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.

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."

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."

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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."