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."
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.
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."
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.
