May 02, 2006
5/2: Open Borders
When comparing the the Huffington Posts and Instapundits of the world to the New York Times, the lines between blogger and mainstream news source are easy to see. But as bloggers grow up and the MSM adapts, those lines are quickly getting blurred. Today's blogosphere is a case study. Bloggers from across the spectrum played reporter and filed first hand posts from 5/1's immigration boycott. Few of these were picked up by MSM sources, but for blog readers they may be considered more trustworthy sources than traditional MSM outlets.
The ex-CIA analyst story of Valerie Plame is another case in point. Lefty bloggers love to link to "alternative news nexus" Raw Story just as if it were the AP. They are savvy enough to realize that not everyone holds Raw Story in as high esteem as they do but they are also keen on highlighting cases where the MSM picks up stories that Raw Story first reported (as it is with Plamegate today). Not every blogger-driven story will turn out as big as Rather or Gannon, but the interaction between the MSM and the blogosphere is only going to increase.
IMMIGRATION I: Blogs Report, You Decide
Harboring a healthy distrust of the MSM, bloggers usually take every chance they get to do there own reporting. 5/1's immigration boycott is exactly the type of story bloggers were born to cover. On the left SusanG at DailyKos puts together a nice lefty blogger reporting round up. Reports from San Francisco, Denver, and Chicago are highlighted.
Kossite Colorado Luis reports from Denver: "There wasn't exactly message control going on. I also didn't see any of the promised voter registration efforts, although maybe those were taking place at the staging area for the march. There was a guy wearing an Irish Northern Aid t-shirt holding a sign saying "Repeal NAFTA," and there were a bunch of anti-war protestors, among others. There were also a lot of anti-Tom Tancredo signs. But the main message was No to Criminalizing Immigrants, No to HR 4437."
From San Francisco kossite proudprogressiveCA: "The anti-war protest on Saturday was spectacular. Yet the passion here at Union Square two days later was through the roof. I truly felt the passion for justice, equality and liberty in the people that have been screaming their hearts out for what they believe in."
Kossite lesley in Chicago: "I did hear Barack Obama's speech. He spoke about how proud he was to have this national movement begin in Chicago, and how he will push for a comprehensive immigration reform bill in the Senate. ...I spaced out during most of the speeches, especially when they were in Spanish, and instead observed the people around me. ...The march itself was exhilarating. There was a group of people drumming and playing the trumpet with SEIU jackets on. There were various people throughout with megaphones who would begin chants of "Si se puede" or "El pueblo unido, jamas sera vencido" with all the people within earshot joining in.
The more centrist LAObserved noted: "Mayor Villaraigosa, looking as uncomfortable on camera as I have ever seen him, appeared on tape on "Live with Geraldo" at 11 pm. Villaraigosa told Rivera that the push to translate the Star-Spangled Banner into Spanish is "absolutely ridiculous," and while expressing support for marchers and immigration reform he also said, in reply to a question: "If you want to be part of this country, you should sing the national anthem in English and you should wave the American flag." The mayor did wave the flag while on stage at the Wilshire and La Brea rally Monday."
On the right Allahpundit at HotAir produced a righty-blogger-reporter round up and Roger Simon posted some great pictures from LA. Michelle Malkin is up in arms over the New York Times "white-washed" coverage and posts some less than baseball-and-apple-pie photos from 5/1 marches.
In D.C. righty Gay Patriot reported: "As I was saying, the rallies for the D.C. area as far as I'm aware of were small and rather pitiful. As for the boycott (which I still strongly oppose), again unlike places such as L.A. in the D.C. area it appears to have fizzled...he groups in attendance were an odd lot. There were some I had never heard of and have no idea what they represent, but there were some of the radical ones there. This includes one of the most notorious liberal slimeball organizations A.N.S.W.E.R. (a Marxist group) was there and they seemed to have the most pre-printed "pro-Amnesty" signs."
From San Diego righty indepundit watched the border: "Nobody is certain how this will play out -- but one early indication is the absence of heavy traffic at two local border crossings, San Ysidro and Otay Mesa. These ports of entry normally handle tens of thousands of cross-border commuters on a typical weekday, resulting in waits of 15 to 45 minutes during rush hour. As of 6:30 this morning, there is no waiting at either port of entry."
In Las Vegas Mark Noonan at Blogs For Bush: "As it is, my wife turned out to be a very large supporter of the boycott - because there were that fewer cars of illegals and their supporters on the road at 8am, she got to work in good time...and I've heard many such stories. Essentially, all the illegals and their supporters did was annoy the citizenry on one hand, and show how badly they are in the way on the other."
From Los Angeles PajamasMedia counted flags: "With large crowds of illegal immigrants gathering at two locations in Los Angeles, extensive backroom planning to avoid offending U.S. citizens appeared to have failed: crowds are carrying about 60% Mexican flags, just 40% U.S. or other flags." While fellow righty publiuspundit highlighted divisions in the movement: "Cardinal Mahony says he's gonna march with Mexicans in a barrio, and not at the commie march downtown. Most everyone (including me) is going to go to the big immigrant rally (La Brea to Koreatown I think) in the afternoon to support the immigrants who are marching noncoercively. It's the one Dolores Huerta and Cardinal Mahony endorse."
IMMIGRATION II: May Daze
Again, the blogosphere must be considered a highly unscientific measuring stick, but 5/1's boycott generated much more backlash from the right than it did sympathy from the left. The majority of Americans may very well be in the middle, but that's above the Blogometer's pay-grade.
Raucous righty reax reigned. Confederate Yankee: "This May Day protest is a celebration of the illegal importation of poverty, and an attempt to legitimize the violation of this nation's sovereignty." Jarhead's Firing Range: "Apparently, we, as a nation, are not allowed to control our borders. To do so is "racist." However, Mexico will readily beat, rape, and otherwise violate, anyone who tests their southern border (all the while lecturing us on the evils of enforcing our borders)."Outside the Beltway : "The obvious question is Why doesn't the Border Patrol go round these people up and deport them?"
California Conservative has a round-up/critique of MSM coverage while Church and State uses google to demonstrate an anti-american flavor of the boycott.
Some righties thought those companies that closed down 5/1 were ripe for investigation. Right Wing News: "If a business has so many workers participating in these pro-illegal alien rallies that it can't even keep the doors open, it's a pretty good indication that a large percentage of their work force isn't here legally and ICE needs to look into it. The more of these crooked business owners we go after, the better. Donkey Stomp: "Many companies, like Tyson Foods, are closing their doors in sympathy for their cause or over a lack of workers (admitting that they hire cheap illegal labor instead of Americans or legal immigrants)."
Sovereignty was a big theme for righty bloggers. Hyscience: "And just to put today's events into the right perspective, the protestors that claim to be the common people...they aren't - the bulk of them are illegal aliens, people in this country illegally. They have no legal right to be here, much less telling us how to run our country." Donkey Stomp: " They have called it a day without immigrants. But this debate isn't about immigrants. This debate is about people who are trespassing and disrespecting our laws and disrespecting the people who are trying to get to our country through those laws. This debate is about an anti-American sentiment that some of these illegal immigrants show."
Righty Indepundit thought the boycott sent the wrong message: "They won't, however, bring this city to a halt. The simple fact is that immigrants are here to work, and earn a living for themselves and their families. We can have a secure border, but we can't do it without finding a way to deal with the people who are already here. Most of them have no plan to go back to the countries of birth. They're going to remain here until they die, whether we grant them "amnesty" or not. The only question is whether we invite them to join our society, or force them to remain in the shadows."
Fellow righty Publius Pundit criticizes those who broke the law, but then blames the feds, not immigrants: "There is a strong moral argument that while this country was founded by immigrants, it was also founded on the rule of law. That rule of law must be enforced, so granting rights to immigrants who are in this country illegally is wrong. They disrespected our laws to get here, why would they respect them now? Why reward criminality? America, your government hasn't been doing its job, and that's why you're faced with this new kind of civil rights mass movement in the streets of the south-west today. But you cannot blame the failure of your own government on the millions of people who came across the southern borders because of it. You need to blame your government."
Righty Captain's Quarters has a number of worthy takes:
It appears that the nationwide strike by illegal immigrants and their supporters caused some headaches but little immediate economic impact, as outside of Denver, Chicago, and Los Angeles most demonstrations attracted significantly fewer numbers than earlier rallies.
However, in a story that will likely have immigration hardliners talking for days, the AP reports that twenty-five percent of the children in the Los Angeles School District failed to attend classes today. After all, LAUSD's annual budget for its 746,000 students is over $13 billion, or about $17,000 per student. If the walkout caused 25% of the students to strike, that puts the annual educational cost for illegal immigrants at around $3.25 billion -- just for Los Angeles.
One-day boycotts and walkouts rarely have any real economic impact, for one good reason: people will still return to shop tomorrow. The political damage, however, may be quite extensive. The administration has attempted to quietly push a liberal reform package through Congress that delivers most of what the demonstrators demand. However, the spectacle of illegal immigrants demanding that Americans capitulate to their agenda only strengthens the opponents to the administration's approach.
Righty Outside the Beltway thinks the boycott's effect was muted by protest fatigue: "Unfortunately, too, protests have lost much of their persuasive appeal because of their ubiquity and the participation of a cadre of people who show up to protest everything."
Other righties continued to focus on the communist angle. Wizbang: "The protests were scheduled for today, May 1, for a reason: it's May Day, the day set aside to celebrate the communist uprising. The protests' organizers, ANSWER, a communist organization founded by Ramsey Clark, have convinced the illegal and legal immigrants that they are the oppressed "proletariat" exploited by the "bourgeoisie," which is why they use language (we clean your toilets, we watch your children, we pick your fruit and vegetables) that pits the illegal and legal immigrants against the middle class. This is classic communist propaganda meant to "empower" the masses of the "oppressed" immigrants and to intimidate congress and the American people into giving illegal immigrants full amnesty."
The American Thinker saw Wizbang's socialism and raised him a Hugo Chavez:
Hugo Chavez has never shied away from interference in American domestic politics. Working with Democrat congressmen from MA, he launched a publicity stunt sale of home heating oil at a discount last winter. He is building a base of client groups and politicans in the United States, allies to help him smooth down objections to his other activities. The web site (maintained by the National Immigrant Solidarity Network" a "coalition" whose members names are not readily visible) of the May 1 "Day Without An Immigrant" protest in Los Angeles contains its very own Hugo Chavez newswire of sorts, a string of news events centered around Chavez's Caracas-based World Social Forum in January.
Reading the articles linked to the demonstration home page can only lead one to the conjecture that Hugo Chavez has been actively helping the planning of events like today's demonstration.
Moving towards the middle The Moderate Voice had more questions than answers: "Day Without Immigrants: Political Success Or Political Provocation? Fair enough - but it's the imagery that will be interpreted. Will most Americans view the hoards of people as individuals who are already here and want to be good citizens - who could be good citizens if simply given some form of amnesty (REALITY: most "guest worker" plans are to "amnesty" what "pre-owned cars" are to "used cars")?"
Following up on his progressive blogger call to action lefty Facing South declared 5/1 a victory: "Those who count themselves as friends of immigrant rights, but who doubted the wisdom of today's May Day boycott, predicted two things: 1) that the boycott would be meaninglessly small, and 2) that it would invite widespread reprisals against workers and students. At the moment, it seems that neither have come to pass. ...Economically, the protests did exactly what they were intended to do economically across the South and country: bring key companies and industry to a halt to show the muscle of new immigrants.
Dohuyimir is still unconvinced on the timing of the boycott, but he's a sucker for a man with a protest sign: "Whether you agree with using the boycott tactic at this time or not (ahem), it's damned impressive to see people mobilize. This is a powerful, peaceful method with a long history of influencing government and society, and it certainly has gotten people to take notice."
The lefty American Constitution Society thought the protest was less than effective: "Reports indicate that while the organizers of Monday's immigrant boycott were not able to "bring the nation to a halt" many cities saw massive numbers of individuals take to the street to protest stringent immigration laws being considered in Congress."
The Liberal Avenger took the opportunity to vent about Lou Dobbs while Tbogg took umbrage with Captain's Quarters math.
TalkLeft took the opportunity to outline a progressive platform on immigration:
- Provide the opportunity for undocumented immigrants to legalize their status
- Expand avenues for legal immigration and support family reunification
- Provide access and options for permanent residency and citizenship
- Strengthen labor protections and their enforcement for all workers, both native and foreign born
- End the employer sanctions program
- End border and immigration enforcement abuses
- Legalization should be immediate and without conditions. There should be no criminalization and no border walls. There should be protection of labor rights and civil liberties.
Real Clear Politics features an item from former-Congressman Brad Carson (D-OK) arguing that Dems could cripple the GOP if they took a heavy enforcement immigration stance. John McIntyre at RCP agrees:
"Ross Perot's 19% in 1992 represents the economic populists, a number that I suspect has grown in the last 14 years. It was this group that threw its lot in with the GOP in 1994 which provided Republicans with the troops for their takeover of Congress. George W. Bush has strengthened the social conservative element of this coalition, but these two groups (along with libertarian/small government conservatives) form an important part of the Republican majority. Economic populists like Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan are extremely patriotic and abhor the anti-American strains of the political left, which is what prevents them from voting for most national Democrats. A Democrat who is strong on national defense, unapologetic about American power and willing to get tough and stop illegal immigration could win a lot of these voters. "
Lefty bloggers have been sitting on a 2/13 story by Raw Story reporting that: "Several intelligence officials described the damage in terms of how long it would take for the agency to recover. According to their own assessment, the CIA would be impaired for up to "ten years" in its capacity to adequately monitor nuclear proliferation on the level of efficiency and accuracy it had prior to the White House leak of Plame Wilson's identity."
On 5/1 MSNBC's David Shusterreport brought that story into the MSM with a report that: "Intelligence sources say Valerie Wilson was part of an operation three years ago tracking the proliferation of nuclear weapons material into Iran. And the sources allege that when Mrs. Wilson's cover was blown, the administration's ability to track Iran's nuclear ambitions was damaged as well." Lefty bloggers quick to highlight the "confirmation" include: Crooks and Liars, MahaBlog, Liberty Street, Obsidian Wings, firedoglake, and TalkLeft
Quotable reactions include:
The Reality Based Community:"Obviously explosive, if true: a complete refutation of the White House/NRO/Instapundit/Clarice Feldman line that since Plame wasn't actually doing anything important or secret, revealing her connection with the CIA did no actual damage to the national security. I guess the warbloggers had better start looking into whether Shuster's grandmother ever contributed to a Democrat. ...On the other hand, so far no other mainstream outlet seems to have picked it up.
AMERICAblog:"So not only was CIA agent Valerie Plame still working undercover, she was in fact working on stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons. And senior Bush adviser Karl Rove is the person who ended her career by leaking her identity to conservative writer Bob Novak. ...What the hell is Karl Rove, a known traitor, still doing working in George Bush's White House with a top-level security clearance? ...Karl Rove personally set back this nation's efforts to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb."
Brilliant at Breakfast:"So when your wingnut friends tell you that Valerie Wilson was just a desk jockey, or that everyone knew what she was doing...remind them that...it is the Bush Administration that allowed Iran to get to this point, because Karl Rove decided that getting revenge on Joseph Wilson for telling the truth was more important than national security."
The Left Coaster:"So now we find ourselves being told by the President that the biggest threat we face is a country that he and his closest aides enabled to become that threat. ...I think we have laws to deal with that kind of national security breach. But we'll need an intern and a blue dress before the Beltway media will stop eating their cocktail weenies and cover it with the same breathless abandon they showed when the fate of the country revolved around sex."
The post-partisan Wonkette is less sure about Plame's key role in our nation's security. Under a header, "Valerie Plame Would've Had this Whole Iran Mess Cleaned Up By Now If It Weren't For Rove" Wonkette muses: "Stop SHOUTING, David Shuster. Our head's still a little off. We think we know what you're talking about. But honestly, all we can remember about the Plame thing right now is that she looked great."
Many righties were quick to attack the sourece. Under a header, "Plame Game" Macsmind quips: "Rule one - Rawstory is a Drudge Report wannabe gossip rag. Rule two - David Schuster is a pathological liar." NRO's MediaBlog:
"Some of you might remember our fruitless efforts to get MSNBC correspondent David Shuster to correct his undeniably false assertion that the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate did not contain the words "vigorously trying to procure uranium" in reference to Iraq. ...In Shuster's false report, which he has yet to correct anywhere, he relied on "CIA officials" who told him that "the 'vigorously trying to pursue' language was not in the document at all." (The small discrepancy - between "pursue" and "procure" - is consistent with Shuster's well-documented sloppiness in reporting quotes.) ...Now, despite his history of reporting false information from anonymous CIA sources, Shuster asks us to give him another chance."
Most righties agreed with Wonkette's Plame-as-less-than-crucial take:
Hot Air:"MSNBC's credulous David Shuster reports that Valerie Plame was the CIA's single point of failure monitoring Iran's nuke program when the eeevil Bush-Rove Halliburton conspiracy outed her.
My take can be summed up in two words: Puh. Lease. If the CIA had as its single point of failure for monitoring Iran a desk jockey at Langley known for blabbing about her spy career, it would explain a lot-such as how the agency manages to be surprised by the Iranians at every turn."
Protein Wisdom:"First of all, the idea that the "outing" of Valerie Plame damaged our ability to track information about Iran's nuclear weapons program is dependent upon one believing that a) our intelligence agencies are not using redundant sourcing or multiple agents to collect vital national security data, and b) that Valerie Plame, who was working as an analyst from a desk in Langley, had exclusive insights into Iran's nuclear weapons program and is in fact some sort of irreplaceable James Bond-type super spy.
The Strata-Sphere: "The one thing that would get this into the media is the idiotic claim only Valerie, sitting in Langley, VA, could analyze the reports coming in. What a joke! Valerie was the only analyst who cold track Iran's ambitions? There is no way Valerie was the only person on the planet who could (or did) review intelligence on Iran! Question is, was it a trap from the CIA cleaning their house or the VIPerS floating one of their delusional ideas?"
ZARQAWI: Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda ...
Kevin Drum's The Political Animal picks up on an Australian report that ex-CIA analyst and author Michael Scheuer has confirmed that the WH passed up an opportunity to capture Abu Musab Zarqawi before the invasion of Iraq: "So why wasn't Bush willing to hit Zarqawi, a known al-Qaeda terrorist in a known location? Scheuer says he was told it was because Bush was afraid of annoying the French - a theory that seems a bit of a stretch, non? Others believe it was because Zarqawi was politically convenient: having him alive allowed Bush to pretend that Saddam was "harboring terrorists," thus providing useful ammunition for the war. ...Whichever it is, we now have a credible source telling us on the record that the Zarqawi story is true. We could have gotten him, but we chose not to.
Preemptive Karma, Michelle Pilecki at Huffington Post, The Heretik, and NewsHog all link to Drum's post.
Comments From Left Field also isn't buying the French-pleasing theory: "Scheuer is, however, giving the spin he unbdoubtedly heard about Bush's reason not to take out Zarqawi a little too much credence. We were already bombing in Iraq and were doing everything to smear the French publicly for not giving U.S. war plans a blank check."
Other lefties thought the report added more evidence that the war was sold on lies. Georgia10 at DailyKos: "If the President killed Zarqawi, he would have killed the ability to falsely link Saddam and al Qaeda and convince the American people that war was a necessary response to 9/11. So, not only is the President not concerned about Osama bin Laden, but he also let Zarqawi roam free to bolster his case for war." Obsidian Wings: "And it's one more instance in which this administration allowed its obsession with Iraq to interfere with the war on terror. Here we had a terrorist in our sights. We knew where he was, and we knew that he was working on biological weapons like ricin. Why didn't we strike his training camp? Because it was more important to try to get the French on board for our invasion of Iraq.Taylor Marsh : " it's more ammunition in the weak leadership department, as if we needed anymore. However, it's beyond the pale to revisit this after all the carnage al-Zarqawi has wrought. It once again proves that the Republicans are not only incompetent when it comes to our national security, but unfit to command in the dangerous world in which we now live."
Righty Andrew Sullivan thinks lefties should ponder the logical coherence of their position before criticizing the WH on this one: "In July 2002, the Bush administration had a clear chance to kill Zarqawi. They punted primarily because it would have derailed diplomacy in the run-up to the war. If they had bombed part of Iraq in July 2002, they might have made even Resolution 1441 impossible to achieve. Die-hard anti-war types don't have a huge amount of standing to criticize this in retrospect."
Among other thoughts righty Outside The Beltway wants everyone to keep the messenger in mind: "Considering that Scheuer cased being head of the bin Laden division in 1999, has since written two books about our efforts against al Qaeda, has written numerous op-eds and appeared on dozens of television interviews since then, I'm viewing his claims somewhat more dubiously than Kevin Drum. Still, it's not inconceivable that opportunities arose to kill Zarqawi and a political calculation was made not to do it. Scheuer has repeatedly claimed that the Clinton administration did the same with bin Laden."
BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: Just Deserts
Today the Blogometer talks to liberal Bill Scher, who writes Liberal Oasis.
What is your full name?
Bill Scher.
What is your age?
33.
Where did you grow up?
Greenburgh, NY.
Where do you live now?
Northampton, MA.
What is your occupation? Have you ever worked on a political campaign or for the mainstream media?
Freelance writer. My first book, "Wait! Don't Move To Canada!" will be published by Rodale in September. I briefly volunteered for every darkhorse presidential candidate in 1992 (Tsongas, Brown, Perot, in that order.) In 2004, I did some GOTV for John Kerry and Ken Salazar in Colorado. In college, I interned for US News and World Report and New York 1 News. I turned down an offer to work for Roll Call after working there on a temp basis for a week, once I concluded I didn't want a career in journalism.
When did you start blogging and why?
I started in June 2002. I had a background in both corporate and non-profit PR, as well as with a Washington public policy research firm catering to institutional investors, all which gave me a perspective on politics that was different than folks who cut their teeth as liberal grassroots activists or in the Democratic Establishment as Hill staffers and campaign operatives. Basically, I felt I had something to offer to help liberals and Democrats get back on track.
What has been your favorite post, or favorite story to write about, in that time?
I'm very proud of my blogging in opposition to John Roberts and Sam Alito. I humbly submit that there is a lot of useful info and advice in those posts for anyone who doesn't want to get steamrolled again by the conservative movement the next time.
Describe your typical blogging schedule. And what is your average output?
Unlike most bloggers, I post on a fairly set schedule. I generally write one 600-700 word column per day, late at night, from Sunday through Thursday (in effect, publishing daily Monday-Friday.) I prefer to digest the day's events and then offer readers some information, advice and analysis that hasn't been said yet. For Monday morning, I always post the "Sunday Talkshow Breakdown." I often have to scrap writing for Tuesday morning, because I find I can't properly prepare for my regular Monday night guest slot on Air America's "The Majority Report," and have the time to write a decent column. [Average output]: Four to five columns per week.
Who is your favorite political blogger? Favorite non-political blogger?
Atrios was born to blog. I generally don't read many non-political blogs, because I can barely keep up with the political ones. But the women at Go Fug Yourself do fantastic work.
Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?
Paul Krugman.
What is your favorite television news program, either network or cable?
MSNBC's "Countdown."
What MSM-produced websites (i.e. newspapers, magazines) do you visit on a daily basis?
Washington Post, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, CNN, MSNBC, USA Today, BBC, Ha'aretz.
What non-MSM websites (i.e. blogs) do you visit on a daily basis?
Abu Aardvark, Altercation, Baghdad Burning, Blue Mass Group, Body and Soul, Daily Kos, Daou Report, Eschaton, Feministing, Firedoglake, Huffington Post, Hullabaloo, Juan Cole, Just World News, MyDD, Orcinus, Seeing The Forest, The Sideshow, Talking Points Memo, Think Progress, The Washington Note, War and Piece.
How often, or do you ever, read a newspaper in its dead-tree (i.e. print) form?
Daily.
How do you see the new media and old media affecting and influencing each other in the next five years?
Liberal blogs are seeking to influence mainstream media in a positive way, so they will be emboldened to do more aggressive reporting and truth-squadding. Conservative blogs are seeking to destroy mainstream media, so they will be intimidated, timid and toothless. We'll see who wins.
LEST WE FORGET: What Us Worry?
The Petrelis Files repremands all of us for losing touch with our inner child: "If you haven't read MAD magazine lately because you're too much of an adult smarty-pants who can't be bothered reading that juvenile magazine, you are missing out on some witty, goofy and politically points barbs that could you give a few chuckles, if not outright bout of laughter."
Posted by Conn Carroll at May 2, 2006 12:24 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.
