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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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?"

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.

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).