May 09, 2006
5/9: Must See TV
Anticipation is palpable in the blogosphere these days. With Pres. Bush's poll numbers hitting new lows every week, November can not come soon enough for lefty bloggers. Recent revelations surrounding CIA Dir. nominee Gen. Michael Hayden have all sides eagerly awaiting what is shaping up to be a pitched battle of a confirmation. Meanwhile former-VP Al Gore continues to be a favorite among lefty bloggers leaving righties and junkies salivating over a possible Gore vs. HRC primary match up.
CIA: Nothing Like A Little S-E-X To Liven Up A Confirmation Hearing
The lefty blogosphere coalesced around three main talking points against Bush's 5/8 nomination of Hayden. Justin Rood at TPM Muckraker supplied the newest line of attack by linking Hayden to the same scandal that many bloggers believe also fell his predecessor; the Cunningham bribery scandal.
Lefties that ran with this angle include:
- Taylor Marsh: "It's interesting that the guy now tapped to head the CIA hired a man from a company that was bribing people in Congress so they could get sweetheart defense deals."
- Wonkette: "We're gonna be glued to the confirmation hearings. They're gonna be great. We learned today that Hayden has a tenuous connection to MZM Inc., the contractors who bribed their way into Katherine Harris' heart and the Cunningham suite of the Watergate. He's up to his ass in the NSA scandal."
- Cannonfire: "When are people going to recognize these schemes for what they are? From MZM to Katrina relief, the outlines are always the same: G.O.P.-friendly "businessmen" (who tend to be spookier than Caspar) get fat contracts related to homeland security."
- The Reality Based Community: "I doubt that Republicans would benefit much from a debate about NSA wiretapping right now. When people don't trust the President, asking them to trust the President probably won't work very well. I could be wrong about that, of course. But I'm dead certain they won't benefit from inquiries into how it was that MZM (the central company in the Cunningham/Hookergate scandal) got all those contracts."
- Sploid: "But as is so often the case with Washington criminals, Hayden's future will most likely be decided by his involvement with the outrageous Hookergate scandal that may eventually bring down the entire Bush administration."
Mahablog focused on the left's second major Hayden indictment; the NSA-wiretapping controversy: "According to Howard Fineman on Countdown, the White House thinks the Hayden confirmation hearings will help them. The NSA spy program will be front and center, and the Bushies think that's a winner for them. More dissociative thinking?" While Feminste has a laundry list of attacks including wiretapping, the Cunningham scandal, inexperience, and connections to U.S. Amb. to Iraq John Negroponte.
Also on the left Firedoglake picks up on the Negroponte connection and The Washington Note elaborates on what it all means: "Hayden going to head CIA is John Negroponte's effort to wrest some of the ground back from Rumsfeld in the intelligence wars underway. Hayden directed the National Security Agency before joining Negroponte as his Deputy. Hayden will still report to Negroponte -- and Hayden's familiary and expertise with the military dimensions of intelligence will help Negroponte set Rumsfeld back a few squares."
Georgia10 at DailyKos is spoiling for a Dem fight on Hayden: "Dianne Feinstein took the bait...praising Hayden and already coming out in support of his confirmation (come on Dianne, you couldn't at least wait to backstab your party until after the hearings?)...And Rep. Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, basically says the NSA program is off-limits during Hayden's hearing. ...This is the first test of the Democratic Agenda. All that lip service about "Real Security" means nothing--nothing--if Democrats vote to confirm a man who has made us less secure in our "persons, houses, papers, and effects." Republicans are counting on the cowering of Democrats to boost their tough-guy image and win back their eroding base before midterms. That is why Hayden was nominated, to save the Republican majority."
Captain's Quarters also noted Dem. silence on the Hayden nomination: "So far, it appears that if the administration was spoiling for a fight over the NSA surveillance program with Hayden's nomination, the White House may find itself disappointed. Only Russ Feingold and, oddly, Arlen Specter have made it an issue over the past few days, and they appear to be in the minority. Feingold may have hoped to rally his caucus behind his threat to combat the general on terrorist surveillance, but so far his colleagues have only mentioned it in passing before lauding Hayden's qualities to the press."
On the right bloggers were quick to mock the TPM Muckraker story. Environmental Republican: "OK, Hayden contracted with a company whose owner is involved in the Cunningham scandal. My company has contracted with Pfizer, am I liable for the Vioxx deaths? It's a stretch, Justin." Confederate Yankee: "There are no allegations whatsoever that King did or was even aware of anything illegal or unethical going on during his employment at MZM, and King's above-board position as a contractor is the only tenuous connection between Hayden and the criminals Wade and Cunningham." While fellow righty Flopping Aces just thinks Pres. Bush got the right man: "Gen. Hayden is the right choice at the right time to run the CIA that has run amok."
BUSH: A Record-Breaking Performance
Many on the left eagerly highlighted Gallup's latest poll putting Pres. Bush's approval rating at 31%.
For some 31 still wasn't low enough. Talking Points Memo: "Given that pretty much all the polls now show the president mired in the mid- to low 30s, simple statistical probability would suggest that at one point in the not too distant future some poll will catch the president under 30% in the Dante-esque public opinion nether region of the 20s." Also with quick gloating takes: The Democratic Daily, Daily Pundit, State of the Day, The Cunning Realist, Mahablog, and Middle Earth Journal.
Nixon comparisons abounded, and A Tiny Revolution even had graphical aides: "What's really remarkable is this is WITHOUT any congressional investigation of Bush's misdeeds, plus an economy far better (as much as it sucks for many) than in summer 1974. So Bush really has nowhere to go but down. This one is going to make sporting history." MyDD also had historical thoughts including: "A net approval of 34 is worse than the low suffered by either Jimmy Carter (31) or Bush's father (31). Only Truman and Nixon ever fared worse. ...Since 1950, this is the lowest job approval for a President facing midterm elections by more than ten points. ...A disapproval of 65% ties for the second highest ever recorded. The highest ever recorded was just one point higher, 66%, for Richard Nixon in August of 1974, about one week before he resigned."
Lefty The Carpetbagger Report preferred to look towards the future: "Which leads to the question, is Bush capable of recovering? Forget whether the White House has a "comeback" plan or not; it's worth considering whether it's even possible for the president to regain a respectable level of support. I suspect most of the president's most ardent supporters want to deny it, but it's likely we're dealing with a president with minimal political support who will leave office in 987 days widely disliked by the American people." While Air America asked an intriguing question: "The survey shows that Bush's popularity is setting record lows across the political spectrum, losing ground with Republicans (68%), conservatives (55%), moderates (28%), and liberals (7%) alike. Which begs the question: who, exactly, are those liberal holdouts?"
Over at the left's TAPPEDGarance Franke-Ruta thinks the poll could lead Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) to an easy primary victory: "And, because around 90 percent of liberals do not approve of what Bush is doing, it's not an exaggeration to say that disapproval of Bush could be considered the new liberal litmus test. That means Lieberman's path to staying in office, now under threat, is actually more straightforward than it might appear. Lieberman needs to forget about Ned Lamont and start running against Bush."
PoliSci professor Political Arithmetik advises patience before conclusions are made: "While Dems will be thrilled, we might withhold judgement about this rating for a few days. At 3% below the trend line, this Gallup result does NOT qualify as an outlier, but it is far enough away from the trend line that I want to see if others pick up a similar sharp drop in approval. All but Fox are down, but this rate of drop in Gallup, if true, would signal a sharp increase in the rate of decline -- a drop of 3% in one week, compared to my estimated trend which is declining at 1% every two weeks."
Few chose to comment from the right but those that did were confident Dem incompetence would save the day. Environmental Republican: "The MSM is pushing the donk line that this bodes well for the Dems come November. We are now in May and I have to tell you all; it doesn't mean a damn thing. Let the inane leadership of the Dems such as Pelosi talk of taking over the House and Senate, they did that in 2002 and were proven way wrong."
WH 08 I: No Curbing This Enthusiasm
Blogosphere buzz continues to swirl around a possible former-VP Al Gore '08 run. Bloggers from both sides reacted to a Wall Street Journal article speculating on a dream 'Clinton vs. Gore' Dem primary match-up. Lefty bloggers were mostly supportive of the idea.
Lefty AMRICAblog was 'intrigued' by the idea and asked his readers to comment on whether they'd like to see gore get the Dem nod. At deadline, 528 comments had been posted and an extremely unscientific sampling of them indicates they were running about 4-to-1 in favor of a Gore candidacy. A typical comment: "As one of those idiots who voted for Nader in 2000 (in Florida, no less), I would vote for Gore in a heartbeat. I always liked him, even if I didn't love him very much back then."
Lefty Tennessee Guerilla Women is also on board: "Al Gore may well be our best candidate for 2008. And instead of running with a Clinton, Al Gore may be Hillary Clinton's most serious opponent." While The Carpetbagger Report isn't convinced Gore's heart is really into it: "To be sure, the article has all the requisite denials, but that quote from a former Gore advisor seems to suggest that the former VP, at a minimum, is open to the possibility and weighing his options. ...But while this publicity might help encourage Gore to run again, it's also a reminder of how much fun he's having outside the political world."
Righties were equally, if not more, excited about the possibility of a Gore run. Ankle Biting Pundits: "First of all, how funny/pathetic is it that one of the main backers of a Gore run is kook Laurie David, who latest "Earth Day" crusade was a bigger dud that New Coke. And please tell, me where is Al Gore's movie playing other those "art house" movie theaters inhabited only by the wine-and-cheese and socks-and-sandals crowd." Brainster: "You know how it is, that he's got Laurie David behind him is probably a good sign he's not going anywhere; she's probably the biggest airhead at Airiheadda's blog." Blue Crab Boulevard: "We here at Blue Crab Boulevard are just tickled pink at the prospect of the fun and festive air a Gore announcement would add to the normal fun of the primaries."
WH 08 II: Foxy Lady
The Drudge Report kept the blogosphere talking about Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) with a report that News Corp owner Rupert Murdoch will be hosting a fundraiser for HRC later this summer. The news left some HRC sympathizers confused. Taylor Marsh: "Yeah, I know, it's Drudge, but this is big if true. What the hell is going on?"
Others on the left took the news in stride. Atrios: "Obviously Fox News isn't pushing Hillary, and I haven't noticed a lot of pro-Hillary stuff in the Post, but the Post has been reliably nasty to her opponents while being pretty easy on her." The LeftCoaster: "Don't be too surprised by this, but Rupert Murdoch will be hosting a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton's reelection campaign this July. Anyone who has been following the strange thaw between Murdoch and the Clintons for about a year now should not be aghast at this development."
As a whole the left blogosphere remains divided on HRC. Many lefties linked to this Brilliant at Breakfast take: "Hillary Clinton will never get my vote in 2008 -- not unless she publicly renounces her vote for this war, and possibly not even then. I will no longer reward Democrats who have made it very clear that they have no need for progressives; Democrats who think they can ignore their base -- or worse -- and still receive our votes." HRC still has her blogger defenders though. The Green Knight: " If you've read this little blog at all, you know that I can't stand the circular firing squads of the left, which is why I hesitated a little before writing this. I have no intention of getting into a blogwar with anybody. But it seems to me that the liberal firing squad forming around Senator Clinton is nothing but destructive, and the worse for being based on very shaky evidence."
Lefty Attytood couldn't pass up a football reference previewing a Gore vs. Clinton match up: "Political playbooks are a lot like football playbooks. A lot of teams racked up wins running the single-wing offense in the 1930s, or the wishbone in the 1970s -- but times change and defenses adjust. The 1990s are over -- "welfare as we know it" has been ended, Sister Soujah isn't on the charts, and the "triangulated" centrist voters who put Hillary's husband in the White House have long been polarized -- many of them by Fox News. Yet Hillary Clinton is now making a Charlie Brown-like run at the football that Lucy Rupert is dangling in front of her. Meanwhile, here comes Gore, running a sweep to his strong side, the left. Who would you bet on?"
On the right bloggers were unfazed by the M Murdoch/Clinton pairing. USS Neverdock: "I can't wait to hear Kos's reaction. I think Rove's behind it. Most Republicans are praying Hillary will be the Dems pick to run in 2008. Hillary hasn't got a chance of winning as most of the Democratic base is against her." RightWinged: "What is going on here!? One can only hope that this is part of a "vast rightwing conspiracy" and Murdoch is hoping to get on the inside to get the dirtiest of dirt to filter down to Fox News Channel. Though if we're talking about Hillary for president, I suppose that won't be necessary, considering polls continue to show us just how unelectable she is anyway. I don't think Murdoch could do anything about that."
BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: Street Fight
Today the Blogometer talks to Kevin Hayden, who writes at The American Street.
What is your full name?
Kevin Hayden, King of the Tapiocas
What is your age?
53
Where did you grow up?
North Falmouth, on Cape Cod in Massachusetts
Where do you live now?
Eugene, Oregon
What is your occupation?
I'm a maintenance supervisor for a commercial building. Much of my job is janitorial and landscaping. I clean toilets, mow lawns, dump trash, paint, build and repair things. I do the same things many Latino immigrants do. With pride. Without resenting my immigrant peers. I only resent those who diminish us or the work we do. There are Einsteins and Schweitzers among us. What we do as a daily task does not define the value of who we are. And where we originate matters less than what we accomplish with our souls upon the way.
Have you ever worked on a political campaign or for the mainstream media?
Yes and no. I worked on a presidential campaign and a State rep campaign, both before I was 22. I've written for a couple of alt weeklies and have done a couple of guest editorials in a mainstream daily. Oh wait, I guess I did get paid to be a summer theater reviewer in a mainstream paper, so yes and yes.
When did you start blogging and why?
I began in November of 2002. Because of the pension plan and the hookers.
What has been your favorite post, or favorite story to write about, in that time?
Geeze, that's hard. I enjoy writing about real life occurences the most, though most of what has appeared on my blog of a personal nature has been too tragic to enjoy. Nothing stands out as a favorite, really. I hate them all equally.
Describe your typical blogging schedule. And what is your average output?
It used to be from about 5 am to 10 am, 3 pm to 7 pm and a couple of late night hours. My current work has altered that. Now it's more like 9 - 11 am and 10 pm to 3 am, around my mostly swingshift job.
Who is your favorite political blogger?
There are too many great ones. Jeanne of Body & Soul for the heart she puts in it. Billmon and Digby: exceptional craftsmen. David Neiwert of Orcinus for his deep research because I love history. For humorists, Patriotboy at Jesus' General, Tom Burka of Opinions You Should Have and the Fafblog trio are great. Chris Allbritton and Kevin Sites for courageous investigative work in war zones. Jeralyn Merritt for law & crime. Mark Woods of Wood s Lot doesn't use a real blog but his output's the same and his mix of arts and letters with the political is astounding.
Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?
Froomkin of the Washington Post or dear Molly Ivins top my list.
What is your favorite television news program, either network or cable?
The Daily Show. No regular news is closer to reality, though Keith Olbermann on MSNBC is good.
What MSM-produced websites (i.e. newspapers, magazines) do you visit on a daily basis?
Kansas City Star and Miami Herald (the two top Knight Ridder outlets), USA Today and CBS Marketwatch almost always. Less common, yet often are NY Times, Salon, WaPo, St. Petersburg Times, LA Times.
What non-MSM websites (i.e. blogs) do you visit on a daily basis?
I rotate through my team's individual blogs so I see them all every other day usually. Raw Story, Cursor and Taegan Goddard almost every day. All of the political favorites listed above I read at least once every two days. The same holds true for Atrios, the Left Coaster, Corrente, Pacific Views, Suburban Guerrilla, skippy, Democratic Underground, Blue Oregon, BlondeSense, PreEmptive Karma, Alas A Blog. Other than the first three I mentioned, I visit all these 2-3 times a week. So I read about 30 a day.
How often, or do you ever, read a newspaper in its dead-tree (i.e. print) form?
Local papers, about 3 times a week.
How do you see the new media and old media affecting and influencing each other in the next five years?
More movement to sound and video in the blogs. MSM print media losing ad revenue to blogs and Craigslist. Increasing investigative journalism in some blogs. Continued ties between bloggers and Air America. Most TV news will continue to be crap, celebrity gazing and corporate whoring. Maybe 10% of today's bloggers will still be blogging. I suspect with soundcasts, many will pursue microradio formats with less printed word.
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Specialist?
Booman Tribune has some experiences he'd like to share about his interactions with the newest breed of staffer as witten up by Time magazine: the internet specialist. Booman writes: "It's always amusing to see how the mainstream media covers the blogosphere. Perry Bacon Jr. of Time writes about a new creature on Capitol Hill: the Internet outreach specialist. I know these guys (and so far, in my experience, they are all guys). They send me a steady stream of email all day long. Most of it is vaguely spamlike, but some of it is very useful. I'm often pleased to get advanced notice that Sens. Byrd or Feingold are about to take to the floor to excoriate the Bush administration, or that John Conyers is releasing another damning press release. It shouldn't surprise anyone that Washington politicians make an effort to buddy up to the bigger blogs in order to curry favor and deflect criticism. Frankly, even though it's flattering, I don't give a damn unless I see them doing what I want. Bacon recounts the amusing efforts of Nancy Pelosi to get in good at Daily Kos. In case you missed it, she attempted to take credit for getting tough with Republicans at the very time that the Dems were leaving Feingold high and dry on the censor issue. It didn't go well."
LEST WE FORGET: Birdwatching 101
The Sneeze provides readers with The Immaturist's Guide to Birdwatching which includes a look at the Screamer: "This is a bird that definitely likes to have a good time. But may not be a suitable choice for mates that still live at home with their parents."
Posted by Conn Carroll at May 9, 2006 12:21 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.
