boulevard agrees: "This kind of behavior by a trusted CIA officer damages the country and the intelligence gathering capabilities of our agencies. Period."

And of course it wouldn't be a full blown blogswarm without MSM complaints. From Frum at NRO: "Actually the contrast between the media response to Plame and that to the alleged McCarthy leak is too glaring even to make for good sport." And News Busters complaints about David Cloud's latest New York Times piece: "It's ironic that Cloud floats right by this example of selective leaking of intelligence information by President Clinton, characterizing it passively as having simply somehow "spilled into the press," especially after all the hullabaloo the Times has put Bush through over his alleged "leak" of information, via Lewis Libby, about Saddam Hussein's quest for uranium in Africa." PrairiePundit has more general complaints: "McCarthy has made every Democrat contributor who works at the CIA a suspect, but most of the media is avoiding the donkey in the room issue.

The hypocrisy line that dominated lefty response over the weekend faded into a more disjointed three pronged response: She didn't do it; if she did, it doesn't matter because it wasn't secret; even if it was secret its just political payback typical of this WH. No one blogger hits all three, but they all hit a few. No Quarter hits the second two: "Almost all of the information on the CIA's secret extraordinary rendition program was readily available from unclassified sources (i.e., any information from McCarthy may not have been the linchpin for Priest's story)...After his resignation from the NSA, Beers shocked all who knew him by joining John Kerry's campaign as its counterterrorism expert. A year later, Ms. McCarthy, for her part, donated $2,000 to the Kerry campaign. Their aid to the Kerry candidacy is an implicit indication of their opposition to Bush's counterterrorism policies, and perhaps of their desperate desire, like ours, to rid our country of a wholly inept and dangerous presidency. It also may have made them enemies of the administration, contributing, perhaps, to McCarthy's firing and outing as an accused leaker of classified information.

Larry Johnson at TPM Cafe leads the charge on the no harm no foul defense: "Now that Newsweek has slowed the Mary McCarthy lynch mob with its story that Mary emphatically denies she was the source of the leak, it is worth considering whether there are good leaks or nothing but bad leaks. ... My money is on Mary. She is not a liar. That point was proven with the lie detector test. Unlike Aldrich Ames, who passed his test, Mary has a conscience. Unreported contacts with reporters does not prove that she leaked the story on secret prisons in Europe. But if she did, I applaud her effort. There is a fundamental moral and ethical difference between someone who leaks information in order to serve the public good and someone, like George Bush, who authorizes leaks only for the purpose of saving his sorry political ass."

Unclaimed Territory ties McCarthy's denial into a larger indictment of the administration: "If one circumstance could be identified as the most destructive for our country right now, it might be that so many people have purposely ignored this most basic and fundamental principle: just because the Bush administration accuses someone of being guilty of something does not mean that they are actually guilty." TPM Muckraker says no harm no foul: "Here's the kicker: even intelligence officials now admit that the most damaging CIA-related stories have been based on so-called "open source" information. Hard to keep a secret these days. Especially when it ain't secret." LeftCoaster just sees vengeance: "Don't be surprised if McCarthy's firing last week was a political hit by this administration because she was a Kerry supporter and was a holdover from the Clinton Administration."

Balloon-Juice pokes fun at righty conspiracy theories: "McCarthy will likely face more retribution for her actions than simply losing her job. That is fine with me, as far as I am concerned anybody who breaks the law should be ready to go to jail. It is also fine with me if rightwingers want to spin elaborate theories in which every one of their hated enemies will get sucked into a web of conspiracy and go down en masse. Good luck with that guys, I'm sure that those Wilson indictments are just around the corner." No More Mr. Nice Blog practices some conspiracy of his own: "Now, Rove's job changed a bit rather recently -- we're told he's now expected "to focus more on politics ... and big-picture thinking with the approach of the November congressional elections." Well, for Rove, traditionally "politics" in an election year means getting somebody in legal trouble, as Ivins notes. That's "big-picture thinking" for him. So his job changes -- and the next thing you know, a CIA agent who gave money to John Kerry's campaign is threatened with legal action. Coincidence?" Crooks and Liars and Taylor Marsh also chime in.

Finally, the Blogometer loves it when bloggers go toe-to-toe ... it truly is one of the great advantages of the medium. Righty The Real Ugly American took the time to seek out Unclaimed Territory's Glenn Greenwald to produce this exchange:

RUA: "The first obvious question for Mr. Greenwald is, do you acknowledge that what Ms. McCarthy is accused of is in fact illegal? Without commenting specifically on her case do you condemn the leaking of classified information by CIA officers no matter their political preference?"

GG: "What she is accused of may or may not be illegal, because there is an Executive Order in place prohibiting the classifying of information for the purpose of concealing illegal conduct or preventing embarrassment. There is no question - as the administration admits - that creating KGB-like secret torture gulags where prisoners have no legal recourse and are beyond the reach of human rights monitoring groups is the stuff of the most despicable totalitarian regimes. There is no reason to conceal the existence of those camps (even if it's proper to conceal who is detained there or where they are located) other than to prevent political embarrassment to the president and/or conceal conduct which very well may be illegal. Thus, whether it is illegal to have done what she is ACCUSED of doing depends upon the revelation of facts that we do not yet have."

RUA: "Although what he says is technically accurate it avoids the real question. Is leaking of classified information illegal? And the answer is categorically YES. Now If Glenn could find some of these supposed secret prisons and if they did actually operate like KGB run Gulags, and they were actually run by US intelligence officers and military he would have a point. Unfortunately for Mr. Greenwald and Ms. McCarthy he has none of these things."

WH PRESS SEC: Let It Snow

Bloggers were quick to respond to CNN's breaking news this morning. Reax abound:

Righty thoughts:

• Protein Wisdom: "His health permitting, I hope Snow takes the job; not only is he articulate and likeable, but he is quite comfortable in front of the camera-a change from poor Scott McClellan, who, while I'm sure he is a decent guy, more often than not looked like the last oyster at a party hosted by drunk and hungry walruses."
• Ed Driscoll: "While I think Snow is a great choice myself if he does indeed accept the position, expect endless amount of "Snow Job" headlines from first leftwing bloggers, and eventually the legacy media."
• Stop the ACLU: "I don't think they could have a better choice. Tony is a cool, and collected individual that always gets his facts straight, and has no fear of confrontation."
• RightWinged: "I don't know how I feel about this. I don't doubt Tony's abilities or anything, but I just wonder if he's really the best for the job? I'm sure he'll do a great job and probably stick with the Press Secretary tradition of trying to be respectful of the press corps. But I don't think I want that. I'd like to see a White House Press Secretary say things like "shut up David Gregory you little puke!", but obviously that's not going to happen."
• Decision 08: "I'm not enamored of the choice - it seems to me that it doesn't do anything for the credibility of either Fox News or the White House.

Lefty Takes:

• Crooks and Liars: "As a cancer survivor I wish him well."
• Middle Earth Journal: "The "news" anchors at Faux have been working as front men for the Cheney administration for so long that it probably comes as no surprise that one of them is going to get the chance to make their defacto job into a real one."
• Shakespeares Sister: "That's adorable. Nothing warms the very cockles of my crusty old heart like a mendacious shill finally being able to slough off the restrictive bonds forged in the guise of legitimacy, at long last free of the need to insist while stifling a maniacal laugh that one is not a two-dollar administration whore."

WH'08: Guess Who's Coming To Lunch?

RCP Blog reports that Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) appeared before a "wildly enthusiastic" crowd in Boston Saturday to celebrate the 35th anniversary of his testimony before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. While Kerry's performance did score a "cheer" at DailyKos other lefties weren't so impressed. Brilliant at Breakfast: "I am not interested in what John Kerry has to say I am really sick and tired of Democrats who say all the right things -- when it doesn't matter. I'm not climbing aboard the Al Gore in 2008 bandwagon because I don't trust him to be as passionate about global warming once the consultants and pollsters get hold of him. And I certainly am not interested in what John Kerry has to say about the war in Iraq -- not after he gave an impassioned speech about being careful about going to war -- and then voted for the Iraq War resolution anyway."

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) continued his blog outreach with a 4/22 blogger lunch in Los Angeles. The first item BJ Eskow notes at the Huffington Post: "Stepping outside the usual stereotype of a politician, he picked up the check." Eskow continued, "Feingold argued that reluctance to be baited on national security cost Democrats the Presidency in 2004, and that "most Democrats don't know how to talk straight to the American people about what they believe." "They all listen to the same small group of consultants," Feingold said. "Those consultants would've told me that my career was finished in Wisconsin after I voted against the Patriot Act. And I was re-elected by a wider margin than before." Steveaudio and BradBlog also filed reports.

Lefty bloggers are eagerly highlighting an ABC Newsreport that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is now taking money from Bush donors that spent $2.5M in ads against McCain in CA in 2000. The Carpetbagger Report quips: "I'm trying to imagine how much more McCain could sell out, but I'm at a bit of a loss."

Andrew Sullivan defends McCain...sort of: "I'm no purist. The simple fact is that the GOP is now a religious fundamentalist organization, tethered to a corrupt corporate money machine. If McCain has any chance of winning the nomination, he has to come to terms with these forces. Would we rather Brownback or Allen won them over? On the other hand, of course, it is nauseating to see McCain kowtow to a Christianist like Falwell, a man he rightly once equated with Louis Farrakhan in terms of extremism. What would the American mainstream say if Hillary Clinton went to a Farrakhan rally to shore up her "base"? Yet that is exactly what McCain is now doing. My own acid test will be a simple one. What will McCain actually say at Falwell's university? Will he challenge them on their bigotry? Or will he acquiesce to it?"

GAS: Bush To Investigate Why Sun Rises In East, Sets In West

4/24 saw cong GOPers try to calm the inevitable summer gas tempest with predictable results. Today, President Bush took his turn at fighting the inevitable with an announced investigation of gas price gouging. No one in the blogosphere is impressed.

Common Sense thinks its much ado about nothing: "He's going to say he won't tolerate price gouging, but he's not really going to do anything. Just like all the other shake ups going on or all the other investigations that have begun under his watch, nothing is really going to happen, it's just that he has to at least look like he's doing something to fix whatever it is that is bothering people this week." The Democratic Daily thinks Bush is the last man for the job: "That's right the addict-in-chief is concerned that his pals the oil barons could be PRICE GOUGING, so he's going to give another phony pep talk tomorrow about how the problem cannot be solved overnight." The Gun Toting Liberal is incensed that the President isn't taking full responsibility: "You have GOT to be KIDDIN' ME!!! It took President Bush and his GOP cronies just six years to oversee the doubling of gas prices, and I'm supposed to believe this was somehow President Clinton's fault?"

Georgia10 at DailyKos doesn't want Dem efforts overlooked: "Notice anything missing? No mention anywhere in the article of the fact that Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer called for an investigation a week ago. Last week, it was Democrats who stood up and demanded a responsible energy policy and energy independence. When Republicans realized that Democrats were not only taking a stand, but that Bush's numbers were taking a hit because of rising gas prices, only then did they make some noise on the issue. Expect to hear a lot about the President's call for an gas price probe tomorrow, when he officially announces it. I'm sure the media will carry his speech live and praise Hastert and Frist for taking "initiative" on the issue.

Not that the President was expecting any defense from righty bloggers on the issue but rest assured, none was forthcoming. Tigerhawk sets the tone: "This is absurd pandering, the demon spawn of Bush's abysmal political position and the American voter's believe that gasoline should be a negligible expense. The oil industry -- at least that part of it downstream from OPEC -- cannot be conspiring to fix prices. It is way too fragmented. A conspiracy like that would require far more people than the usual cabal, probably thousands, and it would be in the interests of any number of the participants to break it."

ThoughtsOnline thinks the issue is an absolute loser for the President: "With polls suggesting that voters favor Democrats over Republicans on the issue (of gasoline prices), and with President Bush getting low marks for handling gas prices, the last thing he ought to do is play on the Democrats home field.... yet that is exactly what he is doing, ordering an investigation into whether oil companies are manipulating oil prices.... Big bad oil companies are a staple for the Democrats. There is no way Bush can get any traction in this area. The public believes he takes orders from the oil companies. No matter what he says or does, they're going to think that."

Chequer-Board sees the gas issue as exhibit A in how the GOP fails at being the party of limited government: "Behold the key impediment against the advent of small government. When government refrains from acting because either (a) intervention would only serve to make the problem worse or (b) because intervention will do nothing to actually solve the problem, the government officials behind the decision to refrain from action will be accused of not caring about the problem at hand. This will cause them to panic at the prospect of being on the wrong side of public opinion, and then engage in fruitless busybody behavior so that they can transmit a "Message: I Care" image to the public at large. In this way, incrementally, government grows ever larger and the case for small government grows ever harder to make." Hit and Run as well as RedState also have takes.

Meanwhile Countertop Chronicles has a solution: "While many of the problems are indeed long term, and should have been addressed by George H.W. Bush or Clinton, the fact remains - as I've said before - that there are a number of short term actions Bush can take right now to significantly reduce the price of gas. ... 1. Open up the Outer Continental Shelf and Lease Sale Area 181 to oil and gas (natural gas) development. ... 2. Waive boutique fuel requirements for this summer. ... 3. Suspend collection of federal fuel taxes - a savings of 18.4 cents a gallon. ...

BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: Brad Friedman

Today the Blogometer talks to investigative blogger Brad Friedman, who writes BRADBLOG.

What is your full name?

Brad Friedman

What is your age?

39

Where did you grow up?

St. Louis, MO.

Where do you live now?

Los Angeles, CA

What is your occupation? Have you ever worked on a political campaign or for the mainstream media?

Apparently, investigative blogger (or is it time I drop the intended deference to trained journalists who are failing so miserably in their jobs and simply call myself an investigative journalist? Yes, I believe it's that time.)

When did you start blogging and why?

I started up The BRAD BLOG in 1/04. With absolutely no intentions -- or even the wildest imaginative ruminations -- that I'd end up doing what I'm doing today. I had just finished producing a very successful weekly stage show in LA which changed every week and required lots of work and writing around the clock. As well, I had been arguing politics with a small email list of family members, only one of whom -- an uncle -- I could rely on to support my arguments, while the rest of my Wingnut family didn't bother to actually support their arguments. When my uncle died, it seemed wise to waste no more time making the case to six people, but rather the world instead. That, after my girlfriend suggested I "start a blog". After figuring out what the hell a blog was, I got underway, though it was mostly pictures of my cat and Doonesebury cartoons. I had no idea it would come to all of this. By the end of '04 my life had turned upside down after accidentally falling into the discovery and reporting of several mind-blowing stories which were eventually were picked up / linked to by the MSM (Washington Post and others). Apparently, whatever it was that I was doing, it was valuable to many, and being done by far too few others.

What has been your favorite post, or favorite story to write about, in that time?

It's strange to call it "my favorite" since it's been exhausting and at times terrifying. But it's certainly one of the most notable "BRAD BLOG Exclusives" that I broke early on and continue to report on to this day -- a year and a half later. It's the Clint Curtis story, a man who has alleged that Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL) asked him to create vote-rigging software in 2000 when they both worked for the same Florida software firm (Curtis, a programmer, Feeney, the general counsel and register-lobbyist -- even while he was the speaker of the Florida Senate!)

Curtis has given sworn congressional testimony, passed a lie-detector test, and I can't find a hole in his story. Feeney, on the other hand, seems to tell a new whopper every day. The story also includes a dead Florida Inspector General's official and Chinese spies. Very creepy. It's finally turned into more fun and less terror as Curtis has decided to run for Congress this year against Feeney!

Describe your typical blogging schedule. And what is your average output?

24/7. And then some.

Who is your favorite political blogger? Favorite non-political blogger?

Gotta be Josh Marshall of TalkingPointsMemo.com - he sets the standard as far as I'm concerned of what all of us should be doing.

Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?

Bob Koehler of Tribune Media Services

What is your favorite television news program, either network or cable?

Does Stephen Colbert count? Does The Daily Show count? Does Real Time with Bill Maher count? If not, does The McClaughlin Group count? I say they all count and each are more interesting and informative than just about all of the other TV "news" fare out there. Wish I had time to watch more of it! (I guess.)

What MSM-produced websites (i.e. newspapers, magazines) do you visit on a daily basis?

None are on my "daily schedule". I go where ever the stench leads.

What non-MSM websites (i.e. blogs) do you visit on a daily basis?

Daily... RAW STORY Not daily, but frequently...TalkingPointsMemo, AmericaBlog, Crooks & Liars, Huffington Post, Cannonfire

How often, or do you ever, read a newspaper in its dead-tree (i.e. print) form?

Perhaps once a week. If I'm "lucky."

How do you see the new media and old media affecting and influencing each other in the next five years?

• We (the new media) will keep reporting on and breaking the stories that they (the old media) should, but won't.
• They will keep reading us privately.
• We will keep beating them up publicly.
• They will continue to worry about lost readership.
• We will keep growing.
• They will report more and more of what we've already uncovered for them.
• They will "forget" to give us credit.

Eventually they will either become us...or hire us. I can only hope when that happens that it's because they returned to investigating and reporting on what matters, and that we can stay true to what made our work matter in the first place. And I hope they figure it all out all before they disappear forever. Because we all need them. Now more than ever. If they had been doing their jobs in the first place, many of us (myself included) would likely much rather have be doing something else entirely.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Mr. Sulzberger, Tear Down This Wall!

Jeff Jarvis at BuzzMachine notes that British papers are buying up columnists left and right to win new readers. One New York paper has a different strategy: "Meanwhile, here, The Times hides its columnists behind a wall, which may milk their value today but won't build their value or enable them to create new stars tomorrow.:

LEST WE FORGET: Who Shot John Travolta?

It's still more than a year away but In the Pink Texas is still excited about the upcoming Dallas movie starring John Travolta: "If I close my eyes, I can still hear that opening theme song - you know the one. Da Dah, Da DAH, da Dah da da da da da DAHHH da da da DAAHHHH. Dallas. ...Now Travolta I can handle, despite his scientology freakiness. His turn as Bud in 'Urban Cowboy' is evidence enough. But J. Lo? Now that's just wrong."

4/24: Source Outed

The blogosphere was created for weekends like this. The firing of ex-CIA officer Mary McCarthy has all the ingredients for a blog feeding frenzy: hot-button issue ... check; crystal clear partisan players ... check; perceived MSM under-coverage ... check; possibility for wild conspiracy theories ... check. So far the MSM has not picked up on any of the more damning theories flying around the web, but if the past is any indicator, the righty blogosphere will keep a steady slow burn going under the radar. This story may well fade into oblivion ... on the other hand, Dan Rather wasn't fired in one day.

McCARTHY: Gentlemen, Start Your Recriminations!

The right definitely acted like they were in the driver seat this weekend after the CIA's 4/21 firing of McCarthy. ThoughtsOnline typified the initial reaction of many righties: "It's nice that the CIA fired Mary McCarthy, the traitor (yes, traitor, in my not-so humble opinion) who leaked the story about CIA overseas detention facilities, instead of letting her retire as she had been planning to do." Reactions quickly turned to speculation as bloggers started to find out more about McCarthy's background. Rightwing Nuthouse became the first to suggest a link between McCarthy's dismissal and reports from Europe that no solid evidence of CIA secret prisons ever existing has come to light. Other righties jumped at the idea, including Captain's Quarters:

"How do intel agencies find leakers and spies? They pass around carefully designed misinformation to selected individuals considered likely suspects, and see what winds up exposed as a result. It's possible that after Porter Goss took over as DCI when George Tenet left, he began mole hunting in a big way. It's certain that the administration would have demanded some action on leaks, and Goss would have been of a similar mind. It appears that the story she gave Dana Priest has a lot less substance than first thought. Two separate investigations by Europe turned up nothing. They have reported on both occasions that no evidence exists to substantiate the story, either of the detention centers or of European cooperation."

Wizbang and Strata-Sphere also were excited by this possibility.

Righty speculation quickly spread to other CIA controversies. Ace of Spades notes that while at the NSC during the Clinton administration, McCarthy had the same portfolio (Africa) as Joe Wilson. Ace asks: "Did Mary McCarthy Send Joe Wilson To Niger? Plame suggested his name; but a higher-up at the CIA actually sent him. ...It doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to see the vague outlines of a conspiracy here. We have a lot of like-minded people with the motive, means, and opportunity to subvert the democratically-elected foreign-policy official of this country when he dares to disrespect their superior enlightened liberal ideas." Not everyone was as quick to condemn the entire Dem intelligence community, Rightwing Nuthouse: "Mary McCarthy is part of a very exclusive community of like minded Democrats numbering at most 200 experts in national security and foreign affairs. ... They provide an invaluable service to the party by constantly developing policy prescriptions and position papers that bubble and froth by being debated and shaped at conferences and forums until a consensus of sorts is reached. In McCarthy's case, she was running with an exclusive club indeed if Sandy Berger and Rand Beers were her patrons at the NSC. But that alone doesn't prove that her actions in leaking were part of conspiracy nor does it make it probable that those worthies mentioned above even knew she would violate her oath of secrecy so brazenly. Her contacts with Berger and Beers were probably confined to seeing them at the numerous conferences and scholarly forums where the rest of the Democratic contribution to the military industrial complex meet."

A Blog for All sees this as just as the latest episode in a WH v. CIA struggle: "We're witnessing Act I, Scene 4 of the battle within the CIA. Scene 1 was the partisan use of CIA resources to undermine the Administration following the 2000 election. Scene 2 was the appointment of Porter Goss to clean up the CIA following Tenet's run as director. Scene 3 was the beginning of the cleanup and simultaneous leaks of classified information to journalists. Scene 4 is the firing of McCarthy, the pushback that morale within the CIA is poor because of the widespread use of lie detector tests to figure out who knew what and when and whether they leaked classified information to media figures, and the ongoing investigations into leaks at the agency." Thoughts Online, Varifrank, Vodkapundit, Powerline and Rightwinged also have takes.

Working the Refs is a continuing theme for both sides of the blogosphere and the right called foul on the Washington Post's coverage of the McCarthy-firing, The Corner's Andy McCarthy: "There is no mention by the Post -- none -- that Mary McCarthy is a big Kerry campaign and Democratic Party contributor. ...How can the WPost justify reporting one friend's mere impression that McCarthy is not biased and that it is very difficult even for those who know her well to understand why she would leak sensitive information, and yet not report the objective fact that McCarthy, while a government official on a government salary, gave at least $7700 of her own money in a single year to Democratic political campaigns? Given the Post's delicate posture in this case -- having been the recipient of at least one highly sensitive leak on a subject about which it chose to publish a story damaging to national security -- you would think they might perceive a special obligation to play it down the middle here."

Lefty bloggers immediately recognized the possible damage the McCarthy story could cause, firedoglake: "The inference, coming at the end of a long wail about Democrats, is that the traitors among us are "over there," in the Democratic Party. The only purpose of this kind of rhetorical drive by is to get everyone pumped up, which will continue on radio stations throughout this country. It will begin by using Clinton, because whenever the Republicans are in deep trouble that's where they run. ...The Republicans will attempt to make the 2006 election a competition between conservatism and liberalism, while using Mary McCarthy and the non-existent Democratic traitors among the Administration as Bush boogeyman."

But it did not take the usually discordant left too much time to coalesce around single line: Bush hypocrisy. Informed Comment pokes fun at the WH with a new game: "Today at Informed Comment, we are going to play the game of "All Right, Not All Right," known in Washington, DC, as "business as usual," but otherwise castigated by the moral philosophers as hypocrisy. ...It IS all right for Bush campaign strategist Karl Rove to leak classified intelligence about the identity of Valerie Plame as an undercover CIA operative. It is NOT all right for CIA employee Mary McCarthy to leak classified information and blow the whistle on secret torture prisons maintained by the US government in Eastern Europe." Unclaimed Territory also has hypocrisy examples, noting that ex-DoD official Larry Franklin was convicted of disclosing classified info: "Franklin was a top aide to Douglas Feith, the No. 3 official in Bush Defense Department, and had long-standing and very close ties to Paul Wolfowitz, deputy to Don Rumsfeld. He did not merely pass classified information to the American media, but to AIPAC, a group with close ties to a foreign government."

The Democratic Daily sees a double standard being applied to McCarthy and Plames-outers: "Right or wrong, in the way it was done, Mary McCarthy allegedly told the truth. Valerie Plame, on the other hand, did nothing, but her husband Joe Wilson told the truth, and she paid the price for that by having her undercover status outed by someone in the White House. What's good for Mary McCarthy is good for whoever outed Valerie Plame." David Corn takes the argument a step further, arguing that McCarthy's leak was more justified than the Plame one: "For as the White House said recently, there are good leaks and bad leaks. And leaking about CIA abuses is not the same as leaking to discredit a policy critic." Mahablog just wishes the WH had other priorities: "If the Bushies had only been half as interested in catching Osama bin Laden as they are in gagging the CIA."

GAS: And The GOP Blames Whom?

Sen. Maj. Leader Bill Frist's (R-TN) and House Speaker Dennis Hastert's (R-IL) 4/21 presser on gasoline prices sparked derision from all sides over the weekend. Under a header "Sign Republicans Running Scared," All Spin Zone writes: "A real good sign is when they start attacking big business. Here's Frist and Hastert doing just that. they both call for an investigation into oil prices and profits, and Hastert takes off on the retirement package of ExxonMobil's Lee Raymond." The Political Animal is similarly unimpressed: "Yes indeedy. The Republican party is now deeply concerned about corporate executives making unseemly amounts of money. Wink wink, nudge nudge. Next up: Tom DeLay criticizes corporate lobbyists for spending so much money entertaining members of Congress."

ThoughtsOnline thanks the GOPers for shifting the MSM focus: "Not only do these two bumbling fools risk giving the MSM something else to focus on this weekend, they reveal an amazing (but not surprisingly) weak understanding of economics and market conditions. If the oil companies can arbitrarily raise gas prices in order to enhance their profitability, why wouldn't they have done so when oil was at $40 a barrel, why is it only now that we are (once again) paying $3 a gallon for gas?" American Street notes argues that Bush mishandling of Iraq and Iran along with the rise of China and India are the real causes of the price rise and then notes: "But leave it to Frist and Hastert to blame..."price gouging." I recall seeing a correlation of Presidential popularity on a chart against oil prices... this study estimates a .73 correlation, or literally half of Bush's unpopularity can be attributed to gasoline prices alone... Let's face it... Hastert and Frist aren't stupid... craven, certainly; evil, perhaps. But not stupid. So they know that the President's low numbers- fueled (as it were) by the price of fuel- may well result in serious Congressional losses in November, up to and including (though unlikely) the loss of control of one or both Houses of Congress."

Not all lefties were unimpressed with the attack on oil companies. The Agonist welcomes the new focus: "With yet another rise in the price of crude (now cracking $75) it seems--finally--to be generating a little activity in Washington--activity of the kind that might arrest this death spiral we're in. Feeling the point of a spear at their spines, Sens. Hastert and Frist are beginning inquiries with the FTC and the EPA; they are also (believe it or not) going after this little piggy and his (in Hastert's words) unconscionable salary." Other lefties not only don't mind the price hikes, they want to see gas go even higher, Bring It On!: "We'd advocate jacking up the prices even more, though we would jiggle the current configuration, which doesn't help anyone except oil companies and lunatic speculators. I'm personally willing to pay higher gas prices, even higher than they are now, as long as I'm getting something other a dry hole and broken derrick in the deal. I'm a patriot and I'm for anything that gets us out from under the bejeweled jackboot of the Saudis. Allies? PAH!"

Perhaps too focused on McCarthy, no righty bothers defending Frist and Hastert. Right Wing News says it best: "Gas prices get high in an election year and next thing you know, you have Dennis Hastert doing his best Lenin impression. Since when are Republicans worried about what companies are doing with their "enormous profits" and the "compensation packages given to executives?" What business does anyone in Congress even have getting involved in something like that?"

RUMSFELD: More Good Than Harm For Dems?

Responding to a Los Angeles Times editorial calling for Sec. Def. Donald Rumsfeld's dismissal, lefty bloggers can't quite decide if they really want to see Rumsfeld go. TalkLeft asks: "I'm torn between thinking it's better for Democrats in 2006 and 2008 if Bush keeps Cheney and Rumsfeld -- and hoping they go for the good of the country. Your thoughts?" Upper-Left also thinks that future elections are more important than Rummy's scalp: "In fact, it's important to understand that the Generals are only coming forward because Rumsfeld "embodies the smugness and inability to acknowledge error" of the administration. He's the current target in a much larger field of fire, the first step up a chain of command that has failed the troops, failed our country and failed the Iraqi people. Rummy has to go, but there's a more radical cure required for the malady infecting our nation." The Reaction sees the WHO sticking with Rumsfeld and the GOP running their normal game plan in '06: "Pander to the base's racism and xenophobia; make the rich richer; spin and spin with a smile; put America on a dangerous collision course with an emerging nuclear power; and suck up to the press in hopes it'll do what it used to do and report your spin as truth. ...Is this new? No, it's the same old same old same old. The new twist is Bolten and the shuffling of a few deck chairs. The spin may work, the style may impress, but the substance is still pure Bush. All the more reason why Democrats need to do well in November, set the agenda for the last two years of the Bush presidency, and go into '08 with the momentum they need to take back the White House." Also with lefty takes: The News Blog, First-Draft, and After Downing Street.

Righty Professor Bainbridge doesn't think Rumsfeld is in any trouble: "This administration's arrogance, smugness, and inability to admit error surely have been critical factors in the unraveling of its public support and the erosion of confidence even among much of the base. Yet, if I can invoke a baseball analogy, the owner of a struggling team rarely starts out by firing the players (Rumsfeld) but by firing the manager (Cheney)."

WH 08: Fence Sitter

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) wooed more than just the New York Daily News with her immigration immigration stance. The Gun Toting Liberal was impressed, but not converted: "Actually, she is one of the few Democrats who is suddenly acting like a "Liberal" on the topic. ...See, I was afraid of this. If Mrs. Clinton keeps talking this way, I am going to have to go out and vote for her, and that is one of the last things I want to do in '08; in fact, the notion of doing so falls right behind the idea of voting for Senator John McCain in order of repugnancy."

Righty bloggers just see rank opportunism. Junkyard Blog: "Sen. Hillary is all over the immigration issue, and by that I mean that she's on all sides of it, pretty much all the time. Is she against illegal immigrants, as she once said, or is she against criminalizing Jesus, as she said more recently? Is she for a wall or against it? Amnesty? She's a Clinton, so getting a straight answer isn't easy or usually even worth the effort, since she and Bill switch positions at the drop of a poll." Flapsblog agrees: "Right. Let's see what amendments to the Kennedy-McCain bill she will support. The polls show overwhelming support for border security first and "earned citizenship" only after the border is tightened. Hillary can read polls. Hillary panders for votes like Bill Clinton. What will be her final position on the illegal immigration bills?, Stay focused on the polls - she will be for that plan."

Lefties are no more thrilled by a possible Condi candidacy. Seizing on cross-pond rumors of a VP Dick Cheney-for-State Sec.Condoleeza Rice switch August Pollack points out that Rice has never held elective office and asks: "If "Some Republicans" are so confident that the American people want Condoleeza Rice in an even higher position of power, why are they so adamant on not requiring her to actually win an election?" Middle Earth Journal just doesn't believe Condi will follow through: "There's no doubt that Rice's popularity around the country is considerably higher than Bush's own, to say nothing of Cheney's poll numbers which rate lower than foot fungus at this point. But there's a serious problem with this. Sure, it could help out the GOP at the mid-terms but it doesn't do anything to set the stage for the 2008 presidential election. Rice has stated loudly and repeatedly that she would not, under any circumstances, run for the Oval Office and would be moving into the private sector at the end of her current job." Blogging for the President thinks "Bush Leaguers" are desperate to find an anti-Sen.John McCain (R-AZ) and that Condi is the only option: "he best scenario...would be for Bush to announce that "Dick Cheney will be around as an outside adviser and I can call him on the phone, but I'd like to anoint somebody who I think will be the next leader of the United States". Of the Bush inner circle, only Rice is electable - Cheney, Rummy, Snow, Rove - all non-starters." Ezra Klein and State of the Day also have thoughts.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Blogging Not For Everyone

Sara Hepola writing at Slate realizes that blogging may not be the best way to further her freelance writing career: "I had kept the blog for nearly five years, using it as a repository for personal anecdotes, travelogues, and the occasional flight of fiction--all of which I hoped, eventually, might lead to a novel. And then, somewhere between the bedsheets and 6 a.m., I realized something: Blogging wasn't helping me write; it was keeping me from it."

LEST WE FORGET: Tell Us Something We Don't Know

Apparently Denise Richards thinks Charlie Sheen is drug-addicted, porn-loving, degenerate gambler who likes to threaten to kill people. Apparently she only figured this out after they were married.

4/21: Burning Bush?

There are definitely some bloggers who are taking the time to gloat over the latest dismal WH approval numbers, or maybe to dance on the graves of departed staffers, and even to speculate on the next to go. But most of the energy is on the battles that lie ahead. Righties see opportunity and clarity in the 4/19 WH moves. The biggest and baddest lefty bloggers are determined to refashion the Den Party in their image and the RI SEN race is ground zero in that battle today. Meanwhile an old-media article fuels debate on what the platform for a progressive Dem party should look like.

BUSH I: How Low Can He Go?

Lefties are in full gloat mode after Fox News released results of their latest Presidential approval numbers. Making the news even sweeter for the bloggers was the source itself. The Democratic Daily "Will this put a stop to the Bush Worshippers who have been claiming that Bush is rebounding in the polls, or that the low numbers come from biased news organizations like CBS?" Brad Blog: "How will the poor Fox "News" Bush dead-enders cover for their man now that their own poll is out showing Bush at all-time lows. Just over a month ago, when CBS released their poll pegging Bush Approval at 34% the Fox Wingnuts bent over backwards to dismiss the poll as untrustworthy. ... That number includes a full 20% drop in Republican support from one year ago!" Also noting the drop in GOP support for the President, Middle Earth Journal: "Well it appears that the rank and file Republicans are moving in the same direction with only 66% of them approving of the job Bush is doing. I believe that's down about 14% from the first of the year."

Demagogue notices that not all GOPers sank: "And guess whose approval rating is higher than Bush's? Donald Rumsfeld got 35% in the same poll." Meanwhile, No More Mister Nice Blog is done celebrating and wants everyone to keep their eyes on the prize: "Although I'm very pleased at the results of the new Fox News poll, I want to see results, dammit. I want this discontent to lead to a change in the makeup of the federal government. ...So why am I gloomy? Because of the third stat here:"Like to see your member reelected": 57% yes. The typical voter wants incumbents out but doesn't want his or her own incumbent out. Notice that voters didn't want incumbents reelected in October 1994 -- the pro-incumbent number was 49%. Now it's in the high 50s. That number has to go lower or we're going to see the damn Republicans hold both houses of Congress again."

Other lefties with thoughts: Democrats.com, In Search of Utopia, The LeftCoaster, Kiko's House, andThe All Spin Zone.

On the right some tried to deal with the news by questioning the objectivity of Dems, Suitably Flip : "With the stock market rallying, the labor market sizzling, GDP growing faster than in any other industrialized country (despite war, high oil prices, and natural disasters), all with inflation under control, it's hard to imagine a more robust economy. ... I find it difficult to believe that 5 of 6 Democrats would objectively deem these conditions "only fair/poor." Others took the opportunity to blame the low numbers on White House inattention to their pet issue, Rightwinged: "Obviously this isn't good news, but it's only "news" because it's a "new" low, but his numbers have been in the toilet for a long time. ... One thing people should always remember is that many on the right are upset that he's sitting on his hands on the immigration issue, when we want a wall now!" Ace of Spades: "Yes, it does seem to be largely because of the price of gas. It's also due to a majority of the public still believing we're in a recession and that, in fact, the economy is getting worse. Gee, I wonder how they may have gotten that idea."

BUSH II: All Shook Up?

Although they might come from completely opposite angles, the consensus on both the right and left blogosphere was that the WH's 4/19 announcements on Scott McClellan and Karl Rove amounted to much a do about nothing. The left focussed more on the fact that Donald Rumsfeld didn't get the sack while righties were more inclined to focus on how the move frees Rove up to do what he does best: trounce Democrats.

Matt Stoller at MyDD starts with a little score keeping: "Let's review something very basic about this 'shake-up'.

• Donald Rumsfeld - still in place
• Dick Cheney - still in place
• Steven Hadley - still in place
• Karl Rove - still in place

Now, to be clear, a shake-up can happen, but it won't happen until November, 2006. That's when the American people can pick new leadership in Congress and force this weakened Presidency to change course."

Firedoglake is equally unconvinced: "The bottom line is that all this talk about White House changes so far is more about moving familiar players around, without anything dramatic being delivered from The Decider. ... Frankly, I've got my doubts about Rove's "demotion." For me, Bush and Rove will be tied at the hip until the latter leaves freely or by force. The bottom line is that Deadeye is still there. Donald Rumsfeld isn't going anywhere, at least not yet, with Rove in full campaign mode, where he always does the most damage to Democrats."

The LeftCoaster also thinks Rumsfeld is the key: "In stating the obvious, Russert told Imus this morning that firing Rummy would mean in essence that Bush would be firing himself, and that isn't going to happen. ... Look, the smartest thing the Democrats could do here is employ reverse psychology. Instead of doing what Bush and Rove expect them to do, which is to continually whine and scream for Rummy's head, Democrats should instead be saying that Rumsfeld should stay as the perfect emblem of the failures of this administration and this president."

Other lefties: Mahablog, Ballon-Juice, New Donkey, and Crooks and Liars

California Conservaitve also sees winners: "This is a win-win-lose situation. Rove wins because he's more of a hands-on executive than he is a minute-by-minute administrator. The GOP wins because Rove's full attention is tuned into developing a winning plan for this November's elections. The only loser in all this is the Democrats." While Ramesh Ponnuru sees no losers: "First of all, I doubt that Rove's formal job description has ever tracked too closely with how he actually spends his days. Second, how bad can it be to do less work on policy at a time when the administration can't get much policy through?"

Bloggers already have reax lined up for rumors of Harriet Miers demise. Outside the Beltway finds it "ironic indeed, since the fiasco that was Miers' nomination to the high court was arguably the point when the wheels started coming off the president's domestic agenda."

AmericaBlog wonders what this "knife in the back" means for the reputation of that "famed Bush loyalty."

Meanwhile, the Democratic Daily is not going to miss the "woman who considers George Bush to be the "smartest man I ever met."

CHINA SUMMIT: Hu And Cry

The disruption itself may have only lasted a few minutes, but the protester at the White House's 4/20 Hu Jintao welcoming ceremony finally pushed the Chinese President U.S. visit into a big item in the blogosphere. Some bloggers have been posting throughout Hu's stay stateside, but for most bloggers the trip was under their radar until the protest gave them the platform they needed to make larger points.

Commenting was heaviest on the right who has never had much patience with the communist regime. Some focussed on the censorship angle:

NewsBusters: "The authoritarian government of China is well-known for suppressing free speech and sometimes getting American media companies eager to cash in on a huge emerging market to help it do so. ...As the woman's voice began shouting out before being arrested by Secret Service agents, Chinese television blacked the screen and muted the audio. After the event was over, when CNN International began discussing the protestor, its signal was abruptly cut off to Chinese viewers. ...CNN has since said that the blackout was done directly by the Chinese government."

A Blog For All: "Is the Chinese government doing anything other than trying to hide the fact that its leaders can't take any dissent. This isn't like when MLB breaks away from games to avoid showing the numbnuts who run out on the field and cause mayhem or streak or are otherwise showboating to get attention. It only further reinforces the fact that the Chinese don't get the concept of free speech."

Other righties were most impressed with the protester herself, Riehl World View: "I'm far from some old softie. Well, in some ways, maybe I am. But not when it comes to politics and protests. But it was rather surprising to me earlier today when I heard audio over the radio of a single Chinese protester in Washington. That unintelligble, crazy-sounding to me voice speaking out alone in a language I couldn't understand touched me far more than the gathered numbers of any other protest I've ever seen or heard. Quite an incredible contrast with the immigration crowd, I'd say."

Other righties thought the event underscored their longstanding China complaints.

Blogs For Bush: "I really wish we didn't have Hu here at all - in fact, these days, I wish we'd cut off all relations with China...see how long their slave-based economy survives without access to the American markert."

Gateway Pundit: "As Chinese President Hu Jintao works at making a good impression on the Americans in his historic trip to the United States, British surgeons today are accusing China of harvesting the organs of thousands of executed prisoners a year to sell for transplants. The sickening rumors have been out there a while, but now the British Transplantation Society are claiming it is true! Good God!."

Kesher Talk: "It seems likely that Hu will be unused to dealing with heckling journalists...there reporters commended by government officials receive bonuses from their editors. Which nicely subverts the free practice of journalism with bribery essentially. ...The MSM is finally beginning to cover news of the coerced organ harvesting from Falun Gong political prisoners in China."

Lefties also had praise for the protester, Peking Duck: "I watched the incident on CNN last night and was amazed the determined lady was able to pull it off and cause so much distraction. I'm not making a big deal out of this because I see it as rather silly, and I can't blame the Secret Service for carting her away. That would have happened under any administration. I admire this woman's courage though I don't in any way admire her organization."

Most lefties just saw the event as yet another reason to get mad at the administration.

Attywood: "Watching the scene unfold, we felt like we were living on a different planet from the folks at CNN. Any enemy of free speech is an enemy of ours, and we have long loathed the totalitarian regime in Beijing. Like millions of other, we still see the picture of the lone man standing up to a column of tanks in Tiananmen Square as the iconic picture of our times. Why do we get the impression that President Bush, his Secret Service -- and CNN -- were rooting for the tanks."

Bob Cesca at Huffington Post: "In fact, during this morning's event, President Bush urged President Hu to allow his people to speak freely. What a coincidence that a Chinese woman at the event would take the president up on his challenge. ...A Chinese woman expressing her views to the Chinese president in the only forum possible -- she certainly couldn't do that in China -- is a blemish? ...This is the man who's on a self-proclaimed freedom crusade employing the bloodied bodies of our fighting men and women, but who personally couldn't move a muscle other than to tell President Hu, "You're alright."

IN THE STATES: Lincoln Logs

The Sierra Club announced 4/19 that they would be endorsing Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) for re-election. Outraged lefty bloggers were quick to try and crack the whip, including:

kos: "This may very well be the most moronic move by any organization this election cycle. Um, guys over at the Sierra Club? Yeah, you, Carl Pope? How has Bill Frist and the Republican Congress been for your agenda? ...And how was his 20 percent rating? That's all it takes to get an endorsement these days? Are you really that easy?...good luck seeing your agenda continue to be demolished by the GOP leadership Chafee will continue to enable."

Swingstate Project: "I have one very, very simple response to this: My goal in life is to elect and support Democrats. My corollary goal, naturally, is to oppose Republicans and boot them from office. Barring the most extraordinary of circumstances, if your goal ever involves electing or supporting Republicans, I will never support you. I don't care what your rationale for bipartisanship is - it's one I will never share."

Firedoglake: "This is quite possibly even worse than NARAL's continued support for Chafee who only has a 65% voting record last year on pro-choice issues. ...If the Democrats are going to retake the Senate in the next election...Chafee holds one of the key seats that must be retaken."

Carl Pope then responded at Huffington Post: "Why endorse a Republican, even a leader like Chafee, when he votes to make Senator Frist Majority Leader?...But it is also vital that environmentalism be nonpartisan, and Chafee is essential there. "We choose individuals, not parties," I remind the press. After all, Chafee single-handedly saved Richard Nixon's greatest legacy and environmentalism's proudest accomplishment of the 1970s: The Clean Air Act. The Sierra Club's endorsement was criticized in the blogosphere, where an inaccurate article misleadingly stated that Senator Chafee only had a 20% environmental rating from us. This number came from an article on a local Rhode Island TV station's website. The station has since removed that number. The League of Conservation Voters Scorecard currently ranks Senator Chafee at 90%."

The bloggers were unimpressed, Taylor Marsh: "Anyone that misinformed does not deserve the job he holds. The Republican Party has blocked environmental reforms for years. They don't believe in science. Bush cut over $100 million from the national parks' budget for next year. But to top it off, according to George W. Bush, a golf course is a wetland!These are the people the Sierra Club under Carl Pope is backing.

Chafee was not the only to receive kos criticism this week. Turns out Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) is having trouble playing nice with local activists: "Meanwhile, it was quite shocking to see just how much local activists hate Sen. Maria Cantwell. It isn't that they're disappointed in her positions on issues like Iraq in an effort to appear "moderate" or "centrist", it's that she won't even talk to them about those issues. The dislike was near universal and truly based on that lack of communication."

BLOGS VS. MSM: The Healing Purple Party?

Kurt Anderson pens Introducing the Purple Party in this month's New York Magazine: "Let the invigorating and truly democratic partisan flux of the American republic's first century return. Let there be a more or less pacifist, anti-business, protectionist Democratic Party on the left, and an anti-science, Christianist, unapologetically greedy Republican Party on the right--and a robust new independent party of passionately practical progressives in the middle." The blogosphere is univerally unimpressed.

The Carpetbagger Report notes that Anderson wants a "party that's fiscally responsible, supports single-payer health care, will fight a genuine war on terrorists but recognizes that the war in Iraq was a mistake, takes the separation of church and state seriously, and is pro-environment, pro-choice, pro-trade, pro-science, and pro-diversity. ...Reading over the piece...I kept coming to the same conclusion: Andersen doesn't need the "purple" party; he needs to realize he's just a regular ol' Clintonian Democrat."

The Democratic Daily thinks Republicans are to blame for Anderson's confusion: "This sounds quite a bit like much of the current Democratic Party and absolutely nothing like the Republicans. ...Republicans win elections partially by getting people who agree with Democrats on most issues to have a vague notion that something is wrong with Democrats which prevents them from really voting for Democrats. In this case it is the myth that Democrats (the winners of two World Wars) are weak on security. For others it is the feeling that Democrats are quasi-socialists who will tax them out of their standard of living."

Matt Singer at Left in the West is not only unimpressed with the third part idea, he also isn't a big fan of Anderson's issues either: "Every couple years, there's a major piece about the need for a new centrist, third party. Typically, the call comes from elites who envision a party of free trade, limited government, mild environmentalism, and market reforms. Essentially, it's moderated libertarianism with an optimistic face." Singer then runs through each of Anderson's policy prescriptions before concluding that they Anderson and his elite friends are "just horribly out-of-touch with the world in which they live."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Blame Canada? Close, How About Britain

Writing at Slate Geoffrey Wheatcroft developes a growing blame-Blair-for-Iraq-line: "The harder these arguments are looked at, the more curious they seem. You don't say: "My big brother is a crazy kind of guy. On Saturday night he likes to get blind drunk and drive through town at 90. It would be more damaging to peace and security if he acted alone than if he had my support, so I'll go along with him for the ride." Either Washington was doing something wise and virtuous, in which case it should have been supported for that reason, or not, in which case should have been restrained and, if necessary, opposed."

LEST WE FORGET: Master of the Universe

Do you often find yourself in front of the TV thinking: "That was the dumbest ad I've ever seen, what moron came up with that?" Well, so does The Sneeze. Looking back at the Mattel classic He-Man he quotes a reader that laments: "I mean really...can you just picture the "creative" people at Mattel sitting around a big table throwing out ideas for the new long blond haired, Arnold Schwarzenegger looking, steroid taking action figure? I often lie in bed at night envisioning how that creative process went - it usually ends in tears for me. The best they could come up with is He-Man. Sad Mattel...very sad."

NOTES AND ERRATA

To read the unabridged edition of the Blogometer, visit http://blogometer.nationaljournal.com. Questions, comments, reservations? Drop us a line at blogometer@nationaljournal.com.

4/20: The Empire Strikes Back

Reactions to the 4/19 WH shake-up abound across the spectrum. Few have good words for Scott McClellan, and theories abound on the true motives behind Karl Rove's "demotion." Lefty bloggers see Rove-like fingerprints on ICE's recent round-up of what the AP calls "illegal workers." Like so much else in politics, the simple task of naming often betrays ones policy conclusions. For righty bloggers, ICE rounded up "illegal immigrants" while lefties describe them as "undocumented workers." Looks like the AP did a decent job of splitting the difference.

Meanwhile, heavy hitters on the left think they may have A New Hope to the GOP Death Star: "the common good." If you're a little fuzzy on what that exactly means, you're not alone. But not everyone is mystified, and those who aren't can't wait to jump on the bandwagon.

McCLELLAN: Kickin' A Man When He's Down

Not many kind words can be found for Scott McClellan. Lefties either thought he was a complete disaster or that he could have been better had he not been working for such a controversial president. Righties don't have any bad words for the man, but there's a dearth of good things to be said about McClellan's tenure also. Some good reax: Gun Toting Liberal: "For certain, Scott McClellan's done a great job when you consider that his job description was basically, to lie about and spin on what the President's been up to since the last press conference to the American People." Matthew Yglesias: "Scott McClellan's tenure as White House press secretary has been objectively disastrous...Liberals and conservatives really ought to be able to agree on this -- there's no policy implications whatsoever." Arianna Huffington: "Yesterday, rejecting the mounting demands for Don Rumsfeld's head, President Bush made it clear who's making the calls ..."I'm the decider," he declared, "I decide what's best." But today, commenting on Scott McClellan's resignation, the president was singing a different tune ... What gives, Mr. President? Are you not really The Decider but actually The Decidee -- buffeted about by the uncontrollable whims of others? So, with Rummy, you decided not to accept his decision -- but with McClellan you did. Very decisive. Sorry, Scottie, I guess this means the president is just not that into you." The Carpetbagger: "McClellan's announcement hardly comes as a surprise. McClellan has enjoyed few real allies anywhere outside the West Wing. The reporters don't like him (he's evasive and dishonest); Republicans don't like him (he's neither articulate nor persuasive); and Dems don't like him (he routinely lies and attacks their patriotism)." Other lefties with takes: Done With Mirrors, Alternate Brain, Bark Bark Woof Woof, and Middle Earth Journal.

Righty reax: Stephen Spruiell at NRO: "It's not that Scott McClellan was a bad press secretary. It's that he is not the right press secretary right now. A White House press corps this hostile and guileful calls for a press secretary who's equally tough." Captain's Quarters: "McClellan's exit comes as no shock to anyone. He performed well enough, but lately has seemed either overmatched by the hostility of the White House press corps or just out of gas. The exchanges between McClellan and the gaggle have become increasingly personal, and the tension has not helped with getting the president's message out to the electorate. When the press secretary becomes the story for weeks on end, the communication process is broken."

While reports of the WH's new choice include Torie Clark, Rob Nichols, Mark Corallo, Dan Senor, and Brian Jones, the web's most talked about choice is Fox News' Tony Snow: Agitprop: "We fully support Snow for the position. From falsely claiming that Joe Wilson said his wife was not undercover to mucking up the theory of evolution to lying about Navy documents in defense of the Swiftboaters to his tax-the-poor beliefs to his lap dog stance towards the "administration" to his legendary tolerance -- well, this makes him the perfect candidate! Who better to lie to us than the familiar, pleasing visage of a Fox News Bu$hCo stenographer?" Left Coaster: "So, how could Bush make the White House spokesman assignment even worse than he made it with Ari Fleischer and McClellan? Well, why not make the connection between the White House and Fox News complete? " Gun Toting Liberal: "Frankly, I'd hate to see that, because Tony Snow, despite being a dedicated Republican, seems to be a pretty classy guy, and I base that analysis strictly upon the class, respect, and dignity with which he has treated callers with opposing viewpoints on his talk radio show the times I have listened in. I'd just hate to see this guy become the next "villian" for the Administration, but you've gotta do what you've gotta do I suppose." Demagogue: "If our talented Decider-in-Chief hires Snow does that mean that FoxNews can stop claiming once and for all that they're a real news channel instead of a Republican propaganda machine?"

Other left takes: Tapped, The Democratic Daily, NewsHog, and Think Progress

From the Right: Prairie Pundit: "I do think Tony Snow's personality would fit well with the job and his work on talk radio is probably pretty good practice for responding to media questions." Hit and Run: "As a Tony Snow fan, I have to concede that this is the kind of career move you'd be a fool to turn down, but I still say: Don't do it, Tony. You're too good for that."

Who ever the White House chooses Attytood can come do HR at the Blogometer any time: "After it was rebuffed by Tony Snow, Torie Clarke, Joe Klein and Jeff Gannon, an embattled Bush White House finally introduced a new press secretary to replace the departed Scott McClellan: Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf ("Baghdad Bob). ...Al-Sahaf also had some strong words for special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald: "He's not even [within] 100 miles [of Karl Rove]. They are not in any place. They hold no evidence in the West Wing. This is an illusion ... they are trying to sell to the others an illusion."

ROVE: No Soup For You!

Bloggers from all sides are speculating that Rove's downgraded portfolio may be due to a possible revocation of his security clearance. Think Progress gets the ball rolling: "An important question has not been asked: Will Rove also give up his security clearance? ...In November, Newsweek wrote, "Having his security clearance yanked would not require Rove to resign as deputy chief of staff to President Bush. But it would prevent him from taking part in policymaking that relates to national-security issues, which would mean a much-reduced role in the Bush White House." ...Rove has now resigned his policy-making post and is focusing primarily on politics. Given Rove's public intentions to make national security the focus of the 2006 elections, the White House should reveal whether Rove will be doing his political job while holding a security clearance." Other reax: Firedoglake: "I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that Rove's shift anticipates a big push to have that clearance revoked, and it avoids the embarrassment of losing the loftier job title as a result." King of Zembla: "We find it telling that the Decider-in-Chief stood by one of his men -- the radioactive, universally-despised Don Rumsfeld -- and demoted another. Is Mr. Rove expecting to follow his colleague Scooter Libby into the dock, and if so, is his reassignment a pre-emptive move designed to blunt an onrushing scandal?" Taylor Marsh: "Contrary to all the trumpeting of Rove's demotion and demise, I believe the reality is much different. If anything, it's a head fake meant to excite the base, titillate the opposition and distract the Democrats from what's really going on. Rove is not only safe, his partnership intact, but needed desperately by Bush. They simply cannot afford to lose big in the 2006 mid-terms, which is something that is a real possibility." Democrats.com: "Karl Rove gave up the policy part of his job for a simple reason: he's about to be indicted and frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs, thus making Joe Wilson's dream come true."

Also with lefty thoughts: The Carpet Bagger, TPM, and The Democratic Daily

Captain Ed's thoughts are a good reflection of righty opinion: "Karl Rove will leave the policy portfolio behind and work exclusively on the upcoming elections. That hardly qualifies as a surprise, either. ...Most of us expected Rove to informally drop the policy-wonk persona once the 2006 primaries came close. This only makes that reassignment official. The GOP needs a fully-engaged Karl Rove in the election, especially since the polling has looked somewhat grim for the Republicans, at least nationally. With the party squabbling and a testy debate about to break out about the direction of the party, Rove can lend his formidable talents to bringing political unity among the factions."

DEMOCRATS: What's The Big Idea?

In a web exclusiveThe American Prospect 's Michael Tomasky puts forward a new guiding principle for the donkey party: "The Democrats need to become the party of the common good. Democrats can stand for an idea: the idea that we're all in this -- post-industrial America, the globalized world, and especially the post-9-11 world in which free peoples have to unite to fight new threats -- together, and that we have to pull together, make some sacrifices, and, just sometimes, look beyond our own interests to solve our problems and create the future."

None other than kos himself felt the need to respond: "Tomasky argues that the interest groups must be tamed and a leader must emerge to symbolize this transcendence from the individual and his or her pet cause, to something much bigger, much more inspiring. ... Tomasky's dream candidate is Gov. Brian Schweitzer from Montana, though he's still committed to fixing the mess Republicans made in Montana and won't be available for national duty until the next decade. Others might and hopefully will emerge. But it's clear that the future of the Democratic Party isn't the current collection of constituency and issue groups. It's committed, movement-building progressives who fight for higher principles than narrow self-interest, and sell that vision to an American public that isn't as selfish and self-centered as Republicans would have everyone believe."

Atrios also chimed in, but with a little more doubt: "Tomasky does a good job of fleshing out the potential pitfalls, as well as recognizing that it may just be his inner idealist talking. But I think many people do want to feel a part of something bigger than themselves, something they feel is a force for good. What the Democrats still don't have is a philosophy, a big idea that unites their proposals and converts them from a hodgepodge of narrow and specific fixes into a vision for society."

Chuck Pennacchio fan Fact-esque doesn't think the current Dem PA SEN candidate lives up to Tomasky's creed: "If you believe what Michael Tomasky wrote about Democrats needing to become the party of the common good, and how being part of a cause greater than themselves will resonate with voters, then you should be out canvassing for Chuck Pennacchio. ...if Casey is your guy, then I don't want to hear anymore about ideals and the common good and how important Democratic values are to you, because you will have proven that not any of that is true."

Also with thoughts: Digby Blog, Shakespeare's Sister, Interesting Times, and Prairie Weather.

IMMIGRATION: Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don't

Responding AP reports of an ICE raid that netted both illegal workers and their employers, TalkLeft questions the timing of the sting: "The poll numbers are down, immigration is the hot new issue, and the administration needs to look like it's doing something. It's time to look tough. ...Immigration and Customs Enforcement has been quite tolerant of the business community's desire to employ aliens who haven't been authorized to work. If ICE made a serious effort to hold corporate executives accountable, the GOP's corporate base would howl in protest." Righties unhappy with past enforcement also asked why now. Riehl World View: Pardon me if I question the timing. Though I hope it's the start of an on going trend and includes deportation. Oh, but wait a minute, they need only turn around and come back in." Right Wing News wants to know why it doesn't happen more often: "On the other hand, since we can do this under the current laws, why aren't we seeing it 3 or 4 times a week? I mean let's face it, folks, if "ICE actually busts a lot of illegal immigrants and their employers" is a big story, it's a pretty good indication that ICE isn't getting the job done. The very fact that this story is making big news just goes to show you that there is an immigration enforcement problem in this country."

Not everyone is pessimistic though. Betsy's Page Highlights a Howard Dean appearance yesterday and concludes: "If what Dean said represents the view of Democrats, then you would think that a compromise would be available. Do the tough border control and then work on legalizing those who are here. That's what Dean says he wants and the position that the Democrats are going to start advertising as their own. ...Secure the borders first, with a fence if need be, and then talk about legalization. Now, if Howard Dean can just convince his associates in the Congress, something could perhaps be worked out." If any new proposal looks like the Senate's latest effort then PoliPundit wants none of it: "The McKennedy amnesty drives me nuts. McKennedy would add about 60-80 million Democrat votes over the next 50 years. In its scope and impact, it is nothing short of the extinguishing of the Republican party, and our Republic. Nothing else matters as much. Not tax cuts, not partial-birth abortion, not Iraq, not the Supreme Court. McKennedy is the one issue on which there can be no compromise.

BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT:

Today the Blogometer talks to Betsy Newmark

What is your full name?

Betsy Newmark

What is your age?

49

Where did you grow up?

In a suburb of Chicago.

Where do you live now?

Raleigh, NC

What is your occupation?

I teach at a charter high school in Raleigh. I teach American history, both an AP class and a honors class, AP U.S. Government and Politics, and a seminar elective on the American Revolution and Civil War.

Have you ever worked on a political campaign or for the mainstream media?

No

When did you start blogging and why?

I started in June of 2002. At first I thought it would just be a fun thing to do and that I could use it to put up links to stories that my students would be interested in. I could put up a link to a story that demonstrated something about a concept we talked about in class and then refer kids to my blog for the exact link.

As I got more political in my focus, I de-linked the blog from school website and just looked at blogging as my private hobby and not something for my students. At our school, we try to be very careful about inflicting our political beliefs on the kids and so I wanted to feel free to give my political opinions. Some of my students have found my blog through Google or having heard about it from other kids, but they recognize that it represents my private opinions and is not part of what I do in class.

What has been your favorite post, or favorite story to write about, in that time?

Since I teach a class on AP Government and Politics, I particularly enjoy stories about politics that relate to the theories that we study in political science to see if what is happening in the real world carries out what the theoreticians think happens.

It was a particular thrill during the election when I would live-blog the debates or election night and I realized that thousands of people around the country were checking in to see what I was saying.

I also enjoy blogging a bit on education. I'm a teacher at a charter school and I have strong feelings on the values of charters and school reform. I also have my own experience on the worthlessness of education schools and the whole teacher certification process. I've gotten a lot of good responses when I've posted on education issues. People seem thrilled to find a conservative teacher out there.

Describe your typical blogging schedule.

On school days, I get up at 5:30 am so that I have a chance to blog before school. I may get a chance to check in on my lunch hour, but I usually am busy with students then so I don't get another chance to check the blogosphere until after dinner when I sometimes get another hour or so to blog before I get to work on grading and lessons.

And what is your average output?

Anywhere from 5 - 10 posts a day. Sometimes, I'm just a linker pointing out interesting stories; other times I have time to put up more of my own opinions and analysis.

Who is your favorite political blogger?

That's hard - there are so many. I like Hugh Hewitt a lot and enjoy his radio show - I think it's the best political radio talk show out there. I regularly read Michelle Malkin, Powerline, Captain Ed, Instapundit, and Polipundit. All the usuals. And there are dozens of others that I check in every day.

Favorite non-political blogger?

Well, my family also blogs, so they are my favorites. My husband posts on economics and various other stories that interest him. My older daughter posts on education reform as well as other stories that catch her eye. I don't know if there are any other families out there who are blogging, but it's a tie that we share. Since my daughter lives in Arlington, VA, it's a cool way to find out what she's been thinking about.

Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?

Charles Krauthammer and Mark Steyn

What is your favorite television news program, either network or cable?

Special Report with Brit Hume. I don't miss it - if I'm busy, I watch it on tape. I love Hume's wry humor and his skill in interviewing guests. I also enjoy the roundtable. It is one of the most intelligent and civil political roundtables out there.

What MSM-produced websites (i.e. newspapers, magazines) do you visit on a daily basis?

Washington Post, Wall Street Journal. I also check in at Lucianne.com as an easy to navigate aggregator of stories that I might find interesting. I read National Review and Weekly Standard and the American Enterprise Magazine also.

What non-MSM websites (i.e. blogs) do you visit on a daily basis?

There are all the ones I mentioned above. I use my Blogroll as my favorites and scroll through those pretty regularly. I love National Review Online and all the auxilliaries that they've created on the Court, media, higher education, etc. James Taranto's Best of the Web column is a very fun take on the news, although that is sponsored by WSJ. I read Joanne Jacobs on education issues and she links to a lot of good edubloggers. I also enjoy getting legal analysis at Volokh. The Anchoress writes interesting posts. John Hawkins at Right Wing News has always been a site that I check out. There are so many out there. People send me links all day long to what they're writing. I just wish I had more time to put into reading it all.

How often, or do you ever, read a newspaper in its dead-tree (i.e. print) form?

I read through the WSJ most days. That is it. I can get a free copy of the Raleigh News and Observer at work, but I don't get much time to do more than check out education stories there and some local coverage. All its national coverage is just from other news syndicates. So, I actually do very little dead-tree reading.

How do you see the new media and old media affecting and influencing each other in the next five years?

They already are. The new media, by which I assume you mean bloggers, is mostly surviving off of getting information and material from the old media. A few bloggers are actually uncovering new information, but mostly bloggers rely on getting information from others and then adding their own analysis and opinions. I think more and more reporters and/or analysts are starting to read bloggers on a regular basis. Michael Barone is a good example of a MSM writer who is fully plugged in to the blogosphere. I've heard that Brit Hume reads blogs regularly. That little segment at the bottom of the hour on his show called the Grapevine mostly comes from things that bloggers have put up earlier. I think this trend will just continue. I expect that it will soon become a requirement of reporters, analysts, and political operatives to check in on what bloggers are saying. Bloggers on the right and left have already become part of important stories and are influencing politicians. They are becoming outlets for political campaigns. I think this trend is just going to grow and grow.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: And I Thought Creating An Album Was So Hard

Freakonomics fan/musician/blogger Thomas Dolby Describes how his most recent "album" was created: "MTV News published a story, ostensibly about a row between me and another musician. At the end they mentioned that I am about to go out on tour, which is true. At least a dozen web sites and blogs picked up on the MTV story, and quoted from it directly. So far so good. Then Steven D Levitt ... mentioned in his widely-read blog that he had lunch with me in Oxford last summer. As a footnote he stated that I'm back with my first album in 15 years. Hold on -- did someone say 'album'? This is the first I've heard of it. But since Steven's blog, I've seen at least 5 mentions of my new album -- and in fact two of the journalists I did interviews with this week asked me whether I'll be playing songs from the new album in my live show. Next my agent called and said he has two labels interested in distributing me. I'm not kidding."

LEST WE FORGET: How To Get To Sesame Street

For those of you longing to recapture some cherished childhood memories, Folded Space has an impressive collection of archived "Sesame Street" clips, linked via YouTube. One commenter noted: "This is the best post EVER. Thank you, thank you, thank you!"

4/19: Can't We Get These Crazy Kids Together?

After all the vitriol the blogosphere normally throws at the MSM, and after all the pretention the MSM throws right back, it's nice to see Columbia University's Pulitzer awards prompt an all out MSM-lefty-blogosphere love fest. Old media stalwart Bill Bennett's labeling of New York Times Pulitzer winners James Risen and Eric Lichtblau as traitors "worthy of jail," has reminded the lefty blogosphere of how valuable a friend the MSM can be. Meanwhile, an MSM article from across the pond extols the power of bloggers and warns politicians and corporations alike to ignore them at their peril.

But don't send out the engagement announcements quite yet. Righty blogs are still unhappy with the MSM in general and the Pulitzer award winners in particular. And lefty bloggers are not about to start cutting the MSM any slack; especially when it comes to Iran. Lefties believe the MSM completely failed them on Iraq and they're determined not to let history repeat with Iran.

IRAN: He Names Names

Jeffrey Lewis atTPM Cafe calls out the New York Times and AP for their recent coverage of Iran's nuclear capabilities: "A couple of news organizations -- I am looking at you, New York Times and the Associated Press -- have gotten all hot and bothered over a parenthetical reference to Iran's research on the P2 centrifuge. ...These news organizations bit the spin -- Iran's research on the P2 was probably disclosed in Iran's additional protocol declarations -- and missed the real story about the IAEA Additional Protocol: What it is, why it is important and what it means for negotiations with Iran." Fred Kaplan writing at Slate also focuses in on the P2s: "If the claim is true, it suggests that Iran has a second, secret nuclear program separate from its main nuclear facility at Natanz. If we don't know of the existence, much less the location, of crucial nuclear facilities, even an otherwise well-executed campaign of air strikes will have little effect. ...In other words, [Pres.] Bush should commence direct talks with Iran not because they offer a hopeful chance for peace and good will, but because they're a necessary prelude to an international campaign of economic pressure--and because more drastic military pressure would likely backfire. TPM Cafe'sIvo Daalder believes talks are not only the better but also the probable route: "The emerging consensus in Washington and the blogosphere appears to be that war with Iran is just a matter of time. But is war with Iran inevitable? I'm not so sure. ...the main reason I'm not is that the circumstances that enabled Bush to go to war three years ago are now pointing in the opposite direction. ....The context for war is very different today than it was in 2002-03. Then, the president was still riding high in the polls, and the American people looked to him as a trusted, competent, and strong leader. Now, Bush's approval ratings have collapsed and Americans have lost faith in his honesty, competence, and leadership." At Huffington PostCenk Uygur takes a sarcastic bent on the President's Iran policy: "President Bush says he won't take nuclear war off the table. He reserves the right to use nuclear weapons against a country that didn't attack us - and couldn't possibly build the weapons to attack us for another 5-10 years. So, why stop with just nuclear war? ... Are we weaklings not really willing to impose our will on this rogue country that refuses to listen to our demands? Let's go all the way. I think we should keep genocide on the table. In fact, it would be weak not to."

Meanwhile Captain's Quarters sees import in Iran's recent fall out with the United Nations: "Kofi Annan has publicly scolded Iran for its financing and involvement with Hezbollah and their interference with the new democratic government of Lebanon. ...This clarification by the normally supine UN leadership reveals an increasing impatience with the mullahcracy's defiance of the UN over its nuclear program. ...If Teheran loses the UN's benificence, then they have truly miscalculated and gone too far. The mullahcracy may have done what the West couldn't quite accomplish: motivate the UN to actually take significant action against Iranian intransigence."

PULITZER: Benedict Risen and Eric Arnold?

After Bill Bennett labeled New York Times reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau as traitors "worthy of jail" on his radio show yesterday, lefty bloggers lept to their defense. Liberty Street writes: "I take it as a given...that journalists are essential to a free and democratic society, precisely because their obligation is to the public's right to know and not to the government's right to keep secret. ...the public certainly has a right to know that the president unilaterally authorized a government agency to spy on Americans' telephone and e-mail communications without a search warrant. When Risen and Lichtblau wrote that article, they were doing what journalists are supposed to do." Justin Gardner at Donklephant turns his guns on Bennett: "to hear this type of intellectually dishonest hackery from people like Bennett...is what pisses me off the most. Treason? Really? For alerting Bush a year before this story was published? Treason? Really? For reporting that Bush was going around laws that were put into place specifically to prevent the things he was doing?" The Carpetbagger agrees: "Look, I realize that the story is a dreadful embarrassment for the Bush White House. The president was caught circumventing the law and arguing that he can do literally anything under the guise of national security. The NYT's reporting on this exposed an extra-constitutional scheme that involved spying on Americans without oversight, a warrant, or any checks and balances. But to call these reports treason isn't just wrong; it's silly."

Some righties were quite convinced that the nation would agree with Bennett and not Columbia University. Noel Sheppard at NewsBusters writes: "To be sure, this year's Pulitzer Prize announcement has generated quite an outrage. Almost universally throughout the conservative blogosphere, the revelation that three of the recipients wrote stories about top-secret military information that conceivably compromised America's War on Terror met with shock and dismay. As is typically the case when the normally unflappable Bennett gets so riled in public, his disgust with this awards announcement is likely shared by many Americans irrespective of party affiliation." Flopping Aces was not surprised at all by the selection: "Some on the right have appeared surprised at the announcement of three traitors to our country getting the Pulitzer for their work. I'm not in the least. I was expecting it, I mean this is the award for the MSM ... what else would you expect? They are all patting themselves on the back as if anyone listens to them anymore. Their importance is declining second by second and this is just another nail in the coffin."

WHITE HOUSE '08: He's Baaack!

While some people will say that, in many ways, the Big Boy never left, Taylor Marsh at FireDogLake reads possible presidential ambitions into Monday's news that Gore has hired former aide and Dean campaign manager Roy Neel to help promote the global warming cause: "Gore's been out promoting his new environmental movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," which was received so warmly at Sundance. But does he have larger ambitions to go along with it? ...Gore still contends he's not focused on '08 and isn't thinking about running right now. But come on, what does that actually mean in political speak? The only thing I haven't heard from Gore is that 2008 is a lifetime away in political terms." Some DailyKossers are in a tizzy over a possible Gore run. TeresaInPa writes: "By now everyone knows I am the number one fan of the idea of an Al Gore presidency. I think we need him not just because he is the best and brightest but because he has an innate decency and humanity rare in politicians. He is smarter than almost everyone, he is decent, he is experienced and he has great character. Oh, and by the way.... I don't give a damn if he has gained some weight." Other Kossites just want to promote the movie and the cause, Patriot for Al Gore: " With An Inconvenient Truth coming out on May 26, I think it is very important for all of us to promote this movie. However, I believe it is even more important for those of us who are parents to do so to inspire our children to become stewards of this planet, as this generation is failing at that task." Bob Geiger and Matthew Yglesias are also excited about possible presidential hopes.

John McCain still is generating buzz across the blogosphere with some on the left sensing bipartisan opportunity. At TNR OnlineJonathon Chait lays out a lefty case for the Arizona Senator: "In the first two years of George W. Bush's presidency, McCain became, in the words of one prominent Democrat, "the leader of the loyal opposition." McCain voted against both of Bush's major tax cuts. In addition to shepherding campaign finance reform through Congress--against the administration's efforts to kill it quietly--he co-sponsored a patients' bill of rights...co-sponsored...a measure to allow the importation of generic prescription drugs; co-sponsored...legislation to raise auto emissions standards; and co-sponsored legislation...to close the "gun-show loophole" On all these things he sided with Democrats against the White House and virtually every Republican. ...Go ahead, senator, flip-flop away. I know you're with us at heart." Ezra Klein looks at McCain's record and concludes otherwise: "Maybe. But I think that's a tough sell. In the end, if you're looking for a liberal, go with a self-identified one, not the heir to Barry Goldwater's seat who's racked up an 83 percent from the American Conservative Union. Given McCain's monstrous popularity and undeniable personal appeal, it's tempting to make him an ideological Rorschach, blowing up his moments of progressivism and downplaying his conservatism. It's a temptation liberals should resist." Matthew Yglesias has a slightly less harsh take: "My Big Correct Debate-Changing Observation about this is that the disagreements here are less about McCain than they are about liberalism. For people who were fairly satisfied with the policy outputs of the late Clinton era -- balanced budgets, strong GDP growth, reality-based environmental policies, etc. -- McCain's views on economics are going to look a lot better than standard Republicanism. If, on the other hand, you want to see dramatic health care reform, big improvements in public services, and a serious effort to curb economic inequality, then Bush's differences with McCain look relatively trivial. ...Now, even if you share the leftier views on both of those questions, I think you ought to concede that McCain really is less pernicious than the median Republican."

Jonah Goldberg finds the lefty debate over McCain "enlightening and entertaining," while fellow Cornerite Rick Brookhiser has already made up his mind on the subject: "Liberals are going after McCain--is he one of us, is he one of them? For conservatives, wouldn't it be easier to accept a candidate whose liberalism and conservatism are open, obvious, and distinct? Giuiliani will not surprise you, and will not let you down. I believe his errors are very grave. That is why I didn't vote for him in 1993. Since then I came to see the virtues of his virtues."

BLOGGERS VS. THE MSM: All The Cool Kids Are Doing It

The Guardian'sBobbie Johnson stirred up the blogosphere with a piece on blogger influence. Riehl World View quotes the piece: "Bloggers and Internet pundits are exerting a "disproportionately large influence" on society, according to a report by a technology research company. Its study suggests that although "active" web users make up only a small proportion of Europe's on line population, they are increasingly dominating public conversations and creating business trends." Self congratulation appeared across the political spectrum: Security Watchtower: "Apparently you and I have been helping frame opinions and setting trends in news coverage out here. I know we've help alter Dan Rather's view of his journalistic reality." The Democratic Daily: "Of course we will continue to use our powers for good. While those nasty right wing bloggers use their power to spread misinformation, such as that Saddam had WMD and ties to al Qaeda, we will use our powers to fight for truth, justice, and the American way."Decision '08 had perhaps the best take: "The Guardian has a story on research that shows *give money to Mark Coffey* that bloggers and other active Internet participants *you've got more than enough* are influential far beyond their numbers *why not send some cash to Mark Coffey?*. I don't know about all that, but I do pledge *give money to Mark Coffey* to use what little influence I have *really, do it!* only for the good of my fellow man *have you sent money to Mark Coffey yet?* and not for personal gain... " Others with thoughts: The Adventures of Chester; Dr. Sanity; Blue Crab Boulevard; and Cosmic Variance.

IMMIGRATION: Countries In Glass Houses ...

Righty bloggers refused to let the immigration debate fade away after the AP reported on Mexico's immigration policy. Blonde Sagacity got the ball rolling: "I can't believe after ALL this debate we are having here in the US and all the pressure Fox has put on our President and Congress...he is the biggest hypocrite ever. Illegal aliens (or "undocumented workers") are considered felons in Mexico and hunted down like dogs...Why don't we tell El Presidente Fox that whatever he does for his illegals, we'll do for ours... It's only fair right?" Kesher Talk was also not happy: "New details show how Mexico plays the game within its own borders. Illegal immigrants in Mexico are protected, employed, have the right to hold mass demonstrations, are free from assaults (particularly the women), and are universally seen as hard-working people seeking a better life. Wait a minute. I forgot the word "not" in all those clauses." Under a header "Undocumented Workers Face Fear, Harrassment, And Police Corruption... In Mexico" Ace of Spades notes: "I'm sure this is somehow Bush's fault. He was governor of neighboring Texas, after all. So, there you have it. You have people waving Mexican flags and demanding US voting rights who silently (or more than silently) support a Mexican government that treats migrants as opportunities for robbery, rape, and even murder."

Not to be outdone Michelle Malkin highlights a disturbing incident from a student immigration walkout: "From the Santa Barbara News Press, some not-so-peaceful, open borders students wreak havoc on an elderly couple's home:

"A peaceful school-sanctioned protest march in support of illegal immigrants turned ugly Monday when students from Santa Barbara High pelted the home of an elderly couple with rocks and eggs. ..."We were out there and there they come with their shouting and shaking their fists," she said. "We were just saying stay in school, learn English, you know? They didn't like this." "They all lined up there and at the command of one of the girls they threw eggs all of a sudden," she said. In all, nine eggs were lobbed at the home."

And, again, lest you think the reconquista agenda is relegated to Mexican elites and fringe sympathizers in academia, pay attention to the last sentence: "This state used to be Mexico," he said. "We can't make it illegal for them to be here."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Show Us Your French Quarter!

Garfield Ridge spotlights New Orleans Mayoral candidate Kimberly Williamson Butler's website, which, until recently, featured a beautiful picture of the French Quarter. That's the French Quarter in Disneyland, mind you. The author offers a hat tip "to my brother, who will show you his chest for beads."

LEST WE FORGET: Now That's Just Gross

Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes had a baby, which is the subject of endless gossip in certain quarters of the Hotline's office. Others think it's just weird. Fortunately, no matter your interest in celebrity birthdays, now we know exactly what he's been eating, courtesy Roller Coaster of Hate.

For those of you with squeamish stomachs, we recommend something more in line with most bloggers' life styles. The New Yorker's Jonathan Stern offers the "Lonely Planet Guide To My Apartment." Sure sounds like our rooms.

4/18: The Chill Pill

Several major debates flare up in today's blogosphere, and none of them are particularly genial. Righties call lefties "moonbats" and much worse, and lefties call righties every kind of crypto-facist bad name you can imagine. New articles dueling to point out differing conclusions about 16 words Pres. Bush uttered in his SOTU regarding yellowcake and Iraq bring out bad feelings, while a group of UC-Santa Cruz students who protested the presence of military recruiters on campus, followed by a conservative blog's posting of their personal contact information online, just inflames everyone.

In comments on just about every post, people get personal. Bad words are used (though surely not in our post), racial barbs are hurled and everyone seems in a generally crabby mood. If Mondays don't bring out the best in people, yesterday must have been especially terrible for all involved. It's times like these we wish the blogosphere had a mandatory five-minute cooling-off period before posting a piece. But then again, some would only use those five minutes to refine their insults all the more.

IRAQ: And The Truth Shall Set You Arguing

Righty blogs are eagerly posting to Christopher Hitchens' latest Slate piece following up his latest argument on ex-Amb. Joe Wilson's infamous trip to Niger. Blue Crab Boulevard notes a distinct lack of MSM attention to Hitchens' latest writings: "To me, that indicates there is quite a large fire under all the smoke. Because if, indeed, Joe Wilson is the blatant, politically driven liar he appears to be, almost the entire house of cards the MSM and their fellow-travelers have constructed comes apart." While a big fan of Hitchens other work, lefty Middle Earth Journal is less impressed: "This could be blockbuster stuff. But while I read the article and nervously awaited the details which would prove me wrong on this, I finished it and saw myself wandering away like the hungry dog who found the cupboard bare. ... So where's the beef, as they say, Chris? ... This is along the exact same lines as the buffoons at Powerline and Captains Quarters who 'revealed' that some Al Qaida operative stayed at a Motel Six in the Kurdish section of Iraq in the late nineties, so that must prove (PROVE!) that Saddam was directly involved in the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks and had probably been planning to fly one of the planes himself until his publisher called for a re-write of his latest romance novel." Decision '08, Kesher Talk and Mark Noonan all link to Hitchens' piece. == Truthout's Leopold comes up with a surprisingly different view of Wilson and his Niger claims. He reports on a State Dept. memo to the CIA expressing concerns about the veracity of documents linking Nigerois yellowcake to Iraq. Booman Tribune: "Powell briefed Tenet. Tenet briefed Cheney, Rice and Hadley. The only person we can't find a link to in this is Bush. Either he knew also, or his top advisors deliberately kept this information from him. Maybe Bush had already let them know not to bring him any dissenting views, or maybe he heard the information and simply dismissed it because it came from the State Department. I don't know which would be worse." Left Coaster and TalkLeft also comment. Economist's View takes a look at recent bad news for the admin on Iraq.

In other news, righty bloggers have also begun touting translations of documents found in Iraq. Hugh Hewitt links to jveritas' work at Free Republic and notes: "Now comes another document with more potentially significant language, and so the question grows: What do these documents mean? ...The suspicion is growing that the American intelligence community never systematically checked these docs. If they did, they should produce the record of that evaluation and the conclusions reached on documents which, on their face, seem to be proof of Saddam's pre-war WMD stockpiles."Powerline : "The apparent significance of this document requires no elaboration. Transferring a load of ordinary munitions from Najaf to Baghdad would presumably not require the approval of the Army's Chief of Staff; nor would it be the subject of a top secret memo; nor would arrangements for 'special vehicles' be necessary."

RUMSFELD: Out, Damned Spot! Out I Say!

Outside The Beltway's James Joyner provides a wrap-up of the latest commentary on Rumsfeld's tenuous grasp on the Pentagon's top chair. The left's primary argument today is in reaction to previous righty contentions that criticism by retired generals will essentially lead to a palace revolt. Among those in the round-up is Steve Clemons: "When "America is out attempting to promote the kind of democracy in which accountability of government officials and securing the rights of political minorities are vital, Rumsfeld's employment as Defense Secretary seemed to say to the world the exact opposite. He has never been held accountable for either poor decisions in this war or the moral as well as logistical collapse of America's military forces." Kevin Drum examines the notion of a "general's revolt" and wonders, via Mark Kleiman, where the same critics were when then-Gen. Colin Powell led the charge to reverse then-Pres. Bill Clinton's efforts to end discrimination against gays in the military. More Drum: "Does everyone remember Clinton's complaints that whenever he asked for small scale military options he never got back anything that utilized less than two divisions? His suspicion was that the uniformed brass was frustrating his policy wishes by refusing to give him good advice. Put these two things together and there's evidence already that the military feels free to meddle in policy debates. I'm not sure they need yet another precedent to do so." PoliBlog agrees with the sentiment that a "palace revolt" isn't possible: "How can a set of retired military officers (otherwise known as civilians) be considered a threat to the idea that military is subordinated to civilian authority? These individuals no longer command anything, and as such, are hardly the stuff of a 'palace revolt.'"

Again, part of the left is mad at the generals for failing to come forward sooner. Judith Apter Klinghoffer: "I have called for Rumsfeld's replacement months ago but that is besides the point. For the generals to attack the Secretary of Defense on the issue of troop numbers in Iraq in 2003 is ridiculous. I want to know whether they think we need more troops in Iraq today or tomorrow. To hear two and three star generals whine that Rumsfeld is too intimidating causes one to ask who else can so easily intimidate them?" Righty Stephen Bainbridge, a prof. at UCLA, who approaches the criticism from an economic standpoint: "With authority comes accountability. Put another way, as between the American people and government officials there is a principal-agent problem. The officials must be monitored to ensure that their conduct redounds to the general welfare. It is not just a problem of preventing shirking, but also ensuring that the decision maker is exercising sound judgment. Indeed, given that high officials in any organization tend to have a high degree of self-motivation when it comes to the work-leisure choice, it is ensuring good judgment that is the real monitoring problem. Civilian control of the military thus inevitably creates a corresponding need to ensure that such control is exercised responsibility." == Blogs For Bush notes an op-ed penned by four ret. gens. in 4/17's Wall Street Journal: "Of course, I'm not counting on this to get the same kind of coverage as the generals who spoke out against Rummy. The real tragedy of this whole thing is the gross politicization of our military, which the Democrats are undoubtedly to blame for." Pejman Yousefzadeh at RedState is similarly unimpressed by efforts to force Rumsfeld out.

IRAN: Cafes Are For Debate

Optimists weigh into the Iranian debate this a.m., as Jeffrey Lewis notes that Iran's claim to have joined the nuclear club "offers a face saving way to accept a negotiated compromise -- not that either Tehran or West seems particularly interested in that right now." He examines two of his Harvard colleagues' arguments for new negotiations. At the same site, Michael Levi respectfully disagrees: "Until we have any prospect of addressing the security question, we're not going to get anywhere. And recent developments in Iran aren't driving us in that direction."

BUSH: Who's Out First? What's Out Second?

During his first day on the job, new WH CoS Josh Bolten suggested that anyone ready to leave turn in their keys, and that the WH staff will experience a broader shake-up now that he's in charge. Washington Post and the New York Times report. == The left jumps all over the announcement, bringing out metaphors about deck chairs and Titanics all over again. Demagogue: "The only way things could improve is if Bush suddenly changed his entire MO and hired some independent, well-informed people who are willing to tell him what they think rather than what he wants to hear." Joe in DC: "Whatever. Bush will still be President. Cheney will still be Vice President. We'll still be screwed." == Righties are more confident in the prospect of positive differences emerging from the change. Captain Ed: "The Bush White House needed to acknowledge the public crisis in confidence in the administration. I see the Bolten mandate as a positive step towards reversing that." == The Moderate Voice says things could be worse: "The time is ripe for change -- the public wants it, the Republicans in Congress want it, and Bolten's moment is now. Will they let it slip away? Oh, I'd say very probably." The same blog also analyzes a piece by Dick Morris calling Bush the "Republican Jimmy Carter." The blog concludes that, while a staff shakeup is likely, "any shake up will not shake [Defense Sec.] Donald Rumseld loose from his post. Rummy is clinging to a lifeline held firmly by GWB himself."

DUKE: Arrests Made This A.M.

Whether its the race, gender, sex, or privilege angles (or just plain Duke schadenfreude) both sides of the blogosphere are buzzing over the indictments and arrests of two Duke lacrosse players. Some lefties feel the right has been too quick to defend the players. PreEmptivekarma wonders: "I don't get why this alleged rape victim was automatically presumed to be lying while the men are automatically assumed to be telling the truth. I certainly haven't assumed that either side is telling the truth." Righty Blue Crab Boulevard sees a media circus in the making: "This has been a media driven frenzy. Brainster's Blog, Riehl World View, Sister Toldjah and Scared Monkeys comment on the case. == Karen Russell at HuffingtonPost wants to know how we should be referring to the victim: "Victim? Accuser? Single mom? Exotic dancer? Part-time student? Stripper? If you are Tucker Carlson, you call her a 'crypto-hooker' and if you are Rush Limbaugh, she's a 'ho'. I'm personally not a fan of the name calling but I do wonder about calling her everything BUT her name. Some argue that naming her would lessen the stigma associated with rape. Others argue naming her is more fair because it levels the playing field between the accuser and the accused." TalkLeft has questions about what to call the accused: "Why should the accused's name be public but not the accuser's? If we want people to recognize that rape is a crime of violence, it is not about sex, and are serious about trying to remove the shame and stigma associated with rape, shouldn't we treat potential rape victims the same as stabbing and shooting victims -- whose names are routinely publicized? The Duke accused's name is on the internet. I've seen it. ... But this is like Kobe redux -- his name was dragged through the mud while the media refused to publish the accuser's name. I think it's time for this double standard to end."

WHITE HOUSE '08: Undecided Comes In Respectable 4th

Hugh Hewitt posts his latest GOP WH '08 poll. The results, with 5153 votes cast:

Ex-NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani 30.7%
Sen. George Allen (R-VA) 26.1
MA Gov. Mitt Romney 17.5
Undecided 10.4
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) 7.3
Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) 3.7
Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) 2.2
AR Gov. Mike Huckabee 2.1

The Fix's Chris Cillizza notes one GOPer's use of the web and asks: "Bill Frist: The Howard Dean of the GOP?" He continues: ""There is a at least one crucial difference between Dean and Frist. Like him or hate him, the former Vermont governor inspired passion and loyalty among those who believed in him. At best, Frist can be described as low-key, at worst boring." At DailyKos, Georgia10 provides commentary: "Dean was so successful online precisely because the idea of relating to ordinary Americans was already part of who Howard Dean is, and he was passionate about it. ... Yet when politicians like Frist venture online, their actions lack a personal approach, making their netroot endeavors appear motivated more by politics than a genuine desire to interact with engaged citizens. Consequently, sites like Frist's VOLPAC remind me of coarse impersonations of their successful Democratic counterparts." Glenn Reynolds: "I don't know how it's going over at Frist's site, but Frist's Avian Flu podcast with us has now been downloaded over 750,000 times, making it our number-one podcast so far. That's about double the next contender."

The Daily Politics' Ben Smith reports from a New York Magazine hosted event at the New School that Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) pollster Doug Schoen is predicting Hillary has a 50-50 chance to be elected pres., if she gets progressives on board. Matt Stoller: "The admission that progressives are winning influence within the party is something I've noticed since my four years in politics. The party has been moving away from the DLC model of triangulation, and towards the politics of contrast. This is natural for an opposition party, but it also means that not listening to the progressive base could cause an increasing number of problems for centrists Democrats." Nora Ephron reports on the same the New School event, but she was hoping for an anybody-but-Hillary candidate to emerge from the panel discussion: "I understand where they're coming from -- they're desperate, we're all desperate; so I went to the panel hoping that someone on it would come up with a candidate. I don't know why I keep thinking someone is going to come up with a candidate but I do."

IN THE STATES: Zzzzzz...

The blogosphere assault on Lieberman continues, with DailyKos' Mcjoan analyzing an interview he gave to a CT reporter. ConnecticutBLOG header: "My GOD! Joe Lieberman Puts Colin McEnroe to sleep on air!" From the post: "Well, not exactly but it was pretty close." Atrios, reacting to Lieberman's assertion that a first strike on Iran is not out of the question: "Please give to Ned Lamont. Do it for your children and grandchildren." And John Aravosis writes that Lieberman "is now giving Bush cover for declaring war on Iran." On Lieberman's claim that he doesn't believe a ground war will be necessary, Aravosis notes the size and population of Iran: "Yes, Virginia, we're going to need to launch a massive American ground invasion of Iran."

BLOGGER VS. BLOGGER: Slugging Bananas

The lefty blogosphere is up in arms today over Michelle Malkin's post of personal contact information of UC Santa Cruz Students who fought to get military recruiters off the Banana Slugs' campus. Lefty Ezra Klein, a UCSC grad, leads off: "Right now, the dark-haired, lashy, Ann Coulter understudy is happily wrapped in one of her typical controversies. ... Rather than calling and speaking to [the students] herself, which is what members of the press are supposed to use such releases for, Malkin published their personal information on her website, prompting her hordes of orcish mouth-breathers to brandish their pitchforks and inundate the unsuspecting students with death threats." Crooks and Liars says Malkin "crosses the line of decency by printing the telephone numbers of the students that formed the protest. They have been receiving death threats non-stop. Obviously the death threats are emanating from her blog and she knows it." Digby, noting previous examples of the same tactic: "Handing out private phone numbers is GOP SOP. On the right they call this 'good journalism.'" Mcjoan: "This is not unhinged. This is malevolent." Lean Left: "This is a despicable, loathsome thing to do."Chris Bowers and Peking Duck also think death threats are over the line. Others commenting: Mahablog, Upper Left, Sadly, No!, TBogg, The Moderate Voice and Liberty Street.

Some on the right come to Malkin's defense, including Mark in Mexico, who says Malkin was only uncovering the faces of those not willing to show themselves during the protest. Flopping Aces, Captain Ed, JunkYardBlog, Blue Crab Boulevard, Right Voices, Right Wing News and others also come to her defense. == Others on the right take her to task, but think the incident speaks to the larger uncontrollability of the blogosphere. Riehl World View: "Things like that happen for a reason. What it ultimately speaks to is the current state of blogs, blogging and blog readers as a whole. We can do trash TV one better, be sure and tune in. Unfortunately, as long as the more strident voices are also the most popular on the Left and Right, blogging in general will never amount to much as regards a broader more mainstream readership." Malkin helpfully prints several, erm, "fan" letters in response to her post.

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Pulitzer Edition -- It's A Love-Hate Relationship Really

4/17's announcement of '05 Pulitzer Prizes, as reported by the Washington Post, allowed bloggers to blow off more steam at the MSM. From the right, Power Line laments awards given to the New York Times's Risen and Lichtblau for their "treasonous contribution to the undermining of the highly classified National Security Agency surveillance program of al Qaeda-related terrorists. ... The Risen/Lichtblau reportage clearly violated relevant provisions of the Espionage Act -- a particularly serious crime insofar as it lends assistance to the enemy in a time of war." PrairiePundit is unhappy with the Washington Post's award for revealing the existence of secret CIA prisons, while Ranting Profs thinks Robin Givhan's win for criticism is undeserved. == The left is more okay with the awards. Ann Althouse likes Givhan, while Left Coaster thinks the cmte did their jobs: "There were some well-deserved Pulitzers handed out today, including none-too-subtle 'right back at ya' awards to reporters who did their jobs and made life uncomfortable for the Bush Administration and the GOP."

BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: Not Your Everyday Froomkin

Today the Blogometer talks to Michael Froomkin, brother of WaPo writer Dan who writes at ICANNWatch.

What is your full name?

A. Michael Froomkin

What is your age?

45

Where did you grow up?

Mostly in Washington, DC

Where do you live now?

Coral Gables, FL

What is your occupation?

I am a professor of law, specializing in Internet law and Administrative Law.

Have you ever worked on a political campaign or for the mainstream media?

Back in the 80s I did a lot of political campaign work, including working intensively for a congressional campaign in Connecticut (I managed phone-banking and GOTV activities) and one in Northern Virginia (I was the campaign's press secretary), and for a Presidential campaign (I was part of a small group that set up and ran the Anderson for President campaign office in Connecticut). If some Democrat would run for Congress in Florida's 18th, I'd be helping with that too.

In college I worked briefly as a stringer for AP, and was a News Editor on the Yale Daily News. Today I'm a director of an internet media company, Out2 Media Group, that would be very happy to become mainstream.

When did you start blogging and why?

I was a co-founder of ICANNWatch.org, which was a specialized group blog long before we had the term. I started discourse.net, a solo blog, in September, 2003.

I thought I was going to take part in academic conversations but in fact, it didn't work out that way: it turns out that the amount of detail and care I want to bring to academic writing isn't well suited for blogging, which rewards immediacy and frowns on footnotes. Plus, politics suddenly seemed newly important as I watched an administration damaging the country, locking people up without trial, and using torture and other 'inhumane' methods of questioning.

What has been your favorite post, or favorite story to write about, in that time?

In retrospect it may be my favorite, although at the time I hated doing it: I think the most important thing I did was an instant analysis of the 'torture memo', OLC's Aug. 1, 2002 Torture Memo ("the Bybee Memo"), and it's also the one that had the largest readership and influence. I've listed a few other top ones at my greatest hits page.

Describe your typical blogging schedule.

I don't have much of fixed schedule, but most blogging is either right after class, when I'm winding down, or after dinner -- sometimes well after dinner. Or, it can be a way to procrastinate take a break from real work. Evening blogging is often queued up for the next day.

And what is your average output?

Output is pretty erratic: I try to post at least one item five days a week, and keep some fluff around in draft in case I'm too busy. Usually it's more like 3-4 items a day, much less on weekends.

Who is your favorite political blogger? Favorite non-political blogger?

I'm not sure I consider my brother a pure blogger, but if I did I'd list his White House Briefing.

Of the real bloggers who are not part of groups, my favorite political blogger is ... no, I just can't pick among The Carpetbagger Report, Digby, Billmon, and the Decembrist. If I had to, maybe the Carpetbagger on sheer regularity and quantity.

Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?

Amongst a sorry lot, Krugman shines like a beacon.

What is your favorite television news program, either network or cable?

I don't have a TV in my home, so I'm somewhat disadvantaged in picking one. But based on the Internet presence, it's The Daily Show.

What MSM-produced websites (i.e. newspapers, magazines) do you visit on a daily basis?

New York Times, Washington Post

What non-MSM websites (i.e. blogs) do you visit on a daily basis?

I have all the sites listed in my blogroll feeding into my newsreader. I almost never visit the actual sites.

How often, or do you ever, read a newspaper in its dead-tree (i.e. print) form?

I read the NYT and the Miami Herald daily; I glance at the Wall Street Journal in the faculty lounge once in a while. And I read the Economist weekly (it calls itself a newspaper).

How do you see the new media and old media affecting and influencing each other in the next five years?

Mammals and Dinosaurs, in part, but not entirely. Old media will have to specialize in what they does (did) best: full service reporting (remember 'the paper of record'?) and in-depth; they would be wise to institute more fact-checking of what politicians tell them, as they have the resources and it would be true value-added. The need for quality intermediaries -- editors -- will only grow as the number and variety of online sources grows. The question is which of the established media is up to the challenge. One thing that I hope is going to get harder and harder as more and more people become comfortable online is the Big Lie technique: my hope is that were a Rush Limbaugh type to try to establish himself five years from now it would prove much more difficult as he'd be fact-checked online to ridicule before he had a chance to form an impermeable bond with a substantial audience.

Another thing that I think will happen eventually, but probably not in a big way in the next five years, is that more local democracy will move into online fora; the dead tree people may have trouble covering that.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Lawyers For Grover

Is your party in trouble? Are the ethics problems of a few members enough to paint everyone with the same brush? Did you start a massive project that's now getting a lot of bad press? Well, so did Grover Nordquist of Americans for Tax Reform. So what's the way to get over the problem? Liquid List notes Nordquist's response: Trademark the term "K Street Project" so Dems can't use it in campaign ads without getting sued for copyright infringement.

LEST WE FORGET: You've Got Questions ...

The always-offbeat Welcome To Blog (heck, their address is laurabush.info) has answers to all your Easter-related questions. Among the funnier queries: "Is the 'Too Tall' chocolate bunny really too tall for his box?"; "Is there such a thing as Easter carols?" and "What happens if you stick one of those Easter egg coloring tablets in your mouth?"

4/17: In-Kleined To Believe Otherwise

A genuine blogswarm has erupted on the left, which is accusing Time's Joe Klein of pandering to the Bush admin., attacking liberals and leftists, fawning over ex-Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) and making controversial comments on ABC News' "This Week." The left goes after him with a vengence, and some of their language ain't pretty.

Also in the news this a.m., comments by several more retired Gens -- some in favor of keeping Defense Sec. Donald Rumsfeld and others ready to let him go -- provides more fodder for both sides. The left rehashes Rumsfeld's role in planning the war in Iraq, while the right begins examining just who these generals are. Interesting pieces of history about the war are seemingly already being written. And finally, deeper issues emerge from Iran's announcement about its nuclear program, and just about everyone is worried. Today, though, it's the technical aspects of that program that engage the blogosphere.

RUMSFELD: Oh Myers!

The debate over the future of Def. Sec. Donald Rumsfeld continued this weekend as ret. Gen. Richard Myers made "supportive" comments about Rumsfeld on ABC's "This Week," according to the Washington Post. Righty Blue Crab Boulevard is on Myers' side: "This rash of critics is bad for discipline and ultimately bad for the country. General officers do not really ever retire and remain subject to military discipline." Don Suber still likes Rumsfeld: "With a few retired generals calling for Don Rumsfeld's head, a few lefties have been in ecstacy. Suddenly every general no longer is a trigger-happy idiot as portrayed in 'Dr. Strangelove' and 'M*A*S*H.' I see it as proof that Rummy stepped on a few toes as he tried to make the military leaner and meaner." Hyscience: "All things considered, I find it difficult to believe that the retired generals have spoken out for any reason other than playing a part in a political agenda, juxtaposed with a hefty dose of sour grapes." Dr. Sanity: "Rumsfeld has done a decent job simply because he has been willing to adapt to the unexpected and the unplanned contingencies. Ultimately he serves at the behest of the President, who will make the decision whether to replace him or not." On the left, Mcjoan employs some sarcasm: "Oh my goodness! How can we survive a breach in military etiquette! I'm sure the families of our dead soldiers would be appalled at this rudeness. That's undoubtedly what is motivating General Myers to speak out so strongly about the this incredible threat to national security, rude retired military personnel." Much is also made of backlash against some of the generals who criticized Rumsfeld in the first place. The News Blog links to Mcjoan's post and concludes that the matter is more grey than black and white: "This is not as simple as good guys and bad guys. Swannack's tactics in Fallujah in 2003 were a massive mistake, Baptiste couldn't handle Sadr City. That doesn't mean they're evil, but liberals have to resist the temptation to make them into instant heroes and Myers, who is a Bush toady, into a bad guy. This is about politics, military politics, but politics all the same." The Belmont Club rounds up reaction and fallout from Ret. Gen. Charles Swannack's criticism. Prairie Pundit also goes after Swannack.

USA Today provides fodder for the right by reporting on generals who come to Rumsfeld's aid. Righty Sister Toldjah spotlights Ret. Lt. Gen. Mike DeLong's defense of Rumsfeld and notes that the latest ex-Gen. to call for Rummy's ouster is none other than ex-Dem Pres. candidate Wesley Clark. She sees it as part of a larger strategy: "Many of you may remember that during the Democratic presidential campaign while the race to win the nomination was hot, there were statements from a few of the candidates that one of the first things they'd do as president would be to fire Attorney General John Ashcroft. Don't be surprised if, in the coming months, we see stepped up efforts on the part of Democratic incumbents in the House and Senate (or those trying to win seats in one or the other) to push for Rummy's resignation, with the more than willing aid of the mainstream press, of course."

IRAN: Doyle Brunson Always Folds His AQ

Buzz on last week's announcement by Pres. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Iran continues to seek to improve its nuclear program is still building through the blogosphere. The New York Times notes the part of the announcement that is causing the most concern to international observers and the possible involvement of Pakistani scientist A.Q. Kahn, and concludes that Iran may be far closer to getting a bomb than previously thought. Captain Ed goes over the relevant technology and comes to the same conclusion: "If the Iranians have the P-2 technology, they can create fissile material much faster and in greater quantities than has been reported previously. When they have enough, they will move directly into weapons production, and that will not be in 2015. That could well be next year." The Bull Moose: "To be a member of the sophisticated CW club on Iran you must dismiss the Iranian leader Ahmadinejad as a kook with minimal influence. His threats toward Israel and the West are merely attempts to establish Iran as a regional superpower. And we are only inflating his importance by even noting his utterances about annihilating Israel. Sophisticated observers know better. ... Pardon the Moose, but he is not a sophisticate." Daily Briefing On Iran rounds up the weekend's news. American Future takes a closer look at Ahmadinejad, his behavior and his background.

And the Times of London repeats an Iranian gov't report that 40K suicide bombers are ready to hit Western targets should the U.S. strike. Jihad Watch notes that the person threatening the UK is a high-ranking gov't official. Commenters at the site want to know what Britain is doing about it.

Time's Klein appeared on ABC's "This Week" and, according to Crooks and Liars (which has video), began by "sounding fairly reasonable in the discussion about Iran and then veered off into neocon, kool-aid drinking lunacy. George Stephanopoulos was even caught off guard by Klein's statements. Does he seriously believe that including nukes whether we attack, discuss or threaten is not seen as a doomsday scenario? We are talking about nukes Joe, freaking nukes." Raw Story has a partial transcript. Digby thinks Klein is "insane," and can't understand what he sees as a new rush to war: "I find it simply mind-boggling that after the unbelievable intelligence manipulation and incompetence that led us into the Iraq anyone in this country is willing to trust George W. Bush to launch another 'pre-emptive' war." MyDD isn't Klein's biggest fan. Trey Ellis goes further: "The center and the right need to be reminded that this nation was founded by left-wing revolutionaries who loved this country and the Liberties it promised more than life itself. Were they to go back in time, Rush and O'Reily would surely be Redcoats. Joe Klein - without a doubt - would be Benedict Arnold." Atrios: "I don't expect George Bush to say 'nukes are off the table.' But I do expect that liberal pundits, who are free to, you know, give their actual opinion instead of joining in the administration's posturing (for good or for bad), understand that nuking Iran is, in fact, bugshit crazy, and would alter the world in ways their most feverish nightmares ... can't come close to conjuring."

CAMPAIGN '06: Raising Hopes

Washington Post's Babington offers one look at a possible outcome in '06: "Intense and widespread opposition to President Bush is likely to be a sharp spur driving voters to the polls in this fall's midterm elections, according to strategists in both parties, a phenomenon that could give Democrats a turnout advantage over Republicans for the first time in recent years." Dem bloggers see the opportunities for their party multiplying. Bark Bark Woof Woof: "The advantage to the Democrats is that the Republicans will dismiss the anger the electorate feels as just Bush-hating by the liberal media and left-wing-looney bloggers. More fool they. Once again they are confusing anger with hatred and blinding themselves to the simple fact that the current administration has demonstrated with breathtaking efficiency how easy it is to destroy trust and goodwill among not just the party faithful but among those voters who could have easily been brought into their majority but got frightened off by the extremists and the incompetents. If Terri Schiavo didn't give them pause, then the response to Katrina did. And that doesn't even begin to cover the disillusionment over the war in Iraq, something that recalls all too eerily the lessons taught in 1968." Lefty Just a Bump in the Beltway, though rooting for Dems, isn't happy: "Watching the Bushies fail isn't going to be pleasant when suffering and death of others is the byproduct." The Next Hurrah calls Bush "a reminder of that painful mistake at the voting booth... the one that makes Bush voters 'not interested in politics anymore' when you talk to them."

Also this weekend, US News' Barone writes at Real Clear Politics: "Will Democrats win control of the House in November? ... It seems possible, certainly." He offers two scenarios, each of which favor a different party. Righty Mark Noonan sees low turnout in last week's CA 50 election as evidence that Barone's second hypothesis is correct. Decision '08 agrees.

BUSH: Egging Him On

Today's Easter Egg Roll at the WH, for which a number of gay and lesbian families waited in line to get tickets over the weekend, sparked controversy. Some called their actions an inappropriate protest. CBS News summarizes the reaction. The WH also apparently changed some of the rules, so that gay families and those who were first in line for tickets 4/15 won't get anywhere close enough to make any kind of protest at all. Republic of T, who'll be attending today's event, notes that his tickets aren't for any event where FLOTUS Laura Bush is likely to be present. Blog for America dissects the day's schedule. PageOneQ's Michael Rogers exchanged emails about the change with WH Dep Press Sec. Dana Perino, who claimed that ticket policies hadn't been altered to prevent GLBT families from attending or gaining the limelight. Lefty DarkSyde: "I have to wonder, WWJD?" Bark Bark Woof Woof, Pam Spaulding, Tennessee Guerilla Women and Dependable Renegade all comment. Ex-Gay Watch keeps an eye on one anti-gay group's reaction to the event. And noting two stories in 4/16's New York Times, lefty BAGnewsNotes dissects one traditional marriage group's signs.

BLOGGERS VS. THE MSM: Time For Bed, Joe

As has probably been surmised already, thanks to reaction to his appearance on "This Week," (see Iran story, above) Joe Klein has taken a beating from the blogosphere lately. Klein's 4/14 post at Huffington Post, in which he differentiates between "leftists" and "liberals," drew harsh and immediate criticism from 9 pages of commenters. A typical, yet toned-down, comment: "Thanks for confirming that you're a complete idiot." Fellow HuffPo writers also get in on the Klein-bashing, including Eric Alterman, Trey Ellis, R.J. Eskow (twice), Jane Smiley and Greg Saunders.

Then, in this week's issue of Time, Klein explains "Why Newt Is So Fun To Watch." Klein: " It's almost always a joy listening to Gingrich when he's on a tear. And he's almost always on a tear of some sort. I caught up with Newt as he wandered around New Hampshire last week, which is what people who think they're running for President do." Outside The Beltway thinks Gingrich's legacy isn't all that strong: "Yes, he led a 'revolution' that helped create Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress for the first time in decades. And he passed various feel-good measures. But how much real change is there? Most of the meaningful reforms that he helped pass, like making unfunded mandates illegal and putting strict term limits on House leaders, have already been undone." Lefties, though, take after Klein himself. Firedoglake: "That Klein does not see any of Newt's shortcomings is no surprise; Klein shares most if not all of them with his warmongering brother-in-arms."

Also this weekend, 4/15's Washington Post profile of My Left Wing author Maryscott O'Connor provoked plenty of response from across the blogosphere, including a lengthy response from Maryscott herself. Crossposting at DailyKos, Maryscott first acknowledges that the article got its facts right, especially the characterization of her as angry: "My anger is also real. It is, to be sure, only one facet of my existence ... I write about politics and social issues because I am angry; because I care deeply and I see wrong in the world, it angers me." O'Connor says she does not view herself as a spokeperson for the left. In fact, she does not want to "win hearts and minds" or "convert the undecided." Instead she hopes her blogging helps create a "left wing, liberal, progressive, religious, irreligious, profane, politically aware, interpersonally connected" community of people." Lefty travellers at Huffington Post were quick to attack WaPo. Billmon makes two different attacks on the Post piece. First he claims that the anger of My Left Wing and the profanity on Rude Pundit are just "schtick" and that the Post failed to clue their readers in on the joke. But his larger complaint is that the piece is just a "smear job" motivated by Post vengence for "with Left Blogistan for the take down of Baby Ben, for the impudent e-mails about the omsbudswoman from hell, for the passionate defense of Dan Froomkin, for the outrage over the Post's editorial defense of the sliming of Joe Wilson, etc. etc."

Some on the right took the opportunity to tee-off. John Hawkins at Right Wing News says simply: "Dude, she's completely and utterly out of her mind." Captain Ed takes a more sympathetic line noting that the piece read more like a "parody of bloggers and blogging rather than a day-in-the-life feature article." More: "If I were a liberal blogger, I would cringe with embarrassment after reading this article," and he feels the article shortchanged real thinkers on the left "like Jeralynn Merritt at TalkLeft, Ezra Klein, and even John Aravosis at AMERICAblog."

Hugh Hewitt extends this line of thought in an explicit warning to the Dem establishment: "The left has become disfigured because the excess that dominates the lefty blogs is absorbed by rank-and-file activists and encouraged by the Democratic Party leadership, which embraces, posts at and praises the blogs that are among the angriest and most vulgar/profane/hate-filled. The collapse of the left's ability to engage in politics will continue and in fact accelerate unless and until the leaders of the Democratic Party rebuke the party's activist base and its spokesmen, which is unlikely to happen anytime soon."

CARTOONS: Italians Keep Kicking The Ball Down The Field

The Telegraph reports that Opus Dei-connected monthly magazine Studi Cattolici has printed another cartoon of Mohammed, this time in hell, cut in two, and burning. Righty Michelle Malkin sees this as a sign that "some Catholic thinkers are opening their eyes to the insanity of the jihadists." But she is also disappointed by news that other Catholics are gearing up to stand with Italian muslims in protest of the cartoon's publication. More to the left Ann Althouse questions the magazines motives for the publication ntoing that the only possible intent could be to stir up more "fuss."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Great Leapin Horney Toads!!!

That's the reaction of one poster to a new announcement from a VA-based blog. While many bloggers, especially on the left, have pioneered online fundraising techniques and other ways to support their chosen candidates and countless others fashion themselves "pundits" in some way or other, Not Larry Sabato has actually put a real-live poll in the field. While it's not perfect yet (he's testing Harris Miller vs. Jim Webb in the VA Dem primary in NoVA only), it's a start, and the beginning of what may be a future trend. For now, NLS offers this teaser: "We are already seeing a large gender gap, a large racial gap and two issues dominating the primary electorate."

LEST WE FORGET: Apparently LAX Is Not Just An Airport

For everyone who was forced to share a field, locker room, or campus with dirty-cap-wearing, stick-carrying, Skoal-stuffing lacrosse players, this Slate rant is for you.

4/14: Comedy of Errors

Thought cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad only caused controversy across the pond? Think again. Comedy Central's supposed decision to edit this week's episode of "South Park" set off a firestorm. However, another story continues to pick up steam: Mounting calls by retired generals for the dismissal of Defense Sec. Don Rumsfeld. The left generally joins the bandwagon, while the right generally questions the motivations of the, er, generals -- and their book publishers. But there are notable and surprising exceptions on both sides. Along those same lines, other bloggers take on CBS News for analysis of a poll that shows Americans' mistrust of Islam rising.

Several bloggers offer the latest roundup of news and views on Iran. Others pitch in on rumors of a former House Maj Leader landing at OMB after he resigns from Congress (yes, that one). And still more debate a maverick's conversion to the mainstream of his party. Any of these stories could jump to the top of the screen over the weekend. We doubt, however, that discussion of the Book of Judas will crop up.

CARTOONS: They Censored South Park ... You Bastards!!

Yesterday we noted some complaints about Comedy Central having censored the image of Muhammad in an episode of "South Park." We added that we thought it was part of the joke and assumed that there wouldn't be much more to say on the issue, considering how many major issues are in the news right now (immigration, Iraq, the Libby case, Iran, Abramoff, etc.). Well, the discussion only grew, fueled in part by an AP report which says Comedy Central did, in fact, censor the episode. Michelle Malkin, who had closely followed the Muhammad cartoon-related violence in Europe, also picked up the topic, ensuring more widespread conversation. When we noted it was probably a joke, we said it would be terribly ironic if it wasn't. And it is, considering many of the points raised in the episode. In fact, some who blog on the topic cite the show itself in arguing for why the whole episode should have aired uncensored. But the debate is not just over what was censored, but what wasn't -- namely, a scene where Jesus is shown defacating on Pres. Bush and an American flag. Also, some blame "South Park" creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone more than the network.

Malkin: "I was just happy to see someone, anyone, in the pop culture world confront some of the fundamental issues raised by the Cartoon Jihad for a mainstream American audience." Later, she solicited new alternate logos for Comedy Central. Stephen Spruiell was one of the first to confirm that the network did in fact censor the Muhammad scene. Jim Lindgren has the official line: "In light of recent world events, we feel we made the right decision." Later he posts a full interview with South Park's exec. producer. Irish Trojan's Blog points out that a clip purporting to be the uncensored Muhammad scene is fake. Later he speculates that "this whole thing may be a publicity stunt, with Comedy Central and its 'spokesmen' and 'statements' all part of the joke." He notes a previous April Fool's Day episode prank and says "they might be working the blogosphere up into a mighty lather, only to start next week's episode with something totally unexpected, like, oh I dunno, Muhammad randomly appearing at the very beginning of the episode and saying 'Just kidding!'" He also notes that Muhammad was in a previous episode (but that was before the Denmark outbreak). Wizbang also thinks it's still a hoax: "Matt and Trey, with the willing (or unwilling) participation of Comedy Central executives are experimenting with the blogosphere. ... They're probably watching the discussion unfold and getting a good laugh out of it... or some fresh material..." Wikipedia claims Muhammad is actually shown in the opening credits.

Some of the commentary: Flopping Aces: "Overall the episode was pretty funny, not as funny as it usually is, but good. The story isn't the whole episode tho, it's the fact that the Comedy Channel would puss out and bow to terrorists because that is exactly what they did by allowing those who use terror to dictate what can and cannot be shown on their network." INDCJournal notes that there have been few protests in the U.S. but jokes: "Think of all the Comedy Central employees in the Comedy Central offices in Syria, Iran, the Gaza Strip, and Pakistan." Protein Wisdom: "Naturally, they write off their cowardice to 'cultural sensitivity' -- but as I've noted here a thousand times already, when you surrender free speech to an interest group who claims to hold the only legitimate authority on how its narrative can be expressed, you have effectively done away with both the idea of free speech and the idea of tolerance in its non-bastardized form." James Joyner: "They will apparently make fun of Christians and Scientologists but yet they are afraid to incur the wrath of intolerant Islamists. Which, again, was the very topic of this two-part episode?"

Mary Katherine Ham: "The statement that Comedy Central concedes it's all right to show Jesus defecating on Bush and an American flag, but it's entirely inappropriate to show Mohammed at all? That is powerful, and Comedy Central should be utterly ashamed of itself. I'm proud of the South Park boys for going to extra mile to make them ashamed." Betsy's Page: "Trey Stone and Matt Parker deserve kudos for tackling this and calling out all those in the media who have acceded to the threats of Muslim protestors around the world. Unfortunately, Comedy Central didn't show the same courage." The Malcontent: "To think, a silly little cartoon on basic cable about a redneck mountain town does more to defend the constitution than such self-vaunted press institutions like the New York Times and CNN. What an extraordinary world we find ourselves in." Right Wing News: "If we don't have the guts to post these cartoons here in the United States because we're afraid of extremist Muslims, how can we ask moderate Muslims living in the midst of these radical Islamists to stand up to them on other issues?" Carol Platt Liebau: "[I]t's hard to cheer a program that shows Jesus defecating on an American flag (even though, frankly, His image is plenty strong enough to take it -- and so is the flag's). But it's also impossible NOT to admire people like Matt Parker and Trey Stone, who are willing to stand up for free speech when so many are cravenly ceding their rights." Hugh Hewitt: "I don't know whether to cheer or jeer. On the one hand, I don't think it makes a lot of sense to mock anyone's religion, or to lampoon their religious leaders. And I don't think, on the cusp of Holy Week --or any week, actually-- the creators of South Park struck a blow for religious tolerance. On the other hand, their approach has certainly highlighted the issue of self-censorship."

Captain's Quarters clarifies: "Those who decry this as censorship are mistaken. ... Censorship requires government action, and none came into Viacom's decision. The problem is better cast as corporate cowardice, the extent of which appears to be growing by the week at what used to be as cutting edge a channel as possible for free cable TV." He suggests Parker and Stone head to HBO." Newsbusters: "My guess is that "South Park" isn't going to last much longer given the disputes its producers and home channel are going through. Stone and Parker seem to be quite unafraid of letting their discontent with Comedy Central be known. I wonder how long the Viacom suits will tolerate it?"

A few voices wondering what the fuss is about: PoliBlog wonders: "Should we care?" Don Surber: "Conservatives have bigger issues than whether some TV show is offensive enough to the Koran."

Meanwhile, California Conservative and others note MTV's use of a cartoon Jesus, based on this CNS report.

RUMSFELD: Going To Leave It All Behind And Face The Truth?

More retired generals are calling for Rumsfeld's ouster, and Ret. Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack is added to the chorus this a.m. by the New York Times. Many on the left continue to point to the news as further evidence of the demise of the situation in Iraq. The News Blog, on the latest Gen. to come forward: "Swannack led the 82nd during the first months of the occupation. He retired after commanding the premier division in the US Army, when that job was almost certain to lead to both higher command and another star, for a reason." Cenk Uyger: "The generals have seen the mess we made in Iraq up close and it isn't pretty. They realize these guys in the administration have no idea what they're doing." Bark Bark Woof Woof: "The president has always said that he would listen to the generals who lead the the war in the execution of the war. So why is he ignoring them now?" ParaPundit: "Note that when these guys rip on Rumsfeld they are saying that US strategy and tactics in Iraq are very flawed. Note as well that these guys say what they say from reitrement. Officers serving at high levels can't be as frank. The recent retirees provide an indication of what the serving officers think." Taylor Marsh, Rubber Hose, Dan Drezner, Amygdala and Stigius comment. Righty Jawa Report's conclusion: "It's time to fire Rumsfeld." Billmon thinks he knows why everyone's coming out now: "It's obvious why so many of Rummy's enemies are crawling out of the woodwork now -- they're hoping to improve the odds that the field marshall wil be swept away by the same broom that removed Andy Card and that is said to be hovering over the posteriors of [Scott] McClellan and John Snow." And Blanton's and Ashton's examines the WH's response to the generals' calls: "The White House team is working hard on their method. The method lately is to address a different story than the one the press is reporting and pretend they are addressing the story." Think Progress also notes that Ret. Gen. John Riggs told the Washington Post that Rumsfeld out to be "cleared out" as well.

Like those calling for Rumsfeld's resignation, those opposed to the idea cut across party lines as well. Lefty Prarie Weather has an alternative view: "Rumsfeld has been arrogant, misguided, and can properly be blamed for much of what went wrong in Iraq. But he's not the only one in civilian leadership who's been wrong. And the last thing we want is a military which finds it's in a position to exert political power. If the military want to kick in with their opinions, then they should do so more honorably, as serving officers. Maybe the best venue, which I believe they have a right to demand, is an open meeting of a Congressional committee. But there's something about retired military, safe and sound, at no risk of losing pensions or jobs, going directly to the press..." Big Lizards is similarly skeptical, and lays out a number of reasons, some overlooked, that the generals may not be as independent as we think. Riehl World View rebuts Swannack's interview on CNN. Political Pit Bull: "These generals have certainly earned the right to express their criticism, and I applaud them for doing so, but the media needn't be so freaking breathless (nor the blogs). Furthermore, as far as I can tell, all of the criticism focuses on events that have occurred early in Rumsfeld's tenure--before he, twice, offered his resigation to President Bush and was, twice, told by the President that he wanted him to stay." Gates Of Vienna is more blunt: "This bunch of talking heads, wanting face time on television, are a disgrace. They undermine the men they left behind and they ought to be told so." John Cole: "Remember that Rumsfeld's intent when he took over was to radically re-structure the military (plans since abandoned in earnest- 'Retreat hell! We're just advancing in a different direction'), so there is some ingrained ill will amongst more than a few individuals." Defense Tech interviewed one of the generals, John Batiste, last year, and now criticizes his attacks on the admin "from the safety of retirement." CounterColumn: "The three generals whose opinions matter most -- Former CENTCOM boss Tommy Franks, his Deputy Commander [Mike] DeLong, and the current Chairman of the JCS General Peter Pace, are vocal in Rumsfeld's defense. Apparently, they didn't have a problem with him." Blue Crab Boulevard: "How many people want the military to stay the %$^%$% out of politics? Inquiring minds want to know." Outside The Beltway details the history of generals who mouthed off at the commander in chief. Glenn Greenwald takes a sarcastic look at those attaching the generals' motives, but concludes seriously: "Attacking the motives -- not the arguments or judgments, but the motives -- of a bunch of retired Generals, all because they expressed criticism of the administration's war efforts, gives you a pretty good idea of how these Bush supporters are feeling. Desperate and scared."

The Belmont Club thinks there's a step missing from what the generals are saying: "Surely the entire point of critics must be to change Administration policy into something else. To change the course. Into something that will be better; something that can be carried out by Rumsfeld's prospective replacement. Yet notably absent from discussion is the answer to the question: change it to what?" And The Moderate Voice notes that calls for resignation may not be successful: "The hallmark of this administration is not to give critics what they want on personnel changes when they demand it but eventually give them something, which is always explained as the person leaving on their own volition."

IRAN: Not Quite Gettin' R Done

New York Times reports that IAEA chief Mohammed El-Baradei failed to reach an agreement with Iran over its continued nuclear program.Power Line boils it down: "We have only two options -- tolerate a nuclear Iran or take military action to prevent that outcome." In The Bullpen notes the changing debate: "It seems quite strange the talk from the past few months has shifted dramatically in this nation regarding Iran's nuclear intentions. Just a few short months ago, we were debating whether or not Iran actually wanted to use their nuclear program for peaceful means. This seems to have been quashed, and rightfully so I might add." The author dissects what the debaters are currently concerned with. Riehl World View: "If you've noticed, from right off the bat, this Iran go round has had none of the subtlety of confronting Hussein's Iraq." The Times of London's Gerald Baker, writing at Real Clear Politics, examines the current state of global politics and concludes: "Does anybody really think, when the hard decisions have to be made to face down the next threat, that anyone other than the US will be in the coalition?" Left I on the News blames the Bush admin for the built-up rhetoric: "If that was Iran's only "ambition," this would be a non-story. Which it would be, were it not for the war-mongering U.S. government and U.S. media." Bill Scher at Huffington Post: "So far, the neoconservatives have done a good job of re-running their Iraq playbook and framing discussion on Iran, by laying out these premises: 1. Iran is close to getting nukes. 2. Iran's President is crazy and irrational and committed to wiping Israel off the map. He can't be reasoned with. 3. Bush is trying real super hard to get the UN to do something about it, but if they won't..." USS Neverdock offers a direct response to HuffPo and the entire left. So does Riehl World View. American Future, Decision '08 and The Glittering Eye offer roundups of opinions from around the web.

WHITE HOUSE '08: What Of The Maverick?

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was in IA 4/13, and naturally raised some eyebrows. Betsy's Page, noting that he skipped the caucuses in '00. "This man is serious about getting the nomination in 2008 and he may well get it because the 'anti-McCain' vote will be divided among several other candidates. And, I bet that there are enough moderate Republicans in Iowa would vote for McCain and wouldn't let any silly grudge about his having skipped their precious caucuses eight years ago influence their vote." Brothers Judd: "The 2008 race ends in IA if he wins, because he'll carry NH easily. No one's ever won both for the GOP and lost the nomination that I can recall--even Reagan lost IA and W lost NH." Carpetbagger Report, meanwhile, gets into the debate about whether McCain is repositioning himself as a conservative, or if he has been all along.

Meanwhile, Joe Gandelman wonders if a 3rd party candidacy is viable. "So far there's no one on the horizon. In fact, if you study third parties they have served mostly to (1) inspire major parties to co-opt some of their measures and eventually put them out of business, (2) serve as spoilers (sorry about that phrase Ralph Nader but it's true, as you illustrated in 2000) that merely siphon votes away from one major party and help the other major party to win. ... A third party? A nice sentiment. But the 'rigged' system will have to be changed first."

DELAY: Coming To A Gov't Office Near You

Responding to yesterday's report that Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) may be headed to the Office of Management and Budget, Paul Kiel and Justin Rood at TPM Muckraker note: "Josh Bolten, who's just been tapped to replace Andy Card as White House Chief of Staff, reportedly wants an outsider to replace him at the Office of Management and Budget. The necessary qualification? Well, you might say he needs an expert at moving money around. Let's see..." Prairie Weather: "I guess it depends on how his relationships with the Justice Department and the Travis County District Attorney progress. I mean, he could wind up sharing a cell with Karl Rove -- or sharing a large office on K Street. America is indeed a great land of opportunity." People's Republic of Seabrook took yesterday off, and spent the day writing about his hometown Congressman.

BLOGGERS VS. THE MSM: CBS In Poll Position

Accompanying a new CBS poll that shows a rising mistrust of Islam is this image, which gets a number of conservative bloggers worked up. Little Green Footballs: "Get ready for mainstream media to start pushing the 'Islamophobia' scam even harder." Atlas Shrugs thinks the poll's analysis "implies that the writer is morally superior/smarter than 4 out of 5 Americans. Which, of course, the writer very much believes." Outside The Beltway also has bad impressions about the article. While USS Neverdock blames the cacophany over cartoons negatively depicting the prophet Mohammed for the rise in Islam's negative ratings, In The Bullpen takes a look on the brighter side: "there is something positives for Muslims to take away from the poll. Respondents were almost as unfavorable of Islam than they were of Mormons, and thank God you're not Scientologists. People really hate those guys." Jawa Report, Danny Carlton, Jihad Watch, Hyscience and Transterrestrial Musings comment.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Founders Forgot To Include The Right To Insult

Patterico's Pontifications had an interesting take on the "South Park" debate, and the idea of free speech in general, that was worth separating out. "One of the justifications for printing the offensive material is that if we don't exercise these particular free speech rights, we'll lose them. Let me speak freely here: that's crap. I'll grant, of course, that South Park or the Danish Cartoonists have the right to print and say what they like about whatever or whoever they like, even if it is offensive, without retaliation from private or public actors. But the tenor of the discussion as I am hearing it implies not only a right, but an obligation to insult things, in order to preserve the right to do so."

LEST WE FORGET: Nothing Tastes Better Than A Hamburger On Good Friday

Considering the fact that a new blogmaster will begin crafting this work on a regular basis next week, we wanted to point out our own personal favorite non-political blog before we lose all editorial control. Waiter Rant, written by an anonymous waiter in NYC, is brilliant, thoughtful and insightful, blending humorous stories with theological and philosophical musings. We really enjoy it. And, in honor of Good Friday, you may enjoy this post.

4/13: All That's Right In The World

Iran, Iraq and a number of retired generals who no longer think Def/Sec Donald Rumsfeld is up to the job dominate the news this a.m. While yesterday's commentary about Iraq was mainly from the left, today we experience the righty push-back. The right also speaks out, if not more forcefully than more vociferously, about Iran than they have to date. And we try something new: Quick hits of your favorite WH '08 candidates. We think you'll be surprised by the amount of negative coverage each candidate gets.

IRAN: When Should I Be Worried?

There's some debate as to just how close Iran is to having a nuclear weapon. Bloomberg reported on the admin's claim that the country was 16 days away. New York Times measures time in years, not days. Flopping Aces: "Will they have a bomb in 16 days? Highly doubtful, but we now know they are moving a bit faster then we first thought." AMERICAblog quotes the State Dept.'s "own Web site" as saying Iran is 10 years away. "[T]hat would be THE definitive federal government report on this issue, not just 'one' report." He then details how Dems should talk about Iran, and tries to sum it up as such: "Iran is ten years away from developing nuclear weapons. There is no discussion of America rushing into another premature war until either [Pres.] Bush leaves office, or Congress is able to provide effective oversight of, and can serve as a counter-balance to, the Bush administration's incompetence." Riehl World View: "I doubt we have a 100% certain take on where they are in the grand nuclear scheme of things, regardless of how many experts one polls. There's another problem, too. All of the talk has been about missiles and nuclear bombs. We know that enough radioactive material let loose in the US in the form of a dirty bomb could cause enough problems in and of itself." TigerHawk: "If Iran can get 3,000 centrifuges on line by the end of 2006 and is otherwise ready to build its first bomb, it could have a nuclear weapon by this time next year." Oliver Willis plays up the NYT account. "So you're saying the Republican party is hyping up a threat without regarding the facts? That's all their capable of doing. They can't construct an honest argument or conduct meaningful diplomacy because their perverted ideology prevents them from being able to do it." Captain's Quarters: "Unfortunately, the genie is out of the bottle, and their ability to produce centrifuges is no longer dependent on outside resources. Unless we interrupt their manufacturing capability, they will be able to produce centrifuges at whatever rate their resources allow. Ten years is a ludicrous estimate under these circumstances." The Agonist: "I think Richard Armitage knows a little more about Iran's nuclear situation than Capt. Ed does. As Armitage says, 'He said the administration could afford to be patient 'for a while' on Iran because Tehran would not have access to a nuclear weapon for some time, and also because the IAEA, Russians and Chinese were all putting pressure on the Islamist Republic." Vital Perspective says the debate shouldn't be framed in terms of a timeline: "That is not the issue, because once Iran masters the process and crosses the technological threshold, then it's not a matter of if, but when. Iran has shown its willingness to skip key steps in the enrichment process and is leaping forward in its capabilities faster than the diplomatic process can advance." Firedoglake, in boldface: "Iran is ten years away from the ability to develop weapons grade uranium. It possesses no nukes today. This is a situation fundamentally unlike any we faced during the cold war with the USSR. All Americans, Republicans and Democrats alike, should stand shoulder to shoulder to demand that plans for preemptive nuclear strikes against Iran be scrapped." In an update: "The central argument here is for a check on an unreliable president with an established track record of failure, crafted to appeal to the majority of Americans who recognize war in Iraq was a bad idea." Scott SHields: "At the end of the day, the unavoidable fact is that, on matters of war, the administration of George W. Bush is not to be trusted. They have proven over and over and over again that when they want to go to war, the truth will not stand in their way."

USS Neverdock, on UN action: "Remind me again, how well 12 years of sanctions work against Saddam? Remind me of how France, Russian and others ignored the sanctions, made Saddam and themselves rich and allowed Saddam to fund terrorists while developing WMDs."

IRAQ I: Double Wide

Yesterday, the left pounced on the Washington Post trailers story (see Blogometer) as more evidence of Bush admin deception. Now, the right fights back. Seixon breaks the story down. "It seems as if the war to drown the Bush administration in old news presented as scandals has begun. Who will be able to come up with the most hot air? ... I'm not concluding that they were in fact biological weapons labs. However, the hydrogen for balloons story is even more ridiculous and taking all other information into account, seems completely laughable in comparison. Was there perhaps another illegal use for these trailers?" Captain's Quarters: "Their front-page story announces breathlessly that the Bush administration ignored the findings of a team of experts who concluded that the trailers could not have acted as portable bioweapons platforms prior to a Bush announcement of exactly the opposite -- but below the fold, they tell a different story." Stephen Spruiell says the Post is "juxtaposing two events and implying a connection. The Washington Post doesn't tell us whether the president got the report before making his statement, and therefore leaves the most important question unaddressed. The story that surrounds this unanswered question is nothing more than obfuscation followed by insinuation." chez Diva: "I honestly can report that every time I hear, read or see anything related to 'Bush Lied' I get physically ill and feel an overwhelming since [sic] of exhaustion. I think I have a name for my sickness, it's called Bush Lied Fatique (BLF)."

Kevin Drum responds: "Nice try, but cutesy advertising jingles to the contrary, this episode fits the usual MO of the Bush administration perfectly: a flat statement of fact about intelligence matters that's made with great fanfare even though they know there's significant dissent within the intelligence community. I haven't been keeping my list of examples up to date, but here are seven cases of the exact same thing" Josh Marshall wants to know when Congress was informed about the trailers' true use. Mia Culpa: "I miss the days of old when acting Presidents made their public statements based on the most up-to-date, and accurate information available, rather than the carefully selected information that matched the agenda du'jour." Also enflaming the left was WH Press Sec. Scott McClellan's suggestion that the Washington Post should apologize for reporting the story. News Hounds, Left Coaster Informed Comment offers top reasons why a mobile bio-lab doesn't make sense. Among them: "Germs might get carsick. Now that's something you don't want to have to clean up." Gun Toting Liberal thinks Bush would have gotten his way had he laid out the truth. Daily Kos notes that Howard Dean wants Bush to declassify the field report.

And ex-Speaker Newt Gingrich's (R-GA) recent criticism of the war in Iraq is drawing attention from the left side of the blogosphere. Some liberal Firedoglake: "Newt didn't just support the war. In addition to sitting on the Defense Policy Board and being one of its more enthusiastic cheerleaders, he created a climate where it became impossible to question the war, the rationals given for it or any of the disastrous decisions made by George W. Bush by branding people who did so as anti-American turncoats." John Cole gets irritated by the double standard applied to critics of the war in Iraq from both parties: "How is the latest round of criticism from [William F.] Buckley, [Frances] Fukuyama or Gingrich qualitatively different from the tantamount-to-terrorism stuff that you heard two years ago from Howard Dean? Save your energy, it is not. Howard Dean, Newt Gingrich and Frances Fukuyama, among others, have now gone on record as saying that invading and occupying Iraq was a counterproductive mistake. Yet unless you count the ongoing [Charles] Krauthammer-Fukuyama cage match, silence. Treason apparently is only treason if a Democrat does it." Glenn Greenwald is similarly upset. LiberalOasis calls Gingrich "what passes for a conservative elder statesman these days." Arianna Huffington thinks the anti-war movement should "embrace repentance" and sums up other responses to Newt's change of heart from the left.

IRAQ II: Colin-oscopy

More reaction to Robert Scheerer's conversation with ex-Sec/State Colin Powell, who supposedly said "that he and his department's top experts never believed that Iraq posed an imminent nuclear threat." Jane Hamsher: "Obviously he was not saying this for attribution because I think I would have remembered a NYT headline reading 'Secretary of State Calls Bullshit on BushCo.'" More: "I can't believe I'm sitting here defending Dick Cheney but Colin Powell's attempts to portray himself as some sort of truth teller, and George Bush as having been mislead, are extremely disingenuous. Powell needs to be telling us why he didn't have the courage to say what needed to be said, what Joe Wilson finally did." Shakespeare's Sister calls Powell a traitor. "Colin Powell decided his allegiance to the president was more important than the right of the American people to have their Secretary of State be their ally." State of the Day: "Powell should be ashamed. Just like everyone else who was in a position to speak out before the bombs started to drop. Powell's remorse means nothing to me." Taylor Marsh: "This is such an insult, such a disgusting admission, an unmitigated cowardly confession at this late date, that it completes the ruination of former general Colin Powell's public persona, not to mention his career."

LIBBY: Sorting It All Out

Last p.m., ex-Cheney CoS Scooter Libby's legal team filed a 29-page response [PDF] to Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's amendment to a previous filing. TalkLeft, which posts the PDF, offers a short roundup of the brief: "Watch out Marc Grossman, Ari Fleischer, Karl Rove, George Tenet and Joe Wilson: Scooter's coming after you." Riehl World View's take: "Libby asserts that neither Bush nor Cheney gave him any instructions to leak Plame's name, or anyone elses. Libby also asserts that the CIA at the highest levels, including Tenet are hostile to him and he wants to see the CIA referral to the Justice Department, which is being withheld." Anonymous Liberal, Kevin Hayden, JustOneMinute and Media Blog comment.

.

WHITE HOUSE '08: More Pol-Pourri From Our To-Be Candidates

It's a slow news day, so we're taking a look at some quick hits on everyone's favorite Pres. candidates from around the blogosphere.

Commonwealth Conservative attended one stop on Sen. George Allen's (R-VA) re-election kickoff tour. He'll have pictures later today, and he thinks Allen is safe -- for now. Lefty Brian Patton, who recently noted Allen's eight web banners -- none of which mentioned which office he was seeking -- points out that a ninth, with "Senate" on it, is up now. Allen also took first place in the SC College GOPers straw poll last weekend.

RedState's Mark Kilmer, noting that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is seemingly losing support from the media: "Can he do it without his media buddies?" The Moderate Voice asks about understanding McCain's methods and abilities. His commenters provide in-depth responses, including Joshua, who provides McCain's three-point plan for winning the nomination. And Bull Moose calls McCain the modern Teddy Roosevelt. McCain finished tied for second in the SC College GOPers' straw poll.

MA Gov. Mitt Romney (R) continues to receive press -- both good and bad -- on his new health-care plan. Right-leaning American Geek: "It sounds intriguing, to say the least." Lefty Things Going Round & Round, on Romney's veto of certain parts of the legislation: "I get that it's tough to be a conservative in charge in Massachusetts; it's not a conservative state. But this maneuvering looks a little practiced and perhaps consultant advised with Iowa in mind." News Hounds takes issue with Romney's claim that he wrote the bill. A DailyKos diarist examines what Romney said on yesterday's "Hardball" regarding marriage. Righty Once More Into The Breach, a "Blogger for Allen": "Socialism is an odd path to take to the Republican nomination." Romney finished tied for second in the SC College GOPers' straw poll.

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) has fans in Sharon Stone and Madonna. ProudMemberVRWC notes: "both like Hillary Clinton. They both think she should run for President. And they both think she'll lose." Bloodless Coup, noting that McCain and HRC are their parties' frontrunners: "I wouldn't trust either of them to boil water correctly."

Righty Bullwinkle Blog takes on ex-Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) for joining a major investment firm: "John Edwards was right about there being 'two Americas' in his speech, he chose to join the one of the rich and work on Wall Street."

And OxBlog offers a mea culpa for supporting Sen. John Kerry (D-MA): "There is no question that I have egg on my face. How could I endorse a candidate whose values are so diametrically opposed to my own?"

IN THE STATES: McGavick Cantwell Win With Libertarians Siphoning Off Votes

In VA's ongoing Sen Dem primary, the AFL-CIO-affiliated Dept. of Professional Employees endorsed ex-Navy Sec. Jim Webb (D) over Dem activist and ex-lobbyist Harris Miller. The group's exec. dir. wrote a letter to the Sec-Treas. of the VA AFL-CIO, which The Modern Patriot posts. DailyKos remains solidly behind Miller, while The Richmond Democrat posts reasons Miller isn't the right candidate to take on Allen. Howling Latina, a Webb supporter, notes Miller's '84 run against Rep. Frank Wolf (R) in a positive way.

Noting WA's supposed leftward tilt, of which the author is skeptical, Proof Through the Night analyzes the WA Sen race through the lens of a progressive who's fed up with Sen. Maria Cantwell (D). Another lefty, Upper Left, says he's still on Cantwell's side. Sound Politics notes the entry of Libertarian Bruce Guthrie into the race and encourages righties to stick with ex-SAFECO exec. Mike McGavick (R).

MOUSSAOUI: Reliving Tough Memories

This week's revelation of flight recordings from United Airlines Flight 93, played at the sentencing trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, have a few bloggers remembering 9/11/01. Washington Post has the transcript. The Counterterrorism Blog on the tapes: "I think the attention given to the Flight 93 recording has been positive because people are now revisiting what happened on September 11. It's been more than four years since 9/11, and the public is starting to lose its sense of the enormity of the attacks against the United States on that day. There is now a feeling in law enforcement circles that the tide of public opinion is turning against them -- that the government will be attacked at every turn for allegedly going overboard, in a tone that is neither measured nor temperate. Replaying the Flight 93 tapes and revisiting the 9/11 attacks will help to jog our collective memory and make us reflect on what we are up against, and the magnitude of the threat that we face." The Talking Dog, noting an at times flawed prosecution by the gov't, provides Moussaoui with a possible defense. RightWinged has had enough with conspiracy theorists.

MISCELLANY: A Lot Of Helium In This Trial Balloon

Power Line, on rumors that ex-Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) is being considered for the OMB job: "If we could get the spending-hawk DeLay of the 1990s rather than the 'no more fat to cut' DeLay of more recent years, he'd be a good choice. No one knows more about the budget. And I'd like to see the administration show some support for DeLay."

Talking Points Memo has some fun at the expense of CA 50 loser Howard Kaloogian (R). You may remember, he gained fame for posting a picture he said showed a peaceful Iraq, which was actually a scene from Turkey. Josh Marshall posts a picture of Kaloogian's "victory party" (hint -- that's Dem VA Gov. Tim Kaine).

Jim Lindgren at Volokh wonders if Comedy Central censored Mohammed in last night's "South Park." The episode was about Cartman trying to get Fox to pull an episode of "Family Guy" because the fictional episode was to show Mohammed. Our guess is that it was part of the joke, and that Comedy Central kept its hands off. If not, it'd be terribly ironic.

BLOGGERS VS. THE MSM: Immigration Complications

RedState laments the MSM's "inevitable comparison of the immigration demonstrations to the Civil Rights movement. In truth the media will compare any large-scale demonstration by aggrieved minorities to the Civil Rights movement, and in most cases we all just shake our heads at the asininity of it. This case is much more than asinine; it is disastrous."

BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: Benen There, Doing That

Today the Blogometer talks to Steve Benen, who writes The Carpetbagger Report.

What is your full name?

Steve Benen

What is your age?

32

Where did you grow up?

I was born and raised in Miami, Fla.

Where do you live now?

I moved to the Burlington, Vt., area three years ago, after seven years in DC.

What is your occupation?

I wear a few hats. I'm a blogger, in addition to working as a freelance writer, researcher, and consultant.

Have you ever worked on a political campaign or for the mainstream media?

I was the communications director for a congressional campaign in 1996. I've also consulted and/or written direct-mail pieces for over two dozen congressional and state legislative races nationwide.

When did you start blogging and why?

I started The Carpetbagger Report three years ago for a couple of reasons. One, a job opportunity fell apart rather suddenly and I was left with nothing to do. I enjoy filling blank pages, and I was inspired by bloggers like Josh Marshall and Kevin Drum, so blogging was a natural outlet. Two, I would frequently bother my wife with hours of political tirades. She ultimately suggested I take it online.

What has been your favorite post, or favorite story to write about, in that time?

In terms of subjects, the Bush White House's "Bubble Boy" policies are a particular favorite. As for individual posts, I had an exclusive in December about Fox News' John Gibson threatening one of his guests after the cameras had been turned off. Months later, I still find it amusing.

Describe your typical blogging schedule.

I've reluctantly become a morning person. I get up dreadfully early and start reading and making notes. A few hours later, I usually publish my first item around 9 a.m. (eastern). I usually wrap things seven hours later, around 4 p.m., unless there's a key late-breaking story.

And what is your average output?

On weekdays, I usually publish between 10 and 12 posts a day. On weekends, I'll usually put together six or seven posts total. I'm also the co-editor of Salon.com's Daou Report, where I typically generate an additional 20 items per weekday. I also contribute posts to The American Prospect's Midterm Madness blog most weekdays and write maybe one item a week for the Huffington Post.

Who is your favorite political blogger?

If I could pick just one, I would. Some of my favorites include Kevin Drum, Think Progress, Josh Marshall, Digby, Tapped, and Crooks & Liars.

Favorite non-political blogger?

I'm embarrassed to admit that my blog reading tends to be one-dimensional. I suppose the closest I come to reading a non-political blog is Chris Mooney's Intersection, which covers the relationship between science and politics brilliantly.

Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?

There are several whose work I genuinely look forward to, including Leonard Pitts Jr., Dan Froomkin, Jonathan Chait, Molly Ivins, Paul Krugman, and E.J. Dionne Jr.

What is your favorite television news program, either network or cable?

I'm afraid I largely gave up on television news a few years ago; I find most of it unwatchable. That said, I still make a point to check PBS's Now, Meet the Press, and if we're willing to expand the definition of "news programs" a bit, The Daily Show and The Colbert Report.

What MSM-produced websites (i.e. newspapers, magazines) do you visit on a daily basis?

The Washington Post, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Times, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, CNN, MSNBC, Slate, Salon, ABC News, Knight Ridder Washington Bureau, The New Republic, Washington Monthly, Weekly Standard, Roll Call, The Hill, and the Miami Herald's sports section.

What non-MSM websites (i.e. blogs) do you visit on a daily basis?

There are far too many to list here. I check each of the 30 or so blogs on my blogroll at least once a day. In addition, as the Daou Report's co-editor, I routinely visit several dozen other blogs -- left, right, and center -- every weekday.

How often, or do you ever, read a newspaper in its dead-tree (i.e. print) form?

I get the Sunday New York Times delivered, but otherwise, unless I'm traveling, I do all of my newspaper reading online.

How do you see the new media and old media affecting and influencing each other in the next five years?

There's an awkward combination of animosity, cooperation, competition, and grudging respect working itself out right now, and my hunch is the clumsy dance won't end anytime soon. Traditional media will probably continue to harbor some resentment towards the blogs for fact checking their work and highlighting the stories they've overlooked, while using Technorati religiously to see who's said what about their reports. Blogs will continue to complain bitterly about the traditional outlets being lazy and easily bullied, while relying on reporters for most of their blogging content.

Over the next five years, however, it's easy to imagine a scenario in which some of the lines are blurred and the roles are slowly reversed -- traditional media outlets will start doing far more blog-like work to keep up with public demand, while blogs rely less on the traditional outlets and begin breaking stories on their own, doing shoe-leather reporting and in-depth research that has always been the domain of established reporters.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Mis-Steps Abound

James Wolcott traces the descent of the GOP's approval ratings to last year's death of Terri Schiavo, and warns the immigration debacle may be even worse for the party: "Talk radio and cable news tilted heavily for Schiavo's parents and against Michael Schiavo, Jeb Bush jowlily postured and interposed himself with shameless zeal, Congressional Republicans stuck their beaks into this private turmoil, Bush broke precedent to interrupt his precious downtime in Crawford to sign a hocked-up bill,--and they all misread the public's mood. ... But the misreading of public opinion re Schiavo didn't cost Republicans much. The misreading, the mishandling, of the immigration controversy will."

LEST WE FORGET: God, And Baseball, Has Been Very Very Good To MC

It's been a while since we checked in with MC Hammer. He has a serious post, in honor of Holy Week: "This is the week that I have set aside in my heart to say Thank U to the Lord for all he's done for me and my family." Earlier this week, he included a link to his ad for the Atlanta Braves' broadcasts on Turner South. It's worth a viewing for those who miss his lyrical stylings.

4/12: Reheating The Leftovers

Iran continues to dominate headlines, though Iraq makes a comeback. Lefties say the admin lied about Iraq, and therefore how can they be trusted with decisions about Iran, while righties adamantly maintain that other factors are at work and that the issue is more complex than liberals allow for. Then comes word that prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has amended a court filing from last week concerning the Valerie Plame leak investigation, and the same arguments from several months ago play out again.

In new news, one righty has a theory about why Pres. Bush's poll numbers are so low, and his post begets a substantial amount of criticism. That criticism, though, is from fellow righty blogs, and is aimed entirely at Bush. Could the righty blogosphere become openly disenchanted with the pres.? If that develops, it seems that immigration will be the straw that broke the camel's back.

Finally, results are in near San Diego in the race to replace disgraced ex-Rep. Duke Cunningham (R). Dems had hoped to score a knockout, 50%+ win by their top candidate, but fell short. GOPers, however, may not have gotten the candidate they most wanted to win, and that could spell trouble. Reaction from the blogosphere is predictably split.

IRAN: Membership Card Not Handed Out Happily

Iranian Pres. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced 4/11 that the country had successfully enriched uranium. Big Lizards tries to sort out the particulars on how close they are to having the materials for a bomb. The Moderate Voice: "[I]t's clear that the tempo of this crisis is now being determined not in Washington -- but Tehran." Ace of Spades HQ: "If it takes nukes to destroy Iran's nuclear capacity, we have to do just that. The man is a messianic maniac." Gina Cobb: "Ignoring the Iranian threat allows you the luxury of continuing to rip into America's current commander-in-chief ... and allows you to undermine and show contempt for any action involving Iran, firmly convinced in your own mind that you're not undermining your own nation's security by doing so." Confederate Yankee: "If Iran succeeds in its unholy task, Islam itself may die because the remainder of the world will deem it too dangerous to exist. Iran will kill Allah." Captain's Quarters is one of several bloggers making a Nazi/Iran comparison: "If we allow Ahmadinejad to celebrate this defiance without fixing consequences to his actions, then we will have re-enacted the capitulation of 1936 seventy years later." Riehl World View: "We often talk of bombing something back into the stone age. I would lift the concept above the rhetorical and actually attempt to do it as much as possible. Communications, commerce, travel ... all gone. I would then, in essence, embargo the country and then simply wait." Cold Fury: "Bush needs to show some leadership here and stop dicking around trying to get the cooperation of people who will never, ever give it to him. You'd think he would have learned that lesson from the absurd impasse leading up to the Iraq invasion." Mark Steyn's latest column gets some kudos on the issue.

As the notion of a nuclear strike truly seems to be sinking in, Billmon generates buzz on the left for a lengthy post. It begins: "I've been at least a little bit surprised by the relatively muted reaction to the news that the Cheney Administration and its Pentagon underlings are racing to put the finishing touches on plans for attacking Iran. ... I mean, what exactly does it take to get a rise out of the media industrial complex these days? A nuclear first strike against a major Middle Eastern oil producer doesn't ring the bell?" Digby: "after the last few years I have to say that Billmon's dark prediction sounds entirely believable to me. This Iran thing scares the hell out of me, and I'm not sure what anyone can do about it." Needelnose: "Until reading this post, I must admit I've never seriously considered the possibility that even this misAdministration would consider something so over the top." Kevin Hayden, who presumably doesn't have an army at his disposal: "I agree that Bush might do it. I doubt the world would stand for it. I, for one, would renounce my citizenship, and would seek a country where nukes are outlawed as a matter of principle. ... If Bush does it, I will become a declared opponent of his government and will use whatever means I can to topple his regime." Rising Hegemon: "I'd certainly put my practice on some sort of hold while I took to the streets, like millions of other Americans until Bush resigned in shame and handed himself over for trial." Alternate Brain: "[Y]ou know, if we release the nuclear genie, retaliation will come, and it will probably make 9/11 look like a walk in the park." Pandagon: "Having determined that he's on the cusp of becoming a far larger failure at being President than Senior ever was, Bush probably has lost all sense of proportion. Anything less than insane action will result in him being a smaller man than Daddy"

Some bloggers also take note of a Khaleej Times report, that Saudi Arabia has sent Prince Bandar, ex-U.S. Amb., to Russia to develop a response in case the U.S. does bomb Iran. Norwegianity: "Apparently, some good has finally come from Bush's misadventures. Now, if the Sauds would just do us one last favor and cut off our oil, forcing us to tackle the subject of energy independence in earnest..."

IRAQ: Trailer Park

Washington Post reports this a.m. that two trailers found in Iraq 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, claimed by the Bush admin as proof positive of the existance of weapons of mass destruction, had already been shown not to be a part of a weapons program, according to a secret U.S. report made public only recently. The left instantly jumps on the article and recycles oft-repeated claims about the suspect veracity of the Bush admin's justification for war. John Aravosis: "The President of the United States lied to the country in order to justify war." Taylor Marsh: "They said they didn't hype intelligence. They said they didn't manipulate it either. What they did was make it up out of whole cloth." Brilliant at Breakfast sees the matter in terms of Iran: "It takes only one lie to destroy a president's credibility. Republicans wrung their hands in the 1990's because a president lied about sex. Now, Bush's apologists would tell us to trust the president on Iran because he's the president -- even when he has a track record of lying that has caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people and has destroyed our moral authority in the world." State of the Day: "The Bush administration needed a public statement, they needed a bit of red meat to throw at their supporters, they needed the facts to fit their warped perspective. The bottom line is that intelligence was cherry-picked before and after the war to suit their lying ways." And, after citing WaPo's assertion that the report by inspectors was shelved for several years, Stygius sarcastically notes: "I suppose it wasn't in the national security interest to declassify this particular bit of intelligence." Darksyde, Obsidian Wings, Economist's View, Oliver Willis, John Cole, The Carpetbagger Report, BlondeSense and Reality-Based Community all comment. Mahablog: "As I recall, Saddam Hussein had the same deal going with his weapons scientists. They'd tell him what he wanted to hear so they could keep their jobs. This sort of thing is not supposed to happen with the government of a free nation."

After commenting on the article, Left Coaster notes an interview ex-Sec/State Colin Powell gave to a journalist in L.A., in which Powell claimed never to have believed stories about alumnium tubes and Niger yellowcake, but testified about them anyway because of pressure from VP Cheney. Left Coaster: "Thanks for nothing Colin. The families of over 2300 dead Americans and thousands more maimed may not value your sense of loyalty as much as you apparently do."

From the right, Captain Ed deconstructs the artcile and concludes that it is misleading. Noting that the Pentagon sent three teams to investigate the trailers, and that only one of those three concluded that the trailers were not weapons labs, he opines: "The Pentagon relied on that majority opinion, as did the administration, and no one can argue that doing so constituted either an intent to deceive or even an unreasonable decision at the time. No one can argue that, of course, but the Post and the media in general." Blue Crab Boulevard: "Full of facts, the story implies great and willful wrongdoing. What it lacks is any common sense whatsoever."

IMMIGRATION: I See Earthquakes And Lightnin'

Washington Post's Weisman reports that several GOP members of Congress "are worried that a tough anti-illegal-immigration bill they thought would please their political base has earned them little benefit while becoming a lightning rod for the fast-growing national movement for immigrant rights." The Senate is set to take up immigration reform when they return from Easter recess. The conservative right continues to take issue with more moderate GOPers over immigration. Righty Riehl World View: "What is the problem with these Republican legislators? They did not pass a bill that made immigrants illegal, they passed a bill that called illegal immigrants precisely what they are. And now they are going to run away from it? What a disgrace. ... Damn these vote-sniveling bastards. If they can't lead America, then just like illegal aliens, they need to get the hell out - at least of the majority, if nothing else. And they will do exactly that the way they are heading. Ronald Reagan must be turning over in his grave." ParaPundit agrees: "[The GOP's] base really does want tough legislation to stop illegal immigration. The Republican Party's best hope for maintaining control of Congress in the November 2006 elections is to stop alienating their base and show they give a damn about their base. But these idiots are more impressed by lots of Mexicans marching in US cities carrying Mexican flags and delivering speeches in Spanish. They are ready to cave." Confederate Yankee: "We've been 'Fristed' again in the illegal immigration debate, and this time House leader Dennis Hastert has joined the chorus of cowardice."

The Moderate Voice: "It's too soon to definitively judge who's going to be hurt by this (there could be a backlash if demonstrations get ugly) but all signs points to the fact that the GOP is divided on this issue, the issue is accentuating the party's divisions -- and right now the issue looks like it's going to hurt it the most." The left is enthusiastic about recent developments. TalkLeft, noting the GOP reaction: "The demonstrations are working. We need to keep them going until we get an immigration reform bill that protects the undocumented among us." After opining that "Democrats haven't had a majority in the House since 1995 and they've been unable to even get extra pepperoni on a pizza order without the consent of the Republicans," Bark Bark Woof Woof concludes: "It looks like the Republicans got suckered into this corner by their own devices, and blaming the Democrats for not stopping them is laughable."

Meanwhile, the New York Times notes that Sen. Ted Kennedy's (D-MA) "drive to strike a deal with Republicans is making some in his party nervous. They worry that the senator, in his desire to bring about changes in immigration law, will cede too much to Republicans and that the end product will fall short on the guest worker and citizenship provisions favored by most Democrats. They believe Mr. Kennedy made similar miscalculations when he cut initial deals with Republicans on Medicare drug coverage and education policy." Righty A Blog For All: "When there are factions among Republicans, this was touted by media outlets as a split and weakness among the GOP. But the papers didn't particularly pay attention to the fact that the Democrats face a situation nearly as bad." Orrin Judd takes a different view: "Sad to say that Ted Kennedy is one of the few remaining Democrats who understands the proper role of a senator in a republic. In exchange for Education and Medicare money he gave the President vouchers and HSAs. Give him amnesty and he'll toss the Right their 'border protection.' Too few of his colleagues are capable of such compromise."

PLAME: Amendments Aren't Always A Good Idea (See, For Example, The 18th)

After last week's revelation that ex-Cheney CoS Scooter Libby misrepresented claims in the CIA's '02 NIE about the importance of yellowcake from Niger, Fitzgerald has amended his filing. Fitzgerald's correction reveals that enriched uranium from Niger was not a "key judgment" of the CIA's report, but was buried farther back in the document. Washington Post reports. The right takes the opportunity to defend Libby and attack Fitzgerald. Captain Ed jumps right in: "One would expect an attorney to write a little more concisely and accurately than did Fitzgerald in his original brief, and this hasty correction calls into question the performance of this prosecutorial team once again. Tasked with determining whether a crime had been committed in the release of Valerie Plame's identity, Fitzgerald wound up never addressing it at all. Instead, the only crime he discovered was one supposedly committed by Libby in the course of the investigation itself, and now even Fitzgerald can't get his story straight on Libby's testimony and his alleged actions regarding his conversations with [Judy] Miller." Flopping Aces, on the correction: "Baloney! He lets this "mistake" brew and fester for a week before he issues a correction? Typical political maneuver by a man who is sinking as fast as the Titanic." After saying Fitzgerald's case is based on "a marginal matter," AJStrata notes: "Everything Fitzgerald is doing is marginal to the nation. It only appears important to a few sadly obsessed folks on the left." Atlas Shrugs: "What gets lost in this whole twisted sister is the fact that the President was trying to get his message out on why we went to war on Iraq." Decision '08, Right Wing Nut House and Byron York also comment.

The Moderate Voice doesn't think the amendment changes the case: "This may be an important legal distinction (doesn't seem like it), but whether or not this was a "key judgment" of the NIE is pretty much moot, yes? The result, regardless of whatever language was amended in this sentence, still remains that the administration pushed the press to pursue the story that Saddam was indeed 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium." And after concluding that the amendment is actually worse for Libby's case, for a number of reasons, Left Coaster writes: "At this point, we should ask the White House to clearly state what it was that Libby was asked to leak. This new revelation by Fitzgerald doesn't help Libby or the White House." TalkLeft adds to the debate.

IN THE STATES: California Dreamin'

The voters in CA 50 started the process of replacing ex-Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-CA) 4/11. Hotline's On Call has results. Chris Bowers started the night by saying that 44%+ would be "great" for Francine Busby (D). Well, she got just a hair under 44%. Bowers writes at the end of the night: "Busby is in command in this district, which is solid red. Or rather, it was solid red, but like a lot of districts nationwide, that isn't the case anymore. I like our chances in June." Kos: "Not enough voters voted for change and we'll have to do this again in June. Democrats need to be given a reason to vote so they turn out for Busby during the runoff. This is very much a winnable race." Earlier, Kos said of the low turnout: "The Democratic leadership thinks that the GOP implosion will ipso facto translate to Democratic victories in November. But the electorate is universally disenchanted with politics."

Real Clear Politics righty Jay Cost: "The media is going to spin this as a good development for the Democrats in their quest to take the House. I could not disagree more. The election will go to a June runoff, but this seems to me to have been the Democrats' only real chance at this seat. GOP candidates pulled in a majority of the vote -- and it is hard to imagine that not happening in June." Some GOPers may not be happy with Bilbray's win, though. San Diego Politics Blog sums up some GOPers' angst, including a post by ex-CA GOP exec. dir. Jon Fleischman called "Vote Republican, But Not For Bilbray." Calitics offered a few comments before going to bed early. Words Have Power noted light turnout all day.

Meanwhile, Instapundit interviewed Rep./TN SEN hopeful Harold Ford Jr. (D). "I found it a very interesting interview. We're not on the same page on some issues ..., but we agree on some others (including the pork). He's a smart guy, and I found him less polished-and-packaged than I'd anticipated; it's easy to see why people expect him to have a big future in politics."

WHITE HOUSE '08: Clinton Wins! (Sort Of)

MyDD updates on the '08 Dem straw poll conducted with DailyKos. Last week, he wrote: "There is a clear consensus online, and that consensus is that we want one of Feingold, Clark, Warner or Edwards on the Democratic ticket in 2008." Now, he looks at last-place choices. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) led, followed by Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) and Evan Bayh (D-IN). Among his findings:

• "A lot of readers here really do not like Joe Biden."
• "There are no major 'anyone but' campaigns for the online favorites".
• NM Gov. Bill Richardson "has a shockingly low number of last-place votes."
• "Kerry hating is definitely subsiding online."
• "When it comes to Vilsack, who regularly finishes last in these straw polls, it isn't so much of an anti-Vilsack sentiment as it a 'whatever, dude' sentiment."
• "Memo to Daschle: don't bother."
• "Feingold and Edwards supporters were more anti-Biden than anti-Clinton, while Clark and Warner supporters were more anti-Clinton than anti-Biden."

MA Gov. Mitt Romney's (R) op-ed in the 4/11 Wall Street Journal on MA's new universal health care proposal received a few comments around the blogosphere. Blue Crab Boulevard: "If I were Bill Clinton, I would be hiding right now. Why? Because Hillary will be looking to kick any damn thing she can right now." The program "gives Romney a huge boost in his presidential ambitions. Unlike a certain US Senator who has no real accomplishments aside from nasty attacks." Righty Decision '08: "It's often said that a candidate for president needs a story, some convincing reason that the job should be his. Has Romney found his story?" EconLog calls MA's proposal "a phony solution for a phony crisis" and analyzes the program's flaws.

BUSH: The Base Of The Matter

Citing the latest Gallup poll, PunditGuy believes that Pres. Bush's sinking poll numbers "are a direct result of the push back he's receiving from his base. There's a general distaste in the mouths of Conservative Republicans over the way GOP members of Congress are conducting their jobs, and that spills over onto the president." JunkYardBlog agrees: "Bush is tanking, but not because the country has moved to his left. It's because he and the GOP have moved to their base's left, combined with the administration's complete inability to articulate its own defense or makes its case on the issues." Riehl World View: "Push to shove, I'm still a Bush voter, but his position on immigration has really pushed me away."

The Moderate Voice, noting the absence of good news for Bush: "None of this suggests that the prospects for recovery are good -- and there are three more years to go." Righty John Cole, who's no fan of this admin: "The Plame leak continues to wreak havoc with the Bush administration." Georgia10 puts some lefty spin on the poll. And, noting Bush's two-month trend of steady poll numbers, skippy the bush kangaroo writes: "If that was an ekg on a hospital patient, we wouldn't say 'steady,' we'd say 'flat-lined.'" Righty Don Surber thinks the poll's questions about leaks are ridiculous, and that Americans are anti-Bush no matter what: "Right now, if asked, 60% of Americans would disapprove of his handling of the weather." Brainster agrees.

ITALIAN ELECTIONS: Forza Prodi

After a day of uncertainty, opposition leader Romano Prodi has been declared the winner of Italian elections. But as Atrios notes, "the question remains as to whether [PM Silvio Berlusconi will] walk out or have to be dragged out."

BLOGGERS VS. THE MSM: Calling All Liberals

Eric Alterman takes on Time magazine's Joel Klein, who at a recent event said Dems won't win "if their message is that they hate America -- which is what has been the message of the liberal wing of the party for the past twenty years." "[S]ince it fired Margaret Carlson, Joe Klein, believe it or not, is its most liberal columnist. That's right. The most liberal columnist at the America's largest weekly newsmagazine pretends that the message of liberals for the past twenty years has been that they 'hate America,' just as if he were reading from talking points issued by Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter. ... How about a little noise in the blogosophere politely asking Time to hire a genuinely liberal columnist?"

Firedoglake and others criticize the Washington Post for a report that makes it seem like VP Cheney was booed at the Nationals game yesterday for his pitch. In fact, video shows he was booed as he walked to the mound. "Coming up: Howard Kurtz informs us the boos were actually for the wounded servicemen on the field and Cheney was quite bravely trying to distract the crowd."

BLOGGERS VS. BLOGGERS: My Pet Schlussel

The fallout over righty Debbie Schlussel's attacks on freed Christian Science Monitor reporter Jill Carroll, and Schlussel's subsequent eviction from the ranks of acceptable righty bloggers (see 4/1 Blogometer) continued 4/11 as Jawa Report's Dr. Rusty Shackleford and Schlussel tangled on the "Hoist The Black Flag" radio show, hosted by Ace of Spades and Protein Wisdom. Ace provides a run-down of the debate, which sounds like it wasn't terribly pleasant. Patterico's Pontification and the Anti-Idolitarian Rottweiler continue to call out Schlussel's bad behavior.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Boulevard Of Burned-Out Dreams

Philadelphia Inquirer's Blinq interviews Billmon, who says he is "a little burned out, ... a little depressed. He's wondering if this is a natural cycle with blogging -- something that saps so much of your being. He's threatening to launch something completely different. Maybe a blog on the history of travel." Billmon's take on the MSM v. Blogger debate, with "journalists thinking bloggers are undisciplined and the bloggers thinking journalists are hacks who don't know their stuff": "My current opinion is that they are both right. I see lot of legitimate grievances from each camp. It's interesting how bloggers are being absorbed -- they're hooking up with the mainstream media, which is kind of ironic. Michele Malkin and Glenn Reynolds fulminate against the MSM while they write for it. And the left is hooking up with the Democratic party and becoming political operatives. There is a blurring of the boundaries. One thing about me I am completely out of touch with that. I'm just an old-fashioned blogger who really only exists in cyberspace."

LEST WE FORGET: For Those Of You With Dinner Plans Tonight And Tomorrow...

If you've forgotten what your rabbi taught you, or if you're just attending a seder at a friend's or neighbor's house, Slate.com's Michael Rubiner offers a little help in the form of the two-minute Haggadah. Fortunately, it's in English: "The story of Passover: It's a long time ago. We're slaves in Egypt. Pharaoh is a nightmare. We cry out for help. God brings plagues upon the Egyptians. We escape, bake some matzoh. God parts the Red Sea. We make it through; the Egyptians aren't so lucky. We wander 40 years in the desert, eat manna, get the Torah, wind up in Israel, get a new temple, enjoy several years without being persecuted again. (Let brisket cool now.)"

4/11: Si Se Escribimos En Blogs

Whether bloggers support or oppose those attending immigration demonstrations 4/10, it seems that more than a few showed up as well. Lefties celebrated and cheered; Righties snapped photos of perceived wrongs. However one feels about the issue, there are plenty of opinions to match everyone's beliefs.

In other news, articles once again debating the legitimacy of Pres. Bush's claims that Iraq sought yellowcake in Niger have popped up, causing reaction that we guess is only going to grow. A smattering of honest-to-goodness campaign news -- including commentary on a number of WH '08ers and predictions about the effects of HDTV on that race -- round out our wrap of the blogosphere today.

IMMIGRATION: Everyone In On The Action

Pro-immigration demonstrations hit more big cities 4/10, with a focus on rallies in NYC, DC, Philly and L.A. The Democratic Daily Blog has a roundup of John Kerry's appearance in L.A. More here. Mickey Kaus says the turnout wasn't what was predicted. Classical Values has pictures from Philadelphia. "The huge majority of people in the crowd were Mexicans and various Central Americans, and they behaved politely and for the most part carried and waved American flags, along with signs with a favorite American quotation from the Declaration of Independence." Atrios is in Philly also. Michelle Malkin comes to us from DC. Metroblogging DC: "I'm really amazed - it's been a long time since I've seen a call for protesters responded to with so much volume."

Legal Fiction waxes historic on the scene in DC: "Today was History. It was both History and a reflection of History -- an event and a reflection of today's demographic and cultural trends. Similarly to a Jackson Pollock painting, it was a snapshot of motion -- not of the act of painting, but of History's motion -- of the changes America is experiencing. ... The larger message for today is this -- I'm beginning to get hopeful for the first time in a very long time. The Bush moment has passed." The Left Coaster: "Perhaps Reid was right in how he played the issue last Friday. Tomorrow's story in the Post has the findings of the ABC News/Washington Post poll on immigration, which shows that Democrats are now more trusted to handle immigration than Republicans, by a 50%-38% margin. In fact, the Democrats' emerging edge on immigration parallels their advantages in the rest of the Post poll."

Much more reaction on the right: Malkin also takes note of this photo, via Wizbang, urging the immigrants to vote Dem. Kim Priestap: "The fact that the Dems are recruiting at these protests isn't a surprise. It fits into their big picture of race and politics (which is why the flyer's visual puts Texas and Mexico together)." Malkin also notes Clinton's statement at a NYC rally, "Thank you for your contributions to this country," and compares it to an '03 statement: "I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants." Nick Gillespie, on the notion that these rallies help Dems: "[T]here's a vast majority of Americans against illegal immigration. More important, to the extent these immigration rallies will be effective at reshaping the public debate (especially on questions of guest worker programs and amnesty/citizenship for current illegals) it will be precisely because they are seen as non-partisan." Confederate Yankee: "All twelve million illegals can protest for dignity, but dignity is not something that can be given to criminals." A Blog For All: "They're marching and waving banners and protesting the possibility that US law might actually be applied to them. You know, the part about having to actually enter the country legally and reasserting the fact that those who failed to enter the US legally are here illegally." Riehl World View: "Glorious ... yes, criminality in public, it's so ... glorious to see. It's such a shame that we have any laws at all, really. Why not let murderers run free under the sun next." The Wide Awake Cafe: "It's almost as if a large group of car thieves showed up at a car dealership (that they knocked over) to demand that the dealership provide to them all the options that came with the cars....even though they stole the very same cars!"

Elsewhere, Bark Bark Woof Woof looks at a possible double standard in the treatment of Cuban and non-Cuban immigrants of Hispanic descent. Meanwhile, Glenn Reynolds says: "Instead of worrying about Mexicans invading America, maybe what we need is for the United States to annex Mexico. Oh, we don't need to turn Mexico into a state, or several. At least not right away. But as part of any immigration deal, the United States needs to demand reform in Mexico. Serious political reform, and serious economic reform."

IRAQ: Shop 'Til You Drop

Slate's Christopher Hitchens reports that in '99, Iraqi Amb. to the Holy See Wissam al-Zahawie did in fact take an official diplomatic trip to Niger. Al-Zahawie had previously served as the Iraqi representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency and later served as a spokesperson for the country on atomic issues at other U.N. events. Hitchens: "In order to take the Joseph Wilson view of this Baathist ambassadorial initiative, you have to be able to believe that Saddam Hussein's long-term main man on nuclear issues was in Niger to talk about something other than the obvious." Italian intel services then notified French intel, which in turn passed the information to Britain, which then gave a heads-up to the US. "As everyone now knows, the disclosure appeared in watered-down and secondhand form in the president's State of the Union address in January 2003." Reaction in the blogosphere comes mainly from the right, in the form of another round of "I told you so." Tiger Hawk: "It is obvious today, as it was in 2003, that there was sufficient evidence that Iraq had tried to buy yellowcake that it would have been reckless for any American president to have assumed that it had not." California Conservative: "It seems pretty clear that Zahawie wasn't there to buy goats or millets, Niger's second and third biddest exports at the time." Cold Fury: "Too bad the liberal Renfields refuse to give up pining for their faithless, factless master: the notion that Saddam was harmless. To persist in that delusion, from whatever motivation, is to reveal oneself as not only completely unsuited to be entrusted with the wartime leadership of this nation, but as being only a short step from outright dementia." QandO and Right Wing Nut House comment. On odds that Saddam Hussein didn't seek uranium in Niger, Decision '08 notes: "Only a sucker would have taken that bet." Captain's Quarters backs up his post with newly translated documents.

Clayton Cramer and others note a weekend editorial from the Washington Post calling Bush's role in the Plamegate leak acceptable. He concludes: "Forward this to your favorite leftist -- just to watch smoke come out of their ears." Among those smoking lefties, Booman Tribune offers a timeline that he believes still proves the claim in the '03 SOTU was false. Left Coaster cites British reporter Michael Smith's expose on the same subject over the weekend, but remains sceptical of any new evidence.

PLAME: Timing Is Critical

AMERICAblog notes an AP story reporting on Bush's authorization of information leaks and questions why the article fails to mention that the information leaked was outdated: "If you were a normal human being, and you had a story in front of you about how the president is now claiming he was trying to spread the truth when in fact it's known that the president was knowingly spreading lies, you'd find that last little fact kind of relevant to your story. In fact, you'd find the fact that the president outright lied today a rather BIG story." Cephas concurs: "This is what galled me about Bush's response to a question about the leak in the first place. He says he "just wanted to get the truth out." Only problem, it ain't true." Georgia10 sees it as a continued problem of the media not accurately reporting, but rather parroting, news out of Iraq.

WHITE HOUSE '08: Romney's Blogosphere Buzz And McCain's MSM Meltdown

MA Gov. Mitt Romney (R) continues to get good press for his agreement with legislative Dems to implement what many consider near universal health care. In Greg's Opinion, though, the plan has its drawbacks. Romney's op-ed in this weekend's Washington Times draws analysis from Road to the Middle Class, which thinks he needs to tread carefully. Romney also visited MI to campaign for ex-Amway CEO Dick DeVos (R). Blue State Conservative covers the press Romney received, and Elect Romney In '08 highlights the immigration portion of his stump.

In other news, Lifelike Pundits thinks the MSM's turn against Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) isn't necessarily a bad thing: "McCain's got a long way to go before he becomes inevitable. He's old and he looks it. George Allen or Mitt Romney might blow us all away in the next two years. But criticism from the media isn't going to hurt John McCain one bit." Christopher Adamo examines just why McCain was a media darling to begin with, and why other GOPers still don't like him. OxBlog comes to McCain's defense.

Huffington Post's Hayes Jackson thinks the GOP has it all wrong -- they should be praying for an HRC candidacy, he says. Lefty DJWriter agrees: " I fear that shortsighted primary voters are going to condemn us to four more years of a Republican White House."

And finally, TV analyst Phil Swann of TVPredictions offers his take on the first high definition pres. campaign. His conclusions: Ex-Sen. John Edwards' (D-NC) "face is smooth and largely unlined and his blue eyes sparkle in high-def" and ex-NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) is "no beauty but he's very authentic looking, particularly since he abandoned the comb over." Those two receive the most ironically fuzzy smiley faces in Swann's rankings of who looks best in HD. Among the losers: Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) ("It looks like he's plugged his finger in a wall socket.") and Senate Maj. Leader Bill Frist ("His face looks tighter than a pair of jeans on Kirstie Alley.").

ITALIAN ELECTIONS: Indecisione 2006 -- Chi Ha Vinto?

Bloggers love elections, even if they aren't here, and especially if they are close or controversial. So as uncertainty rules one day after the polls closed in Italy, the blogosphere has taken notice. Barcepundit followed developments, as exit polls first showed that ex-PM Romano Prodi and l'Unione center-left coalition was on track to win. But as the votes were tallied, PM Silvio Berlusconi and his center-right Casa della Liberta coalition pulled even or slightly ahead in one parliamentary chamber or another. "I guess many Italians are biting their nails right now." The last votes to be counted are from Italians living abroad for ex-patriot seats. A headline earlier at the Corriere della Sera's Web site says these votes favor Prodi and the center-left; if true, it'd give them a majority in both houses. Today, Prodi says: "It will be a strong government." But Berlusconi appears ready to challenge, and reports indicate there may need to be a new election. Sister Toldjah: "Rest assured that the feisty Berlusconi will not go down without a fight." Via Tiger Hawk we learn: "There is no clear provision in the Italian constitution to deal with a split parliament, and there are no precedents." Another complicating factors: Italy's president, essentially a figure-head of state, would appoint a temporary parliament in case of deadlock. But Carlo Ciampi's term expires next month and his replacement is supposed to be elected by ... parliament. Also, Ciampi served as Treasury Minister when Prodi was PM in the '90s.

RedState: "This pleases nobody, including the people with all those posts about What This Clearly Means just sitting there in the hard drive, waiting to be revealed to a wondering world. ... For such a supposedly superior form of government, the parliamentary system seems to go haywire at the drop of the hat." AMERICAblog: "And I thought that the German elections were close. ... The general mood is that Italy will be a rudderless ship for a while until new elections are held." EU Referendum: "By all predictions Romano Prodi should have walked into the job of Prime Minister. Berlusconi was described as a 'buffoon', his premiership 'controversial' ... . Any normal person would consider this to be a serious failure for Prodi." In The Bullpen: "[T]hat uncertainty is largely due to exit polling and rushes to judgement by members of the press, something we Americans know a lot about after 2000 and 2004." Rick Moran: "Someone check and see if employees for the voting machine manufacturer Diebold have been ANYWHERE NEAR ITALY IN THE PAST 6 MONTHS! Say Anything: "Berlusconi has been a supporter of the war in Iraq. ... If he remains in office it will be further evidence of a right-ward shift in international politics."

IN THE STATES: Together, We Lamont

The New York Times reports that while DNC chair Howard Dean remains mute on the subject, his brother, Jim Dean, is actively supporting Ned Lamont (D), Sen. Joe Lieberman's (D-CT) opponent in the primary. Captain Ed, noting that Jim Dean could only be acting with the approval of his officially neutral brother: "There is nothing wrong with a primary challenge, and if the party wants to support a challenger against an incumbent in the primaries, that's their right. This arrangement tries to hide that support, however, and the hypocrisy fairly rolls off the New York Times report. The Democrats try to pretend that James Dean is some sort of loose cannon, completely unaffiliated with his brother, in order to hide the shunning that the national party has given Lieberman. It's transparent, and pretending any different assumes that the rest of the world is blind." My Left Nutmeg, on Lieberman's possible Indie run: "Why should the Senate Democratic leadership express support for a candidate who has said he might just take the money and run to another party?" Edward Copeland is pleased with Dean's support of Lamont.

Following yesterday's editorial calling for Rep. Katherine Harris (R-FL) to drop out of the SEN race (see 4/11's Hotline), National Review Online's John Miller reports on a note Harris wrote to NRO's Buckley. The swarm of bloggers and MSMers ready to call time of death on Harris' campaign continues. Sunblog says "Harris is in deep doo-doo."

Finally, The Hotline's Patrick Ottenhoff has an update from New Orleans on the 4/22 Mayoral primary.

PHONE JAMMING: The Ties That Bind

AP reports that "key figures" in a '02 NH phone-jamming case, including ex-GOP operative James Tobin, "had regular contact" with the WH and RNC. Scott Shields: "The national Republican Party has provided millions of dollars in legal fees to protect Tobin, indicating that they have had a serious stake in making sure the truth about what really happened in New Hampshire in 2002 does not come out." The Brad Blog notes "that the White House hired Tobin to work their North-Eastern regional campaign in 2004 even after they already knew he was under investigation for the 2002 charges. He was only asked to leave his '04 post once the reports of the '02 investigation became public knowledge." The Peking Duck: "[T]his is completely in keeping with a party that sees no trick as too dirty when it comes to winning, even if it involves committing a felony." No More Mister Nice Blog notes that now-RNC chair Ken Mehlman was the dir. of WH political affairs, and he reported to Karl Rove. "When do we nail the sonofabitch? When does our political class stop being amused at the notion that Rove fights dirty but leaves 'no fingerprints'?" Joe Gandelman, noting the RNC's reaction that it was "preposterous" to suggest they were involved in the phone jamming. "Of course it's 'preposterous.' This White House would never get involved in any kind of covert phone jamming. The next thing you know people will start suggesting the White House does warrantless surveillance of Americans abroard or even here in the United States. But NRO's Media Blog: "So the RNC's man in New Hampshire called the White House political affairs office pretty regularly leading up to Election Day in 2002 -- and this is news? Wouldn't it be more newsworthy -- i.e. more unusual -- if Tobin had no contact with the White House that fall?" http://media.nationalreview.com/094636.asp

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: So Who's The New Bernstein?

Huffington Post's Jay Rosen, citing a number of scoops recently, calls National Journal's Murray Waas the "Woodward of Now." The Moderate Voice agrees: "Who else is the consistent stand-out now in breaking new, solid stories in the present generation? There are some excellent investigative reporters out there -- and Rosen names them for you -- but Waas is the one hitting the most jaw-opening journalistic home runs." Atrios is happy to see Waas get some dap. Several others, however, take the opportunity to slam the original Woodward and his close ties to the Bush admin, calling him "co-opted" and worse. FishbowlDC: "Murray Waas is the new black. Bob Woodward is out like wing-tipped shoes." Corrente and The Moderate Voice

BLOGGERS VS. THE MACHINE: To The Victor Goes ...

Daniel Glover looks at the fallout from the FEC's ruling on blogs and Internet restrictions. "So now that the Internet campaign law of the land is settled, at least for the moment, what does it mean for the blogosphere in 2006, 2008 and beyond?" After discussing the issue with four people, Glover discovers "The answer depends on whom you ask."

BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: The Tapist

Today the Blogometer talks to righty Mark Tapscott, who writes Tapscott's Copy Desk.

What is your full name?

Stanley Marcus Tapscott, but I am commonly known as "Mark"

What is your age?

56

Where did you grow up?

Oklahoma and Texas

Where do you live now?

Sykesville, Maryland

What is your occupation?

Journalist

Have you ever worked on a political campaign or for the mainstream media?

Yes, both, the 1980 Reagan-Bush campaign and various reporting and editing positions in the mainstream media, including at The Washington Times and The Journal Newspapers nee The Examiner Newspapers.

When did you start blogging and why?

November 04 to learn about how it works and to demonstrate in the process its value to institutions like The Heritage Foundation as a means of participating in and elevating the public policy debate.

What has been your favorite post, or favorite story to write about, in that time?

The OU "suicide bomber" because it clearly demonstrates the willingness of the mainstream media to simply accept without questioning too much of what it is told by government. It simply begs credulity to accept the official FBI conclusion that Joel Hinrichs just up and decided to off himself by making a bomb of a chemical brew favored by Middle Eastern terrorists, strapping it on his chest and then detonating it within yards of 84,000 people at the OU-Kansas State football game. This may yet prove to be the biggest reporting failure of the MSM in decades because there is a great deal of solid evidence to support the idea that Hinrichs was anything but a lone suicide.

Describe your typical blogging schedule.

Varies greatly, according to the demands of my position at The Heritage Foundation, but generally my day begins at around 5:30 a.m. with a survey of 10-12 key blogs I read repeatedly throughout the day and occasionally I will post something before leaving for work at around 6:30 a.m. More often, my posting occurrs during the day and will include anywhere from one to three or four posts in the course of day. I continually go back to my key reads, plus a rotating group of about 20 more blogs that I check regularly, if not necessarily daily. I also check the web sites of the major MSMers during the day and get a flood of email from sources, friends, family, MSM friends and other bloggers with potentially postable stuff. Since I also operate a second blog, Tapscott Behind the Wheel, which focuses on automotive issues and news, I also follow a dozen or so auto blogs and news sites and integrate into my schedule a post or two a day there.

And what is your average output?

Three to five posts per day, split between Tapscott's Copy Desk and Tapscott Behind the Wheel.

Who is your favorite political blogger?

Hugh Hewitt, Ed Morrissey, the Powerline trio, Michael Barone, Glenn Reynolds.

Favorite non-political blogger?

James Lileks of Lileks's The Bleat and Robert Farago of The Truth About Cars.

Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?

Peggy Noonan for her wordcraft, Barone for his political knowledge and insight, Nat Hentoff for his intellectual consistency and honesty.

What is your favorite television news program, either network or cable?

Cavuto

What MSM-produced websites (i.e. newspapers, magazines) do you visit on a daily basis?

All the usual suspects (Post, NYTimes, WTimes, LaTimes, NYSun, NYPost, NRO, New Republic, etc.)

What non-MSM websites (i.e. blogs) do you visit on a daily basis?

National Center Blog, Ankle Biting Pundits, Blogometer, Jeff Jarvis, Democracy Project, Hewitt, Instapundit, LaShawn Barber, Michelle Malkin, Polipundit, Romanesko, RedState, Wizbang, Gateway Pundit, Right Wing News, Beltway Blogroll, PressThink, Truth Laid Bear, Little Green Footballs.

How often, or do you ever, read a newspaper in its dead-tree (i.e. print) form?

Every day I glance through hard copies of the local dailies and the Wall Street Journal.

How do you see the new media and old media affecting and influencing each other in the next five years?

As John the Baptist said of Jesus ("He must increase, I must decrease"), the new media will grow exponentially in terms of audience and advertising revenue while the old media declines in both categories. There will be some spectacular meltdowns occasionally as a major daily goes belly up (Philly Inquirer???) but for the most part I think it will be a steady current flowing from one to the other. In a decade or so, the market for newsprint is going to be waaaay down. In addition, the energy driving the public policy news agenda is already shifting toward the new media and this trend will accelerate in the next five to 10 years as the audience shifts and those who seek most actively to influence that audience learn howo to navigate and operate in the new media (which won't be how they operated in the old media).

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Desperate Networks

Jeff Jarvis comments on ABC's announcement that it will begin allowing streaming feeds of its hit shows one day after they originally air. "Not very long ago at all, the networks would not have dared to do this for fear of pissing off their distribution channels: station affiliates, cable MSOs, and even retailers for the DVD market. But now the force of change on the internet is so great that the networks are facing a choice of pissing them off or dying. They are choosing the former. I'd sell your cable stock, by the way. ABC is being smart not to try to entirely replicate broadcast."

LEST WE FORGET: Sorry, Sox Fans: You Still Lose

In case you haven't seen it yet, San Diego Serenade's re-enactment of the 1986 World Series, RBI Baseball style, is truly a thing of beauty.

4/10: Hersh's Horn

Hersh's Horn

The blogosphere caught fire this weekend with two stories in particular, though others continued to buzz around as well. The left jumped on reports that the Bush admin is developing plans to attack Iran, possibly even using nuclear weapons as a first strike option. The left also made hay of revelations late last week that Pres. Bush authorized disclosure of classified material to the New York Times, and while claims of hypocrisy run rampant, many on the right devoted their posts to parsing the meanings of words, making clear exactly who did what and why it was all, from their point of view, legal.

Immigration continues to be a hot topic after weekend rallies in Dallas, St. Paul and San Diego and rallies planned for today, some of which are already in progress. 100K people are expected on the nat'l mall, and 4/11 we anticipate no shortage of photographs and anecdotes from both sides. Also this weekend, Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) apparently refused to rule out an independent bid should he lose the 8/06 primary to businessman Ned Lamont, a favorite of the lefty blogosphere. The left thinks Lieberman is an inch from bailing on the party, while the right sees the incident as an overreaction to the defection of ex-Sen. Zell Miller (D-GA), who keynoted the '04 GOP convention and endorsed Bush.

IRAN: Ready, Set ...

New Yorker's Hersh reports, in this week's issue, that the Bush admin is secretly preparing tactical nuclear strikes against targets inside Iran in hopes to derail that country's own nuclear capabilities. Most bloggers link to Washington Post's write-up. The left notes the piece with an exasperated dose of shock and incredulity. Mahablog offers the top ten reasons Hersh's article should "scare the stuffing out of you." The American Street notes that while "there's a real risk that [Iran] would use nuclear weapons to blow up a country they don't like, ... We're planning to use nukes to blow up a country we don't like." Kevin Drum: "It may or may not be a bluff, but the PR campaign for an air strike against Iran is clearly moving into high gear." Hullabaloo: "I suppose it was inevitable. The Bush Doctrine of illegal preventive war has never ruled out the use of an unprovoked nuclear attack. So why wouldn't they use it?" More than one author calls Bush "messianic" in his approach to remaking the Middle East, and Or How I Learned To Stop Worrying is one of them. He concludes: "In many ways, war has already begun with Iran. The conversation has changed. It should give all of us pause that on this day in the 21st Century we are considering the possibility that the greatest experiment in Democracy in the history of the world is about to launch a nuclear first strike against another sovereign state. May our children forgive us." Gun-Toting Liberal, Brilliant at Breakfast, The Heretik and NewsHog agree. The Moderate Voice, to claims that Bush sees Iran as his legacy: "Iraq is already your legacy. Isn't that enough?" AMERICAblog: "He's out of control." Back To Iraq 3.0 doesn't think any plans will ever be implemented, and calls them "Neo-con porn." Outside The Beltway calls any plans to attack "essentially impossible," thanks to political and military factors. Happy Furry Puppy Story Time examines the article in light of Pres. Bush's poor showing in opinion polls. Others commenting negatively on the idea of war with Iran: Bluegrass Report, Middle Earth Journal, Secular Blasphemy (who thinks he knows at least one of Hersh's sources), The Carpetbagger Report, Thomas De Zengotita, Liberty Street, Balloon Juice, Hooman Majd, Limbo, Mia Culpa, Corrente and Poor Man Institute. Fact-esque, perhaps slightly pessimistic, offers commentary on 14 things one should do if they miss the rapture.

The Right gets into the mix a little, with The Real Ugly American offering his own conclusions to the Hersh piece: "YOU [Hersh] ARE A BLITHERING IDIOT." The Officers' Club offers a rebuttal of lefty arguments. Wizbang thinks the plans, and Iran itself, are much ado about nothing: "Perhaps a good metaphor for Iran might be the pufferfish; when they feel threatened, they blow themselves up to look bigger and scarier, but if's all a huge bluff and a couple sharp pokes will shred their bluff." The blog also considers the development of a war with Iran. Jawa Report is one who isn't necessarily averse to a war: "The Iranian nuclear program must be taken out, and if the vicious current regime goes with it, so much the better." Ace of Spades concurs. BrothersJudd considers a little War on Terror P.R.: "It would be preferable to do North Korea first as a warning to Iran, so that it's clear this is about rotten regimes getting nukes, not about Islam in general, or Shi'ism in particular." Finally, Riehl World View thinks everyone is overhyping the entire matter, noting planning and implementing are two seperate things: "To not plan for a possible military option as regards Iran's nuclear program would be foolish." Right Wing Nut House agrees. Atlas Shrugs and Brainster comment.

Defense Tech and Arms Control Wonk take an interesting look at some of the weapons an attack might use.

PLAME: Leaks, And The Leaking Leakers Who Leak

New York Times cites a senior admin. official confirming that Bush ordered the declassification "of parts of a prewar intelligence report on Iraq in an effort to rebut critics." But the official said that Bush didn't designate ex-Cheney CoS Scooter Libby, "or anyone else, to release the information to reporters." Talk Left: "So, is Bush throwing Cheney under the bus?" Kevin Drum: "The scapegoating is starting to heat up. Can we expect a rebuttal from an anonymous official on Cheney's staff anytime soon?" Captain's Quarters: "It takes the decision to pass it along privately out of Bush's hands and into Cheney's, which makes sense if Libby was the conduit. Had Bush been the one to release the information, he probably wouldn't have done it through Libby but perhaps [WH CoS] Andrew Card or [Dep CoS] Karl Rove ... who probably would not have done it so clumsily." AMERICAblog: "A 'knowledgeable' attorney gave AP some insight that tries to paint Bush in the best possible light. But, it doesn't really matter how it happened. The bottom line is that Bush risked national security for pure partisan politics." Skippy The Bush Kangaroo plays out a scenario where Cheney resigns and Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) is tapped for VP.

Earlier, Gateway Pundit is surprised that "the media is now appalled that the President has defended himself!" He then details what he sees as ex-Amb. Joe Wilson's misrepresentations in his post-war public statements. Flopping Aces: "Recall how the left and the MSM constantly harp on the fact that Bush is too secretive. Now they are upset because he wanted classified information put out into the world, the same information that helped him make the decision to go to war." The Talking Dog: "[W]e need not hear the President's or the Vice-President's 'explanations'. We know what they did. They have had over three years to explain. They have a functioning press apparatus, and a most sympathetic media, for the most part. Their story is out. We know what happened. We have no need to hear from them." Firedoglake: "Dear George, it's called not telling the whole truth, covering your ass, manipulating and, yep, lying. If you tell only a partial story, if you try to shade the whole of the picture, you aren't telling the whole truth. What you did was attempt to manipulate the public and save your ass at the same time by only talking about the things that propped your false stories up."

Meanwhile, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) said on "Fox News Sunday" that Bush should fully explain any declassification/leak. Donklephant: "It's understandable that Arlen wants answers. The Republicans are taking quite a hit on this one, as well as other Bush missteps. In short, this is damage control for the fall elections, which don't look good for the GOP right now."

IRAQ: Zarqawi Getting Too Many Column Inches?

A Washington Post report this a.m. highlights a U.S. military "propaganda campaign to magnify the role of the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq," Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Rantingprofs: "If there was one single argument we should have been pounding the Iraqis with, an argument we should have been making using every medium at our disposal, fliers, radio, television, whatever was available, it was that the real foreign occupier was Zarqawi and the boys -- they were the ones who were coming in from outside the country with the intent of imposing their own view of how Iraqis should live, and doing so through brutal violence." Of note, the post also criticizes the MSM for skepticism over U.S.-led information campaigns while ignoring what the author sees as terrorism's goal, which is also informational. Noting that one of the military's psyops videos made its way onto Fox News, Blogenlust, who observes that 37 Zarqawi lieutenants have thus far been captured, has an interesting perspective: "Clearly, what matters here is intention. If a psychological operation was intended for Iraqis but somehow found its way to the airwaves of Fox News, it's not a problem because we weren't supposed to see it anyway. In a sense, we're just collateral damage. Unintended casualties in the war for the hearts and minds of Iraq. Victims of our overwhelming success in Iraq." The Jawa Report thinks the real propaganda campaign is against the U.S. military, conducted by the MSM. Lefty Attytood disagrees: "It's just one more layer of the lies -- like the forged Nirger uranium documents -- aimed at constantly confusing and bamboozling the American people about our real purpose in Iraq." Booman Tribune: "You, ordinary John and Jane Doe American citizen, have been the target of the most massive disinformation campaign ever conducted by our military at the behest of our so-called President."

In other news, Ret. Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold has become the third former general to call for Def. Sec. Donald Rumsfeld's resignation with an essay in Time Magazine, joining Ret. Gen. Paul Eaton and Ret. Gen. Anthony Zinni. Bloggers link to the New York Times version of the story. Brilliant at Breakfast: "If the chorus of retired officers against their own boss while they were on active duty escalates, things are going to get very interesting indeed." World O'Crap "defends" Rumsfeld and VP Dick Cheney, although we doubt his sincerity. Taylor Marsh, Cloudy Thinking and Drifting Through The Grift all support Newbold.

IMMIGRATION: Need A Break? Hit The Mall At 4 PM With 100K Buddies

Yesterday's demonstration for immigration reform in Dallas drew between 350K and 500K, according to police estimates and reports by the Dallas Morning News. Today, rallies and protests are planned in dozens of cities, and up to 100K are expected on the Nat'l Mall in DC. Michelle Malkin, who will be covering today's rally in DC, posts photos of weekend gatherings in Dallas and St. Paul, MN, and alerts readers to some problems counter-demonstraters have faced with police. TBogg doesn't like Malkin very much. Right Wing News, noting a sign calling on "honkies" to go back to Europe: "So, John McCain, Mike DeWine, Lindsey Graham, Arlen Specter, Sam Brownback, George Bush, &Bill Frist ... Can you explain to us again why in the world we'd want to put the sort of person who was carrying this sign on the "path to citizenship?" Also, could you explain again why we're better off having this person here in a guest worker program than a decent person who respected our laws enough to wait in line to enter this country legally?" Freedom Folks comments on the DMN story. DailyKos has diaries from the weekend's protests.

Poliblog thinks organizers may want to find another way to make their voices heard: "These events strike me as wholly counter-productive for those seeking expanded immigrant rights, given the visceral reaction that they cause in those opposed to reform. Further, such events allow for the display of malcontents and troublemakers along with those who simply want their opinions heard." Power Line identifies International A.N.S.W.E.R. as one of the groups involved in the protest organizations and takes issue with their guiding philosophies.

On the DC protest, Tom Bridge observes that organizers are expecting 100K people, though their protest permit is for just 600. He also requests photos from the rally, which he'll be attending. Cam Edwards will not be attending, but he would "love to see Immigrations and Customs Enforcement out as well" as DC police. Little Green Footballs also asks for photos.

BLOGGERS VS. THE MSM: This Calls For A Howie Kurtz Explainer

Washington Post editorialized 4/9 on the latest round of leak allegations: "It's unfortunate that those who seek to prove [that Iraq claims were false] would now claim that Mr. Bush did something wrong by releasing for public review some of the intelligence he used in making his most momentous decision." NewsBuster's Noel Sheppard: "[The editorial] represents a bold and almost unprecedented demonstration of support for President George W. Bush by one of America's leading liberal newspapers. Frankly, I had to check and double-check the web address while pinching myself to make sure I wasn't seeing things." Joe Wilson responds, to Daily Kos: "While I respect the separation of news and editorial function it might be helpful to the Post's readers if the editorial board would at least read the news before offering its judgments." There are some comments at WaPo's Post.blog.

Jane Hamsher calls the editorial "such an unmitigated piece of BushCo. propaganda, such a giant bag of bs it deserves to be taken apart, piece by piece and beaten into the ground." Eriposte at The Left Coaster: "It's not just that they get the facts wrong, but by a fair accounting this editorial involves deliberate lying that also specifically excludes contradictory information, much like what George Bush did - and the editor who wrote this is clearly guilty of journalistic malpractice." Protein Wisdom, on the other hand, calls the editorial "refreshingly honest in its framing of this latest attempt by some in the anti-war and media establishment to push another 'scandal,' especially in its restating of the facts of the Plame/Wilson case." PoliPundit: "The media coverage of Wilson was lengthy and fawning. The reporters never pointed to any of the many inconsistencies in Wilson's stories."

Taylor Marsh: "So, let me get this straight. It's "a good leak," according to the Post, because it gives the American public information. But what about the information that bolsters Wilson's assessment that the uranium from Niger claim was bunk? Wouldn't that part be good for Bush to include in the leaked information? I mean, as long as we're providing information to the public." Musings of the Great Eric says debate shouldn't be about "the apparent legalities of declassification by the President, and certainly not spinning it as a good thing. The important points here are that Bush lied, brazenly, for no other reason the political gain, jeapardizing national security to prop up an already suspect rationale for war. That's the core of the issue." Legal Fiction: "The troubling issue here is that Bush declassified only those parts that helped him and continues to this day to conceal those parts that show that he either didn't read, or deliberately exaggerated, what the intelligence said about Saddam's nuclear efforts (either way, it's unacceptable). Relying on words like 'part' and 'some' indicates, to me, that the Post is well aware of this selective declassification but chose to ignore it." Josh Marshall: "For whatever reason, the Post has chosen to throw in its lot with the flurry of mendacious rhetoric and the white-washed investigations, all of which amount to a grand pen and paper and word game truss barely holding together the body of official lies that is still barely governing the capital. They've made their deal with power. They should justify it on those grounds rather than choosing to mislead their readers."

NRO's MediaBlog: "We've got hundreds of thousands marching over illegal immigration. We've got a new government struggling to take shape in Iraq. We've got a bribery scandal at the nation's biggest gossip rag, for God's sake! Yet the blogosphere and the D.C. press would rather engage in a banal, point-scoring debate over the proper procedure for declassifying government documents." Right Wing News: "The fact that this story is getting so much linkage on the right and causing so much angst on the left just goes to show how rare editorials supporting the Bush administration on any controversial topic actually have been, which in turn just proves how liberal these big papers really are. When they actually get behind the Bush administration on something, it causes a sensation because it so seldom happens."

IN THE STATES: Joementum Goin' Indie?

ConnecticutBLOG writes about Lieberman's "stunning answer" when asked if he'd consider running as an indie for his re-election bid. Lieberman: "I'm not gonna rule out any other option for now because I feel so strongly that I can do better for the State of Connecticut for the next six years in the United States Senate that I want to give all the voters a chance to make that decision on Election day in November." From the blog: "Joe Lieberman is such a proud Democrat that he wouldn't rule out jumping ship and run on another party's ticket if he loses the Democratic primary to Ned Lamont. In other words, he'll will not support the Democratic nominee (Ned Lamont) if he loses the primary. Is this in the best interest of the party or the best interest of Joe Lieberman (why does the word hubris come to mind)?" Swing State Project looks at CT election law, and concludes: "[I]f Joe loses the primary, in order to run as an independent in the general, he'd have to file petitions the very next day." Matt Stoller: "The likeliest path forward for him is to test his strength at the convention, and based on that decide whether to run as a D or an I. From his perspective, he probably has a better chance in the general against Lamont than he does in the primary, so dropping out and running as an independent might be the most rational move, though it would be costly. So watch the convention carefully." Atrios: "There are special circumstances where the Party implicitly supporting an independent, such as in the case of Bernie Sanders, makes sense. But Joe's basically telling the primary voters of Connecticut - Democrats - that he doesn't respect them." Captain's Quarters: "CTBlogger expresses his shock that Lieberman isn't more loyal to the Democrats, but all that's happening is that Lieberman is reflecting the loyalty shown him. It's a shot across the bow of the party activists working to undermine him. If Lieberman does decide to run as an independent, he will split the party vote and may wind up helping the GOP capture a seat they had not considered. They might even run a serious candidate in the general election under the circumstances." Riehl World View: "They already lost Zell Miller. Nationally-minded Democrats like Hillary will not want to give the impression of an ever shrinking tent with a Presidential election in just over two years."

Also in the news, Rep./GOP Conference Vice Chair Jack Kingston (R-GA) will host a conference call with bloggers today at 2 p.m. dealing with immigration, the Academic Bill of Rights, energy independence, Iraq, Iran and the economy.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: He's Still Got His Fat Soap

In international news, Italy held its general election 4/9, and with the result likely favoring the opposition party over current PM Silvio Berlusconi. TransAtlantic Assembly has details. As The Hotline pointed out after earlier world elections, a possible world-wide "kick the bums out" feeling has already shown up as incumbent parties have lost in Canada, Germany, Spain and the Palestinian Territories. Bad news for GOPers? Wait and see.

LEST WE FORGET: Shotgun!

When your inner child needs to come out, say, just after a shopping trip or leaving a bar with friends, Paul Davidson is there to back you up. He's perfectly okay with anyone, not just those under college age, calling "Shotgun" when they see the car. Fortunately for those of you with friends who grew up in different parts of the country, where rules for calling said front seat may differ, he offers definitive rules by which to live. And for those of you with dirty feet, rule six offers a warning: "Putting your dirty shoes up on the dashboard in the car, while enjoying the shotgun-status, is grounds for the driver to pull over, revoke your shotgun-status and give it to the person he/she likes better."

4/4: Giving Everyone Fitz

Today's lead story is, of course, ex-Cheney CoS Scotter Libby's testimony before the CIA leak grand jury. Once we get past the initial excitement of the "Bush leaked!" headlines and subsequent nitpicking of the MSM, the main issue among bloggers seems to be whether Pres. Bush's authorizing the leaking of classified information constitutes proper declassification, and also whether that selective leaking is appropriate. What follows below is just a small sampling of the swarm that developed after the story broke, with more sure to come.

Elsewhere, an on-again, off-again immigration deal left conservatives furious at their own party and ganging up on a possible WH '08er. The left, meanwhile, remains concerned about immigration reform, but where conservatives have coalesced behind a few ideas, lefties seem headed down a number of logical paths. Finally, AG Alberto Gonzales' testimony leaving the door open for the Bush admin to tap phone conversations contained solely within the U.S. has the left up in arms. This story, it seems, can only get bigger.

LIBBY: The Scooter Scoop

Some of the reaction to the news: Taylor Marsh: "Russ Feingold's censure resolution is not only seeming smart, but down right modest." Gay Patriot: "[T]his does not nail the president in the least. It merely shows him authorizing the release of information which would serve to discredit a dishonest critic." Booman Tribune: "Libby's claim that Bush declassified the information prior to his meeting with [New York Times' Judy] Miller is nonsense. As far as Miller was concerned, nothing was ever classified." Talk Left: "So will Libby's defense be that he was only a small part of a much bigger effort to use classified information for political purposes, a variation of the Oliver North defense? And if so, in that effort to direct heat up the chain, what will [U.S. Atty. Patrick] Fitzgerald do about the two at the top of this effort as we get closer to trial?" Instapundit: "The latest 'Bush leaked' story ... is basically a 'spoiling attack' by the NYT and other media who fear subpoenas in the Libby case. As with all their efforts on this front, it's likely to backfire. The more they say that leaks are bad, even as they rely on politically motivated leaks from insiders for their bread and butter, the more vulnerable they become." State Of The Day: "The next move is all [VP] Cheney's. He is next in line to take the fall. After today's revelation, the only way to get the president off the hook is for Cheney to say he lied to Libby about having presidential authority. Of course, this is a lie."

Moderate Voice says the story "more than ever points out that the administration clamps down on leakers who are 'whistleblowers' but uses leaks when it suits their political purposes." Among things to be taken away from the story: "This administration does not just have a credibility problem, it has a credibility catastrophe." Also: "Bush is now in the 'loop' on these allegations. The stories point out that he didn't violate any law -- but he can't talk about how leakers hurt the government if he is actively involved himself in leaking when it suits his political purposes." Tom McGuire details how the headlines don't quite match the story. "So Bush authorized an informal release of some part of the NIE to one reporter a week before portions were made public. Commence impeachment hearings!" Earlier, he tried to fit the pieces together to see how it fits in with Fitzgerald's overall case. Unclaimed Territory: "So let's assume, for the moment, that Libby's testimony is accurate. That would mean that the President, instead of following normal declassification procedures and publicly releasing a redacted version of the NIE, authorized an aide to present a cherry-picked and manipulated version of that document to a friendly New York Times reporter on deep background. That aide then passed along the highly misleading information and asked that it be attributed to a 'former Hill staffer.' That may not be illegal, but it is sure as hell unethical."

Andrew Sullivan first wrote at a post titled "Bush Nailed." "Cheney's judgment in this matter is extremely odd. Who really cared about Joseph Wilson's op-ed? Why the extreme defensiveness and then recklessness of the [ex-CIA officer Valerie] Plame leak? We're either talking extreme hubris here, or someone who felt he had a lot to hide. Or an admixture of the two." After being picked apart by other bloggers, Sullivan later writes: "Make your own mind up. But it seems to me that a president who routinely decries leaking of classified information has now been revealed as someone who purposefully and with premeditation leaked classified information, gave his veep special clearance to do so, and did so during a very heated debate about possible malfeasance with respect to pre-war intelligence handling."

More from the right: Matt Margolis: "Just another case of Democrats trying to make a mountain out of a molehill." USS Neverdock: "In a nutshell, anti-Bush agents in the CIA and other intelligence agencies were leaking selective intelligence to the media in an attempt to undermine the administration. The Left wing media calls them heroes. In an attempt to get the truth out, the adminstration declassifies the intelligence so the public can decide for themselves. The Left wing media calls this a scandal." Austin Bay: "The entire flap relies on mixing terms and "misunderstanding by innuendo" -- a technique of demagoguery, not journalism. The flap is yet more evidence that the national press is more interested in playing "gotcha" with the Bush Administration than reporting the news."

American Street: "This may cause people to wonder if former Chief of Staff Andrew Card's resignation didn't come at just the right time." Meanwhile, Think Progress notes that at the WH briefing, "there wasn't a single question" about the report. Informed Comment: "George W. Bush faces the weight of a long Asian land war gone badly wrong, just as Johnson did. And he faces the charges of high-level corruption and illegal wiretapping that dogged Richard Nixon.

LIBBY II: You Stay Classy, Washington DC

As said earlier, the crux of the debate is whether or not the info that Libby leaked was classified, or if Bush's authorization made it de facto declassified. This boils down to another question about executive authority. Byron York: "Yes, it was classified, although it would later be declassified. But it should be remembered that when the president decides to make something public, then it can be made public." Also at The Corner, Cliff May adds: "If the President of the United States doesn't have the power to declassify information -- who does? The Pope? The ACLU? The Daily Kos?" Firedoglake: "[F]or all those agencies whose job it is to protect our nation's security secrets: how are they supposed to know what is or is not classifed information if George Bush only tells Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby when he's decided to declassify something? Doesn't that seem more than a little odd to anyone else -- let alone outside the boundaries of normal procedures?" Josh Marshall: "Even with the president, there are procedures he needs to go through. ... What we appear to have here in the Libby case is a one-off declassification. The president didn't really declassify anything. He authorized Libby to show classified material to Judy Miller or whomever else." As for lower ranking officials, Georgia10 posits: "They're 'entrusted' with national secrets and are 'delegated' authority by the President. But such authority rests only in the President. Keep that in mind as we now go through President Bush's executive orders on classification."

The Carpetbagger Report makes the required Watergate analogy. He adds: "The White House's claim is, not surprisingly, that if the president leaks something, it's no longer classified. Bush, in other words, is one-man declassification machine. The argument is odd, but even if it's taken at face value, it's worth noting the way in which the new revelations conflict with the president's own previous comments on leaks." Power Line tries to set the record straight as they see it: "In the summer of 2003, as noted above, the administration was besieged with leaks from liberals in the CIA and elsewhere, as well as op-eds by the likes of [Amb.] Joe Wilson, that misrepresented the state of the intelligence prior to the Iraq war. In order to deal with these false claims, the administration declassified the 2002 intelligence estimate. ... The 'leak' that you're reading about in headlines today was simply the permission given to Scooter Libby to describe the contents of the consensus intelligence estimate a few days before it was officially declassified." Captain's Quarters: "The media had demanded answers to the charges leveled by Wilson and his supporters, and those answers were found in the NIE. The decision to declassify it and publish it came as a result of that demand. Once the decision is made to declassify information, it can be released in any number of ways. This was both leaked and openly presented in the same fortnight." TBogg thinks that sort of reaction amounts to a "he made me do it" defense: "So, you see, it was unfair of Joseph Wilson to force them to break the law and besides they were going to release all of the information eventually, so no harm, no foul." Kevin Drumm tries to piece together the timeline: "his doesn't make sense. Documents are either declassified or they're not, and the president can either declassify them with a mere verbal flick of his wrist or he can't. Which is it?" The Jawa Report: "Unusual threats often call for unusual responses. It's also highly unusual for the President's administration to come under attack from a cabal of renegade bureaucrats within the Central Intelligence Agency."

Legal Fiction takes a big picture look, bringing in also the Patriot Act, enemy combatants and torture issues. "The tie that binds each and every one of these positions is that, in each one, the executive alone gets the final say on the scope of its power." The latest news "shows that the administration was abusing its power. In doing so, it completely undermined the argument that it can be trusted with the expansive powers it claims to possess."

IMMIGRATION: No Deal

Our coverage yesterday of a deal struck in the Sen over comprehensive immigration reform was called "Deal? Or No Deal?" We were just trying to be cute, but at press time the agreement that had been hammered out had just failed a key Sen test vote and is soon to be off the table, per the New York Times and Reuters. According to the NYT, the deal's "prospects for passage grew more uncertain as Republicans and Democrats clashed late into the night over parliamentary procedure." Even before the deal fell apart, most on the right weren't happy with the compromise, with most linking to the Washington Post's description of the deal. Righty Captain's Quarters: "The lack of detail signals that the compromise may be little more than an easy way out of a contentious battle." Michelle Malkin questions the GOP's role in the Sen: "Can you spell c-a-v-e-i-n?" Right Wing News calls it "the GOP's Illegal Immigration Sell-Out." Iowa Voice calls it both a cave-in and a sell out. John O'Sullivan Lefty Taylor Marsh sums up the left's perspective on the matter: "Republicans seem hell bent on screwing immigrants and Americans, only this time they're doing it simultaneously ... and we didn't even get a kiss." Aside from that sentiment, the left offers a variety of opinions on what the deal meant. Middle Earth Journal thinks the bill is flawed to begin with: "We can only hope that the wingnut xenophobes in the House will stick to their guns so this totally impractical and unmanageable bill will never see the light of day." TalkLeft compares old versions of the bill to the Hagel-Martinez version the Sen is working on. The Heretik thinks other factors are at work in the wheeling and dealing: "Give me your compromise, give me your huddled senators yearning to campaign for President." And Ezra Klein thinks a bill's doomed to failure because of a required conference cmte with the House.

Senate Maj. Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) posted an update on the bill's progress last p.m. Riehl World View responds: "Good thing he has a third career path." Hugh Hewitt, Riehl World View and The Real Ugly American similarly consider Frist to have hurt himself politically. So does lefty Blue Crab Boulevard. Confederate Yankee even coins a new word: "Fristed."

Betsy and The Moderate Voice also post on the matter. Legal Fiction asks: "Is the 'learning English' requirement constitutional? I'm not a big equal protection scholar, so I don't know if the 'disparate impact' aspect continues to have any teeth." Power Line has a poll asking readers where priorities lie on immigration reform.

BUSH: FOXy Facts

The latest Fox News poll shows Bush sliding down the poll-rating slope again. This month, only 36% of voters approve of his performance, down from 39% in mid-3/06, and 53% disapprove. AP's Fournier comments on an AP/Ipsos poll showing approval also at 36%. The left, needless to say, jumps all over the ratings. Daimnation, noting Congressional generic ballot number: "If the Democrats can put together something like the Republicans' 'Contract With America' campaign in 1994, major changes could be coming." Left Coaster, Tennessee Guerilla Women, Bring It On!, Middle Earth Journal and Oliver Willis all chip in. Protein Wisdom notes and analyzes the Fox Poll's immigration questions.

Also 4/6, Bush spoke to a crowd in Charlotte, NC, and took questions. One questioner, Harry Taylor, vented about a number of topics, concluding: "I would hope, from time to time, that you have the humility and the grace to be ashamed of yourself." Washington Post reports. Vox Mia supports Taylor, and offers its own Separated at Birth. Norwegianity: " Harry Taylor was brave and principled but -- as is usually the case -- he was terrified, his voice cracked and I'm sure he wishes today he had said several things better. It's not easy to face down the President of the United States in a room full of his supporters." Shotgunfreude just loves the guy. Taylor received kudos from the liberal blogosphere, including Peppered Jane's "Gold Star of the Week," and Le Carnet De Ma Planete calls him one of "mon heros du jour." Blue Crab Boulevard doesn't think Taylor's "challenge" was all that impressive.

WIRETAPPING: We Feel Bad For Anyone Named Ben Ladin Or Al Kada

AG Alberto Gonzales testified before the House Jud Cmte 4/6 and left open the possibility that Bush could authorize warrantless wiretaps on phone calls made within and confined to the U.S., the first time the admin. has acknowledged that such a program is possible in their legal opinion. Washington Post has the story, and like previous debates over wiretapping, many bloggers are up in arms over the matter. Liberty Street sums up Gonzales' testimony: "Just another day in the office, helping his boss to subvert the Constitution and end the American experiment with democracy." Corrente: "These guys have no limits or boundaries at all. That means they're already doing warrantless domestic surveillance--with the targets presumably taken from their list of traitors and possible traitors, which probably includes, oh, the entire Beltway and who hasn't actually sworn fealty to Bush's person, at this point." TalkLeft notes that even Jud Cmte chair Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) wasn't buying Gonzales' testimony. AMERICAblog thinks Sensenbrenner's objections help Dems. SusanG and Atrios also offer comments on Sensenbrenner. Kevin Drum sees the continued slide down a slippery slope: "Once the public accepts the idea that domestic-to-international calls can be tapped at the whim of the administration -- without a warrant and without bothering to show probable cause -- they're a lot less likely to be upset at the prospect of domestic-to-domestic calls being tapped too. The frog is simmering." Obsidian Wings agrees: "A few short years ago, when conservatives were claiming that returning Elian Gonzales to his father was a harbinger of tyranny, one might have expected some real outcry at anything remotely resembling this revelation. Now, it's just normal." Firedoglake renews her call: "Who in their right mind is making the argument that this President is not deserving of censure?" Mcjoan has similar feelings.

IN THE STATES: Presser DeLayed

Supporters of resigning Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) crashed a press conference held by ex-Rep. Nick Lampson (D), who's running for DeLay's TX 22 seat, at which Lampson called on TX Gov. Rick Perry to hold a 5/13 special election to fill DeLay's seat. According to the AP, the protest was organized by ex-DeLay manager Chris Homan. Juanit'as Beauty Salon (and it actually is a beauty salon, apparently) has pictures of the presser and Homan's email to his troops. State of the Day is the first to make Third Reich comparisons. Mcjoan calls DeLay's supporters "shameless." NewDonkey and Wonkette comment. == Blue Crab Boulevard is skeptical that the incident is all it's cracked up to be. == Preemptive Karma comments on Perry's decisions and the state of the race, as does Off the Kuff, Swing State Project, Corrente

BLOGGERS VS. THE MSM: Viewing Viera's Record

Yesterday, NBC said "The View"'s Meredith Viera will replace soon-to-be CBS anchor Katie Couric on "Today." Soon after, Newsbusters posted photos and quotes from Viera at/about an antiwar protest before the RNC in NYC in 8/04. Junk Yark Blog: "That these rallies are usually organized by the violent Communists of International ANSWER -- the same people who have organized the May Day Hispanic strike -- never seems to bother people like Meredith Viera. Or the allegedly unbiased news networks that employ them."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: News At 11

Columbia Journalism Review's blog posted a report 4/6 that we found interesting. The post cites an investigation by the Center for Media and Democracy, which found that local TV news stations, where most Americans still get their news, routinely air "video news releases" from corporations and other groups and pass them off as original reporting. Of course, the video news releasers aren't going to cry foul; that's their message! So why aren't local political parties taking advantage of lazy reporters? NRO's Media Blog comments.

LEST WE FORGET: Life Imitates Art

Yesterday's Thought of the Day identified the scary as anything scenario of cockroaches that make group decisions. Today's Lest We Forget brings you a life-imitates-art story, brought to our attention by Blue Crab Boulevard: There is apparently a giant rabbit on the loose in Felton, in Northern England. Reuters reports that villagers are trying to shoot the "brute."

4/6: We Don't Want No Stinkin' Compromise!

Several stories were buzzing around last night and today, including continued fallout from Rep. Cynthia McKinney's (D-GA) run-in with Capitol Police, Rep. Tom DeLay's (R-TX) resignation and subsequent threat to file an ethics report against McKinney, and more buzz about House Min. Leader Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) lack of support among Dem activists.

The posting tides appeared, by mid-morning, to be swinging back to Captiol Hill, where word of a compromise on immigration brought every kind of criticism imaginable. Sen GOPers took heat, Dems were blasted, and at least one WH'08 candidate's funeral was held. Looks like immigration will be the hot topic of the day once again, pushing other, more personal matters to the back burner. But in the blogosphere, the back burner is just one controversy away from flaring up and becoming a raging fire.

IMMIGRATION: Deal? Or No Deal?

A report in the Washington Post, among others, about an immigration compromise got many righties up in arms. Ankle Biting Pundits: "Never set your expectations too low for Republicans in the US Senate." Hugh Hewitt's post: "No fence? No President Frist." QandO, David Frum and Poliblog are among those reacting negatively. Glenn Reynolds caught up with Frist this a.m. and had a chat. Audio link included.

In the course of debate 4/5, an amendment to ban immigrants who'd been convicted of a felony failed. The Washington Times reports, and the righty blogosphere took the opportunity to jump all over Dems over the issue. Power Line demonstrates the incredulity with which the right is reacting to the news: "The Democrats are using the filibuster to protect the "right" of convicted felons who have emigrated to the U.S. illegally to become citizens. How can they possibly justify that?" "Unbelievable," says Right Wing NewsSay Anything chimes in. Strata-Sphere thinks Dems are tying their own noose: "How many times have I said 'if you want to beat a liberal, just let them talk'? The Democrats have (deservedly so) opened themselves up to the Willie Horton treatment."

Meanwhile, Michelle Malkin offers a roundup of American flag photos in honor of Take An American Flag To Work Day.

MCKINNEY: Defense Begins Its Case

Reacting to reports that McKinney's alleged scuffle with a Capitol Police officer is headed to a grand jury, the right continues to see the lack of comment from the left as an indictment of the left as weak in general and anti-police. Confederate Yankee: "Cynthia McKinney has no respect for the men and women of the Capitol Police force who have placed their lives on the line for her day in and day out, and the dead silence of her fellow Democrats speaks volumes about how they feel about crimes against the police as well." Macs Mind wants her out of the way now. In Search Of Utopia, though, while calling McKinney "ridiculous," wants to know: "If conservatives are so damned law and order, why arent they clammoring for Delay and others to go to jail. I am sorry, but this is nothing more than hypocrisy." Simianbrain, a resident of McKinney's district, thinks an apology would make everything better, and offers a flashback to a previous post which discusses what a Rep's job really is. Gateway Pundit offers video of McKinney's testy exchange with CNN host Soledad O'Brien.

The left begins with a few defenses of McKinney, though they're more of the "we have more important things to do" variety. American Street thinks people are wasting their time. Seeing The Forest words its arguments more strongly, saying McKinney was "pushing back against an infringement on the Constitution" (according to Article 1, Section 6). The News Blog thinks the incident was inspired by race. MyDD's Chris Bowers is ticked that Dems may have let the GOP, Tom DeLay no less, break the "ethics truce." "There are a fairly decent number of Representatives who need ethics complaints filed against them. The vast majority of them are Republicans, but a handful of them are Democrats. We need reformed Democrats who are willing to file ethics challenges against all members who deserve it." At DailyKos, a number of diarists offer their own takes. Delaware Dem is "ashamed" of McKinney. The post earns 921 comments, many supportive of the author's positon. Filmgeek83 likens the story to three-card monte: "Anyone who's not a backwater Rube knows to stay away from that game." A Blog For All offers a new solution: "Get rid of the 'courtesy' of permitting Members of Congress to avoid the security checkpoints and require everyone entering the buildings to be searched." And, to reports that Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) may file ethics charges against McKinney: "Pot meet kettle." Lefty SpeakSpeak also blames the system, not the individuals involved: "It's a lousy system to say a cop is supposed to be able to tell if someone in motion is wearing the pin, and if not then chase that someone."

At The Nation's blog, Ari Berman pleads with McKinney to put the story to rest, pronto.

DEMOCRATS: So The Speaker Pelosi Bandwagon Isn't Exactly Taking Off

House Min Leader Pelosi posts at Daily Kos, promoting her resolution "to hold the Republican Rubber Stamp Congress accountable for its abuse of power and ethical lapses." The first comment is a positive one: "Once again, I'm glad you're my representative. Keep the heat on, and turn it up!" But it's pretty much downhill from there. letsfight: "I am sorry, but the fact that you posted here, just all random and all, and have the AUDACITY to say 'the gloves are off'? Lordy ... you are really out of touch." Nestor Mekhnow: "Count me out Nancy and tell John, since you are so involved in the Senate's affairs and all, that he is as clueless as you. ... The netroots are gonna send you packing lady." beseiged by bush hopes the post wasn't just a cut-and-paste from a DCCC fundraising email. modchick65: "I want to support Nancy Pelosi, and I do appreciate the opportunity at dialogue. But she's got to get it together first."

Also at Daily Kos, Georgia10 says the netroots' push for a challenger in every district is paying off. "When we make every district competitive, we make the NRCC hemorrhage. We bleed it slowly and cripple its effectiveness by forcing it to pour millions into rock-solid Republican districts, making less money available to the truly competitive seats. Forcing the NRCC to spend its money in a diffuse rather than concentrated manner is not enough, obviously"

WHITE HOUSE '08: McCain Hating Continues

Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) appearance on the "Daily Show" 4/4 sparked some commentary on both sides (see 4/5 Hotline for the story) and no one seems very happy. Crooks and Liars has video of McCain's appearance. On the right, David Frum questions McCain going along with host Jon Stewart's assertion that the religious right is "crazy." Lefty Kevin Drum: "McCain is plenty smart to do all this stuff now, when no one is really paying attention. By the time the 2008 presidential race really starts up, this stuff will be long forgotten. He may not be the straight talker he likes to portray himself as, but he's a shrewd politician." PSoTD sums up the interview: "Most importantly, the audience was laughing at him, not with him." The Carpetbagger Report thinks McCain's on the verge of going openly full-tilt conservative: "McCain is slowly taking up residence in "crazy base world," but he may find that his new buddies haven't rolled out the welcome mat for him. They have several hoops for him to jump through, and appearing with Falwell and some cautious rhetoric about the FMA won't be enough. The religious right wants full, unswerving allegiance." The Third Path and The Reaction react similarly.

McCain also gave a speech to a group of union leaders in DC 4/4 and was booed. In fact, the jeering was so bad that at one point, McCain threatened to leave early. AP's Fournier has the story. Lefty Shakespeare's Sister think the speech bodes poorly for McCain's future: "If [McCain] can't even hack a heckling audience, how does he expect to be president?" A number of people reacted to McCain's claim that no American would take a job picking lettuce, even if the wage offered was $50/hour. Upper Left: "John McCain's outspoken contempt for American working men and women is just one more way in which he's a typical Republican. I guess he deserves a 'straight talk' point or two for telling the Building Trades folks just how little he thinks of them to their face, but he loses whatever shreds of his carefully cultivated image as a maverick might have remained." Unfogged concurs, in a post headed "Why McCain Isn't On Our Side."

Sen. Russ Feingold's (D-WI) evolving position on same-sex marriage drew commentary from a number of sources. AP reports. Left In The West likes the move and directs visitors to Feingold's PAC website and surmises: "Leadership deserves support." Atrios agrees: "It's not as if we're gonna capture the hate the gay vote anyway, so it's time we had some political leaders who, you know, lead." Righty Captain Ed thinks it's a smart move politically, though he disagrees with the sentiment: "wants to signal that the far left can absolutely count on him to carry their platform into the 2008 convention. It's not a bad idea in the primaries, and he will be able to harness the money-raising power of the MoveOn and I-ANSWER crowd early enough to be able to keep them from financing any of his more moderate rivals." Another righty, QandO, cites the emergence of Feingold as the leading lefty. California Conservative is just against Feingold's position.

Daily Kos comments on a report at Hotline's On Call about a push by conservatives to hold caucuses rather than primaries. The idea is that it will give "core activists" a "greater say in the allocation of delegates." Kos: "I see nothing wrong with a delegate selection process that prevents non-Republican participation. I think Dems should handle their contests the same way."

Mark Noonan isn't happy with MA's new universal health care coverage. "You have to be an idiot to think that this won't be a crushing burden on Massachusetts business, a regulatory nightmare, and the destruction of health care in Massachusetts as those who can seek health care in neighboring States and only the poor are stuck in the State-sponsored system." He doesn't mention Gov. Mitt Romney (R), but he's the one who signed the bill. Bull Moose: "Will the embrace of this mandate ridden plan cost Governor Romney support on the right? ... Or will the right finally acknowledge that Hillary was a prophet ahead of her time?" New Republic's The Plank: "Mitt Romney will say this law makes him a worthy candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. And he's right. Politics should reward officials who accomplish something in office. And while it will undoubtedly annoy some progressives who don't love the plan or think he's taking credit for an idea (and favorable circumstances) that fell into his lap, they should be thankful for this development."

TPM Cafe's Tool Fan reads Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) Iraq plan and asks: "Is Kerry Actually Saying Something?"

At Red State, Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA) criticizes a plan to change the Electoral College, where states would automatically throw their electoral votes toward the winner of the national popular vote. "The left in America is nothing if not creative. ... The left wing politicos in America know that turning the national elections into populist referendums will benefit their candidates."

CONGRESS: 527s, With A Side Of Pork

Legislation on the Hill is a subject of mild interest in the blogosphere, moreso on the right perhaps. Hugh Hewitt rounds up some quotes on the 527 debate, saying himself: "If you ever wonder why Congress' approval numbers are so low, look no further than this debate ... . The flagrant switcheroo ... by both parties is just totally transparent." Club For Growth's blog followed the action, singling out GOPers who voted no.

In the battle against earmarks, Porkbusters claims some success, noting that requests are down 37% for FY'07. "Assuming the numbers are accurate, they show that the public disgust with Congressional spending is indeed making an impact. So let's keep it up!" Meanwhile, Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) finds himself in the crosshairs after saying that he's tired of hearing from the Porkbusters. Six Meat Buffet: "Well, Trent, if you and your GOP buddies walked the walk instead of just talking the 'smaller government, fiscal restraint' talk, you wouldn't be having a fiscal colonoscopy." John Hawkins: "I keep hearing rumors that Trent Lott wants to be Senate Majority Leader again once Bill Frist leaves at the end of 2006. That would really send a great message to the voters, wouldn't it?"

DELAY: The Plan Is Set

Ankle Biting Pundits has a source that claims what others had already speculated on: that DeLay's resignation was part of a plan hatched before the GOP primary. "The reason being: so that party higher-ups could decide who the GOP nominee would be, not the Republican primary voters. ... If my source's information proves correct, my view of Rep. DeLay and the GOP establishment will be taken down a notch."

Off The Kuff reports on the confusion over whether or not TX Gov. Rick Perry (R) would have to call a special election, and what would happen to the seat in the meantime.

IRAQ: Intimidation Tactics?

Daily Kos' McJoan follows up on an issue raised previously, and highlighted in the Washington Post: cutbacks in funds toward nonprofits meant to promote democracy in Iraq. "Obviously the security concerns on the ground in Iraq require the bulk of U.S. expenditures, and one could argue that without security democracy cannot flourish. Arguing in that vein leads to the inevitable conclusion that democracy in Iraq is a casualty of the poor planning and poor execution of BushCo in conducting this war."

Meanwhile, at TPM CafeLarry Johnson thinks the MSM has been spooked into not reporting supposed setbacks in Iraq. "Fearful of being accused of undermining the war effort, the TV side of journalism apparently decided to punt and do nothing. Fortunately, the print media and wires continue to tough it out."

IN THE STATES: Pol-Pourri

Atrios adds PA 07 candidate Joe Sestak on his list of endorsed candidates after reading this Hill article. Atrios, in another post: "Could someone give Curt Weldon a call for me? In case my wife ever gets sick suddenly I'd like to know which hospital I'm supposed to take her to." MyDD: "Curt Weldon has taking Republican slime politics to an all new low."

In a new feature, Politics1 asks which Sen is most likely to be defeated for re-election in '06. At press time, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) led by a wide margin, with Sens. Conrad Burns (R-MT) and Bob Menendez (D-NJ) rounding out the top three.

A new poll leaked from the DNC, reported by the Washington Post, could spell "a landslide GOP victory" in MD's Sen race, according to RedState's Strieff. Hedgehog Report and Random Numbers think the poll speaks to larger problems for Dems among African Americans.

And DailyKos' Freiheit is trying to recruit a Dem or Indie challenger in CA 08. The incumbent? Rep./House Min Leader Nancy Pelosi (D).

BLOGGERS VS. THE MSM: Couric Edition

CBS' own Public Eye has a great roundup of blog reaction to Katie Couric's announcement that she'll leave NBC to take over the much-maligned CBS "Evening News." Red State's Mark Kimer: "Is this story important? For historical reasons, yes. Network News has had a reputation, once the main evening source, Cronkite, Chet &David , etc. But network news is none of that, in reality, now, for many reasons. But it's something to talk about, and we'll see what happens." Marc Cooper seems to have toungue firmly planted in cheek: "Katie Couric -- and for that matter Les Moonves -- can now take their rightful place as shining icons in this glorious period of American journalism." Beyond The Punchline: "Anyone reading this can read off of a teleprompter. So why is Katie Couric getting paid $15 million dollars a year, to basically do what you're doing right now?"

Elsewhere, Huffington Post' "Eat The Press" feature draws a swarm on the left for its video showing a candid conversation between "Hardball" host Chris Matthews and DeLay. Michelle Malkin is still on the NASCAR vs. "Dateline" patrol. She interviewed a NASCAR spokesperson who isn't happy with the net's plan to send Arab-Americans to races, perhaps with the goal of capturing some racial tension. One of her readers suggests that race attendees "Wear an NBC t-shirt." And The Radio Equalizer wonders why Al Franken isn't being hit for alleged plagiarism the same way Ben Domenech was. "While not quite as serious as those by Domenech and disgraced New York Times reporter Jayson Blair (with Franken in the images shown here), plagiarism is plagiarism, isn't it?"

BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: Hayden Seek

Today the Blogometer talks to lefty Kevin Hayden, who writes The American Street.

What is your full name?

Kevin Hayden, King of the Tapiocas

What is your age?

53

Where did you grow up?

North Falmouth, on Cape Cod in Massachusetts

Where do you live now?

Eugene, Oregon

What is your occupation?

I'm a maintenance supervisor for a commercial building. Much of my job is janitorial and landscaping. I clean toilets, mow lawns, dump trash, paint, build and repair things. I do the same things many Latino immigrants do. With pride. Without resenting my immigrant peers. I only resent those who diminish us or the work we do. There are Einsteins and Schweitzers among us. What we do as a daily task does not define the value of who we are. And where we originate matters less than what we accomplish with our souls upon the way.

Have you ever worked on a political campaign or for the mainstream media?

Yes and no. I worked on a presidential campaign and a State rep campaign, both before I was 22. I've written for a couple of alt weeklies and have done a couple of guest editorials in a mainstream daily. Oh wait, I guess I did get paid to be a summer theater reviewer in a mainstream paper, so yes and yes.

When did you start blogging and why?

I began in November of 2002.

What has been your favorite post, or favorite story to write about, in that time?

Geeze, that's hard. I enjoy writing about real life occurences the most, though most of what has appeared on my blog of a personal nature has been too tragic to enjoy. Nothing stands out as a favorite, really. I hate them all equally.

Describe your typical blogging schedule.

It used to be from about 5 am to 10 am, 3 pm to 7 pm and a couple of late night hours. My current work has altered that. Now it's more like 9 - 11 am and 10 pm to 3 am, around my mostly swingshift job.

And what is your average output?

About 20-25 posts per week.

Who is your favorite political blogger?

There are too many great ones. Jeanne of Body and Soul for the heart she puts in it. Billmon and Digby: exceptional craftsmen. David Neiwert of Orcinus for his deep research because I love history. For humorists, Patriotboy at Jesus' General, Tom Burka of Opinions You Should Have and the Fafblog trio are great. Chris Allbritton and Kevin Sites for courageous investigative work in war zones. Jeralyn Merritt for law and crime. Mark Woods of Wood s Lot doesn't use a real blog but his output's the same and his mix of arts and letters with the political is astounding.

Favorite non-political blogger?

Ummmm. Blaugustine, Go Fug Yourself, Utter Wonder, How To Save The World, and Gapingvoid come to mind. And sometimes, Rageboy.

Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?

[Dan] Froomkin of the Washington Post or dear Molly Ivins top my list.

What is your favorite television news program, either network or cable?

The Daily Show. No regular news is closer to reality, though Keith Olbermann on MSNBC is good.

What MSM-produced websites (i.e. newspapers, magazines) do you visit on a daily basis?

Kansas City Star and Miami Herald (the two top Knight Ridder outlets), USA Today and CBS Marketwatch almost always. Less common, yet often are NY Times, Salon, WaPo, St. Petersburg Times, LA Times.

What non-MSM websites (i.e. blogs) do you visit on a daily basis?

I rotate through my team's individual blogs so I see them all every other day usually. Raw Story, Cursor and Taegan Goddard almost every day. All of the political favorites listed above I read at least once every two days. The same holds true for Atrios, the Left Coaster, Corrente, Pacific Views, Suburban Guerrilla, skippy, Democratic Underground, Blue Oregon, BlondeSense, PreEmptive Karma, Alas A Blog. Other than the first three I mentioned, I visit all these 2-3 times a week. So I read about 30 a day.

How often, or do you ever, read a newspaper in its dead-tree (i.e. print) form?

Local papers, about 3 times a week.

How do you see the new media and old media affecting and influencing each other in the next five years?

More movement to sound and video in the blogs. MSM print media losing ad revenue to blogs and Craigslist. Increasing investigative journalism in some blogs. Continued ties between bloggers and Air America. Most TV news will continue to be crap, celebrity gazing and corporate whoring. Maybe 10% of today's bloggers will still be blogging. I suspect wirth soundcasts, many will pursue microradio formats with less printed word.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Similarities Between Cockroaches And Pols Mount

From Winds Of Change "Department of 'Damn!'", we're pointed to a Discovery Channel piece which reports perhaps the scariest news we've ever heard, considering that some of our apartments are more, shall we say "occupied," than we'd like them to be: Apparently cockroaches make group decisions. And they all decided on the garbage can in our kitchen.

LEST WE FORGET: When Names Are Lethal Weapons

A reminder: Beltway Blogroll's Danny Glover is this guy, not this guy. His email inbox appreciates everyone's recognition of the difference.

4/5: Tales From The 5-Min Newscycle

So Rep. Tom DeLay's (R-TX) retirement was big news, was it? Well, today comes word that DHS dep press sec. Brian Doyle was arrested 4/4 p.m. for attempting to seduce a 14-year-old girl who turned out to be an undercover detective. The revelation was an overnight sensation for the blogosphere and bumped the day's other major stories, including DeLay, immigration and Iraq, right off the top of the charts. Imagine that. And thus far, we have a rare day of unity as almost all condemn Doyle and, to a lesser extent, DHS.

In other news, uber-blogger Michelle Malkin takes some flack for purportedly allowing ghostwriters to post under her name, but the flacker quickly became the flackee. And new twists in the Senate's immigration debate inspire mixed reactions from the right, while DeLay remains a popular posting subject.

DHS: Heckuva Job

Many link to the local Tampa TV station's report. Captain's Quarters: "I'm not sure what's going on at the Department of Homeland Security, but significant background checks certainly are not. ... Voters may not remember who Jack Abramoff is come November, but they will certainly remember who hired the Dirty Old Man of the DHS." Brilliant at Breakfast: "I can't decide what's worse about this guy -- that he's a creep and a pedophile, or that someone representing the Department of Homeland Security is so damn stupid. ... Somehow I think Scotty [McClellan]'s dronings about 'not commenting on an ongoing investigation' aren't going to cut it here." The Talking Dog: "The one thing you could say about the crop of Bushies and their Republican allies, in contrast to [ex-Pres.] Clinton, was that it was never about sex. ... Well, guess what? This one is about sex." Bark Bark Woof Woof: "Mr. Doyle made no effort to hide his identity or his occupation, and it goes without saying that going after a 14-year-old is creepy. But anyone who works in such a high-profile occupation in a high-profile government department who goes on-line for kids without making any attempt to conceal himself is just plain sick. Enough said." Steve Soto: "I am waiting for James Dobson, Lou Sheldon, Crazy Marion, or Jerry Falwell to weigh in on this. But then again, a BJ in the Oval was worth impeachment to these same guys, so why would they care if a gay prostitute was cleared by the Press Secretary to work in the White House, or a Claude Allen or Brian Doyle were high-level ... officials for a man of 'moral clarity.'" Lorie Byrd: "I know the behavior is dispicable, disgusting, evil, criminal, etc., but I am having such an incredibly hard time getting past the stupidity of it."

Needless to say, this is bad timing for a department that's made headlines lately for all the wrong reasons. Joe Gandelman: "It's ironic but an official working to improve the Homeland Security Department's image in the press has been arrested on child porn charges." Done With Mirrors: "The idea of the department itself and even its very name drew derision from the beginning, at least from some quarters. Its public failures and some of its more, shall we say, controversial employees tarnished the concept and actual operations even more. Now this. Is there any way that this agency -- as served by its employees, who hold their positions in our name -- can be more debased?"

Alternate Brain takes a look at the situation from a security perspective: "When I was in the military, especially those of us with a security clearance, we were constantly being reminded that our enemies ... would attempt use our 'questionable sexual dalliances' to extort secrets and information ... . I wonder, just say, if an 'enemy' would use this man's 'proclivities' to blackmail him to give up DHS info?"

Silflay Hraka writes about past interaction with Doyle. Taylor Marsh: "It's quite amazing that the story about Brian Doyle broke the same day that Justin Berry was on Capitol Hill, with Kurt Eichenwald, talking about sexually exploited children and the pedophiles who corrupt them and what can go wrong on the web."

DELAY: Just Can't Get Enough

Bloggers continue to debate the fallout of DeLay's withdrawal from his re-election race and his pending resignation from Congress. See 4/4's Blogometer for complete coverage, and today's New York Times for the latest story. Righties All Thigs Beautiful, Decision '08 comment. Lefty News Hounds takes the oppotunity to ask readers to contact Fox News about mistakes made in reporting the DeLay story. Daily Kos' DarkSyde has some sympathy for the right. "I'm talking about the ordinary guys and gals. Most of those hard working folks were expertly handled by religious opportunists and misled into supporting some of the most immoral politicians ever to disgrace the halls of power. The Carpetbagger Report, Firedoglake, Taylor Marsh, Preemptive Karma, Bar Bark Woof Woof and others comment.

Madeleine Begun Kane gives DeLay a limerick sendoff. Mark Kleiman has details on DeLay's upcoming gig with Vision America. Capitol Annex offers a hefty roundup, including local TX coverage.

IMMIGRATION: Seventeenth Verse, Same As The First

The continuing hot topic on Captiol Hill, Washington Post notes that GOP Sens are looking to compromise on the comprehensive immigration-reform bill currently being debated. Riehl World View, asserting that conservatives are not necessarily anti-immigrant, thinks the compromise can work: "If the Senate can produce a reasonable compromise such as the one being contemplated, my feeling is that Conservatives will sign onto it, provided there are dollars and a genuine willingness to follow through with enforcement." ParaPundit wants enforcement to come first, before any other reforms are considered. Similarly, Steve Sailer calls the compromise "a surrender" by GOPers. PoliPundit offers a tale of two immigrants. The Moderate Voice notes a CNN poll showing Americans torn on illegal immigration. He notes: "If people keep streaming across the border ... we're going to keep on having this same conversation over and over and over again."

Citing reportsyesterday that Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) guest worker program lacks enough votes to survive a filibuster, many conservatives react happily. Conservative Outpost, embodying the sarcasm common in many bloggers on this issue: "What a pitty [sic]. McCain doesn't have enough votes to sell citizenship to criminals for a thousand bucks plus back-taxes. Shame." Mr. & Mrs. Hobbesian Conspiracy, in a post called "Yay!": "I'd love to hear how a bill that would grant illegal aliens a green card provided they manage to evade the INS for 6 years isn't amnesty."

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) involved himself in the debate once again, holding a conference call with bloggers on the subject. Right Wing News has a transcript.

IRAQ: One Well Dries Up

Buckeye State Blog's Tim Russo writes about USAID's grants being cut off to NDI, a nonprofit org "working to strengthen and expand democracy worldwide." Russo: "When NDI, IRI, and NED money dry up, that means one of two things. Either the country has 'graduated' from assistance programs and the work is no longer needed ... or the country has become so politically unstable or dangerous that further programming is simply impossible. Take a guess which applies in Iraq."

WHITE HOUSE '08: Kerry Offers Withdrawal Plan

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) writes in today's New York Times: "We are now in the third war in Iraq in as many years. The first was against Saddam Hussein and his supposed weapons of mass destruction. The second was against terrorists whom, the administration said, it was better to fight over there than here. Now we find our troops in the middle of an escalating civil war." Kerry goes on to call for two deadlines by which U.S. forces will withdraw from Iraq if conditions aren't met by the Iraqi gov't. Democratic Daily's Pamela Leavey is supportive: " It's time for Iraq to get it together, it's time for the Bush administration to get it together. John Kerry is right!" The Left Coaster wants Kerry's argument to be the basis of the Dem platform on Iraq. Middle Earth Journal calls it "a fine piece." Left I On The News calls Kerry a late convert and sees his call now as gearing up for an attack on Iran: "John Kerry hasn't learned any lessons, either from Vietnam or Iraq, because he's ready to repeat the experiences (and spend the 'human treasure') once again in Iran. Pathetic." California Conservative says the piece "offers a scary glimpse into Kerry's view of Iraq." The News Blog sees a third way and says: "It seems like a viable solution, but it really is the trigger to the civil war." DailyKos's post on the subject draws 532 comments by 9 a.m. EDT.

IN THE STATES: Moonie Alert!

Kos is highlighting a different "Fighting Dem" every Tuesday, through a partnership with Air America Radio. Yesterday's feature: Psychotherapist/vet Bill Falzett (D), running against Rep. Wally Herger (R) in CA 02.

Politics1.com's Gunzberger calls Rep. Curt Weldon's (R-PA 07) connections to the Moonie cult one of the reasons Weldon's '06 race against ret. Admiral Joe Sestek (D) "will be a race to watch." Frequent readers of Politics1.com's blog will note that certain members' connections to the Moonies get under Gunzberger's skin.

BLOGGERS VS. THE MSM: Or Should It Be BLOGGERS VS. MSM BLOGS?

This is a new category (we think), required now because of the incredible pace at which newspapers and other MSM outlets are starting their own "blogs." For the first entry, we take note of a skirmish in OH between local bloggers and the Cleveland Plain Dealer over comments on the paper's "Openers" site. Buckeye State Blog quibbles with the PD's Mark Naymik and his word choice when describing a group of clergy. After an initial back-and-forth, Naymik allegedly writes: "Read into this what you want but I don't owe you a clarification or an explanation. I really don't have time to worry about providing you anything. Thanks." From the BSB: "There ya have it. The PeeDee's political team doesn't owe its readers any explanations about how they label people in their pieces, in fact we readers are just getting in the way of them going about their important job of journalisming. ... At best it is sloppy and at worst it is intentional to paint candidates and representatives with broad brushes for political purposes -- and it really needs to stop."

Brewed Fresh Daily had a similar interaction with a PD editor.

Michelle Malkin questions NBC's decision to again "stage news." The net's "Dateline" apparently sought Muslim males to send to NASCAR races, hoping to document negative reaction.

BLOGGERS IN THE MSM: Kos-ting To Good Press

Markos Moulitsas Zuniga was profiled by the San Francisco Chronicle. Some highlights:

• Kos is "'getting flacked to death' -- solicited by political consultants who know that a blessing on Daily Kos can bring their candidate as much as" $50K "in online donations within days, plus street credibility among its opinionated activists. Moulitsas can expect more suitors in the next few weeks as" his book hits shelves.
• He "is not a pundit nor a strategist, and he doesn't want to be a spokesman for a new generation known as 'the netroots.'"
• While bloggers "can't win elections," they can "influence them by creating buzz for little-known races and pressing the mainstream media to report on untold stories."
• On the 3-15 record by candidates he's endorsed, "Moulitsas said anybody can jump on a winning candidate's bandwagon. His aims are long-term. He wants to foment a universe of liberal think tanks, media outlets, leadership courses and a coalition of interest groups marching in lockstep for the progressive cause" (Garofoli, 4/5).

Meanwhile, Kos revels in a positive review from National Journal's own Charlie Cook. "So there has been little public backlash, and that's been, well, a bit weird. On the other hand, the ideas presented in the book are getting a fair reading -- much fairer than two political neophytes like me and Jerome ever deserved -- and clearly many of its criticisms, lessons, and recommendations are being heeded."

BLOGGERS VS. BLOGGERS: Longing For The Days Of PBS' "Ghostwriter"?

At his blog, Is That Legal, UNC law prof Eric Muller questions Michelle Malkin's blogging habit, putting together a timeline that leads him to believe others may be posting under her byline. Malkin responds: "I am amused to see that insanely obsessed, deranged people continue to have a problem with my work ethic, efficiency, and output ... . Thanks for the back-handed compliment. Now, I suggest you get. A. Life." Muller comes back to question how she could blog while in the air, and she again knocks it down. Before long, Muller has dozens of comments.

Others sounding off on the issue: Talk Left: "[L]ots of his own readers telling him how off-base he was. Add me to the list. In fact, it's creepy, almost like cyber-stalking." Confederate Yankee: "If you strip out the images and quoted text in the 20 posts selected by Eric Muller, Michelle Malkin wrote a grand total of 938 words over 3 days, or just shy of 47 words a post ... . As the vast majority of those 47 words are straightforward descriptive writing that comes as easily as speech for journalists, this level of output is well within her capabilities, even while traveling." Tiger Hawk: "Whether one agrees with her or not, she obviously writes her own stuff." Political Pit Bull: "Liberal bloggers rightly deserve credit for uncovering gross inpropriety in the case of Ben Domenech. But, as the saying goes, one rotten apple does not a spoiled bunch make."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Dead Tree Society

First Draft by Tim Porter, in an article that also appears in the Spring '06 issue of Nieman Reports, comes up with a stark conclusion about the "dead tree" MSM: "Reinvent or die. It's that simple."

LEST WE FORGET: Zip It

Crooks And Liars has put together a funny video, combining moments from Sen. Joe Lieberman's (D-CT) Jefferson Dinner speech with clips from "Austin Powers."

4/4: DeBlogs Delight In DeLay's Demise

Yesterday, the blogosphere remained scatter-brained, focusing on several stories of at least import, including the SCOTUS's decision to refuse to review a major case dealing with enemy combatants of American citizenship, examinations of some WH '08ers, and what appear to be two serious charges against Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA). Then, needless to say, the discussion changed. Fast.

As word leaked out that Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) will no longer be a candidate for Congress and will step down from the House "within months," just about every blogger went nuts. The discussion evolved so quickly that we need to break down responses into categories. First, instant reactions, as the left crowed and the right at once eulogized, celebrated and slammed Dems. The left then turned on those slamming Dems, and mini-debates ensued. Finally, a few bloggers had the foresight to start reading TX election law, and provided some clear and clever insights, not only into what will happen in the coming months, but which GOP candidates are the ones to watch to replace DeLay. The buzz continues to grow, faster than we can keep up.

DELAY: Justice Delayed Or Dispensed, Depends On POV

DeLay's announcement that he'll withdraw from his race for re-election and resign from Congress has nearly every blog abuzz this a.m. Time Magazine's exclusive has the full story. The Political Pit Bull has video from MSNBC's "The Situation," in which Time's Mike Allen and MSNBC's Chris Matthews, whom DeLay told of his decision, react and respond. Hotline OnCall has TV highlights from last night as well. Michelle Malkin has links to many relevant news items. Burnt Orange Report notes reaction from local TX papers.

Reactions are mixed on the right. RedState offers a eulogy, of sorts. Power Line: "It's too bad, I think. DeLay was an effective leader, albeit too liberal in recent years." Captain Ed is similarly "sorry to see him go," but thinks that "no one can deny that DeLay carries baggage, and at least a significant portion is of his own making." Gateway Pundit, though, calls today "a sad day" for the GOP. The Political Pit Bull thinks the development "might be an 'ominous sign' for DeLay's current legal situation, but this event itself is not representative of any problem for Republicans in 2006." Outside the Beltway agrees: "This is good news all around for the GOP." Like several others, TexasRainmaker sees the resignation as the death knell for ex-Rep. Nick Lampson's (D) camp. RedState's Crank: "In the end, as he often did, DeLay put the good of the party first. Good for him. I can't think that staying on as a back bencher would have been much fun." 42 GOP commentors respond, with some interesting and unexpected blowback for people both defending and deriding DeLay. RightWingSparkle, a native TXan: "I never liked Delay. I can't really say why. God knows he isn't as bad as many in Congress and he was right on most of the issues, but there was just something that didn't seem right with him. ... Here's hoping for better leadership. Delay was good at power grabbing, but I want someone who is just good." No More Mister Nice Blog offers an interesting take on DeLay's proclaimed devotion to rededicating his life to charity: "Loudly proclaiming Christianity is helping to keep [HealthSouth CEO] Richard Scrushy out of jail; DeLay seems to be banking on that strategy combined with liberal- and Democrat-bashing." Betsy's Page sees the forest for the trees. Others commenting: QandO, The American Mind Crooked Timber takes a look at some of the comments from the right.

The Moderate Voice asks: "Is this the end of Rico?"

The left is thrilled. A typical response, from The Carpetbagger Report: "I would have loved to see him get beat in November, but his resignation is an embarrassment for him, his colleagues, his Republican Party, and the movement he's led for years." Greg's Opinion: "That'll put a smile on almost anyone's face." Obsidian Wings: "By the simple act of resigning, DeLay has already brought government closer to any God worth worshipping." Michael Hussey sees larger effects afoot: "The political landscape is changing." Taylor Marsh charts the downfall of the last two strong GOP leaders. Scott Rosenberg, Driftglass, Scrutiny Hooligans, Josh Marshall, Tennessee Guerilla Women, The Brad Blog, The Next Hurrah, Middle Earth Journal, Firedoglake, NewsHog, Shakespeare's Sister, Confined Space, Lean Left, SpeakSpeak, Brilliant at Breakfast and Hullabaloo all comment. Atrios offers a graphic typical of the left's reaction.

With instant analysis completed, some bloggers had no choice but to turn back on each other. Peking Duck and Donklephant take on Power Line's assertion that Dems are to blame for "the politics of personal destruction."

Tom DeLay v. The World offers a look at TX special election law and concludes that a messy process is forthcoming. Swing State Project has a similar look, though with a partisan bent. Kos chimes in. Off the Kuff concludes: "You folks in the 22nd CD, get ready to do a lot of voting this year." The same blog and Greg's Opinion take a look at who's next for TX 22's GOP.

Finally, Newsie8200 lists those Reps who received money from DeLay ex-Dep CoS Tony Rudy, and what they've done with the cash.

SCOTUS: Court Refuses To Hear Padilla Case

In a 6-3 decision on 4/3 a.m., the SCOTUS refused to hear a challenge from ex-gang member Jose Padilla, who had appealed his three-year detention as an enemy combatant without access to an atty. The gov't had argued that, since being moved to Miami, an appeal of his time as an enemy combatant was moot. AP reports. SCOTUS cases in the blogosphere tend to feed off blogs that digest complex opinions, and SCOTUSblog, has the easiest-to-comprehend explanation. Noting that SCOTUS didn't declare the case moot, but simply refused to hear it, Lyle Denniston writes: "The decision was a victory for the Bush Administration in one significant sense: by not finding the case to be moot, the Court leaves intact a sweeping Fourth Circuit Court decision upholding the president's wartime power to seize an American inside the U.S. and detain him or her as a terrorist enemy, without charges and -- for an extended period -- without a lawyer." Orin Kerr also explains.

Prawfsblawg adds to the explanations and notes with surprise that Justice John Paul Stevens was among three justices issuing an opinion explaining their decision to reject the case. The other two joining the opinion were Kennedy, the author, and Chief Justice John Roberts. Legal Fiction is also surprised at Stevens. The Carpetbagger Report calls the decision "a victory for the White House, but only a partial one." The Heretik, Just a Bump in the Beltway, Liberty Street, Kevin Drum and TalkLeft aren't happy with the decision. Jonathan Schwartz makes a clever analogy to Schrodinger's Cat. Jeremy Dibbell, however, thinks the court made the right decision in refusing the case, but that should Padilla's status change again, SCOTUS ought to be ready to act. Donklephant is concerned about the level of debate the case will inspire: "Even though this is far from a black and white issue, I have a feeling that's how much of the debate surrounding the decision will be portrayed."

SCOTUSblog's Marty Lederman notes with interest the emergence of Justice Anthony Kennedy as the swing vote on the court when it comes to the war on terror. And The Talking Dog spotlights interviews with Padilla's lawyers.

WHITE HOUSE '08: When The Other Party Attacks

Senate Maj. Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) was the subject of several less-than-flattering articles last week, and this week begins no better for the embattled Maj. Leader. A 4/3 New York Times article is headed: "Frist is treading a perilous path leading to" '08. Time's Klein: "Prognosis looks grim, doc." To the claim that Sen Maj Leader is a poor platform from which to run for Pres., Poliblog agrees: The "position of Majority Leader is a singularly poor platform for launching a presidential bid. This is a problem for Frist, although I don't think it is his main one." After examining Frist's accomplishments as Maj Leader, he concludes: "This is not the stuff of an electrifying campaign." Real Clear Politics' Tom Bevan thinks Frist still has a legitimate shot at the nomination. The left chimes in, perhaps claiming its first victim of the '08 campaign. State of the Day: "We certainly don't need a video tape to diagnose that his political career is in a irreversible coma." Booman Tribune, noting that Frist won't seek re-election in '06: "Good riddance." Pensito Review sees Frist's "flame out" as an error by WH Dep CoS Karl Rove. AMERICAblog, The All Spin Zone and Brendan Nyhan also comment.

New York Daily News' Grove reports that ex-VP Al Gore remains a hot ticket on the bash-Bush circuit. Gore is attacking Bush on global warming, the subject of his new "gasket-blowing polemic," and on nat'l security. Noting Gore's statements that Bush received a daily briefing on Al Qaeda plans to attack the U.S. in 8/01, Blogs For Bush takes all Dems to task: "Having once commended Bush's leadership, declaring "George W. Bush is my commander in chief," Gore decides that in the present time it's more important to play politics, and deteriorate any last atom of unity this country had following 9/11. The unity we experienced after 9/11 is been long gone... spit-on and thrown into the garbage by power-hungry Democrats who are fighting a war against President Bush, and not the terrorists." California Conservative: "Does this strike anyone as being delusional, bordering on certifiable?" Daimnation: "Thank God He Lost." Some on the left still love Gore, though. Shakespeare's Sister: "Like Gore or not, every progressive had better hope that he does run for president in 08. That he doesn't currently hold office gives him the latitude, the freedom, to say things that candidates who still have to worry about a political career will never risk saying. He has the potential to be Al Sharpton with more credibility -- and best of all, he knows it."

MyDD's Scott Shields asks: "What Is Wrong With [Sen.] George Allen?"

MCKINNEY: Constituents Get Shaft -- Isaac Hayes-Style

Rep. Cynthia McKinney's (D-GA) 4/3 a.m. presser in Atlanta proved newsworthy for some bloggers, but more were attracted to reports that the Capitol Police were seeking an arrest warrant against her. WSB-TV in Atlanta has details. Mark in Mexico is one of the first to point out that McKinney spent $1K from her office fund to fly singer Isaac Hayes to Atlanta for her new office opening. The original article on WSB-TV's website pointed out that fact, but the article has been replaced. Many other bloggers caught it, though, and call the expense a misuse of taxpayer funds, including Sister Toldjah, Leaning Straight Up, American Diva, Josh Marshall and Riehl World View. Asked by a reader how much more embarrasing the situation can get for McKinney, BitsBlog replies: "Embarrassment is limited to those who have shame. McKinney, alas, has demonstrated herself repeatedly to be absolutely shameless." Washington Times reports that Reps. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) and Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) will introduce a resolution today commending the Capitol Police. Babalu Blog, Pirate's Cove and Michelle Malkin all commend the two GOPers.

Looks like McKinney may have at least one blogosphere-supported opponent: Dignan is ready to run.

PLAME: Look For This Story To Move Up

Truthout.org's Leopold reports 4/3 that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald knew the identity of the Bush admin official who leaked ex-CIA agent Valerie Plame's name to columnist Bob Novak "just two months after the probe began." The official: An ex-aide to then-Under Sec/State John Bolton on loan to the VP's office, John Hannah. But Fitzgerald later switched tactics and began building perjury and obstruction cases against ex-VP CoS Scooter Libby and WH Dep CoS Karl Rove, and is now reportedly close to asking the grand jury for an indictment of Rove.

JustOneMinute questions Leopold's reporting and offers a summation of the latest events in the case. TalkLeft points out that Hannah, after Libby's resignation, got a promotion and still works for VP Dick Cheney. The Washington Note continues to try and independently verify details. Shakespeare's Sister eagerly awaits indictments.

BUSH: Shake Your Scotty

CNN's Malveauxreports that WH press sec. Scott McClellan and Treas. Sec. John Snow will be the next heads to roll in the ongoing WH shakeup. Righty John Cole thinks McClellan may be in hot water: "In my somewhat-informed opinion I think that Ari [Fleischer] left because he found himself too far inside the Plame story to credibly answer questions. ... Did something similar happen with Scott McClellan? Who knows. The scandals have grown so thick you wonder whether they can keep up." Pam's House Blend asks: "What masochist will want to take that job?" Commenting on rumors of a Snow departure, lefty Carpetbagger Report notes: "Snow has effectively been this close to being fired every day for a year and a half." Booman Tribune sees the development as a victory for the lefty blogosphere in an era when legislative action by the left is "purely defensive."

BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: Appropriate Considering The Season

Today the Blogometer talks to Chad Evans, who writes In The Bullpen.

What is your full name?

Chad Evans

What is your age?

27

Where did you grow up?

Dallas, TX

Where do you live now?

Dallas, TX

What is your occupation?

I operate my own small advertising agency, with more of an emphasis on media buying and promotions and less on the creative angle.

Have you ever worked on a political campaign or for the mainstream media?

No.

When did you start blogging and why?

I started blogging in July 2004 for several reasons, namely because my family and friends grew tired of my blathering on the world of politics and the GWOT. I also wanted to work on my writing skills so that I could perform more public relations duties for clients. Little did I know then that blogging has the adverse effect on journalistic writing that I previously believed.

What has been your favorite post, or favorite story to write about, in that time?

I don't have a favorite post or a favorite story. I personally find it fascinating that so little mainstream coverage has occurred on the GWOT and the threat of radical Islam, which is why after the election of 2004 I shifted my blog to cover radical Islam more than the same old political game that has infested this nation for three centuries. Yes, the bigger events are covered, but they are often without historical background or any real insight into, for instance, why Al Qaida has a fetish for the lion. I am hardly an expert, but I like to consider myself more knowledgeable on this subject than most beat writers. I did though enjoy putting together a timeline of messages released by Osama Bin Laden and picking out what I thought was the most pertinent information from those messages.

Describe your typical blogging schedule. And what is your average output?

Typical? That sounds like a nice word and a routine I should aspire towards. I blog daily, though weekends are sparsely blogged. I am not a morning person, but I try to get up a post or two in the early hours of the day before work kicks in. Since blogging by no means is my job, I don't blog just for the sake of getting something down, or up as we state in the Internet age. I only blog when there is a story or a news item I feel is important, or when inspiration strikes me.

What is your average output?

My average output has decreased over the past few months, mainly because of the monotony of items worth covering. I used to write upwards of ten posts per day, but now my output is down to around four to five posts per day. Because I don't believe in flogging our readers with useless information because, frankly, I don't have to have a certain amount of column inches to correctly place the advertisements sold, I only blog what I believe is of interest to those who want information on the GWOT. That is, with a scant post related to other events.

Who is your favorite political blogger?

We're playing hardball I see. To narrow down all of the blogs and bloggers I enjoy reading down to just one is very difficult to do, but Ed Morrisey of Captain's Quarters is at the forefront of my mind related to this question. One great thing about Morrisey's writing is that he is often concise and to the point.

Favorite non-political blogger?

Because I do not consider blogging the GWOT and radical Islam to be political despite what the politicos in Washington feel, I thoroughly enjoy reading and the friendly banter with Marc Schulman of American Future, Richard of Hyscience and Dr. Rusty Shackleford of The Jawa Report. All three of those authors and blogs are top-notch and offer different perspectives on many of the same core issues.

Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?

Without question Mark Steyn. I don't always agree with Steyn, but I have never read an article by Steyn and not been entertained. It is his ability to incite, excite and make readers laugh that all opinion journalists should aspire to emulate. He also doesn't play the same politically correct cards most journalists do, which is one major reason why his columns are so entertaining. I also enjoy Rowan Scarborough and Bill Gertz.

What is your favorite television news program, either network or cable?

I suppose we're not talking sports otherwise it would be 'Around the Horn,' but I prefer not to watch television news programs because it is the same news over and over again with the same injected bias. My journalism professors would fail me with that answer, but television news has become an extension of print that covers the same topics on the front page for weeks, if not months, and places higher emphasis on any story involving death and destruction rather than why this particular incident occurred. The explanation stories, if printed or discussed at all, are relegated to the back pages or in television news' concept of a back page, the quick blurb.

What MSM-produced websites (i.e. newspapers, magazines) do you visit on a daily basis?

I read well over 50 worldwide newspapers/sites per day in order to get different perspectives on current events. My RSS reader makes this quest much easier. I always make a point to read Adnkronos International first thing in the morning and later in the afternoon. Depending on what topic I wish to discuss with my readers in a particular post, certain media outlets provide critical connections the U.S. media does not. Then again, the U.S. media largely is stuck in the same news cycle. For instance, The Daily Times gives insight into Pakistan and the Observer Research Foundation provides a valuable Indian perspective on current events. Even newspapers which are hostile towards my way of thinking (i.e. the Iranian state-run Islamic Republic News Agency) are in my list of daily reads because I feel to form an opinion that is valuable to our readers, I must at least consider what the opposition has to say.

What non-MSM websites (i.e. blogs) do you visit on a daily basis?

I live with my RSS reader and I have around 200 blogs that I read this way. Aside from the blogs listed above, I always make a point to visit Euphoric Reality, bRight & Early, Winds of Change, Newsbusters and of course the sites run by my co-bloggers, Interested Participant and Right Truth.

How often, or do you ever, read a newspaper in its dead-tree (i.e. print) form?

I read The Dallas Morning News daily and I have for as long as I can remember. Well, I read the sports section of my local rag at least. Once newspapers figure out to charge for Internet users, this likely will change. Let us hope they never do.

How do you see the new media and old media affecting and influencing each other in the next five years?

I am actually a proponent to what is commonly called the "old media." Most blogs are extensions of the old media. In fact, that's where my site's name In the Bullpen comes from. Rather than being a typo or wrong name from some illiterate Texas as some emails have insisted, the name is derives from my affinity for baseball with what I perceive is the role of my blog; to come into the game in a relief role and provide valuable backup and either close out the story or continue to provide the long-relief needed to storied relegated to the back pages.

Through my venture into the "new media," one thing has become abundantly clear. Most bloggers, myself included though from a different perspective, are hostile towards the MSM due to perceived bias or spin, yet we use the MSM to provide content for our blogs. The MSM on the other hand, either has a disdain for bloggers or they simply don't care what some 27 year-old living in Dallas has to say. Contrary to popular belief, if the MSM wanted to put bloggers out of business, they could easily do so. Why don't they? They don't see us as serious competition, and I don't see this changing as long as the old media is run by the same old executives that believe the Internet is a phase. By the time they figure out diverse opinions are what consumers of media crave for, it may be too late.

Some of the more hostile journalists to blogs are either from the old guard or those who have been attacked by bloggers, and frankly, they have a reason to be upset that some ordinary American whose job isn't to cover the White House Beat is questioning them. The times are changing in this regard, and these journalists are hearing the unfiltered complaints to their job performance. The concept of blogs is really nothing new, but what is new is that these letters to the editor have bypassed the middle man and reached the masses.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Polling -- The One Industry That Can Never Be Outsourced

Immigration continues to buzz around Capitol Hill, and while 500K people may march one day in L.A., neither locale will be truly representative of American public opinion. Surveys and polls can be similarly skewed by question wording, a poll's universe and sample problems. How does one truly gauge the American pulse on such a hot-button issue? Mystery Pollster sheds some light on the topic.

LEST WE FORGET: Soriano Was Safe, J.J.'s A Putz, And We Got 161 To Go

It's almost time for the Koufax Awards, a newly annual set of prizes for best efforts in the liberal blogosphere (named for one of the best lefties of all time, Sandy). Angry Bear has links to the leading contenders in every category, but we thought you'd enjoy "The Wizard of Oil," by Dood Abides.

By the way, what would conservatives choose? The Big Train Awards? The Rockets? Ideas welcomed.

NOTES AND ERRATA

Questions, comments, reservations? Drop us a line at blogometer@nationaljournal.com.

4/1: Cannibalistic Bloggers Ahead

It seemed to be a busy news weekend, and the blogosphere was busy acting like sharks in a feeding frenzy. Jill Carroll's return, Rep. Cynthia McKinney's (D-GA) presser, Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) "MTP" appearance and Kevin Phillips' Washington Post "mea culpa" all inspired outbursts, but sometimes those outbursts were not directed at the subjects or authors. This is one weekend when bloggers seemed to prefer the taste of each other. One conservative blogger seems to teeter perilously on the verge of "ex-communication," as one blog expert put it, for her role in trashing Carroll. The Carroll controversy also brings up a mini-debate within the blogosphere about its self-appointed position of MSM watchdog.

Meanwhile, AMERICAblog's John Avarosis takes some flack for questioning the role that two prominent liberal groups played in defending McKinney. Adam Nagourney's piece on the blogosphere's part in the political process, though, proved plenty of fodder for those in the blogosphere looking for their latest MSM scapegoat.

JILL CARROLL: The Blowback

The furor over statements made by rescued reporter Jill Carroll has taken a new twist now that Carroll has returned home and repudiated her appearance on an insurgent video in which she said that her captors treated her well. The statements, she said, were part of a deal to let her go free, and that claim is forcing some on the right who attacked her for her supposed anti-American sentiment to rethink their immediate reactions. The debate in the blogosphere has developed into two seperate discussions: A number of those on the right still believe Carroll is symptomatic of the American media in Iraq, which is anti-Pres. Bush and focuses only on negative stories. The majority of the blogosphere, however, takes Carroll at her word and sees the entire incident in a negative light for the blogosphere itself.

Donklephant sums up the situation: "The Jill Carroll story someday will be told in full, but already it's offered a painful (I hope) lesson for a great many right-side bloggers and talk radio hosts. When the kidnapped reporter's final recorded statement in captivity popped up on an Islamist Web site, the ant-Iraq War, anti-Bush, pro-insurgent rhetoric of it fit many people's preconceived ideas about U.S. media in Iraq. And so they jumped the smoking gun." == The Moderate Voice calls attacks by the right "a black eye to blogging," and Instapundit thinks everyone went too far during the story, including the MSM. == Rantingprofs wants everyone -- bloggers and the MSM -- to respect Carroll's privacy.

The left remains upset by Carroll's treatment and sees parallels in earlier blogswarms. In Search Of Utopia : "I am reminded of the swiftboat job on John Kerry, and how his wife was even dragged through the mud." == The case also brings up questions about the role the blogosphere serves as the MSM's watchdog. PoliPundit thinks Carroll's case is sympotmatic of the blogosphere simply looking for the next journalist's head they're able to bag.

Righty Power Line absolves Carroll, but not the lefty blogosphere. Righties Macsmind and Debbie Schlussel, who'd criticized Carroll's statements, remains convinced that Carroll is anti-American. Schlussel's comments are cause for attack themselves, and Florida Cracker, Middle Earth Journal and Decision '08 jump right in. Beth at MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy goes after Schlussel full-force. Don Surber and Schlussel exchange emails.

A Blog For All sums up, with links to more points of view.

MCKINNEY: There's Another Presser This A.M. Should Be A Kick

In response to the incident earlier last week in which McKinney was accused of assaulting a Capitol Police officer, McKinney held a presser at Howard University to respond to charges 3/31 p.m. AP's version of the presser was the most popular among bloggers linking. While in other cases a debate between the right and left might be expected, most bloggers stand firmly against McKinney. Lefty State of the Day who sums up most reactions: "Rep. McKinney, knock it off. Admit you were wrong. You were wrong to not wear your required lapel pin. You were wrong to not stop after several verbal requests. You were wrong to immediately hit an officer of the law who grabbed your arm. You were wrong to discuss this at a politically, racially, and sexually charged news conference. You were wrong to make this a racial incident. You were wrong to make this a sexual incident. You were wrong to say you were touched inappropriately." == The Daily Brief gives the Capitol Police officer "some benefit of the doubt." == Norwegianity notes this isn't the first time McKinney's run afoul of the Capitol Police.

Aravosis thinks McKinney's got some unfortunate allies, representatives of which attended the presser: "If you ever needed proof of how irrelevant the big-monied liberal advocacy groups have become, we got a lovely demonstration today when the NAACP and the National Organization for Women spoke at a press conference on behalf of the nutsy-cukoo Democrat from Georgia, Cynthia McKinney." Andrew Sullivan and Bark Bark Woof Woof quote Aravosis verbatim. == Seeing The Forest and American Street, normally allies of Aravosis, disagree, but focus more on Aravosis' classification of the NAACP and NOW as "irrelevant."

Some saw the presser as attempted intimidation, including Riehl World View, who calls the it "your typical brown shirt tactic of a" gov't "official attempting to use governmental authority to intimidate." And the debate took on a hint of a racial tinge as Media Matters notes syndicated radio host Neal Boortz's controversial comments about McKinney. Pam Spaulding is less diplomatic in her criticisms of Boortz.

Kevin Drum wonders: "[W]hy does Cynthia McKinney refuse to wear the member's pin that identifies her as a member of Congress to Capitol Hill police and allows her to bypass security? Are there any other congress critters who also decline to wear their pins? What does this pin look like, anyway? And how much does it cost to buy a fake one?

REPUBLICANS: GOP Is A Great Acronym

Washington Post ran an op-ed from Kevin Phillips 4/2. He thinks the GOP has become "the first religious party in U.S. history." Alternate Brain: "I could have told you that close to 15 years ago, when I left the Republican Party for just that reason. That's when 'Newt and the Boys' started talking 'moral and family values', code words for the Jesus freaks." The People's Republic of Seabrook sums up many feelings on the left: "Too many Republicans, and too many Christians, honestly believe that God has determined that they are best-suited to wield the reigns of political power in this country. What gives these arrogant trolls the sense that God is on their side is beyond me." Shakespeare's Sister wonders how far the right and left can diverge before something snaps, and The Heretik gazes into an unfriendly vision of the future. Firedoglake posts a cartoon from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer's esteemed David Horsey that is appropriate to the situation. Gun Toting Liberal also offer thoughts supportive of Phillips' argument, but The Great Eric disagrees and sees a marriage of convenience between fiscal conservatives and religious conservatives. Random Thoughts, among others, point out Phillips' own role in creating the GOP's Southern Strategy in the 1960's. == On the right, Betsy's Page takes offense to Phillips' conclusions: "Certainly, there are conservatives whose political views are guided by their religious values. But I think that our history has always had people whose political beliefs were shaped by their faith. Read the founders on their writings about mankind's inalienable rights. Where do you think they thought those rights came from? Even Thomas Jefferson, held up as the oracle on separation of church and state, believed that those rights came from the Creator. Read the Declaration of Independence again." Webloggin agrees, and attacks Phillips: "Isn't it interesting to see how revered ex-republicans are once they turn on President Bush and the GOP? Attack those of faith in the same breath and you become exalted." Unalienable Right thinks a meeting of conspiracy theorists is in order.

Reuters reports on the WH's new "Let Bush Be Bush" strategy. Georgia10 at Daily Kos: "[L]et Bush be Bush. Let him try to explain away the number 2,332. Let his press conferences be carried live so Americans can see the face of the man who betrayed their trust. Let Bush be Bush. And let's see if he hits 30%."

WHITE HOUSE '08: Russert Pins Tail On Elephant

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) appeared on NBC's "Meet The Press" 4/2 to discuss, among other topics, his upcoming commencement speech to Jerry Falwell's Liberty University. Crooks and Liars has video and a transcript of the juicy bits. The left expresses two sentiments about McCain's perceived shift to the right. The first is disappointment, as many who consider themselves moderate use phrases like "just another politician" when describing McCain's cozying up to Falwall. The second is "gotcha," as the phrase "flip-flop" come up, thanks to the AZ Sen's previously contentious relationship with Falwell. == Among those disappointed with McCain's shift, Taylor Marsh thinks that "Mr. Maverick has drunk the Kool Aid." Nicholas Beaudrot, posting at Ezra Klein's blog, says McCain is "selling his independence down the river for a shot at the Republican nomination," and lists five more questions Russert should have asked. Preemptive Karma: "And so his transition to the Dark Side is complete." DailyKos' Georgia10 at once commends host Tim Russert's questioning and hits McCain for his answers. Taylor Marsh: "For me, McCain's move right is blatantly obvious and tremendously clumsy. McCain isn't even making an effort at his ungraceful religious conversion based on convenience and calculation." AMERICAblog, Think Progress, Truthdig and The Daily Sandwich and Huffington Post's Rachel Sklar all see McCain as changing positions he once held. Even The Moderate Voice wants a name change from "Straight Talk Express" to "White House Talking Points Spin Commute." == GOPBloggers comes to McCain's defense, while Poliblogger's Steven Taylor takes the opportunity to sum up McCain's '08 fortunes, from a number of directions. RedState thinks "the senator did fine." They, along with Captain's Quarters, focused more on McCain's discussion of Russia and the G8 than on any move he's made with regard to WH '08.

Meanwhile, Machiavel counters some of the insider CW on '08 that has McCain as a frontrunner, and offers his own "Note"-like ranking. "This has more to do with the MSM projecting their desires on the primary electorate than it does with a pragmatic read on the conservative base. And just as we shouldn't allow Democrats any influence over our nominating process, we shouldn't give ABC News or The Hotline the same courtesy, for reasons that should be apparent to us all."

An Instapundit reader believes Clinton may well follow her husband's path to the WH, thanks to another significant third-party challenge. "An articulate public figure could turn an issue like immigration into a rallying cry for Jacksonian and Reagan Democrats. Perot did this with the NAFTA issue. It could happen again."

IMMIGRATION: One Flag Day Isn't Enough

Via Michelle Malkin, FreeRepublic plans "Take an American Flag to Work Day" 4/6.

Meanwhile, Mickey Kaus doesn't believe Time's immigration poll showing a majority in favor of a guest worker deal, and he notes the date it was released: "I was going to do an April Fool's item in which I parodied Time's comically biased wording, but I accidentally printed the the actual wording they used. I apologize for the error."

Hugh Hewitt discusses the increasingly public GOP divide on the issue: "Time for Senators Frist and McConnell, Speaker Hastert and Majority Leader Boehner, and the president's senior team to hudle, agree, and execute the end game on border security/immigration reform. ... [G]et it done. Or prepare to welcome Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid." == Right Wing News sounds the same warning cry: "Here's a reality check for the Republicans up on the Hill: If you can't even count on the readers of a blog called 'Right Wing News' to vote for you in November, you're in deep trouble. Do the right thing on illegal immigration or there will be hell to pay at the ballot box this year and that will benefit no one except the Democrats."

CENSURE: Dems Hammer GOPers On Clinton

McJoan at Daily Kos reviews 3/30's censure hearing, focusing on GOPers' claims that the discussion was undermining the POTUS in a time of war. Referring to the Senate impeachment vote in '99: "Remember Republicans chose to send a 'perverse and false message' of presidential weakness to Slobodan Milosovic and thus 'make the jobs of our soldiers and diplomats harder and place them at greater risk' just before the Kosovo conflict." == Also at Kos, Armando is disappointed with Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL): "He is a good man and a good Democrat with the potential to be a great man and a great President. But he is wrong in his analysis of Senator Russ Feingold's censure resolution. Not necessarily wrong on opposing censure (though I think so). But in how he arrives at his opposition."

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Beating Up An Old Grey Lady

New York Times' Adam Nagourney writes on how blogs and Internet technology are changing the nature of campaigns. Candidates and parties "are responding to, and playing catch up with, bloggers who have demonstrated the power of their forums to harness the energy on both sides of the ideological divide." IP & Democracy is about the only blog that likes the piece all the way through. Jeff Jarvis calls the story "quaintly late": "The problem is that they still think the internet is something the powerful use to affect the rest of us. Wrong. It's what the rest of us use to affect the powerful." JustOneMinute comments as well.

The left, however, gets upset with Nagourney's statement that Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) is a "moderate" Dem. AMERICAblog and WA-based Horse's Ass make that point, but Atrios isn't as kind.

IRAQ: Change At The Top?

Power Line takes note of an al Jazeera report that al Zarqawi "has been booted out of his leadership role" in Iraq. "If this report is accurate, Zarqawi's role has been limited to 'military action,' which I suppose is a euphemism for terrorist attacks that are directed against Iraqi and coalition forces."

Instapundit: "Bush's problem on the war is that he's losing the Jacksonian base, which is no longer confident that he's willing to do whatever it takes to win, regardless of foreign or public opinion."

IN THE STATES: We're Going To Just Call This "The Singer Corner" From Now On

Jonathan Singer criticizes Rep. Nancy Johnson (R-CT) for missing a vote on port security. "Given the fact that Rep. Johnson was able to make it to the House floor for the vast majority of the other votes held that day, it's difficult not to come to the conclusion that she purposely and consciously avoided the critical vote on increasing funds for port security." Singer also worries that Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH) loses the OH 02 primary, making it harder for Dems to win.

Finally, Singer makes connections between the Bush admin and OH coin dealer/embezzler Tom Noe.

MISCELLANY: D'o(Ma)

Conservative Ramesh Ponnuru writes at The Corner: "Republicans are preparing to bring the Federal Marriage Amendment to a vote. So I guess the plan from now on is to do this in all even-numbered years, and then throw the idea aside in odd-numbered ones? I know a lot of people support the FMA for principled reasons, but a decisive number of Republicans are clearly just picking on gays for political profit." == John Hawkins: "Calling this 'picking on gays' is the sort of ridiculous nonsense you expect to hear from someone like Andrew Sullivan, not a conservative like Ponnuru. ... Bottom line: Ramesh Ponnuru should know better."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: For Openers ...

In honor of today being the true Opening Day for Major League Baseball, we take note of the major controversy in the sport: steroids. More specifically, Barry Bonds' approaching Hank Aaron's career home runs record while under a cloud of suspicion. Captain's Quarters takes note of famed L.A. Dodgers broadcaster Vin Scully saying Bonds' 756th home run would be an "awkward moment." "Normally, Vin Scully likes to remain positive when talking about baseball. ... Even to use the understatement of 'awkward' shows the disdain Scully feels about Bonds and his chemically-enhanced performance in pursuit of Aaron. Scully has made a career out of announcing some of the most dramatic and historical moments in baseball, and for him to wish that history could be broken on someone else's watch demonstrates the overall mood towards Bonds this season."

LEST WE FORGET: The Springfield Shopper

So we're a little late, but happy April Fools' day.

And, for those of you whose Sunday nights are defined not by "The West Wing", "The Sopranos", "Desperate Housewives" or "Grey's Anatomy" but by a far superior show, we don't blame you if you weren't able to sleep last night thanks to "The Simpsons"' stunning announcement.