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 May 15, 2006 12:25 PM
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
