5/3: Not For The Feint Of Heart

Nothing but venom out there today; the left wants to walk former Clinton WH Pres/Sec Mike McCurry off the plank for shilling on behalf of telecom companies and bad-mouthing bloggers; the right is doing all they can to make sure Univ. of MI professor Juan Cole doesn't make it into the Ivy Leagues; and a Wall Street Journal op-ed serves as a Rorschach to draw out each sides worst opinions of each other.

The Blogometer's aware that OHians voted 5/2 and is confident the blogosphere will have plenty of thoughts, once it wakes up. But at deadline, the pickings were slim.

It all started innocently enough ... on 4/20 Matt Stoller at MyDD blogged about an issue he believed in, "net neutrality" and called out former Clinton WH Pres/Sec Mike McCurry for associating himself with an "astroturfing" campaign on behalf of telecom companies against "net neutrality." Being the savvy political operator he is, McCurry then responded in Matt's comment section. The issue then sat on a low boil for a couple of days with Matt Stoller serving up posts calling McCurry shill and a liar.

Switching venues to The Huffington Post on 4/30 McCurry added this blurb in an item ostensibly about partisanship in Congress: "You can see in blog commentary lots of great huffing and puffing that will get you to exactly 38% of the electorate. I don't see a lot of useful dialogue on how to get winning coalitions together that can win more than 50% in closely contested elections."

Responses from readers at HuffPo were light but mostly negative. McCurry felt the need to respond anyway and on 5/1 wrote: "Reading lots of comments on my last post, I guess my point got made: the culture and discourse of the Internet is not what you would teach kids at the dinner table -- unless you kept a bar of soap handy." McCurry then went on to question bloggers commitment to the First Amendment and accused them of intimidating journalists. He finished: "I get paid a reasonable but small sum to argue what I believe. How many of the net neuts out there are honest about the financial resources and special interests behind your side of the argument?"

Lefty bloggers were not amused.

• David Sirota at Huffington Post: "Mike McCurry is in one of those tailspins of dishonesty and contradiction that is so wildly out of control, you just have to sit back, grab some popcorn and watch with laughter."
• Atrios: "Wow, Mike McCurry is becoming quite the wanker. Treating your audience as idiots while making dishonest arguments may have worked in the good old days, but we're not that stupid."
• Matt Stoller at Huffington Post: "Now, many of you are aware of the frothing and well-paid incoherence that is Mike McCurry. ... I'm glad that bloggers are not allowing McCurry to go unchallenged, it speaks well of us unclean rabble. ...Bashing Mike McCurry is not only fun, it's important, as there must be a cost to his decision to sell us out."
• Adam Green at Huffington Post: "I feel sorry for Mike McCurry. I really do. ...It's genuinely sad that Mike McCurry would use his credibility to harm a medium that's revolutionized democratic participation, economic innovation, and free speech in our country.
• Brad DeLong: "As it is, I think Arianna Huffington is making a mistake in letting McCurry use her podium to do his work as a lobbyist for his clients."

Joshua Micah Marshall at Talking Points Memo was particularly unhappy with McCurry's intimidation charge. Josh argues that the MSM was always criticized by the right but only now is being fairly criticized by the left. He asks: "Who is intimidated exactly and why? ...I generally don't take much to the various streams of blog triumphalism and new media's empty vanity. ...But a lot of what I hear along these lines just sounds like whining."

Josh's conclusion's were accepted widely across the lefty blogosphere. Hullabaloo believes the lefties started blogging to help the MSM: "One of the most important catalysts for the emergence of a left online community was the Clinton and Gore character assassination campaigns. We just could not remain quiet anymore --- particularly since the mainstream press seemed to writhe around in the muck with the same pleasure as the GOP operatives who plied them with tabloid trivia." Interesting Times seconds Hullabaloo's theory. The Left Coaster thinks McCurry should check his facts: "Besides, ask yourself this: how many blogswarms have been directed at the reporters for Knight-Ridder? None. Do you know why that is, Mr. McCurry? Because for five years, the folks at KR have beaten the pants off the NYT, the WaPo, and the rest of the cocktail party crowd and done their jobs with a fraction of the budget that the cocktail party crowd have. So spare me this self-pitying crap."

Lefty Atrios concludes that journalists need to listen selectively, "One thing that's long puzzled me is the inability of editors/journalists to just ignore stupid criticism. I don't mean ignore all criticism; I mean ignore dumb criticism," while lefty Henry at Crooked Timber thinks journalist fears are misplaced: "My best interpretation of this was that journalists feel under threat on the one hand from the collapse in advertising revenues (which is about Craigslist and monster.com, not bloggers), and on the other hand from bloggers (who don't threaten their revenues, but certainly threaten their professional prestige) and that they've got a tendency to blur these two quite different threats together into one because they're both Internet phenomena." Lefties Taylor Marsh, Greg Sargent at Tapped, and Armando at Swords Crossed also have thoughts.

Taking a step back, lefty Chris Bowers at MyDD connects Joe Klein's latest blogger musings with McCurry's dismissive attitude and deconstructs their stereotype of bloggers as young uninformed rabid inexperienced arrogant newcomers. Lefty RJ Eskow at Huffington Post connects McCurry's blogger blindness to the MSM's negative reaction to Stephen Colbert's WH Correspondent's Dinner performance.

Oh yeah, there's also an actual policy issue here. Lefty Adam Green at Huffington Post is for "net neutrality and righty The Only Republican Left In San Francisco is against it. Also focussing mostly on the policy side: Lefty The Sideshow, Right Wing Nuthouse, and righty QandO

All sides took swings at Hoover Institute fellow Shelby Steele's 5/2 Wall Street Journal op-ed titled "White Guilt and the Western Past." Righty Bety's Page summed up the article this way: "Shelby Steele has a very thought-provoking and, I hope, discussion-inducing, essay in the Wall Street Journal arguing that America is hamstrung by feelings of collective white guilt for racism and imperialism. Thus, we start off at a disadvantage in world conflicts because we feel we must overcome that reputation. And, we've absorbed all the guilt for the Age of Imperialism that the Europeans have seemingly sloughed off onto our shoulders."

Righty Protein Wisdom agrees: "I believe this is true-and I believe that the source of much displeasure with Bush and co. from supporters of the war stems from what they see as fear of appearing too brutal."

Blogs for Bush worried about Steele's popularity: "It looks as though Shelby Steele decided that he wanted to be hated by a large number of people - and so he wrote this. ...In reading Mr. Steele's piece I began, I think, to better understand my leftwing readers - at bottom, they simply must be of the opinion that we are not the best, that American civilization, far too tainted with guilty white people, simply cannot be correct, and thus anyone we fight must have right on their side. Its a default mental mode, and I don't think we'll be able to shake them out of it - but at least Mr. Steele has given us a way to understand them, and thus work around them if we can't work with them."

Most righties mentioned Steele's thesis in relation to the war, but mainly focussed on applying it to other issues. Some stayed in the foreign policy arena. Righty DailyPundit: "As I read about our delicacy in approaching Islamic fundamentalism, caused by our supposedly brutal "imperialist" past, I couldn't help but keep in mind two things: America is the least imperialist of all the great white nations of history, and Islam is one of the most imperialist of movements." Righties ChicagoBoyz and Tigerhawk have similar thoughts while AmericanFuture applies the article to Iran.

Other righties branched out to other issues. Dr. Sanity: "Steele connects this minimalism in war as a direct consequence of White guilt; and I must say that I think he has something here. White guilt over past racism and imperialism is today being constantly exploited by those whose primary desire is to disunify people by promoting class warfare and the marxist dialectic. Either you are oppressed (a poor brown person) or an oppressor (a rich white person). This makes it hard for even the morally transformed White nation (which Steele admits America has become) to fight even the most vicious enemies--if they happen to fit the oppressed victim stereotype."

Immigration also made an appearance. Righty Wizbang: "Mr. Steele references how white guilt is present in America's inability to enforce its immigration laws. We don't want to be seen as racist thugs who cruelly throw illegal immigrant law-breakers out, although we have every right to do so and should do so. Now we are in a situation where our borders are continually crossed illegally and approximately 12 million illegal aliens have taken up residence here." Righty Blue Crab Boulevard: "I see it here in my comments section. The meme about "little brown people" shows up routinely. My stand against illegal immigration brings calls from some that I am a racist. I think there's something even more insidious about this idea of white guilt. That there is an inherent racism in those who claim that white Europeans are morally inferior because of past errors."

On the left Glenn Greenwald at Unclaimed Territory led the charge against Steele's premise: "Now, from what I can tell, the only military force we are refraining from using in Iraq is full-scale carpet bombings where we eradicate a few cities, or using tactical nuclear weapons. Calls for fewer restraints on how we are fighting in Iraq would almost certainly have to include one or both of those tactics. And the war mongers among the Bush supporters, those who are prostrating themselves before the brilliance of Steele's "thesis," are calling for exactly that. ...To sit and listen to people who have spent the last three years piously lecturing us on the need to stand with "the Iraqi people," who justified our invasion of that country on the ground that we want to give them a better system of government because we must make Muslims like us more, now insist that what we need to do is bomb them with greater force and less precision is really rather vile -- but highly instructive."

The lefty blogswarm had begun:

• Hullabaloo: "The only thing I can add is that I'm not surprised, by either the racism or the embrace of all out war against the the newly "liberated" Iraqis."
• Pacific Views: "Oh yeah. We should just wipe out whole cities. That would teach them a lesson. Besides, that's a great way to win the hearts and minds of billions of people."
• Whiskey Bar: "This is, to say the least, a unique argument -- one in which standard counterinsurgency warfare tactics (not to mention our president's liberator fixation) are redefined and then dismissed as the geopolitical equivalent of the VISTA program. It's the neoconservative take on street crime displaced about 8,000 miles, with Iraqi insurgents filling in for black inner city youth."
• The Left Coaster: "I can say with all accuracy this demented, delusional, psychopathic, felonious, racist god-awful professor is no American. He represents the worst humanity has to offer, and is a shameful example of citizenship. Let us pray his grossly homicidal views are seen for the evil it is.
• NewsBlog: "Minimalism in war? What is he talking about? Has he seen any film of an air strike in Vietnam? Obviously he's never actually been to a war, because I've never heard a Korean or Vietnamese say we dropped too few bombs on them. I don't remember the US accused of restraint as the Vietnamese deal with Agent Orange 30 years later."

Many lefties took the opportunity to comment on the right as a whole. Preemptive Karma: "There's a large segment of American society that takes a lot of pleasure in the bullshit knuckle dragging "kill-them-all-and-let-God-sort-it-out" mentality. This ironically "pro-life" group is all too ready to run drool-faced and roughshod whether or not it solves anything." No More Mister Nice Blog: "To Steele and his fans, there is only one Antichrist responsible for all the woes of the world, and its name is called Liberalism." Lawyers, Guns, and Money: "The individual warblogger may not have been trained for war, or have any particular physical talents, or have done much more to study war than read and re-read Victor Davis Hanson, but he knows that he is tough, and he knows that this toughness must matter in some way."

Lefty Obsidian Wings thinks the right embraces Steele out of Iraq-desperation: "My best guess is that the reason so many bloggers on the right have applauded this tissue of fantasy is as follows. They know that things are not going well in Iraq. They are not prepared to blame the administration that has, you know, actually run the war. Luckily, here comes Shelby Steele with an alternative explanation that happens to invoke a narrative to which many of them are already wedded: the idea that America has been emasculated, its vigor sapped, and its "superior strength tied down with a million Lilliputian ropes.

Lefty Oliver Willis focuses on Steele's race and lefty Orcinus discusses the right's infatuation with the end of racism.

Righty bloggers were abuzz over author Christopher Hitchens latest item in Slate criticizing a statement of University of Michigan Professor Juan Cole. Hitchens writes, "I was not surprised to see professor Juan Cole of the University of Michigan denying that Ahmadinejad, or indeed Khomeini, had ever made this call for the removal of Israel from the map. Cole is a minor nuisance on the fringes of the academic Muslim apologist community," and then goes on to disassemble Professor Cole's defense of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad recent statements on Israel.

Cole's response at Informed Comment begins: "I belong to a private email discussion group called Gulf2000. ...in an informal email discussion, ideas evolve, you make mistakes and they get corrected, etc. It is a rough, rough draft. ...Hitchens somehow hacked into the site, or joined and lurked, or had a crony pass him things. And he has now made my private email messages the subject of an attack on me in Slate." Cole went on to attack Hitchens' professionalism: "Journalists are supposed to interview the subjects about which they write. Mr. Hitchens never contacted me about this piece. He never sought clarification of anything. He never asked permission to quote my private mail."

In response to Hitchens' unprofessionalism and thievery Cole decided to take the high road: "How to explain this peculiar behavior on the part of someone who was at one time one of our great men of letters? Well, I don't think it is any secret that Hitchens has for some time had a very serious and debilitating drinking problem. He once showed up drunk to a talk I gave and heckled me."

Righties feasted. Tigerhawk: "Read Hitchens, read Cole, and decide who is most in need of a 12-Step Program. ...However, Cole may be particularly sensitive about public attacks on his credentials for a specific reason. There are rumors afoot that Yale University is proposing to hire Cole away from Ann Arbor. This should not surprise us, since Yale, I'm sure, feels the need to beef up the faculty available to nurture the Taliban (which does mean "students," after all) in its undergraduate population. Hit and Run: "The Yale review board has said that in considering Cole's application it would not look at his blog, but only his academic achievements. However, this seems to be an increasingly untenable position given that a blog, like any other piece of public writing, is a perfectly reasonable window into someone's methodology and, well, mental balance. Somehow, it doesn't look very good when you react to criticism of something you wrote by calling the other person a drunkard and a thief." Righties Ace of Spades, Blue Crab Boulevard, Decision 08, Thomas Joscelyn and Instapundit all piled on.

Lefties were largely silent on the matter. Road to Surfdom attacks Hitchens but offers no defense of Cole while Pacific Views can't resist Cole's fervent anti-war stance.

Great graphical comparison of approval ratings from Pres. Bush and Pres. Nixon at Tiny Revolution. Tiny's conclusion: "Note that while Bush's approval rating is still a bit higher than Nixon's at a comparable point in his presidency, Bush's disapproval rating is almost exactly the same as Nixon's just before he resigned. In fact, at 63%, Bush's current disapproval rating was only exceeded by Nixon's in two Gallup polls-March, 1974 (65%) and the final poll in July, 1974 just before Nixon left office (66%). For instance, in June, 1974 Nixon's disapproval rating was only 58%, noticeably lower than Bush's is today."

A fierce battle has broken out between Diet Coke and Coke Zero drinkers. At deadline Jonah Goldberg at the Corner had the last word: "Matt Yglesias writes:

"I will, however, disagree with Jonah Goldberg on this Coke Zero business; it's fine, but doesn't hold a candle to classic original Diet Coke."

Me Well, isn't that interesting. Matt calls the "original Diet Coke" a "classic." But here's the thing: Coke Zero is based on the Classic Coke formula. Diet Coke is based on the New Coke formula. One could argue that, as the conservative, I like the old school taste (I actually remember the change from classic (i.e. real) Coke to new Coke, it was a dark day). Meanwhile, Matt the young liberal not only prefers the shabby innovation, he actually thinks it has the more authentic - i.e. classic - taste.

It's tempting to see analogies to all sorts of things here. Matt thinks the current New Deal lite liberalism is not only superior, but that it emulates the classic form of American politics. Meanwhile, I would argue that the current liberalism is a merely a bad rip-off of a bad innovation to start with. But I won't do that because, hey, it's just a soda."

OH PRIMARIES: Early Returns

Not alot in the blogsphere on last night's primaries yet. Lefty MyDD has a good preview of 5/2's voting. GOP Bloggers celebrate Blackwell's win. Righty Hit and Run looks at the returns and concludes the Democrats are more energized this fall. Lefty Cincinnati resident Andrew Warner isn't happy with Blackwell or any of the Buckeye state's cong. options.