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 May 16, 2006 12:10 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.
