May 31, 2006

5/31: Role Reversal?

However much Dems may have been divided in past elections, unity is the sharpest contrast between left and right bloggers today. Following an AP story critical of Senate Min. Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) lefty bloggers not only dismissed the charges, but quickly turned their gun on the AP. Lefties also roundly condemned a 5/30 SCOTUS opinion in the face of deafening righty silence. And where there is energy on the right, it is tearing the GOP apart as apparent '08 front-runner Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) takes righty criticism for his pull back from a CA 50 fundraiser.

BLOGGERS VS. MSM: Counter-Punch

Lefty reaction to revelations that Senate Min. Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) accepted boxing tickets from the Nevada Athletic Commission is best summed up by this AMERICAblog headline: "Democratic Senator from Nevada attended Nevada event as guest of the state of Nevada along with Nevada constituents. Oh the humanity!" Also along those lines: Ezra Klein at TAPPED, "On Harry Reid and the case of the comp boxing tickets, this is about as fully a non-story as you can imagine." Kos, "At a time when "corruption" literally means the buying of congressmen and legislation with cash, boats, houses, and hookers, we're supposed to get upset because Reid (a former boxer and boxing commissioner in Nevada) got free tickets to a boxing match?"

The MSM quickly became the real story for lefty bloggers. Talking Points Memo thinks AP author John Solomon just like fishing: "If I didn't know better I might think that Solomon was developing something of an Ahab complex with that Great White Whale of the Senate, Harry Reid. Back in February, Solomon produced a lengthy expose on Team Abramoff's alleged efforts to sway Reid to support their Marianas sweatshop clients, without ever mentioning that Reid consistently voted against the Marianas sweatshop owners." AMERICAblog has an even longer Solomon dossier: "AP's John Solomon has a history of writing anti-Democrat hit pieces that don't really hold water: John Solomon's AP story about Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan leaves out key information. ...John Solomon's February AP story attacking Harry Reid was exposed as having unfairly slanted the story by not noting the not-insignificant fact that Harry Reid never took any action on behalf of the folks who AP claims bought him. ...After being shown to have written a sloppy story attacking Harry Reid (point 2 above), AP's John Solomon writes a third story again refusing to include key information favorable to Reid. ...From AMERICAblog last July, 2005 we learn of John Solomon's untrue reporting about Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson."

CNN also comes in for some lumps under the header "CNN Juices AP's Story on Reid" this time from TPMmuckraker: "Here's the second paragraph from the longer version of Solomon's story that ran off the wire: "Reid, D-Nev., took the free seats for Las Vegas fights between 2003 and 2005 as he was pressing legislation to increase government oversight of the sport, including the creation of a federal boxing commission that Nevada's agency feared might usurp its authority." ...And here's the version of that paragraph as edited by CNN: "The Nevada senator took the free seats for Las Vegas fights between 2003 and 2005 from the Nevada Athletic Commission as he pressed legislation to increase federal oversight of boxing, including the creation of a government commission." ...Do you see what's missing? The fact that Reid voted against the party he was allegedly influenced by apparently isn't worthy of mention."

Righty Kung Fu Quip has a handle on his brethren's feelings: "When you start throwing that "culture of corruption" crap around, you ought to be sure you're clean, Harry." California Conservative and A Blog For All also perceive Dem hypocrisy. Captain's Quarters notes that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was at the same fight, but paid for his ticket: "In a further blow to efforts to paint corruption as Republican, two GOP Senators also attended fights with Harry Reid. John McCain insisted on paying for his tickets at the retail value ($1400) while Reid's fellow Nevadan, John Ensign, recused himself from participating in Reid's pending legislation. ...I wrote last year that Democrats would regret their attempts to turn corruption into a partisan campaign issue. That problem relates to power, not party, and corruption affects enough of both parties to require a bipartisan effort to truly contain and end it."

IMMIGRATION: The Dowd Memo

Righty Powerline has a response to RNC senior adviser Matthew Dowd's memo arguing for GOP candidate support for a "comprehensive solution" first reported by On Call (go team!). Powerline attacks the poll and Dowd's conclusions: "First, and obviously, one should not support a bad immigration reform plan regardless of its popularity. ... Second, the poll results don't persuade me that Republican candidates for Congress are doomed unless they accede to the Senate's plan or something similar. Candidates should easily be able to distinguish between the euphemistic "comprehensive reform" posited in the poll questions and the reality of the Senate's Christmas tree bill. ...Third, the poll highlights why, even as a purely political matter, the administration's position is so disappointing to conservatives. Look again at the position that was found to be make 71 percent of voters more likely to support a candidate. It says nothing about a path to citizenship -- rather it encompasses only enforcement and a restrictive temporary worker program. That is the perfect center-right position. But that's not the president's position."

On the other hand righty Rich Lowry at The Corner likes what he's hearing from the Senate: "We're getting preliminary indications that there might be support for a phased-in approach from Senate Republican conferees, and not just Cornyn and Kyl. The idea would be first to have benchmarks for success in interior and border enforcement, and then move on to a much more limited amnesty and possibly a guest-workers program. If Republicans could forge a compromise around this approach, it would be a big deal. It would leave it to Democrats to explain why they oppose-as they probably would-tougher enforcement, and possibly turn the politics of the issue around. Alternatively, if enough Democrats supported it, Republicans could pass sensible legislation addressing an important national issue, which could only help them."

Righty PoliPundit also sees possible GOP political gain from the immigration battle in Nov.: "S. 2611 is not a Republican Bill and deserves to be rightly known as the "Democrat Immigration Reform Bill." That Bill is a Democrat albatros and Little Debbie (Stabenow) ran from it because she knew what it was politically. Republicans need to hang the "Democrat Immigration Reform Bill" around the necks of democrats in the fall. A majority of Republicans are working against against this plan and the public needs to know that so they are not punished by voters." And PoliPundit also points to races where immigration already played a deciding factor: "The issue of immigration has already proven decisive in at least two Republican primaries this year:1. In Nebraska, enormously popular Rep. Tom Osborne lost the Republican primary for governor, in large part because he supports in-state tuition at state colleges for the children of illegal invaders. 2. In California, in the race to replace disgraced Republican Congressman Randy Duke Cunningham, Brian Bilbray brushed aside an entire field of Republican challengers by focusing almost exclusively on illegal immigration. Bilbray is a former lobbyist for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a group of good guys if there ever was one.

Right Wing News has a post titled "22 Problems With The Senate's Illegal Immigration Bill" that includes: "3) The National Guard Gimmick...17) Favoring Ditch Diggers Over Scientists...19) The Illegal Alien Tax Amnesty"

Powerline describes Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) as "one of the most new-media savvy politicians in Washington" and highlights "a nice video that includes footage shot at the border by the Minutemen and a conversation between Congressman Kingston and the Minutemen's spokeswoman."

And in the most important immigration debate development of the day Michelle Malkin notes that the cheesesteak crowd is on her side: "If you know Philadelphia, you know Geno's. Best cheesesteaks in the world. Reader Willie S. sends word via the Philly Inquirer that Joey Vento, the grandson of Italian-born immigrants who owns Geno's, is taking a stand for assimilation and against illegal immigration. The Inquirer does its best to knock down Vento, but his blunt Philly style overrides the paper's wishy-washy open-borders slant."

OBAMA: Audacious Rumors

Observer Taegan Goddard reports from The Huffington Post: "If email from Political Wire readers is a reliable indicator, it's safe to say that inside the Beltway chatter about Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) political future has increased dramatically in recent weeks. Many Democratic powerbrokers now hope the freshman senator will enter the presidential race as his many fans have hoped. Adding fuel to the speculation: 'The Audacity of Hope,' Obama's second book, is due out this fall. His first book, an autobiography, was a New York Times bestseller."

Lefty DailyKos is an Obama fan, but thinks patience is called for: "Obama will have to give a definitive answer to his plans for 2008. Otherwise, he's going to get hounded to death. The rumors are really flying fast and furious. I would guess his smart play would be to stay out, run for Illinois governor in 2010, and then look at the White House in 2012 or 2016. I say he stays out unless Hillary decides not to run. If Hillary drops out (a very real possibility), we'll see a free-for-all on the Democratic side."

GORE: Why Does he Save His Best Lines For Overseas?

Bloggers on all sides picked up on a Guardianstory reporting ex-VP Al Gore's statement at An Inconvenient Truth screening describing the Bush administration as "a renegade band of rightwing extremists." Righties labeled Gore a traitor or (gasp!) a "Kos Diarist."

Lefties couldn't agree with Gore more and the story provided another opportunity for speculation. TalkLeft: "Al Gore told the Guardian the Bush administration is a band of right-wing extremists. He also repeated his now familiar refrain that he is a "recovering politician." Yet when the Guardian pressed him on a 2008 run, he gave non-definitive denials. My prediction remains that he won't run. Message to Al Gore: Jump in or give a final signal you are out. The time is now. Whomever the Democratic candidate will be in 2008 needs to muster all of our support at the earliest possible moment. We can't provide that that so long as we are waiting on you. A simple yay or nay will do it."

Ezra Klein at TAPPED adds: "To be clear, I don't think Gore will run -- I'd put the odds at 60:40 against. What makes divining his political intentions so frustrating is that Gore has, comparatively speaking, all the time in the world. It used to be that fundraising required a lot of rich buddies, a heap o' travel, and endless chicken dinners. Now, Gore could enter shortly before Iowa and, if the base was sufficiently dissatisfied, become financially competitive in a matter of hours. And he wouldn't have to lift a finger for infrastructure building until he sent out that press release. Meanwhile, Gore is playing the reluctant savior card just right. The more desperate liberals are for him to swoop into the election, the less interest he needs to show in doing so. With no alternate bigfoots on the horizon (save maybe Obama), there's no other game in town for dissatisfied liberals."

McCAIN: Maybe He Just Really Doesn't Like The San Diego Chicken?

Righty Captain's Quarters doesn't think Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) played his ex-Rep Brian Bilbray (R-CA) fundraiser cancellation as well as he could have: "If a candidate for the presidency had an ambivalent relationship with his party, would he (a) go out of his way to show loyalty to the party by appearing on behalf of its candidates for lower office even when the two disagree on one issue, or (b) stiff the candidate by backing out of a promised appearance over said disagreement? If you answered (a), you're one step ahead of John McCain."

Captain's Quarters offers an update casting doubt on the source of the cancellation: "A CQ source in San Diego's North Coast says that the district would not have reacted well to a McCain visit, and that perhaps Bilbray responded to pressure within the local GOP to distance himself from the Senator. Well, maybe, but it was the McCain people who canceled the appearance, and considering his reputation as a reformer, a McCain appearance in Duke Cunningham's district in the aftermath of his removal from office would have carried some weight with centrists in San Diego. If this came from Bilbray and the North Coast GOP, it was pretty short-sighted."

Lefty Matt Stoller at MyDD sees larger GOP problems at work: "I've written before about the surrogate problem that the Republicans currently have. They have no stars to show the public. This is not a small deal. A political campaign is basically a massive content suck desperately looking for any way to get into the media or draw crowds. And while Democrats can bring any number of popular figures - Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Wes Clark, Howard Dean, Mark Warner - to most areas with little controversy, the Republicans cannot. Bush is poison, Cheney is worse. Bringing them in for secret fundraisers is fine, but anything more and you anger voters who don't like either of them and generate bad press. The rest of the field ain't great either. Frist is weak and pathetic, Hastert is a joke, Coburn is crazy, Romney isn't well-known, etc."

Over at The CornerJonah Goldberg thinks immigration could be the issue that sinks McCain's '08 hopes: "Unlike campaign finance 'reform' -- which conservatives rightly despised -- immigration is not an abstraction. CFR mattered to conservative interest groups, but was generally meaningless to the average person beyond the principle of the thing. On immigration, McCain has taken the same sort of sanctimonius position on an issue the conservative base both understands and feels viscerally rather grasps abstractly."

SCOTUS: Alito's First Impact?

TalkLeft succinctly summarizes SCOTUS' 5/30 Garcetti v. Ceballos decision: "...the Court denied First Amendment protection to Los Angeles prosecutor Richard Ceballos, who "wrote a memo questioning whether a county sheriff's deputy had lied in a search warrant affidavit." Ceballos argued that he was "demoted and denied a promotion for trying to expose the lie." While this would seem to be a classic instance of whistleblowing -- the kind of speech by public officials that should be encouraged -- the Court held that Ceballos was discharging his official duties when he wrote the memo, and that he was not entitled to the same protections he would have had if he had been speaking out against the lie as a private citizen."

Many court watchers concluded Justice Alito's presence altered the outcome of the case.

• Lefty Marty Lederman at SCOTUSblog: "Alito's was the fifth vote in favor of reversal (although we don't know for certain whether the judgment or opinion would have been different with Justice O'Connor participating). ...As I predicted here, Justice Souter -- who likely was assigned to write the majority before Justice O'Connor's retirement -- wrote a dissent, joined by Justices Stevens and Ginsburg."
• Lefty Lawyers, Guns, and Money: "George Bush's drive to consolidate power and squelch dissent from dissenting professionals in the civil service got a boost today, as his appointment of Alito paid immediate dividends."
• Lefty The Carpetbagger Report: "For example, this 5-4 ruling would likely have gone the other way were it not for Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement. Recent Supreme Court rulings had been expanding constitutional protections for employees who speak out; this one interrupted that progress. What was the difference? In this case, Garcetti v. Ceballos, Samuel Alito, and not O'Connor, was the deciding vote."

More to the center Ann Althouse had some reservations: "Should we call Alito the "deciding vote"? It seems more appropriate to think of Kennedy as the deciding vote, that is, the man among the 5 most likely to have voted with the dissenting group. But Alito replaced O'Connor, and O'Connor might well have voted with the dissenters. In that sense, we may perceive him as the deciding vote."

Most of the commentary on the actual decision came from the left and was uniformly negative. Under a header "Ceballos - The Court Creates Bad Information Policy" Balkinization provides the best critique: "After Ceballos, employees who do know what they are talking about will retain First Amendment protection only if they make their complaints publicly without going through internal grievance procedures. Although the Court suggests that its decision will encourage the creation and use of such internal procedures, it will probably not have that effect. ...Hence employees will have incentives not to use such procedures but to speak only in public if they want First Amendment protections (note that if they speak both privately and publicly, they can be fired for their private speech). However, if they speak only publicly, they essentially forfeit their ability to stay in their jobs, first because they become pariahs, and second, because they have refused to use the employer's internal mechanisms for complaint (mechanisms which, if they used them, would eliminate their First Amendment rights)." Or put more succinctly by TalkLeft: "The decision is nonsense. Should Ceballos be entitled to less protection because he wrote a memo in the course of his official duties rather than calling a newspaper to disclose the lie?"

Very little written about the case on righty blogs especially those with a legal focus...but Strata-Sphere did have this to say: "That means the individual cannot take the law into their own hands, cannot circumvent the democratic process with personal or partisan views, and cannot risk our lives simply because they have a different opinion than the over arching government (which is elected to enact the people's will)."

PAULSON: No More Snow

Pres. Bush managed to make most lefty bloggers happy by picking Goldman Sachs chairman Henry Paulson as the next Treas. Sec. Lefty Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal asks: "Is this the beginning of the change for the Bush administration? Henry Paulson is not somebody who is going to passively watch economic policy made by political operatives in the White House. This could be very good news."

The left's Think Progress believes Paulson's involvement with the Nature Conservancy shows that he, "not only endorses the Kyoto Protocol to limit greenhouse emissions, but argues that the United States' failure to enact Kyoto undermines the competitiveness of U.S. companies." Ezra Klein at TAPPED wonders what Paulson, "thinks of Bush's belief that "Kyoto would have wrecked our economy. I couldn't in good faith have signed Kyoto."

The right's Competitive Enterprise Institute has come out against Paulson's nomination: "The White House made an unfortunate mistake in nominating Henry M. Paulson, Jr. to be the next Secretary of the Treasury. ... The Goldman Sachs chairman's other role as chairman of the board of the Nature Conservancy, which is under investigation for financial misdealings that benefited some of its officers and donors, should automatically disqualify him for the top Treasury job." Most righties aren't terribly worried about the pick. At The CornerKathryn Jean Lopez quotes a reader: "After reading it (Washington Post article), I'm in love with the Nature Conservancy. How can you hate an environmental group that drills for natural gas and is in logging?"

Also at The CornerRich Lowry reports positive conservative reviews: "It is significant that the White House managed to get someone of stature, since the conventional wisdom had become that no one serious would take the job. Paulson is not a Bush insider like Don Evans and has a sterling reputation on Wall Street. ...He has a reputation as a very smart guy and has been a defender of the Bush tax cuts. He should pretty quickly give Bush added credibility on the economy."

Former Bush advisor Greg Mankiw's Blog outlines the job Paulson faces: "But while Mr. Snow helped steer the economy through a recessionary storm, he leaves for Mr. Paulson a more daunting task -- getting the long-term fiscal numbers to add up. The government budget is on an unsustainable path. ...Some supply-siders like to claim that the distortionary effect of taxes is so large that increasing tax rates reduces tax revenue. Like most economists, I don't find that conclusion credible for most tax hikes, and I doubt Mr. Paulson does either. ...If Hank Paulson wants to leave the nation's finances in better shape than he found them, his main job will be to focus attention on the problem." Lefty ex-Labor Sec. Robert Reich's Blog doesn't think Paulson has the power to implement any real solutions: "He has his work cut out for him. Wall Street may give two cheers to have one of their own at the helm at Treasury, but I don't really think the Street gives two hoots. ...Paulson's nomination doesn't alter the economic fundamentals. Bush continues to spend like there's no tomorrow, while cutting taxes (mostly on the rich)."

Think Progress and The Carpetbagger Report highlight a Bush "lie" on Snow's departure. The Carpetbagger Report: "As Think Progress noted, Bush was asked on May 25 if Treasury Secretary John Snow intends to leave his job. The president was unequivocal: "No, he has not talked to me about resignation. I think he's doing a fine job." That, we now know, was completely untrue. White House Press Secretary Tony Snow acknowledged today that John Snow and Bush talked on May 20, Snow stepped aside, and Henry Paulson agreed on May 21 to take the job. What the president said a few days later was obviously false. It's a no-brainer."

GOP: In Search of A Wedge

Righty Blanton at RedState is looking for "issues that poll in a lopsided way but that cross-pressure D's with their core constituencies, like labor, the trial bar, enviros, alternative lifestyle groups." Blanton offers four of his own: "1. Gov't issued photo identification to vote; 2. End double taxation of dividends; 3. Tax reform; 4. Allow individuals to buy healthcare across state lines" and asks his readers to offer more. They did. Including: Term Limits; Rescind No Child Left Behind; Rescind McCain/Feingold; End Domestic Subsidies; Balanced Budget Amendment; and more....

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: MySpace: Not Just For Pedophiles

Chris Bowers at MyDD looks at the potential of social networking sites in politics: "I feel pretty confident this will take off, even if Essembly or MySpace do not turn out to be the ideal platforms. With the rise of the netroots, it has been revealed that the demand for DIY political organizing is clearly very high. The political blogosphere, for all its free-wheeling nature, it ultimately not a very effective location for organizing actions and events. While Democracy for America and MoveOn.org have shown some promising ways to find like-minded members of their organization near where you live, those networking actions are still, generally speaking, limited to the events officially sanctioned by the parent organization. Eventually, platforms will be created for mass public use where anyone can begin organizing an political event they want. They will be able to find like-minded people in their local area, or build mini-national email lists and discussions around their actions. Howard Dean's campaign had something like this in late 2003, but to my knowledge nothing like that exists now. Combining an old "Dean Space" type model for general progressive action along with a social networking platform would result in a devastatingly powerful online action engine for the progressive movement. The political power of the netroots has already been revealed in countless ways. Creating an engine to release that energy--an engine that is not owned by News Corp--is key to our future success."

LEST WE FORGET: Every Day Can Be Fitzmas!

Iowahawk has some scripts worked out for a "Reality-Based" 1-900 number: "ANNOUNCER: For just $5.95 and $1.95 per minute, you'll be connected with one of our information insiders who is aching to fulfill your every fantasy of governmental overthrow!...MARY: Hi, I'm Mary. Dial extension CBS and let me show you my private collection of shocking Texas Air National Guard documents. Stay on the line and I'll show you how I can do things with Microsoft Word that Bill Gates never dreamed of!...JASON: Hi I'm Jason. Do you like domination? Well I want to tell you all about how I am going to make Karl Rove do the perp walk. I really want to get my truth out just for you! Call me at extension WWW and every day will be Fitzmas!"

Posted by at 12:24 PM

May 30, 2006

5/30: Deja Vu All Over Again

The Blogometer did not exist for Round One of Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) vs. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, but the blogger spill over on the issue is definitely part of the reason it was created. Righty bloggers are again driving the issue while lefty bloggers, normally not ones to shy away from a debate, seem contempt to label all Kerry detractors as liars and leave actual refutation of righty blogger attacks up to the MSM ... which lefty bloggers then criticize for not debunking righty blogger attacks quickly enough. For both sides, however, it's clear that any Kerry candidacy must address this past before looking to the future.

KERRY: Well At Least They Can Agree On One Thing ...

The re-emergence of Kerry's Vietnam record finally generated some consensus in the blogosphere ... if he's going to run in '08 he is going to have to put this issue to bed. Righty Captain's Quarters: "It would be inaccurate, to put it mildly, to say that the Swift boat veterans cost Kerry the presidency. What defeated Kerry was his insistence on focusing his campaign on his valor in Viet Nam and the repetition of stories like Christmas in Cambodia that failed the smell test. ... The only possible reason for raising this issue would be to clear the decks for another presidential run in 2008, but like 2004, it shows that Kerry's only strategy for elections is to live in a refashioned past." Lefty The Democratic Daily: "If John Kerry is going to have a chance to win in 2008 it will be necessary for him eliminate the controversy created by the Swift Boat Liars. Even though the facts were clear that O'Neil and other were both lying and working with GOP operatives, the media concentrated on the horse race aspect with questions as to how the charges affected the campaign, and gave far too little attention to the overwhelming amount of evidence supporting Kerry."

Moving to the actual story, consensus falls apart. Vietnam Vet Bruce Kesler at Democracy Project calls the New York Times a "willing mouthpiece for Kerry" and refutes the Times reporting on Kerry's 1971 "The Dick Cavett Show" appearance. Brainster's Blog looks at the "Christmas in Cambodia" angle while The Unalienable Right parses the Times words to poke fun at their conclusion: "We have very little interest in rehashing Hanoi John Kerry's failed presidential bid, but one paragraph in this fawning NY Times story stuck out in particular: "The Swift boat group insisted that no boats had gone to Cambodia. But Mr. Kerry's researcher, using Vietnam-era military maps and spot reports from the naval archives showing coordinates for his boat, traced his path from Ha Tien toward Cambodia on a mission that records say was to insert Navy Seals." ...You see, some records indicating that his boat went toward Cambodia at some point prove he was in Cambodia at Christmas-time in 1968. One time, we drove from Los Angeles north towards Sacramento. This proves we were in Oregon in 1968." Confederate Yankee pitches in with a map to try and show Kerry's story is impossible.

Not all righty bloggers wanted to relive the debate, but that didn't mean they had sympathy for Kerry. Robert Hahn at RedState: "Apparently neither John Kerry nor the New York Times can get over the idea that they were beaten in their race for the White House. ...Perhaps it is balm for his wounded ego. But he'll have to pardon the rest of us if we don't care anymore. Real presidents do not get second chances to deal with unanticipated events." Blue Crab Boulevard: "I wasn't blogging when that little tempest broke, so I might as well throw in my two cents now since Kerry wants to reopen things. ...Four months or so in Swift Boats do not a "war hero" make."

Outside of labeling righty blogger liars, lefty bloggers left actual refutation of their claims up to the Times. The most common lefty reaction was to attack the media for not debunking the Swift Boat/righty blogger claims fast enough. Greg Sargent at TAPPED: "Look, here's the thing. To the extent that the Swift Boat Liars were effective -- and that's in dispute -- it wasn't just because of their spending on ads. It was because the media amplified those charges for days and days, if not weeks, without examining them critically. When the press did get around to debunking the charges whatever damage there was had already been done. The media tried to shift blame for this to Kerry by arguing that he'd failed to respond aggressively. But here's the point: The press shouldn't have had to wait for Kerry to start hitting back before it started to report critically on what the Swift Boat Liars were saying."

GORE: Playing Hard To Get

National Review editor Rich Lowry at The Corner checked with his Al Gore sources and found the following: "He is one of those people who wants to be president, but doesn't really want to run for it. So he wants the party to come to him. ... Apparently he is telling the people closest to him what he is saying in public, that he isn't interested in running. ... Gore-watchers often repeat the old saw that America loves a non-candidate, noting that Gore's best day politically will be the day before he gets in. Gore surely is aware of this too. ... But no one doubt this: he is very much enjoying his new-found acclaim, and that he plays his cards very close to his chest."

On the left, Media Matters has a lengthy response to Greg Easterbrook's Slatereview of An Inconvenient Truth: "Easterbrook criticized Gore's claims that the melting of ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica could lead to substantial increases in sea levels, that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing, and that Bush administration officials have attempted to tamper with official reports on the threat posed by climate change. But in each case, Easterbrook's attempt to undermine these claims failed." Adding blogosphere insult to injury The Poor Man Institute piles on Easterbrook but refuses to even link to his piece. Also not bothering even to link to Easterbrook, The News Blog attacks Slate for even posting the item.

CLINTON: HRC Is A Right-Wing Corporate Stooge?

Cenk Uygur and David Sirota continued lefty hangout The Huffington Post's anti-HRC drumbeat through the weekend. Uygur tells HRC, "Senator Clinton, I knew Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Bill Clinton." Uygur explains: "Bill Clinton brought the Democratic Party to the center. Accordingly, he left office with enormous popularity...66% approval rating, more than double President Bush's current numbers. He made a lot of people like me think that the Democrats were far more reasonable than we had suspected. He got us to open our minds to the Democratic Party. ... So, why shouldn't I be happy to see Senator Hillary Clinton running to the center again? Because the center has moved! ... The party of President Clinton understood where the real center of this country lay. The party of Senator Clinton is so scared of seeming soft on defense (or whatever Fox News Channel and Rush Limbaugh are accusing them of this week), that they have forgotten where the center lies. They have also forgotten their oath of office and why voters put them there in the first place."

Sirota responds to a Financial Times item describing a Dem. anti-HRC movement: "I'm not so sure there is a concerted effort to oppose Sen. Clinton as much as there is a new movement brewing to support candidates who are serious about standing up for ordinary citizens and fighting the hostile takeover of our government by Big Money interests. ...There are a lot of Democratic operatives in Washington who bemoan the obsessive attacks on Clinton by the right -- attacks motivated by a sick form of hatred of her personally that I just don't understand. That said, if Clinton becomes a target of populist and progressive Democrats, it will not be because of such disgusting personal hatred, but instead because of serious policy concerns about how she would behave as President. Lately, she has seemed all too happy to embrace ultra-right-wing zealots and parrot Bush talking points on the Iraq War -- all while refusing to use her national platform to challenge the Big Money interests that run Washington."

IMMIGRATION: 73% Of Americans Can't Be Wrong

Tom Bevan at right-leaning RCP Blog thinks the USA Today buried the lead for their 5/30 immigration poll showing the nation divided into roughly four equal sub-groups including "the welcoming" who are "the only group that thinks dealing with illegal immigrants already here should take priority over border security." Bevan emphasizes this line and adds: "Uh, doesn't that mean roughly 73% of Americans believe border security is a priority? And doesn't that put the lie to the claim that there is some dramatic variance among the public's point of view on the issue? USA Today didn't just bury the lede on this story, it looks like they missed it altogether."

Also at Real Clear Politics, John McIntyre believes the GOP is a walking a tight line on immigration: "This is a critical juncture for the GOP on illegal immigration and how to fashion a comprehensive solution to the broader immigration debate. Republicans are in a position to turn the illegal immigration issue into a significant asset heading into the 2006 elections, but the difficulty will be finessing the issue in a way that does not poison GOP relations with the growing Hispanic community for 2008 and beyond. ...There is a quiet rage building among average middle class folks on the illegal immigration issue, and if the Republican leadership doesn't take control of the problem very soon they will allow the more extremist wings of the anti-immigration debate to become the face of the Republican party on immigration. That would be a disaster for GOP hopes to grow their new found majority in the years to come."

Also on the right, Kate O'Beirne and Rich LowryThe Corner were quick to mock the Washington Post's 5/28 immigration story. Under a header "Hate It When that Happens" O'Beirne writes: "The article explained that GOP members in tough races are "overwhelmingly" opposed to the path to citizenship...because of "an election-year dynamic" that has them actually listening to what their voters want." On a similar tone Lowry asks "What will those crazy, yahoo republicans do next?" and then comments: "...vulnerable congressional Republicans are listening to their constituents back home and overwhelmingly deciding on that basis to oppose the "path to citizenship." Just another sign of how out of hand this immigration debate has gotten. According to the Post, "the opposition spreads across the geographical and ideological boundaries that often divide House Republicans." So it will no longer do to pretend that opposition to amnesty/path-to-citizenship is the position of only a crazed fringe of the right-wing. Instead, it represents the mainstream of GOP opinion, and if Senate Republicans aren't willing to bend to it, there will be no immigration bill at all this year."

LIEBERMAN: Symptom Of A Larger Problem?

Partnered gay man Pachacutec of firedoglake is not happy with the Human Rights Campaign endorsement of "anti-marriage, anti-privacy" Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT). Pachacutec explains his distaste for Lieberman and HRC: "He's helped install James Dobson endorsed judges to the Supreme Court like Sam Alito and he's done everything possible to undermine a progressive agenda in America. But the policy of the Human Slights Campaign is so wedded to its fancy black tie fundraisers and corporate connections that it's more than willing to sell out the people it shakes down to finance its operations." Pachacutec goes on to interview Lieberman an HRC deputy director Mike Mings before concluding: "This self-defeating, idiotic, scorecard-driven myopia, dictated by the HRC Board, is not unique to the HRC, but common among national, progressive, single issue advocacy groups. The same thinking animates groups like the Sierra Club, where the need to solicit funds leads to a "bipartisan" stance that creates a strategic game plan that in turn undercuts the very agenda these national groups ostensibly represent. I included the whole interview with Mings in order to be fair, and also to illustrate the mindset that endorses a candidate who actually is cynically worse for the HRC's financial supporters than is his opponent."

Pam's House Blend agrees: "But the larger question is what can be done to make organizations allegedly working on our behalf more responsive -- to be able to support politicians who are willing to stick their necks out for our rights at a time when that is what is most needed? Supporting pseudo allies, or worse, actual foes in the overall battle for civil equality makes no sense for those LGBT citizens whose lives are profoundly affected by "friends" like Lieberman. The only way, in the end, is to bypass those organizations and give directly to those candidates who do stand for equality.."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Clash Of Civilizations

Chris Bowers at MyDD looks at this map showing a red-blue divide between Catholic and Lutheran blue-counties on one hand, and Baptist, Christian, Mormon and Methodist red-counties on the other:

"...as we approach election season, I reproduce this map because the progressive netroots is composed of political obsessives. Most of us spend an inordinate amount of time focused on current events, legislative policy, abstract matters of ideology, infrastructure, media narratives, electoral activism, and general strategy. Sometimes, I feel that because we are so obsessed with politics online that we often lose touch with what truly motivates voters. 80% of the country has no idea who Ann coulter is. Hell, 60% of the country has no idea who Harry Reid is."

"Over the past year and a half, I have slowly developed an argument that the electorate is, in general, non-ideological, not interested in policy, and generally unmoved by the day-to-day minutia of political events that, within the blogosphere, are treated as cataclysmic events. Sure, most people hold general political beliefs, but in general national voting habits are motivated by something else--something more basic. As we look for ways to motivate voters in November, we need to remember the powerful role that identity plays in political decision-making. As progressives, we shrug off concepts such as the "battle of civilizations," but if you look closely at demographic data, maybe it is a battle of civilizations taking place after all. We may very well be living in an era of identity politics. Who knows, maybe every era of American politics is an era of identity politics."

"Motivating voters and pulling off a landslide election will require a gut-level change of attitude about the two parties among millions of Americans. For all of the great policies everyone will suggest Democrats to run on this fall, ultimately winning will be based just as much on how Americans view their identity in relation to the image of the two coalitions as anything else. We need to avoid falling into the wonk trap of assuming that people are motivated by policy details. It is the identity, stupid. We need to explore ways to motivate voters for progressive causes with that in mind."

LEST WE FORGET: Show Me The Monkey!

If you love Chris Matthews cover your ears ... if you hate him turn up the volume...courtesy of FishBowl DC here is a clip of Matthews' monkey impersonation from the 5/21 Chris Matthews Show.

Posted by at 01:06 PM

May 26, 2006

5/26: Get Away Day

5/25's Sen. vote set the stage for what should be a dissent-filled summer for the GOP over immigration. At least Pres. Bush was able to calm some righty blogger anger over Speaker Dennis Hastert's (R-IL) attack on the FBI raid. We'll see if the same can be said for lefty blogger anger directed at the Cong. Black Caucus.

IMMIGRATION: Bill Kristol Got Something Wrong?!?!

The Blogometer doesn't know about the GOP base, but Powerline does accurately sum up righty blogger sentiment here: "The Bush administration and Republican Senators have badly misjudged both the attitudes of most Republicans (and, of course, most Americans) toward illegal immigration, and the intensity of those views." Guest blogger Bob Cunningham goes on to elaborate: "Here's what they're missing, and it is the principal reason, in my opinion, WHY the anti-ILLEGAL forces are so upset -- and so powerful. It has to do with the bad faith, calculated deceit, Orwellian propaganda, dishonest sophistry, misdirection, arrogance, presumption, indifference to, and, indeed, contempt for the beliefs of huge numbers of ordinary Americans -- including LEGAL immigrants and Hispanic natives! - on the part of political/media elites. ...The ultimate retort of the immigration celebrationists - let us call it the "immigrants are good people" argument - is totally beside the point. It is an assertion that no one would disagree with, but it is also an argument that has NO internal LIMITING PRINCIPLE. There is, on its own terms, no non-arbitrary basis for excluding ANY ONE of the 6 billion non-Americans. Other than criminal disqualification, most of them, are, indeed "good people"....so what?"

Under the header "The Most Important Debate Of The Year" Michelle Malkin accuses Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) of playing the race card: "An extraordinary exchange just took place on the Senate floor. ...The questions are these: Who do we let into this country and how many? On one side of the debate: Democrat Sen. Jeff Bingaman of N.M. and Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama. On the other side, the blubbering open-borders duo of GOP Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Democrat Sen. Teddy Kennedy of Massachusetts. ...When Bingaman pointed out the need for prudence in opening the floodgates to unlimited numbers of low-skilled workers, both McCain and Kennedy pulled the race card. McCain's immediate response was to sputter that the "Chamber of Commerce, unions, and Hispanic groups" oppose the caps! McCain called it un-American to be selective about whom we let into this country. Yeah, he did."

Righty PoliPundit identifies "heroes who deserve your support in tough re-election battles in 2006" including: Allen (R-WA), Burns (R-MT), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Santorum (R-PA), Talent (R-MO). PoliPundit also ids "Traitors and agents of Mexico...One senator on the traitors list who would make a good example for conservatives to defeat in 2006 is Mike DeWine (R-OH). Please do not contribute to, volunteer for, vote for, or otherwise support DeWine in any way."

Ramesh Ponnuru at The Corner checks up on some Weekly Standard managing editor William Kristol predictions: "Senate Republicans voted 32-23 against the bill. I was interested in the breakdown among them as a test of William Kristol's argument that every Republican in a competitive state was with the president and McCain. Looking just at this year's tight races, the pro-bill side included DeWine and Chafee. The anti-bill side included Burns, Santorum, and Talent. (I don't consider Kyl or Allen vulnerable, but they were also anti-). This particular political argument seems to have been comprehensively disproved (which is not of course to say that Kristol's other arguments have).

Captain's Quarters doesn't see the bill surviving conference committee: "Complicated? It's ridiculous, and I doubt it will survive the conference committee. This bill reminds me of the BCRA, which not so coincidentally had one sponsor in common with this bill. Rather than just set up a streamlined normalization regime, the authors placed politics above common sense and created a bureaucracy that will cost American voters a fortune, and one that will probably go mostly unenforced as a result." Rich Lowry at The Corner agrees: "Chris Shays, Tom Davis, and Sue Kelly...are they all drooling, yahoo right-wingers? Of course not. But in the caricature of supporters of the Senate bill they must be, because they all are opposed to, or extremely skeptical, of "the path to citizenship," according to these Washington Times and Washington Post articles. All of them represent liberal to moderate congressional districts, and Shays and Davis are famously thoughtful (if often irritating to conservatives). If Bush doesn't have them, it looks really bad for him-perhaps impossible-in the House."

Expose the Left has audio of Rush Limbaugh's grilling of WH press sec. Tony Snow and summarizes: "Rush spent more than 25 of this 45 minutes with Snow grilling him on the White House's stance on the problem. Snow did not do a good job in defending what the White House would like to do, giving illegal immigrants amnesty after several benchmarks have been met. Snow also defended the so-called national ID card that would be used to track and identify illegals that have been granted temporary citizenship on their way to amnesty."

Lefty Jonathan Singer at MyDD sees opportunity in ex-Pres. Jimmy Carter's recent endorsement of Bush's plan: "I can already see the ad right now. Perhaps it was paid for by the Constitution Party, perhaps it was sponsored by the Minutemen, perhaps we never find out who put up the money for the spot. Cue stock footage of Jimmy Carter and George Bush shaking hands. (It would be better if they were hugging, but I'm assuming such footage doesn't exist). Snarky sounding announcer throws some of the tired conservative rhetoric at Jimmy Carter before slamming George W. Bush for aligning with Carter on immigration. The ad runs on Fox News and during the 700 Club -- prime viewing time for the nativist base of the GOP -- and more conservative voters end up staying at home on election day than in any other election in recent memory (even more so than in 2000 voters found out just days before the election about George W. Bush's DUIs)"

JEFFERSON: Ebony and Ivory

The Cong. Black Caucus-House Min. Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) fracas brought the CBC under lefty blogger fire. AMERICAblog: "Apparently the CBC thinks Pelosi is a racist because the criminal she wants out of her party happens to be black (no word on whether the CBC is therefore misogynist and racist since the Democrat they're picking on is a woman and white). In any case, it's rather interesting that I wrote last night about how the talk in town was that the CBC was corrupt as hell. And now this happens. Things that make you go hmmmm..." The News Blog agrees: "Look, I didn't like it when bloggers jumped all over McKinney on the word of the capitol police, who seem to have different standards for black congresswomen and drunk Irish Congressmen. But this is way different. ...If the CBC thinks people outside of the Hill gives a shit about Jefferson, they're insane. Black America has been plagued with corrupt leaders and they belong under the jail. When people lack resources and means, the last thing they need is someone sticking their hand out for payoffs. Taylor Marsh: "That said, what the CBC is doing today is revolting. The Congressional Black Caucus is gunning for Leader Nancy Pelosi, all because she called Jefferson out and asked him rightly to resign Ways and Means. Not only is Pelosi right on this one, but courageously so. That the CBC is circling the wagons around Jefferson is all about protecting political turf and has nothing to do with doing the right thing, which is ousting this man from the powerful Ways and Means committee. As for the Congressional Black Caucus, it's not a black and white issue. It's an issue of right and wrong."

The CBC was not without lefty defenders. The Carpetbagger Report: "On a certain level, the CBC is right to be concerned about a double standard. When Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.) came under fire, Pelosi did not ask him to resign. For that matter, it's hard to argue with the notion that Democratic leaders should, at a minimum, allow for a presumption of innocence when dealing with other Democrats." Democrats.com: "kos stands with Pelosi. So does Stoller. I stand with the Black Caucus. Why? ...I stand with the Black Caucus because its Members include some of the most progressive Members of Congress, period. Here is the breakdown of the House Progressive Caucus, which includes 27/43 of black members."

Kos points out that "a Dem majority would give CBC members up to five committee chairmainships including Ways and Means" and argues that "clean and honest government...transcends any racial, ethnic, religious, and yes, even partisan boundaries." Then he takes the opportunity to settle old scores: "Update: Jefferson, by the way, is a card-carrying member of the DLC. You know, the organization founded to take on the "entrenched interests" in DC." (Ed. note: 347 comments vast majority want Jefferson out, but still highly supportive of CBC...just not on this issue(not a lot of love for Pelosi either)"

DLC defender NewDonkey couldn't let that one go: "But I do have a small bone to pick with Kos...Kos' link was to an article in Human Events, of all things, that quoted Bruce Reed as favoring CAFTA, as did Jefferson. So what? As I've explained over and over, the DLC ain't got no membership cards. And what the hell does supporting CAFTA (which if I recall correctly, Kos himself said was defensible on the merits) have to do with taking bribes to peddle influence in Nigeria? The DLC has repeatedly and redundantly supported ethics rules and legislation tougher than anything that either party in Congress has seriously considered, along with public financing of congressional elections and an assault on corporate subsidies. Dislike the DLC all you want; it's a free country. But Bill Jefferson's apparent kleptomania has nothing to do with us, anymore than it has anything to do with the Democratic Party as a whole."

HASTERT: Is This Suit Over Before It Started?

Dales at RedState provides the perfect overview for the GOP side of the William Jefferson (D-LA) scandal: "It takes unbelievable creativity and motivation to turn a scandal involving bribes of a Democratic Congressman, with such sensational and media-friendly tidbits such as the money being hidden disguised as lasagna in the icebox, into a scandal about GOP leadership in the House trying to put itself above the law." Instapundit looks at Pres. Bush's sealing of the seized documents and wonders if there aren't darker forces involved: "Could Al Qaeda have slipped mind-altering drugs into the DC water supply? What's gotten into these people? Or has some sort of deal been cut? Whatever it is, I don't think I like it."

Few are defending Hastert, but not everyone on the right hates Bush's foray into the issue. Captain's Quarters: "George Bush tossed a lifesaver to Denny Hastert and the rest of the imperial Congress today by temporarily sealing the evidence seized from the legislative offices of Rep. William Jefferson, the target of an FBI corruption investigation. Sealing the records gives both branches more time to work out their differences, Bush said, but made clear that prosecutors would eventually gain access to the material." Righty lawyer Orin Kerr is also cool with the move: "This has no legal effect, but is probably a pretty good idea to signal that folks should cool off for a bit."

Righty Pascoe's Blog wonders if Team Hastert hasn't already sunk their libel suit against ABC: "I'm not a lawyer. But I can't help but wonder how Hastert deputy chief of staff Mike Stokke's acknowledgement to Chicago Sun-Times reporter Lynn Sweet last night that he believed "ABC News got this from somewhere. I don't think they made this up" will play, legally? Wouldn't a public acknowledgement by a senior Hastert aide that he believes ABC News didn't make up the story undercut the legal argument offered by Hastert's lawyers?"

BUSH: No Minds Changed Here

Lefties were predictably unimpressed with Pres. Bush and PM Tony Blair's 5/25 presser. Mcjoan at DailyKos didn't see any actual contrition: "Love those non-apology apologies, as well as the refusal to admit culpability, much less responsibility for Mission Accomplished, for "bring 'em on," for torture and rendition. Hey, it's all just a big ol' misinterpretation." Steve Cobble at The Huffington Post managed to work in pretty much every other lefty take in this graph: "Tony Blair, aka "Bush's Poodle", came to Washington today to meet with his Iraq War co-conspirator. The wonderful Col. Ann Wright & Code Pink are going to be there outside the White House to greet him. Too bad, guys. You blew it with your lies, your macho rigidity, your taste for glory over morality. Your historical legacies are not going to be pleasant ones, and unlike LBJ, you won't even be seen as tormented by the traps you set for yourselves." Also with takes: The Left Coaster, The Democratic Daily, Oliver Willis, and Crooks and Liars has video.

Most righty attention was vacuumed up by immigration. Those that did comment focused on Respect PM George Galloway's assertion that an assassination of Tony Blair by a suicide bomber would be justified. Captain's Quarters, Right Wing Nut House, Done with Mirrors, Sister Toldjah, Blue Crab Boulevard, The American Thinker, and Decision'08 all picked up on the story.

Righties that did comment on the presser were impressed. Andrew Sullivan: "They were different men last night - for the first time dropping all pretense that their occupation of Iraq has gone in any way according to non-existent plan. And in a strange way, that helps them." Macsmind: "But the President hit a home run as far as I'm concerned. Should get a boost in the polls."

ELECTION'06: A Wisci Look

On the left marthature at DailyKos takes a detailed look at WI-08. A brief excerpt: "The National GOP has so much interest in this race they sent RNC chair Ken Mehlman to the District this past Friday night, where he duly praised far-right Republican state House Speaker John Gard as "a great candidate." The Democrats have 3 candidates in the race, and the primary is not til September 12. Below are some funding facts and analyses. ...Who will win? Fight to the mat, this one, lawyers, money, voting machines, accusations, smears, you name it. The longer the Democrats hold out before getting behind one candidate the worse it's going to be for them. Look for an update after June 30th for fundraising.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: No Wonder We Don't Have A Flat Tax Yet

Intellectual property law professor Lawrence Lessig notes all too familiar developments in the Golden State: "In 2005, the state of California conducted an experiment. Hoping to make paying taxes easier, it launched a pilot program for people who were likely to file "simple returns." The state already had the payroll information some taxpayers needed to file their returns, so it filled out 50,000 of those forms for them. Praise for the program was generally over-the-top. ...Soon after ReadyReturn was launched, lobbyists from the tax-preparation industry began to pressure California lawmakers to abandon the innovation. Their opposition was not surprising: If figuring out your taxes were easy, why would anyone bother to hire H&R Block? If the government sends you a completed form, why buy TurboTax? ...But what is surprising is that their "arguments" are having an effect. ...In February, the California Republican caucus released a report highlighting its "concerns" about the program - for example, that an effort to make taxes more efficient "violates the proper role of government." Soon thereafter, a Republican state senator introduced a bill to stop the ReadyReturn program. ...Free markets aren't pro-business - they don't favor incumbent companies if upstarts do the job better. Competition is good wherever it comes from - even the government - so long as it lowers social costs and increases wealth. And efficiency is good regardless of who it might hurt; it is especially good if it hurts those who feed off inefficiency. Thus, lawyers are good, but a world that needed fewer of them would be much better. Doctors are great, but that's no argument against better health. And TurboTax is fantastic, but it shouldn't prevent the government from making paying taxes easier."

LEST WE FORGET: Al Gore Wins Another National Election!!!

The ecoEnquirer reports: " Al Gore, Jr. and Rachel Carson battled it out last night in the final American Climate Idol competition, with strong vocal performances on classic songs such as "Eve of Destruction" and "Free Bird". ... Both contestants have proven to be crowd pleasers, pouring their hearts and souls into their personal renditions of a variety of songs featuring environmental themes. ... But in the end, Al Gore emerged the victor. With over 66 million votes cast, more than any presidential candidate in an American election, Mr. Gore expressed great satisfaction with the win. "You know, most people don't realize I actually invented the hybrid car."

Posted by ereed at 12:08 PM

May 25, 2006

5/25: What Not To Do

Our top two stories today may just highlight some right and wrong uses of the blogosphere. Brian Ross' 5/24 Blotter report on Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) spread like wildfire through the lefty blogosphere and generated push back from the right. Eventually enough doubt was raised about the initial story that The Blotter issued an update which satisfied few. One wonders if Ross would have been as quick to launch the story on the air.

At the other end of the spectrum, ex-AG Ed Meese amplified the reach of his New York Times immigration op-ed with a 5/24 am righty blogger conference call. Not everyone on the call agreed with Meese's position, but the event assured a much broader audience for Meese's case. Opinion writers with clear legislative agendas ought to copy this tactic.

BLOGGERS VS. MSM: Blottered

Brian Ross at ABC News' The Blotter ignited a blogswarm 5/24 with a post under the header, "Officials: Hastert "In the Mix" of Congressional Bribery Investigation." The opening paragraph now reads (righty bloggers have accused The Blotter of changing their original post): "Federal officials say the Congressional bribery investigation now includes Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, based on information from convicted lobbyists who are now cooperating with the government."

Hotline's On Call reported that the DOJ quickly denied the charges as did Hastert's office.

The Blotter then offered an update: "Despite a flat denial from the Department of Justice, federal law enforcement sources tonight said ABC News accurately reported that Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert is "in the mix" in the FBI investigation of corruption in Congress. ...You guys wrote the story very carefully but they are not reading it very carefully," a senior official said. ...One focus involves a letter Hastert wrote in 2003 urging the Secretary of the Interior to block an Indian casino that would have competed with tribes represented by Abramoff. ...ABC's law enforcement sources said the Justice Department denial was meant only to deny that Hastert was a formal "target" or "subject" of the investigation. ..."Whether they like it or not, members of Congress, including Hastert, are under investigation," one federal official said tonight."

Righty bloggers weren't buying the new "in the mix" distinction at all. Confederate Yankee: "In the original article, Ross was quite careful to only say that Hastert was "in the mix," a vague, rather nebulous statement that most readers would interpret to mean that Hastert was most likely the target of a criminal investigation. Indeed, the Reality-Based Community (an oxymoron if there ever was one) seems to be exactly under that impression in their update, and the ambiguous wording is also apparently interpreted in a similar fashion at Booman Tribune, The Carpetbagger Report, and Washington Monthly, all leading liberal political blogs. But these blogs were hardly alone. Mainstream news sources such as Bloomberg were also taken in by Ross's too-perfect parsing." Wizbang: "The "in the mix" statement directly contradicts the Department of Justice statement. For Speaker Hastert to be "in the mix" of an investigation means that he has to be part of the investigation, which the DOJ flatly denied. Brian Ross appears to be standing by a story that doesn't have legs."

Riehl World View argued that if Hastert was only in the mix then the story wasn't news at all: "The Ross / ABC headline grabbing story is a non-story, perhaps fed to him by someone who wanted to take a shot at Hastert. And not even a web search was done to flesh the story out, or discover that Ross was being had. There is no news here whatsoever, other than what could have been known or assumed from reading the Chicago Tribune four months ago. In fact, there is less information - and pertinent facts omitted serve to make it appear worse than it might be."

From there, the righty accusations only got worse. The Truth Laid Bear: " Hugh Hewitt points out something I missed: that it would appear that ABC News has changed the text of the story currently on their web site since its original publication! ...So here's the first paragraphs as they appear right now (8:41pm PDT):

Federal officials say the Congressional bribery investigation now includes Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, based on information from convicted lobbyists who are now cooperating with the government. Part of the investigation involves a letter Hastert wrote three years ago, urging the Secretary of the Interior to block a casino on an Indian reservation that would have competed with other tribes.

But Hugh indicates that "Hastert's office" provided a different version. Which reminded me that I received the story, in email, from a Republican Senator's office at 3:49pm. Here's the first paragraphs of that version:

The Speaker of the House of Representatives, Dennis Hastert, is under investigation by the FBI, which is seeking to determine his role in an ongoing public corruption probe into members of Congress, ABC News has learned from high level government sources.
Federal officials say the information implicating Hastert was developed from convicted lobbyists who are now cooperating with the government.

The Truth Laid Bear concludes: "Pretty important difference! I went looking for a cached version of the original ABC News story, with no luck. But I got the next best thing, check out this screen capture of Memeorandum from just a few moments ago...It does indeed match the version I received, and does indeed contain the strong phrasing "is under investigation by the FBI." Blue Crab Boulevard also believes The Blotter changed their story and writes: "Face it ABC, you got rolled and you are trying desperately to not have to admit it."

Powerline thinks the larger problem is MSM use of anonymous sources: "Perhaps it could still turn out to be true. But, once again, the moral is, I think, that it is foolish to assume that stories based on anonymous leaks are well-founded. More likely, they are smears and slanders put out by people with a political agenda, and printed by reporters with the same political agenda." NRO's Media Blog also focuses on the leakers: "Somebody's lying. The question is, if it's the sources for those ABC News stories, will ABC reporter Brian Ross do the honorable thing and disclose their identities. Without such action, there is no incentive against leaking wild, damaging but ultimately baseless rumors from high positions in the government. There is no accountability. When leakers are not punished for disseminating false information, each leak detracts from the public's knowledge - an unacceptable situation if the justification for such leaks is the public's right to know."

Righties were quick to put ABC News in some unwelcome company. QandO: "So has ABC joined Truthout.org in getting a little ahead of the news cycle?" Commenter James Williams at The Blotter: "I think we need to start a poll to see how long before Brian Ross is forced to retract this story and join Dan Rather in "retirement" land."

The vast majority of lefty bloggers gleefully linked to the original Blotter post, including: Swing State Project, Democrats.com, AMERICAblog, Oliver Willis, Talking Points Memo, David Sirota, Booman Tribune, The Political Animal, TPMmuckraker, MyDD, and truthdig.

Some lefties did have questions. TalkLeft wasn't buying the "in the mix" distinction either: "For ABC's law enforcement sources to now say all members of Congress are "under investigation" and Hastert "isn't a formal subject" makes no sense." The Carpetbagger Report wondered why such a big story was relegated to the blogosphere: "One thing that's bugging me, though, is that ABC News reported this on their blog, but as of now, there's no mention of it on ABC News' regular news website. If the network had a blockbuster news scoop, that no other outlet seems to have, why not put it on ABCNews.com? It seems odd."

Other lefties played conspiracy theory. The Reality Based Community: "But note that this news (sourced to "senior U.S. law enforcement officials") hit the media the day after Hastert dared to criticize the Bureau. And note also that ABC supinely transcribed the leak, without alerting its viewers/readers to the obvious motivation of the FBI to dirty up one of its critics. I said the Bureau played rough. I never denied they were good at it."

HASTERT: Separation Anxiety

After deadline 5/24 more lefties defended Hastert's separation of powers claims. Matthew Yglesias at TAPPED: "Dennis Hastert and the other congressional leaders are right on the merits here. There's a reason why security for Congress (and the Supreme Court) is provided neither by the Secret Service, nor by the FBI, nor by the DC Police Department, but rather by a special Capitol Police Department (or Supreme Court PD for the SCOTUS). This is also why the Constitution stipulates that members "shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place." There's a real separation of powers principle at stake here; the executive branch is not supposed to be charged with policing the behavior of the members of other branches of government. I'll shed no tears for Jefferson, but this is not unlike if the Bush administration were to use an illegal secret wiretap to catch an actual terrorist."

Fellow lefty The Reality Based Community agreed: "...there's a real separation-of-powers issue here. ...Do we really want every Congressman who criticizes the Bureau or fails to vote it more money or wider powers to have to worry about potential revenge? ...The Constitution places the authority and responsibility for disciplining Congressional misconduct squarely upon the Congress. The problem, of course, is that the Congress has been signally lax in carrying out that responsibility. If the Congress won't do its job, then the Bureau will be happy to take over."

Still, no blogger with actual legal training and the ability to site case law was buying the separation of powers argument. Libertarian Eugene Volokh at The Volokh Conspiracy: "I confess I'm pretty puzzled by Speaker Hastert's theory here. I understand that the power to arrest, search, and prosecute Congressmen could be abused by the Executive. But I take it that Speaker Hastert isn't arguing that Congressmen can't be prosecuted, or even can't be prosecuted for bribery. (Actually, Justices Douglas, White, and Brennan seemed to take the latter view in United States v. Brewster (1972), at least as to the selling of legislative acts; but they lost, and I hadn't heard of anyone trying to revive this position.) Is it that Jefferson could be prosecuted, but his office couldn't be searched? If so, what exactly is the constitutional basis for the distinction? For now, my tentative view is the same as Orin's -- there's no constitutional problem here -- but perhaps I'm missing something."

IMMIGRATION: Don't Meese This Call

Ex-AG Ed Meese followed up his 5/24 New York Timesop-ed with a righty blogger conference call that included:

• Captain's Quarters: "Gen. Meese has some interesting insight into the immigration mess, given his proximity to the Simpson-Mazzoli debacle. I have tremendous respect for his perspective, and if he says that he's getting a sense of deja vu, it behooves us to listen. I still would trade some limited normalization program for effective border security, but unless the conference committee makes some significant changes to the Senate approach, I fear we will get neither."
• Decision'08: "It's no secret to regular readers that I feel the current emphasis on immigration is a bit overblown...Meese stressed that the 'incentive' for current illegals to leave is simply the removal of the cloud of forced deportation and associated legal consequences and the right to return, legally, behind all the other people already in line. I question how much of an incentive that is, but it's certainly fair.
• Freeman Hunt: "The aim of this [the Meese plan] plan is to produce a combination of incentives and disincentives to discourage illegal immigration and encourage legal processing. By contrast, the three tier plan currently under debate in the Senate, provides for three levels of status for illegal immigrants based on work history and residency."
• Hugh Hewitt: "Meese: "I think that's always a problem as we found following 1986. In the '90s, there was very little concern for upholding the law."...Can we pause for a moment and admire the greatness of that quote from Meese on the '90s before I move on to say that he added that better technology and increased border control forces will help enforce the laws in a way we couldn't post-1986 amnesty."
• Michelle Malkin: "Meese advocates increased interior enforcement, strengthened employer sanctions...possible private sector outsourcing for a bona fide temporary worker program after immigration enforcement takes place...more local-state-fed police cooperation...amnesty vs. mass deportation is a false choice..."
• QandO: "I asked Mr Meese wouldn't it be more reasonable to streamline the legal immigration process and markedly increase our immigration quotas to sufficiently absorb the demand for peaceful migration into the US? If we accomplish this, then the question of amnesty will solve itself rather quickly, as applications for entry were processed in short order. Amnesty is mainly a problem right now because the quota is so small, while the line and the time it takes to be approved is so long. ...Mr Meese's answer was disappointing, although I think my poor phrasing and lack of follow-up was more to blame than was he. He said that he agreed that we needed to streamline our immigration process, but that we needed to do it concurrently with increased border control and internal enforcement."
• Right Wing News: "Long story short: The Senate bill is an amnesty that treats enforcement like a joke and it would be no more effective at stopping illegal immigration than the 1986 bill."
• Wizbang: "Mr. Meese acknowledged that after the amnesty law of 1986 was implemented, which called for a large increase in border security, the US government was not motivated to actually enforce its own laws. However, with the technology we have today, Mr. Meese believes that border security should be easier. Only after the border has been secured will the temporary worker program be implemented, and as a pilot program first."

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has a "TOP 10 FLAWS WITH AMNESTY AND GUEST WORKER OF COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM BILL" that is being widely linked to on the right. Daily Pundit, RCP Blog, and The Corner all link positively while fellow right Big Lizards is more skeptical: "Assuming this is true, of course; I haven't read the bill, and due to past behavior, I'm not necessarily willing to trust Grassley to stick to the truth in a debate.

Immigration remains a far bigger topic on the right, but lefties are discussing strategy on the issue. New Donkey: "By refusing to sign on to a smooth-groove path for the compromise absent some assurances about the end-game, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid ultimately secured an agreement to cut Democrats, and members of the responsible bipartisan majority of the Judiciary Committee, into the conference committee. That's why there are enough Senate Democrats willing to keep the compromise alive. But in the end, it won't really matter if George W. Bush isn't willing to use a veto threat and every other formal power he possesses, to make the compromise law, against the will of House Republicans. And if he won't take definitive sides on immigration reform, then the whole exercise will be nothing more than another graphic illustration of the powerlessness to do good of the all-powerful Republican ascendancy in Washington."

Matthew Yglesias at Talking Points Memo doesn't want a bill from this congress: "The odds are overwhelming that six months from now there will be more Democrats in both the House and the Senate than there are today. That means that for the price of a small delay in time of passage, Democrats should be able to get a more progressive bill through in the next congress if nothing passes this year. ...Maybe the next congress would only let us get a slightly better bill or maybe it will let us get a much better bill. ...Under the circumstances, Democrats seem to have a lot of leverage and every reason to take a hard line in negotiations."

GORE: They're Just Jealous

ESPN columnist Gregg Easterbrook suggest Slate readers should see An Inconvenient Truth but still has some criticisms: "

"Broadly, An Inconvenient Truth denounces consumerism, yet asks of its audience no specific sacrifice. "What I look for is signs we are really changing our way of life, and I don't see it," Gore intones with his signature sigh. As he says this, we see him at an airport checking in to board a jet, where he whips out his laptop. If "really changing our way of life" is imperative, what's Gore doing getting on a jetliner? Jets number among the most resource-intensive objects in the world. ...This raises the troubling fault of An Inconvenient Truth: its carelessness about moral argument. Gore says accumulation of greenhouse gases "is a moral issue, it is deeply unethical." Wouldn't deprivation also be unethical? Some fossil fuel use is maddening waste; most has raised living standards. The era of fossil energy must now give way to an era of clean energy. But the last century's headlong consumption of oil, coal, and gas has raised living standards throughout the world; driven malnourishment to an all-time low, according to the latest U.N. estimates; doubled global life expectancy; pushed most rates of disease into decline; and made possible Gore's airline seat and MacBook, which he doesn't seem to find unethical. ...Gore wants to have it that the greener-than-thou crowd is saintly, while the producers of cars, power, food, fiber, roads, and roofs are appalling. That is, he posits a simplified good versus a simplified evil. Just like a movie!"

The Political Animal reviews the review: "Gregg Easterbrook complains that (1) it's boring; (2) it's annoying; (3) it's contrived; (4) it's unimaginative; (5) it's alarmist; (6) it's too detailed; (7) it promotes conspiracy theories; (8) it's hypocritical; and (9) it's morally careless. ...And that's from a guy who says he's "glad" Gore made the movie. ...You'd almost think he just can't stand the thought that Gore was right before he was."

Ezra Klein at TAPPED relates a tale from Gore's Columbia's School of Journalism days: "Josh Bearman, who took the course, remembers that "He knew more than everyone in the room. So the class basically turned against him because he was smarter than they were, and they didn't like that. We witnessed exactly what had happened on the campaign plane in the year prior." And make no mistake -- we'll see it again. It's one thing for global warming to top the agenda. For Gore to put it there, however, implicitly indicts all those who mocked or sought to stymie his crusade in the past. His success is their failure, and they'll do their damndest to stop it."

The Corner is all over Gore's Cannes trip. Jonah Goldberg does some digging to follow up on Arianna Huffington'sGore-French-existentialists-summers quote and Iain Murray links to a Competitive Enterprise Institute video on Gore's "Big Fat Carbon Footprint"

McCAIN: Josh Lyman Lives!!!

Jason Horowitz' New York Observer profile of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) did McCain no favors in blogoland. No More Mister Nice Blog notes that in the piece McCain "criticized elements in his own party as "nativist" before lambasting the punditry of Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs and Michael Savage for helping to "fuel the problem," according to two of the sources." Nice Blog comments: "Wow, that's three mistakes in one: He insulted Saint Rush and his fellow Tribunes of the People, he insulted the seal-the-borders wingnuts themselves, and he did it in commie-lib New York, playing to a crowd of bankers, socialites, and (we're told later in the article) "some Democratic names." Not a smooth move." Kathryn Jean Lopez at The Corner agrees: "A Republican who doesn't know there's a difference between Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage will encounter problems with conservative primary voters."

Also at The Corner Mark Krikorian wasn't impressed with McCain's plans for world peace: "McCain said ""One of the things I would do if I were President would be to sit the Shiites and the Sunnis down and say, "Stop the b******t." Does this remind anyone of Perot? I've long thought that McCain is a saner version of Perot, and sees himself in the same way as a Napoleonic "man on a horse." Apart from the substance of his views, the degree to which this kind of personality attracts public support is an indicator of the health of republican self-government. I'm not optimistic."

Lefty bloggers also had fun at McCain's expense for his mideast peace plan. Ezra Klein at TAPPED quotes the same Shiites and Sunnis sit down line and quips: "Woo! That's bracing stuff! And then, after the hasty consultations with translators to make sure he actually said that, the participants would stare at him quizzically, wondering what the straight-talk solution to oil sharing, political representation, entrenched hatreds, and varying conceptions of secularism will be. So what is it? McCain demands that they "stop the bull***t." What are his next ten words?" Shakespeares Sister fills in at least the next five words: "I have the best informants in all of the blogosphere, and one of them has gotten me a copy of McCain's entire plan. If you thought "Phase One: Stop the Bull***t" was outstanding, wait until you get a load of "Phase Two: No, Seriously...I Mean It." Fellow lefty Preemptive Karma chimes in: "Classic, wonderful McCain. Who cares if it's a statement from la-la land. How can you not love it? What I loved most from this speech was McCain's jumping all over Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs, and Michael Savage for helping to "fuel the problem" of ghettoizing immigrants. He actually called Republicans "nativists."

Ryan Lizza at The Plank followed up on MSM reports that McCain returned campaign cash to the notorious Wyly brothers with a statement from McCain adviser John Weaver: "After the checks were received from Sam and Charles Wyly, it was discovered through the normal vetting process here at Straight Talk America that a federal inquiry is ongoing into the two gentlemen. Once that was discovered, we have a policy internally not to accept contributions from people in that situation, so the checks were returned. And at our request they did not attend the fundraiser in Dallas."

Not officially affiliated with the former-NY mayor Giuliani Blog writes: "Two things here. 1) When did the McCain folks know they had a problem? Because news of the Wyly investigation is not exactly, um, news. It was featured in a DNC press release and in a Dallas Morning News article as far back as early June 2005. 2) The Wylys didn't just write a check. They were on the host committee. Okay, so McCain accepts the money and has to return it. Happens all the time. But the Wylys were actually co-hosts of the event, which means that Straight Talk America actively worked with them to corral checks for the event. So, McCain invites these two former enemies to raise money for him, after their dicey legal status is public knowledge. ...The white knight of campaign finance reform, the man who would compromise the First Amendment itself at the altar of ethical purity, is getting to be an awfully cheap date. This kind of hypocrisy can kill authenticity. And without conservative base mojo, "authenticity" is all McCain's got."

BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: My Darling Clemonstine

Today the Blogometer talks to lefty Steve Clemons, who writes The Washington Note.

What is your full name?

Steven Clemons

What is your age?

43

Where did you grow up?

Kansas, Massachusetts, California, England, Alaska, Oklahoma, Washington DC, Pennsylvania, Florida, New Hampshire, Texas and Japan. I was an Air Force brat.

Where do you live now?

Washington, DC

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

Builder of think tanks, policy entrepreneur, director of foreign policy and international economic policy programs at the New America Foundation, blogger/writer/pundit...never worked for a campaign or mainstream media...though solicited by both

When did you start blogging and why?

Three reasons...First was feeling like I needed to do some intellectual and policy RD outside of the New America Foundation where I was then serving as Executive Vice President. Secondly, I had a lot of good material coming to me constantly, and I'd pass on to my pal, Josh Marshall...who was the primary force in my setting up my own blog. In fact, I got my blog running two years after Josh began kicking and nudging me to do it. Three, I like how the blog is a pliable medium...part serioius commentary, part reporting, part advocacy, and part vanity.

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

My favorite posts were also the ones that became the most all-consuming. While I have single posts that I found personally stimulating, the whole four month block of work I did on the politics of John Bolton's nomination to the United Nations was among what I consider my favorite blogging. I also liked a post I did exposing the Republican National Committee's mailing of homophobic, high-fear literature that asserted that Democrats would 'ban the Bible' and turn certain states into bastions of homosexuality. These mailers were being sent to church parish rosters and were an indication of the social values focus that Karl Rove had orchestrated in the RNC's political campaign. I also liked one that focused on Japan's Crown Princess Masako Owada and the politics inside Japan's imperial household establishment. I got a ton of fan mail from Japanese women for that piece.

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

Varies -- but usually a couple of hours a day. Try to get major thinking and posting done in early morning and then add items during the day. Sometimes, write longer thought pieces in the middle of the night.

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

Joshua Micah Marshall...who is a fantastic blogger and also got me into all this.

Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?

David Ignatius, Washington Post

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

Two: This Week with George Stephanopoulos and C-Span's "Washington Journal"

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

New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Economist, LA Times, CNN, Fox News

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

Talking Points Memo, Powerline, RedState, MyDD, TPM Cafe, Juan Cole's Informed Comment, Huffpost, ArmsControlWonk, Andrew Sullivan, CalPundit/Kevin Drum

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

rarely -- once or twice a week

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

there will be struggle over rules and norms. The old media will try to either assimilate or annihilate the new media, but in the long run, new media will evolve as the dominant platform. Vicious battles will be fought over rules, norms, and ethics in the new media...and there will be some substantial consolidation in the new media that creates market power and where size will matter...just like in the old media today. At this point, the old media still dominates the news and politics business with new media biting at its heels, but this is changing as the quality of reporting and commentary change in blogs -- and as audiences build.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Brain Drain

Nathan Newman at TPM Cafe notes that the upcoming Sen. bill would allow an unlimited number of nurses to immigrate to the U.S. and comments on the effect these policies have on developing countries: "The conventional wisdom is that unskilled immigration is bad and skilled immigration is better. But skilled immigration often damages the developing world and encourages the US government to underinvest in upgrading the skills of native-born workers. Right now, many of the unskilled workers in the US -- who are feeling pressure from unskilled immigration -- could be fulfilling the need for higher-paid skilled work in the US. But there are no educational slots available in US schools. ...Here's is the nasty dynamic-- the US refuses to invest in training and education of our own population, then instead leeches off the tiny investments in education done by developing countries. In the ideal, the US would be continually upgrading the skills of its own native workers, in which case unskilled immigration would be all that was needed and native workers would see little threat from immigration."

LEST WE FORGET: The War On Breakfast

ScrappleFace reports on a Sen. vote many of you may have missed but is still absolutely essential to our country's security:

(2006-05-19) - Just hours after approving two amendments that would make English the "national language" of the U.S. without affecting any of the millions of government documents now printed in Spanish, the Senate today voted 58-39 to declare English "the official muffin of Congress."
"With lots of nooks and crannies to hold the melted butter," the new amendment reads, "the English muffin has come to symbolize the glory of the Congressional lawmaking process."
While conservative critics noted that "the English muffin is not a muffin at all in the traditional sense," a coalition of Democrats and progressive Republicans managed to push the measure through.
When asked what effect the amendments would have on President George Bush's comprehensive immigration reform proposal, one unnamed Senate Republican said simply, "Toast. Rye toast."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:30 PM

May 24, 2006

5/24: Bloggers See, Bloggers Do

For all the vitriol that bloggers throw at Washington insiders, they sure know how to mimic their behavior. Pouring through poll numbers, handicapping races, and hosting straw polls...these sound more like the tasks of political professionals then amateur with keyboards. Who knows? Maybe some day the Markos Moulitsas and Duncan Blacks could sit down with the Stu Rothenbergs of the world and refrain from using profanity or words like "wanker" "extremist" or "cesspool."

LANDSCAPE: State Of The Kossite Nation

The following poll numbers are in no way scientific, but as the 800-lbs gorilla of the blogosphere ignore these DailyKos "poll" numbers at your own risk. * denotes less than 1%.

WH '08 Dem Primary Matchup WH '08 Dem "Fantasy" Primary
Feingold 44% Gore 68%
Clark 15 Feingold 15
Warner 10 Clark 4
Edwards 8 Warner 3
Clinton 2 Edwards 2
Richardson 1 Kerry *
Biden 1 Clinton *
Kerry 1 Richardson *
Bayh * Biden *
Daschle * Bayh *
Dodd * Dodd *
Vilsack * Daschle *
Other 6 Vilsack *
No freakin' clue 4 Other *
No freakin' clue *

Dean As DNC Chair Reid As Sen Min Ldr Pelosi As Min Ldr
Approve 87% Approve 65% Approve 30%
Disapprove 9% Disapprove 26 Disapprove 56

WH '08 Dem Primary Matchup reported at 14324 Total Votes

WH '08 Dem "Fantasy" Primary reported at 10631 Total Votes

Dean As DNC Chair reported at 13193 Total Votes

Reid As Sen Min Ldr reported at 10487 Total Votes

Pelosi As Min Ldr reported at 10265 Total Votes

And Chris Bowers at MyDD ran a poll searching for the least-liked WH '08er. The results, with 1192 ballots cast:

Least Favorite WH '08er
Clinton 25%
Biden 19
Daschle 11
Feingold 9
Kerry 8
Bayh 7
Dodd 5
Vilsack 4
Warner 4
Clark 3
Edwards 3
Richardson 2

ELECTION'06: Senate Edition

Lefty blogger optimism for Dem. '06 Sen, chances has not dimmed. Chris Bowers at MyDD has his latest Sen. outlook: "The Senate is now in play. However, like last month, I predict a three to five seat gain for Democrats. ...Thirty-second analysis. The addition of Arizona to the "already competitive" tier gives Democrats a sixth potential pickup. Arizona moves up two tiers in one month with a wave of new poll results showing Kyl under 50%. In an otherwise stagnant environment, this sharp movement should offer hope to Democrats in states like Nevada, Tennessee, and Virginia. While Rhode Island threatens to slip back a tier, it still is not feasible to project Democrats capturing the Senate (yet). Democrats seem to be gradually improving their Senate chances every month."

Over at lefty hang outDailyKosmole333 looks at NV and MT: "Nevada is considered one of the Purple States ... first off we have Jack Carter, son of Nobel Laureate and former President Jimmy Carter. Jack Carter is a great candidate with integrity and a real populist message that is going to work in the West. If we want to retake the Senate, I think this race is a must win. ...Montana Senate...This is one of the most important Senate races in 2006 because the seat is currently held by one of the most corrupt Republicans in the Senate. For this reason, Montana is listed by BBC news as one of the states to watch this year.

Back at MyDD lefty Jonathan Singer looks at AZ: "Taking a look at the latest SurveyUSA 50-state poll and specifically the new list of Senators' approval ratings, Kyl sticks out as one of the most unpopular U.S. Senators today; in fact, he has the fourth highest disapproval rating of any Senator. But as bad as his numbers are today at 44 percent approval and 47 percent disapproval, Kyl's trend is even worse. Over the course of the last two months, during which time Kyl's well-funded and relatively popular Democratic challenger Jim Pederson has been on the air, Kyl's disapproval rating has shot up 11 points."

Righty Mark Kilmer at RedState has his own PA Sen. news: "Pennsylvania's Republican gubernatorial nominee Lynn Swann spoke to the Pennsylvania Press Club in Harrisburg on Monday, promising property tax relief in the first year of his Administration. In the Q&A, Swann was asked if he had chosen to endorse anyone to replace State GOP chairwoman Eileen Melvin, who quit last week after a disastrous primary performance by the State committee. Swann said he had several names under consideration, and that he, Senator Santorum, and other GOP leaders would discuss it. He did not mention Senator Specter. ...For the final question, someone had asked him if he planned a "kiss a little butt," a reference to Ed Rendell's most recent excuse for pushing and backing the legislative pay raise of 2005. The candidate smiled and replied: "John, the answer will be decidedly "NO." - I'll let all the bending over and kissing in Ed's administration."

ELECTION '06: House Edition

Plenty of lefty blogger energy is being devoted to the House. Matt Stoller at MyDD plugs businesswoman Darcy Burner's challenge to Rep. Dave Reichart (R-WA): "The district is trending blue, and Burner is incredibly smart and a natural campaigner. ...She is also young (35) and web-savvy, having worked at Microsoft, and these traits will serve her well in a House that is desperately in need of new blood. She has promised, for instance, to post on her Congressional web site a list of all meetings with lobbyists by her or any staff member, which is a fundamentally new approach to governance."

Also at MyDDThe Southern Dem looks at NC-8: "Respected polling firm, Anzalone Liszt Research, has released a new poll...and it shows Larry Kissell with tremendous momentum pulling away from Republican incumbent Robin Hayes. ...The number that first jumps out is the informed vote where Kissell leads Hayes by 7 points. (49% Kissell/42% Hayes). ...A campaign insider pointed out that this is a district that went for Bush in 2004 by 54%. These are not Kerry Democrats, so the presidential race actually helped Hayes at the polls. There is no national or state-wide race that will bring voters out who only vote top of the ticket. This is going to hurt Hayes and that's one more strike against him."

Over at DailyKos mole333 looks at some NV races: "There are also two House races in Nevada and here is where I think we have a shot, albeit a long shot, at Sweeping Nevada. One of these House races, NV-3, is a genuinely close race, one of the 10 House seats the Republicans most fear losing. ...But there is one more race worth considering: NV-2. This is not seen as a close race, BUT...it is an open seat this year and we all know that open seats are opportunities NOT TO BE MISSED."

NM is also looked at: "First there is the NM-1 House race. The Republican incumbent, Heather Wilson has taken more money from Exxon/Mobil's PAC than any other New Mexico politician - $5,000 already in this cycle, and $27,000 since 2000. She took $4,000 from Halliburton's PAC in the 2004 cycle. She is the EPITOME of what I call a corrupt Halliburton Republican. The Democratic opponent is two-term state Attorney General Patricia Madrid. An extraordinarily well-qualified candidate, Madrid seems poised to be a leading Democrat from the West."

Of course it wouldn't be lefty blogger land with out some Dem infighting. Matt StollerMyDD : "Al Wynnis in a 77% Democratic performing district in Maryland, a very safe seat in the fourth district. Al Wynn is also one of the Verizon 5 who screwed us on net neutrality in his subcommittee vote after getting $19,000 from telecom interests. But there's lots to dislike about Wynn. Iraq. The bankruptcy bill. The estate tax. The energy bill. Wynn consistently sells out his constituents because he's never challenge Enter Donna Edwards, a very well-respected public servant and current executive director of the Arca Foundation. She's one of the serious good guys."

JEFFERSON: Throw Him Under The Bus

If lefty bloggers have to choose between their "culture of corruption" mantra and the career of a Dem. congressman from Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, the choice is simple: Rep. William Jeffesron (D-LA) is gonna have to rescue himself. At DailyKosVirginiaDem writes: "I've noticed that the Democratic campaign effort for 2006 is attempting to run against a Republican "culture of corruption" this year. ...However, a certain Democratic congressman is undermining this effort. ... My plea is obvious. Tell Mr. Jefferson to resign immediately." Kos himself dropped in for an editorial comment: "I agree wholeheartedly. No double standards. Corruption is corruption, no matter where it may arise -- kos." Atrios concurs: "Jefferson is certainly entitled to his legal defense, and he's also certainly entitled to defend himself in the court of public opinion, but since the former is preventing him from doing the latter I agree with Francine Busby that it's time for him to step down.

Josh Marshall sub Matthew Yglesias at Talking Points Memo doesn't see how Jefferson's troubles slow down Dem corruption-campaign at all: "Obviously, we are seeing what everyone already knew - that the Donkeys aren't pure as virgin snow. Certainly, Jefferson been up to no good and richly deserves punishment. But there's no serious comparison here. ...Jefferson was a corrupt freelancer...a more-or-less random member of congress abusing his office for personal gain. Compare this to the case of Tom DeLay, the key mover-and-shaker in the Republican caucus for many years and an important one for years before that. His muck-worthy activities not only accrued to a more significant player, but also bore a direct relationship to the creation and sustenance of the GOP machine."

Speaker Denny Hastert subsequent protests over the FBI's search of Jefferson's office created yet another reason for righty bloggers to bash GOP leadership. Riehl World View: "That's it. I've had enough. My sense of Hastert is that he knows less about the Constitution than he does the back of the menu at a Taco Bell. ...If some of the blogging Repologists want to keep on about moderation and working together to sort it out, they can stuff it. We should turn the whole place over and enact term limits. I've had enough of this circus on both sides of the aisle." Unfreezing: "Please inform the Republican leadership that I've listened carefully to their comments about Mr. Jefferson and the searching of his office. I have thought about what they have said and decided to change my party affiliation. I no longer wish to be counted as a republican. ...I no longer know what this party stands for except apparently the self-protection of its own elected officials." Macsmind: "Members of Congress, on both sides of the isle need to back off the "Thou treadest on me?" crap. Again, this has nothing to do with the separation of powers but about suspected criminal activity by a representative of the people, if he did wrong we DEMAND he be brought to justice. Period."

Lawyer-bloggers from right and left thought Hastert's legal objections had little merit:

• TalkLeft: "In Rep. Jefferson's case, however, "separation of powers" just won't cut it if the affidavit for the search warrant shows probable cause to believe that evidence would be found in his office. The same would apply to the President, the Vice President, their staffs, and the judiciary: If there is probable cause linking the place to be searched with an alleged crime, the search has the imprimatur of the law, is presumptively valid under the Fourth Amendment, and that is all that will be required to defeat a separation of powers claim."
• Orin Kerr: "I don't think the Fourth Amendment provides such an argument. If the government can execute a warrant at a newspaper, or at a lawyer's office, why not a Congressional office? Of course, Congress could pass a law prohibiting searches of Congressional offices, Cf. The Privacy Protection Act, but they haven't done so. A more likely theory would be the Speech and Debate clause, Art. I, 6, cl. 1. ... Given that executing a search warrant involves neither an arrest nor questioning, it would seem to me that the Clause isn't applicable. Further, Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 626-27 (1972), seems to suggest that Congress is not generally exempt from criminal process under the Clause. ... At the same time, this is only a snippet, and it's hard to reach a more definitive conclusion without spending more time looking through the cases. For a good summary of the law, this page at Findlaw is a good start."
• Instapundit: "The separation of powers argument seems to be pretty weak to me: The actual scope of Congressional immunity under the speech and debate clause is quite narrow (narrower, oddly, than the judically-created immunities enjoyed by judges and prosecutors) and certainly doesn't include immunity from search in a bribery case. At any rate, members of Congress who are offended by an unannounced late-night raid on an office might profitably be asked what they think about late-night unannounced raids on private homes, which happen all the time as part of the Congressionally-mandated War on Drugs."

McCAIN: New School Coda

New School President Bob Kerrey took to The Huffington Post to defend his students, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), and himself:

...an impressive number of my students and faculty disagreed with my decision and urged me to withdraw the invitation. Their objections were largely centered on an assertion that Senator McCain does not represent the values of The New School. After listening to these objections and considering them respectfully, I decided that I would not withdraw my invitation to Senator McCain, in part, because I believe he does represent some of the most important values of The New School. ...That said, I now speak in defense of the behavior of my students. ...Though many in the audience -- including Senator McCain and I -- were offended by the heckling, at no time were we in danger of not being able to proceed. ...More importantly -- and also lost in the charges and counter-charges -- is this fact: student protests are a necessary and essential part of democratic free expression. ... Further, I hope he comes to understand that among the reasons we admire and respect him is that he sometimes still confronts the overly-circumspect and sluggish protocols of the U.S. Senate to fight against government waste and corruption and to advance laws that will make us feel proud, rather than ashamed. I know from personal experience that many who have found themselves on the opposing side of his arguments have, at times, wondered about the absence of civility and courtesy in his tactics when he is passionately and doggedly working for what he believes. ... Those of us who respect the Senator so much understand that that is one of the reasons John McCain is so effective. I contend that our protesting students deserve the same credit."

McCain made some blogosphere friends on his own with his 5/22 speech endorsing nuclear power. Righty Blue Crab Boulevard: "I'm not a fan of McCain, as anybody who's been reading here for any length of time knows. But the headline of this article is something I happen to believe in. We need more nuclear energy in this country. I worked in that field for many years. I know how safe those plants are." Charleston Daily Mail editorialist Don Surber: "In calling for more nukes, John McCain may have stumbled upon the issue that will power him to the presidency. America's need for energy independence is the only way to shorten this war on terrorism. Oil tends to flow to the dictators -- Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Venezeula, Iraq, Iran -- who use their riches to entrench themselves. It cannot continue."

GORE: Not Everybody Loves Al Gore?

Lefty Marty Kaplan at The Huffington Post suggests an Al Gore/Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) ticket may be the best option for Dems but also takes the time to list some Gore negatives including:

• The Hamlet thing. (Cuomo had this, too.) Gore says he doesn't want to run, but at a certain point, the rules of the nominating system can't create a draft. Saying no also creates a walking-back-the-cat problem. If we shouldn't have believed you then, why should we believe you now?
• The speech in Saudi Arabia criticizing US anti-Arab abuse (lousy location choice for message)
• The 2000 problem. He didn't campaign hard or well enough. He ran away from Clinton. He threw in the towel too soon.
• The residue of 2000's negatives: "Buddhist Temple." "He says he invented the Internet." The convention kiss.
• Tipper's rock lyrics campaign.
• Backstage mischief by "prominent Democrats" with unparalleled access to the press and to political money.
• The inevitable liberal/left/commie/pinko/ozone attack.

Besides Kaplan's apprehensions The Huffington Post Gore-lovefest continued unabated. Lefty Richard Greene writes: "It's taken a "dark night of the soul" experience in 2000 and several years abstinence from toxic polls and consultants, but Al Gore, the most unlikely of heroes, is beginning to show politicians and America a different kind of "Inconvenient Truth" and that is that money and make overs and talking points and audience research do not make politics or politicians or America better. ...Al Gore, left to his own devices, left only to his own very deep and honest passion, has had a spiritual and political transformation that may, indeed, make Americans want to elect him...again."

Lefty bloggers were quick to cry foul when National Center for Policy Analysis senior fellow Sterling Burnett compared Gore's film to Nazi propaganda. Think Progress: "ExxonMobil doesn't have a substantive answer to Gore's movie, so it bankrolls people like Burnett to smear Gore personally." The Carpetbagger Report: "At a certain level, it seems Fox News is intent on offering Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth as much publicity as the network can muster. For a movie with an initial run of a fun hundred theaters, FNC is acting awfully nervous." AMERICAblog: "Exxon-financed pundit compares Gore to Goebbels. ...Interesting that ExxonMobil seems happy to write off the 49% of the country who voted for Gore."

Most righties went the humor route instead of calling Gore a Nazi. ShopFloor.org: "The film is the action version of a slide show that Gore has done some 1,000 times around the country. ...Gore repeats like a mantra that there is now scientific consensus about the so-called problem. And he has lots of friends in the press who lazily repeat the argument. What the hey -- it's a heckuva lot easier than making the case. And -- they voted for him, so they trust him, right? ...In any event, the film has rolled out to rave reviews by noted climatologists Sharon Stone and Garry Shandling."

HRC: Glad That's Out Of The Way

The left's TAPPED, Garance Franke-Ruta is 100% correct when she observes, "There's a lot of blogosphere outrage, including here at TAPPED, about this morning's New York Timesstory on Hillary Clinton's marriage." But she goes on to take a minority opinion: "I'm not so sure there should be. This story answers an essential question for Hillary-watchers, and knocks down one of the major raps against her as a candidate, the allegation that she is a coldly calculating person so ambitious she stayed in a sham marriage just so she could run for President one day. So, as much as she and her staff and her supporters may hate this story, I think they should be grateful for it."

Not that Dem primary voters spend much time at RedState but California Yankee puts HRC's 5/23 energy speech under a header "Hillary Runs Toward President Bush's Energy Policy" and writes: "After voting against nationwide use of ethanol in gasoline last year, Senator Clinton today echoed President Bush's advanced energy initiative, calling for tax credits, private investment and new research in order to cut the consumption of foreign oil."

DODD: Joe Who?

Kos describes Sen. Chris Dodd's (D-CT) 5/22 pres. announcement as "the day's most underwhelming bit of news." Kos goes on to mention: " This is the guy who gave the nomination speech for Joe Lieberman at the Connecticut Democratic Party convention this past weekend. If he comes by your part of the country, feel free to ask him about that."

HAYDEN: The Bloggers That Didn't Bark

Compared to all the fuss lefty bloggers made over the NSA surveillance story when it broke, Gen. Michael Hayden's passage through the Sen. Int. Cmte. drew very little lefty response. TalkLeft: "No surprise here, but General Michael Hayden was approved by the House Intelligence Committee today as CIA Director and now will go to the full Senate for a confirmation vote. ...Voting against him were three Democrats, Russ Feingold, Ron Wyden and Evan Bayh." Lefty Booman Tribune: "To their eternal credit, Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Russ Feingold both voted no. ...So many pixels have been spilled on the unacceptability of this nominee, based on his involvement in the wiretapping scandal, that I hardly need to add mine. Suffice it to say, however, that if the Dems can retake either chamber of Congress and actually press for investigations of the illegal wiretapping, the nomination of a known defiler of the Constitution by his equally Constitutionally-challenged superior will go down as one of the watermarks of this administration's imperial hubris."

Righties were in full gloat mode. Captain's Quarters: "Surprisingly, the Democrats never mounted any kind of coordinated attack on Hayden like they did with Samuel Alito or John Bolton. After fueling the outrage of their base by painting Hayden as a yes-man for Donald Rumsfeld -- an absurd characterization and a complete misreading of the dynamic in play with Hayden's nomination -- the hearing itself turned out to be a complete fizzle. ...The Democrats wisely retreated, except of course for Feingold. He will win the lunatic Left as his power base -- and will wind up doing as well as Howard Dean did when the primaries roll around in less than twenty months."

PRIMARIES: Strictly A Local Affair

Little buzz in the national blogosphere on the ID and AR 5/23 primaries. But local bloggers did chime in.

In ID, righty Adam's Blog thinks turnout numbers are good news for the GOP, while lefties Red State Rebels and 43d State Blues both live-blogged the evening.

In AR the focus was on faulty election machines. Lynch at Large, Arkansas Tonight, and Arkansas Blog all complained.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: This Is The Future...Get Used To It

Pacified at DailyKos proudly outlines how Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) ended up having to distance herself from the KKK after introducing a bill to make home schooling easier. Pacified begins: "This diary is a case study of the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy at work, beginning Thursday of last week surrounding Republican Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave (CO-04) and the KKK members who agree with her." Pacified then goes through a play-by=play that ends with The Hill picking up on the internet chatter. Pacified concludes: "This still developing story is real life proof of how the Netroots is changing politics, a concrete instance of the developing liberal blogosphere's power and its ability to percolate and amplify stories. ...It can also serve as a model of the 50 State Strategy Online of sort: Bloggers who focus on only local politics (as Muskrat Hunt follows only Marilyn Musgrave) are able to draw attention to a story, which eventually caught the eye of the national media. ...Most importantly, the political mudslinging is being attributed to "liberal political bloggers", not Angie Paccione, the Democratic challenger in Colorado's 4th District."

LEST WE FORGET: Culture Of Corruption, Arkansas Edition

Did you not already hear about the burgeoning sex-for-water scandal? The Smoking Gun fills us in with the Arrest Warrant Affidavit for Waldron, AR mayor Troy Anderson (D): "An Arkansas mayor has been charged with soliciting sex from two women in exchange for keeping their water on in the face of delinquent utility bills. ...According to investigators, one woman had sex with Anderson, while the second woman rebuffed his offer (and recorded Anderson's sleazy come-on for police)."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:34 PM

May 23, 2006

5/23: McCain At New School: Day 4!

One can never really predict when a slow news day will roll around, but when they do it sure helps if you can create your own news ... which is exactly what the Blogometer's top two stories have in common today. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) aide Mark Salter has managed to keep his boss' 5/20 New School commencement speech alive in the blogosphere for a fourth day while Al Gore's movie premiere tour notches more blogger adulation. Also in today's edition: WH'08 news for Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Evan Bayh (D-IN), and Barack Obama (D-IL); Stu Rothenberg makes new friends; kos shares his dreams; Drudge issues a (gasp!) retraction; and Google turns out not to be a bad guy after all. All that and a new Blogger Spotlight.

McCAIN: Rohe vs. Aide

New School commencement speaker Jean Rohe prolonged her battle with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) aide Mark Salter at The Huffington Post: "I'd like to say first of all, that I don't believe that anything I've written to the public so far has been quite as nasty to Senator McCain as Mr. Salter was to me. ... You make many assumptions about who I am and what I stand for. You assume that the words shouted from the audience reflected at all times my opinions and values. You assume that I have made myself look like an idiot, which, I can tell you, is just not true. ... Please don't try to bully me anymore."

Also at The Huffington Post lefty Jane Smiley thinks McCain and Salter missed their mark: "From a purely strategic point of view, McCain's assault upon the fortress of liberalism that is the New School was an abject failure. He did not win over anyone, and he defeated and humiliated himself. ...Mark Salter failed him absolutely because it was Salter's job to understand, before the graduation speech, that McCain was unwelcome as the representative of a failed administration and a failed war, and that he is widely seen as someone who may once have had character but for whom the term "roll-away teeth" now applies." Fellow lefties The Carpetbagger Report and feministe gave their fightcards to Rohe.

The Blogometer was not the only one to smell set up. Dem consultant Kirsten Powers at The Huffington Post: "All the hoopla surrounding Sen. McCain being shouted down at the New School can be defined only one way: a brilliant campaign stunt. What could be better for a Senator who is seen by the right-wing base as being too cozy with the Left than to be heckled and rudely shouted down by a bunch of bratty liberal kids in New York City?" Lefty Legal Fiction: "Putting aside the academic debate, the crux of whether Rohe was effective turns on whether her attacks punctured McCain's bipartisan healer schtick or whether, as I say, they bolstered his conservative street cred. Tough call, but I'm going to stick with the latter." James Forsyth at FP Blog: "But for what it's worth, my take is that those people who turn their backs on the speaker are demonstrating that they've failed to absorb one of the key lessons of a liberal education: That you should be open to perspectives different from your own. The act of turning your back is indicative of a closed mind and an arrogant belief that nothing anyone says could possibly make you rethink your position. Having said that, I suspect that the protesting New School students behaved in exactly the way John McCain's advisors wanted them to."

The whole incident spurred a flashback for The Plank'sJason Zengerle who recounted McCain brow-beating him 16 years ago for his "lack of service and patriotism." Not done patrolling the web Salter emailed Zengerle who posted his response: " Senator McCain didn't post that comment. I did. When I speak for him I will mention it. Otherwise, you can assume I speak for myself. ... During the course of a news search I stumbled upon Ms. Rohe's self-congratulatory, look-at-me post in which she claimed she had "torn McCain's speech apart," made him "look like an idiot," etc and the toxic abuse of McCain that followed by readers of her post . She also recounted how he had refused to look her in the eyes before the speech, which only strengthened her resolve. (Of course, before the speech, she had asked to have her picture taken with him, which he consented to, and there they are smiling, arm in arm. Evidently, he forgot to look her in the eyes then as well.)"

GORE: I Think It Was Jean-Paul Sartre Who Once Said ... How Do you Spell Sartre?

Mark Leibovich'sNew York Times Dems-shun-losers article continued to draw fire from lefty bloggers. Reed Hundt at TPM Cafe covers three points the piece missed: "First, Gore won the popular vote and also would have won the vote in Florida had all ballots been counted. ... Second, Kerry lost in 2004 only because he lost the popular vote in Ohio and that he may not have lost but for voting irregularities. ... Third, Andrew Jackson, Grover Cleveland, and Richard Nixon are historical examples, if any are needed, of the viability of running again." Also at TPM CafeTodd Gitlin thinks the MSM overlooks its own role in Gore's defeat: "What's missing from this picture is the not-so-incidental part played by, hmmmm, the bold men and women of the Washington press corpse in conferring said pariah status, ridiculing, second-guessing, and trashing certain defeated Democrats as eminently "unlikeable"-- before they were defeated, in fact."

Subbing for the vacationing Josh Marshall, Matthew Yglesias at Talking Points Memo wonders if Leibovich's Gore-haters really exist: "Now, to be clear, I don't want to be doing one of these blogger slams on someone in the MSM. For all I know, there's a deep wellspring of anti-Gore sentiment lurking out there someplace. But I haven't stumbled on it, and I don't see it in the Times piece. Are there Gore-haters out there? Are you one? Inquiring minds want to know." Later Yglesias follows up: "The email is pouring in! I have, in fact, been able to locate some Gore haters. A larger number of emails, however, are strongly pro-Gore. ... I've been a bit surprised, however, to see how prominent a role complaints about the Parents Music Resource Center have played in statements by anti-Gore people."

At The Huffington Post Arianna Huffington's worldwide Gore-premiere-shadowing tour continued to the Cannes Film Festival: "In Washington, the talk was all about 2006. In Cannes, the talk is all about 2008. In Cannes for the European premiere of his powerful global warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, Gore has been surrounded by adoring crowds and deluged with interview requests. "This is my second visit to Cannes," he said. "The first was when I was fifteen years old and came here for the summer to study the existentialists -- Sartre, Camus... We were not allowed to speak anything but French!"

Margaret Carlson, also at The Huffington Post, thinks America may be ready for a president that prefers Camus to Spies Like Us: "The debut of Gore's documentary comes at a time when some pundits (including me) might wonder if we should give a rest to that old saw about likeability. Maybe Americans prefer to have a beer and burger with the charming frat boy to the student who always does his homework. But is that a wise basis for choosing a president? ...With all the needless death from a ill-conceived war, the wasteful corruption of sweetheart contracts in Iraq and New Orleans, debt and deficits as far as the eye can see, gas prices through the roof with no energy policy in sight, and with a president who delegates to incompetents and cronies, I'm ready to give the class nerd his due and raise a glass to a serious man."

Think Progress quickly smacked down a Drudge Report item claiming Gore and entourage used 5 cars to travel 500 yards: "Think Progress contacted Gore's representatives, who unequivocally confirmed that Al Gore and his associates walked from the Majestic Hotel to the screening at Cannes. Further, Paramount has committed to making the entire tour promoting the film carbon neutral.

Even the pro-carbon National Association of Manufacturers was thanking Gore: "In what can only be a colossal mistake by the Father of the Internet, the official blog site for Al Gore's new movie has on its front page a prominent link to the blog you are now reading. ...Could this be a great show of magnanimity by the Internet's Founder and erstwhile Presidential candidate? Is it a sign, maybe, that even he is getting a little skeptical about all this global warming, uh... cooling, uh... warming stuff? Maybe he's getting ready to throw in the towel on all this "sure is getting hot in here" mumbo-jumbo."

HRC: I Know You Are But What Am I?

Lefties were universally unhappy with the New York Times 5/23 article on the current status of Sen. Hillary Clinton's (D-NY) marriage. Most protested by pointing out GOP infidelities they would like the Times to cover instead. Matt Stoller at MyDD: "Jeb Bush, who is widely seen as the heir to the Bush legacy after positive comments from both his brother and father, has his own problems, with widely circulated rumors about affairs in Tallahassee with none other than then-Secretary of State Katherine Harris. Atrios: "Twice-married Virginia Senator George Allen faces questions over claimed sadistic treatment of his siblings and his fondness for confederate memorabilia despite his having grown up in California." Oliver Willis: "Where's the big splash story on Rudolph Giuliani's bedhopping, or Newt Gingrich leaving his dying wife? Where are the stories on how Laura Bush crashed into and killed a teenager?" Feministe: "And I'll add that before Giuliani married Judith Nathan, he was married to Donna Hanover, who he also had an affair with during his first marriage to his second cousin (that marriage was annulled after 14 years)."

The Left Coaster was no more happy with the story but hoped it got the issue out of the way early: "The piece is somewhat balanced and not as bad as it could have been. In fact, I could argue that in coming out this early, the piece helps Hillary as an inoculator of sorts. But you will see many posts and rants in the center-left blogosphere today and in the coming days, and rightly so, about why the NYT is slobbering so early over the Clintons again, given their pathetic and eventually empty pursuit of them during the 1990's."

BAYH: Don't Tell Kos, But He's Bayh-Partisan

In The Agora reported on a Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) sit-down with IN bloggers:

Bayh's presidential aspirations are no secret. In 2005 alone he visited 22 states, with two visits to both Iowa and New Hampshire. His PAC also raised more money than any other potential Democratic candidate during the first six months of 2005, along with continued fundraising success in '06. He offered a refreshingly candid response about a possible run when he said, "It's no secret that I'm doing all of the things one needs to do" to run for president. ...Bayh's approach on the campaign trail is best summarized in a campaign bumper sticker he suggested to the Des Moines Register: "I kind of like 'Bayh-partisan.'" This theme of partisan reconciliation was echoed numerous times during our lunch today and it will no doubt form the bedrock of his presidential campaign. ... Presidential contenders almost always hold off from too many specifics until the months leading up to the election, but you still have an idea of what's important to them, and the values they'll apply to a given issue. With Bayh the only ideology appears to be a lack of ideology. That may help a him win votes in a red state, but it doesn't instill the type of passion and energy that wins national campaigns. ... In my mind this is Bayh's biggest hurdle, and indeed the challenge facing the national Democratic party. Americans are disillusioned with Bush's leadership, but unsure about their alternative. That attitude will get Democrats a few more House seats and perhaps even a president in '08. But it won't inspire a lasting movement. That is Bayh's challenge.

OBAMA: Well If Hillary's Worried About Him...

Jason Zengerle at The Plank says this line from John HeilenmanNew Yorkpiece , "For some time, the thinking there has been that only two potential candidates have the capacity to toss the chessboard in the air, altering Team Hillary's carefully calibrated plans: Barack Obama and Gore," piqued his interest. Zengerle then writes: "For some reason I had assumed that -- despite heartfelt pleas for him to run--an Obama '08 presidential campaign was not even in the realm of possibility, but evidently some people close to Obama are putting out signals that he is indeed considering a presidential bid. And if you look at the way Obama's acting, he does seem to be laying the groundwork for one. First, there's his Hopefund PAC, which has already distributed close to $2.5 million to Democratic candidates this cycle. ...Spreading money around to Democrats all over the country, making noises about how the Senate maybe isn't the best place for him to affect political change--sounds like a guy thinking about running for president to me!"

LIEBERMAN: Welcome To The Lefty Blogger Doghouse, Stu!

Perhaps wanting to test The Rothenberg Political Report's email inbox capacity, Stu Rothenberg writes that a Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) defeat, "unlikely as it may be, would be a sad, sad chapter in American politics."

Lefty kos wasn't about to shed any tears: "Funny how the establishment in DC, of which Rothenberg is one of its biggest defenders, hates democracy. God f***ing forbid that an incumbent have to justify his existence to the voters of his state! What a f***ing travesty! I mean, once elected, an incumbent shouldn't have to answer to the voters, should he? Really, Rothenberg is one of the worst. Like the rest of the establishment apologists for Lieberman, Stu really is angry that their homeboy has to work to keep his job. Those extremist DC insiders don't believe in democracy and quaint notions such as the "will of the people". All that matters is that their country club and cocktail party buddies get a free pass election after election. I swear, DC, with its media and political elite is a cesspool. Time to wipe it clean and start from scratch.

Lefty Chris Bowers at MyDD managed a similar response sans profanity: "Seriously, for an election analyst, Stuart Rothenberg does not seem to actually like elections very much. Stuart Rothenberg is supposed to be a political analyst who does not take sides. However, in this case, he clearly has taken sides, both against Ned Lamont and against democracy. However, as much as Stuart Rothenberg would like it to be otherwise, Joe Lieberman has no right to continue to hold office simply because he is willing to give the middle finger to the same people who elected him in the first place.

Many lefty bloggers linked to Paul Krugman's attack on Lieberman. AMRERICABlog notes: "Here's another reason why it sucks that the NY Times hides their columnists behind Times Select -- Krugman dissects Lieberman today. ...I always thought the whole sanctimonious gig by Lieberman was mostly just an act. It sure gets him on TV. After Lamont beats him, Joe can do TV full time.

Not all bloggers were impressed with Krugman's analysis. Under the header "Krugman blasts Lieberman (unfairly)" former Pres. Bush advisor Greg Mankiw's Blog concludes: "Now suppose my friend Joe offers me some financial advice: "Greg, you should really pay off that debt now, because waiting a year will cost you an extra $7." How should I respond? (a) "Yes, Joe, you are right." (b) "No, Joe, that's not the best way to think about it." (c) "Joe, you are a liar." I think (a) and (b) are defensible points of view. But Krugman chose (c).

ELECTION'06: One Man's Purgatory Is Another Man's Paradise

The contrast in mood between left and right blogggers could not be greater than when the subject of Election '06 comes up. Lefty kos takes time out of his busy book tour to dream a little dream: "I was daydreaming today of what the 2007 Senate might look like. Not just the possibility of winning it back and having Harry Reid as the majority leader, but the possibility of actually having a new generation of great senators representing their constituents in DC. Just imagine a Senate with: Jon Tester, Montana; Ned Lamont, Connecticut; Bernie Sanders, Vermont; Sherrod Brown, Ohio; Jack Carter, Nevada. ...On this tour I've talked about the short-term goal and the long-term goal. Short term, we work with the Democrats we have in DC. We don't have a choice. But long term, we start replacing the worst of them with good progressives. If we help get those five Democrats and progressives above elected to the Senate, we'll be a lot closer to that long-term goal that we think."

Over at lefty hangout MyDDChris Bowers loves Democracy Corps' latest polls on NJ-07, PA-07, and OH-01: "In the straight-up trial heats that do not include anything except candidate names and titles, Republicans lead all three. However, all three are also competitive. ...None of these elections would currently be considered toss-ups or lean-Democratic, but clearly they are competitive. For races of this tier to be competitive five and a half months before the election, one can certainly see the making of a major national landslide."

Also at MyDD, Jonathan Singer talked with '04 nominee Jerry McNerney who is facing Navy vet. Steve Filson in the Dem. primary for the chance to unseat Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA). Highlights include:

Singer:

Let's move on to a few issues that are pretty central to the Central Valley, I guess you could put it, starting with immigration, which is kind of the big one right now in Congress.McNerney:
Jonathan, I haven't seen too much interest in exporting all of the undocumented people in this country. I haven't seen too much of that, although I have had one or two messages along those lines. Most people are interested in something that's more balanced, and that's certainly where I stand. The Kennedy-McCain approach I think is pretty good and it would be beneficial to our country.Singer:
Let's move from domestic issues to a couple of national security issues starting with Iraq. The situation in Iraq, and even in Afghanistan, appears to be, well, let's just say below the expectations that were set several years when we went into those two countries. Congressman Murtha from Pennsylvania has put forward a plan to set a deadline for redeploying troops - in other words moving them out of the country to neighboring areas. Do you support the plan?McNerney:
I'm 100 percent in favor of Congressman Murtha's plan for several reasons. First of all, I think that we can have widespread, broad support for that approach. ...But really what it comes down to is if we put a public timetable out there, we'll put the Iraqis on notice that they need to be responsible for their own security and it will give them an urgency to find solutions to their differences. Another thing that it will do is it will give the United Nations an opportunity and a motive to get involved in Iraq and be part of the solution. So those two things together I think could end up making that the best possible alternative for our national policy in Iraq.

Righty disenchantment with the GOP bubbles up whenever immigration is discussed. A Human Events article prompts Daily Pundit to write: "The content of this article can be summed up as, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." But the American public is too ignorant (of history, law, and governance) and too stupid and apathetic to stand up to these arrogant would-be rulers, who (rightly) regard those who have trusted them to represent them well as hapless tools who can be safely ignored. Even more disappointing are the Republicans who will swallow this dreck simply because it is being ladled down their gaping throats by Republican Senators and a Republican President." The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler chimes in: "That they managed to screw us so utterly back then was because we didn't know any better. We do now."

Under the header "Cut Their Pay and Send Them Home?" righty Tapscott's Copy Desk comments: " Remember Sen. Lamar Alexander's campaign slogan when he was seeking the White House years ago? I was reminded of that slogan last week while observing the events on Capitol Hill as the House voted to limit the number of bureaucrats taking vacations on official business. Putting a limit on such bureaucratic fun junkets was a good thing but what about the emerging evidence of hypocrisy in the House lobbying reform bill that requires public identification of earmkarks and their congressional sponsors? One small step forward on bureaucrats junkets, two giant leaps backward on the lobbying bill."

Even GOP-diehard Hugh Hewitt has stopped giving to national party organizations: "As I argued on Saturday morning, it is time to start defending the Senate majority so that the next Supreme Court nominee can get through the Judiciary Committee and past a filibuster, and so that we are not saddled with a radically obstructionist Congress just as the confrontation with Iran enters its crucial phase and Iraq its first years of democratic government. I am still refusing to donate to the National Republican Senatorial Committee because of its support for Lincoln Chafee, who never gets the big votes right and whose seniority is a matter of concern."

DEAN: Pick This Out Of Your Nose, Begala

The Drudge Report pulled back from its Howard Dean supported LG Mitch Landrieu (D-LA) story 5/22. Drudge Report concludes: "DNC Communications director Karen Finney explained: "The DNC does not as a policy get involved in Democratic primaries. ... The only thing that the DNC did was a campaign helping ensure that displaced voters had an opportunity to vote." The DRUDGE REPORT takes Chairman Dean and his spokesman at their word."

Preemptive Karma retorts: "The only reason conservatives take Drudge seriously is because he once scored on the blue dress story. Being 1 for 258,756 is enough to get you carte blanche with the conservative media." And Hullabaloo adds: "Poor, poor Republicans. They are reduced to dragging out that poor old fossilized 90s retread Drudge to falsely smear Democrats again. That's a sad comment on the rightwing blogosphere if you ask me."

Clinton Administration aide Donnie Fowler took to The Huffington Post to highlight a letter sent to Democratic Party leaders by his father former DNC chair Donald L. Fowler. Highlights include: "Recent complaints by some Washington pundits with limited agendas that the Democratic National Committee should withdraw support from state Democratic parties are short-sighted and misplaced. ... One of the long-time shortcomings of the Democratic National Committee has been its control by Washington people whose visions dim south of the Potomac, west of Chevy Chase, and north of RFK stadium. This lack of understanding of anything much about American politics other than the fees of Washington campaign consultants is what has given our party defeats in 2000, 2002, and 2004. We Democrats shouldn't be led down that same bumpy road in 2006 and 2008. ...Investment in state parties is the functional equivalent of research and development expenditures by corporations. To be successful in the future, you must invest resources now. Vast majorities of Democrats outside the Beltway support Governor Dean's policy of reinvigorating state parties. Our message to the DNC: Keep it up. We're on the road to victory."

GOOGLE: Just Another Small Company Trying To Make A Buck

After reading NewsBusters post on Google de-listing of righty bloggers, plenty on the right were perfectly willing to condemn Google as "Big Brother" "hypocrite" "censors" (see Macsmind, Flopping Aces, and Riehl World View) but most thought Google was just trying to avoid controversy by avoiding discussion of Islam.

Littlegreenfootballs: "As this section demonstrates, I think the idea that Google News excludes conservative sites, while probably true, is only a small part of the problem. The real pattern is that the people who pick sites to be included in the index of Google News are biased against sites that are known for being critical of Islam." Outside the Beltway: "The common thread is not so much conservative politics, per se, but a particular viewpoint toward Islamic radicalism. All of these sites either focus on our at frequently comment in a negative manner about the connection between Islam and terrorism." The Jawa Report: "Seems to me the common thread to all this is that some person(s) gets upset. Then, rather than use their speech, they pull the good old 3rd grade trick, "I'm going to tell!" So Google responds to those complaints because- well, that's what corporations do. Rather than risk (the money) taking a stand you always attempt to make the whiner happy or at least make him think you did."

BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: Wunder Kid

Today the Blogometer talks to conservative Ian Schwartz, who writes Expose the Left.

What is your full name?

Ian Schwartz

What is your age?

18

Where did you grow up?

Baltimore, Maryland

Where do you live now?

Baltimore

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

At this time, I am currently a blogger. However, during the summer I will be employed at the RNC.

When did you start blogging and why?

I started politically blogging -- and my political blog -- in October of 2004, a month before the election. I started to blog for several reasons. One, I read and enjoyed several political blogs. Second, I knew how to blog because I had contributed to a non-political blog in the past. Third, I thought it was a good way to vent/get my political opinion out there and discuss it with others.

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

Several ...Novak saying "bulls**t" and walking off the CNN set...Kennedy going nuts on the Senate floor...Maher rationalizing Moussaoui.

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

I usually post something small in the morning, however I don't get in my groove until the early afternoon. During the week, normal blogging hours are from 12pm to 12am -- yes 12 hours, with only several breaks to eat. I'm an addict, what can I say. However, on the weekends, I actually have a social life .. and usually write up 6 or so posts in the early afternoon and I will set them to post later in the day so readers see new content.

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

Michelle Malkin. No one is spared, conservative or liberal, from her wrath. She believes in conservative values and will call out "conservatives", who aren't being conservatives. ( i.e. President Bush)

Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?

Michael Barone

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

Probably Hannity & Colmes , I've enjoyed it a lot lately.

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

www.nytimes.com, www.washingtonpost.com, www.washingtontimes.com, www.examiner.com, www.cnn.com, www.boston.com, www.sfgate.com, www.freep.com, www.chron.com, www.foxnews.com

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

www.drudgereport.com, www.instapundit.com, www.michellemalkin.com, www.huffingtonpost.com (just for a laugh), www.theonion.com, www.humanevents.com, blogometer.nationaljournal.com, www.rightwingnews.com, www.lucianne.com, www.newsbusters.org, corner.nationalreview.com, www.olbermannwatch.com, www.polipundit.com www.hotair.com, www.fark.com, byrddroppings.typepad.com, ace.mu.nu/

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

Hardly, but I will read the Sports section on the weekend.

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

For a while I thought that the 'new media' would work against the 'old media' and eventually kill it. But now I see that a lot of the 'new media' is become the 'old media'. For example, there are several blog sites becoming like the MSM, ( i.e. The Huffington Post) I don't like Arianna anyway, but her site reminds me a lot like the MSM.

Anyway, I still think that the new media can over take the old media, just as long as it sticks to its true meaning. The best comparison I can make is the new media is becoming like the current Republican controlled congress breaking away from the Contract with America. The new media has been popular for quite some time that it's breaking from its roots.

In five years, I think that dead-tree will become more unpopular than it already is and the majority will read it online. However, a strong majority of people will know the MSM is biased. As for the 'new media', I believe it will have a strong presence, and traffic will increase 3-fold for popular bloggers.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: New Englandization

Mark Leon Goldberg at TAPPED writes: "Just as the Democrats were purged of their southern roots in 1994, so too might an overdue regional realignment visit the northeast in 2006. If, for example, voters in Connecticut remove Chris Shays, Rob Simmons, and Nancy Johnson from office, then November 2006 could be the moment that future historians cite as when the bluing of blue America caught up with the reddening of the red states. To be sure, there are more congressional districts in the south than in the northeast, so I tend to agree with Ezra that it is still a stretch to think that we'll hear the words "Speaker Pelosi" in November. Still, if nutmeggers purge themselves of congressional Republicans, and if Rhode Islanders dump Lincoln Chafee, then an historical moment this will be: The New Englandization of the Democratic party will all be all but complete.

LEST WE FORGET: White Women Can't Rap

OK, such broad generalization's are probably unfair. So let's just stipulate that this white woman can't rap.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:29 PM

May 22, 2006

5/22: Core Competencies?

Both left and right blogosphere's are very young, but already each side appears to be specializing in different skills. The left showed their strength in internal Dem. power struggles (see DNC Chair Howard Dean) with cable co. exec. Ned Lamont strong showing at CT's Dem convention 5/19. On the right, bloggers think they may have a Rathergate repeat in USA Today's NSA coverage. Both sides ought to become a little more self-aware of how the Beltway may try to use them as Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) appearance at the New School and his staff's subsequent appearance at lefty blogger sites smell a bit too much like a set-up ... but a set-up that worked judging by rare righty praise for McCain.

LIEBERMAN: Nedmentum

Lefty bloggers were ecstatic over cable co. exec. Ned Lamont 33% showing at CT's Dem convention 5/19 earning him a spot on the 08/06 primary ballot to challenge Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT).

• Matt Stoller at MyDD: "Ned Lamont is CRUSHING Joe Lieberman. ... His side is incredibly dejected."
• Crooks and Liars: "This vote had to play with Joe's head. It's amazing that even after Joe called many party delegates and pressured them to vote for his eminence, they resisted."
• LamontBlog: "Joe Lieberman was severely rebuked tonight by the grassroots and the insiders of his own party. ... Lieberman supporters are walking away completely dejected. Anyone who thought this campaign wasn't for real... now it's for real.
• Middle Earth Journal: "This has to be a wake up call for Lieberman. Since Lieberman gets much of his support from Republicans in general elections he may have some real problems in a one on one primary. This is a good opportunity to show Marshall Wittmann and the DLC how powerful the netroots are.
• The News Blog: "Schumer and Reid need to lock down a pledge on Lieberman's part to not run an independent campaign. ...This is the last thing the party wanted, a Connecticut primary, but for two years, Lieberman has backstabbed and undercut other Dems with no sanction.
• firedoglake: "Do they know how monumental this is? Do they understand how Chuck Schumer is going to be sh***ing sideways from now until November, worried about what Lieberman will do next, what he's going to do next, and what we will do as a result? And what would the blogosphere do if the DSCC were to support an independent over a Democratic candidate? Again, I have no crystal ball but the words "unleash unholy hell" do suggest themselves.

Observer Taegan Goddard noted that the race now has natl implications: "Though the incumbent won the official backing of his party, it was a stunning rebuke by a virtually unknown candidate. ...Worse for Lieberman, he now faces what will be the first national campaign of the election season, turning what should be a state primary into a nationwide referendum on Iraq and President Bush's foreign policy. Both men will look far outside Connecticut for resources to fuel their campaigns.

WH'08 I: The Enemy Of My Enemy ...

If Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was looking for ways to boost his conservative street creds, provoking lefty wrath at the New School's 5/20 commencement sure did the trick. Where student booing and heckling left off, lefty blogger derision began. The Left Coaster: "I applaud the students at the university who didn't give McCain a free pass like the media continues to do. Mr. "Straight Talk" has become Mr. Lap Dog for the evangelical right since he decided to throw away his principles to do anything necessary to become president. Everywhere McCain goes to be worshipped, and partake in what he anticipates are more "we love you John" sessions, he should be greeted with disdain and disappointment." Ari Melber at The Huffington Post: "The New School met the New McCain -- a self-proclaimed maverick who panders to bigots and supports President Bush's every failure -- and it looks like people don't like the New McCain."

Fellow commencement speaker Jean Rohe took to The Huffington Post to explain her decision to address McCain directly instead of completing her original speech. Sensing an opportunity to further antagonize the lefty blogosphere McCain aide Mark Salter took to The Huffington Post's comment boards and wrote: "Ms. Rohe and those of her fellow graduates ... proved ... that they could learn a thing or two about tolerance and respect from the students of Liberty University. ... It took no courage to do what you did, Ms. Rohe. It was an act of vanity and nothing more."

In addition to hundreds of supportive Huffington Post readers, BlondSense chimed in: "I am thankful that these students at New School University ARE NOT TOLERANT of politicians like John McCain." Matt Stoller at MyDD went after Salter: "So Mark Salter ... flipped out. ... Salter is also heavily tied into McCain's cover-up of the Abramoff-Norquist matter, which McCain never bothered to fully investigate for fear of upsetting the Republican establishment."

Rich Lowry live-blogged the speech and observed: "Well, that was a pretty ... shameful performance by The New School student body, but I suppose it could have been worse." Lowry later offered some conclusions: "1) The solipsism of the student Left is incredible. That a war hero would come to talk to you about what he's learned in life, and your reaction would be to shout-"it's about me!" Amazing. 2) The forfeit of foreign-policy idealism on the left at the moment is near total. McCain got some applause when he said we should be doing more in Darfur-maybe because that's a cause that has an anti-Bush tinge. But his defense of American values and spreading them to the world was met with indifference or hostility. 3) McCain gets credit for going to such a hostile forum. He's one of the best on the right in pulling off such things, of course. In sheer political terms, one of his challenges is to get hated by the right people and shake his reputation as the media's and liberals' favorite Republican. Getting heckled by left-wingers helps." The Blogometer can't remember the last time such kind words were spoken about McCain at The Corner. Non-McCain lovers Riehl World View and Flopping Aces were also moved to offer rare words of McCain support.

Not all right-leaners were impressed. Ann Althouse detected some laziness: "And isn't he, really, just asking for it by going about giving speeches at politically liberal colleges? He's taking advantage of an opportunity, a shot at a captive audience that's under tremendous social pressure to sit still and listen. How hard can you be on the audience that also sees fit to take advantage? ...At the very least, he should have prepared a graduation speech and not a political speech. A genuinely with-it politician would also have come prepared to talk directly and spontaneously to the situation unfolding in front of him. ... The fact is he sleepwalked through what could have been his moment."

WH'08 II: Mirror Images?

The Atlanta-Journal Constitution'sPolitical Insider saved from tidbits from their print piece on Ex-NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani's (R) 5/18 fund raiser for ex-Christian Coalition chair Ralph Reed's (R) LG campaign: "Giuliani spoke of Reed's "helping to elect several presidents." Left unsaid was the fact that all of them were named Bush. "The president worked very, very hard for the tax cuts," Giuliani said. His lips formed around the name "Bush" once, in passing. ...The Reed-Giuliani luncheon was preceded by a $1,000-per-ticket VIP reception. Reed supporter Dot Burns, a longtime GOP activist and confidante of the late Paul Coverdell, was one of the insiders. "We talked about the war, mainly immigration, which seems to be on everyone's mind these days," Burns said. "I believe in making it easier for people to become citizens. Too many people depend on them in their businesses." That, we should point out, is probably not the official position of the Reed campaign. On the key issues where Giuliani and Reed disagree - abortion, gun control, and gay rights - Burns said: "That didn't come up. I think our issues now are above that. I think our issues now are with world peace, and those [other] issues need to be put on the back burners."

Righty leaner Ryan Sager at RCP Blog noted: "McCain agrees with the Religious Right on most things, but they hate him. Giuliani disagrees with the Religious Right on most things, but they (at least for now) love him. This is borne out by polling. To take just one example, a November 2004 Gallup poll found that, in a field of Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Jeb Bush, Giuliani came out on top with 47 percent of the vote from all Republicans. He got 47 percent from the subset of conservative Republicans. Meanwhile, McCain got only 23 percent of the subset of conservative Republicans (26 percent from all Republicans)."

Lefty bloggers also picked up on the McCain comparison. The Horse's Mouth: "Rudy's strategic dilemma is very similar to McCain's. Both have a reputation for independence, but the problem for both of them is that when they do what it takes to be competitive in a GOP primary -- that is, cozy up to folks they disagree with on all sorts of things -- that sense of each one's independence simply vanishes, and each suddenly morphs into just another pandering politician, into the wizard behind the curtain." The Politicker: "Giuliani's support for gay rights, gun control, and abortion, to say nothing of his three marriages, could give him trouble with the GOP's evangelical base should he choose to make a run for the White House in 2008, so his decision to hoof it to Georgia to endorse Reed is a potentially shrewd, if transparent, move. ...So it's a perfect political marriage -- almost as cozy as John McCain's newfound romance with evangelical powerhouse Jerry Falwell.

The New Donkey thinks Guiianni has other motives: "Personally, I've never taken Rudy's presidential prospects that seriously. And until he starts spending less time raking in cash on the motivational speaker circuit, and more time hanging out at pot-luck dinners in Iowa, I won't be convinced that events like his appearance for Reed represent anything other than fluffing pillows with the Right."

ROVE: Growing Pains

As the blogosphere tries to become a source for news, and not just a place to discuss it, there will inevitably be setbacks. All sides can agree that 5/19's non-indictment of WH dep. CoS Karl Rove was such a set back for truthout.org. Truthout Executive Director Mark Ash issued a statement 5/19, including: "The time has now come, however, to issue a partial apology to our readership for this story. While we paid very careful attention to the sourcing on this story, we erred in getting too far out in front of the news-cycle. In moving as quickly as we did, we caused more confusion than clarity. And that was a disservice to our readership and we regret it."

TalkLeft also highlights an Ash interview at Salon: "Ash said that Truthout needs to "cool down the reactor a little bit" as it tries to learn more about the "cycle" on which Fitzgerald's legal team is working. "We're not in a position to continue on without an official confirmation," he said. "Unless we get some official confirmation, we're going to look stupider and stupider."

Righties were not about to let this one slip by. Joe's Dartblog: "A new paradigm in yellow journalism: Make a wild assertion on any day, and if ever it come to be true, your reporting is fully affirmed. Anything more egregious than a parking fine on Rove's part, now, will validate the original Truthout story." Chickenhawk Express: "Basically that means that if Rove is indicted any time in this millenium, TruthOut can claim they were the first on the story. ...Couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch of liars." Also piling on: Riehl World View, Dean's World, Rathergate, Jonah Goldberg at The Corner, and Protein Wisdom.

Few lefty defenders could be found. The Democratic Daily: "Now if I could just figure out what this really means." Iowa Liberal: "Everybody hates a liberal that gets it wrong. While conservative pundits and new sources are allowed to be wrong 99 times as long as they're right once, the reverse logic applies to liberals (see: Dan Rather)." The Political Animal: "I, of course, have no way to judge the truth of either side, although it continues to be strange that Leopold claims to have multiple sources on this story and no other media outlet has even one. In any case, there's damn little wiggle room left here."

Truthout was not about to fade into the night...they issued a lengthy explanation 5/21, including: "Further, we know - and we want our readers to know - that we are dependent on confidential sources. We know that a report based solely on information obtained from confidential sources bears some inherent risks. We know that this is - by far - the biggest story we have ever covered, and that we are learning some things as we go along. Finally, we know that we have the support of those who have always supported us, and that must now earn the support of those who have joined us as of late."

TalkLeft followed up on truthout's new assertions wit Rove spokesman Mark Corallo and got a response including: "Karl Rove has not been indicted. He has not been told he has been indicted. He has not been told he is a target. His status remains unchanged. ...Those reporting to the contrary are "bald-faced liars or completely delusional or both."

Byron York at The Corner notes the truthout wasn't the only lefty blog source pushing the Rove-indictment story: "In addition to Jason Leopold, the Karl Rove "indictment" story is also being driven by a writer named Wayne Madsen. A quick look at Nexis and Google shows that Madsen has written quite a bit over the years. In one article, from Counterpoint in 2003, Madsen cited "people close to the Pope" to report that Pope John Paul II worried that George W. Bush was the Antichrist."

DNC: The Not So Invisible Hand Of Dean?

The Drudge Report posted 5/21: "The Democratic National Committee (DNC) secretly placed political operatives in the city of New Orleans to work against the re-election efforts of incumbent Democrat Mayor Ray Nagin."

Righty Wizbang was not surprised: "My reply? Duh! Of course they did. In case you still don't get it: It is basically a given that the Dems lost a seat in the Senate last night." RedState was a bit more cautious: "This being Drudge, one can never be 100% certain, and of course Howard Dean is hardly going to publicly admit that he not only tried to run a Democratic incumbent out of office, but failed miserably in the attempt. ...Why did Dean try to unseat Nagin? If you buy Paul's logic that this is bad news for the national Democrats because Landrieu wanted to rebuild New Orleans' slums and a Nagin-led New Orleans may not be as friendly turf for statewide and national Democrats who need it to have a chance in Louisiana, then the partisan logic is clear. Moreover, Nagin is a former Republican who endorsed Bush in 2000, and DNC loyalists may have felt he was an unreliable party man."

Lefty Chris Bowers at MyDD quotes Donna Brazille: "The Democratic National Committee did not endorse any candidate for Mayor of New Orleans. The Party's role was simply to help educate, inform and assist displaced voters." And goes on to complain: "It is completely unsourced. ... The article is clearly an attempt to try and draw a wedge in the Democratic Party between whites and African-Americans. ...The article is also an attempt to discredit Dean, the fifty-state strategy, and the netroots which have supported that strategy." Bowers could have left it there but chose to make a larger point and demonstrate that he's never heard of truthout.org: "There is something else that this story demonstrates: a difference in the willingness of many major left-wing sites online and major right-wing sites online to run with unsubstantiated stories. The progressive political blogosphere is quite capable of self-policing, if for no other reason then we know the right-wing and the established news media are extremely eager to pounce on our mistakes to try and discredit us."

GOP: I'm Gonna Take My Ball And Go Home

Righty bloggers extended their critique of Pres. Bush through the weekend with GOP operative Richard Viguerie's 5/21 Washington Post piece: "Bush's Base Betrayal" Many righties agreed:

• Tom Bevan at RCP Blog: "Viguerie's piece is yet another sign of the conservative exodus taking place from the Bush administration."
• Daily Pundit: "This is Richard Viguerie, who has personally been responsible for electing more conservatives to office than any other man alive. I take people like Viguerie seriously. The RINO Party should as well."
• Tapscott's Copy Desk: "But the lesson here isn't simply that the GOP has for long taken its conservative base for granted. ...We conservatives keep wondering when the GOP Establishment will learn. I ask when we will learn.
• Professor Bainbridge: "The GOP likely will take a big beating in 2006 and they're going to blame what Hugh Hewitt is calling "the Tapscottian Caucus and their even more radical Bainbridgist revos."

Not everyone on the right was ready to give up. California Yankee: "Numerous pundits take Viguerie's outburst and his suggestion that conservatives could sit out the next election as another ominous sign that the Democrats will regain control of Congress. I think Viguerie overstates the case when he argues millions of conservatives will again stay home this November." Andrew Sullivan: "It should be remembered, however, that Viguerie once said similar things about Ronald Reagan (prompting a very rare Reagan personal smack-down.) But he's on firmer ground this time." Roger Ailes notes that not every GOP defeat was due to conservative betrayal: "You're losing your touch, Dick. You forgot how Barry Goldwater sold out true Republican principles."

Some lefties hoped conservative discontent might lead to common cause. Democrats.com: "Isn't it interesting that grassroots conservatives share the hostility of grassroots progressives to Big Business? ...Maybe we could put the perennially divisive social issues aside for a few years and work together to get powerful corporations out of politics altogether." Booman Tribune: "The fact of the matter is that both parties are ignoring their grass-roots supporters in favor of big business. The code word for corporatism is 'centrism'. Viguerie favors a similar approach to the one I am pushing. I am calling for a party within a party, funded by small donations from grass-roots and independent of the DSCC, the DCCC, and the DNC. Viguerie is calling for something even more independent."

IMMIGRATION: Why Now?

Righty bloggers were predictably apoplectic over the Senate's 5/18 vote to allow illegal aliens to collect Social Security benefits based on past illegal employment (see Texas Rainmaker, Smoke on the Water, Ankle Biting Pundits, Riehl World View, and The Lone Wacko) so the Blogometer will highlight a decent exchange between bloggers on why the immigration issue is blooming now.

Jon Henke at TCSDaily:

The idea that we need to "control the border" simply because it's important to enforce the law by exerting control of the border is both a tautology and an invitation to tyranny. So why this, why now? Apparently, we've reached a tipping point of sorts; a perfect storm of post-9/11 security concern, cultural angst, and labor protectionism. Unfortunately, the restrictionists appear to be far more interested in simply doing something than in effectively resolving those concerns. There are, in the end, solutions far more consistent with US values, national security and the free-market wariness of govt.

Henke emailed John Hawkins at Right Wing News for a response. John obliged:

To begin with, this issue didn't spring to life spontaneously, like Athena from the head of Zeus. It has been building for a long time. ... Initially, I think the illegal immigration issue was driven by the fact that Americans place a very high value on assimilation and, unfortunately, the illegals who are coming here very noticeably aren't assimilating. ...When you drive down one of the busiest roads in a city like Charlotte, which is far from the borders, and you see multiple businesses that have up signage that is entirely in Spanish, that's an indication of a problem. When you hear about hospitals going out of business because so many illegals are pouring over the borders and not paying their bills, that's an indication of a problem. It's an indication that instead of our changing the people that are coming here, they're changing us, and that's a bad thing.

Ryan Preston at Hot Air chimed in with an unsolicited response:

I'd love to hear someone from that side make a cogent argument that having open borders in the middle of a war is a good idea. And I'd love for anyone on the open borders side to acknowledge the recent history of the issue. Or to acknowledge that the previous seven amnesties since 1986 have not curbed illegal immigration, and have made it worse. And I'd love to hear the argument that rewarding illegal behavior won't beget more illegal behavior. Many on the libertarian right are usually quick to note correctly that when government encourages a behavior by rewarding it, you usually get more of that behavior. Except when it comes to immigration.
So why is illegal immigration such a hot button now? It's actually very simple. First, it's an election year and that always stokes the passions, and it's worse this year because the tone deaf administration actually decided to tout its stance on immigration as a way to fire up the base. Well, it did fire up the base-against the administration. Slick move.

Henke then responded at his personal blog QandO:

"Well, the point was not to lay out a comprehensive plan so much as point out the incoherence of the "border control" faction. However, I did conclude with the suggestion that a policy of welcoming peaceful migrants rather than erecting barriers to their entry would help solve a lot of the cultural and security problems about which the restrictionists worry."

Through the beauty of the web Preston shot back:

And I think he's confused on terminology-"peaceful migrants" and illegal aliens aren't the same thing. "Peaceful migrants" do not overrun the property of law-abiding citizens by the thousands every day. Illegal aliens from south of the border do that every single day.
In short, what we have coming in through Mexico to the tune of about 6,000 "peaceful migrants" a day would be called a refugee crisis if were going on anywhere else in the world. We need to get our heads around that. And we need to find ways to encourage resource-rich Mexico to join the first world, which is where it belongs.

Elsewhere in the blogosphere, Hawkins interview Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) at Right Wing News. Highlights: "John Hawkins: So you don't think amnesty will get through? Jack Kingston: No, and I can tell you that there are about 180 House members (who've) drawn a pretty strong line in the sand on that." Hyscience took note of the exchange: "If what Congressman Kingston is saying about the House blocking amnesty holds true, then at least there's a chance that the Senate reforms can be diluted. But I can't help but wonder if all this hoopla about immigration reform on the part of our politicians in Washington is nothing more than a big act and all show, and after all is said and done, the ONLY result of all the talk and all the new legislation is to legalize the current illegal immigrant status quo, and in effect, the only thing that gets changed is the definitions."

BLOGGERS VS. MSM: Here We Go Again?

Righty bloggers are going to war against the Los Angeles Times and the USA Today over their recent coverage of immigration and the NSA. Words like "Rathergate" are floating around.

On the immigration front, righties are up in arms over a 5/18 Times story quoting landscaper Cyndi Smallwood and identifying her as "ambivalent" on immigration issues. Beyond Borders googled her name and found out "she is a member of the California Landscape Contractor's Association's Immigration Task Force" that has been qouted in a number of press accounts coming out against the House's immigration plan. Beyond Borders concludes: "Wow! If traveling to Washington DC to lobby for a trade association, planting pro-guest worker program quotes in multiple press outlets and backing a specific faction in the immigration reform debate is considered ambivalence on immigration reform I'd like to see the Times version of an activist!"

Michelle Malkin demands: "I would like the LA Times to explain its failure to disclose these relevant details. Was this laziness and incompetence on the part of the reporter? Or something else? Will they go back and let readers know the full picture of who this woman is? What else aren't they telling us?" Also piling on: Sister Toldjah, littlegreenfootballs, and Texas Rainmaker.

On the NSA front righty NewsBusters touts the following finding: "Leslie Cauley, the USA Today reporter who last week "broke" the news that three major U.S. telecommunications companies were assisting the National Security Agency in building a database to more easily track any communications by potential terrorists, is listed as a donor to former House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, according to a search of The Center for Responsive Politics Web site, www.opensecrets.org. ...With the phone companies demanding a retraction and her own Democratic connections now revealed, the "value" of her unnamed sources seems increasingly dubious. Could Leslie Cauley may be on her way to becoming a print version of CBS's disgraced Mary Mapes?

Righty Wizbang also sees Rathergate angles: "And finally, the USAToday is pushing the "they didn't object" angle as a confirmation of their story. We all remember how well that worked out for CBS's John Roberts. Here's how the editors at USAToday phrased it, "On the night before the story was published, the newspaper described the story in detail to BellSouth, and the company did not challenge the newspaper's account. We'll that settles it; it must be true." Powerline, Atlas Shrugs, and The American Mind have similar takes.

ELECTION '06 ROUNDUP: Role Reversal

Lefty Chris Bowers at MyDD looks at Rep. Ed Case (D) primary challenge to Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI) and issues a challenge to rival Dems: "I also think that this election has a useful purpose. If anyone has the gall to claim that progressives are wasting Democratic resources in 2006 by challenging incumbents like Lieberman, just point to Hawaii where conservatives are doing the same thing. How dare the DLC waste Democratic resources like this! Don't they know the real target should be Republicans? It might be fun to compare the final results in Hawaii to the final results in Connecticut. Let's see who can run the better primary challenge."

Moving east righty Sean Hackbarth at The American Mind reports on WI Gov. hopeful Rep. Mark Green's recent blogger sit down. Highlights include: "He wants to make Republicans comfortable to know "they are running with a guy who supports lowering the tax burden" and limiting government. ...Green doesn't "believe that any research should be pursued without some idea of there being ethics and morality to it." ...My questions allowed Green to go off on how disaffected he was with the UW System. He called it "burearucratically out of control. ...As a product of the UW System he remains loyal to it. He just wants reforms. "They're great. I just don't think they've been led very well."

Completing the trip to the east coast righty Riehl World View asks fellow righties to pay more attention to the NJ Sen. race: "However, a look at the New Jersey Senate race between challenger Tom Kean (R), who recently launched a website, and Senator Bob Menendez (D), suggests the DNC may need to be looking over its shoulder, too. Despite documented ties to the corrupt New Jersey political machine which insiders believe contributed more to the downfall of former NJ Gov. James McGreevey than his sexual preference, appointed U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez was given a leg up when appointed by increasingly unpopular NJ Gov. Jon Corzine to take his place in the Senate."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Is Google The Fox Of The Blogosphere?

Righties Noel and Mark Sheppard at The American Thinker see something "frighteningly ominous" over at Google: "Google, without any prior explanation or notice, has been terminating its News relationship with conservative e-zines and web journals. ...At first blush, one can easily ignore such business decisions by the most powerful company on the Internet as being routine. However, on closer examination, such behavior could give one relatively small (when measured by the size of its workforce) technology corporation a degree of political might that frankly dwarfs even its current financial prowess. ...

"To better understand the hypocrisy here, a little background concerning Google technology is required. When Google News launched its Beta Release Site in April 2002, it introduced to the world a new paradigm in information delivery. Its mission: To construct a totally unbiased news engine, based on a principle of human nonintervention, fully automated both in its gathering and editing of news. ...

"In the case of the aforementioned conservative e-zines...as well as the inaccessibility of the May 19 NewsBusters article on this subject at Google News...it appears that a human element is involved in making such decisions that is overruling an intentionally and necessarily impartial algorithm. ...

"As comforting as the mission statement of unbiased reporting driven by algorithm rather than opinion may sound on paper, the truth is that, with all "approved" news sources contained in a single table, team Google retains complete editorial authority over the parents of the information to which they give birth.

LEST WE FORGET: The Candidate Maker

Now that kos can revel in cable co. exec. Ned Lamont's good showing 5/19, it's only fair he take some gentle ribbing. Allah at Hot Airremixes Lamont's latest television ad with smile inducing results.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:42 PM

May 19, 2006

5/19: Lamont, Lieberman, and Leopold

Reputations are on the line in lefty land. Author and blogger Jason Leopold is looking for vindication from a possible WH dep. CoS Karl Rove indictment 5/19. Also as much as the biggy lefty bloggers can try to down play cable co. exec. Ned Lamont's CT Dem. convention performance, if Lamont does miss 15% it offers all of Kos' critics another "defeat" arrow to attack him with. Meanwhile the drumbeat of low poll numbers and scandals is producing noticeable strain on the righty blogosphere while Gen. Wesley Clark and son raise their blogosphere profile.

LIEBERMAN: For Neophytes, They Sure Know How To Play The Expectations Game

Lefty bloggers were out in force downplaying cable co. exec. Ned Lamont's chances at the 5/19 CT Dem. convention. Matt Stoller at MyDD guessed Lamont "will get between 5-15%." DavidNYC at Swing State Project, kos and firedoglake all agree that Lamont will not get the 15% necessary to qualify for the ballot.

The talking points didn't end there though. All four bloggers go on to claim that going the signature route would actually be better for Lamont. Swing State Project: "When you have to petition to get on the ballot, that does two things for you. First, you're forced to ramp up your field operation early. Second, you get the names of tons and tons of supporters." kos: "But Lamont will get the signatures he needs. And it's the better way to go -- having 500 volunteers farming out across the state, educating their Democratic neighbors about Lamont and informing them that this August they will have a choice." Firedoglake: "It's probably much better from a symbolic point of view if Ned makes history by being the first candidate to force a primary by collecting signatures and going around the party machinery, which would happen if he didn't get 15% of the convention delegates." The Blogometer notes that evil political consultants only dream about message discipline like this.

Left bloggers also highlighted reports that Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) has backed out of a pledge to Sen. Dem. leaders not to run as an independent should he lose to Lamont in the primary. Matt Stoller at MyDD: "And Lieberman keeps making political mistakes, apparently going back on his word to Reid and Schumer by failing to rule out running as an Independent. I'm not 100% sure that the reporter is quoting Lieberman after he made the promise to Reid, but it does look that way. I'd put a call in to the Lieberman office to find out, but he doesn't talk to bloggers." Firedoglake: "Matt Stoller reported Harry Reid made a deal with Holy Joe whereby he pledged to run as a Democrat, and in return they would endorse him. Quite predictably, Lieberman is already selling Reid out. From today's Hartford Courant: "Lieberman has since refused to rule out an independent run for the Senate, should he lose the primary in August."

In response to Lieberman campaign manager Sean Smith'sLA Times quote on Lamont's ads: ""They're cute little spots. But cute never saved a job or stood up to the big oil companies," Atrios retorted: "Neither did Joe "Voted for the Energy Bill" Lieberman."

Matt Stoller at MyDD was surprised to see The Connecticut Employees Union Independent back away from Lieberman: "This is surprising. I was told early on that labor support would be critical for Lieberman, and that his record on labor was very good. Then again, neither Iraq nor Alito are particularly good for any of us."

Lamont's new ads finally got righties talking about the race. TKS at NRO, Hit and Run, Done with Mirrors, and protein wisdom all hope kos has a long career appearing in Dem. campaigns.

Message discipline was not confined to the left ... a number of righties hit Lamont for being a one issue candidate. IOWAVoice: "That's what the Democratic Party is running on this year, folks. Not immigration, not the war, not taxes, not abortion, not the budget, not corruption. Just "let's get George." Sundries Shack: "So, basically, Lamont is running on the platform of "Elect me and we can forget all about those mean terrorists." Blue Crab Boulevard: "In an abundance of zeal to unseat Lieberman, who is a very reliable party-line voter on almost every Democratic issue, the Lamont supporters are taking a major player out of the national campaign. Lieberman is an utterly reliable Democrat except on the issue of Iraq."

GOP: Who Knew Jacobin Was Such A Dirty Word?

Ex-Director of The Heritage Foundation's Center for Media and Public Policy Mark Tapscott at Tapscott's Copy Desk set off a righty blogswarm this week with a post titled "Conservative Battle Fatigue" which looked at tanking GOP poll numbers and mused on whether it might be better for the GOP to lose Congress in 06 to "setup for a strengthend conservative majority to return in Congress in 2008, most likely with a White House occupant wise enough to recognize that the "emerging Republican(i.e conservative) majority" had become a reality."

TKS at NRO didn't want to go that route: "But I've also been thinking lately about how life rarely seems to go according to plan. ... Bush's approval rating will take another hit after he vetoes the "Every Voter Gets Free Health Care And Free Prescription Drugs And Rent Or Mortgage Subsidies And A Pony Too Act of 2007." ...Maybe the public will strongly oppose the Democratic agenda after two years. But then again, maybe they'll like it...Maybe. Or, you know, Republicans could skip the losing part and try the crazy idea of winning this year." TKS also wasn't ready to concede 06 is going to turn out as bad as current poll numbers suggest.

Professor Bainbridge thought Tapscott might be onto something: "Suppose 2006 is as bad as 1974, when the Senate went from a Democrat majority of 56-42 (with 2 independents) to 61-37 (ditto) and the House went from a Democrat majority of 242-192 to 291-144. Six years later we got Ronald Reagan in a landslide. Granted, I don't see another Reagan on the horizon, more's the pity, but the larger point is that the country managed to muddle along. Maybe partisan politics just doesn't matter as much as those of us in the blogosphere like to think it does."

Hugh Hewitt was having none of it calling Tapscott and Bainbridge "conservative Jacobites" and worrying that a Dem. Congress would "almost certainly cost President Bush at least some of his most lasting domestic legacy --a federal judiciary committed to the rule of law not the rule of courts."

The vast majority of righty bloggers were with Hugh:

• Right Wing Nut House: "But unless something horrific happens to change my mind between now and election day, I plan on trudging down the street to our 100 year old city hall and doing my civic and patriotic duty by voting Republican on November 6."
• The Anchoress: "I only know what's in my gut, and my gut says "embracing the loss" doesn't live peaceably with my notion that there are no negatives in Christ."
• RedState: "Stay home on November 7th, and you punish House Republicans first. The same House Republicans who are standing up to the Senate and pushing a tough pro-enforcement bill. President Bush is not on the ballot this fall. The people fighting hardest for immigration enforcement and a border fence are. ...The 2007 immigration bill would be a compromise between McCain-Kennedy (by then renamed Kennedy-McCain) and whatever the rampantly anti-enforcement Speaker Pelosi and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Conyers cook up. Think about it: Ted Kennedy and John McCain would actually represent the more conservative side of the conference committee!"
• Lorie Byrd at TownHall: "Perhaps emboldened by the outcome of the Miers nomination, some conservatives...are now going so far as to talk about impeachment in the current debate over immigration policy. ...Disagree, dissent, march, email, telephone the White House and the Congress, heck, even mail a brick, but it doesn't make sense...to destroy the Republican Party unless you are ready to accept the agenda of Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid."

Mary Katherine Ham at Hugh Hewitt thinks the GOP can save itself and points to the "Pennsylvania Primary Earthquake of '06." Blue Crab Boulevard also sees hope from the Keystone state: "Whether national level politicians in the Republican party are smart enough right now to understand what just happened in Pennsylvania only time will tell. The party base revolted and threw out a large number of incumbents. The people who got tossed were very senior, had an enormous amount of clout and had strong fundraising ability."

Captain's Quarters sees similarities between PA and the Golden State:

This reminds me of the first shot in the conservative re-emergence: Proposition 13 in California. My home state had an out-of-control property tax regime that would simply re-appraise property whenever it needed to boost revenues. The instability in the tax rate made home ownership more risky, and it affected rents as well. When Howard Jarvis and Paul Gann put Proposition 13 on the ballot, the state's political intelligentsia fought it bitterly, spending millions of dollars to convince Californians that the state's problems involved a lack of revenue and not out-of-control spending. No one thought that California voters would pass the referendum -- but it turned out to be highly popular indeed, winning by a large margin and shocking the political establishment. That victory started a nationwide demand for tax reform that continues to this day, forcing Rockefeller Republicans out of the GOP leadership and paving the way for Ronald Reagan in 1980.

Not everyone on the right saw the PA results as the second coming. Done with Mirrors: "There's a tendency to try to read into this result: Do the voters want more conservatives? Fewer Republicans? What does it bode for Bush? Don't get too excited about any of that. ...The losers lost because they voted themselves a 16 percent pay raise, in the middle of the night, with no debate, and then dove through a loophole that allowed them to take the money right away, rather than waiting till the next year, as the state constitution requires."Callimachus at Winds of Change: "I'm going to register my dissent from the emerging meme that the "Pennsylvania Revolt" in the GOP primary essentially was a popular uprising against "a state legislature that rejected conservative values". The confusion is understandable, since the incumbents who were overturned were those who engaged in the kind of reckless spending and money-grubbing conservatives despise. But this was a single-issue revolt...Nobody out here is getting a 16% raise (minimum) overnight, and nobody likes to see his public servants vote themselves one, out of his pocket."

ELECTION'06: Two Out Of Three Lefty Bloggers Can't Be Wrong

Ridenbaugh Press highlights state Controller Keith Johnson's (R-ID) latest ad trumpeting that "2 out of 3 left wing, Idaho bloggers endorsed Robert Vasquez in the GOP primary for Congress. Because he would ensure the Democrats a win in November. The third endorsed Sheila Sorensen. Enough said." Ridenbaugh comments: "What does it mean to endorse? Is writing favorably about the idea of someone's election enough? Newspaper endorsements are typically clear-cut; they say that "we endorse X for election," or something clearly similar. On the web, the situation is a little less certain." Ridenbaugh checks out the sites in question and concludes: "So let's call it two and a half out of three for the Johnson campaign."

Moving south Matt Stoller at MyDD notes a poll dip for Sen. Jon Kyl: "I just got an email about a new Rocky Mountain poll on the Arizona Senate race:

Pederson Cut Kyl's Lead By 22 Points Since January. According to a Rocky Mountain Poll released today, Jim Pederson's initial ad campaign has had a "dramatic" effect. Since January, Pederson has narrowed Kyl's lead from 29 points, at 55-26, to just seven, at 40-33. [Rocky Mountain Poll, 5/18/06]

"Pederson's been on the air, which means that this is the first time voters have realized that there's an opponent to Kyl. Pederson's had some trouble with his campaign, but the recent collapse of the GOP is giving him another chance. The immigration fiasco is also wreaking havoc in this border state."

Moving east Virginia Virtucon reports on a recent conversation with UVA Prof. Larry Sabato: "...he seems convinced that there is a large Democrat contingent who will never vote for Jim Webb on the sole basis that he was a Reagan appointee. ... Aside from Democrats not voting for Webb on the basis of his ties to the Reagan Administration, Sabato claimed that there are organized efforts by Republicans to vote in the Democrat primary for Miller on the basis that he is such a horrible candidate and would lose worse than Webb to Allen in November. (If there are indeed such efforts, I have yet to hear of them.)

IMMIGRATION: So Many Amendments, So Little Time

Senate votes on immigration bill amendments are coming so fast and furious that the 'sphere can't quite decide which ones they hate/love the most. So in no particular order:

Righty bloggers were big fans of the Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) English as the nation's official language amendment. Powerline: "Right next door, in Canada, we have the starkest possible evidence of the catastrophic consequences of bilingualism." Lefties thought the Senate should focus on more important matters. Georgia10 at DailyKos: "Here's a bright idea. Instead of wasting time on "symbolic" measures, why doesn't Congress do something about the millions of illiterate Americans who can't read or speak English (and no, Rep. Tancredo, I'm not talking about Mexican immigrants)."

Captian's Quarters focused on Dem. support for Sen. John Kyl's (R-AZ) amendment banning a guest worker path to citizenship: "They were Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, and Ben Nelson of Nebraska. All three hail from red states, and two of the three face re-election in states that went for George Bush in 2004. The only Senator of these three not facing elections in November is Byron Dorgan, whose partner voted against the measure.

Tom Bevan at right leaning Real Clear Politics looks at Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL) evolution on the issue: "Mel Martinez's position on immigration that appeared on his 2004 campaign web site is noticeably at odds with the piece of immigration legislation Senator Mel Martinez put his name on recently. Here is what Martinez said in 2004 regarding the issue of immigration: We are nation of immigrants. ...I oppose amnesty for illegal aliens. I support a plan that matches workers with needy employers without providing a path to citizenship. Immigration to this country must always be done through legal means."

Hugh Hewitt took the opportunity to plug the opponents of Sens. voting against the 5/17 amendment for a wall: "Two Democratic incumbents facing re-election --Maria Cantwell of Washington State and Robert Menendez of New Jersey-- voted against the Sessions Amendment which mandates 370 miles of fencing and 500 miles of vehicle barriers. So if the Minutemen spokespeople are correct, the opponents of Cantwell and Menendez should not only sweep to victory in the fall, they should also be gathering enormous support from the rank and file. Those opponents are: Mike McGavick in Washington State (you can contribute online here) and Tom Kean in New Jersey (you can contribute online here.) If the "tough on illegal immigration" caucus is as strong as its proponents say it is, McGavick and Kean will be attracting thousands of new supporters in the next couple of days.

HAYDEN: Not Quite The Blogswarm We Were Hoping For

Few surprises in 'sphere reactions to Gen. Michael Hayden's CIA/dir. confirmation hearings. Righties think he's doing great and lefties think he is evasive (that script sounds familiar). Mahablog makes a good observation though: "Charlie Savage of the Boston Globe writes that the White House is trying to separate Hayden from the NSA spy scandal in an effort to keep the Senators from dwelling on Hayden's role at the NSA. Last week conventional wisdom said that Hayden was chosen as the nominee because Karl Rove wanted a public fight on the NSA. ... Something happened to make Karl change his mind. The White House doesn't want a fight over the NSA after all."

Righties impressed with Hayden's performance include: In From the Cold,IOWAVoice , and Blue Crab Boulevard.

Righty Big Lizards was concerned when "Hayden said he had been uncomfortable with some of the prewar analysis coming from the Pentagon suggesting there was a link between al Qaeda and then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein." But Big Lizards was mollified when he concluded: "The question may have specifically been couched in the timeframe of 2002, and Hayden may have been saying that at that time, he was uncomfortable with that claim."

Libertarian Ronald Bailey at Hit and Run was concerned about Hayden's grasp of checks and balances: "Former NSA head and prospective CIA director General Michael Hayden testified yesterday before the Senate Intelligence Committee that when he set up the various secret communications monitoring schemes that he "consulted both his lawyers and his conscience when starting the program in October 2001." When asked how the program avoided abusing the civil liberties and privacy of citizens, he replied, "We have a very strict oversight regime." Oversight by whom? A federal court? Congressional committees? Not really. The "oversight" was apparently exercised by the yes-men at the NSA and the Justice Department."

The Democratic Daily complained that Hayden was evasive while The Left Coaster thought he was disingenuous: "Hayden actually complained this morning at his confirmation hearing that the collection of intelligence has become politicized. General Hayden, you are a rube. Who was it that excluded Democrats from intelligence briefings? The Bush Administration."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Wesleys Do The Blogosphere

DarkSyde at DailyKos reports that he was: "was star-struck to learn that the YearlyKos Science Panel will have the honor of hosting an actual four-star General! But then again, I'm not surprised that General Wesley Clark would value science given his former occupation and his lifelong commitment to scholastic excellence."

Meanwhile Hollywood scriptwriter Wesley Clark Jr. sat down with The Huffington Post blogger Cenk Uygur for his The Young Turks Sirius Radio show. It's an absolute must see.

Raising Kaine has highlights: "Basically, Wes Clark, Jr. says almost everything I've been thinking for years now, but haven't had the balls to say out loud. Stuff like: *how politicians don't "give a damn what you think" ...*how "10%-20% of the people who are involved in politics all the time, year-round are downright pathological" ...*how Joe Lieberman is "such a tool" ...*how the Democratic Party is "a collection of victims' groups" ...*how "you should feel free to fight somebody and not worry that you're gonna lose"

LEST WE FORGET: I Pity The Fool Who Don't Take A Lemon Bar Out My Head.

The Sneeze loves cookies. However: "There's tons of inappropriate merchandising and tie-ins out there, but it's the ones that bring together tough guys and p***y-ish items that are my favorites. And ironically, as much as cookies kick ass, they just aren't "tough". I don't care how huge you are, or how deep your voice is... you can't intimidate me saying, "Gimme another snickerdoodle."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:20 PM

May 18, 2006

5/18: Inconvient Truths

Former-VP Al Gore is still riding a wave of lefty blogger love, but we'll have to wait to see how much of it lasts once his movie fades from theatres. Meanwhile righty bloggers continue to follow the immigration debate closely and while they were somewhat mollified by the Senate's 5/17 vote for a fence, they remain as divided as the GOP itself when the subject changes to "amnesty." Sens. Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT) also receive lefty blogger attention, but for completely opposite reasons. Buzz rises around WH dep./CoS Karl Rove's fate and the latest Blogger Spotlight.

IMMIGRATION: Good Fences Make Happy Bloggers

Righty reax to the Senate's 5/17 vote to build some fencing along the Mexican border was mostly positive, though many expressed worries the fence deal meant a compromise on "amnesty" couldn't be far behind.

Positive reviews included:

• Joe's Dartblog: "The nation has spoken, the Democrats have been squeezed to the right on this issue, and Washington is finally serious about making sure that 'border' still means 'border'."
• Powerline: "The vote wasn't close, however; the Sessions amendment passed 83-16. Which means that even most Democrats have figured out how serious Americans are on the issue of border security."
• Let Freedom Ring: "Needless to say, this is a major victory for conservatives who've been clamoring for a enforcement first bill. Combine that with the immediate deployment of National Guard units to the border, the hiring and training of an additional 6,000 Border Patrol officials, and you have a serious border security system."

Most on the right had reservations:

• Captain's Quarters: "While the set of amendments that passed appear to provide better news for conservatives than we may have imagined, the loss on the Vitter amendment will rankle. It attempted to gut the Senate proposal for comprehensive reform by making any kind of normalization impossible. The president made clear his support for some kind of path to citizenship for those who have lived an otherwise unremarkable life in the US, and the leadership in both parties apparently want to support the White House on this provision. The no-amnesty caucus in the Senate turned out to be so low that they could not even support a filibuster."
• Rightwinged: "This actually sounds like genuine progress to me, but I haven't had time to read it all yet. I think we need a fence, similar to what the Minutemen have designed, running down almost all of the border. I think if we could do this, there wouldn't be a need for a bunch more guards. That is why I'm cautiously optimistic about this development."
• IOWAVoice: "Senate May Be Getting The Message...I'm not holding my breath, but it appears as though the Senate may be moving closer and closer to the "enforcement first" policies that the American people are demanding."
• Blue Crab Boulevard: "Some Fencing Approved...Not enough, but some."

Those on the right less than pleased with fence vote were either rankled by the upcoming "amnesty" vote or thought there problems with the fence that was approved. Michelle Malkin fell into the first camp: "... is it worth it? And given past history and yesterday's vote against enforcement first, you already know which provision ... the amnesty, not the fence ... the Senate's top priority and which will be in place first." So did Riehl World View: "Illegal immigrants jumped that line when they entered the country illegally. And not one proposal under consideration in the Senate proposes that they go to the end of that line. The notion that we are going to collect back taxes from these individuals is an insult to ones intelligence. ... What a travesty."

Confederate Yankee has a long post on possible fence designs while Parapundit notes that the Senate plan is needlessly expensive: "By comparison the private Minuteman border defense group thinks it can build its fence design for below $150 per foot. At 5280 feet per mile that works out to $792,000 per mile, about a quarter of the cost per mile for the federal project.

Libertarian Hit and Run can't wait for the wall to come down: "One of the defining moments of the 20th century came when the Berlin Wall was pulled down. Here's hoping that the building of a wall to keep people out of the Land of Opportunity isn't one of the defining moments of the 21st." Fellow libertarian Glenn Reynolds thinks our fate is in Mexico's hands: "If Mexico were to reduce corruption and cronyism, and promote openness and the rule of law, its economy would grow and the flood of immigrants to the United States would shrink to a trickle. Unfortunately, the Mexican "right" is wedded to state power, and it seems unlikely that a Mexican leftist regime would enact those sorts of decentralizing economic reforms."

Lefty blogging on the issue was light by comparison but could be found. The Left Coaster sees a big conspiracy and notes which Dems played along: "If Bush and Rove had rolled out a strong security-oriented bill right after 9/11, it would probably had gotten through, but it would have gone against the financial interests of Bush's real base, the corporate check-writers. Instead, the GOP planned to please the corporate base early by doing nothing on immigration before the 2004 election, and then pander to the wingnuts as an way to drive up turnout in the 2006 midterms. It has now backfired. If you want to know which Democratic senators voted for the additional fencing and vehicle barricades, here they are. And yes, some of them are running for president in 2008."

Lefty Taylor Marsh is not happy about the wall and can't wait for employers to get punished while PinkDome thinks calls the vote "pointless and ridiculous." Meanwhile over at DailyKos, tRueffert wants to hire Mexicans to patrol the border, Woodhouse runs down GOP divisions over immigration, and Batfish thinks any policy decisions should wait until tempers have abated.

WH'08 I: If He Doesn't Relapse Then He's The Biggest Tease Ever

Lefties are buzzing over an item first reported 5/15 byAtlanta Progressive News, but spread to a wider audience as Taegan Goddard's Political Wire's "Quote of the Day." Jason Zengerle at The Plank explains: "I see (via Taegan Goddard's Political Wire) that Al Gore made an interesting comment in Atlanta yesterday: "Like I said, I'm a recovering politician. But you always have to worry about a relapse." He's been using the "recovering politician" joke for years, but I believe the "relapse" line is new."

Both TAPPED and Wampum have begun a "Gore Wacth," while AMERICAblog and Think Progress both note that "big oil" is attacking Gore's new movie.

The Carpetbagger Report thinks the both the beltway and the MSM are warming up: "This AP story on Al Gore covers relatively familiar ground, but it's worth considering anyway. ...First, the party establishment seems to be warming to Gore a bit. ...Second, the article, written by veteran political reporter Ron Fournier, didn't include a single cheap shot. Nothing about inventing the Internet, nothing about Love Story, no references to Gore being "stiff."

Arianna Huffington at The Huffington Post reports from the Hollywood screening of Gore's new film:

After the screening, as I watched him interact with well-wishers, accepting congratulations and answering questions, he radiated commitment and confidence. Here was a man truly comfortable in his own skin. ...Gore isn't running for office, and already the negative campaigning has begun. This is what anyone who takes a stand faces these days -- politics as demolition derby -- and why so many politicians operate out of fear. But when I asked Gore about it, he was unfazed. ...I couldn't help but flash on the stiff, robotic Gore of the 2000 campaign. You could smell the fear on the Gore of 2000. Just as you could smell it on Kerry in 2004, as he ran a campaign that consistently chose caution over boldness. And it's the same sickening scent that Hillary Clinton is wearing today: Eau de Don't Let Me Screw Up and Flush My Chances Down the Toilette.

WH'08 II: Wonder How Long Bloggers Are Gonna Let That McCain Friendship Last ...

Jonathon Singer at MyDD interviewed Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI). Highlights include:

Singer: ...polling indicates that between 40 and 46 percent of Americans support your proposal for censure of the President on the grounds of the domestic spying program, his support of that program. So why have so few other Democrats in Congress signed on to your plan?

Feingold: Well it's a sad day for America and the Democratic Party when our leaders and our top people can't even stand up to obvious illegality and wrongdoing by this administration....

Singer: Let's move on to the topic of 2008. Would you like to see an America with your friend John McCain as President?

Feingold: Well I think America could do a lot worse. Obviously I am a Democrat, hoping a Democrat will be elected in 2008. But I have a very high regard for Senator McCain has been one of the better experiences of my professional life.

Singer: Final question before I let you go. If there's one message you'd like to send to the progressive blogosphere, the many readers in the progressive blogosphere, what would that be?

Feingold: That those who are progressives and want the Democrats to stand up strongly for their positions are not only doing the right thing for America but they are also helping to move the Democratic Party in the right direction, politically. So it's a win-win situation and they should not allow those who are the pundits and consultants in Washington to intimidate them out of their convictions because their convictions are the right convictions.

LIEBERMAN: Blogosphere Killed The Video Star

Lefty bloggers MyDD and Atrios are encouraging their readers to view cable co. exec. Ned Lamont's new ad starring DailyKos founder Markos Moulitsas Zuniga.

Lefties also took note of a former Gov. Lowell P. Weicker Jr. op-ed. Feministe: "What hurt Weicker back in 1988 was the charge that he, too, had lost interest in dealing with the state's issues and was too Washington-focused. Weicker here is subtly cranking it up a little, charging Lieberman not just with neglect and indifference, but with actively supporting policies which are harmful to Connecticut, particularly its urban cores. And it doesn't hurt that he can hang George Bush around Lieberman's neck in an effort to rally those who want to see reform." Firedoglake: "I find it oddly appropriate that the "White Knight of Watergate" is coming out in support of Ned and willing to go to great lengths to get Lieberman off the stage right now even as the Senate Democrats roll over. That's the incumbency protection racket in action, I suppose."

ROVE: Somebody Is Taking A Hit Tomorrow

Mark Ash defended fellow truthout.org contributor Jason Leopold 5/17 from attacks on Leopold's 5/13 "report" on WH dep./CoS Karl Rove's indictment. Truthout: "We can now report, however, that we have additional, independent sources that refute those denials by Corallo and Luskin. While we had only our own sources to work with in the beginning, additional sources have now come forward and offered corroboration to us. ...We have been contacted by at least three reporters from mainstream media - network level organizations - who shared with us off-the-record confirmation and moral support. When we asked why they were not going public with this information, in each case they expressed frustration with superiors who would not allow it."

Righties were quick to mock. Right Wing Nut House: "Oooh those meanie network level MSM editors. If only they had the courage, the indomitable spirit and will of our Jason to go ahead and publish unconfirmed rumors all in order to report THE TRUTH-without fear or apology for being wrong." Outside the Beltway: "Because, as we all know, mainstream media never run with rumors, anonymous sources, or use the fact that a lower tier publication has run with a story as a premise to run their own story?"

Other righties saw conspiracy. MediaBlog at NRO: "Who are Truthout's MSM collaborators? Their sudden appearance in this strange tale seems to indicate that the same sources who fed bunk info to Jason Leopold have also been talking to MSM reporters - probably for a lot longer than just the past few weeks. If so, who knows how much reporting about the Scooter Libby case could derive from these anonymous fabricators?"

But truthout convinced at least one righty. Decision'08: "Make your own mind up about how credible any of this is - but I do tend to think Rove will probably be indicted now." And while Just One Minute is no fan of Leopold, he agrees that 5/19 will be a bad day for Rove.

Lefty Reality Based Educator thinks he knows why MSM sources haven't confirmed: "I don't know Knight-Ridder or ABC News reporters all that well, but could the MSNBC reporter be David Shuster? The CIA leak case has been one of his stories and I wouldn't be surprised to find out he knows of the meeting too. I wish he could go public with it, if indeed it's Shuster who has the info, but I can understand why he wouldn't. This is dicey stuff and you want to be sure before you go public or you could wind up drummed out of the news business like Dan rather."

Skippy the Bush Kangaroo is still optimistic Leopold will be vindicated while The Democratic Daily sounds less sure. Either way Born at the Crest of the Empire believes Leopold is honest, but may have been duped.

TalkLeft links to the audio and has a lengthy recap Leopold's 5/16 appearance on Ed Schultz's radio show. Highlights:

Jason said he believed by Saturday night, his article would break in the Washington Post, New York Times and other papers. He noted that yesterday, at Rove's NEI speech, only one reporter asked him about CIA leak case. No one had bothered to follow up on the story. No one asked him if he had been indicted.

Jason says he confirmed the story with more than 2 sources. He says Knights- Ridder, MSNBC and ABC News now have one source for the story.

Jason said he is upset that some have accused him of lying. He would have no motive to lie. His goal was to get the story, not to bs anyone.

Talkleft also followed up with an e-mail to Rove spokesman Mark Corallo. Corallo responded: "Again, it is demonstrably false that any meeting took place on Friday (at Patton Boggs or anywhere else). This fraud needs to admit that he is lying and go away for good.....why did Leopold LIE about being a London Sunday Times Reporter?"

BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: Mr. Smith Stays In Texas

Today the Blogometer talks to conservative Jason Smith, who writes Texas Rainmaker.

What is your full name?

Jason Smith

What is your age?

33

Where did you grow up?

Austin, TX

Where do you live now?

Houston area

What is your occupation?

Attorney/Legal Business Consultant

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

Volunteered on Team Bush in 2000 and 2004. Served on the RNC's 72 Hour Legal Task Force in November, 2004.

When did you start blogging and why?

March, 2003. I got frustrated with the nonsense coming from Hollywood and the MSM and could only call into so many talk radio shows a day. Decided to put my commentary online for others to see and respond to.

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

I actually live-blogged our evacuation from Houston during Hurricane Rita. This generated attention and emails from all over the world. It was such an interesting feeling to think so many people were following our trip.

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

Wake up, check email, review breaking news, major media outlets, top blogs. Find something that inspires me to comment. Blog. Check sitemeter stats. Periodically throughout the day, I recycle through the media outlets and blogs to find additional items to blog about. When I do find something to blog about, I try to research all elements as if presenting a case in trial, with hyperlinks to all supporting materials.

Who is your favorite political blogger?

I tend to check MichelleMalkin's site most often

Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?

Cathy Booth Thomas of Time Magazine.

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

Fox News Live

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

Most all of them, because they give me so much material to use.

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

The usual suspects (Instapundit, Powerline, BlogsForBush, GOPbloggers) and then many on the Left because they're so comical (like DailyKos, Huffington Post and Michael Moore's site)

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

Only when I'm on the road, staying in hotels. And even then, rarely.

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

I think old media will continue to help the new media's reputation improve. New media provides the ability for anyone to say anything and thus, readers can develop their own take on a story, versus the story being driven by newsroom elites and out-of-touch media executives. The success of the new media, I think, is reminiscent of the initial days of old media. It's about getting the news to the people and letting the people form opinions. Too much of today's old media credibility is lost to the profit-driven motive.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Just The Comparison He Was Hoping For ...

Cagey Mind thinks he's seen former-VP Al Gore's act before: "From the moment that he waved the white flag after the 2000 election, I thought that Al Gore would be back. The historical comparison to Richard Nixon was just too hard to dismiss. ...The comparisons are hard to miss: both men were young senators from important states in the electoral college; both served as Vice-President to a popular President; both lost incredibly close elections; and both spent some time in the political wilderness. Many people will say that Gore's fighting of the result will hurt him, but the same was said of Richard Nixon losing in a race for governor of California."

LEST WE FORGET: I Didn't Know Sinead O'Connor Was In The Ten Commandments

Ever wonder how Paramount would market Charlton Heston's The Ten Commandments if it came out today? YouTube member Vayabobo has the answer. (hint: think Not Another Teen Movie).

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:37 PM

May 17, 2006

5/17: The Mystery Continues

Verizon's 5/16 denial of certain facts in "media reports" about their relationship with the NSA has lefty bloggers scrambling to paint a picture that keeps the story alive and the Bush admin clearly in the wrong. Righties, meanwhile, are more interested in discrediting the original story. The immigration debate also continues to rage and the 'sphere reacts to primaries in KY, OR, and PA.

PA: No Joy in Mudville

Demonstrating the disconnect between party establishment and bloggers once again, lefty bloggers bemoaned state Treas. Bob Casey's easy victory over history professor Chuck Pennacchio while righty bloggers celebrated the ousting of the top two state Senate GOPers.

K-blog summed up the feelings of most lefty bloggers: "I know this isn't the right attitude ... but I can't believe the scope of these results: Chuck lost. Valerie lost. Georgia lost. Kovach lost. Susan lost. All the people that were worth a damn lost. Is there any GOOD news?" LeftIndependent was also unhappy: "There is only one political party in America, the right wing hegemony over the two phony parties, Democrats and Republicans. America is proof that democracy does not work. The only hope now is that a third Party or Independent mounts a campaign against both Casey and Santorum."

Pennacchio thanked his supporters and claimed: "Our 2006 Senate campaign was a critically important step in a larger citizen movement to restore Pennsylvania's politics to Pennsylvanians." Over at MyDD commenter dblhelix thought the insurgents at least put in a good effort: "The two challengers had no money and no ads -- perhaps one ad for sandals? 10-20% of the votes for pure grassroots is pretty impressive (not in a winning way, of course). Fellow commenter Rafe Noboa wasn't impressed: "At some point, you have to win. Moral victories are still defeats."

Lefty MyDD commenter mleflo2 did not want Dems to get complacent about the 11/06 general: "Don't be so confident that he will definitely beat Santorum. The polls are getting close, and he is pro-life in a moderately pro-choice PA. Asked people if they are going concerned about whether Casey pro-life stand is going to prohibit the women from voting for him, the women said yes. He got to reassure those suburban women in the Pittsburgh suburbs that even though he is pro-life, he won't overturn Roe or they won't come out." As always trademark blogosphere color could easily be found. MyDD commenter blogswarm: "I am so proud of the DSCC tonight -- we finally have a DSCC nominee to show the world that DC Democrats care as much about Theocracy as anything that Bin Ladin can push."

Lefty MyDD denizens were more upbeat about Rep. Don Sherwood's (R-PA) narrow escape from unknown challenger Kathy Scott. MyDD commenter HellofaSandwich: "This is a lot more favorable an outcome for Carney than a 90-10 Sherwood-Scott blowout would have been. This is gonna really alter the media's assessment of this race, and it will make Carney a viable investment option for Democratic donors." Fellow MyDDer RamblinDave had reasons to be apprehensive: "It looks like Sherwood is pulling away from Scott, but she'll probably hold him to not much more than 55%. Probably the best thing that could happen for the Dems. But I can't help remembering that this is the same district that re-elected Joe McDade twice when he was under indictment (and once he even won the Democratic primary as a write-in). Still, Sherwood isn't a pork-barreling legend in his own time like McDade was."

Righty GrassrootsPA put the defeats of GOPers state Senate Pres. Pro-Tem Robert Jubelirer and Senate Maj. Leader Chip Brightbill under the header: "CONSERVATIVES WIN HUGE VICTORIES ACROSS THE STATE!" RedState echoed the sentiment: "A big, big, night for conservatives in PA."

RedState commenters hoped conservatives kept the energy up. RS commenter Crank: "And a lesson for conservatives everywhere: if you want the bums out, replace them with better Republicans." RS commenter Marcus Traianus: "This is exactly the type of message we need to get out. Change the party from within, not by staying home. It is how we built this majority and will keep it healthy." Even blogger and George Washington University senior Mark Harris of Save the GOP was able to ride anti-incumbent fervor to victory.

Not everything was well in righty-land however...Hall of Famer Lynn Swann has some blogger shoring up to do. RedState commenter HamandEgger: "Tonight will serve as a wake-up call for the Swann campaign. Let's see if he wakes up or hits the snooze bar. Swann was the GOP establishment candidate and he paid them back by not criticizing the GOP leadership for the pay raise and for the corruption. Towards the end of the primary campaign he went so far as to endorse Senator Jubelirer. Will conservatives vote for him in the end? Probably. But based on what he has done so far will they give him their money or their time? Depends. Without the ground troops, I don't know how well he can do."

KY: Feckless Fighting Dems?

The only blogland discussion on KY focused on retired USMC officer Andrew Horne's (D) defeat to former newspaper publisher John Yarmuth (D). Lefty mark at Swing State Project: "Another Fighting Dem goes down (Andrew Horne). This storyline is slowly slipping away from us with the loss of Paul Hackett, Tim Dunn, Joe Sulzer, and now Horne." Fellow commenter HellofaSandwich: "Good point. How many Iraq vets are left standing now? I can only think of David Harris in Texas."

Swing State Project founder DavidNYC offered a limited defense of the fighting Dem meme: "I don't see how how the "storyline is slipping away from us" when there are some 70 Fighting Dem candidates. And the four most prominent - Duckworth, P. Murphy, Sestak, Massa - are thriving. What I will agree with is that the Fighting Dems idea isn't turning out to be as powerful as some people, myself included, had hoped, in large part because very few of these candidates are running anything approaching even mid-major status races. Yeah, there are a few nice profiles here and there in the media every so often, but I don't think this is going to be as big as some of us thought."

OR: Nice Of You To Drop By

No any surprises in OR. Policy analyst Ridenbaugh Press breaks down the OR Gov. results this way:

Probable public explanation on Ron Saxton: Republicans wanted a winner; Kevin Mannix was too damaged by past losses and recent controversies; Saxton moved enough to the right in image at least to pick up a heavy slice of the conservative vote. ...Probable public explanation on Ted Kulongoski: Labor and several other interests weren't strong enough to engineer a replacement. ...Implications for Ben Westlund's independent campaign: Not especially good, at least at first glance. Both major party nominees won decisively, and a Mannix win on the Republican side (or a Hill upset on the Democratic) would have worked better for him. But this will take more evaluation. Looks like a fun one come November - the early line at least is that Oregon apparently has a hotly-contested gubernatorial contest on its hands."

Righties were mostly silent in OR but zoregon had this to say at lefty Swing State Project: "The gov race for Oregon is a mixed bag. The good news is that Mannix lost to Saxton in the GOP primary. This is good because Saxton is a moderate Republican and this signals that the wide-right is losing steam in Oregon and we might be returning to the days of moderate and sensible Republicans (Sen. Hatfield). The bad news is that the dem candidate Kulongowski is not popular and a moderate republican will push him in November." Lefty Blue Oregon hoped turnout numbers signaled Dem. victory in the general: "It probably means little, but with 528-530 precincts in on both sides, about 188K total Dems and 178K total Reps have voted in the gubernatorial races."

The Westlund for Governor campaign was quickly on the Blue Oregon comment board trolling for unhappy lefties. Stacy Dycus from Ben Westlund for Governor wrote: "We believe that the weak primary turn-out is a reflection that voters weren't happy with their choices, unfortunately this also hurt local measures and candidates, no coat-tails here. This is fertile ground for an independent people!"

The natives were under whelmed Blue Oregon commenter TK: "Great points and potentially compelling candidate, but the press release format doesn't fly in blogland... at least the comments sections anyway. If he isn't already, Ben should take the time to read and comment here at Blue Oregon and other popular local blogs. It's not that we don't appreciate SOMEONE from a campaign dropping by, but trust me, it's worth his time to press some virtual flesh. If he has already and I haven't noticed, my apology."

NSA I: Everyone's Got A Theory

Lefty bloggers were in full conspiracy mode as yet another telecom company denied key parts of USA Today's 5/12 NSA story.

Some lefties thought the denials hinged on the denials use of the word "provided." The Political Animal: "One possibility: they allowed the NSA access to their trunk lines (as described here) and the NSA collected the data themselves. This would allow the telcos to say that they hadn't "provided" any "customer records" to the NSA, which would be technically true." The Next Hurrah: "So yeah. The Telecoms may be technically correct. They didn't give the data to NSA--or have it taken from them. They just opened the backdoor and allowed the NSA to waltz right in and take what they wanted." AMERICAblog: "Verizon didn't "provide" the NSA with domestic customer data. Verizon could have simply "let" the NSA tap into their phone system, their database, etc. and thus would not have "provided" the NSA with data, they simply would have provided the NSA with access to their database, their phone system etc."

Other lefties thought the key was a long distance vs. local distinction. The Anonymous Liberal: "The Times seems to be hinting that the key records are not the local call records (if those even exist) but rather the records of the long-distance carriers with whom the local companies interact. Perhaps the denials by Verizon and BellSouth reflect this distinction. We'll see." TalkLeft and The Left Coaster also pick up on this possibility.

Talking Points Memo believes the telcos are just lying: "For all the shilly-shallying, Verizon does appear to come right out and deny they gave any customer records to the NSA. ...So what gives? ...I think I've got the answer: they're lying. ...Now, I don't know that they're lying in a precise, semantic sense. In fact, I suspect they're not. There must be some way in which what they're saying is technically true. My hunch is that there's some third party involved here, a subcontractor, a private vendor, perhaps another government agency. And because of that their claims are technically true." The Blogometer thinks Josh is on to something with his last thought (see Thought Of The Day below).

Many righties took the opportunity to bash the MSM. In the Bullpen: "So just like the story on the CIA having so-called "secret prisons" across Europe that there is no evidence of, is this leak to the press yet another attempt by a leaker to attack the Bush Administration aided by poor reporting? Or is this some plot hatched by the CIA to pass off bogus information to reduce the credibility of leaked sources?" Blue Crab Boulevard: "Now, the question becomes did USA Today get suckered into reporting a political hit piece out of their desire to get a leak of the year prize? Oh sorry, that should read Pulitzer." IOWAVoice: "Aren't anonymous sources great? You can say pretty much anything you want in a news article, claim an "anonymous source" told you, and then when it falls apart, pull the old Dan Rather defense....that until such information is proven false, they will report it as being true."

Hotline-alum Public Eye doubts we'll ever get the truth: "Still, we're entering some rocky territory, especially for a story about a 'secret' program based entirely on anonymous sources. Given the administration's refusal to confirm or deny the report, the company denials and the anonymous sources, it may be time to ask how we'll ever get the truth out of this story."

NSA II: How Secret Was This Program?

Righty bloggers jumped at Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) 5/17 revelation that members of the FISA court were briefed on the NSA phone record program. Captain's Quarters: "The revelation answers critics of the Bush administration's efforts to use datamining to detect terrorist sleeper cells. ... After all the concern that the Bush administration had hijacked the call data with no oversight, we now find out that the FISA court had known of the project the entire time. Will this stop the criticism of the program? Probably not, but it should reduce some of the hysteria we've seen about it." Confederate Yankee: "If Hatch's comments are correct, it would seem to throw a considerably large wrench in the theories of those who are calling these programs an illegal conspiracy by the Bush Adminstration. It seems rather difficult to have a "conspiracy" if everyone was in on it. ...If two FISA judges were also in the loop about these programs, it won't keep conspiracy theorists like Glenn Greenwald quiet, but it might just make their shrill cries a bit easier to ignore.

RightWinged took the opportunity to highlight perceived lefty hypocrisy: "Of course I have to keep wondering why the left isn't angry at the ACLU who is collecting personal information for fund-raising purposes...in the last post I specifically wondered why the left and the media aren't upset about the Echelon program (under Clinton) or Clinton's spying on pro-life political opponents. I'm not expecting an answer." While fellow righty Wizbang wondered if it wasn't his side that were the hypocrites: "Anyone on the right who thinks this is a good idea should be disabused of that notion by 3 simple words. "President Hillary Clinton." Ask yourself. ... Do you really trust the Clinton's with this data?"

Lefties responded to Hatch's announcement by stressing that the court was only "informed" of the program, not given an opportunity to approve it. AMERICAblog: "Oh, well, if judges were "informed" that we were going to begin mass illegal spying on American citizens, then that makes it constitutional and legal. Silly me, I thought judges were the ones who decided such things." Running Scared: "As I've said previously, I personally think it's a bit early to be saying that the program is "illegal" since that's a term best left up to the courts to decide. Is it now our policy to simply "inform" the Judiciary about questionable activities rather than getting their consent and formal approval?"

Lefty The Political Animal just wants somebody other than the current Administration overseeing the program: "It's possible that the NSA programs that have been disclosed are reasonable ones. But if that's the case, there's no excuse not to have Congress pass a law making them clearly legal and setting firm boundaries on how they're used. Hearings can be done in closed session if necessary, something that's common for sensitive intelligence issues. But Congress should have a say. No executive, regardless of who's president, should be allowed to unilaterally decide for itself what's legal and what's not. That's the job of Congress and the courts."

IMMIGRATION: Scheer Delight

Both sides are still talking about immigration, but they're also following completely different parts of the story. Righties have picked up on a Mexican gov't lawsuit designed to stop the deployment of the National Guard to the border as well as a 5/16 Senate vote declining to prioritize border enforcement over a guest worker program. Meanwhile lefties have picked up on a 12/05 claim by DHS Sec. Michael Chertoff that National Guard deployment would be too burdensome.

Righty reax to 5/16 news that Mexico planned to sue in U.S. courts to prevent National Guard border deployment were predictable. Blue Crab Boulevard, QandO, Scared Monkeys, California Conservative, Diggers Realm, and IOWAVoice all had takes. Frznagn at LoadedMouth had the best line, addressing immigrants by turning a Bushism on its head: "Stop running from your ineffective government and do something about it!! Or are you afraid of hard work???"

Michelle Malkin describes the defeat of Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA) pro-enforcement amendment as: "The first of many abominations to come." She then urges her readers to call Sens. who voted against the amendment. A Blog For All, California Conservative, and IOWAVoice all link to Malkin and urge their readers to do the same with IOWAVoice adding: "Michelle has a list of those voting against this common sense amendment, and those who didn't bother to vote at all, most notably John McCain (probably because he didn't want to go on the record and ruin his 2008 Presidential bid)."

TPM Muckraker picked up on a CQreport quoting Chertoff on the O'Reilly Factor in Dec. describing National Guard involvement at the border as a: "horribly over-expensive and very difficult way to manage this problem."PinkDome and Blanton's and Ashton's pick up on the story and TPM Muckraker follows through with excerpts from a Chertoff press conference on the National Guard issue.

Also on the immigration front, Bush's 5/15 WH address continues to reach its target audience as lefty columnist Robert Scheer signals his approval under a header, "Bush More Right Than Wrong on Immigration." Scheer writes at The Huffington Post: "What Bush got right about serious immigration reform is the need to join two apparently irreconcilable but inevitably co-dependent goals: control of the border and amnesty for most of those already here illegally. ...Bush's two specific proposals in this regard, a guest-worker program and tamper-proof identity card for those workers, represent Band-Aids rather than the harsh medicine that exploitive employers should be compelled to swallow.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Maybe The NSA Just Buys The Information?

Bill Robinson at The Huffington Post thinks he has found a key figure in the NSA phone record story: Hank Asher. Robinson writes: "Two days after 9/11, coincidentally, he (Hank Asher) was sipping a martini in his $8 million Boca Raton home, when he had the genius idea to use his massive database to see if he could create a "terrorist suspect list." ...By cross-referencing the 30 billion personal records Seisint had access to, he came up with 419 suspect names, and his pal Jeb Bush flew him to Washington so they could both show Vice President Cheney. Amazingly, according to Hank, five of the names were already being investigated by the FBI, and the sixth turned out to be one of the hijackers. Sold! Homeland Security threw millions at Asher for his system, which he dubbed - no kidding - The Matrix. ...The Matrix can scan everyone's records, not just criminals. Need to find every guy in America in his 20's with brown hair and a red truck who recently filed for divorce? The Matrix can do it in no time. Of course, it can be used for much darker purposes. But the real evil genius in this plan was that it would be controlled by the states, thereby skirting congressional oversight. ...Ironically, the type of fishing that The Matrix has been doing for the last couple years is something that John Poindexter argued against as national security advisor to Reagan. He tried to implement a new security classification called, "unclassified but sensitive" because, he said, if you put together a lot of unclassified, publicly available information, it could become classified information. ...Maybe Poindexter had a point. Maybe that's an argument privacy advocates should consider using. And Maybe Verizon and BellSouth didn't give the NSA our records after all. Maybe they gave them to someone who gave them to the NSA. A private contractor perhaps. But don't ask Hank. He sold The Matrix, and his company, to Lexis Nexis for $775 million."

LEST WE FORGET: Two Thumbs Way Up!!!

If you ever caught Siskel & Ebert's schtick back in the day you can't miss these circa 1987 promo outakes from MetaFilter. As one commentator notes: "...at least now I know Siskel wasn't the a**hole."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:34 PM

May 16, 2006

5/16: Missed Opportunity

If Pres. Bush hoped his 5/15 p.m. address would help bring the base home, then judging by blogger reactions it was a missed opportunity. Radio personality/blogger Hugh Hewitt is perhaps Bush's most reliable defender in the 'sphere, but even he can see the WH letting the base slip away: "They simply do not believe the Administration is really committed to border enforcement, and the spokespeople sent out to back up the president's message aren't doing that job. Period. It is all about the fence. The real fence."

In non-Oval Office speech news, the FBI has ruffled some feathers over at ABC News. Lefty bloggers are blaming the Patriot Act while righties just see law enforcement doing their job. Also, ex-VP Al Gore's blogosphere insurgency continues to grow. And our latest Blogger Spotlight.

IMMIGRATION: Swing And A Miss

After reading close to 100 blogger reax, the Blogometer thinks Kathryn Jean Lopez at The Corner sums it best: "It Coulda Been Worse." Sure plenty of righties hated the speech from start to finish, but plenty of voices on the right also thought Bush did an admirable job (though no one really loved it entirely). Righties not impressed with Bush include:

• Riehl World View: "President Bush danced over the word fencing so quick, you were lucky to hear it. ...I think he knows full well he is just kicking the can down the road.
• Michelle Malkin: "The only good thing about watching the speech was getting to watch it in the Fox News green room with Colorado GOP Rep. Tom Tancredo, a stalwart immigration enforcement advocate. It was nice to have someone to shake heads along with as empty platitude after platitude was laid on thick."
• Mark Krikorian at The Corner: "More Mush from the Wimp."
• Hyscience: "Too Little Too Late. ...He lost me seconds after I heard the parts about a guest worker program, the impossibility of deporting 11 million illegals, and especially Mexico being our friend and emphasizing, for the benefit of Vincente Fox, that we were not militarizing our borders."
• IOWAVoice: "He touched on a couple of issues that I agree with him on, but overall he's out of touch with what Americans want."
• Confederate Yankee: "Bush has split the Republican Party. But now a new question arises: is it a permanent split in the party, and if not, how long with it last?"
• The Lone Wacko: "Is he insane? This is the same speech he's delivered countless times. Does he expect a different result? Is he intentionally trying to drive his popularity down to 20%?"
• Powerline: "He Had His Chance......and he blew it. As soon as he started talking about guest worker programs and the impossibility of deporting 11 million illegals, it was all over."
• Hot Air: "Jobs Americans aren't doing." It's probably the worst single line in widespread political use today. Its one benefit may be that it's ecumenical in its offensiveness...everyone outside the political class can find some reason to find it grating."
• John Derbyshire at The Corner: "Total blather, and insincere and dishonest to boot. ...The elites - Dem, GOP, Prez - are determined to pull a con job on us. Don't fall for it. Let's have something we can see, plain, clear, and indisputable. A wall! A wall!"
• Right Wing News: "This was not an impressive speech. ...Let me tell you something: the Senate bill would destroy America as we know it."
• Kathryn Jean Lopez at The Corner: "Delivery feels a bit more Mr. Rogers than commander-in-chief. I mean we have an emergency-our borders are out of control and during a time of war. You don't get that sense."

Not all was lost on the right. Righties that didn't hate the speech include:

• Joe's Dartblog: "My take-away from Bush's remarks is just a very happy feeling that he's actually said out loud that immigrants should be made to learn English. First, because I happen to love the English language. Second, because it is good and solid and conservative."
• PoliPundit: "If you ar truly a Republican to begin with, if you are truly a conservative, then you will applaud this speech and support the reforms he has articulated. ...I have not seen him so poised and confident in a very long time."
• Instapundit: "Bush is right to stress assimilation. That should have been the cornerstone of the speech."
• Jonah Goldberg at The Corner: "My guess is he sounded pretty reasonable to most Americans not already deeply committed on the issue of immigration. That means he didn't lose many base conservatives not already lost and he didn't lose many Democrats not already passionately opposed to him (if there were any left in the first place)."
• Flopping Aces: "So I just watched the President's speech and came away mildly impressed. The things he purposes are steps in the right direction. ...Being a cop in South Central Los Angeles I see the illegal immigration issue firsthand daily. But I also see this is a problem that will not be solved overnight. He is asking the Congress to do their job and send him a bill which will help start the process of solving the problem. What the flying hell is wrong with that?"
• Hugh Hewitt: "President Bush did exactly what he had to do tonight: Hit the middle, agreeing to the fence, to a large increase in Border Patrol personnel and funding, tamper-proof identification, National Guard back-up of ICE for at least a year, the end of catch-and-release, blunt talk on the impossibility of mass deportation, an insistence on English, and a commitment to a guest worker program that will take pressure off."
• Decision '08: "I missed the live coverage, but I've read the content, and I must say I the President's immigration speech hit just about every note I wanted to hear."
• Big Lizards: "But all in all, the content of this speech is a very, very good start to a compromise bill that nobody will love -- but that everybody can live with. And that's what a compromise is, b'gad."
• Andrew Sullivan: "I have to say I found little wrong with it. The president's insistence on both goals - border security and gradual legalization of millions of illegal immigrants already here - makes sense to me."
• Professor Bainbridge: "You can't do this piecemeal. Give the Tancredos of the world a fence and they'll never budge on anything else. Give the la Razas of the world amnesty and they'll never budge on security."
• Blue Crab Boulevard: "While the speech was actually quite a lot better than I feared, it will not placate the hardliners on this issue."

Hugh Hewitt's initial positive reaction to the speech was quickly undone by WH surrogates: "My interview with Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security Julie Myers staggered me, undoing in a handful of minutes my confidence in the president's commitment to border security first. Either the president's team had not communicated effectively with sub-cabinet appointees about the fence, or the president doesn't really believe in the fence, because Assistant Secretary Myers is clearly not a proponent of the fence. Memo to Tony Snow: The blogosphere/talk radio callers/e-mailers are turning against this speech in a decisive fashion."

QandO was sympathetic but thought many parts of the plan would fail on implementation: "Presenting a Social Security card to an employer is prima facie evidence that you are employable. So, you can create a super-high tech "green card" all you want, but when an employee presents a Social Security card, and says he's an American, an employer won't ask to see the super high-tech green card. He has no reason to. So, the president's "solution" sounds good, but without a major change in employment law, it will do absolutely nothing to solve the problem of either illegal immigrant employment, or the black market in Social Security cards. Otherwise, the illegal, when faced with the difficulty of obtaining the super high-tech green card, or the forged Social Security card, will always choose the latter."

California Conservative has a detailed issue-by-issue refutation of Bush claims. A sampling: "Claim: "Illegal immigrants do the jobs that Americans won't." False: Americans will perform any legal job necessary to support themselves and their families."

On the left, many bloggers took simple joy in watching the right attack each other. Running Scared, Sadly No!, and Midtopia all posted along these lines.

But if Bush was looking for bipartisan support for his speech, he found ... some. The Left Coaster: "I watched Bush's speech tonight, as well as Dick Durbin's Democratic response. Simply put, Bush gave one of his best speeches tonight, and laid out a broad immigration reform proposal that endorses the elements of the McCain-Kennedy proposal. ...Durbin smartly aligned the Democrats with Bush on the issue tonight, leaving Bush's biggest problem Matthews noted with Bush's own base. And that is exactly where we suggested the Democrats place themselves on this issue: with the McCain-Kennedy proposal, and yes, with Bush, while he does battle with his own base heading into the fall election."

Comments From Left Field also liked the address but still saw nefarious GOP plans: "This was a decent speech. Yet I don't think it will do anything for Bush politically. ...The biometric, tamper proof ID card is fundamentally a national ID card --- wonder how the GOP will use this for voter suppression efforts as it seems custom made for that (Hi there Georgia)." Meanwhile fellow lefty Orcinus thought our neighbors to the north were being neglected: "Why, if post-9/11 border security is such a suddenly serious concern, aren't we sending the Guard to the Canadian border?"

FBI: On The Bright Side, At Least Somebody Is Trying To Enforce Federal Law

Lefty bloggers were quick to latch onto reports from ABC's The Blotter that the FBI is tracking the numbers of investigative reporters to root out confidential sources. Lefties Taylor Marsh, War and Piece, Think Progress, The Reaction, and The Democratic Daily were all very concerned.

Georgia10 at DailyKos notes ambiguous legal authority on the issue and concludes: "In any event, the fact remains that the protection of a reporter's phone records has been and should be within the purview of the judicial branch, where the government can set forth evidence as to why it requires access and reporters can counter with the implications of granting that access. With the ABC News revelation, though, it is unclear whether the government even went through the proper legal channels to access the phone records. ... It may be that the government did indeed obtain a court order to access that information. This latest revelation, if true, demands a full investigation."

Other lefties picked up on The Blotters mention of National Security Letters. The Political Animal: "The FBI is now harassing reporters in a way that previously required the consent of a judge - which usually wasn't given except as a "last resort." NSLs, by contrast, are issued by the FBI itself. There. Is. No. Oversight. At. All." Talking Points Memo: "Ross's report is still awfully murky. But it suggests that the FBI is using new provisions of the Patriot Act which allows for the expanded use of so-called National Security Letters. As Ross explains, "the NSLs are a version of an administrative subpoena and are not signed by a judge. Under the law, a phone company receiving a NSL for phone records must provide them and may not divulge to the customer that the records have been given to the government." ...In rule of law terms, I guess there's some extremely mild solace to be taken in the fact that the administration has apparently deigned to follow the law in this case. But a police state law still gets you a police state. ...This is what the Patriot Act is being used for. In a free society, law enforcement goes before independent magistrates. Apparently we're now beyond that.

Righty bloggers quickest to respond thought lefties were missing the bigger picture. In From The Cold: "The MSM will scream long and loud about this one, but let's keep things in perspective. Under existing federal statutes, intelligence officials who divulge sensitive information to the press are likely in violation of the law. The unauthorized leak of such data results in a referral from the intelligence agency to the Justice Department, which launches a criminal probe. Federal prosecutors then have the right to gather and subpoena evidence in support of that effort, including phone records. If authorities discover a series of calls between the office phone or cell phone of an intelligence officer and Brian Ross of ABC News, well, that could certainly be relevant in identifying and prosecuting leakers."

Other righties also focused on the law and order angle. Right Wing Nut House: "Trying to have any kind of a conversation with a liberal over the revelation today that a government insider informed ABC News reporters that the government was "tracking" their phone numbers is an absolute impossibility. They are in hysterics. ...You can spin it all you want to my lefty friends, but there are statutes on the books about giving that information to anyone...including reporters...with stiff penalties involved including jail time."Riehl World View : "Obviously...individuals with a security clearance have been leaking classified information. There's no reason to expect that wouldn't be investigated, the CIA as much as said so....Now, if the phone records, and even conversations of said individual were legitimately being investigated, it's quite possible that journalists could be caught up in that net if the target(s) of the investigation do in fact leak."

Not all righties were as sanguine on the matter. Outside The Beltway: "The government has to be able to investigate the illegal leaks of classified information by its employees, whether to journalists or enemy agents (and, no, that's not redundant). Still, one doesn't want to get back to the good old days of J. Edgar Hoover, either." Decision '08: "I'm troubled by the allegation, and I'm troubled by the leaks, and I'm troubled by just about everything associated with this entire subject. More than ever, I stand by my call for a new regulatory surveillance framework."

WH'08: Somebody Thinks They're Chuck Todd All Of A Sudden

If Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) is one of the growing number of pols to hireinternet specialists, then he ought to gave that staffer a raise! Of all the Dems in Congress The Democratic Daily highlighted Kerry's response to Bush's speech last night, not once, but twice.

Non-immigration love for Kerry could also be found over at Huffington Post where RJ Eskow thinks Kerry can be the anti-Hillary: "Here's a snapshot of Democratic Presidential politics in mid-2006: The press has declared Hillary's nomination inevitable, which of course means she's vulnerable. There's jockeying for the "anti-Hillary" role of "liberal Democratic" alternative to her continuing crass triangulation. There's a lot of interest in Feingold in progressive circles, and Al Gore is emerging as leading (if undeclared) candidate for the role. So ...should Kerry run again, or is he somehow too compromised? Progressives should remember that there was a time when they thought of Gore exactly as many of them now do about Kerry: resentful that he didn't wage a stronger campaign, disappointed that he seemed to succumb to the advice of inept consultants, depressed by his seeming indecisiveness. ...Gore seems to be a transformed man - so much so that the "Gore II" seems like a fresh face. Can Kerry undergo the same transformation? He seems to be walking the same road. ...He's got money, mailing lists, a platform - and apparently he's got passion, too. I don't see any reason why he shouldn't run. Hopefully, the best candidate will emerge from the primaries. ...There will come a time for Clinton opponents to coalesce around the 'anti-Hillary.' But for now, why not see what Kerry and his opponents can do? History will help decide the rest."

Between his upcoming movie and SNL appearances ex-VP Al Gore's name is popping up a lot around the blogosphere. Just since yesterday the following blurbs crossed the Blogometer's radar:

• The Plank: "It's not often a presidential campaign is launched on Saturday Night Live, but, if Al Gore does run in '08, I think this might later be looked upon as his de facto announcement speech. There are a number of arguments in favor of a Gore candidacy-- Ryan Lizza limned some of them here -- but I think the strongest rationale for a Gore presidential run is that it would give voters an opportunity to pretend (as Gore did on SNL) that the last eight years simply didn't happen, that they were all just a bad dream. Sort of like the seventh season of Dallas."
• The Carpetbagger Report: "I get the feeling Gore's growing popularity among the activists, bloggers, and the netroots has not yet spilled over into the general public. At least, that is, not yet."
• Pharyngula: "I unreservedly cast my vote for Gore last time he ran (although I had a great many reservations about Lieberman), and I'd do it again. I've just seen the trailer for his new movie, An Inconvenient Truth, and guess what? I got a fever. And the only prescription-is more Al Gore. A president who actually cares about science, and pays attention to good science? Sign me up."
• Brainster's Blog: "The activist base can't stand Hillary, but the activist base pushed Howard Dean in 2004. And while Feingold is beating up on Hillary, where's Al Gore going to get any votes? Gore's only chance is to go after Feingold's supporters, but those are the same kooks who backed Dean in 2004. Getting those folks on board is like inviting Long John Silver to be your ship's cook."

Blog of the Moderate Left takes the time to handicap the Dem primary field...a picture not terribly unlike one we've seen before:

1. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) (Last Ranking: 1) No doubt, she's still atop the leaderboard, and probably will be until early 2008. But why do I have this sneaking suspicion that she won't be accepting the nomination that summer?

2. Sen. Russell D. Feingold (D-WI) (LR: 5) No, he won't set the world afire, but he is shaping up to be Hillary's bête noire and the favorite of the netroots. Pure on the war, voted against the Patriot Act, he's Paul Wellstone with more hair and less charisma. Again, I suspect we won't see him get the endorsement.

3. Ex-Gov. Mark Warner (D-VA) (LR: 6) He'll have The New Republic's vote locked up from day one; the question will be if there's any room to Hillary's right for him to run. He has, however, outmaneuvered Evan Bayh for the early favorite to be the "conservative" Democrat. Last "conservative" Democrat to earn the party's endorsement: William Jennings Bryan. Plus, he'd probably get my vote were the primary today. He's doomed.

4. Ex-Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) (LR: 2) Slips a bit, but still a potentially formidable figure. Yes, he was somewhat disappointing as a Veep candidate, but let's not forget that Bob Shrum was calling the shots. Nevertheless, I just don't see him getting the nod either. No, call me crazy, but I think your nominee will be.

5. Ex-Sen. Albert Gore, Jr. (D-TN) (LR: 9) Last time around, I said, "I just don't see Al running, and I really don't see Al winning." I think both of those statements may be wrong. He's pure on the left, he's got a film about global warming in the hopper, he seems to have found his passion for the issues again. Like Nixon in '68, he's tanned, he's rested, he's ready. And he's the best-situated candidate to play Anti-Hillary in 2008. The only question is if he'll run. So far he says no-but nobody will hold it against him if in, say, January of 2008, he tells us he feels he must run-for America.

Rounding out BML's list: 6. Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) (LR: 4); 7. Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.) (D-AR) (LR: 8 ); 8. Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) (LR: NR); 9. Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM) (LR: 3); 10. Fmr. Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) (LR: NR); 11. Gov. Tom Vilsack (D-IA) (LR: NR); 12. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) (LR: 7); 13. Fmr. Sen. Mike Gravel (D-AK) (LR: NR); 14. Everyone else in the United States of America - You never know; that Kelly Clarkson is pretty popular...280,000,001. Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) (LR: NR)

BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: The Latin Thinker

Today the Blogometer talks to Jon Ponder, who founded Pensito Review.

What is your full name?

Jon Ponder

What is your age?

50

Where did you grow up?

Born in Mineral Wells, Texas, grew up in suburban North Carolina, moved to Manhattan at 29, and then Los Angeles five years later.

Where do you live now?

A block from City Hall in West Hollywood, with Page Beaver, my partner of 27 years, who is a publishing executive. We met in college in 1976.

What is your occupation?

I own Geod Media Group, which distributes film and video to on-demand markets. We are launching the Third Screen Video Awards this year, sponsored by Columbia College in Chicago.

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

Politics: I grew up in the shadow of Zeno Ponder, a distant relative and an often controversial Democratic Party boss in the North Carolina mountains. As a child, I volunteered for our neighbor, Dan Moore, in his successful campaign for governor of North Carolina. As an adult, I volunteered on presidential campaigns of Jimmy Carter, Pat Schroeder and others.

Media: I was a professional writer from 1980 until 1996, mostly in advertising and public relations. In the early 1980s, I wrote feature articles for Charlotte Magazine, book reviews for the Charlotte Observer and scripted a syndicated radio show.

When did you start blogging and why?

Why: My cousin Patricia Ponder, who is a writer and political consultant, and I started Pensito Review for intensely patriotic reasons: We love our country and we were horrified at the direction the conservative movement was taking it. Buck Banks, a friend from college days who is a writer (and registered Independent),joined us a few months after we launched for much the same reasons. I think it's safe to say we're all three even more horrified today about Republican incompetence and malfeasance but there is hope for the first time in six years that these dark days may end soon.

When: We launched Pensito Review in January 2005. We expected to have a couple hundred readers a week, but last month (March 2006) we had over 180,000 "unique visitors."

What does "pensito" mean? You didn't ask, but it means "to think" in Latin. (Classy, huh?)

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

I recently wrote an article about political consultants Steve Jarding and Dave "Mudcat" Saunders and their crusade to return the Democratic Party to its populist roots in the South, "Gospel According to Jarding and Mudcat: The Blue State South Will Rise Again."

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

I get up about 4 a.m., caffeinate and multi-task: Watch C-SPAN's "Washington Journal" live; play with my cats, Butch and Zig; read the Los Angeles Times; scan BuzzFlash.com and start researching and writing. I try to have a couple of stories up by 7 a.m. and will add as many as time permits throughout the day.

With New York-based writer Terri Decker, we're working a new site, the Falco Report, which covers quirky non-political stories about entertainment and media. Terri and I share a salacious interest in scandal history, and this is a much-needed outlet for that. My company also publishes industry news blogs, The Short Sheet and VOD Report, so I spend a lot of time editing and writing.

Who is your favorite political blogger?

Aside from my esteemed co-editors, I admire Pam Spaulding, editor of Pam's House Blend out of Durham, NC, for her way with words and clarity of purpose.

Favorite non-political blogger?

Hands down, Nikki Finke at Deadline Hollywood Daily from "LA Weekly." Also like LAist.

Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?

Steve Lopez in the "Los Angeles Times" covers life in the LA sprawlplex like nobody else. I like Matt Taibi's reporting in "Rolling Stone" and elsewhere. Molly Ivins speaks for every Southerner with good sense.

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

There is only one: "The Countdown" with Keith Olbermann on MSNBC. I've been an Olbermann fan since he was a sportscaster on local news in LA in the 1990s. I'm glad Keith is finally getting the recognition he is due.

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

Washington Post and Progressive Talk 1150 AM(because I can't get a radio signal in my bunker-like condo).

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

The aforementioned BuzzFlash.com and Pam's House Blend, as well as 10,000 Monkeys and a Camera, Echidne of the Snakes, Huffington Post, the Brad Blog. James Wolcott. Crooks & Liars and Firedoglake, just to name a few.

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

I must read a newspaper every day. Fortunately, my local paper, the Los Angeles Times, is the best newspaper in the country.

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

In general, media deployment will be similar to now, with both corporations and independents operating sites. Among political sites, there will be monetization, consolidation -- and, especially, video.

Producing video will be even easier and cheaper than today, and web-delivered video will be available in about twice as many homes. The number of broadband-enabled homes is projected to grow from 38 million today to 71 million by 2010.

To be competitive, political sites like ours will have to offer video newscasts. In fact, our group has the technical resources to go into production right now, and have done some preliminary planning and strategizing. While the platform is not quite robust enough at this point, videocasting is definitely part of our long-term plans for Pensito Review.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: A Blog Divided Against Itself...

If you thought immigration was dividing the GOP, just look what its doing to the righty blogosphere. The group-blog site Polipundit has been ripped asunder by the issue. Lorie Byrd at Byrd Droppings explains: "I received a lengthy email from Polipundit tonight alerting us to an editorial policy change that included the following: "From now on, every blogger at PoliPundit.com will either agree with me completely on the immigration issue, or not blog at PoliPundit.com." I would provide additional context, but Polipundit has asked that the contents of our emails not be disclosed publicly and I think that is a fair request. There has been plenty written in the posts over the past week alone to let readers figure out what happened. Polipundit ended a later email with this: "It's over. The group-blogging experiment was nice while it lasted, but we have different priorities now. It's time to go our own separate ways."

Polipundit responded: "So far, I've allowed the guest bloggers here to write pretty much what they pleased about all issues, including illegal immigration. But on the illegal immigration issue, I now find myself having to contend with at least three out of four guest bloggers who will reflexively try to poke holes in any argument I make."

LEST WE FORGET: A Job Americans Aren't Doing

For those reading on the web, simply click over but for those reading in print Day By Day by Chris Muir adds this comic to the immigration debate:

First Panel: "So you all want to join the Border Patrol?...Even though y'all are illegal immigrants?"..."Si. Si."

Second Panel: "What makes you think you could work for the Border Patrol?"

Third Panel: "Because senor, we are willing to do work that Americans Don't want to do."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:10 PM

May 15, 2006

5/15: A Telling Week

Anyone could tell you what lefty blogger reax to Pres. Bush's prime-time address will be. Righty bloggers are a different story. Many hope Bush turns a pro-enforcement corner while others think he's hopelessly out of touch. Both sides were abuzz this weekend over reports that WH dep./CoS Karl Rove had been indicted. By 5/15 it was clear that the accuracy of the claim will determine one blogger's credibility on both sides of the aisle. Also today, GOP and Dem WH'08 news, as well as a web ad up against Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT).

IMMIGRATION: Don't Fence Us In?

If righty bloggers are at all representative of the GOP base, then Bush has a real opportunity to win back conservative desertions with his 5/15 p.m. address.

Hugh Hewitt was among those righty bloggers optimistic Bush could make the issue a winner: "The president's speech on Monday night is a huge moment for him, a rare chance to recapture the momentum on the issue of border security and with it, renew the country's confidence in his commitment to national security, a confidence first shaken by the ports deal, and eroded by the long negotiations to form the Iraqi government." But even Hewitt had warnings for Bush: "He must avoid the word "virtual," as in "virtual fencing." The White House isn't surrounded by a "virtual fence," and voters have no faith in "virtual fences" except as supplements to the real thing."

Righty Captain's Quarters thought the Pres. could gain significant ground if he respected his base's wishes: "The voices of the people have been heard, and their representatives have made some languishes adjustments. This proves that remaining engaged but not offering blind brand loyalty can bring change. We need to remain engaged in this battle and on spending in order to continue to return the GOP to core conservative values." Also cautiously optimistic: QandO, Stop The ACLU, PoliPundit, Hot Air, and Powerline.

While many righties welcomed reports that Bush would use the National Guard to help enforce the border, some righties were uncomfortable with the idea. Outside The Beltway: "Short of an armed invasion from Mexico, it is simply bizarre to consider militarizing the border. This saddens me, though I understand the politics." Blue Crab Boulevard: "In other words, I do not want troops deployed indefinitely, but only until a permanent fence can be built.

Many big names on the right are unhappy with early detailed reports of the speech. John Derbyshire at The Corner: "If the preview in this morning's edition of America's Newspaper of Record can be relied on, the President's speech on immigration reform tonight will be the milk-and-water leaky-bandaid stuff we expected. No border wall, no attempt to deport or arrest the illegal population, nothing on birthright citizenship, a "guest worker" scam-o-rama (foreigners fly in, pick up sheaf of bogus documents for $100 to "prove" they've been here 5 yrs, get on the "path to citizenship"). Let's face it, GWB is a dyed-in-the-wool open-borders fanatic. We can expect nothing from him in this area." Michelle Malkin and Daily Pundit have also given up on Bush. La Shawn Barber's Corner best sums up their thought's: "I predict that his speech writers will insult our intelligence and present unsustainable and bad argumentation supporting amnesty for border jumpers, including the strawman "We are a nation of immigrants!" and the claim that deporting millions of illegal criminals is impractical."

Most lefties see the speech as nothing but desperate pandering. Talking Points Memo: "All I can make of this plan to help guard the border with soldiers is that it's one more example that there is simply no gambit too craven or silly for this president not to resort to it. ...But am I wrong to think that the president simply couldn't square the circle between the corporate cheap-labor forces who fund his campaigns and the cultural conservatives who supply his voters? Growing out of that failure, this 'militarize the border' hokum is the policy announcement equalivent of crawling under his desk and screaming "Help!"

Pro-enforcement bloggers can be found on the left, but that makes them doubly unsympathetic to Bush on this issue. Running Scared: "Then again, while I don't have hard numbers to back this up, I bet with the money that we spend in Iraq in one year we could build a wall along the entire Mexican border, fifty feet high and fifty feet into the ground with razor wire, electronic sensors, guard dogs, Godzilla and that robot from the Jetsons to zap anybody coming near it.

ROVE: He Probably Has The Same WH Sources As Sy Hersh ...

WH dep./CoS Karl Rove's fate may or may not extend beyond this week, but by 5/19 the reputation of author/blogger Jason Leopold will be settled. Leopold reported 5/12 for truthout.org that "Within the last week, Karl Rove told President Bush and Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten...that he will be indicted in the CIA leak case and will immediately resign his White House job when the special counsel publicly announces the charges against him." Leopold followed that post up with a 5/13 report claiming that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald served Rove with an indictment on 5/12.

A who's who of lefty boggers linked to the report gloatingly: The Left Coaster, Bob Cesca at The Huffington Post, Democrats & Liberals, Demagogue, Taylor Marsh, The Democratic Daily, The Moderate Voice,Booman Tribune, News Hounds, and The Political Animal. The Washington Note also linked but noted he had been unable to confirm the story.

Righty bloggers were not only skeptical, but they viewed the episode as an opportunity to discredit at least one adversary for some time. RightWinged: "What I meant to say is that if this turns out to not be true, TruthOut and all of their followers deserve an internet beating from the rest of us in the blogosphere." Steve commenting at OrinKerr.com: "One way or the other, I think this story will be determinative of his credibility for all time." Also on the right with similar thoughts: QandO, Dr. Sanity, A Blog For All, Right Wing Nut House, and Hot Air.

Byron York talked with Rove spokesman Mark Corallo, who claimed the story was completely baseless. York summarized his talk at the Corner:

Did Patrick Fitzgerald come to Patton Boggs for 15 hours on 5/12? No. ... Did he come to Patton Boggs for any period of time Friday? No. ...Did he meet anywhere else with Karl Rove's representatives? No. ...Did he communicate in any way with Karl Rove's representatives? No. ...Did he inform Rove or Rove's representatives that Rove had been indicted? No.

By 5/15, skepticism on the left had grown. TalkLeft contacted Leopold on 5/14 and reported: "Jason does not believe his sources are setting him up. He thinks Corallo is not being truthful with York and Gerstein. ...Jason thinks the announcement of Rove's indictment will come any time after Tuesday of this week." TalkLeft then outlines some technical legal reasons to doubt Jason's version of the story before concluding: "Bottom line: I believe Jason's sources told him what he reported. Were the sources accurate? Were they basically right but just mistaken on a few of the legal technicalities due to an unfamiliarity with the jargon? Time will tell. If they lied, Jason has promised to disclose their identities."

Lefty The Reality Based Community had his own doubts without talking to Leopold: "1. Who would have told Jason Leopold, but no reporter with a mass outlet, that Rove had been indicted? 2. If the rumors are flying around the White House, why does Leopold have a monopoly on hearing about them? 3. If Rove has been told that he has been indicted, why doesn't he quit to spare Bush the embarrassment of having current, rather than a former, Assistant to the President mugged and booked? Even Clueless Claude Allen could figure out that much. 4. If Rove told Bolten that Rove has been indicted, why didn't Bolten reply, "The President accepts your resignation to spend more time with your family with great regret and great admiration for your loyal service?"

NSA: Another Day, Another NSA Poll

Bloggers react to poll numbers in one of two ways. If the poll shows Americans support their position, then the results are trumpeted and used to show how out of touch the other side is. If the poll shows Americans disagree with their position then the poll's methodology is quickly attacked. So when the Washington Post came out with a poll 5/12 showing 63% of Americans supported the NSA's phone-record program, lefty bloggers were quick to find fault. The American Street , for example, pointed out that the poll question understated the number of Americans affected by the program and failed to note that some legal scholars thought the program was illegal. Righties, on the other hand, roundly welcomed the results.

The tables were turned when Newsweek found 53% of Americans thought the program went too far. Lefty The Political Animal found his "faith in the American public is slightly restored." AMERICAblog and The Carpet Bagger Report also linked approvingly. Righty Flopping Aces cried foul, however, noting that that those polled were 27% Republican, 36% Democrat, and 32% Independent while in the "2004 Presidential election had the Republican with 50.7% of the vote next to 48.3% for the Democrat. Independents had .04%"

USA Today's 5/14 poll showing 51% of Americans disapproved of the program was highlighted by many lefties, including David Sirota and Atrios

Meanwhile Riehl World View was actually polled by Gallup. His initial reaction was not favorable: "A question over the NSA program troubled me as it dealt with the government having all of my phone call information in their hands. If I hadn't been following the story, I might have assumed they meant the content of my calls, as opposed to simply the numbers existing within a database too large to even imagine. WOuldn't most people assume a phone record is an actual call?" After the results were published Riehl World View was not happy with how USA Today portrayed the results: "Thirty-four percent of respondents think Bush is getting it right, 19% say he hasn't gone far enough, 6% don't even care enough to offer an opinion. Consequently, 59% have no real issue with the program, so how can they possibly write the lede they did?"

Fellow righty Captain's Quarters picked up on the apathy line: "When looking at the raw data, the first item that causes a raised eyebrow is that over a third of the people polled either have not followed the issue closely or even at all. ... What does that tell us? ... Then we have the strange split among the naysayers. While 51% of the sample disapprove of the program, 34% of those (17% overall) believe that the program would be acceptable under some circumstances. Only 31% overall believe that the creation of a phone database by the NSA would never be acceptable under any circumstances, which tends to agree with the Post polling. That trend continues with 64% expressing little or no concern about whether the federal government has their telephone records. ... In other words, the public has a great deal of ambivalence in their initial reaction to this program, and while they don't necessarily like it, it isn't keeping them awake at night."

NRO's Media Blog had problems with the poll's wording: "When respondents were not reminded that the NSA is not listening to or recording conversations as part of this program (important information, given that some in the media have tried to conflate this database with the terrorist surveillance program), 51 percent disapproved."

Atrios and The Carpet Bagger Report both note that 62% want "immediate congressional hearings to investigate this program." Stephen Kaus at The Huffington Post doesn't think the Dems can nail down a victory: "The new polls are consistent with other polls over the past few months showing unease with the "big brother" stories that have daylighted recently. The coast is clear for the Democrats in congress to take the lead. Why do I feel that Danys Baez is striding in to "protect" another Dodger lead?"

While reacting before the Newsweek and USA Today polls The Left Coaster urged Dem caution: "In choosing which issues to use against this White House and the GOP in the fall campaign, those of us on the center-left must be prepared for the possibility that the country doesn't see the NSA data mining and wiretapping programs with the same degree of alarm as we do. ...This is why there are Democrats inside the Beltway who believe that a focus on this issue at this time, and away from other issues where Bush is clearly vulnerable such as gas prices, Iraq, and the general direction of the country are counterproductive heading into the fall election."

Captain's Quarter's thinks the issue is a winner for the GOP: "If Russ Feingold and Ron Wyden want to turn the confirmation hearing into an inquisition on these two points, they risk even further erosion of Democratic standing on national security." While fellow righty My Pet Jawa smells conspiracy: "Interesting, the only communications executive who obstructed the NSA effort is under criminal indictment. ...I still think there's a good chance, as I wrote earlier, that the "leak" of the NSA program was deliberate, and designed to force Democrats into the open with their unpopular opposition to lawful surveillance programs."

Finally, righty Macsmind has a unique legal justification for the program: "Like I said before, this program isn't new. The 9/11 NSA/Telecom agreement, is actually based on a act S. 2375 (CALEA) which was passed by the Democrat House and Senate in 1994 (Clinton administration)

WH08: Who Wouldn't Want A Gore/HRC Dem Primary?

Arianna Huffington sees similarities between Tom Hanks latest movie and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY):

Meanwhile, on the political front, I've been trying to crack The Hillary Code. Unlocking the latest Clinton cryptex, we find not a papyrus map but other kinds of symbolic clues: It doesn't take a dashing Harvard symbologist and a sexy French cryptographer to figure this one out. Hillary Clinton is determined to single-handedly remove every last vestige of authenticity from American politics. Yet at this most propitious political moment, the presumptive favorite to lead the Democrats is doing everything in her power to distance herself from what should be the central holy tenet of the Democratic Party: opposition to the war in Iraq. The Da Vinci Code is a heart-pounding, pulse-racing thriller. The Hillary Code is a head-pounding, soul-sapping killer. My advice to Dems: See the movie, reject the candidate... and find a leader who will "seek the truth," not some deceptive middle ground.

MyDD looks at HRC's endorsement of Lieberman and concludes: "You can argue for right-wing policies. You can argue for accomodationist policies. But that's not what's happening here. This is simply lying. As I've said before and as I'll say in the future, Hillary Clinton thinks nothing of lying to Democrats. She has contempt for all of us." Cannonfire agrees: "Have you met a single Democrat who wants Hillary to run the country? I haven't. Her candidacy seems to be a Republican thang.

Lefty WH'08 love is quickly finding a home however. An Andrew Sullivan e-mailer writes: "Gore can sit back and watch Feingold do the dirty work and get in as Hillary weakens. Gore's big advantages: he's been right on the issues, he retains stature among Democrats, and, surprisingly, he'll appear fresh from being away so long. Other than SNL last night, when was the last time you saw Gore on TV? Gore-Warner is the winning ticket in '08." Talking Points Memo concurs: "Andrew Sullivan just published an email from a reader who says it'll be Al Gore in 2008 for the Democrats, not Hillary. I could see it. I could totally see it. ...I don't think Hillary is anywhere near as strong as she looks or as people seem to think she is. And Gore would be formidable."

McCAIN: No Sister Soulja Here

If there's a center in the blogosphere, it was easily impressed by Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) 5/13 performance at Liberty University in VA.

• Often shunned righty Andrew Sullivan: "The speech is...a truly inspired piece of work. It's funny at times, sharp, moving, sincere, self-deprecating. What it manages to do is something that, sadly, Bush has been unable to do. It manages to argue forcefully for the moral cause of the war against Islamist terrorism and yet to defend the dignity and value of our strong and impassioned debates about it. It's about reconciliation - and not just within Republican circles. It's about reconciliation at a national level, a way to get beyond the polarization of the last few years, without descending into hazy delusions about the core and real disagreements that still divide us."
• Often shunned lefty Bull Moose: "Today, Senator McCain delivered an extraordinary address at Liberty University. It should be read by all Americans. It is a message of national unity in the face of the security challenges that confront our nation. The speech is a call for putting our differences in perspective and appreciating what we have in common. ...At this time of intense polarization, it is heartening to hear a message that elevates our national dialog. And now, more than ever, America needs leaders like Senator McCain who can bring our county together again."
• Lefty Greg's Opinion: "I'd have to echo that it's a great speech. I'm not sure it reflects that now-buried quality of his that once served him well - the ability to display an independent streak here and there. Instead, McCain goes the "uniter" route and at least says all the right things along the way. I don't think anyone would have expected another "agents of intolerance" rant, but this effort isn't bad by any means. If McCain maintains some credibility along these lines, I still think he'll be nearly impossible to beat (if he manages to win the GOP nomination ... still a big if)."
• Ambivablog: "McCain's marvelous words should calm the fears of anyone who thinks he's pandered irrevocably rightward. On the contrary, it's a brilliant stroke to deliver this same speech both at Liberty University and at the New School. I daresay it's . . . presidential."
• Donklephant: "The one, the only, John McCain. If even ten percent of American politicians were like this guy, just think of how much lower our national cynicism quotient would be."

No hard-core righties gave the McCain speech a rave. Byron York at The Corner notes that McCain failed to mention his feud with Rev. Jerry Falwell and instead focussed on reconciliation.

The further down the lefty blogosphere one went, the more harsh the thoughts. AMERICAblog: "Five years ago McCain called Jerry Falwell "an agent of intolerance." This time Mccain REALLY wants to be president, so Falwell is okay. John Mccain, the shifting windmill. Don't like something he has to say, just tell him you're considering voting for him - he'll change his mind."

Both left and right bloggers noted that McCain took a pointed jab at the blogosphere. If he was looking for a fight, he found it.

• Think Progress: "McCain's hypocrisy was noted on many blogs. He returned the favor in his speech at Liberty by attacking the blogosphere...Oh, so McCain is always right -- the problem is that we're bloggers so we're too impressed with ourselves to understand. If you are reading this, you are part of the blogosphere too, so you won't understand McCain's genius either."
• MyDD: "In other news, John McCain used his platform at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University to attack the blogs. This is probably because no one reads us as the blogs are clearly not important."
• Byron York at The Corner: "While McCain's speech at Liberty University was about reconciliation, he did take a jab or two at the occasional villain. Like-bloggers."

LIEBERMAN: Still No Love For Joe

The lefty blogger assault on Lieberman continues unabated, with bloggers circulating businessman Ned Lamont's "Introduction Video."Cannonfire intros the clip: "While you are waiting for Fitzmas II, check out this campaign video for Ned Lamont, the real Democrat who is mounting a challenge to Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut primary. This video is both powerful and funny -- espcially when it portrays Joey and Georgie sitting in a tree, Kay-Eye-Ess-Ess-Eye-En-Gee." Seeing The Forest and firedoglake also provide links.

Not that she was popular with the bloggers to begin with, but MyDD is not impressed with Clinton's endorsement of Lieberman:

The slow and steady stream of prominent Democrats endorsing Joe Lieberman continues. This time, it's Hillary Clinton. Now, to be clear, endorsing Lieberman is pretty bad, but it's not the end of the world. The Senate is a club, and Senate Democrats are conforming to the norms of that club. I've attacked both Harry Reid and Barack Obama for this patently elitist behavior, and we need to realize that these people are not always on our side. But it makes some sense, in that Lieberman now owes them. Lieberman is neutered in some fashion.
Joe Lieberman wouldn't even sign a letter with other Democrats resisting a phrase-out of Social Security until March, 2005. Tooth and nail? Whatever. Lieberman wouldn't join the battle until it was basically over. And now he's claiming credit for stopping privatization, and Hillary Clinton is backing and promoting this claim.

MyDD also controls expectations for Lamont's performance next week: "The Connecticut Democratic Party Convention is next weekend, and hopefully I'll make it up there. Lamont needs 15% of the delegates to qualify for the ballot. If I had to bet, I'd guess he's going to get between 5-10% of the delegate total, which means he'll be taking the longer route of getting 15,000 signatures."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: R-E-S-P-E-C-T

If there is one word that best describes lefty bloggers it is ambition. MyDD outlines his strategy for rebuilding the Dems. from the ground up:

We keep coming back to the central fact - the power players in the Dem Party are only interested in power. They have no respect for Progressives and only want our votes, money and efforts. After that we can drop dead and die....Unfortunately the religious right-wingers have shown us the way and we refuse to learn from their efforts. If the Publicans ignore them - they walk. Hence they are never ignored! The same could be true for us.

Do you remember the first two things that Kerry did after winning the Iowa primary? First, he gave a speech saying the lobbyists were going to be kicked out the door, and second, he offered a corporate tax cut. Does that seem strange to you? It did to me. Since then, I've learned a little something about politicians. What Kerry was doing was an example of dog whistle politics - Kerry signaled to Republican corporate elites that he wouldn't be bad for business, so they should not fund an attack against him. This did two terrible things to Kerry. One, it forced him to take both sides of every issue, including Iraq, and appear unprincipled. And two, the elites funded Bush anyway, and Kerry depressed his own base.

...What we as progressives need are politicians that bet on people. I assume that politicians act in their own self-interest; assuming otherwise is foolish. What this means is that we have to make being progressive in politicians' self-interest, and acting as a right-winger against their self-interest. ...You see, politicians care about getting elected, and that's pretty much all they can afford to care about. ... The key for progressives is to understand that elections matter, but how politicians get elected matters more. It's not about sitting out elections if you don't get your way, it's about making sure that when a seat opens up, or an idea is under debate, or someone needs a set of numbers, your team is there with the people and the information.

...We need a new party, and building that party will take thousands of us. As the Clinton corporate wing leaves into lobbying, and newly emboldened progressives become more involved in funding the party and organizing it, the Democratic Party will become more progressive. That's already happening, and you can see it in Nancy Pelosi's agenda. Nowhere do you see a corporate tax cut in there. The 1980s Reagan-supporting Congressional Democrat is a dying species. As we build that progressive party, we will dominate more and more of the political apparatus until we will be able to force someone like Hillary Clinton to govern as a progressive. Why? Because in order to be elected, she won't have any other choice. That's what we should want. Power. Politicians are just playing a role. Don't fight it anymore. Recognize it and embrace it. They will listen to us when they have to, and not a moment before

LEST WE FORGET: North Country

ScrappleFace has figured out how Pres. Bush can make all GOPers happy with his speach tonight. Have the troops face north: "With Congress moving toward heavier penalties for undocumented workers and their employers, President Bush reportedly told Mexican President Vicente Fox that the U.S. government will do all it can to "retain the people who do the jobs no one else will do." ..."They always like to see military deployments," an unnamed White House spokesman said, "and since most members of Congress never visit the border, they won't realize that our troops are facing north."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:25 PM

May 12, 2006

TWIB Notes

Up until the NSA story exploded the blogosphere was dominated by the Richard Cohen-lefty blog blood feud and reactions to it. The Blogometer chose not to cover the blow-by-blow action and instead takes a look at what this blogswarm says about the state of the blogosphere.

Labeling anything often betrays nuance at the expense of expediency (see this space's daily use of crude left/right distinctions) but it can also aid discussion by providing common reference points. Even as just a small subset of the blogosphere, the political blogosphere, is still huge and its varying intentions and functions are hard to describe but can be roughly broken as follows:

ATM Machine: The blogosphere has definitely made a name for itself as a vehicle to raise campaign funds. Witness ex-Pres. candidate Howard Dean's fundraising prowess. The right is not completely absent from this field but it is definitely dominated by the left (see ActBlue)

Citizen Journalist: Pretty much every blog includes the first hand observations of its author/s and more and more of them are devoting significant resources to original coverage of events (see TPM Muckraker). Both sides also have great resources for staying abreast of campaign news (see MyDD and Swing State Project on the left and RedState on the right).

Traffic Cop: Right and left are quick to call foul when the MSM makes an error, or, in the minds of a blogger, does not cover a certain story or give it enough attention. The right was able to bring down a major news anchor (Dan Rather) and the left outed Jeff Gannon and got Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell to correct an misstatement. It could also be argued that in the same traffic-cop vein the righty blogosphere played signifcant roles in the demotion of Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) and the removal of WH/Counsel Harriet Miers' nomination for SCOTUS. The left is currently trying to flex a similar muscle by ousting Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT).

Evangelist: Kos admits that he is more concerned with winning elections than with policy discussions but their are plenty of bloggers that engage in well reasoned rational debate on a daily basis. On the left Talking Points Memo, The Political Animal, TAPPED, and The Huffington Post all feature mature, obscenity free policy discussion on a daily basis. Instapundit, Captain's Quarters, Andrew Sullivan, and the Corner do the same on the right. Their are many smaller blogs I am leaving out, but the beauty of the blogosphere is the plethora of voices it supports and the way it can elevate any one voice that hits upon a particularly insightful idea. More importantly of all the roles blogs play this one is the most likely to persuade and influence the behavior of those that don't already agree with you.

The Richard Cohen/Stephen Colbert debacle mostly fits under the traffic cop label but before we get to that debate let's focus on an exchange between TNR contributor and Lieberman-agnostic Jonathan Chait and kos. Writing about his qualms in supporting businessman Ned Lamont's primary challenge Chait described lefty bloggers as "the sorts of fanatics who tore the party apart in the late 1960s and early '70s." Kos took umbrage and responded: "Okay, the part about us being "extremists" blah blah blah is obvious crap."

Obvious to whom? Kos' readers probably think Chait's description of lefty blogges as "extremist" is obviously "crap", but who else would? If kos stepped outside his house and grabbed somebody off of Telegraph Ave. that person would probably also find Chait obviously wrong. But as great as the Bay Area is (if I could live anywhere it would be there), it comes no where close to representing the rest of the country. So who else would consider kos so obviously right? Righty bloggers definitely think lefty bloggers are extremists. The 62M Americans who voted for Pres. Bush in 2004 would almost certainly agree. What about independents? What about journalists, who as a group, self identify as Dems more often than most Americas do?

This is where the bloggers role as traffic cop can torpedo their role as evangelist. Ideologically Cohen ought to be sympathetic to lefty blogger causes. Despite what lefty bloggers say, no objective person would ever conclude that Richard Cohen is a supporter of Pres. Bush. In fact I'd be willing to bet he voted against Bush twice. In trying to play traffic cop the lefty bloggers completely alienated a potential convert...and many others.

But don't take my word for it. Lefty Mahablog writes: "We might, however, want to take Cohen's charge a little more seriously. Beltway insider conventional wisdom already says that we netroots lefties are nothing but radical malcontents, and that close association with us is a political liability. Not exactly the effect we want to go for, I think. ...I get angry, too. But I think it's possible that this angry left meme, as unfair as it is, could hurt us. (Since when is swift-boating fair?) And, as I argued here, displays of anger are counterproductive to persuasion. Cohen is right about the antiwar wing of the Democratic Party helping to elect Richard Nixon. I remember it well."

And let's say that kos succeeds and Lamont wins the Dem primary. What if Lieberman then runs as an independent and trounces Lamont in the general with support from independents and moderate GOPers. Kos will have selected a Dem nominee with an army of supporters that agree Chait is obviously wrong about them...but they will also be obviously out of power.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 05:07 PM

5/12: What Hasn't Been Said Already

As the NSA story stretches into day two, it's worth asking whether bloggers have anything new to add to the debate. The Blogometer's answer is definitely yes, and begins today with a look at what the blogosphere's legal minds are saying about the phone-record program. The rest of the blogosphere reaction is often predictable, but it's still noteworthy to see which Dems the lefty bloggers specifically call to action and which righty bloggers express misgivings about the Bush admin's actions. Also today, righty bloggers aren't crazy about early reports on the Senate immigration bill and Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) mends his relationship with the lefty 'sphere.

NSA I: So If The NSA Had Paid Cash, We Wouldn't Even Be Having This Conversation?

They may not like the conclusion, or they may feel that the laws themselves make no sense. But the early blogosphere consensus is that the NSA program revealed by USA Today 5/11 is probably legal.

From the right Orin Kerr at The Volokh Conspiracy: "My still-very-tentative bottom line: The companies were probably violating the Stored Communications Act by disclosing the records to the NSA before the Patriot Act renewal in March 2006, although the new language in the Patriot Act renewal at least arguably made it more likely that the disclosure was legal under the emergency exception. ...First, let's update the facts. It now looks relatively clear that the NSA was not directing the telephone companies to conduct any particular monitoring on the NSA's behalf. Rather, NSA officials were persuading the telephone companies to voluntarily disclose their call records to the government. In other words, the government wasn't actually doing the monitoring, but instead was encouraging the telephone companies to disclose call records to them that the telephone companies already had collected."

From the left Marty Lederman at Balkinization: "After a bit more reflection, and as explained below, I think it's safe to say that at least some of the statutory arguments against the program might not be as strong as they first appeared -- depending on the particular details of the program, which we of course do not know. ...The upshot of all this is that the NSA appears to have induced certain telecom providers to violate 18 USC 2702(c) and 47 USC 222. Nevertheless, it also appears, at least at first glance, that our phone records are hardly secure from being added to government databases: The government may in fact quite easily and lawfully obtain our phone records for purposes of investigating terrorism, if only the FBI Director makes the fairly modest certification prescribed in 18 USC 2709."

There were some dissenters however. Lefty Kate Martin at ACSblog: "Such surveillance, if not authorized by the FISA court, is illegal. Depending on how it was conducted, it may also have been a crime. ...It is illegal for the NSA to obtain records of phone numbers from the telephone companies unless the FISA court authorized it. The Stored Communications Act prohibits the telephone companies from disclosing such information to the government unless they receive a subpoena or a court order for the records. 18 U.S.C. 2702(c), 2703 (c). ...If the NSA used a pen register or trap and trace device in real time, it was required to obtain an order from the FISA court, either under the specific pen register provisions, 50 USC 1841 et seq. or under the provisions for electronic surveillance generally, 50 USC 1801 et seq. ...While the law provides several means for the government to obtain records showing what phone numbers were called or dialed by a particular phone number, in every instance, either a subpoena or court order is required. It appears that the NSA obtained the records of millions of Americans without having the required court order."

Also on the left Glenn Greenwald at Unclaimed Territory points out a big distinction missed by Martin, but thinks the distinction the law makes is nonsensical: "Everyone seems to agree that even with the changes effectuated to FISA by the Patriot Act, the Government is still required to obtain approval from the FISA court in order to use pen registers It is true that, strictly speaking, at least based on what we know, the Government has not used pen registers here. They didn't need to. Instead of collecting this information telephone-by-telephone, they just skipped the whole pen register annoyance and had the telecommunications companies give them all of that information for every phone. Still, it is hard to imagine (at least for people acting in good faith) how it could be illegal for the Government to use a pen register device without a court order for a single phone (it appears clear that that is illegal), but it is perfectly legal for the Government to obtain pen register information for everyone's phone in the country without bothering to obtain a court order of any kind."

Many bloggers also picked up on legal analysis at the tail end of the Washington Post's item on the program:

"One government lawyer who has participated in negotiations with telecommunications providers said the Bush administration has argued that a company can turn over its entire database of customer records -- and even the stored content of calls and e-mails -- because customers "have consented to that" when they establish accounts. The fine print of many telephone and Internet service contracts includes catchall provisions, the lawyer said, authorizing the company to disclose such records to protect public safety or national security, or in compliance with a lawful government request. "It is within their terms of service because you have consented to that," the lawyer said. If the company also consents, "and they do it voluntarily, the U.S. government can accept it."

Lefty The Anonymous Liberal cites that passage and concludes: "The NSA is not relying on court orders or administrative subpoenas, but rather the voluntary cooperation of the telecom companies. And those companies in turn must be relying on some sort of consent theory with respect to their customers; otherwise they would appear to be in violation of both the Communications Act and the Stored Communications Act, if not other statutes as well. ...Are these companies really confident that this consent theory will stand up to legal scrutiny? Who knows."

Not all bloggers had time for the legal details. Mcjoan at DailyKos: "The domestic warrantless wiretapping carried out by the NSA since September 11 was done outside of FISA, outside of the law. To quote Rep. Ed Markey, "The NSA stands for Now Spying on Americans."

NSA II: Playa Hayden

Lefty bloggers were quick to point out that Pres. Bush's 5/11 statement did not dispute the facts in the USA Today story. Under a header "NON-DENIAL DENIALS" lefty Matthew Yglesias at TAPPED writes: "To be generous, I guess he was denying that collecting, storing, and analyzing all this information amounts to "mining or trolling" through people's "personal lives." This cavalier view of privacy comes, of course, from an administration that's been second to none in terms of desiring to keep its own dealings secret." Taylor Marsh seconded the notion: " I'm with Yglesias on this one. It's a big fat non-denial denial."

Many lefties demanded that Dems use the story to take down Gen. Michael Hayden's nomination for CIA/Dir. The Left Coaster calls out Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) by name while TheBlaz at DailyKos has a list of questions Dems ought to ask at the hearing. Jane Hamsher at firedoglake wants her readers to call their Reps. and urge support of Reps. John Conyers' and Jane Harman'sLISTEN Act .

Georgia10 at DailyKos gives kudos to Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) for his leadership on privacy issues: " But where most Republicans, including the President, want to sweep such scandalous programs under the rug, Democrats have been trying to conduct at least some oversight when the privacy of Americans is at stake. Take S. 1169, the Data-Mining Reporting Act of 2005, introduced by Senator Feingold. Or how about the Data-Mining Moratorium Act of 2003."

Left of center, but still favorite the whipping boy of most lefty bloggers, Bull Moose thinks lefties are overstating their case: "As of yet, there is no evidence that the government was eavesdropping on private conversations of innocent citizens. What we know is that it is a collection of phone numbers that were put into super computers to detect patterns of suspect activity. The Bushies were not using information to destroy their political opponents. The NSA is legitimately obtaining data to thwart terrorists. ...Keep in mind that great Democratic Presidents such as FDR, Truman, JFK and LBJ approved and implemented far more intrusive intelligence programs in the interest of national security."

Righty John McIntyre at RCP Blog picked up on the show-me theme: "Show me the real alive Jane and Joe Americans who have had their liberties violated in some grotesque manner by the Patriot Act. ...I ask the same question today to the bloggers and pundits out there who are hyperventilating over the latest revelation that our security agencies are actually trying to do their job. Many of the people decrying these violations of civil liberties are the same ones who ripped the government for its inability to "connect-the-dots" prior to 9/11."

Righty Powerline looks at Qwest's privacy policy and advises the left to rethink their newest love affair. Quoting from the policy: "As a general rule, Qwest does not release customer account information to unaffiliated third parties without your permission unless we have a business relationship with those companies where the disclosure is appropriate." Powerline then quotes a reader: "Moral of the story: Those hot and bothered by the telephone call database mining program don't know or appreciate what telephone companies do all the time for their business purposes or the purposes of their business partners." Powerline: "Great point. And wasn't there a big news story just a couple of months ago about the fact that, for a nominal sum, you can buy anyone's cell phone records? In fact, liberal bloggers tried to put together a plan to buy and analyze the telephone records of prominent Republicans in hopes of finding calls that would somehow be embarrassing."

Many on the right accused the MSM of overhyping the story. NewsBusters has a thorough rundown of all the network coverage and asks, "But is this even news?" Orin Kerr at The Volokh Conspiracy thinks it is:

"As I see it, this story is really new, and is pretty different from the earlier NSA domestic surveillance stories from December and January. The earlier stories involved governmental tapping of telephone calls and e-mails when one party was outside the United States. That is, they involved the NSA recording the telephone calls and e-mails of people inside the United States from switches inside the United States when the other participant was outside the United States. Further, it seems that the government sharply limited that monitoring to a few hundred or a few thousand people, and only tapped calls when it had something like probable cause."

"Today's story is different. As best I can tell, it involves telephone companies disclosing account records of how their domestic customers were using their phones. In other words, the phone companies were disclosing lists of numbers dialed for domestic telephone subscribers to the NSA, rather than letting the NSA install switches and listen in on international calls. Further, they were doing this on a much larger scale: the disclosures were not pursuant to probable cause or reasonable suspicion. We don't know all the facts yet, but this looks new to me: It's non-content instead of content, broad scale instead of narrow, stored instead of real-time, provider disclosure instead of government tapping, and domestic accounts instead of intercepting traffic with at least one party overseas."

Also on the right, Captain's Quarters ultimately supports the program but also thinks his brethren ought to be more skeptical: "With the US still in danger of terrorist attack and with the rational possibility of sleeper cells hiding in our communities, the use of this tool makes sense and provides security for a reasonable loss of privacy. ...However, that does not make the collection of this data completely benign under any circumstances. This kind of data could be used for purposes other than finding terrorists. For instance, it could be used against whistleblowers to discover their contacts. It could get deployed against opposition parties to determine their scope and the location and number of their supporters. People could get blackmailed for their phone calls in ways that have nothing to do with national security. If the CIA or State Department (which has its own intelligence service) had this program rather than the NSA, many on the Right would feel much less sanguine about its implications."

IMMIGRATION: Does Anyone Really Want This Thing Passed?

Judging from blogosphere reaction, all sides agree that Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) won the latest battle in over immigration in the Senate. The Political Animal gives some history: "When we last heard from the Senate, Harry Reid had scuppered a compromise deal on immigration because Bill Frist had refused to provide assurances that he'd back the compromise by (a) limiting the number of amendments offered on the floor and (b) appointing serious supporters of the bill to the conference committee that will hash out a final markup with the House. Reid had the balls to kill the deal when it became clear the fix was in, and it looks like this has paid off. ...This isn't perfect, and things might eventually blow up in conference anyway. But it's better than what we had before."

Many righty bloggers smelled defeat for their pro-enforcement position. Blue Crab Boulevard: "I am still not going to be happy with a program that effectively rewards people who came here illegally with a preferred status. In other words, they should not have a better place in the queue to citizenship than those who have done it the right way. I'd also expect a massive, real crackdown on people who hire illegals or we will just be in for more." Parapundit: "The traitors are at it again. ...The US Senate seems deaf to the rising popular anger on immigration."

Righty Captain's Quarters thought the bill could still be salvaged if the right Sens. are appointed to the conference committee: "Key to the final version will be the members from both houses to the conference committee, and at least one opponent of amnesty from the Senate will be included. ...Cornyn has stood tall against the Democrats and the White House in opposing the Senate's focus on normalization while mostly ignoring border security. He will be one voice among dozens, but his inclusion does show that the Senate leadership of both parties recognize the strong push for border security. ... It also acknowledges that no conference bill will get any kind of credibility without the imprimatur of Cornyn and others of his perspective."

The Moderate Voice thinks the Dems are better off with no bill at all: "The Democrats as a party yearn for on a national scale what happened to California's then-Governor Pete Wilson who alienated Hispanic voters from the California Republican after backing a hard-line measure (that was later checkmated in court anyway). The California GOP has never recovered. And the Democrats had hoped to be able to use the overreaching of one segment of the GOP on this issue as a way to solidify their support among the important Hispanic voting bloc. ...Most likely outcome: a Senate bill but perhaps compromise with the House is impossible. But a compromise Senate bill will make it harder for Democrats to press the case that all Republicans want to make illegal immigrants felons and go after anyone who helps them."

WH'08: Suddenly, Getting Compared To Al Gore Is A Compliment?

Lefty bloggers are cooing over a new Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) profile in The Nation. Taylor Marsh: "You knew this was coming. I've been waiting for it for weeks. A new article in The Nation entitled, THE NEW JOHN KERRY. Berman gets it right: "Call it the Al Gore Effect."

The Democratic Daily is happy to see Kerry focussing on Iraq: "On the heals of yet another great speech today from John Kerry about "dissent" and "patriotism," Ari Berman writes in today's The Nation about "The New Kerry." Berman notes that during his speech at Faneuil Hall last month, "on the thirty-fifth anniversary of his stirring testimony before Congress as a representative of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Kerry was invoking a theme downplayed throughout his 2004 campaign and confronting the issue that bedeviled his candidacy: the war in Iraq." While Democrats.com is happy to see Kerry bashing Pres. Bush: "Ari Berman has written an excellent piece for The Nation called 'The New Kerry,' in which he explores changes that have taken place in the Massachusetts Senator since the 2004 presidential campaign. It's a great read focusing on a crisper, more-forceful Kerry, who appears to be through giving the Bush administration a free pass on anything."

Kerry also reached out to the blogosphere 5/11 with a post at DailyKos: "But something far more fundamental is out of whack in Washington. Every day we learn something new about this Administration's attitude - and too many people greet each story with a yawn as we learn that President Bush has announced he can disobey more than 750 laws enacted on his watch. Since when do we accept that any President has the power to set aside statutes passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution? ...I know one thing...we can't defeat the Bush Cheney Doctrine if we're not crystal clear that it's wrong and we will not tolerate it any longer."

Kerry's post netted 742 comments by deadline and an extremely unscientific reading of them shows reaction was mixed. Bush basing always goes over well at DailyKos but many posters thought Kerry's newest efforts were too little too late. A typical Kerry dissenter:

"Senator Kerry, I voted for you in 2004 and was very disappointed when you did not win. It was your fault though; you tried to be all things to all people. You tried to straddle the fence, you were too easy on Bush, and you came across as "republican lite". By not taking a firm stance against the war, you failed to give people much of a choice. In your diary yesterday you posed an interesting question to the Kos community. When is enough really enough? Interesting question Senator - when is too late really too late? Most of us here have been screaming from the rafters for over 5 years that ENOUGH is ENOUGH! But who was listening? Until the polls began to swing our way, we were shouting in the wilderness. Now of course, the timid "leaders" of the Democratic Party want to talk smack about being fed up with Bush. Pardon me if I don't want to hear it."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Mad Scientists

Sociology professor Kieran Healy, writing at Crooked Timber, is no fan of the NSA's phone record program. But she can sympathize: "Scientists and spies are not so different. The intelligence community's drive to find the truth, to uncover the real structure of things, is similar to what motivates natural or social scientists. For that reason, I can easily understand why the people at the NSA would have been drawn to build a database like the one they have assembled. The little megalomaniac that lives inside any data-collecting scientist ("More detail! More variables! More coverage!") thrills at the thought of what you could do with a database like that. Think of the possibilities! ...To be blunt, scientists are happy to do just about anything in the pursuit of better knowledge, unless there are rules that say otherwise. The same is true of the government, and the people it employs to spy on our behalf. They only want to find things out, too. But just as in science, that's not the only value that matters."

LEST WE FORGET: Snakeback Mountain

Those of you in the right age bracket certainly remember the cartoon He-Man and can now watch the old episodes in their entirety on DVD. Sam Anderson at Slate warns that they may look a little different now: "The best part about rewatching He-Man, after the initial nostalgia-burst, was tracking the show's hilarious accidental homo-eroticism-an aspect I missed completely as a first-grader. ...It's almost too easy: Prince Adam, He-Man's alter ego, is a ripped Nordic pageboy with blinding teeth and sharply waxed eyebrows who spends lazy afternoons pampering his timid pet cat; he wears lavender stretch pants, furry purple Ugg boots, and a sleeveless pink blouse that clings like saran wrap to his pecs. To become He-Man, Adam harnesses what he calls "fabulous secret powers": His clothes fall off, his voice drops a full octave, his skin turns from vanilla to nut brown, his giant sword starts gushing energy, and he adopts a name so absurdly masculine it's redundant. Next, he typically runs around seizing space-wands with glowing knobs and fabulously straddling giant rockets. He hangs out with people called Fisto and Ram Man, and they all exchange wink-wink nudge-nudge dialogue: "I'd like to hear more about this hooded seed-man of yours!" "I feel the bony finger of Skeletor!" "Your assistance is required on Snake Mountain!" Once you start thinking along these lines, it's impossible to stop."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:03 PM

May 11, 2006

5/11: The Only Game In Town

Most days it's easy to ID three or four stories that a good number of bloggers are talking about. Today is not one of those days. Response to USA Today'sstory on the NSA's collection of Americans' phone call records has drowned out talk of pretty much anything else. The Blogometer can only read so fast, so only those bloggers who posted early will make this edition. Be sure to check online later for an NSA update. In the meantime, DNC Chair Howard Dean joins Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) in the lefty doghouse, the GOP's '06 election strategy is discussed, and we have the latest blogger spotlight.

NSA: QWEST, The Left's Telco Of Choice

USA Today's 5/10 piece revealing an NSA program that collects and analyzes Americans' phone call records has everyone talking. Booman Tribune: "I'm not even going to pretend that I'm capable of digesting this and spitting out a rational response. A database of every call ever made? There really are no words." Other lefties found their voices a little quicker. AMERICAblog:"Remember that little canard about making sure a terrorist was on one end of the line, and making sure it was an international call? Not so much. In fact, the government's goal is to get every phone record in the country - we're talking a record of every phone call you ever make or receive. I'm going to say it again. Encrypt your emails NOW."

Lefty Atrios took the opportunity to take a dig at an old foe. Atrios: "It's okay. Joe Klein said so. ...Oh, did I forget to tell you that Joe Klein is that biggest wanker in the history of wankerdom and that he is always wrong about everything? ...I had no idea so many Americans were talking to Al Qaeda. Joe Klein assured me this was totally cool." Many lefties noted that not everyone cooperated with the NSA. Matt Stoller at MyDD: "Qwest refused to help? And Verizon and AT&T (which bought Bellsouth) acted as nice little sycophants? Wow. ...This is a disgrace. An absolute disgrace. Shame on ATT. Shame on Verizon. I'm glad I use Sprint and don't have a landline. ...And if I were a mayor or a Governor, I would try to move contracts away from these companies and towards Qwest or other telco players. At the very least I'd make local subsidies contingent upon not spying on my constituents." TalkLeft: "Three cheers for Denver-based Qwest."

Not every lefty was convinced that laws were being broken. The Reality Based Community: "What's truly appalling is that I don't think it's even illegal. If memory serves, Title III doesn't cover what used to be called "pen registers." USA Today suggests that the companies may be violating the Communications Act of 1933 by giving the information, but the NSA doesn't seem to be breaking any laws by receiving that information. Still, I don't think the voters are going to hold still for it. Not with a President the country already distrusts."

Many lefties demanded that Dems make an issue out of the issue during Gen. Michael Hayden's CIA dir. confirmation hearings:

• The Left Coaster: "I will now anxiously await Dianne Feinstein's response on this, as well as that of any Senate Democrat who was planning to give Hayden a pass on this. It is one thing for Bush to say that the wiretaps were only conducted on phone calls and emails that had one international party who was an Al Qaeda suspect. It is quite another to find out that the Administration has been gathering information on all of your phone calls inside the United States without probable cause and without being accountable to any court as to what they need this information for."
• The Political Animal: "The rules for collecting data about phone calls are different from the rules about listening in on the content of phone calls, so I don't know what the legal situation here is. This should add even more excitement to Michael Hayden's confirmation hearings to run the CIA, shouldn't it?"
• Booman Tribune: "As a side note, the guy who runs the NSA was just nominated to head the CIA. It would be nice if the senators who serve on the Intelligence Committee would maybe try to ask a few "what the (expletive)?" questions while the guy is under oath. If it were me, I'd likely start by questioning Hayden if he can justify precisely why he doesn't belong in prison."
• mcjoan at DailyKos: "Senators, you might want to ask General Hayden a few questions about this in the upcoming confirmation hearings. Hell, let's bring back Gonzales to see what he says about this one. And Senator Specter, now might be a really good time to block that NSA funding."

Righties who did comment mostly focused on the articles' timing. The Volokh Conspiracy: "Those who were following the NSA domestic surveillance story back in January will recall that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales strongly hinted that there was another surveillance program out there that remained top secret. Well, it looks like that program may now have been leaked, too." MediaBlog at NRO: "Coming on the heels of former NSA director Gen. Michael Hayden's nomination to become the next CIA director, I predict the timing of this article's publication will be widely discussed - especially considering that this information has already been reported. The Hayden connection will certainly elevate the profile of the issue, giving us a chance to assess new press secretary Tony Snow as he fields questions related to the story."

ELECTION '06: Divide And Conquer?

Newsweek's' Howard Fineman's latest musings on possible GOP strategy for the fall registered with bloggers from left and right.

For the most part, lefties were unfazed and even welcomed the GOP tack.

• Hullabaloo: "Can someone please tell me how this differs from any Republican campaign of the last 25 years? Bush was at 70% in the last mid-term and the whole campaign was about how Democrats like Tom Daschle and Max Cleland were in cahoots with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. They always say we are going to raise taxes. They always say we are degenerates. If they can find a dark-skinned boogeyman, they'll use that too. The only new thing in this is the psych out in which they are supposedly "daring" the Dems to make a big deal out of the domestic spying stuff.
• Oliver Willis: "The worst way the Democrats could respond to this abortion of a strategy is to act as if should they gain power that they won't do the people's work and provide the oversight of the executive branch as proscribed in our constitution. The Bushies believe that they're put in Washington to fatten their own pockets and the coffers of the RNC. They work for us."
• Booman Tribune: " Howard Fineman has a warning for Democrats. Rove is coming to get us. Funny, I thought we were waiting to celebrate his arrest for repeatedly lying to law enforcement officers and grand jurors about his role in destroying the career and cover company of a covert CIA operative working on Iran's weapons of mass destruction programs."

The Moderate Voice offers up a summer preview: "So, once more ... it will be a case of divide the country up, stir up passions...and get your people out to the polls to vote against people and policies...that they hate. ... So in recent weeks you'll likely see: A move for a constitutional flag burning amendment. ... A move for a constitutional amendment or some kind of law essentially banning gay marriage. ... Nomination of highly controversial judges to try to perhaps force Democrats into a filibuster and even activate the "nuclear option" for a big conservative-versus-liberal (with moderates having to choose sides) controversy, to polarize the polity. ... Either partial immigration reform or due to the ticklishness of the issue being put off until after the election (when it would likely be postponed at least partially for several more years). ...Hearings for the new CIA director being used to extract quotes from Democrats that will be used to say that they don't care about America's security and are still in a pre-911 mentality.

Some on the right hoped there would be some new policies mixed in. Riehl World View: "The Dem bashing is all well and good. But the Dems have used an attacking strategy and failed for several elections. My bullet pointed question was...What is it the GOP is going to stand for in this coming election? ... How are they going to account for what some might see as poor performance while controlling all three branches of government?" PoliPundit: "In a blogger conference call with Ken Mehlman on Wednesday, I asked him if the GOP planned to deliver that message to voters leading up to the fall elections. He assured me that the upcoming campaign would include not only telling voters about the investigation agenda, but also the tax agenda and other things voters could expect from a Democrat majority congress. I look forward to hearing that message."

Other righties think the GOP is going to do just fine. HolyCoast: "And don't forget -- it's only May. Six months is a lifetime in politics and many of the problems the GOP has today could be radically changed by November. If the best the Dems have is "vote for us because we hate Bush", they shouldn't bother packing up the leadership offices because they're not going anywhere. They're going to have to give people reasons to vote FOR them, and not just AGAINST Bush. That won't be such an easy task for a party so devoid of creative ideas." Powerline: "Instead of simply defending themselves from charges that they are the party of corruption, rich corporate fat-cats, disregard for civil liberties, deceitful wars, and the destruction of the environment (no "us against them" politics from the Democrats), the Republicans will also ask the voters to consider the alternative. In doing so, they will actually criticize Democrats. You can't fool Howard Fineman. Karl Rove really is an evil genius."

SUPREME COURT: So Long And Thanks For All The Fish

Michael Luttig's decision to leave the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit left the blogosphere stunned 5/10. Most believed consecutive passovers for a SCOTUS nod pushed Luttig out the door. NRO's Bench Memo's: "Wow. How else can one respond to news of Judge Luttig's resignation. It is hard not to speculate that his decision to leave the bench for the private sector is motivated, at least in part, by a belief he is no longer a likely nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court. Whatever the reason, the nation is losing a tremendous jurist, and Boeing is gaining a fine legal mind.

Righty Protein Wisdom also thought the SCOTUS snubs were behind the decision: "People close to the selection process said that it was unlikely President Bush would consider Judge Luttig for any future vacancies, as political imperatives all but precluded nomination of another white male for the high court. ...To his credit, Bush didn't follow up his Harriet Miers debacle by trying to replace her with another female nominee simply to replace her with another female nominee. But it is nevertheless far more likely that the next candidate chosen, should Bush get another opportunity to pick a SCOTUS nominee, will be either a woman or a minority."

Also on the right Orin Kerr parses Luttig's explanation: "Did Luttig resign because he wasn't picked for the Supreme Court, and figured his opportunity had passed? That's going to be one theory. The Washington Post also has Luttig stating: "I've been on the bench 15 years . . . No one can or should plan their life with regard to a potential Supreme Court appointment." Note, though, that this quote can be interpreted in two very different ways: First, that Luttig never planned for a Supreme Court appointment, or second, that he was planning on it but decided to resign because he figured he couldn't plan for it anymore. It's unclear to me which meaning he had in mind."

Most lefties thought the move tainted Luttig's impartiality. Nathan Newman at TPMCafe: "A disgusting example of the corrupt revolving door extending to the federal bench. Judgeships should be for life. Any expectation by a judge that they will leave for private practice means that any of their decisions are suspect as currying favor for a future job offer. And what's problematic is that Luttig has multiple rulings where Boeing's interests were at stake: If judges can be rewarded with high-priced jobs for pro-corporate rulings, the whole judicial system is a farce." Booman Tribune: "Boeing isn't evil and I don't have ill will toward them. But, isn't it just a little strange that they chose to hire a man as senior vice-president that is better known for his vast knowledge of constitutional law than for his experience with the aerospace industry? Well, no. It's not strange. Luttig has connections. And even if he isn't the best man for the job (and maybe he is) dangling top salary jobs like this in front of sitting judges has to do wonders in courtrooms all across America.Score another one against the little guy."

Lefty The Reality Based Community thinks the resignation does not bode well for the judiciary: "This has become a trend in recent years, and it's not a trend favorable to the rule of law. ... A judge who takes a strongly pro-plaintiff view in tort suits or a pro-employee view in labor-relations, wages-and-hours, job-safety, or employment-discrimination cases, or who rules for the litigant represented by a solo practitioner against one represented by one of the many branches of Pig, Pig & Pig has to figure that he or she is cutting into future employment opportunities."

Also on the left Demagogue thinks the Dems should make an entirely different issue out of the news: "If a judge making nearly $172,000 a year feels pressured to take a higher paying, private sector job to cover the cost of tuition for his two children what does that say about the cost of tuition at American colleges and universities? The Dems really need to think about focusing on higher ed initiatives, find creative ways to help more people go to school without being crushed by overwhelming debt."

DNC: Punking Peter To Placate Paul?

DNC Chairman Howard Dean ruffled some lefty blogosphere feathers with his recent appearance on Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network. Out For Democracy reports: "He told the audience "The Democratic Party platform from 2004 says that marriage is between a man and a woman. That's what it says." No Howard, that is most certainly NOT what the 2004 Platform says. Is this a baldface lie to pander to the religious right? I'd like to give Dean the benefit of the doubt, but some Democratic insiders who have corrected Dean on this very point in the past say yes."

John in DC atAMERICAblog picked up on the story: "I think this is all fall-out from the firing of the gay liaison last week, seemingly in retaliation for his partner having criticized the DNC as being insufficiently supportive of gay civil rights. I supported Dean's run for the chairmanship of the party. I'm not impressed with what Dean's been doing of late." Rusty Shakleford at Out For Democracy chipped in: "Where's the Howard Dean from the "Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party"???" Lefty Bubblegum Card From The Edge also was unhappy.

LIEBERMAN: Pay Attention To Me!

The lefty blogosphere blood feud with Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) is not going to end any time soon. Jonathan Singer at MyDD details his attempt to extend an olive branch to the Lieberman camp:

"A few months ago, I began speaking with the staff of Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman about setting up a telephone interview to discuss his reelection campaign. I was looking to provide the Senator with an opportunity to respond to some of his detractors and critics in a situation that was both respectful and professional. The Senator's staff seemed somewhat interested in the idea, though noncommittal. I explained to his staffers that I was undecided on his race against Ned Lamont -- and was perhaps even leaning towards supporting their boss. Although I, like most in this side of the blogosphere, am disappointed by his rhetoric and stance on the Iraq War, I nevertheless largely approve of his positions on the environment, labor, choice. ...What's more, I tend to buy into the logic that it's not such a bad thing for the Senate to have moderates on both sides of the aisle who are able to bring the two parties together from time to time. ...The point of this post is not self-aggrandizement -- I clearly am not the only blogger to conduct interviews and I certainly don't think of myself as a gatekeeper. ... Nevertheless, I believe it is very foolish for any politician to believe that they can be aided by ignoring the blogosphere. ...We're not going away any time soon, regardless of what some Beltway insiders might hope, so it's probably better to be even a little open to us rather than to more or less act as if we don't exist."

Lefty Ari Melber at Huffington Post also thinks Lieberman should play ball: "Since Singer has a track record of high-profile interviews and MyDD is a respected website for Democratic discussions, the snub is yet another political error that will hurt Lieberman. It reinforces the perception that he would rather chat with Sean Hannity than a Democratic writer. ...Lieberman is in a Democratic primary, and he must make his case to Democrats. ...Politics is about representation. Who votes for us in Congress, who represents us in policy decisions and who speaks on our behalf - be it on behalf of our state, our party, or our country. The netroots have added voices to this debate, and its time for our political leaders to catch up."

Interview or no interview, My Left Nutmeg is not happy with Lieberman's new "negative" sent to CT Dems.

BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: Will To Power

Today the Blogometer talks to Will Franklin, who writes WILLisms.

What is your full name?

Will Franklin

What is your age?

25

Where did you grow up?

Ponca City, Oklahoma & Midland, Texas, mostly. Also spent some time growing up in Edmond, Oklahoma and Houston, Texas. Bonus points if you can spot the common thread between and among those cities.

Where do you live now?

Austin, Texas

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

Finishing up grad school, about to begin a campaign type job. Fun times.

When did you start blogging and why?

My first real blog post was in late January 2005. The "why" would take many, many paragraphs to answer, so I will just say that blogging was a more efficient use of my time and effort than letters to the editor, email discussions with friends and colleagues, and so on. I wouldn't blog if I didn't think I had something unique to add to the discussion.

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

I mostly like mining data comparing cities and states and nations (and other political boundaries) to discover that policies and ideas are not arbitrary but do indeed matter. No one post is really my favorite.

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

It varies wildly in terms of input, yet there's a basic formula I try to follow in terms of output.

Who is your favorite political blogger?

"Jay Tea" of Wizbang blog. He churns out creative, original, thoughtful ideas on a consistent basis. He's got a great sense of humor, a keen political intuition, and an independent streak that prevents him from being pigeonholed. While most bloggers just chase the hottest rumor or scandal or outrage of the day, his posts are often a bit more enduring.

Favorite non-political blogger?

There are non-political blogs? No, seriously. Wha? ...Actually, though, I am somewhat surprised there aren't more solid sports blogs out there. There's one by a Michigan football fan (http://michiganzone.blogspot.com/) that's pretty funny. Incidentally, I used to love ESPN, but now I consider it to be the sports equivalent of the dreaded "mainstream media." I wish it had a little more competition than it does, because it has jumped the shark in a big way for me in recent years.

Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?

It kind of ebbs and flows, but I've really liked Peggy Noonan, Christopher Hitchens, Mark Steyn, Pete Du Pont, Michael Barone, and Charles Krauthammer at various points in time. I'm sure I am forgetting some good ones.

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

I can hardly stand any of them, but FOX's Special Report with Brit Hume is tolerable occasionally. I get on Charlie Rose kicks, occasionally, too, although that show tends to get on my nerves, as well. I used to watch Meet The Press religiously, but that show has become a caricature of everything that is wrong with the old media. Honestly, though, if I am watching television these days, it's usually something fun from my TiVo .

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

Usually the Houston Chronicle and Austin American-Statesman websites. I like National Review and The Wall Street Journal, too. The Economist is decent for keeping up with international political developments, and they usually let you read it all for free if you watch a quick web advertisement. The Atlantic Monthly used to be my favorite before they shut down free online access. I have my Google News site customized to deliver news on stories I find interesting. Customizing a news page on google or yahoo is great for bloggers, especially those of us who harp incessantly on less-than-glamorous issues like Social Security.

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

I try to at least glance at every blog on my blogroll, a few times a week.

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

Anytime I see one, I grab it and read from it, almost compulsively. But I don't subscribe at my home, although I grew up reading the paper every morning at the breakfast table.

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

Unlike most bloggers, I am less of a triumphalist regarding the new media "taking down"-- or even fundamentally changing-- the old media in the near term. Maybe we'll eventually see a few isolated positive changes, but "Big Media" will still overwhelmingly dominate the agenda over the next five years. However, witnessing how blogs impact the 2008 campaign(s) will be VERY interesting.

Over the longer term, I do worry slightly that our media will be so balkanized and factionalized that there will no longer be any shared political language (I already see this quite a bit today). Even so, the media choice resulting from the rise of blogs ought to be a net positive force for our country.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Indycrats?

Chris Bowers at MyDD looks at a SurveyUSA poll on CA-50 and thinks 06 will be bigger than 94: "Want to know how Busby is staying competitive in a district with a local partisan index of just over RNC +20? The answer comes from independents, among whom Busby leads by a whopping 54-19. ...I simply cannot see any way to look at a set of numbers like that and not conclude that the Indycrat realignment is underway. This is a conservative district. Bilbray is considered to be a moderate Republican. Hell, Bilbray even used to represent part of this district during the 1990's. Despite all that, he is still only bringing in 19% of independents. 19%?! "Other" is actually bringing in 26% of independents, so Bilbray is actually in third among independents. These are numbers that pretty much match Bush's standing among independents nationwide, and Democratic leads among independents nationwide in generic ballots. This is a complete and total abandonment of Republicans on the part of independents. ...The main issue in the 2006 elections might not be whether or not Democrats have the political capability of pulling off a victory, but instead whether or not Democrats have the political capability ability of turning what is almost certainly a landslide election into a change election. Will this be a temporary landslide that is quickly reversed, ala 1946 or 1952, or will it be a long-term, coalition-changing landslide, ala 1974 or 1994?"

LEST WE FORGET: SurvivaBalls

Only a company as evil as Halliburton could post photos like these with such an unfunny caption.

NSA: Update

Blogger reactions are coming faster than any human could possibly read them all. The Blogometer presents the best from the big boys.

At The Volokh Conspiracy Orin Kerr has the best run down of the legal issues involved. His conclusion: " To summarize, my very preliminary sense is that there are no Fourth Amendment issues here but a number of statutory problems under statutes such as FISA and the pen register statute. Of course, all of the statutory questions are subject to the possible argument that Article II trumps those statutes. As I have mentioned before, I don't see the support for the strong Article II argument in existing caselaw, but there is a good chance that the Administration's legal argument in support of the new law will rely on it."

Traditionally right bloggers think the left is going crazy over nothing. Outside The Beltway: "So, the government has my phone records? Sure, I trust mega-corporations who sell my private information to telemarketers with this information. But a government agency that collects and analyzes signals intelligence? I dunno. Calls. Call records. Same thing, right? Um, no. ...Obviously, we don't want the government listening in on our telephone conversations without some really good rationale. But having calling patterns stored in a database to look for patterns? That doesn't fill me with any particular anxiety.

Libertarians are unnerved not by the USA Todays' revelations, but more by what is still left unreported. Cato at Liberty: "More ominous, when asked by Congress whether the NSA was monitoring the content of wholly domestic calls, Gonzales refused to rule out such surveillance. Indeed, from a policy rather than legal perspective, if it's necessary and effective to monitor calls from, say, DC to Naples, Italy, then why not DC to Naples, Florida? If the NSA can disregard legal barriers because a communication might include information of foreign intelligence value, then monitoring domestic-to-domestic calls would seem no less justified than monitoring domestic-to-foreign calls. ...When communications from and to a US person in the US are monitored, that's domestic surveillance, no matter whether the party on the other end is inside or outside of the US. Since Bush believes that warrantless domestic surveillance is permissible regardless of FISA's contrary provisions, we shouldn't be surprised if the NSA has much more data (including content) than USA Today has uncovered."

Lefty bloggers also connected the story to a larger picture. Matthew Yglesias at TAPPED: "It's important to link this up to the broader chain. One thing the Bush administration says it can do with this meta-data is to start tapping your calls and listening in, without getting a warrant from anyone. Having listened in on your calls, the administration asserts that if it doesn't like what it hears, it has the authority to detain you indefinitely without trial or charges, torture you until you confess or implicate others, extradite you to a Third World country to be tortured, ship you to a secret prison facility in Eastern Europe, or all of the above."

Shayana Kadidal at Huffington Post: "This is the Bush Administration's surveillance program exposed. It's not about terrorists. It's not about security. And it's definitely not about that Constitution that administrations are supposed to follow. It is about massive, big brother surveillance of law abiding American citizens. Congress should subpoena the CEOs of these companies to explain exactly what the Bush Administration asked them to do, and what kind of domestic spying they are assisting."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:18 PM

May 10, 2006

5/10: Where's The Loyalty

Judging from the blogosphere, a 31% approval rating seems a little high for Pres. Bush these days. Scandal fatigue has definitely set in on the right as HUD/Sec. Alphonso Jackson's recent gaffe drew a total of zero defenders from traditional GOP corners. Instead, the right was busy throwing around words like "investigation" and even "impeachment" in reaction to stories that U.S. Customs and Border Patrol have been reporting Minuteman activities to the Mexican gov't. Only ABA shenanigans seem able to rally righties around judicial noms. Meanwhile, bloggers also reacted to 5/9 primaries in NE and WV.

HUD: What We Have Here, Is A Failure To Communicate

A 5/5 Dallas Business Journal report on HUD/Sec Alphonso Jackson's 4/28 comments in front of a Real Estate Executive Council exploded into the blogosphere 5/9. Sirotablog launched the story: "The Dallas Business Journal has a blockbuster story out today about how President Bush's Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Alphonso Jackson, is now openly denying government contracts to anyone who does not like President Bush."

On the left ThinkProgress was quick to identify illegalities: "Jackson has admitted that this particular contract was not awarded with "impartiality." The business that would have been awarded the contract was excluded because of the contractor's political views. Jackson's conduct appears to be in violation of federal law. From the Federal Acquisition Regulations, 48 CFR 3.101-1: Government business shall be conducted in a manner above reproach and, except as authorized by statute or regulation, with complete impartiality." Lawyers, Guns, and Money identifies case law that could put Jackson on legal jeopardy as well.

Lefty The Carpetbagger Report wants a resignation: "I think it's probably fair to call on Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson to resign over this one. So, to summarize, the secretary of HUD admitted, in public, that he denied a qualified minority contractor funding because the contractor said he didn't like the president. In Jackson's mind, this is "logical." This is probably illegal, and is definitely moronic. If some congressional Dems made an effort to follow up on this, it's the kind of incident that could force Jackson to resign."

The left's The Political Animal was amazed at the audacity of the pitch: "Charming, isn't it? And the topper is that we didn't find out about this from a whistleblower who sent private emails to a reporter. Not at all. In fact, Jackson was proud enough of this that he made it the topic of a speech to the Real Estate Executive Council. Do you think they all got the message?"

Left leaning Wonkette took the opportunity to do some unbiased reporting: "Wow. We had a hard time believing Secretary Jackson actually said these things (although his honesty is refreshing). After talking to a HUD source, we find it less difficult to fathom. Here's what we learned from our operative: Before taking the helm at HUD, Jackson ran three different housing authorities, all of which had serious problems...some related to his (mis)management of them. ...He is "a sleazy character," and a close friend of Marion Barry. ...When he arrived at HUD, he initiated a staff shake up that resulted in the departure of several highly regarded career employees. ...As for why he said what he said in Dallas, "Jackson probably thought that it was safe for him to speak candidly to a group of minority executives...his fellow 'brothers and sisters.' But he shouldn't have assumed that no press members were present. That was pretty dumb!"

Archy urged fellow bloggers to use this case as example A of WH evil: "If your friends, relatives, and coworkers, need evidence that "they" really will "do that" and aren't convinced by wiretapping and presidential signing statements, then show them the latest example of fire-sale corruption." Similar lefty reax include: Obsidian Wings, Talking Points Memo, LeanLeft, AMERICAblog, Midtopia, and Eschaton.

The Left Coaster previewed the admin's defense when he asked: "So why was the Secretary even involved in the awarding of contracts in the first place?"

The Dallas Business Journal reported that HUD spokesperson Dustee Tucker, later described Jackson's statements as purely "anecdotal," and explained that "he's not part of the contracting process."

ThinkProgress didn't think the explanation gets Jackson off the hook:

"In other words, his spokesman claims that Jackson fabricated a long and detailed exchange with a CEO that doesn't actually exist, about a process he isn't actually involved with. Two points: 1) That excuse isn't just difficult to swallow...it also contradicts the spokesperson's first response in which she indicated Jackson was referring to a real contract: "On May 3, Tucker told the Business Journal that the contract Jackson was referring to in Dallas was 'an advertising contract with a minority publication,' though she could not provide the contract's value." It looks like Jackson is changing his story as criticism builds. 2) Bidding for a government contract isn't 'asking for money.' It's not Alphonso Jackson's money to give away to his buddies. It is the taxpayers' money. It should go to whoever can do the best job, regardless of their political views."

The Carpetbagger Report also pokes holes in Tucker's story: "Hmm. First, this may be the only time in recent memory that a cabinet press secretary used the 'he's lying' argument as a defense. Second, I don't think Dustee Tucker knows what 'anecdotal' means. Third, for a conversation that never actually occurred, Jackson sure did go into a lot of detail, without bothering to mention that he was making the whole thing up. And fourth, Tucker's second response (the story is bogus) doesn't exactly work with her first response (the story is real, but the contract was merely 'verbal')"

Righty bloggers were perfectly willing to throw Jackson under the bus:

• QandO: "Can anybody tell me why he ought not be removed from office -- and, if possible, jailed -- for using his position to punish political opponents by withholding federal contracts? I may not care for the Democratic candidates in the '06 elections, but at least a Democratic Congress would take an interest in oversight. That's one thing more than the Republican majority will do."
• Captain's Quarters: "This is, bluntly, appalling. If Jackson wants to work on the GOP election campaign as a contracts administrator, then he has every right to deny contracts to those who do not support the GOP. However, as Secretary of HUD, Jackson has ceased representing George Bush and the Republicans and now should work on behalf of all Americans. I don't often agree with Lautenberg, but if the Dallas Business Journal has reported this correctly, then Lautenberg is right. Jackson has to go, and go now."
• Sundries Shack: "Jackson ought to step down tomorrow. Our Federal government exists to represent all citizens equally as the Constitution insists and Jackson has clearly breached the trust he held with all of us."

IMMIGRATION: Benedict Bush?

After Michelle Malkin highlighted reports that the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol is notifying Mexican gov't officials of Minuteman civilian patrols, righty bloggers savaged the admin.:

• Confederate Yankee: "I'll never support impeachment proceedings brought against President [Bush] for going to war with Iraq based on flawed intelligence. ... His resistance to protecting this nation's borders, however is another matter entirely. Bush refuses to protect the territorial integrity of the United States, leaving us exposed to an importation of poverty that strains our social welfare system and artificially depresses wages."
• Riehl World View: "Maybe Bob's right and Bush should be impeached. He can always retire to Mexico."
• Weapons of Mass Destruction: "It almost seems like the stuff of fiction. A government agency shadowing the actions of American citizens and then reporting their movements and actions to a foreign government. ...If a Republican President, Republican House, and Republican Senate is not enough to implement a sensible border policy in a post 9/11 era, then whats the point?"
• RightWingNews: "Not only should Congress demand that the Border Patrol stop working with the Mexican government to circumvent our laws, they should launch an investigation in order to find out who signed off on this unconscionable outrage."
• Bryan at Hot Air: "I've seen several administrations do a lot of outrageous things, but tipping a foreign government to the legal activities of American citizens just might be the most outrageous thing I've ever seen any American administration do."
• Daily Pundit: "As for the treacherous Bush administration notifying a foreign power of the actions of homegrown patriots, that goes beyond despicable, and assures that the administration has no further claim on my support whatsoever. George W. Bush supports a foreign power engaged in fostering a criminal invasion of our country over the very Americans trying to stop that invasion!"
• Tom N at Hot Air: "It surely could put the lives of the minutemen at risk, especially from drug runners..I've been a republican since Reagan and now IM getting worried about where the party is going..

CBP issued a denial to the original story. Michelle Malkin responds in detail and concludes: "Message to apologists: Stop blaming the messengers. It's only going to make those poll numbers you worry so much about worse. Message to the White House: Stop blaming the messengers. Do us all a favor by ending this travesty and apologizing."

Righties were not about to take the word of the administration. Superfun Powerhour Blog: "Who are we to believe? The problem-riddled DHS or Mr. Martinez? Sure both are saying the information is given to ensure the "rights" of the illegals are being maintained, but Martinez is clear in stating that they are telling the Mexican government where the MM-Project will be not where they've been."

JUDGES: Making The Grade

Righty bloggers called foul on the ABA's downgrading of a judicial nominee's rating from "well-qualified" to "qualified," before a 5/9 hearing. Point of Law provides some background:

Early in the Bush's first term, the administration caused a small controversy when they announced they would no longer cooperate with the American Bar Association's judicial ratings, defending the decision on the grounds that the ABA was biased. The most famous example of that bias was the "Qualified/Not Qualified" ratings given Judges Posner and Easterbrook during the Reagan administration; the two went on to be the most prolific and cited judges of their generation. ...We now have another prime example. Brett Kavanaugh, whose nomination to the D.C. Circuit has been held up for years, has received two "well-qualified" evaluations from the ABA. However, in recent weeks, the Democrats have singled Kavanaugh out as someone they want to make a stand on, even getting a second Judiciary Committee hearing on him. And the ABA has now followed suit, downgrading Kavanaugh from "well qualified" to "qualified"-apparently, the additional experience of being Staff Secretary for the Bush administration as he awaits a Senate vote makes him less qualified.

Fellow righty Powerline is equally displeased but also thinks he sees the fingerprints of Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY): "This strikes me as a mini-scandal, reminiscent of the days when the American Bar Association played the discreditable role of liberal activist group on judicial nominations. ...No explanation, of course, as to what Kavanaugh has done since last year to cause six committee members to change their ratings. ...Hillary Clinton is the Democrat most bent on blocking Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation due to Kavanaugh's service on Ken Starr's staff."

Powerline was also concerned about a Washington Post editorial attempting to split the difference on the judicial nominations before the Judiciary Committee: "the Post's discussion of Judge Boyle is misleading in at least one respect. The paper states that "[Boyle's] nomination to the Fourth Circuit was a particular goal of former senator Jesse Helms (R), who blocked a string of President Bill Clinton's nominees to the court to keep the seat open for his man." What the Post declines to tell its readers is that Boyle had been nominated by the first President Bush, but blocked by the Senate Democrats. So, yes, former Senator Helms blocked subsequent nominees for that slot, but only in retaliation for the actions of Senate Democrats. Moreover, it's my understanding that Helms retaliated not just because the Democrats blocked Boyle but because he believed Senator Biden had promised not to do so, but then reneged at a time that Helms was out of commission due to major surgery. ...As I say, I take no position as to whether Boyle should be confirmed. But given the Post's one-sided presentation, I can't help but wonder whether its opposition is driven at least in part by its animosity towards Jesse Helms. "

Also on the right ConfirmThem, American Thinker, and Strata-Sphere had takes. Professor Bainbridge looks at the ideological breakdown of the ABA committee.

The self-described Moderate Voice doesn't like the way Sen. Bill Frist is running the Senate: "once AGAIN polarization - a code word for division - is the way Frist and the GOP are choosing to operate." While The Democratic Daily simply posts Sen. Ted Kennedy's statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

NE: Down To Tom On The Field ...

Lefty NE bloggers were happy to see Rep. Tom Osborne (R-NE) lose his Gov bid. Lefty Mark at Swing State Project: "I'm actually glad to see Heineman poised to prevail here. Not only will it demoralize the Nebraska GOP, with Osborne squandering both his gubernatorial run and his early opportunity to challenge Ben Nelson for the Senate seat. Furthermore, I'm much more comfortable with Maxine Moul's chances in the Lincoln area without Nebraska icon Tom Osborne at the top of the ticket. I certainly was not expecting Heineman to pull this out against Osborne. Hopefully, it's a sign of good things to come in Nebraska." Nebraska Dem at Politics1 had a theory on why Heineman won: "I'm ever-so-slightly surprised by the Gov's race results, but I don't think it makes any difference as far as the direction of the State goes. Guess Tom Osborne's political career is over. I wonder if Heineman's harder line on immigration helped him."

From the right, Corey at Politics1 picked up this Hotline On Call analysis (go team!) to explain Osborne's defeat: "The irony here is that Heineman apparently owes his victory to rural voters in Osborne's Congressional district. ...As for Tom Osborne, maybe he can take Lynn Swann's job covering football for ABC Sports once Swann is elected Governor of PA."

Over at RedState, BigRedStater was ready to move on: "As of 11:10PM Central, Heineman is making an acceptance speech. I'm disappointed, as I voted for TO, but I'll be happy to help out on Heineman's campaign. Should be a lock for the election, it is Nebraska after all........"

WV: The Raese Is On

The blogosphere was pleased, but not surprised, by the results of the 5/9 WV primary. Righty ricbuc at RedState had this to say on media mogul John Raese's primary victory:

"Both Houses of our State Legislature has been controlled by the Democrats since 1934. Tonight House Majority Leader Rick Staton was soundly defeated in the Primary. ...Add to that, the Speaker of the House retired. None of the Leaders of the Manchin Rubber Stamp will be back. Now if the Democrats can vote out their leaders, it is not impossible that they will at least look at Raese. WV is a very conservative state and Raese has a chance since Byrd has gotten more liberal as he has gotten older. Rumors are everywhere that Byrd will not stay in the race...The same rumor has Gov Manchin running in his place. Manchin for some unknown reason is very popular."

Lefty Mark at Swing State Project also is looking forward to a Raese candidacy: "I maintain that a John Raese candidacy could be a dream come true for the good guys if played right. With all the "God, guns, and gays" culture warriors the GOP could be foisting upon Byrd, West Virginia Republicans are going with a Cato Institute mouthpiece celebrating Gregory Mankiw talking points to a state full of government-dependent lower-income voters. The Dems could connect Raese's plutocratic worldview with incidents like the Sago mine disaster, or at the very least, with the average working person's increased struggle to make ends meet and possibly plant the seed in the minds of West Virginia "values voters" exactly the kind of people they're aligning themselves with."

Also on the left DavidNYC at Swing State Project was happy Mike Callaghan won a shot at challenging Shelley Capito (R-WV): "Wow! Awesome! Mike wins! I just got done doing a spreadsheet projecting likely turnout in the remaining counties when I got an e-mail from someone affiliated with the campaign telling me the good news. ...This is just great! I admit, I was feeling down in the dumps about this one after I saw Hunt winning so many counties, so the feeling of joy and relief is tremendous. Go Mike!"

Other bloggers chose to read the turnout tea leaves. Dave Weigel at Politcs1: "I'm not sure which precincts are outstanding, but it must mean something that Democratic votes in the primary are double Republican votes. About 80,000 votes were cast in the Dem primary - Byrd vs. a nobody. Only around 35,000 votes have been cast in the GOP primary. WV Democrats outnumber Republicans a little less than 2-1, but they're voting in the primary a bit more than 2-1. This after Raese and Lewis each spent hundreds of thousands of dollars turning out the vote. That doesn't bode well for GOP momentum this year."

On the right Corey at Politics1 saw it differently: "I don't know if that means anything Mr. Weigel because the state has voting in primaries by party registration. Thus, the 80,000 Democrats have to vote in the Democrat primary but can vote for who they want in November. It would mean more if anybody in the state could vote in either primary. Democrat turnout may be higher because the most competitive race in the state is the Dem nomination for the 2nd Congressional district and probably because that is where all the action is on local races with Democrats probably controlling those offices."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Killer Donut

The Reality Based Community is not terribly concerned about a New York Times piece claiming the new Medicare drug plan may help the GOP after all. RBC links to decidedly non-partisan epocrates analysis:

After a $250 deductible, patients pay 25% of the next $2000 in drug costs (or up to $500 in expenditures).
If patients spend more than $2250 in total drug costs, there is no insurance coverage for the next $2850 in drug costs. This is often called the "donut-hole" or "coverage gap" in the prescription drug program. Patients are expected to pay this amount out-of-pocket.
Lastly, after the additional $2850 in out-of-pocket costs, coverage resumes at a rate of 95%, with patients only paying 5% of remaining drug costs, unlimited until the end of the calendar year.

The Reality Based Community then notes: "Let's see: it's six months to Election Day. So anyone who has coverage by now and spends at least $400 a month on drugs will run out of coverage before it's time to vote; those who signed up earlier will run out even if they spend somewhat less. ...So pretty soon now - and well before November - seniors in large numbers are going to start running into that gap. They're going to show up at the pharmacy with their shiny Part D card and be told that they're going to have to pay full retail price for their drugs."

LEST WE FORGET: What If Rickey Henderson Had Pete Incaviglia's Legs?

Not much according to the authors of Baseball Between The Numbers. Alex and Karen have this to say: "This book, written by the stat-heads over at Baseball Prospectus, is an awesome speedy read for anyone who's a fan of the game and likes to debate its many idiosyncracies...Chapters I really enjoyed were "Is David Ortiz a Clutch Hitter?", "Five Pitchers or Four? On Pitching and Stamina", "Is Wayne Huizenga a Genius?", "When is One Run Worth More Than Two?", "Do Players Perform Better in Contract Years?", "Why Doesn't Billy Beane's (expletive) Work in the Playoffs?" and "What Do Statistics Tell Us About Steroids?"

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:22 PM

May 09, 2006

5/9: Must See TV

Anticipation is palpable in the blogosphere these days. With Pres. Bush's poll numbers hitting new lows every week, November can not come soon enough for lefty bloggers. Recent revelations surrounding CIA Dir. nominee Gen. Michael Hayden have all sides eagerly awaiting what is shaping up to be a pitched battle of a confirmation. Meanwhile former-VP Al Gore continues to be a favorite among lefty bloggers leaving righties and junkies salivating over a possible Gore vs. HRC primary match up.

CIA: Nothing Like A Little S-E-X To Liven Up A Confirmation Hearing

The lefty blogosphere coalesced around three main talking points against Bush's 5/8 nomination of Hayden. Justin Rood at TPM Muckraker supplied the newest line of attack by linking Hayden to the same scandal that many bloggers believe also fell his predecessor; the Cunningham bribery scandal.

Lefties that ran with this angle include:

• Taylor Marsh: "It's interesting that the guy now tapped to head the CIA hired a man from a company that was bribing people in Congress so they could get sweetheart defense deals."
• Wonkette: "We're gonna be glued to the confirmation hearings. They're gonna be great. We learned today that Hayden has a tenuous connection to MZM Inc., the contractors who bribed their way into Katherine Harris' heart and the Cunningham suite of the Watergate. He's up to his ass in the NSA scandal."
• Cannonfire: "When are people going to recognize these schemes for what they are? From MZM to Katrina relief, the outlines are always the same: G.O.P.-friendly "businessmen" (who tend to be spookier than Caspar) get fat contracts related to homeland security."
• The Reality Based Community: "I doubt that Republicans would benefit much from a debate about NSA wiretapping right now. When people don't trust the President, asking them to trust the President probably won't work very well. I could be wrong about that, of course. But I'm dead certain they won't benefit from inquiries into how it was that MZM (the central company in the Cunningham/Hookergate scandal) got all those contracts."
• Sploid: "But as is so often the case with Washington criminals, Hayden's future will most likely be decided by his involvement with the outrageous Hookergate scandal that may eventually bring down the entire Bush administration."

Mahablog focused on the left's second major Hayden indictment; the NSA-wiretapping controversy: "According to Howard Fineman on Countdown, the White House thinks the Hayden confirmation hearings will help them. The NSA spy program will be front and center, and the Bushies think that's a winner for them. More dissociative thinking?" While Feminste has a laundry list of attacks including wiretapping, the Cunningham scandal, inexperience, and connections to U.S. Amb. to Iraq John Negroponte.

Also on the left Firedoglake picks up on the Negroponte connection and The Washington Note elaborates on what it all means: "Hayden going to head CIA is John Negroponte's effort to wrest some of the ground back from Rumsfeld in the intelligence wars underway. Hayden directed the National Security Agency before joining Negroponte as his Deputy. Hayden will still report to Negroponte -- and Hayden's familiary and expertise with the military dimensions of intelligence will help Negroponte set Rumsfeld back a few squares."

Georgia10 at DailyKos is spoiling for a Dem fight on Hayden: "Dianne Feinstein took the bait...praising Hayden and already coming out in support of his confirmation (come on Dianne, you couldn't at least wait to backstab your party until after the hearings?)...And Rep. Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, basically says the NSA program is off-limits during Hayden's hearing. ...This is the first test of the Democratic Agenda. All that lip service about "Real Security" means nothing--nothing--if Democrats vote to confirm a man who has made us less secure in our "persons, houses, papers, and effects." Republicans are counting on the cowering of Democrats to boost their tough-guy image and win back their eroding base before midterms. That is why Hayden was nominated, to save the Republican majority."

Captain's Quarters also noted Dem. silence on the Hayden nomination: "So far, it appears that if the administration was spoiling for a fight over the NSA surveillance program with Hayden's nomination, the White House may find itself disappointed. Only Russ Feingold and, oddly, Arlen Specter have made it an issue over the past few days, and they appear to be in the minority. Feingold may have hoped to rally his caucus behind his threat to combat the general on terrorist surveillance, but so far his colleagues have only mentioned it in passing before lauding Hayden's qualities to the press."

On the right bloggers were quick to mock the TPM Muckraker story. Environmental Republican: "OK, Hayden contracted with a company whose owner is involved in the Cunningham scandal. My company has contracted with Pfizer, am I liable for the Vioxx deaths? It's a stretch, Justin." Confederate Yankee: "There are no allegations whatsoever that King did or was even aware of anything illegal or unethical going on during his employment at MZM, and King's above-board position as a contractor is the only tenuous connection between Hayden and the criminals Wade and Cunningham." While fellow righty Flopping Aces just thinks Pres. Bush got the right man: "Gen. Hayden is the right choice at the right time to run the CIA that has run amok."

BUSH: A Record-Breaking Performance

Many on the left eagerly highlighted Gallup's latest poll putting Pres. Bush's approval rating at 31%.

For some 31 still wasn't low enough. Talking Points Memo: "Given that pretty much all the polls now show the president mired in the mid- to low 30s, simple statistical probability would suggest that at one point in the not too distant future some poll will catch the president under 30% in the Dante-esque public opinion nether region of the 20s." Also with quick gloating takes: The Democratic Daily, Daily Pundit, State of the Day, The Cunning Realist, Mahablog, and Middle Earth Journal.

Nixon comparisons abounded, and A Tiny Revolution even had graphical aides: "What's really remarkable is this is WITHOUT any congressional investigation of Bush's misdeeds, plus an economy far better (as much as it sucks for many) than in summer 1974. So Bush really has nowhere to go but down. This one is going to make sporting history." MyDD also had historical thoughts including: "A net approval of 34 is worse than the low suffered by either Jimmy Carter (31) or Bush's father (31). Only Truman and Nixon ever fared worse. ...Since 1950, this is the lowest job approval for a President facing midterm elections by more than ten points. ...A disapproval of 65% ties for the second highest ever recorded. The highest ever recorded was just one point higher, 66%, for Richard Nixon in August of 1974, about one week before he resigned."

Lefty The Carpetbagger Report preferred to look towards the future: "Which leads to the question, is Bush capable of recovering? Forget whether the White House has a "comeback" plan or not; it's worth considering whether it's even possible for the president to regain a respectable level of support. I suspect most of the president's most ardent supporters want to deny it, but it's likely we're dealing with a president with minimal political support who will leave office in 987 days widely disliked by the American people." While Air America asked an intriguing question: "The survey shows that Bush's popularity is setting record lows across the political spectrum, losing ground with Republicans (68%), conservatives (55%), moderates (28%), and liberals (7%) alike. Which begs the question: who, exactly, are those liberal holdouts?"

Over at the left's TAPPEDGarance Franke-Ruta thinks the poll could lead Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) to an easy primary victory: "And, because around 90 percent of liberals do not approve of what Bush is doing, it's not an exaggeration to say that disapproval of Bush could be considered the new liberal litmus test. That means Lieberman's path to staying in office, now under threat, is actually more straightforward than it might appear. Lieberman needs to forget about Ned Lamont and start running against Bush."

PoliSci professor Political Arithmetik advises patience before conclusions are made: "While Dems will be thrilled, we might withhold judgement about this rating for a few days. At 3% below the trend line, this Gallup result does NOT qualify as an outlier, but it is far enough away from the trend line that I want to see if others pick up a similar sharp drop in approval. All but Fox are down, but this rate of drop in Gallup, if true, would signal a sharp increase in the rate of decline -- a drop of 3% in one week, compared to my estimated trend which is declining at 1% every two weeks."

Few chose to comment from the right but those that did were confident Dem incompetence would save the day. Environmental Republican: "The MSM is pushing the donk line that this bodes well for the Dems come November. We are now in May and I have to tell you all; it doesn't mean a damn thing. Let the inane leadership of the Dems such as Pelosi talk of taking over the House and Senate, they did that in 2002 and were proven way wrong."

WH 08 I: No Curbing This Enthusiasm

Blogosphere buzz continues to swirl around a possible former-VP Al Gore '08 run. Bloggers from both sides reacted to a Wall Street Journal article speculating on a dream 'Clinton vs. Gore' Dem primary match-up. Lefty bloggers were mostly supportive of the idea.

Lefty AMRICAblog was 'intrigued' by the idea and asked his readers to comment on whether they'd like to see gore get the Dem nod. At deadline, 528 comments had been posted and an extremely unscientific sampling of them indicates they were running about 4-to-1 in favor of a Gore candidacy. A typical comment: "As one of those idiots who voted for Nader in 2000 (in Florida, no less), I would vote for Gore in a heartbeat. I always liked him, even if I didn't love him very much back then."

Lefty Tennessee Guerilla Women is also on board: "Al Gore may well be our best candidate for 2008. And instead of running with a Clinton, Al Gore may be Hillary Clinton's most serious opponent." While The Carpetbagger Report isn't convinced Gore's heart is really into it: "To be sure, the article has all the requisite denials, but that quote from a former Gore advisor seems to suggest that the former VP, at a minimum, is open to the possibility and weighing his options. ...But while this publicity might help encourage Gore to run again, it's also a reminder of how much fun he's having outside the political world."

Righties were equally, if not more, excited about the possibility of a Gore run. Ankle Biting Pundits: "First of all, how funny/pathetic is it that one of the main backers of a Gore run is kook Laurie David, who latest "Earth Day" crusade was a bigger dud that New Coke. And please tell, me where is Al Gore's movie playing other those "art house" movie theaters inhabited only by the wine-and-cheese and socks-and-sandals crowd." Brainster: "You know how it is, that he's got Laurie David behind him is probably a good sign he's not going anywhere; she's probably the biggest airhead at Airiheadda's blog." Blue Crab Boulevard: "We here at Blue Crab Boulevard are just tickled pink at the prospect of the fun and festive air a Gore announcement would add to the normal fun of the primaries."

WH 08 II: Foxy Lady

The Drudge Report kept the blogosphere talking about Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) with a report that News Corp owner Rupert Murdoch will be hosting a fundraiser for HRC later this summer. The news left some HRC sympathizers confused. Taylor Marsh: "Yeah, I know, it's Drudge, but this is big if true. What the hell is going on?"

Others on the left took the news in stride. Atrios: "Obviously Fox News isn't pushing Hillary, and I haven't noticed a lot of pro-Hillary stuff in the Post, but the Post has been reliably nasty to her opponents while being pretty easy on her." The LeftCoaster: "Don't be too surprised by this, but Rupert Murdoch will be hosting a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton's reelection campaign this July. Anyone who has been following the strange thaw between Murdoch and the Clintons for about a year now should not be aghast at this development."

As a whole the left blogosphere remains divided on HRC. Many lefties linked to this Brilliant at Breakfast take: "Hillary Clinton will never get my vote in 2008 -- not unless she publicly renounces her vote for this war, and possibly not even then. I will no longer reward Democrats who have made it very clear that they have no need for progressives; Democrats who think they can ignore their base -- or worse -- and still receive our votes." HRC still has her blogger defenders though. The Green Knight: " If you've read this little blog at all, you know that I can't stand the circular firing squads of the left, which is why I hesitated a little before writing this. I have no intention of getting into a blogwar with anybody. But it seems to me that the liberal firing squad forming around Senator Clinton is nothing but destructive, and the worse for being based on very shaky evidence."

Lefty Attytood couldn't pass up a football reference previewing a Gore vs. Clinton match up: "Political playbooks are a lot like football playbooks. A lot of teams racked up wins running the single-wing offense in the 1930s, or the wishbone in the 1970s -- but times change and defenses adjust. The 1990s are over -- "welfare as we know it" has been ended, Sister Soujah isn't on the charts, and the "triangulated" centrist voters who put Hillary's husband in the White House have long been polarized -- many of them by Fox News. Yet Hillary Clinton is now making a Charlie Brown-like run at the football that Lucy Rupert is dangling in front of her. Meanwhile, here comes Gore, running a sweep to his strong side, the left. Who would you bet on?"

On the right bloggers were unfazed by the M Murdoch/Clinton pairing. USS Neverdock: "I can't wait to hear Kos's reaction. I think Rove's behind it. Most Republicans are praying Hillary will be the Dems pick to run in 2008. Hillary hasn't got a chance of winning as most of the Democratic base is against her." RightWinged: "What is going on here!? One can only hope that this is part of a "vast rightwing conspiracy" and Murdoch is hoping to get on the inside to get the dirtiest of dirt to filter down to Fox News Channel. Though if we're talking about Hillary for president, I suppose that won't be necessary, considering polls continue to show us just how unelectable she is anyway. I don't think Murdoch could do anything about that."

BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: Street Fight

Today the Blogometer talks to Kevin Hayden, who writes at 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. Because of the pension plan and the hookers.

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. And what is your average output?

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.

Who is your favorite political blogger?

There are too many great ones. Jeanne of Body & 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 & 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.

Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?

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 with soundcasts, many will pursue microradio formats with less printed word.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Specialist?

Booman Tribune has some experiences he'd like to share about his interactions with the newest breed of staffer as witten up by Time magazine: the internet specialist. Booman writes: "It's always amusing to see how the mainstream media covers the blogosphere. Perry Bacon Jr. of Time writes about a new creature on Capitol Hill: the Internet outreach specialist. I know these guys (and so far, in my experience, they are all guys). They send me a steady stream of email all day long. Most of it is vaguely spamlike, but some of it is very useful. I'm often pleased to get advanced notice that Sens. Byrd or Feingold are about to take to the floor to excoriate the Bush administration, or that John Conyers is releasing another damning press release. It shouldn't surprise anyone that Washington politicians make an effort to buddy up to the bigger blogs in order to curry favor and deflect criticism. Frankly, even though it's flattering, I don't give a damn unless I see them doing what I want. Bacon recounts the amusing efforts of Nancy Pelosi to get in good at Daily Kos. In case you missed it, she attempted to take credit for getting tough with Republicans at the very time that the Dems were leaving Feingold high and dry on the censor issue. It didn't go well."

LEST WE FORGET: Birdwatching 101

The Sneeze provides readers with The Immaturist's Guide to Birdwatching which includes a look at the Screamer: "This is a bird that definitely likes to have a good time. But may not be a suitable choice for mates that still live at home with their parents."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:21 PM

May 08, 2006

5/8: Confidence Is High

Lefty bloggers think they have the GOP on the run. Buoyed by reports that a House takeover is not only possible but probable, lefties are itching for a full-out fight over the confirmation of Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden to succeed CIA Dir. Porter Goss. While the war still divides some lefties on Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) many of them can't wait to unite behind Dem controlled House investigations into WH pre-war claims on Iraq.

CIA: Stand By Your Man?

Lefty bloggers roundly welcomed the news that both House Intel Cmte. Chair Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) and Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) expressed doubts about the nomination of Gen. Michael Hayden to succeed Porter Goss as CIA Dir. Righty reaction was mixed. Some welcomed a confirmation fight that could make Dems look weak on security while other righties thought the WH should reconsider their decision.

Lefty bloggers feel as though the Hayden nomination might just mark the beginning of the end of GOP domination on security issues. The Reality Based Community: "The basic Republican political play from 9-11 to the present is "Propose something plausibly related to national security so bone-headed, unconstitutional, corrupt, or just plain disgusting that Democrats will have to vote against it. Then attack the Democrats for being soft on terrorism." The Hayden nomination may be another iteration of that play. But times have changed, and I doubt it will work. Why not? Because the President is now widely unpopular and distrusted."

Lefty Mahablog also senses a change in the air: "Time was when a Republican like Hoekstra left the reservation and publicly opposed some White House policy, within a few hours (and after being called to the White House for a chat) he'd be back in front of cameras claiming he was misquoted. He's just fine with Policy X after all. It will be interesting to see if Hoekstra will be persuaded to back down. If not, Hayden's nomination hearings might be fun." Other lefties were in full gloat mode. Tbogg: "Heckuva job, Boltie!" Just a Bump in the Beltway: "This is another pass the popcorn moment: Bushco is going to have a truly awful summer."

Other lefties were more cautious. The Political Animal: "I assume the White House figures that Republican critics will air out a few mild criticisms and then shut up, leaving them free to paint Democrats as weak on national security because they think the NSA ought to get search warrants if they want to spy on U.S. citizens. They went to this well in 2002 and 2004, and I assume they figure it's not dry yet. But I wonder if they've finally miscalculated? Stay tuned." The Left Coaster: "Arlen Specter has put the administration on notice that he will use the Hayden hearings to hold Bush and Abu Gonzales accountable for the NSA spying program. So any effort by Rove and the White House to use the Hayden nomination for political purposes may fall flat."

Lefties TalkLeft, mcjoan at DailyKos, firedoglake, and NewsHog all denounce Hayden for his role in the NSA wiretap program. While Left in the West wishes Dems would take the lead in opposing the nomination: "Somehow, GOP leaders are more willing to come out on this than Democrats. I think it's good that Rep. Hoekstra has the cojones to take on the President on this issue. Someone needs to. But Democrats are still so terrified of the national security debate, they won't even engage in it."

Righty bloggers showed respect for Hoekstra and Chambliss but most were not buying their objections. Powerline admits to being confused by their concerns that a military man shouldn't head the CIA: "This seems a little odd to me. When Gen. Colin Powell was named Secretary of State, did anyone say that the State Department was being put "under Pentagon control," or had been "gobbled up" by the Defense Department? Not that I recall." WILLisms also thinks the concern is unwarranted: "Just find the best person for the job, and get him confirmed. I think after 200+ years of successful civilian control of the military and related apparatus that we can trust our military officers to know their place and do the right thing vis-a-vis the Constitution. The idea too that a military guy is going to fight harder for budgets or influence than a civilian is just belied by history. Relax, this guy might be a great appointment." Outside the Beltway has similar thoughts: "After all, to paraphrase George Will, these people are essentially arguing that, if we put the military in charge of CIA, we would risk sacrificing the superb intelligence work we're getting now."

But there were righty concerns that the WH could lose a nomination fight right now. Byron York at the Corner: "That is not to say that some Republicans do not support Hayden; Sen. John McCain had encouraging words for him today. But it does suggest that Hayden, if nominated, will face serious problems from a bipartisan group of senators, and a simple resignation from military service might not be enough to resolve the problem." Captain's Quarters: "One has to wonder why the administration did not consult with Hoekstra and Chambliss before sending out their test balloons on Hayden. The White House knew his confirmation would present difficulties even without having key Republicans in opposition to his appointment. With legislators like Hoekstra and Chambliss publicly objecting to Hayden's nomination, the White House faces yet another botched appointment process. These two are not on par with Lincoln Chaffee, Arlen Specter, and Olympia Snowe. Hoekstra and Chambliss represent the core of the party in regard to war policy and support. With these defections, I expect the White House to name another candidate by tomorrow morning."

Righty Big Lizards wasn't happy with Chambliss: "If Chambliss has a political death wish, he could vote against Hayden, which would result in the committee rejecting the nomination. ...That would be catastrophic to Republican chances in November (currently looking pretty good)...The question is, does Chambliss really want to be known as the man who destroyed the Republican majority -- just because he's upset that a military man was appointed?"

ELECTION '06: I Love It When A Plan Comes Together

Everyone is happy with the Washington Post's 5/7 article outlining House Min. Leader Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) agenda should November turn out well for the Dems ... although everyone appears to be happy for different reasons.

Lefty AMERICAblog is just pleased to see Dems thinking positively while Sadly No and Booman Tribune can't wait for investigations into