April 18, 2006
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?"
Posted by Conn Carroll at April 18, 2006 12:02 PM
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
