5/30: Deja Vu All Over Again

The Blogometer did not exist for Round One of Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) vs. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, but the blogger spill over on the issue is definitely part of the reason it was created. Righty bloggers are again driving the issue while lefty bloggers, normally not ones to shy away from a debate, seem contempt to label all Kerry detractors as liars and leave actual refutation of righty blogger attacks up to the MSM ... which lefty bloggers then criticize for not debunking righty blogger attacks quickly enough. For both sides, however, it's clear that any Kerry candidacy must address this past before looking to the future.

KERRY: Well At Least They Can Agree On One Thing ...

The re-emergence of Kerry's Vietnam record finally generated some consensus in the blogosphere ... if he's going to run in '08 he is going to have to put this issue to bed. Righty Captain's Quarters: "It would be inaccurate, to put it mildly, to say that the Swift boat veterans cost Kerry the presidency. What defeated Kerry was his insistence on focusing his campaign on his valor in Viet Nam and the repetition of stories like Christmas in Cambodia that failed the smell test. ... The only possible reason for raising this issue would be to clear the decks for another presidential run in 2008, but like 2004, it shows that Kerry's only strategy for elections is to live in a refashioned past." Lefty The Democratic Daily: "If John Kerry is going to have a chance to win in 2008 it will be necessary for him eliminate the controversy created by the Swift Boat Liars. Even though the facts were clear that O'Neil and other were both lying and working with GOP operatives, the media concentrated on the horse race aspect with questions as to how the charges affected the campaign, and gave far too little attention to the overwhelming amount of evidence supporting Kerry."

Moving to the actual story, consensus falls apart. Vietnam Vet Bruce Kesler at Democracy Project calls the New York Times a "willing mouthpiece for Kerry" and refutes the Times reporting on Kerry's 1971 "The Dick Cavett Show" appearance. Brainster's Blog looks at the "Christmas in Cambodia" angle while The Unalienable Right parses the Times words to poke fun at their conclusion: "We have very little interest in rehashing Hanoi John Kerry's failed presidential bid, but one paragraph in this fawning NY Times story stuck out in particular: "The Swift boat group insisted that no boats had gone to Cambodia. But Mr. Kerry's researcher, using Vietnam-era military maps and spot reports from the naval archives showing coordinates for his boat, traced his path from Ha Tien toward Cambodia on a mission that records say was to insert Navy Seals." ...You see, some records indicating that his boat went toward Cambodia at some point prove he was in Cambodia at Christmas-time in 1968. One time, we drove from Los Angeles north towards Sacramento. This proves we were in Oregon in 1968." Confederate Yankee pitches in with a map to try and show Kerry's story is impossible.

Not all righty bloggers wanted to relive the debate, but that didn't mean they had sympathy for Kerry. Robert Hahn at RedState: "Apparently neither John Kerry nor the New York Times can get over the idea that they were beaten in their race for the White House. ...Perhaps it is balm for his wounded ego. But he'll have to pardon the rest of us if we don't care anymore. Real presidents do not get second chances to deal with unanticipated events." Blue Crab Boulevard: "I wasn't blogging when that little tempest broke, so I might as well throw in my two cents now since Kerry wants to reopen things. ...Four months or so in Swift Boats do not a "war hero" make."

Outside of labeling righty blogger liars, lefty bloggers left actual refutation of their claims up to the Times. The most common lefty reaction was to attack the media for not debunking the Swift Boat/righty blogger claims fast enough. Greg Sargent at TAPPED: "Look, here's the thing. To the extent that the Swift Boat Liars were effective -- and that's in dispute -- it wasn't just because of their spending on ads. It was because the media amplified those charges for days and days, if not weeks, without examining them critically. When the press did get around to debunking the charges whatever damage there was had already been done. The media tried to shift blame for this to Kerry by arguing that he'd failed to respond aggressively. But here's the point: The press shouldn't have had to wait for Kerry to start hitting back before it started to report critically on what the Swift Boat Liars were saying."

GORE: Playing Hard To Get

National Review editor Rich Lowry at The Corner checked with his Al Gore sources and found the following: "He is one of those people who wants to be president, but doesn't really want to run for it. So he wants the party to come to him. ... Apparently he is telling the people closest to him what he is saying in public, that he isn't interested in running. ... Gore-watchers often repeat the old saw that America loves a non-candidate, noting that Gore's best day politically will be the day before he gets in. Gore surely is aware of this too. ... But no one doubt this: he is very much enjoying his new-found acclaim, and that he plays his cards very close to his chest."

On the left, Media Matters has a lengthy response to Greg Easterbrook's Slatereview of An Inconvenient Truth: "Easterbrook criticized Gore's claims that the melting of ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica could lead to substantial increases in sea levels, that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing, and that Bush administration officials have attempted to tamper with official reports on the threat posed by climate change. But in each case, Easterbrook's attempt to undermine these claims failed." Adding blogosphere insult to injury The Poor Man Institute piles on Easterbrook but refuses to even link to his piece. Also not bothering even to link to Easterbrook, The News Blog attacks Slate for even posting the item.

CLINTON: HRC Is A Right-Wing Corporate Stooge?

Cenk Uygur and David Sirota continued lefty hangout The Huffington Post's anti-HRC drumbeat through the weekend. Uygur tells HRC, "Senator Clinton, I knew Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Bill Clinton." Uygur explains: "Bill Clinton brought the Democratic Party to the center. Accordingly, he left office with enormous popularity...66% approval rating, more than double President Bush's current numbers. He made a lot of people like me think that the Democrats were far more reasonable than we had suspected. He got us to open our minds to the Democratic Party. ... So, why shouldn't I be happy to see Senator Hillary Clinton running to the center again? Because the center has moved! ... The party of President Clinton understood where the real center of this country lay. The party of Senator Clinton is so scared of seeming soft on defense (or whatever Fox News Channel and Rush Limbaugh are accusing them of this week), that they have forgotten where the center lies. They have also forgotten their oath of office and why voters put them there in the first place."

Sirota responds to a Financial Times item describing a Dem. anti-HRC movement: "I'm not so sure there is a concerted effort to oppose Sen. Clinton as much as there is a new movement brewing to support candidates who are serious about standing up for ordinary citizens and fighting the hostile takeover of our government by Big Money interests. ...There are a lot of Democratic operatives in Washington who bemoan the obsessive attacks on Clinton by the right -- attacks motivated by a sick form of hatred of her personally that I just don't understand. That said, if Clinton becomes a target of populist and progressive Democrats, it will not be because of such disgusting personal hatred, but instead because of serious policy concerns about how she would behave as President. Lately, she has seemed all too happy to embrace ultra-right-wing zealots and parrot Bush talking points on the Iraq War -- all while refusing to use her national platform to challenge the Big Money interests that run Washington."

IMMIGRATION: 73% Of Americans Can't Be Wrong

Tom Bevan at right-leaning RCP Blog thinks the USA Today buried the lead for their 5/30 immigration poll showing the nation divided into roughly four equal sub-groups including "the welcoming" who are "the only group that thinks dealing with illegal immigrants already here should take priority over border security." Bevan emphasizes this line and adds: "Uh, doesn't that mean roughly 73% of Americans believe border security is a priority? And doesn't that put the lie to the claim that there is some dramatic variance among the public's point of view on the issue? USA Today didn't just bury the lede on this story, it looks like they missed it altogether."

Also at Real Clear Politics, John McIntyre believes the GOP is a walking a tight line on immigration: "This is a critical juncture for the GOP on illegal immigration and how to fashion a comprehensive solution to the broader immigration debate. Republicans are in a position to turn the illegal immigration issue into a significant asset heading into the 2006 elections, but the difficulty will be finessing the issue in a way that does not poison GOP relations with the growing Hispanic community for 2008 and beyond. ...There is a quiet rage building among average middle class folks on the illegal immigration issue, and if the Republican leadership doesn't take control of the problem very soon they will allow the more extremist wings of the anti-immigration debate to become the face of the Republican party on immigration. That would be a disaster for GOP hopes to grow their new found majority in the years to come."

Also on the right, Kate O'Beirne and Rich LowryThe Corner were quick to mock the Washington Post's 5/28 immigration story. Under a header "Hate It When that Happens" O'Beirne writes: "The article explained that GOP members in tough races are "overwhelmingly" opposed to the path to citizenship...because of "an election-year dynamic" that has them actually listening to what their voters want." On a similar tone Lowry asks "What will those crazy, yahoo republicans do next?" and then comments: "...vulnerable congressional Republicans are listening to their constituents back home and overwhelmingly deciding on that basis to oppose the "path to citizenship." Just another sign of how out of hand this immigration debate has gotten. According to the Post, "the opposition spreads across the geographical and ideological boundaries that often divide House Republicans." So it will no longer do to pretend that opposition to amnesty/path-to-citizenship is the position of only a crazed fringe of the right-wing. Instead, it represents the mainstream of GOP opinion, and if Senate Republicans aren't willing to bend to it, there will be no immigration bill at all this year."

LIEBERMAN: Symptom Of A Larger Problem?

Partnered gay man Pachacutec of firedoglake is not happy with the Human Rights Campaign endorsement of "anti-marriage, anti-privacy" Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT). Pachacutec explains his distaste for Lieberman and HRC: "He's helped install James Dobson endorsed judges to the Supreme Court like Sam Alito and he's done everything possible to undermine a progressive agenda in America. But the policy of the Human Slights Campaign is so wedded to its fancy black tie fundraisers and corporate connections that it's more than willing to sell out the people it shakes down to finance its operations." Pachacutec goes on to interview Lieberman an HRC deputy director Mike Mings before concluding: "This self-defeating, idiotic, scorecard-driven myopia, dictated by the HRC Board, is not unique to the HRC, but common among national, progressive, single issue advocacy groups. The same thinking animates groups like the Sierra Club, where the need to solicit funds leads to a "bipartisan" stance that creates a strategic game plan that in turn undercuts the very agenda these national groups ostensibly represent. I included the whole interview with Mings in order to be fair, and also to illustrate the mindset that endorses a candidate who actually is cynically worse for the HRC's financial supporters than is his opponent."

Pam's House Blend agrees: "But the larger question is what can be done to make organizations allegedly working on our behalf more responsive -- to be able to support politicians who are willing to stick their necks out for our rights at a time when that is what is most needed? Supporting pseudo allies, or worse, actual foes in the overall battle for civil equality makes no sense for those LGBT citizens whose lives are profoundly affected by "friends" like Lieberman. The only way, in the end, is to bypass those organizations and give directly to those candidates who do stand for equality.."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Clash Of Civilizations

Chris Bowers at MyDD looks at this map showing a red-blue divide between Catholic and Lutheran blue-counties on one hand, and Baptist, Christian, Mormon and Methodist red-counties on the other:

"...as we approach election season, I reproduce this map because the progressive netroots is composed of political obsessives. Most of us spend an inordinate amount of time focused on current events, legislative policy, abstract matters of ideology, infrastructure, media narratives, electoral activism, and general strategy. Sometimes, I feel that because we are so obsessed with politics online that we often lose touch with what truly motivates voters. 80% of the country has no idea who Ann coulter is. Hell, 60% of the country has no idea who Harry Reid is."

"Over the past year and a half, I have slowly developed an argument that the electorate is, in general, non-ideological, not interested in policy, and generally unmoved by the day-to-day minutia of political events that, within the blogosphere, are treated as cataclysmic events. Sure, most people hold general political beliefs, but in general national voting habits are motivated by something else--something more basic. As we look for ways to motivate voters in November, we need to remember the powerful role that identity plays in political decision-making. As progressives, we shrug off concepts such as the "battle of civilizations," but if you look closely at demographic data, maybe it is a battle of civilizations taking place after all. We may very well be living in an era of identity politics. Who knows, maybe every era of American politics is an era of identity politics."

"Motivating voters and pulling off a landslide election will require a gut-level change of attitude about the two parties among millions of Americans. For all of the great policies everyone will suggest Democrats to run on this fall, ultimately winning will be based just as much on how Americans view their identity in relation to the image of the two coalitions as anything else. We need to avoid falling into the wonk trap of assuming that people are motivated by policy details. It is the identity, stupid. We need to explore ways to motivate voters for progressive causes with that in mind."

LEST WE FORGET: Show Me The Monkey!

If you love Chris Matthews cover your ears ... if you hate him turn up the volume...courtesy of FishBowl DC here is a clip of Matthews' monkey impersonation from the 5/21 Chris Matthews Show.