April 21, 2006

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.

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."

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."

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:

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.

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.

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:

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."

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.

Posted by Conn Carroll at April 21, 2006 12:39 PM