June 30, 2006

6/30: SCOTUS Water To GOP Wine?

Many throughout the blogosphere played SCOTUS' 6/29 Hamdan v. Rumsfeld decision as a stinging rebuke for Pres. Bush's war on terror. No doubt the majority opinion bristles with contempt for Bush's detainee policies, but blogger reading of the decision demonstrates the decision's practical effect is more of a congressional call to action than an administration loss. With the fate of prisoners now moving to Congress righty bloggers believe GOP brand strength on national security can wallop Dems through Nov. while lefty bloggers express both outrage at coming GOP tactics and advice to Dems on how to counteract. All that plus '06 and '08 round ups as well as an appearance from lefty blogger favorite Stephen Colbert.

SCOTUS: Substantive GWOT Debate Coming To Congress?

The best blog summary of SCOTUS' 6/29 Hamdan v. Rumsfeld can be found at left leaning Balkinization: "The key to understanding Hamdan is that the Court did not tell the President that he could under no circumstances create military tribunals with very limited procedural guarantees. ... Rather, the Court told the President that under Article 36 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, he could not do so. ... The reason why the President is bound by these requirements is because Congress passed the UCMJ and because the UCMJ uses the laws of war - which include the Geneva Conventions - as a benchmark for procedures in military commissions."

Righty Orin Kerr concurs and adds some history: "As Jack Balkin notes, the opinion just says that Congress needs to be on board if the President wants to deviate from a court-martial-like trial for the Gitmo detainees. ...If the 2004 decisions rejected the concept of a law-free zone, Hamdan rejects the concept of a Congress-free zone. On the other hand, the Court has upped the ante only a notch. It has avoided a grand confrontation between the Executive and the Judiciary, at least for now."

Right Wing News immediately saw GOP '06 opportunity in the decision: "if the reasoning here is supposed to be that Congress hasn't approved of military tribunals, then let's put it up for a vote. ... Basically, we'll have the Democrats who'll be so concerned about the terrorists rights that they'd favor letting them beat the system and get loose to kill more Americans. On the other hand, the Republicans won't be very concerned about the right of foreign terrorists and their first priority will be protecting America. Protecting the rights of Al-Qaeda or protecting America?"

Andre Cochran at Counterterrorism Blog had a similar reaction: "The decision is actually a huge political gift to President Bush, and the detainees will not be released that easily. The President and GOP leaders will propose a bill to override the decision and keep the terrorists in jail until they are securely transferred to host countries for permanent punishment. ... They will challenge the "judicial interference with national security" and challenge dissenting Congressmen and civil libertarians to either stand with the terrorists or the American people."

Lefty Balloon Juice was incensed at that the GOP would make a political issue out of something SCOTUS just ruled ought to be a political issue: "Let's put aside the inherent nihilism in this response - and there is still something even more offensive about this passage: "They will challenge the 'judicial interference with national security' and challenge dissenting Congressmen and civil libertarians to either stand with the terrorists or the American people." ... It never gets old, being told you are a traitor and in league with the terrorists because you disagree with current administration policy. Let me be the first to tell Andrew Cochran, whoever that is, to go [use your imagination] himself. Twice."

Fellow lefty (but no Dem lover) Middle Earth Journal hopes the issue will fade quickly: "I'm not sure this needs to be a "huge political gift to President Bush" but it will turn out that way. With the Democrats in congress made up of folks that are either spineless or just as hawkish as the neocons a law will be passed easily that legalizes the military tribunals. If congress tries to put lipstick on the pig to make themselves look important Bush will simply ignore the portions of the law he doesn't like."

Also from the left Reed Hundt at TPM Cafe has advice for Dems to head of Rovain machinations: "Look for the brilliant mastermind of November victories to use the Supreme Court's pro-prisoner decision to the R's advantage this fall. Add to "cut and run" as an epithet for Democrats the potent message that D's stand for releasing murderers and terrorists. To thwart this tactic, Democrats need to clamor for legislation calling for no bail, confidential reports to Congress on the danger to the country from these prisoners (conducted by the 911 Commission), trials starting no later than in the fall, and harsh penalties."

WH'08: Like Lemmings Off A Granite Cliff

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas says the argument that NH voters "force candidates to do retail politics" and that they are "good at vetting the candidates by listening to them up close" is "bulls**t." Kos wants us to "look at the before and after of the Franklin Piece College Poll. First line is 1/20-22, 2004 [IA caucus was on 1/20/04], with the trend line in parenthesis from 12/1-4, 2003." Kerry 30 (14) Dean 16 (39). "In 2004, Iowa picked our nominee, and New Hampshire did nothing more than rubberstamp Iowa's decision. No amount of 'retail politics' on the ground in New Hampshire could overcome what Granite State voters saw in the Iowa results and Dean's 'scream.'"

Later Kos wrote it was "established earlier that New Hampshire rubber stamped the Iowa results in 2004, laying waste to the claim that Granite Staters were somehow better able to make decisions based on their up-close access to candidates, the so-called 'retail politics' that romantics think drive decisions" in IA and NH. "But only 124,331 participated" in the '04 IA Dem caucuses. "Six percent. Six. And we're supposed to trust Iowa with this decision because they are 'more engaged' and have 'experience' vetting candidates? Six percent seems to be the opposite of 'engaged'. Those arguments are utter bunk. Iowa didn't decide our nominee. Six percent of registered voters in Iowa decided our nominee, a decision then rubberstamped by New Hampshire. Put another way, 124,000 people in Iowa decided" for 60M Dems "who the nominee would be. That's not a fair system. It's not a democratic system. And even though the DNC is just tinkering around the edges for 2008, it's a system that needs to be changed in subsequent cycles."

GORE: Tree Hugging Needs Nuke Hugging

Moderate Raymond Learsy at Huffington Post writes that Al Gore's film "has crystallized" the global warming issue "me in a very personal way. But where I part ways with Mr. Gore is in his reluctance to give adequate consideration to nuclear energy. In a recent interview, Gore dismissed nuclear power, saying he doubted it would "play a much larger role than it does now." His main concern against nuclear power revolved around the risk of weapons proliferation, an issue that cannot and must not be dismissed."

ROMNEY: Eloquence On Marriage

Right-leaning RCP Blog's Tom Bevan doesn't personally "favor a federal marriage amendment," but "I find Romney to be among its most eloquent defenders. He made a reasonable and persuasive case for the FMA in a recent letter to the Senate, and I've also seen him make the same case on the stump. Obviously, the issue appeals greatly to many Republican base voters, but I suspect the tone and tenor with which Romney approaches the subject will resonate with a broader audience as well."

CT SEN: No Really, This Race Is About More Than Iraq

Tim Tagaris at the official Ned Lamont Blog introduces cable co. exec. Ned Lamont's latest TV ad: "The war, the war, Ned's campaign is only about the war!" The war is a pretty big deal-there is no more important issue our government tackles than war and peace. But it's not just about the war. Did you know that in addition to being a successful businessman, Ned is a volunteer teacher in an inner-city public school?" Jane Hamsher at firedoglake and Maura at My Left Nutmeg both gush over the effort.

Not all lefties got the "this race is about more than Iraq" memo. John Amato at Crooks and Liars claims an 'exclusive' from Arianna Huffington: "Jack Murtha would not support Joe Lieberman for the Senate unless he changes his position on the Iraq war."

Christy Hardin Smith at firedoglake explains the significance: "elected members of Congress don't normally speak out about other elected members of Congress unless there is a problem...and Jack Murtha clearly has a problem with Holy Joe. Maybe it was the leading off of the Republican side of the debate on the Iraq issue last week."

Meanwhile TAPPED's Michael Tomasky looks at CT registration numbers and reluctantly finds himself agreeing with a Dick Morris column concluding Sen. Joe Lieberman (D) "would win overwhelmingly" as an indie: "Consider: First, voter enrollment in Connecticut looks like this. You have roughly 700,000 Democrats, 450,000 Republicans, and 930,000 unaffiliateds. Assume also a fairly weak Republican, as seems to be the case -- a bloke named Alan Schlesinger, the "two-term mayor of the city of Derby," according to his Web site. ... Assume that, running as an Independent, Lieberman would get the lion's share of unaffiliateds, and probably not an insignificant number of Republicans. He would be very tough to beat."

FL SEN: Going To War With The Army We Have

Righty PoliPundit acknowledges that Rep. Katherine Harris' (R) numbers have actually decreased against Sen. Bill Nelson (D) but also thinks its high time the GOP closed ranks: "I do wish the GOP powers that be would just shut the hell up about Harris and support her the best they can. It's time to close ranks and fight the good fight for the Florida Senate seat with the army we have not the army we wish we had."

RedState still wants to debate the matter: "So, given that Nelson has less than a 50% favorable and 38% undecided, should the GOP finally rally around Harris and her money, or at least shut up and let her fight? Chime in below." A terribly unscientific sampling of commenters shows opinion divided. Sample against from Adam C: "She's polling in the 20s last I saw. There are more important, cheaper races that will matter more. May I recommend MD, MN, WA, OH, NJ and MO as places where the probability that a $20 [donation] will change an outcome is greater. If we are looking at races where the R is done by over 30 points, then I'd prefer NE, WV, and MN get some notice before FL. They all have strong challengers polling higher than Harris is." Sample for from A Faurot: "Rep. Harris was on 1270 WFLA this morning talking to the early morning guy and I was impressed."

PA SEN: Pay Attention To Me!!!

Under the header "Santorum Begs for Debates" righty Ryan Sager at RCP Blog beats up on Sen. Rick Santorum: "Wow. This is embarrassing. Usually it's the long-shot challenger who has to hound the aloof incumbent for debates. But, down by 52-34, Santorum is the one who's started a Web petition to get Bob Casey to debate him."

VA SEN: Rageaholics Anonymous

From the right NRO's Jim Geraghty looks at the recent Sen. George Allen (R) campaign manager Dick Wadhams and ex-Navy Sec. James Webb (D) aide Steve Jarding spitball fight and shares his personal Jarding experience: "I have something in common with Steve Jarding - we have the same editor on our books at Simon and Schuster. ... Jarding ... well, we're seeing the same tone in his press statements for Webb that turned me off from "Foxes in the Henhouse." It will be interesting to see if Virginia voters share his taste for rage."

WA SEN: Good Thing She Didn't Kiss Bush

Lefty Matt Stoller at MyDD explains that Sen. Maria Cantwell (D) "is not liked among progressives for a variety of reasons" (read Iraq) but that "now she's making net neutrality a campaign issue against her opponent, Mike McGavick. ... Cantwell ... was absolutely with us on this vote. Not only did she vote for net neutrality, she voted against the underlying bill. In other words, having Democrats in the Senate really matters. I've thought since the beginning that this is a voting issue, at least for a certain slice of the electorate. Americans of all parties love their internet, and hate their phone/cable company."

Lefty Talking Points Memo is all over McGavick on social security: "As I noted yesterday, we hear that in private conversations, McGavick is a die-hard phase-out man...only he won't come clean about it in his election campaign. ...Anyway, it seems pretty clear he's a diehard supporter of phase-out but won't come clean about it with the public, which brings us to our contest. So here's the deal. We're holding a contest to see who can get a straight answer out of Mike McGavick on Social Security - against phase out or in favor of it."

IL-10: A New Hope

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas asks readers to support ex-cong. aide/businessman Dan Seals: "Seals has lit the locals on fire, and is one of those rare candidates that has widespread local grassroots support, as well as great respect from the DCCC. The 10th is a Democratic district, with a partisan performance index of D+3.6. ... He's been referred to as the "next Obama", and some close observers of the race...cringe at that comparison. But the comparison, whether accurate or not, does hint at the level of excitement Seals is building in the area.

MN-05: Jesse Vs. The Swiftboaters

Power Line notes that Jesse Jackson is coming to town to support State Rep. Keith Ellison (D) and takes the opportunity to highlight Ellison's past defense of his connections to the Nation of Islam. PL notes that DFL Party chair Brian Melendez describes any questioning of Ellison's past as "swift-boating" and concludes: "When the press gets around to asking the DFL candidates for governor (Mike Hatch) and Senate (Amy Klobuchar) whether they support Ellison, I anticipate that Melendez will describe the questions as a sign of Swift-boating bigotry."

NC-08: CAFTA Comes Home To Roost?

The fundraising push at lefty MyDD continued with Matt Stoller singing the praises of textile worker turned social studies teacher Larry Kissell: "As a dedicated progressive running in North Carolina's eighth district, he's captured the hearts of the local blogs and local progressive activists. ...NC-08...been heavily hit by corporate trade agreements, with lots of textile factories being closed and heavy job losses. The key issues are gas prices, health care, education, etc, the same ones resonating nationally. The district itself has a Democratic Performance Index of 50.5, and North Carolina Democrats have been looking for a good candidate to challenge incumbent Robin Hayes for years."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: GOP Loves Bloggers

The House GOP Conference reached out to sympathetic right bloggers 6/29 14 members including House Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) and House GOP Conf. Chair Deborah Pryce (R-OH). HumanEvents Online and ShopFloor.org have great roundups of the action including:

• Roy Blunt and Deb Pryce on Medicare Rx Program
• Rep. John Doolittle (CA-04) and Jeb Hensarling (TX-05) on Taxes and Spending
• Rep. Katherine Harris (FL-13) on Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Offshore Drilling
• Scott Garrett (NJ-05) on Bilingual Ballots and N.J. Senate Race
• Cliff Stearns (FL-06) on Bilingual Ballots, UN Waste and Offshore Drilling
• Rep. Pete Hoekstra (MI-2), Rep. Ed Royce (CA-40), Rep. Eric Cantor (VA-07), Rep. Marsha Blackburn (TN-07), Rep. Randy Neugebauer (TX-19), Rep. John Carter (TX-31), and Rep. Todd Akin (MO-02)

LEST WE FORGET: Has Colbert Stopped Beating His Wife?

If the Blogometer couldn't work for The Hotline, we'd want to work for Rep. Jack Kingston (GA-01). Is there a more fun office on the Hill? For those of you who haven't seen it already here is Kingston and Stephen Colbert on "Journeys With Jack."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:17 PM

June 29, 2006

Capitol Capitalization Failure?

In the wake of SCOTUS's 6/28 decision on TX redistricting, the left was buzzing over opportunities to use Dem control over state legislatures to hobble GOP House delegations in key states (i.e. IL, NJ, and NM now, and possibly CA, PA, and CO after potential '06 wins). But even from their own ranks, lefties have questions about such efforts. Some wonder if constant re-districting is good for democracy, others look at the way Dems would have to draw lines to copy the GOP tactic (by shuffling base voters around) and wonders if Dem efforts to emulate the strategy would run afoul of the Voting Rights Act since the Dem base is often made up of minority voters.

Also, the Blogometer looks at progressive displeasure with Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) over religion, SEN and HOUSE round ups, and finally a quick jab at campaign finance reform.

SCOTUS: Will What's Good For The Goose Be Good For The Gander?

Election Law breaks SCOTUS' 6/28 LULAC v. Perry inot three key holdingd: "1. Partisan gerrymandering claims remain losers, at least for now. ...2. The Court Appears to Close or Be Closing Other Avenues for Challenging Partisan Redistricting, Including Through Mid-decade Redistricting. ...3. Justice Kennedy Is The Swing Voter on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and the Result is a Mixed Bag for Supporters of a Strong Reading of the Act." Rick Pildes at SCOUTSblog has in depth analysis on each of the holdings including: "Justice Kennedy concludes, in essence, that the Voting Rights Act does not permit Latinos to be grouped as Latinos, merely because they share Latino identity and vote for Latino candidates, when they otherwise differ in class status and location in this way. Moreover, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alitohave laid down a major marker on these issues, for in the Chief's separate opinion, he writes: "It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race."

Many progressives saw opportunity in the court's failure to strike down partisan mid-decade redistricting.

• Seeing The Forest: "Time For Dems To Redraw Some Maps! This sounds bad. It isn't. Why not? Because it means that states with Democrats in control can now do the same thing."
• The Carpetbagger Report: "This very well may turn out to be one of those be-careful-what-you-wish-for moments for the Republican Party. In recent years, Democrats in DC and at the state level, have played it straight and agreed to abide by approved district lines, even if state power control had shifted since the lines were drawn. Republicans, true to form, have played by different rules, and redrawn district boundaries."
• The Democratic Daily: "Republicans might also come to regret this as Democrats control the executive and legislative branches in Illininois, Maine, New Mexico, New Jersey, North Carolina, Louisiana, Washington and West Virginia, and this could be increased by several states in November.
• Chris Bowers at MyDD: "We have a pretty good chance to take the trifecta this year in California, Colorado, Minnesota and Pennsylvania. We already have the trifecta in Illinois. After the 2006 elections, Democrats need the guts to wake up and realize that the public will not revolt in the face of Republican power grabs, and that Republicans will not play nice because we decide to do so. Redrawing the maps in those states will make it all but impossible for Republicans to hold the House after the 2006 elections."

DavidNYC at Swing State Project urged progressive caution, noting that the make-up of the Dem base might hamper their ability to capitilize on partisanship to the same extent GOPers can: "

Those of you looking for a silver lining might point to #2 and say, "Well, at least we can screw the GOP, too." Indeed, some people are already ticking off a list of states where Dems could stick it to the Republicans: Illinois, California, New York, and so forth. Conceviably, if state legislatures show some spine, this kind of thing could happen. But #3 is, perversely, what gets us. ...But at its core, the VRA says that redistricters must try to maximize the number of "majority-minority" districts. ...But the bottom line is that if you have a state with, say, five majority-minority districts, you can't cut that number down to four to spread some of those Dem-voting minorities around. It would be pretty much flat-out unconstitutional."

Others on the left urged local Dem temperance in redistricting along partisan lines. New Donkey: "But no one should forget that the one place in which a DeLay-style GOP partisan re-redistricting foundered was Colorado, for the simple reason that the state's own constitution banned mid-decade redistricting. Looking ahead to the next decade, states should strongly consider emulating Colorado's ban on the practice of overturning congressional and state legislative maps every time partisan control of state government solidifies or flips."

Typical righty reaction included joy that former House maj. leader Tom DeLay's legacy would live on. But a few also noted the importance of the mid-decade portion of the decision. Right Wing Nuthouse: "Also of note is a part of the decision that may have huge ramifications down the road: The Court ruled that states may redraw district boundaries any time they wish rather than waiting for the Census report that comes out once a decade. This could be very troubling for our democracy. As it stands now, most people do not know who their Congressman is. What would happen if people were shuttled all over the map every couple of years as one party or another took control of the statehouse? I am willing to bet that number would decline even further.

Allahpundit at HotAir thought the decision was great news for federalism: "Which means, obviously, that local elections just got a lot more important vis-a-vis national business. Good news for federalism and better news for the GOP if it rolls craps in the Congressional elections this November but holds power at the state level. We'll see how various state legislatures take the news, and which ones move quickly to press the majority party's advantage."

WH'08: Granite Whining

Lefty bloggers were pleased with 6/28 reports that the DNC authorized an additional primary before NH's contest. DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas: "I want to see the primary stranglehold held by Iowa and New Hampshire ended, and will cheer the day that happens (and it will). Iowa and New Hampshire are not representative of the nation. Not in the least. Their exhalted roles will not last for eternity. ...That New Hampshire is freaking out so much will only harm them long-term. Let them move up their primary. The DNC should retaliate by stripping that primary of its delegate-assigning ability."

Under the header "Anti-Democracy New Hampshire Whines About Expanding Democracy" fellow lefty Chris Bowers at MyDD writes: "Is there really any other way to phrase it? ...New Hampshire is simply acting like any other privileged class has acted throughout history when its un-democratic privilege is under threat. Their arguments in defense of why they should have that privilege are always connected either to a sense of elitism where New Hampshire residents are somehow better able to make decisions than people who live outside of New Hampshire, or to the always anti-democratic appeals to "tradition" where the desires of those alive now are considered worthless when compared to the desires of those who lived in the past.

OBAMA: Not The Dreaded L-Word!

Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) 6/28 contribution to a Call to Renewal conference call were not well recieved by the progessive blogging community. Some were so upset they invoked the ultimate progressive epithet. Chris Bowers at MyDD tells Obama: "Well done. Your mentor, Joe Lieberman, would be proud." The Agonist chimes in: "See, now, this is a Lieberman moment. Because what Obama is doing is using Republican talking points about Democrats and religion to criticize his own party."

Other lefties saw a different boogeyman at fault. Pachacutec at firedoglake: "But this bull***t from Barack Obama is Bill Clinton's fault. The greatest victory of the radical right wing has been to train Democratic politicians to disrespect, mischaracterize and run against their base in the progressive movement. And that is Bill Clinton's fault." Ezra Klein also suffered a 90's flashback: "This in Clinton territory, where Barack's raw ability makes him something of a political rorsach, and renders it all the more important to apply close scrutiny to the actual content of his speeches."

Lefty Pam's House Blend announced her exit from the Obama band wagon: "The bloom is off the rose, folks; he must be running in '08. Barack Obama doesn't understand what the real problem is." And Atrios tells Obama he's hurting his cause: "Dear Senator Obama, If you think it's important to court evangelicals, then court them. If, on the other hand, you think it's important to confirm and embrace the false idea that Democrats are hostile to religion in order to set yourself apart, then continue doing what you're doing. It won't help the Democrats, and it probably won't even help you, but whatever makes you happy.

Lefty condmenation was not univeral. Ron Chusid at The Democratic Daily blamed the media for mischaracterizing Obama's speech. Nathan Newman at TPM Cafe looks at fellow lefty reaction and believes his cohorts proved Obama's point: "If you read the whole speech, the almost kneejerk response to Obama pretty much illustrates his point of the discomfort by some progressives in any discussion of religion in the public square. This was a speech to other progressive religious people and I really find it hard to believe people are trashing it so hard, given that he upholds almost all progressive principles. DailyKos spinoff Street Prophets also backed Obama: "Liberal bloggers like Atrois - no fan of religion - are up in arms over the senator's speech but I say, Amen! My denomination is fortunate to have Barack Obama as a member and the United States is fortunate to have him in the Senate."

Liberal Buddhist The Republic of T. wants no part of any Dem/evangelical alliance: "But you don't have to look much further than the Republican to find out what happens when a political party gets in bed with evangelicals. You come out of it a different party, with different priorities, and a powerful new constituency that you'll probably have to keep satisfied if you want to stay in power. And, at the end of the day, that's what it's all about anyway. Getting power. Keeping power. Period."

GORE: Bookseller-in-Chief

Martin Peretz at The Plank looks at strong sales of Al Gore's book An Inconvient Truth and asks: "Do I think this should worry Hillary Clinton? Yes. Not because she hasn't written a book that was on the best-seller list. All you have to do is to take a look at her website to see how scattered her steely mind really is. Her only "brave" position is that she favors a law making burning the American flag a federal crime. My God! ...By the way, Mrs. Clinton has not a word in her compendium of cares about the environment."

KERRY: Machines of Character Destruction

Wade Sanders at Military.com reviews Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) "participation in a winter 1968 skimmer operation, during his brief assignment to Coastal Division Fourteen" as well as Dr. Louis Leston's account of treating a Kerry wound and concludes: "One can only hope, probably without any possibility of realization, that the Kerry destruction machine, fueled by a consuming hate and a philosophy of destruction, distortions, and lies, will take the time to thoroughly review the totality of the available records and the facts. ...There is absolutely nothing wrong with being angry that John Kerry, as well as hundreds of thousands of other veterans, opposed the Vietnam War. It is, however, terribly wrong to manufacture lies and distortions to satisfy that anger and hate. That energy would be better directed towards the steady dismantling and underfunding of the Veterans Administration."

ROMNEY: A Cult Classic?

Righty Ryan Sager at RCP Blog writes: "Mitt Romney is quickly emerging as the only plausible '08 alternative for social conservatives to more socially moderate frontrunners Rudy Giuliani and John McCain (and, yes, I'm putting them in that order for a reason). The elephant in the room, however, to use my new favorite phrase, is Romney's Mormonism." Sager later links to an On Call (go team!) write up of Romney's appearance on Pat Robertson's 700 Club and comments: "One question: What's his response to people who think Mormonism is a cult? ... Not a promising start."

PA-07: Weldon of Arabia

Ex-Iraq contractor Dave Gaubatz approached Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA 07) for help to get the U.S. military to investigate four sites where he thinks Saddam's WMD is buried. When the military didn't bite, Weldon did, offering to personally go to Iraq with Rep. Pete Hoesktra (R-MI) (ignoring the minor detail of terrorists run amok), personally excavate the sites and take credit for the WMD if were found -- or cover-up his visit if they weren't. The post-partisan Wonkette recapped the madcap plan, "Weldon decides to take secret trip to Iraq with Peter Hoekstra, get equipment and men, 'go digging by the Euphrates,' find weapons personally. Without telling Pentagon, press, or Democrats. Over Memorial Day weekend. Strangely, it doesn't work out. Curt Weldon, we love you." Lefty Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly shut his eyes, rubbed them and let his jaw hang open: "Did you get that? He was going to take a little jaunt to Nasiriyah, break out his shovel, and start digging around himself -- without telling the military what he was doing. Then, when the glorious shells were found, he was going to call in the press and declare himself Weldon of Arabia, Discoverer of WMD. Ho-lee shit. Pennsylvania can do better than this whackjob, can't they?"

Paul Kiel at TPM Muckracker writes that Gaubatz isn't "some reluctant witness to this aborted adventure. He tells the whole tale on his website, which he started out of frustration after Weldon's adventure never happened. 'I then established this website,' he writes, 'and have informed both Congressmen I will keep updating it until the suspected WMD sites in Iraq are inspected.' Gaubatz, remember, says he knows four sites where there are WMD caches."

Lefty Obsidian Wings'Hilzoy thinks Weldon is "completely unprofessional opinion, just the sort of lunatic we do not need in Congress" and that "all good men and women to come to the aid of their country" and donate to Weldon's opponent, Joe Sestak (D).

UT-03: There's No Crying In Politics

On 6/28 Right Wing News wished it could tell everyone that John Jacob's (R) showing was a "moral victory since Rep. Chris Cannon (R) had everything breaking his way except the illegal immigration issue and Jacob still got 44% of the vote, but moral victories in politics are almost always a cop-out. ... In Chris Cannon, you basically had a candidate who the voters in the primary found acceptable in almost every way, except for his position on illegal immigration." Yet immigration was "such a big deal that 44% of the voters were willing to defect to another candidate because of that one issue. That suggests to me that, at least for this election cycle, being for the Senate's immigration plan could be just as deadly for a Republican as being pro-abortion or pro-gun control."

MN SEN: Down The Memory Hole And Back Up Again

The scale-down of refrerences to Pres. Bush on Rep. Mark Kennedy's (R-06) was inititally exaggerated, but it remained fodder for lefties who gleefully used it as evidence of Bush's unpopularity. But righty Kenendy v. The Machine is using the story to knock the Minneapolis Star Tribune and its page designer: "Old teaser line: 'Bush withdrawn from Mark Kennedy's website -- but not completely.' New repolished one that you put up after being caught: 'Bush still appears on Mark Kennedy's website.' Different headline, but same old hatchet job story. Changing the header doesn't change the fact that you got caught running (again) with Democratic talking points. Do the right thing and issue a retraction."

MT SEN: Go West, Lefties

State Senate Pres. Jon Tester (D) is the apple of lefty blogs' eyes after his debate performance last p.m. and tightening-race with Sen. Conrad Burns (R). Kos has "no doubt that the Montana Senate race has become one of the top two in the country." While Tester decided whether to run, "John Morrison jumped in so everyone then assumed that Morrison money and name recognition would carry the day. That was especially the though in DC, with the beltway conventional wisdom confirmed and endorsed by the Hotline. So it's with great satisfaction and respect for Chuck Todd's honesty that I saw this update to his Senate rankings. ... I have to say, his performance in that debate put him at a whole new level. Somewhere along the line, perhaps on primary election night when his underfunded people-powered movement swept him to victory, he made the transition from "citizen legislator" to "senator". I was honestly shocked. Like Todd, I underestimated Tester, and I already had HUGE respect and hopes for him. p.s. I think I'd move to Montana if my wife let me. But she won't.

Jay Antenen at TPM Cafe writes that changes to Burns' own policy positions shows the race tightening up, because when a western GOP senator "announces legislation to limit future gas, oil and mineral leases on federal lands one of two explanations is available. He has gone mad, or he is facing a tough reelection campaign. This is not quite how...Burns (R) is spinning things, but news that he wants to halt future drilling in the Lewis and Clark National Forest has environmentalists cheering him for a change, energy lobbyists scratching their heads, and...Tester (D) not quite sure what to make of it (a campaign spokesperson offered the Great Falls Tribune this pretty pitiful response).

NJ SEN: Isn't Social Security A Dead Issue?

Talking Points Memo says state Sen. Tom Kean Jr. (R) is a "big phase-out supporter" of Social Security. "On Kean's website he says: 'Tom is committed to keeping the promise of Social Security for current recipients and those nearing retirement. At the same time, changes will be required to keep the program solvent for future generations. ... In the U.S. Senate, Tom will work with Republicans and Democrats to find bipartisan solutions to the long-term challenges facing Social Security, so that this important program can continue to provide retirement security for Americans far into the future.' But last year in the New Jersey state senate he apparently twice voted against a bill calling on President Bush to abandon his plan to phase out Social Security and replace it with private accounts.'"

WA SEN: Another "Square-State Candidate" Gains Popularity

Adam C at Redstate is "very impressed" with ex-Safeco CEO Mike McGavick (R) who has "his own campaign blog and a superb website. More importantly, he is following in the footsteps of Sen. [Slade] Gorton and Mr. [ex-State Sen. Dino] Rossi and their successful brand of Washingtonian Republicanism. Importantly, he is selling himself to moderate Democrats and independents, thus growing the pool of potential Republican voters. ... Republicans could use more people like Mr. McGavick who are reaching out and winning over the disaffected middle in purple and left-of-center states."

DEMOCRATS: We're Going Back To The Future

DNC chair Howard Deantold a religious conference that America is "about to enter the '60s again," but then said he was not referring to the Vietnam War or racial strife. Dean said he's looking for "the age of enlightenment led by religious figures who want to greet Americans with a moral, uplifting vision." SisterToldjah thinks "Dean actually made a few good points, if one sifts through the moral and religious pandering. Such as the acknowledgement of the harm that some of the '60s liberal 'feel good' policies did to our nation." Ankle Biting Pundits tells Dean that the rule about speaking "is this - if you make a statement and have to use the next 5 minutes to talk about what you don't mean, you probably shouldn't make the statement in the first place." Blue Crab Boulevard says Dean and his nostalgic ilk "remember the days of their youth with the rose-colored glasses of what they wished for and dreamed rather than the stark reality of what did happen. Rising crime rates, declining cities, alarming drug use rates, divisive politics, riots and a host of other problems. What they remember is youthful enthusiasm and idealism. Which sadly, led nowhere." Ace Of Spades doesn't know "where people get the idea that the Democratic Party is stuck in the 60's, the party of pot, pacifism, and pwife swapping."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: At Least We'll Know Why An Immigration Deal Failed

Crank at RedState wants to know what RedState's readers priorities are when it come to immigration reform: "Here's the interesting question, though, especially for those who want genuine enforcement but are not fans of legalization plans. Which is more important? If it comes to this, would you blow up an enforcement-plus-legalization bill because stopping anything that has an amnesty or amnesty-like component is more important than improving enforcement? Or would you accept a compromise bill that does both?"

"Assume, for the sake of argument, that these ended up being the only choices as we come down to the end of the year. And assume that (1) the bill involves enforcement provisions that are real, tough, and a genuine improvement, and that (2) the legalization plan does impose some costs and consequences, but nonetheless allows current illegal residents to become citizens more easily than if they just left the country and joined the back of the line for legal entry."

Results at 10 AM 6/29:

Legalization is worse than poor enforcement. I'd rather have
the status quo than anything that smells like amnesty. 44%
Better enforcement is a good thing, and it's worth accepting
a legalization plan. 27%
I'm in favor of both better enforcement and legalization. 16%
Legalization is a good thing, and it's worth accepting
a tough enforcement plan. 6%
Forget enforcement, forget legalization - open the borders
and abolish citizenship requirements! 4%
I'm happy with our immigration laws just as they are. 3%

LEST WE FORGET I: Passive Aggressive Narcissists (Not So) Anonymous

The blogosphere is often the ideal forum for deep philosophical debates about the great issues of the day. And sometimes its not. From Instapundit: "

Andrew Sullivan is calling me passive aggressive for linking this post by Jeff Goldstein. I didn't really think it was about Andrew, but it seems that these days, everything is about Andrew. Except Andrew's blog, which seems to devote a disproportionate amount of attention to me. It's funny, though, that Kos called me "passive aggressive" in an email to the Townhouse email list and now Sullivan's repeating the phrase. (Of course, compared to Kos, everyone's passive-aggressive). But then, Jeff Goldstein was announcing Sullivan's transformation into a Kos diarist ages ago. I guess he was just ahead of the curve.

LEST WE FORGET II: But Do They Have The Bloomin' Onion?

The Blogometer could rip an item off of The Onion everyday for a LEST, but we do so as little as possible. This item was just too good to pass up.

McCain, Feingold Co-Sponsor Chain Of Integrity-Themed Eateries

Citing a longstanding need to "restore honor and dignity to the American food-service industry," Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Russ Feingold (D-WI) announced the public debut of their joint business venture Monday, a chain of integrity-themed restaurants which opened in 12 locations nationwide. The new Russ and John's chain, which the two senators funded privately via small financial donations of no more than $2,000 per investor, was founded on the idea that "today's customers want quality food without all the lies and exaggerations that all too often accompany it," according to McCain.

In an effort to avoid the "thinly veiled bribery" found in the majority of restaurants, Russ & John's prohibit tips, disparaging them as "the worst kind of soft money," according to the "Message From The Founders" on the restaurant's menu. Instead, management will distribute company-issued "server grants," intended to prevent undue influence on the waitstaff's performance and ensure that every customer receives the same quality service.

"Our servers are not there to just tell you what you want to hear," McCain said. "If a customer asks how the Zesty Three-Cheese Ranch Chicken Platter is, and if it's not particularly good, they're going to be up-front with you and say, 'Frankly, the chicken is not that good.'"

"Their heart is in the right place, but I don't ever see myself eating there, especially when there's a McConnell's Pork Barrel right across the street," said Sen. George Allen (R-VA), referring to the barbecue-style eatery owned and operated by Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, known for its controversial "lawmakers-and-campaign-donors-eat-free" policy. "Who wants to eat at a place that bans complimentary soda refills on ethical grounds?" Allen added.

Posted by at 12:42 PM

June 28, 2006

6/28: Deal Or No Deal?

There are conflicting rumblings from the blogosphere on the immigration front today. Pres. Bush immigration plan supporter Rep. Chris Cannon's (R-UT 03) big win over businessman John Jacob (R) looks like a setback for pro-enforcement GOPers, but at the same time Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) has come out with statements many pro-enforcement bloggers interpret as movement away from Bush's "amnesty" plan. Those developments, plus reax from 6/27 primaries, WH'08 news, Election'06 round-up, and a possible GOP opportunity from the New York Times bank record revelation below.

UT-03: Horseshoes And Hand Grenades

Righty Strata-Sphere described the 6/27 primary between Rep. Chris Cannon (R) and businessman John Jacob (R) as "the real first test of the immigration issue on the right." Strata-Sphere previewed Cannon's victory this way: "We have the two candidates who reflect the schism on the right. And tonight will tell which side has the upper hand (my guess is neither - which is why the far right cannot win the day in the end)." Ryan Sager at RedState briefly reported last night that Cannon beat "Tancredoite John Jacob by a healthy margin."

At deadline, none of the bigger righty pro-enforcement sites had reax up on the (RedState, PoliPundit, Right Wing News, The Blogometer is looking in your direction) but its still early. The Corner that never sleeps was all over the race though, but divided in opinion. John Derbyshireminimizes the defeat for the pro-enforcement side with: "Still, 56-44 is pretty darn good against a 5-term incumbent, by an erratic and inexperienced candidate, in a Mormon district." John Podhoretz retorts with perhaps the insult of insults at The Corner: "you're sounding like Kossacks in talking about Jacob's loss to Cannon. What a triumph! Losing an election by 12 points! Wow! Maybe next time restrictionists will lose an election only by 10 points! Then you'll really have the bad guys on the ropes!"

Back in the Beehive state Other Dicta By Steve was happy to see GOPers kiss and make up: "It was so refreshing to see Congressman Chris Cannon and John Jacob act so graciously towards one another on KSL after Jacob conceded after their rather acrimonious primary campaign. Jacob said that since the people selected Cannon, he'll back him completely even with help with fundraising (Lou Dobbs, Bay Buchanan, and Senator Tom Tancredo take that!). In return Cannon welcomed Jacob to help him fight for immigration reform, even by soliciting ideas from him. Now that the primary is over I'm looking forward to see how the Cannon Jacob tag team will do in a smackdown that isn't against each other."

The left had their eye on the race as well. The Idiotarian Savant: "So much for a powerful wave of xenophobia carrying the GOP to victory in November. If there was any deep-seated obsession among the conservative base (Utah, anyone?) on this issue, it would have shown up here." RandyMI at DailyKos was quick to celebrate low GOP turnout in the contest: "For all the talk about a lack of Democratic enthusiasm coming from Daily Kos and others, it looks like Republicans are experiencing the same thing, in what is supposed to be the hottest primary race tonight between incumbent Chris Cannon and John Jacob. ...Gosh, you mean the mighty Republicans are lazy and apathetic, too? They're not showing up for the primary that Lou Dobbs has been talking about for a week?"

SC LG: The Hardest Working Man In SC

SC bloggers from the left and right were thoroughly impressed with LG Andre Bauer (R) 6/27 victory over businessman Mike Campbell (R). SC native and conservative Voting Under The Influence: "Lt. Governor Andre Bauer faced the perfect storm for defeat. First, he had a scandal ... then he had a plane crash that injured him and nearly killed him. Add to those two things the fact that Carroll Campbell's son was his opponent and the former President of the United States was working against Andre Bauer. That, folks, is the perfect storm for defeat."

Crack The Bell notes that "it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that Andre's total vote margin is nearly identical to that in Lexington." VUTI also saw Lexington County as the key for Bauer: "Whatever the reason, Andre Bauer and the Lexington County gang that delivered the 11,000 plus runoff votes and a margin bigger than Andre's victory margin statewide proved they are a political force to be reckoned with."

Bloggers supporting showed an interest in quickly rallying behind Bauer. What Now? writes: "Our Campbell endorsement, like our Quinn endorsement, was mistaken. In hindsight, Campbell never put forth any specifics about his ideas. Campbell is apparently not a conservative. Instead, he seemed moderately liberal on many issues, including school choice. Congrats to Andre. We will enthusiastically support him in the general election."

Lefty SCs urged Dems not to take Bauer lightly. LaurinLine: "I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Andre Bauer can NEVER be underestimated. He's the hardest working campaigner out there and his base is fiercely loyal. I suspect Barber's campaign would have been much happier tonight to receive news that they were, instead, facing the son of the most popular governor of the last 30 years.

CLINTON: Not The Anti-Christ After All

Lefty blogger reax to Sen. Hillary Clinton's (D-NY) hiring of Kerry-Edwards blog outreach director Peter Daou continue along a similar theme: We love Peter, we hate Hillary. We'll watch and see what happens. Cenk Uygur at The Huffington Post describes Daou as "one of the most astute and aggressive bloggers in the country," and "Hillary as the poster child for equivocation and triangulation." Uygur concludes: " Hillary hiring Peter Daou is a little like Nixon going to China," and he sees three possible outcomes: "1. Hillary will actually listen to what Peter has to say and adjust her views and actions; 2. They will not be able to see eye to eye and Peter will be ignored and then will eventually leave the job; 3. Peter will become an apologist for Hillary's current stances on things like Iraq, which are hideous and morally repugnant." Uygur believes Daou is the best candidate to pull off outcome one: "If you asked me to pick one person to send into the teeth of the Democratic establishment to deliver this message, I couldn't name anyone better than Peter. If Hillary doesn't listen to him, then there's no hope for her and no chance for reconciliation."

Also at HuffPo under the header "Friends Don't Let Friends Work for Hillary" RJ Eskow is a little insulted by the move: "On a personal level, I wish him all the best in his new position as Hillary Clinton's netroots consultant. On a political level, I feel obliged to do my best to ensure that he doesn't succeed. While I'm happy for Peter - she's not the anti-Christ, for God's sake! - I would be insulted at the idea that the substantive differences that I (and many others) have with Hillary can be resolved through some sort of outreach program."

GORE: 19 Out Of 100 Scientists Can't Be Wrong

After the Senate Environment and Public Works Cmte condemned the AP for titling an "Scientists OK Gore's Movie for Accuracy" after only receiving replies from 19 out of 100 scientists contacted for the story, lefty bloggers attacked the release's author Marc Marono. Talking Points Memo: "Until a couple months ago, the press release writer, Marc Marono, worked for CNSnews.com where he distinguished himself by using disgraced NASA crony George Deutsch to attack NASA scientist James Hansen. ... Earlier, Marono wrote this beaut questioning whether Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) may have faked the wounds for which he received two Purple Hearts."

On the right Power Line picks up on a UPI report showing a box office drop from its record $70,333 per play to $12,334 during its third week. PL concludes: "It's no shock, I suppose, that most people aren't interested in seeing propaganda films about the weather. But the topic is an interesting and important one which we wrote about quite a few years ago, and will try to return to as time permits."

GIULIANI: McCain People Not Dumb

The unofficial Giuliani Blog has been tracking web ads at the Weekly Standard and think they've uncovered a clandestine Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) stalking effort: "In recent months browsing the Weekly Standard online or NRO, I have yet to come across an ad for Straight Talk America. But Rudy starts making presidential noises with an online ad buy on several conservative websites, and all of a sudden, McCain ads start popping up. ...The people advising McCain aren't dumb. They understand the serious threat Giuliani poses, and realize that Rudy's entry into the race could well be a campaign-ender for them."

MCCAIN: A Blogger Is Born

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) made his debut into the blogosphere 6/27 at the widely respected if not popularly trafficked Porkbusters. McCain invoked Ronald Reagan, laid common ground with National Review, and asserted his commitment to small gov't:

"Among the core values we Republicans share with Pres. Reagan is a passion for free market principles such as lower taxes and opposition to unnecessary government regulation; and, very importantly, belief that the government that governs best governs least. I don't think any Reagan Republican would disagree that fiscal restraint and small government are bedrock principles of conservatives. ...The editors of National Review have argued - and I agree with them - that unless Republicans curb government spending by reforming the budget process, we may lose our majorities in the House and Senate. I will go one step further and say that if Republicans do not reform our budget process, we will deserve to lose our majorities. ...I have never blogged before. But I understand readers can leave comments on each post and that these comments can be rather, ahem, blunt. So I am happy to entertain any questions, comments, or insults you might have for me at this time."

The effort already has garnered popular attention from righty traffic leader Instapundit.

LANDSCAPE: The Most Important Week Ever

Under the header "End of Q2 Fundraising Push" progressive Chris Bowers at MyDD urges readers to help lefty approved candidates through ActBlue: "This is it. These are the final days where fundraising totals matter to the overall narrative. The Q2 fundraising deadline ends at midnight on Friday. That is only 75 hours away. This is the combined netroots page, for which you have already helped raise more than $224,000, but for which this week is its most important week ever." Bowers goes on to offer brief capsules on each of the endorsed candidates including: Ned Lamont (CT), Jon Tester (MT), James Webb (VA), Jerry McNerney (CA-11), Darcy Burner (WA-08), Patrick Murphy (PA-08), Joe Sestak (PA-07), Paul Hodes (NH-02), Eric Massa (NY-29),and Linda Stender (NJ-07).

CT SEN: Who's Kooky Now?

Sen. Joe Lieberman's (D-CT) office continues to alienate the blogosphere. Ben Wyl at TAPPED reports: "I just got off the phone with Lieberman's press secretary, and I can confirm that yes, she is a bit "kooky." I had called to find out simply what polling company the senator was using, and she nearly jumped down my throat. ... She terrorized me for a few minutes, asking why I had called, until I told her that I was only a lowly intern who knew nothing and oh, would she please let me go. ... Needless to say, she didn't answer my question."

Meanwhile back in CT lefty bloggers believe the AFL-CIO's endorsement of Lieberman is great news for cable co. exec. Ned Lamont (D-CT). DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas: "The AFL-CIO did endorse Lieberman for the primary, which means Joementum will have their support in August. This was never in doubt. What was in doubt was the November endorsement. And by withholding that at this point, Lieberman's decision to go independent has just gotten a whole lot more difficult."

Message discipline ruled the day in lefty blogland:

• Connecticut Bob: "This is a huge blow to the Senator's efforts should he decide to flee the Democrats and run as an Independent in November."
• Matt Stoller at MyDD: "The endorsement is good for Lieberman's primary chances, since he doesn't really have a base for the primary and these are real votes. It also boxes him in, though, since it means that these votes are only good if he goes the higher risk primary route."
• ConnecticutBLOG: "This is a huge blow for Lieberman because his campaign desperately wanted the support of the union until November (general election) and not August (primary). For Lieberman, taking the indy route will be riskier than if they had the support of the union until November."
• My Left Nutmeg: "Their endorsement is ONLY for the primary. When he loses, it's back to the drawing board. This is a big defeat for the DC power brokers and a moral victory for the Lamont campaign (not to mention the people of Connecticut)."
• the unofficial LamontBlog: "In a likely fatal blow to any Lieberman plans to leave the party, the AFL-CIO today refused to endorse an independent Lieberman candidacy in November, flying in the face of statements made yesterday about supporting Joe in November regardless of how he fared in the primary."

The unofficial LamontBlog also did some digging on Lieberman's media consultants after Lieberman's 6/26 attack on Lamont consultant Bill Hillsman: "But if Joe's going to go the "glass houses" route, let's take a look at the people who are doing his ads, the super-beltway-insider Glover Park Group. Their recent work includes ad campaigns for such staunchly Democratic and progressive interests as Pfizer, Smirnoff Vodka, MCI-Worldcom, and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association of America."

PA SEN: The Deliverer

Right Wing News sat down with Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) 6/27. Highlights include:

John Hawkins

: What do you say to people who now know that we discovered 500 WMDS in Iraq, that Saddam had stockpiles of weapons, and yet they still say, "Aww, that's not a big deal. What does it prove?" What do you say to those people, Rick?Rick Santorum
: Well, I say that it was one of the pieces of the puzzle that we believe helps put together the threat that Saddam was to this country and the world...

John Hawkins

: Now, you're doubling Casey in fund raising and I'm hearing that you intend to run ads all the way from now until election day. If you had one concise message that you wanted to get out to people about Rick Santorum and one concise message that you had to let people know about Bob Casey, what would it be?
Rick Santorum: The concise message is that I am someone who has the courage of his convictions, who will stand up and tell you what I think, and I will deliver on what I promise.

VA SEN: Capture The Flag

Demonstrating yet again why ex-Navy sec. Jim Webb (D) is everything DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas could dream of in a candidate, Team Webb's Steve Jarding fiercly responded to a Sen. George Allen (R) press release claiming Webb "continues to demonstrate he is totally beholden to the liberal Washington Senators who dragged him across the line in the Democratic primary." Jarding at Webb's campaign siteBorn Fighting: "George Felix Allen Jr. and his bush-league lapdog, Dick Wadhams, have not earned the right to challenge Jim Webb's position on free speech and flag burning. Jim Webb served and fought for our flag and what it stands for, while George Felix Allen Jr. chose to cut and run. When he and his disrespectful campaign puppets attack Jim Webb they are attacking every man and woman who served."

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas links to On Call's (go team!) write up of the incident and adds: "Chris LaCivita, who orchestrated the Swiftboating of John Kerry in 2004, works full-time for George Allen. So it's no surprise the Allen campaign wasted no time in attacking Webb's patriotism. Webb was awarded the Navy Cross, the Silver Star Medal, two Bronze Star Medals and two Purple Hearts while fighting in Vietnam. While Allen was playing cowboy at a dude ranch in Nevada."

Also at DailyKos commenter Al Rodgers posts pictures of Webb from his Vietnam days and Allen in Confederate garb from Gods and Generals stills under the header "Real Deal vs Cheap Fraud."

Over at NROGreg Pollowitz still holds out hope that a flag controversy could help Allen: "Hopefully this strategy works as well for Webb as it did for George Allen's past opponent, Chuck Robb. ... Attempts at a flag-burning amendment were made in 1995 and 2000, and supporters failed to get the necessary two-thirds vote in the Senate both times. In 1995, the vote was 63-36 in favor. In 2000, it was 63-37, and one of those voting against was Virginia Democrat Chuck Robb. ... Robb's opposition to the amendment cost him dearly in his re-election bid when the Allen campaign used it against him."

BLOGGERS VS. MSM: Put Up Or Shut Up Time?

Righty TimChapmanBlog's 6/27 post that the House GOP would offer a resolution condemning the New York Times for publishing information regarding the administration's SWIFT bank records tracking program panned out 6/28. TCB: "This is indeed a welcome development. GOP House leadership is showing that they are in tune with the American people. Paging Bill Frist - where is the Senate companion resolution?"

Fellow righty John McIntyre at RCP Blog thinks the issue is a winner for the GOP: "The issue plays to Bush's strengths and continues to paint the picture of the President as a stalwart fighter, protecting America's safety while the left-wing press does their best to undermine as many successful anti-terror programs as possible. The Times and the far left are so completely out of touch with where the country is on national security and terrorism issues they probably thought this disclosure would hurt Bush politically. They are clueless."

Libertarian QandO links to lefty Glen Greenwald's critique of righty Times complaints but ends up barely coming to a different conclusion: "Still, that rhetoric aside, I find the intellectual points of his argument compelling ... but still incomplete. Incomplete, because, while I am predisposed to the view that government interference with the press would be a very bad thing, I also believe that there are legitimate national security secrets and that a State has a legitimate interest in keeping them secret. I believe that, with regards to those legitimate national security secrets, we have a compelling interest in preventing leaks, or, failing that, finding and prosecuting leakers. And I find the notion that a journalist has a confidentiality shield far beyond even that which Doctors or Lawyers have - one that shields them from disclosing details about a crime to which they were a witness or participant - absurd."

On the left, Arianna Huffington at The Huffington Post comes down for the Times: "Here's a change. After a year of regularly hauling the New York Times and its editors to the cyber woodshed for acting more like an arm of the Bush administration than the paper of record, I'm turning on the computer to -- wait for it -- sing the praises of Bill Keller and the gang on West 43rd. It's not exactly a newsflash that the Bushies would like to keep everything other than Valerie Plame's CV wrapped in the political equivalent of Harry Potter's invisibility cloak -- hidden from the prying eyes of the pesky public."

Also at HuffPoGreg Sargent thinks the GOP should put up or shut up on the matter: "So this is kind of strange, then. Both Snow and Dick Cheney have explicitly said that the Times has put the nation's security at risk - and presumably they think the paper continues to do so, since it won't back off its right to publish such stories. Yet by all indications the administration is unlikely to take any real action against the paper, mainly because it could be politically disastrous for Bush. Either the administration is putting politics ahead of national security and won't act aggressively against an institution it says is endangering American lives - because it would be bad for Bush. Or the administration's claim that The Times endangered national security is just the latest in a long string of lies it has told to the American people. Which is it?"

IMMIGRATION: Is Specter First Crack In Comprehensive Reform?

Senate Judiciary Cmte chair Arlen Specter (R-PA) said the Senate may consider adopting a timetable on immigration reform that puts border security and employment verification first on the agenda, sidelining guest worker and legalization programs for a later date. Righty Captain's Quarters writes this is another indication that the public is ahead of the pols -- and that the pols are taking notice: "Is Congress out of touch on immigration? Almost assuredly. Even Jane Harman, the California Democrat who represents a reliably liberal district, noted her surprise recently at the reaction of her constituents to the efforts at normalization. People in this country...will not support another normalization effort without finally completing the loop and getting serious about border enforcement. In this way, the American public has gotten themselves way ahead of their elected representatives."

Kausfiles writes "it sure looks like...Specter is moving rapidly, if not desperately, in the House's 'enforcement-only' direction." Specter didn't "think" the Senate would pass enforcement-only legislation. Kaus picks-up on Specter's hedge: "He doesn't 'think.' This is the pre-conference bluster period, remember. House members may think [Specter] might think different in a few months! ... How about this face-saving timetable: Border security, first, employment verification first--and Congress promises that in a few years it will debate a legalization bill? Throw the man a lifeline!"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Link = Traffic = Happy

Spot-On thinks fellow righty critiques are overplaying the Kosola scandal due ton the ineffectiveness of keeping the blogosphere at bay by hiring some on staff. SO has a suggestion for a different strategy:

"The failure of the Kosola-style net-tops approach is well-documented. After the June 6 elections, it even led me to ask if the medium was dead. But the missing links in most efforts for netroots activism are, in fact, the missing links."

"Take a look, for example, at Governor Schwarzenegger's blog. Were they to ask, I would tell them the truth-it's AWFUL. The posts are too long, it's not updated often enough, it has no synergy with the press operations and they don't have pictures. But what's really missing are the links. Both Howard Dean's Presidential campaign and Bob Hertzberg's campaign for Mayor of Los Angeles understood something that campaign bloggers seem to have overlooked-the relationship with the blogosphere is a two-way street."

"Dean and Hertzberg would link to blogs, news articles, and their own press releases like it was going out of style. In the case of Hertzberg, for example, I can say firsthand that I was more likely to write about local Los Angeles politics (and admittedly look more favorably towards Hertzberg's point-of-view) because I believed they'd link to me. And in the blogosphere link = traffic = happy. If the problem with "netroots" is that small self-selected groups of like-minded people are only "speaking" among themselves the solution for political campaigns (or businesses or even bloggers) would seem to be simple. Link."

LEST WE FORGET: Oops

As a slave to tight deadlines, the Blogometer has sympathy for those who find themselves in need of posting corrections. But this one (thanks Jonah Goldberg and Regret The Error) is a doozy from the UK tabloid The Sun:

"On 13 February we published an article headed "Who bum it?" reporting that two Premiership footballers and a music industry figure had a "gay romp" in which a mobile phone was used as a "gay sex toy". On 16 February we published a picture of Mr Cole and his fiancee headed 'Ashley's got a good taste in rings'. Some readers have understood that Mr Cole was one of the two Premiership players involved in the gay sex and that Choice FM DJ, Masterstepz, was the music industry figure. We are happy to make clear that Mr Cole and Masterstepz were not involved in any such activities. We apologise to them for any distress caused and we are paying them each a sum by way of damages. The Sun wishes Ashley all the best for next Saturday's World Cup quarter-final."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:27 PM

June 27, 2006

6/27: Where's The Old Kos?

As a long time fan of sports talk radio (KNBR 68, THE Sports Leader), the Blogometer loved DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas the first time we read his over the top rhetoric and unapologetic anti-war stance. Markos is a bright and strategic thinker and the Blogometer truly wishes him well on his quest to help reshape the party. But as Markos becomes a polished operative he may be losing the impish truth-teller qualities that drove him to fame. For example, Markos attributes his absence from a Time magazine piece on CT SEN to his refusal to play along with the reporter's "anti-war frame." Markos says he told Time he was targeting Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) due to his stance on Social Security.

No doubt Markos did not like Lieberman's Social Security posturing, but Markos hated Lieberman long before that debate. DailyKos' popularity is built on the coherence of its anti-war stance, not Social Security or any other progressive issue. But Markos has bigger plans past Iraq and Pres. Bush. He is working on a new book focussing on his "Libertarian Dem" philosophy and Ex-Navy sec. Jim Webb (D) is perhaps Markos' ideal embodiment of his ideal Dem candidate. Markos' realizes the MSM currently keeps him in an anti-war only cage and he is desperate to expand his portfolio. Markos's will do much better getting his case across if he maintains the honesty that made him so powerful to begin with.

BLOGGER VS. MSM I: Iraq Is Just One Of Many Reasons To Hate Joe Lieberman

DailyKos founder Markos Moulitsas took Newsweek to task for inaccuracies in their 6/25 profile: "So Newsweek says in their title, "The Daily Kos thinks the politics of Iraq will help him shape the Democratic Party." Now read the story and tell me where I or anyone else says that "the politics of Iraq will help us shape the Democratic Party". Talk about making [stuff] up. Also notice unsourced assertions that I talk to the party leadership "several times a week" and that I have "brainstormed with Democratic operatives about the fall campaign". Utter fabrication. Again, yet another piece makes up stuff to make me look more powerful than I am."

Jane Hamsher at firedoglake also objects to Newsweeks' Iraq focus and explains that her Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) hate stems from his Justice Sam Alito cave-in: "Objecting to Holy Joe's warmongering is a perfectly good reason to oppose him, but it does not appear to be the unifying factor that many would have it. ...As I've written many, many times before, my rabid lambiness took root during the Alito cloture vote, when Lieberman sided with the Gang of 14 to put a sexist, elitist, fundamentalist Dobson-loving bigot like Strip Search Sammy on the Supreme Court."

Eric Boehlert at MyDD has a lengthy take-down of the article as well. Highlights include: "Newsweek announces "Democrats lost the week in the war over the war." In order to make that GOP-pleasing political calculation, Newsweek conveniently avoids any reference to a string of national polls that show a majority of Americans actually support the Democratic initiative of troop reduction timetable. ...Again, busy pushing the nervous narrative that "some Dems" fear bloggers like Markos might drive the Democratic Party too far left, who does Newsweek turn to for a confirmation quote about what "some Dems" are thinking? A partisan Republican, of course. (Newt Gingrich.)"

BLOGGER VS. MSM II: Is 'Swiftboating' Just Another Word For Oppo?

Lefty bloggers continue to rally around DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas. Under the header 'The Swiftboating of Kos' The Whiskey Bar has a lengthy analysis on the TNR/Kos/Armstrong dust-up including some Kos criticism:

Actually, the real reason I haven't posted anything about this idiotic affair is up until now it's that it's been just that: idiotic. At times, scanning the feeble slurs over at the The New Republic's "blog," the Plank, really has been like reading a bad Monty Python parody I mean, the idea that Kos could use his influence, such as it is, to intimidate Left Blogistan into a quivering reign of fear is simply laughable -- a paranoid fantasy that wandered away from Free Republic.com and was adopted by some silly little Ivy League boys who've decided they like how Karl Rove plays the game and want to get in on the fun.

But there's no question Kos made a dumb mistake when he asked his blogging buddies to pipe down about the "story." ...The truth is that while I admire Kos's energy and enthusiasm, and am impressed by the online community he's nurtured, his politics are hardly mine. He's a Democratic Party activist and loyalist; I'm not.
To be perfectly honest, my impression is that Kos the blogger has long since been swallowed up by Kos the aspiring politician. I would say he's sold out, but Kos has never, to my knowledge, claimed to be anything other than a Democratic (big and little d) political activist.

Fellow lefty This Modern World is no fan of the "Ken Starr of the blogosphere" TNR's Jason Zengerle but also feels that Markos isn't the real target: "It's not just Markos and Jerome Armstrong being dragged through the mud, it's every liberal blogger (especially those in the Advertising Liberally network). ...Every liberal blogger has been besmirched by these unsupported insinuations and we've got every right to be p****d. And if that makes me just another lowbrow, potty-mouthed blogger, so be it. I'd rather be an immature fool than an immoral elitist. ...We're all getting Swift-Boated now."

Garance Franke-Ruta at TAPPED is just happy that lefty blogosphere laundry is being aired now instead of later: "All I can say is: Far better for this kind of stuff to break mid-'06, when nothing electoral is at stake and no one is really paying that much attention, than during election season '08, when the story could have mushroomed into 527-funded television attack ads that could have been devastating to a Mark Warner candidacy (imagine the impact of using Armstrong's analysis of the causes of 9-11 to tarnish Warner on national security, for example). Markos has been complaining for some time that he believes Hillary Rodham Clinton's people have been doing research on him. All I can say after the revelations of the past week is: I certainly hope so." GFR also thinks ex-VA Gov. Mark Warner's (D) organizational skills come out badly from the episode: "If Warner didn't know, when he hired Armstrong, that this kind of stuff was in his background -- the SEC settlement, the political astrology -- it's a sign his PAC failed to do its own due diligence. Warner's nascent campaign, meanwhile, has seen a staffer become the main story, which is never good, and which is even worse at a time when most of the public doesn't know anything else about the former Virginia governor."

Also at TAPPEDBen Adler offers an explanation for TNR's blogosphere unpopularity: "TNR, on the other hand, indulges Bush crony Greg Mankiw with a non-sensical cover story in favor of social security privatization, and indulges neo-con Lawrence Kaplan (and Peretz) in contemptuous anti-left diatribes. ...The blogosphere is pragmatic, non-ideological, and very tolerant of moderates (see their recent embrace of Mark Warner). What they do not tolerate is the public flagellation of their party's left-wing that gives aid and comfort to the enemy."

The News Blog is still demanding more action from TNR in response to Zengerle's posting of a fictitious email attributed to TNB author Steve Gilliard: "I have just received an e-mail from TNR editor Frank Foer which said they thought the apology is adequate and "they had nothing more to add". It was bad enough they tacked on Gilliard-gate to their mistake on their reporting. But now, they're defending a dishonest source, who sends e-mails without any proof of their accuracy. My question is simple: why are they protecting a dishonest source on a story?" Fellow lefty travelers wanted the leaker punished. Atrios: "Burning sources who mislead you just seems like a no brainer to me. Aside from punishing someone who aided and abetted your screw up, it also sends a signal to other would-be bulls***ters that their attempts may not be consequence free."

Conservative Protein Wisdom also wants emailers burned, but not just the leaker: "How do you feel about revealing the names of those on the Townhouse email list? Because it sure would be groovy to see how many of them mentioned the story after Kos suggested you bury it like so many Hussein-era Iraqi swamp Arabs." Libertarian Instapundit thinks the list is a matter of "public interest!"

Over at Slate, after a bloggingheads TV session with Bob Wright Kausfiles believes David Brooks owes Kos an apology for botching the Brown-Hackett-endorsement-Armstrong-hiring-timeline.

For the best rundown of the entire Kos/Armstrong/Hackett/Brown kerfuffle lefty BuckeyState Blog pens a lengthy history and concludes:

To date kos has failed to directly address the central issues. Does Armstrong barter his services with clients to include the editorial influence of kos, if so is kos party to this ? Instead he has diverted attention from this question by attacking those asking these questions. Kos at the end of the day I think has poor judgement and is naive - Hackett flip flop, the DLC attack that never came, Warner and Yearlykos- all leave many wondering. While Armstrong and kos have a symbiotic relationship, and some business ties (in the past, and with their recent book) I don't believe there is any transfer of money for editorial influence - I think Jerome simply gets some of that for free, that at least is my impression. I personally don't care how this story turns out, the netroots in the Ohio Senate race are now poisoned beyond recovery thanks to these bozo's - I just hope I don't have to witness them screw up any more races in the state I live.

CLINTON: If You Can't Beat 'Em, Hire 'Em

Lefty blogger stalwart and Kerry-Edwards blog outreach director Peter Daou announced at his Daou Report that he had been hired by Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) as a "blog advisor." Daou explains: "Since launching the Daou Report in December 2004, I have written extensively about a 'triangle' comprised of the traditional media, the political establishment, and the blogosphere. I have argued that "closing the triangle" (i.e. enhancing the connection between the three entities) is imperative for the Democratic Party and the progressive netroots. ...I have been offered, and accepted, what I believe is a unique opportunity to help close the triangle: joining Senator Clinton's team as a blog advisor to facilitate and expand her relationship with the netroots. There are endless possibilities for Clinton-netroots collaborations, from Net Neutrality to the Privacy Bill of Rights to voting reform to so many other critical issues."

Lefty The American Street still is no HRC fan but still supports Daou's decision: "I have and will retain, enormous respect for Peter Daou. But his work will not convince me to support Hillary. There'll be Nader or some Independent, or maybe I'll have to consider a real Green (which I never felt Nader was). I wish we could have a woman president. But I require a qualified one."

Left of center Michael Crowley at The Plank was impressed with the move: "I'm not flagging this to make any larger point about certain recent blog fights, but it does seem noteworthy that Hillary Clinton, that bane of the liberal blogosphere, has hired a prominent liberal blogger. (Presumably just for her Senate re-election, of course--because we know how badly she needs the netroots for that battle royale...)

On the right Riehl World View sees conspiracy: "Perfect, absolutely perfect - what a move. Hillary Clinton has hired Peter Daou. Here is Daou's announcement. Congratulations are in order before I put on my partisan hat. Let's look at what just happened - The New Republic, Newsweek and others just finished softening up the preeminent Liberal blog, DailyKos. Perhaps Markos Moulitsas wasn't so far wrong when he suggested that Hillary's camp was at least partly behind some of the current hits he's been taking. What better way to enter hostile territory then by opening up a wedge, or at least a soft spot to land. If people become disaffected with DailyKos over any controversy, no doubt Hillary and company will be happy to provide them with a place to land.

MCCAIN: A Nixon Liberal

Jason Zengerle at The Plank picks up on TPMmuckraker reports that Grover Norquist is firing back at Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) in the wake of McCain's report on the Abramoff scandal and wonders: "Is Norquist still strong enough to derail a McCain presidential bid? Or has the Abramoff scandal left Norquist in such a weakened position that his opposition won't mean much in the 2008 GOP primary? It looks like McCain's betting on the latter."

Also at The PlankJonathan Chait tries to singlehandedly sink McCain chances in a GOP primary by praising his views on the role of government: "I think McCain is (or was) a liberal because a liberal today is anybody who rejects conservative assumptions about the role of government (and isn't a socialist.) By today's standards Eisenhower and Nixon were liberals, a fact conservatives make themselves.

GORE: A New New Deal?

Margaret Nagel at lefty hangout The Huffington Post sees parallels between FDR's pre-presidential career and Al Gore's journey through the wilderness:

Polio had taken Roosevelt out of the 1920 and 1924 presidential elections where he would have surely lost -- as those were Republican years. Polio asked him to develop patience and a maturity he hadn't before possessed. Leaving Washington and the world of politics behind allowed him to expand his vision and learn to listen. When he ran for President in 1932 he was ready. He understood the Great Depression on an emotional level. He had already seen it up close in Georgia. He knew how to talk to the country in a direct and honest way. He was the right President at the right time. The New Deal could only have sprung from him. On its most basic level the New Deal put people to work and gave them hope. It didn't fix the economy. But it kept people going while the economy fixed itself. It was sort of like Roosevelt swimming in the waters at Warm Springs.

Al Gore has been cast out into the wilderness so to speak. His political career sidelined by an election that political scientists will be analyzing forever. His humiliation and pain have been channeled into his work on the environment. Global warming is his Polio. He has been out into the real world. He has had to lick his wounds and revalue his values. And that has visibly changed him. There has been an internal upheaval inside Mr. Gore that is tangible. And he seems the better for it.

CT SEN: Joenertia

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas likes ultra Beltway insider Dick Morris' latest take on Sen. Joe Lieberman's (D-CT) chances indy chances. From Morris reported by Political Wire:

"I think Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) will lose the primary and will be so crippled by the defeat and Ned Lamont (D) so empowered, that he will lose the general election as an independent. Sen. Jacob Javits (R-NY), in 1980, could have avoided defeat by not fighting the Republican Primary against Sen. Al D'Amato (R-NY) and running as an independent. But D'Amato was so empowered by the primary win and Javits so disempowered that he won the general election with Javits running a poor third.
"Lieberman's correct course of action is to withdraw from the primary and run as an independent. It is the only way he can get re-elected."

Markos reax: "If Lieberman goes indy, the [stuff] would hit the fan. He might have a better chance to win as an indy than in the Dem primary, but it's no guaranteed conclusion. Joe's Republican friends might feel emboldened to vote GOP, smelling the chance to replace Joementum with the real thing. And Democrats will suddenly be well-apprised of Lieberman's lack of loyalty and his breaking of his word to Reid and Schumer to remain a Democrat."

Christy Hardin Smith at firedoglake hammers Lieberman for his version of a Pres. Bush run in: "You want to see what panic looks like - re-read that Joe-nertia quote from above: "I don't think he kissed me, he leaned over and gave me a hug and said "thank you for being a patriotic American." Pathetic. No one is buying."

Also 6/26, Kos highlights Lamont's latest TV ad and pays tribute to its creator: "It's not surprising that this ad came from Bill Hillsman, who is the best political ad maker in the country, of any partisan stripe. And thing is, he's not a partisan. Having been shut out of the DC consultant racket by the beltway mafia, Hillsman has been the admaker of choice for independent third-party candidates. ...But smarting from the ad (and boy is it good), the Lieberman campaign issues this bizarre statement. The attacks on Hillsman are especially weird, since Lieberman supposedly is such a bi-partisan independent. ...p.s. Ironically, the Lamont campaign turned to Hillsman after no beltway media firms would take the case for fear of being blacklisted by the Beltway Mafia. Thank god, for that, huh?"

MD SEN: "I Love The '80s" Edition

Lefty Bloggers are hammering LG Michael Steele (R) for his Willie Horton ad producer Floyd Brown hosted 6/22 fundraiser. The News Blog: "He's taking money from racists. Cardin's people will hammer him stupid about this, as they should. I mean, who is he trying to kid. They want him in office because they know he won't stand up for black people and will represent their interests. His conservative buddies can say it's no big deal, but black people aren't stupid. We learned from Clarence Thomas about how skin color doesn't equal loyalty."

Prometheus6 chimes in: "It's like visiting Bob Jones University...an undercover way of conveying the support of the racist wing of the Republican party."

MN SEN: Bush Who?

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas enjoys a quick laugh at MN Publius careful tracking of Rep. Mark Kennedy's (R) recent "purge" of some references of Pres. Bush from Kennedy's official site. MN Publius notes three major Bush-washes including: a Bush/Kennedy pic that is now a Kennedy/cuddly-children pic; bills once described as "signed into law by President Bush" now simply "become law"; and Kennedy's record has changed from "Supported the President's Plan to create jobs and boost the economy" to "Successfully worked to repeal the Bush Administration's steel tariffs."

Kennedy press. sec. Heidi Frederickson: "There are several photos and stories on our campaign website referencing President Bush. We have nothing to hide, it is Amy Klobuchar who is trying to hid things in this campaign. Where are the pictures of Mark Dayton and Howard Dean? Where is the information about her 12-year career as a registered lobbyist?" (Hotline reporting, 6/27).

CORRECTION

Kennedy still has pictures of Bush on his site. Therefore we have changed the above and incorrect "all referneces" to the more accuate "some references." The Blogometer apologizes to Rep. Kennedy and his staff.

RI SEN: The Center Can Not Hold

Irish poetry lover and DailyKos diarist Republic Not Empire splices lines form William Butler Yeats' "The Second Coming" with analysis of Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R) travails and concludes: "Lincoln Chafee is trapped. And it's his own party's fault. Don't get me wrong; political centrists can make our country great. Chafee is a interesting Senator; e.g., he's the only Republican Senator who voted against the Iraq war resolution. He can read Greek and Latin, and change shoes on a horse. Perhaps it is through his Classical learning that he has cultivated in political life the Horatian dictum mediocritas aurea, or Golden Mean. Indeed, he appears to be a true moderate on a number of issues."

VA SEN: Is Webb Kos' Ideal Dem?

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas love affair with Ex-Navy sec. Jim Webb (D) only grows deeper:

"I've been pleasantly surprised with Webb's politics, exhibit A of the new breed of pragmatic Libertarian Democrats that I think can win tough territory long ceded by Democrats to the Republicans. Gay marriage? He doesn't want government in your church. Abortion? He doesn't want government in your doctor's office. He doesn't want government in your bedroom. And, just as importantly, he's not too crazy about Big Business sticking their nose where it doesn't belong either. A real war hero, Webb has been clear in the need for the U.S. to get the heck out of Iraq."

But you know what excited me about this race, more than anything? The promise of becoming a template for people-powered electoral victory. ...While no one thinks television advertising and direct mail are going anywhere, the fact that Webb won the race without ANY of that stuff is shocking. (Correction: Webb did one direct mail piece.) This was people-power in action. And no, I'm not talking Daily Kos. I'm talking about the kick-ass, aggressive, and effective Virginia netroots.

SCOTUS: Far From Settled

Righty bloggers were by far the more happy campers after SCOTUS' 6/26 decision in Randall v. Sorrell striking down VT's campaign finance law. Election Law Blog sums it up: "The decision...is a monumental one, because it marks the first time that the two new Justices have considered a campaign finance case. Though the decision is a defeat for Vermont and for those who supported Vermont's campaign finance laws, this is about the best decision that (realistic) supporters of campaign finance regulation could have hoped for from the new Roberts Court.

DailyKos' Adam B has a representative lefty response: "That's three justices, including the two new members of the Court, agreeing that campaign finance reform is constitutional in general, but just not in the way Vermont attempted it. (Add the three dissenters, and you've got at least six justices stating that this is generally constitutional.)"

On the right Ross Kaminsky at RedState writes: "There is a clear indication here that further challenges to campaign finance would be met by a Court which is more interested in protecting the First Amendment than we've seen in a long time."

Fellow righty Skepticseye has a fabulous set of snarky of all six opinions. Sample: "Justices Thomas and Scalia: Hi, this is Clarence. Nino isn't writing because he can't talk about this stuff without his head exploding. We hate Buckley because it doesn't protect contributions adequately. This decision adds to the unacceptable muddle that is campaign finance constitutional jurisprudence. So we concur with the judgment, but Breyer is making a mess of stuff again."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Bush, Exit Frame Right

UC Berkeley Prof. George Lakoff writing at The Huffington Post is worried that Dems may be overplaying Pres. Bush's incompetence in '06 to their detriment in '08:

Progressives have fallen into a trap. Emboldened by President Bush's plummeting approval ratings, progressives increasingly point to Bush's "failures" and label him and his administration as incompetent. For example, Nancy Pelosi recently charged "The situation in Iraq and the reckless economic policies in the United States speak to one issue for me, and that is the competence of our leader." Self-satisfying as this criticism may be, it misses the bigger point.

Bush's disasters - Katrina, the Iraq War, the budget deficit - are not so much a testament to his incompetence or a failure of execution. Rather, they are the natural, even inevitable result of his conservative governing philosophy. It is conservatism itself, carried out according to plan, that is at fault. Bush will not be running again, but other conservatives will.

The mantra of incompetence has been an unfortunate one. The incompetence frame assumes that there was a sound plan, and that the trouble has been in the execution. It turns public debate into a referendum on Bush's management capabilities, and deflects a critique of the impact of his guiding philosophy. It also leaves open the possibility that voters will opt for another radically conservative president in 2008, so long as he or she can manage better. Bush will not be running again, so thinking, talking and joking about him being incompetent offers no lessons to draw from his presidency.

LEST WE FORGET: Pay Attention To Me!!!

Bloggers on all sides hate it when others portray them as insolent children, and bloggers rightly point out that they are actually well educated, wealthy, and old. Yet some of even the best bloggers often go on rants that only hurt everyone's credibility. Chris Bowers degrades us all with this tantrum at MyDD surrounding the Kos/Zengerle/Armstrong affair:

The entire narrative is based on some of the shoddiest and most biased journalism you will ever witness. What I would like to note, in the fashion of former Springfield Mayor Sideshow Bob, is how irritating it is to work one's way up from lurker to mid-level leader in this movement over the course of four years only to have conspiracy theorists credit all of your contributions to the movement to two other people. I mean, come on--I even made two detailed posts back on Thursday describing how I control the Liberal Blog Advertising Network (see here and here), and the conspiracy nuts at TNR and the New York Times still want to credit that achievement to Markos and Jerome. What do I have to do to get some credit from the tin-foil hat crowd for being one of the main conspirators here?

I mean, if we are going to have an insane conspiracy about how a handful of people somehow control the progressive netroots, I want to be one of the people cited in that handful. It is probably connected to my long-standing desire to play a super-villain in a blockbuster movie, preferably one with several Dr. Evil-type laughs. This might have been my one chance to make that dream come true. Oh well. I thought I was making some progress when I was described as the minister of politics in the court of the blogosphere by Salon, and when the Philadelphia Democratic Party started a PAC apparently with the express purpose of doing battle with me and my friends, but I guess it is two steps forward, and one step back. I think my next move is to start purchasing some nice bling-bling with the MyDD logo on it. Then, I will start making netroots activists, political candidates, and staffers kiss said bling-bling before I grant them an audience with me. If I do that, then maybe Chapelle's Show will start doing Charlie Murphy - Rick James type sketches about me. I'm Chris Bowers, b**ch!"

Posted by at 01:30 PM

June 26, 2006

6/26: Diversity Training

It's the nature of journalism to take broad and complicated facts and force them into a coherent narrative. Often in this pursuit of comprehensibility, complexity is sacrificed for simplicity. So is the major sin running through the Blogometer today. At the heart of almost every fight between bloggers and bloggers, and bloggers and the MSM, is an unwillingness to acknowledge differences while demanding full understanding of one's own diversity of opinion (i.e. Vast Left Wing Conspiracy vs. Vast Right Wing Conspiracy vs. monolithic MSM). So this weekend we have Newsweek, David Brooks, and the entire staff of The New Republic condemning the entire diverse lefty blogosphere by attacking just two (though admittedly prominent) members of its community. On the right, Hugh Hewitt is stepping up to a big challenge, trying to meld the boisterous Townhall righty hangout with the more moderate wing of the righty-talk radio world. All would be better served by taking the time to study the real divisions in their opponents' positions.

BLOGGER VS. BLOGGER: The Astrology Based Community

The pre-blogger activist life of ex-VA Gov. Mark Warner (D) advisor Jerome Armstrong continued to produce blogosphere fodder this weekend when Riehl World View uncovered Armstrong's past penchant for astrology based forecasting. RWV explains that at its inception "MyDD didn't have anything to do with democracy, direct, personal, or otherwise when it started out as an astrological tabloid, forecasting the ups and downs of the stock market based upon the stars." RWV provides links to past Armstrong posts relating the rise of Osama Bin Laden to the "exploration of the Kuiper Belt in 1992," and Pres. Bush's "natal chart" to his post-9/11 "special calling."

Unlike the pay-for-play and SEC accusations, Armstrong owns up to his astrological past but then both minimizes and and embraces his former hobby at MyDD: "Oh yea, on the astrological stuff. ... Down that line, I dabbled with planets and predictions in the most abstract manner, as one of several different predictive mathematical disciplines ... It has nothing to do with what I consult with in online political strategy. But hey, like JP Morgan once said, "millionaires don't use astrology, billionaires do!"

Righty bloggers thought it was Christmas in June.

• Pejman at RedState: "I'm just gobsmacked. How precisely is it possible that the "Blogfather" of the "Netroots" movement, the guy responsible for being Gov. Mark Warner's Ambassador to the Technoworld ... how is it that that guy was trusted to call shots and give advice based on whether the moon was Waxing Gibbous, or whether Orion was in a reclining chair."
• Wizbang: "The Warner and Brown campaigns are in a bind. Dropping Armstrong is the logical course of action, but it they do they risk losing the support of Kos, whose support seems to correlate pretty strongly to Armstrong's employment.
• DonkeyCons: "A visionary Democratic political consultant who sees world-historical significance in the movements of Ixion, Quaoar and the Kuiper Belt? It's a target-rich environment."
• Stromata Blog: "Liberals sneered at Nancy Reagan's consultations with astrologers and insinuated that they influenced her husband's political agenda. If that had been true, it would have been the strongest argument ever in favor of astrology. Jerome Armstrong appears to be a much more zealous follower of the Zodiac than Mrs. Reagan ever was. I'm not sure whether astrology or leftism suffers more by the association.
• Just One Minute: "So one of the leaders of the "reality-based community" is an astrologer - who knew?"

Fellow righty Wizbang claims to have caught MyDD in flagrant cover up of the burgeoning Stargate: "In the hours since the story broke it looks like a search and replace has been done at MyDD for the term 'astrologer ' See this post (Original / Sanitized) for and example of the purge - look for the second comment by 'Hugh' in the original post. Suddenly it's not there anymore in the latest version of the 2004 post, which Google cached in February 2005."

BLOGGER VS. MSM I: Two Out Of Three Lefty Bloggers Can't Be Wrong

The fight between The Plank's Jason Zengerle and the DailyKos/MyDD axis spun off into side scandals over the weekend. As the Blogometer already reported Zengerle first accused DailyKos' Markos Moulitsas and MyDD's Jerome Armstrong of connecting support for Dem candidates with employment for Armstrong, and then trying to put a wet blanket on lefty blogger comment on the story. Beltway Blogroll (go team!) has a great full rundown of the story. Zengrle's original post turned on three emails puportedly sent to a private lefty-blogger only email list called "Townhouse" one of which Zengerle claimed to be written by The News Blog'sSteve Gilliard . While the other two emails turned out to be authentic, Zengerle admitted 6/25 that the third "wasn't." In the same post Zengrle refused to bow to lefty blogger calls for him to out his Townhouse sources.

For Gilliard, Zengerle still had not fully paid for his mistake: "What I would have liked to see is an admission that his refusal to actually consult with anyone he quoted was a fundamental mistake. ... I don't think Zengerle has handled this well, and this grudging article tries to minimize the gross error he has committed. ... Again, and I will be e-mailing Foer with the same request: I fully expect TNR to reveal the source of the e-mail I was quoted from and in a timely manner."

The whole episode drew in TNR's biggest names. Martin Peretz at The Plank was in a name calling mood: "Forgive me. But I never read Daily Kos until today. Well, now that I've read it, the first thought that came to me is how illiterate Kos is, just plain illiterate. ...And his rant against us, well, borders on a nut case's." Fellow TNRer Lee Siegeldropped an f-word : "It's a bizarre phenomenon, the blogosphere. It radiates democracy's dream of full participation but practices democracy's nightmare of populist crudity, character-assassination, and emotional stupefaction. It's hard fascism with a Microsoft face."

Markos left DailyKos' response up to Hunter who found little meat in Peretz attack: "Martin Peretz responded to the hailstorm of criticism unleashed on TNR as a result of the stories by TNR writer Jason Zengerle. By "responded," I mean responded, not addressed, or defended, or explained on the merits. I mean, simply, responded. Among his more surgical and biting criticisms is that Kos is "illiterate", and that "his rant against [TNR], well, borders on a nut case's." ...The New Republic is not a right-wing rag. But nor is it a progressive one, and nor is it a relevant one."

Fellow lefty Booman Tribune thought the left of center in fighting did not bode well for Dems in Nov: "The left, never known for its ability to act in lockstep, is predictably tearing itself apart at the exact moment (the upcoming 2006 midterms elections) when it can least afford to do so." Still BT had little sympathy for TNR: "If there is one issue around which the left-wing blogosphere coalesces, it is opposition to the invasion of Iraq. Lieberman going independent would be a sure sign that these hawks no longer feel welcome in the Democratic Party. That is what is really going on. TNR is fighting for influence, and is trying to marginalize the blogosphere (to Michael Moore us) in order to retain their influence. They don't care about butter half as much as they care about guns, and therefore our political differences are unbridgeable."

Kevin Drum at The Washington Monthly thought the feud was a black-eye for the larger blogger community: "I don't know. Maybe it's just a perfect storm of YearlyKos, Ned Lamont, and the TNR-Kos feud. But whatever the cause, it's not doing us any good. Mainstream reporters, despite their generally liberal temperaments, have an odd sort of contempt for actual liberal politicians, who they widely view as being wimpy, pandering, fence-sitting, poll-driven wonks who are hesitant to really speak their minds and insist on giving lots of boring policy-oriented speeches that don't make good copy. Well, the blogosphere is anything but that, but it turns out the mainstream press doesn't like that much either. I'm not sure how that's going to play out in the long term, but in the short term I have a feeling it's nothing but bad news. "Spittle-flecked loons" seems likely to become the new media CW. Karl Rove must be pleased."

Following up on the original payola story, righty Riehl World View noticed that Markos turned administration of BlogPAC over to MyDD and that from 1/05 - 3/05: "their only disbursements were to another blogger / consultant - Bob Bingham - from the Swing State Blog. According to slate, he was a one time employee of Armstrong, as well as a leading force behind BlogPAC. Interesting. They've been collecting money on line and paying it to ... themselves for consulting?? I don't know. But those filings could prove interesting, either now, or in the future."

BLOGGERS VS. MSM II: Hummingbirds And Flat-Screen TVs

The MSM spotlight on DailyKos' Markos Moulitsas grew brighter with the publication of a 6/25 Newsweek profile of the Berkeley, CA denizen. So far lefty reaction to the piece has been mixed. TalkLeft calls it "venom...with a right-wing agenda" while John in DC at AMERICAblog calls it "a good story" that "accurately captured Markos and the blogosphere."

Reviews from the right were much more unified. Right of center Ann Althouse: "Newsweek has a big article on Kos that starts off looking like a puff piece. He's listening to hummingbirds and finally getting that flat-screen TV. ...Kos's writing style -- which has obviously served him well as a blogger up to this point -- sounds angry and crazed to the outsider. It's easy to get him to react with "belligerence and paranoia," and the more successful he is, the more Democrats are motivated to marginalize and disqualify him."

Righty Blue Crab Boulevard worried that a Kos meltdown under the MSM spotlight could harm all bloggers: "It's not just TNR coming down on Kos, Newsweek is now taking the offensive with an article that is not at all flattering. ...So the more they react, the harder the media scrutinizes. The more rage they respond with, the more coverage they will get. Not positive coverage, either. This will not get prettier or easier for Kos. The real danger here is that if the media drags him down, they will be trying really hard to bring down all bloggers at the same time." Matt Margolis at GOP Bloggers sees only good news for his party: "What Kos fails to understand is that the greater influence he does have in the Democratic Party, the more Republicans are going to win. And if he wants to ignore that fact, by all means, he should continue what he's doing. Kos not only suffers from delusions of grandeur, but he also harbors delusions that he is in the mainstream, and that Republicans and moderate Democrats are not."

MSM LOVES BLOGGERS: Something Old And Something New

If lefty bloggers ever wanted an Exhibit A to rebut charges of MSM liberal bias, the juxtaposition of Kos' Newsweek profile with the following glowing Hugh Hewittprofile could serve as a good starting point.

Fellow righty Captain's Quarters cops to a role small role in Hewitt's efforts to merge Salem Radio with the righty web portal Townhall and then explains the logic behind the deal: "Originally, Salem wanted to start its own portal from scratch, which would have taken more effort to attract new readers, even with its high-powered talk-show lineup. Now it will leverage the existing readership of Townhall and the listeners of Salem, combine it with blogging heavyweights, and create a powerful force for conservative activism. And make no mistake, Hugh and Salem intend on creating a site that will produce activists and not just passive readers."

CQ goes on to speculate that the venture could moderate righty web presence: "What does that mean for conservatives? Looking at the Salem line-up, it portends a strengthening of the center-right rather than conservative extremism. The hosts on Salem tend towards that direction, especially Hugh himself. Dennis Prager and Michael Medved also offer shows that rely on dialogue with opposing views and focus on finding common values to reach larger consensus on political issues. Bill Bennett has a more socially conservative slant, and Laura Ingraham tends towards hard-line conservatism, but the thrust should enable the center-right and put a positive face on the Right."

Fellow conservative Professor Bainbridge wonders if Hewitt is a little too much of a team player to keep up with the whims of the GOP base: "Newsweek correctly points out the Hugh has been "a valuable White House ally," in large part because he has consistently sided with the DC elite rather than the base. Remember his unswerving fealty to the excreable Harriet Miers or the way he tore into Mark Tapscott and yours truly for suggesting that the base might sit out 2006? Conservative leaders like Hugh are soon going to face the need to choose between the base and the corrupt/out-of-touch K Street Gang. Noonan and Tapscott get it; does Hugh?"

CT-SEN: I-what?

It seems Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) feels the best way to address the Iraq war online is to pretend it doesn't exist. Connecticut Bob stopped by Friends of Joe Lieberman and could not find any mention of Iraq: "When I clicked on the "Get Involved" button, the sign-up sheet appeared. After the personal info fields, I captured this image. The lower portion of the window has a section for you to choose "What issues are important to you". Well, the problem is, there's only a few issues listed; and none of them are the war in Iraq. Yeah, the...WAR IN IRAQ doesn't ever rate!

Rumpole at TPM Cafe and the unofficial LamontBlog both take Lieberman to task for falsely claiming cable co. exec Ned Lamont (D) said he was against Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) Iraq amendment.

Meanwhile, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) scores major lefty blogger points by pledging to support the winner of the 8/8 Dem primary.

• Jonathan Singer at MyDD: "Appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press" this morning, Russ Feingold was thrown an important question on the issue of the Connecticut Democratic Senatorial primary. ...Simply put, Russ Feingold hit the ball out of the park with his answer to this question. ...Democrats should, just like Russ Feingold, pledge to support the Democratic nominee.
• SirotaBlog: "Here's the deal: what's going on in Connecticut is good for the Democratic Party and good for democracy. No politician - not Joe Lieberman, not Chuck Schumer - owns a congressional seat. We the people do, and thankfully, at least some courageous Democrats like Sen. Russ Feingold (D) understand that and are willing to use their position to give voice to that truism."
• Atrios: "Kudos to Russ Feingold for understanding that as a Democrat the right thing to do is to support the wishes of the Democratic voters of Connecticut."

Atrios was also bullish on Lamont's chances in a 3-way general race: "I hope he jumps. As soon as he does I bet he'll be surprised at how quickly his Republican pals will forget his name. Anything can happen in a 3-way race, and unless Joe jumps all the way to their camp, they'll be quite interested in the possibility of taking that seat."

WA SEN: Too Much Green For The Everygreen State?

Lawyers Guns and Money is not happy over Pandagon twitterings of abandoning support for Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) over Iraq in favor of a Green Party candidate: "People wonder why LGM regularly devotes a post a month to excoriating Ralph Nader and those who voted for him in 2000. Well, this is it; the same narcissism that prevailed among some progressives then threatens to prevail among others now. Political elections are about real world effects, and there is almost no situation, in America today, in which a victory by a Republican will lead to a more progressive outcome than a victory by a Democrat. This includes Maria Cantwell and it includes, God help me, Joe Lieberman."

Michael Crowley at The Plank notes that while most polls show Cantwell up a solid 10 points on challenger and former insurance executive Mike McGavick (R), a new poll shows the lead down to four. Crowley worries: "It would be very bad news for Democratic prospects of winning back the Senate if Maria "Hellcat" Cantwell is truly in this much trouble in her Washington state re-election race. ... one reason to watch this race is Cantwell's uncomfortable position on Iraq: She supported the war and has generally counseled patience with the occupation (and voted against John Kerry's quick-withdrawal amendment yesterday). Largely as a result, she has drawn three primary challengers, including an anti-war Green Party candidate."

MT SEN: Jack Who?

Under the header "Tester Crushes Burns in first Debate" progressive Ed in Montana at DailyKos live blogged the 6/25 Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT)/state Senate Pres. Jon Tester (D) event. Highlights include:

• Iraq: "Tester says that Burns and the U.S. Senate allowed President Bush to invade Iraq under false pretenses. Burns responds that weapons of mass destruction, such as mustard gas in artillery shells have been found in Iraq (this week's sound bite direct from Rick Santorum!) and that Saddam Hussein was a bad man that used poison gas on his own people. Tester quickly hits back with "Senator you know that a few 15 year old shells of mustard gas weren't the reason we were told to invade Iraq. The imminent threat of Saddam's nuclear weapons program was the reason we went into Iraq. No sign of nuclear weapons have been found."
• Burns: "Repeated a lot of standard repub talking points. Now in his late 70s, he is a lot slower on his feet than even in 2000 when he barely beat back Brian Schweitzer to retain his senate seat."
• Tester: "Jon Tester is very quick on his feet and almost never let a charge from Burns go un-answered. In my view he comes across as very smart and likable to the general Montana public. Tester won this debate hands down on the likability factor alone."
• Ethics: "It was surprising that there were no questions about ethics or Jack Abramoff."

NJ SEN: Not So Peachy Kean

Conservative Michael "A.J. Sparxx" IllionsPoliPundit took in the 6/25 Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ)/State Sen. Tom Kean (R) debate and did not like what he saw from either side: "What can I say, both candidates are left of center, our views are not represented by either candidate. The one representing our Party, Tom Kean, Jr., announced the following positions; Would have voted for the minimum wage increase that was just defeated this past week, is against any off-shore drilling, specifically in New Jersey and in ANWR, admitted to driving a hybrid and was proud to announce when asked that John McCain was his favorite current Senator. What are Conservatives in New Jersey to do ??"

UT-3: Jingleheimer Schmidt, That's My Name Too!

Conservative ParaPundit asks his brethren to support businessman John Jacob (R) over Rep. Chris Cannon's (R) immigrations sins: "Congressional representatives rarely lose in reelection attempts and even more rarely lose in primaries. But that might happen in Utah and if it does the public demand for tougher immigration policies will be the cause. ...A defeat of Cannon would be a huge victory against George W. Bush's immigration amnesty plans and and stiffen the spines of the House opponents of the Senate's plan to drastically increase immigration."

Enjoy it while it lasts cause progressive Matt Stoller at MyDD is rooting for the same guy: "Republicans may get a major wake-up call on Tuesday because of immigration. The issue is immigration, which is what the GOP is going to run on in 2006. The Republican base wants to criminalize immigration, as usual, but it's particularly intense this year. It seems as if conservative voters are voting against Bush, because they see him as soft and untrustworthy. They aren't going to vote for Democrats, but it is possible to keep them from the polls since a vote for an R this year is effectively a vote to continue Bush's policies.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Payola II Or A Sign Of The Times?

Lisa Vorderbrueggen at ContraCostaTimes Politics Blog notes that wind energy engineer Jerry McNerney (D) bid for first place in Democracy for America's "Grassroots All-Star" contest drew support from DailyKos diarist ripzaw who "begged folks on his blog to vote for McNerney, apparently under the premise that if the guy wins, he'll have salary money." Vorderbrueggen goes on to quote McNerney's campaign manager: ""I might give him a job. Who knows?" says Carrillo. "You have to give the guy points for creativity."

Vorderbrueggen reports that McNerney is also competing for a similar $5,000 prize from ex-VA Gov. Mark Warner's (D) Forward Together PAC. Vorderbrueggen concludes: "On-line voting contests are a sign of the times as campaigns go high-tech in the wake of success stories such as the liberal Moveon.org, which collects millions of dollars in contributions for its causes through the Internet. It's also a way for national political organizations or candidates to collect new e-mail addresses for their databases, which serve as a path to solicit more contributions and build momentum for their causes. Several national environmental groups conducted similar on-line voting schemes in the primary when they asked readers to pick their favorite anti-Pombo ads. If this method of raising money stars mooing like a cash cow, watch it take off like grass in spring. No one's email box is safe."

LEST WE FORGET: So Played

Words For My Enjoyment patience with the musical stylings of James Blunt has reached its end and pens the following plea to TV producers everywhere:

Dear TV Producers: I know that James Blunt's latest album "Back to Bedlam" is probably one of the best-selling CDs to come out in a long time. ... I know that you sat watching that sequence with your female lead contemplating her life and the problems she's faced and the tough road she's traversed to get to this point in the episode you're currently in post production on. ... And I know that when you watched that sequence you thought to yourself how beautiful that character looked and how if you could just find a song that could communicate just how beautiful she was in that moment that it would further hit home the point to the audience... But do you really need to use James Blunt's song "You're Beautiful" to do it? Are we really that stupid that we will hear that song, listen to the words, and think to ourselves how beautiful said character is even though she's faced such tough problems throughout her life? Maybe.

But if it's the fifteenth time we've heard that song this week, it may lessen the impact a little bit. ...So, here's a tip, TV Producers. James Blunt's entire album has already been used on more than 10 different TV shows as background music. Everyone has heard his music on the radio over and over and over again. Every time someone hears James Blunt on your show, now all they can think is how behind the times you really are. So instead of carting out "No Bravery" when your main character runs away from a huge hit and run accident, or throwing down "Out of My Mind" for your new "beautiful actors in a mental facility meets 90210 show "...Think again. Because James Blunt is so played out...it's not even funny.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:35 PM

June 23, 2006

Flit Flit Flit

Oh, the fickle, flitting attention span of the blogosphere. Yesterday it was WMDs. Today, it's about 6 things at once, and everyone's talking about all of them. How do you people get any work done, or pay any attention to the Spain-Saudi Arabia match that we haven't been able to watch?

By the way, things do seem to happen faster in the blogosphere, as Day 3 of Kos/Armstrong-gate brings with it significantly less attention than days 1 and 2. If only Monica Lewinsky could have been a blogger. Yeesh. On second though, scratch that.

TERRORISM I: An Easy Cell

Last night's report that at least seven people are in custody for allegedly plotting to attack targets in Chicago and Miami got the blogosphere fired up. Riehl World View has updates, links to relevant news items and a satellite photograph of the warehouse where the suspects allegedly met. Lawhawk rounds up blogosphere reaction, after critiquing some MSM reporting. So does Hugh Hewitt, Little Green Footballs

Scared Monkeys: "The best defense sometimes is a great offense." And PSoTD thinks the arrests -- and the way law enforcement handled them -- sows positive seeds for the future: "Spreading doubt in a decentralized process just creates more dissuasion in getting involved in that process. Doubt does not stimulate development. This could reduce the number of potential domestic terrorists." Others see the news as a worrying foreshadow. Donklephant: "These suspected terrorists are Americans with seemingly no ties to Al Qaeda. However, it also appears that they are Muslim-wannabe-Al Qaeda? I shudder the thought of that." From the left comes Bark Bark Woof Woof: "These guys don't sound especially swift. Parading around in military-style clothing kind of stands out in Liberty City, which is not what you want to do if you're going to be covert. But then again, a certain terrorist who is six-feet-five and on dialysis has been eluding capture in Afghanistan or Pakistan or wherever for five years, so, who knows." Patterico's Pontifications: "I question the timing. Why would this happen now, just when: evidence is coming to light that WMD (or perhaps former WMD) have been found in Iraq; Karl Rove is not being indicted; a report has found no evidence of a deliberate cover-up at Haditha; and Zarqawi has been killed?" DailyK's va dare: [FBI Dir. Robert] "Mueller will be on Larry King tonight. Is this all just a stunt to build an audience?" Protein Wisdom, tounge firmly in cheek: "So long as FISA warrants were obtained and all the proper paperwork was completed in triplicate. Otherwise, we're no better than those we claim to fight. Except, of course, for the plotting to blow up buildings part. But that's really just incidental." Ninth State agrees with the sentiment: "The FBI has a thankless job and seems to get nothing but grief from many who seek to tie agents' hands in the name of civil liberties. I hope that nothing of that sort enters into this case and allows the seven plotters to get off scott-free. Dometic terrorism hits home, folks. Think twice next time you want to hamstring our intelligence agencies." Confederate Yankee: "I guess that NSA 'domestic spying' program works pretty good, doesn't it?" More tongue in cheek-ness, this from Sundries Shack: "Just MoveOn, folks. Terrorism is no big deal. ... And apparently there were all Islamic radicals, too. Huh. Can't be true. I keep hearing that these Islamic folks are about the 'religion of peace' thing."

Some, particularly on the right, see the incident through the larger lens of Islam's relationship with the West. Liberty and Justice: "This is the latest and future challenge in the war against terrorism: people who have been born and raised in the West, turn against it. ... The main problem for the West, regarding fundamentalist Muslims, is how to 'force' immigrant Muslims and later their children to assimilate to Western culture. Because, if we refuse to demand this of them, more and more homegrown terror cells will emerge." Occidentality header: "The religion of peace goes peacefully." Freedom Watch notes this isn't the first time home-grown terror cells have been rounded up. Debbie Schlussel, meanwhile, thinks life imitates art, and that the Miami arrestees were watching HBO's "Sleeper Cell."

Race creeps around the edges of the story. While it was first reported that most of the suspects were African American, with at least one being of Caribbean descent, several MSM sites removed that fact from their stories. Gates of Vienna takes a look at the MSM timeline. Ace of Spades takes on DailyKos's claim that news networks acted in a racist manner over the story. Daily Pundit, meanwhile, makes some assumptions about those involved.

Gateway Pundit, Terrorism Unveiled, TalkLeft, Security Watchtower, Brainster, Hot Air, Blogs of War, Partisan Times, Sugiero, California Conservative, Prairie Pundit and Captain Ed add thoughts.

TERRORISM II: Take It To The Bank

Once again, New York Times' Lichtblau and Risen scoop the world and report on some Bush admin tactics for tracking terrorists' financial transactions around the world.

The right reacted to the old grey lady's latest with the same outrage that greeted the two reporters' 12/05 piece disclosing NSA wiretap programs. Ankle Biting Pundits header: "New York Times Once Again Does Its Best To Thwart War On Terror." Blue Crab Boulevard: "The New York Times has done it again! severely damaged or outright crippled the ability of the US government to fight terrorism." PoliPundit: "Here we go again!" Michelle Malkin: "Dammit. These people don't know when to stop." Iowa Voice: " Damn it! Will someone PLEASE find the person responsible for these leaks to the press and have them arrested for violating national security???" Stephen Spruiell: "According to the NYT's own reporting, the program is legal. The program is helping us catch terrorists. The administration has briefed the appropriate members of Congress. The program has built-in safeguards to prevent abuse. And yet, with nothing more than a vague appeal to the "public interest" (which apparently is not outweighed in this case by the public's interest in apprehending terrorists), the NYT disregards all that and publishes intimate, classified details about the program." Don Surber: "The Times would rather have Mo Dowd in a burka than allow this president to do the job he was elected to do: Defend the nation and promote the general welfare." Prairie Pundit: "another attempt by the Times to act as al Qaeda's useful idiot, revealing methods and sources and pointing a finger at the people trying to keep al Qaeda from chopping off the head of every employee of the NY Times whether they deserve it or not. I don't think a newspaper that wanted the US to win would be revealing this information." CP: "I'm sure, of course, that their 'sources' requested 'anonymity' because of the 'sensitivity of the information'. That should read -- 'traitors' requested 'protection' because disclosing the information might constitute giving 'aid to the enemy' and because it is 'illegal to disclose classified intelligence sources and methods'." Other irritated righties: Hot Air, Security Watchtower, Hugh Hewitt, Freedom Watch, Protein Wisdom, Squiggler and Cold Fury, who connects the case to the Miami terror cell. Power Line keeps up with responses from other blogo and MSM sources. War and Peace delves deeper into the program. Defense Tech called it.

From the left comes outrage not at the NYT, but at the admin for once again (in many's views) overstepping their bounds. TalkLeft header: "Bush Administration Obtained Bank Data Without Court Subpoenas or Warrants." Brilliant At Breakfast: "Do YOU believe this Administration when they say they are ONLY monitoring bank records of suspected terrorists, especially after we find out that AT&T is running secret surveillance rooms for them? I don't." Bark Bark Woof Woof: "In theory, this is probably a logical and necessary step in ensuring national security, and like wiretapping, no one in their right mind could be against it as long as it is done within the law. Ay, there's the rub. The revelations that the Bush administration has routinely skirted the laws on the books and taken it upon themselves to decide just how the laws they do observe apply -- or don't apply -- to them make this kind of story that used to be the stuff of the nightmares of the TFH brigade who saw silent black helicopters hovering over the World Trade Center, or the militiamen who romp around in their Elmer Fudd hats and cammie-jammies in the northern Idaho woods muttering about the 'Zion Occupation Government' in Washington." Kevin Hayden takes on Malkin (we'll let you read that part): "The public has a clear interest in knowing what law its illegal government is breaking now." Oliver Willis comments on why we don't have a king. Hullabaloo and TPMuckraker chip in too.

BLOGGERS VS. BLOGGERS: Got Your Back ... Or Punch It.

Maybe 6/22's frission of anger dissipated tension. The liberal blogosphere seems to have calmed down just a bit in terms of the volume of posts on Kos/Armstrong (or, if you prefer, Suellentrop/Libelman).

TNR/Plank's Jason Zengerle, who made trouble here, responds to a day's worth of charges against his original post. He quotes from three e-mails to the semi-private Townhouse list that demonstrate "a good amount of concern among liberal bloggers about the Armstrong SEC story and the allegations of "pay for play" against Kos and Armstrong." Some of those bloggers "wanted to address these issues forthrightly. And, yet, after Kos subsequently wrote the e-mail quoted in my original post asking the bloggers to "ignore" the story in order to "starve of it oxygen," there was virtual silence in the liberal blogosphere about it. That, to me at least, suggests that Kos does indeed have a good deal of influence over what other liberal bloggers write." Zengerle then writes that, contrary to the assertion of some, the manager of the Advertising Liberally BlogAds network -- Chris Bowers and an advisory board -- "has absolute control over setting standards for the network and deciding who is in and who is not." Zengerle then addresses the TNR/Lieberman/Centrist/Haters allegations. "Lastly, let me address the issue of Kos's anger. His response to my original posts is basically a long and blustery attack against TNR. His restatement that he is not a consultant still does not answer the serious questions that have been raised about his relationship with Armstrong and whether there is some arrangement by which politicians who hire Armstrong as a consultant then receive Kos's support. And yet, because I continue to ask these questions, Kos contends that "TNR's defection to the Right is now complete." How asking legitimate questions of and about two individuals can be construed as an attack on liberalism as a whole is beyond me. Kos evidently believes that, as The Democratic Daily put it, 'the left c'est moi.'" TNR culture critic/big thinker Lee Siegel uses a lot of words and meta-thoughts (and leaves us a bit confused) but clearly loves the "expose" of Kos. Seigel: "It's a bizarre phenomenon, the blogosphere. It radiates democracy's dream of full participation but practices democracy's nightmare of populist crudity, character-assassination, and emotional stupefaction. It's hard fascism with a Microsoft face." Tapped's Greg Sargent calls it the "the blogospheric equivalent of daytime TV at its worst" and links to colleague Ezra Klein's dissection of the case. Stirling Newberry still hates TNR.

Taylor Marsh says TNR is angry that the liberal blogs are speaking truth to power. "The bottom line on this whole story stems from one thing and one thing only: the progressive blogs have become very powerful, but not because of just Markos, Jane, Christy, John Amato and the rest, but because of you. That's what TNR and others peddling Joe-Nertia don't understand. Alone we can do nothing. It's the MILLIONS of readers who have HAD ENOUGH and have joined the cause that we lead that give us our power." Well, died-in-the-wool DLCer Ed Kilgore writes that Markos "picked an especially bad day to label TNR a self-conscious organ of the Right Wing Conspiracy." After all, TNR "just posted an article by its editor-in-chief, Martin Peretz, endorsing Al Gore for president in 2008. As regular readers of Daily Kos know, Gore has become the runaway favorite for 2008 among Kossacks. Inconvenient but true, eh?"

MyDD's Chris Bowers is feeling koombayaish. "We are all in this new movement together folks. I may be only 32, but I waited my whole life for a real progressive movement to come along in this country. Now we have it, and we are making some real waves. We will win and lose together. I have your backs because you have mine, and because I've seen energy in the netroots that I know will lead to the changes in America we all desire. We can do this. We just have to stay together."

ABRAMOFF: You Win Some, You Get Named In Some

Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) Indian Affairs Cmte released a report 6/22 detailing links between lobbyist Jack Abramoff and several members of Congress, as well as GA LG candidate Ralph Reed. Lefty blogs haven't picked up on this one yet, but some are catching on. AMERICAblog writes Reed was the "poster boy for GOP moral values" and a "kingmaker" who was put in the GOP "pipeline to leadership" starting in GA. "Ralph Reed really is the face of the GOP." Rep. Bob Ney's (R-OH) involvement in the scandal was disputed by the report after he said he was unfamiliar with an Indian tribe represented by Abramoff. TPM Muckracker'sPaul Kiel : "You lie to Senate investigators, it's a felony -- regardless of whether you're under oath or not. Ney might want to ask David Safavian about that -- he was just convicted of doing the very same thing."

CT SEN: Expect The Expected

Fairly predictable reaction to Sen. Joe Lieberman's (D-CT) decision to vote against either Dem troop drawdown proposal in the Senate. Ctblogger asks "What do you want me to say about Joe Lieberman opening the debate for the Republicans against both Democratic proposals on how to proceed in Iraq?" Influence Peddler's Nanman writes that "If Lieberman ultimately runs as an Independent, defeats Lamont, and tries to return to DC as an Independent who supports the Democrats, will he ever be able to go into a local Democratic club again? It sure looks like the Kos/MoveOn crowd intends to make it unbearable for him. They are livid that Lieberman won't rule out an Independent bid, and the level of bile is rising every day. Will Lieberman want to bury the hatchet with that group, when he runs into them on a daily basis in Connecticut?"

Meanwhile, the debate about whether Dems are doing the right (and strong) thing continues. Actually, it's not a debate. It's an assertion-off. Both sides simply assert, assuming that their readers need to no evidence to believe them. Wouldn't it be fun if that prudent part of Matthew Yglesias's brain were injected into the brains of every blogger? Lots of conservatives simply gloated. Dailypundit calls the Dems (and the NYT, for using a Vietnam reference) "losers."

USS Neverdock

says that "Debate and voting, that's what Democracy is about but the Democrats need to stop saying they haven't had a chance to debate or vote on the issue - they've had six bites of the apple. I guess they feel if they keep trying eventually they'll win but by then the troops will already be home. On the left, Jeralyn Merritt names the names of Dems who voted against both Dem proposals. Dick Cheney's interview with John King provoked Cheney-esque sneers from Angry Bear, Shakespreare's Sister and Georgia10 at Daily Kos, who notes that 10 U.S. soldiers died yesterday.

ENVIRONMENT: Why Is This Funny? Because 2 Of 4 Mention 'Inconvenient Truth'

In a report released 6/22, the Nat'l Center for Atmospheric Research concluded that last year's hurricane season was made substantially greater by global warming. Coincidentally yesterday, the Nat'l Research Council released a similar study. Firedoglake kicks off the lefty commenting: "On this day in 1633, Galileo Galilei was forced by the Catholic Church to recant his endorsement of Nicolaus Copernicus' claim that the earth revolves around the sun. He was threatened with torture and sentenced to life in prison, finally ending up with a life sentence of house arrest after promising never to mention his ideas ever again. How far we have come. Today, nobody gets tortured and the people in power embrace science ... just not in America." Judd: The NCAR "factored in the natural variations in temperature -- volcanic activity, solar radiation etc. -- and concluded that these can't explain the warming trend. What does explain it is increased carbon dioxide emissions from human activity." Justin Gardner and Hit and Run also chip in.

WH '08: Not The Blogosphere Splash Edwards Was Hoping For?

Ex-Sen. John Edwards' (D-NC) "Working Society" speech isn't lighting the left-wing blogosphere on fire, but it recieved praise as one of Dems' long-sought "big ideas." Kos wonders whether "focusing on the 'poor' rather than, say, the middle class a political winner? I don't know. But I like ambitious plans and goals. I like a plan to move America forward rather than just treading water (or worse)." More Kos: "I do know that the Change To Win unions (SEIU, UNITE-HERE, Teamsters) are really gearing up to back Edwards with all they've got making Edwards a major player in the 2008 sweepstakes."

Democrats & Liberals is "sure" poverty can be eliminated in 30 yeras with Edwards' plan and whether the ex-senator is the Dem nom or not, Dems "should advertise to the world" that they are for the "Working Society." Righty blog Catallarchy'sSean Lynch : "Someone should give Edwards a dictionary" for the obvious nod to LBJ's "Great Society." "At least it's not a war on something."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Daily Dampening Effect

Under the headline "Jon Stewart, Enemy of Democracy?," the Washington Post's Richard Morinwrites up a study by two pol. scientists who've found that viewers of "The Daily Show" "develop cynical views about politics and politicians that could lead them to just say no to voting." Morin calls that "dismaying." The researchers -- Jody Baumgartner and Jonathan Morris of East Carolina University, showed clips from The Daily Show to one group of high school students and clips from the CBS Evening News with Dan Rather to another.

Morin: "the results showed that the participants rated both candidates more negatively after watching Stewart's program. Participants also expressed less trust in the electoral system and more cynical views of the news media." Huh. Count us cynical. We'd like to test the priming effect on such studies before making pronouncements. And besides, who normally watches "The Daily Show" in a research lab? And are the effects different closer to the election?

LEST WE FORGET: Heaven Forfend, A Non-Fan Of The Blogosphere!

The Blogometer was sitting around a bar last night when one of his less-reputable friends suggested that the blogosphere wasn't all that it's cracked up to be. Reading and enjoying you all so much every day, the Blogometer was forced to respond with a stinging critique of said friend's intelligence, personal hygiene and fashion sense, as well as a hearty and well-thought-out defense of said blogosphere.

The friend, who shall remain nameless, retreated from his earlier position and instead directed the Blogometer to The Best Page In The Universe, which, while not very nice to those of us in the blogosphere, is nonetheless pretty amusing for anyone able to laugh at themselves. Enjoy.

Posted by at 12:55 PM

June 22, 2006

6/22: Nothing To See Here

People buzz about some bloggers selling their influence. People buzz about Dems coming up with new ideas -- tacitly admitting they have none of their own, says the right, or putting themselves in position to win in the long run, says the left. People even buzz about North Korea. But mention WMDs, and people explode.

We felt like commenting more, but we're just going to let this story speak for itself.

IRAQ I: So There.

The year is '03. Everything in the news -- and on the primative blogosphere -- has to do with WMDs. No, wait, it's 2006, the blogosphere is anything but primative, and WMDs remain very much in the news, thanks to a presser held last p.m. featuring Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and House Intel. Cmte chair Peter Hoekstra (R-MI). Fox News has the write-up, and Hugh Hewitt sat down with Santorum later yesterday. Glenn Reynolds has transcripts, links and just about every other publicly available document on this story.

And then the blogosphere exploded. We begin with gloating righties, many of whom trumpeted a similar refrain: We told you so. Small Dead Animals header: "Line forms here to kiss my..." Ninth State, probably intending the pun: "Talk about a bombshell." Assorted Babble header: "WMD in Iraq Documents Prove it."Macsmind: "As we said all along Saddam DID have WMD." Anticipating the claims of the left, he adds: "The report is valid and leaves absolutely NO room for question." Flopping Aces: "What are the lefties going to do? How will they spin this one?" Wizbang: "One day the story of WMD in Iraq will be known, at least partially. For now, the information is coming out in bits and pieces. Bottom line -- those who said there was no WMD in Iraq were wrong." Sundries Shack: "500 shells is not a small number. Any half-trained artillery unit could do a lot of damage on unprotected troops or on any town full of civilians." HyScience, Blogs of War, Prairie Pundit, Austin Bay, PunditGuy, Dean's World, Squiggler and All Things Beautiful add their thoughts.

Confederate Yankee wants to know where the headlines are: "If correct, their claims of found chemical weapons -- mustard gas or sarin, filled or unfilled, degraded or in perfect condition -- would seemingly vindicate the Bush Administration and bury a key canard of leftist opposition to the war, that soldiers and civilians have 'died for a lie.' Likewise, it would be worth it for the media/anti-war/Democratic Party camps to begin questioning the story, on the chance that Santorum and Hoekstra have buried themselves with inaccurate information. Everyone should be talking about this ... so why aren't they?" All Things Conservative: "And Democrats respond: Well, it's only 500 so the war is still illegal. To which I say: Fair enough, but if anyone continues with the 'Bush lied, people died' canard, we now know who is really lying, yes?" Baltimore Reporter: "If you want to see who the liars are, see who ignores this story, as they ignored Saddam's ties to terrorists and Bin Laden's group." Stromata: "I predict, with absolute confidence, that the bien-pensant media will not see in this news justification for any action taken by the Bush Administration." Captain Ed sees legitimate reasons for the timing of the documents' release: "Some will claim that the release is strictly for political purposes. They may have a point, but I doubt it will have anything to do with domestic politics. If Bush wanted to use it for that, he would have done so in October 2004 and not in June 2006. This information changes the picture about our pre-war intelligence in time for the Iranian confrontation -- and I suspect that the White House wants to declassify it in order to convince European leaders that our intel actually paid off." GroupIntel thinks these are just the tip of the iceberg. The Corner and Hot Air link to pertinent documents and transcripts. Classical Values offers, in an odd "druidical afterthough": "Am I the only one remembering that today is the longest day of the year? How come no one is questioning the timing? "

Other righties, though, are a tad skeptical. Decision '08, noting that the admin let Santorum and Hoekstra report the findings, instead of jumping on the news themselves: "These are not the missing WMDs. Clearly, we expected to find stockpiles of usable, deliverable chemical and biological agents and an ongoing program for their manufacture. That we found neither is by far the biggest intelligence embarassment of modern times, and it is not going to be erased by this flimsy attempt." Patterico is "staying calm for now." Belmont Club: In context with North Korea and Iran, "a pile of 500 gas artillery shells though it is everything that 500 gas artillery shells ought to be, may not seem like a hill of beans in this crazy world." USS Neverdock thinks the real stockpiles of post-'91 weapons were sent to Syria. Outside The Beltway also thinks there's more to be found. Chester offers four reasons this information hasn't come out yet. Riehl World View points to some MSM articles from '04 showing that most of the information actually has come out before. Freedom Watch thinks the declassification of the report now, coupled with the Bush admin's failure to get the information out two years ago, when the report was filed, is a huge mistake on the admin's part.

Skepticism, however, persists from the left. The All Spin Zone: "Fauxnews, of course, swallowed this story whole." Anonymous Liberal: "Since 2003? Degraded? These hardly seem like the long lost, mythical WMD. And if they are, why have several independent commissions and the White House itself subsequently acknowledged that there were no WMD?" Professor Bainbridge: "Everybody knows Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds and in his war with Iran. It would be astonishing if we hadn't found some munitions. But there's nothing new here to suggest that Iraq had a WMD program sufficiently threatening to justify the war." Ellec at News Hounds: "What a coincidence." The blogger watched the Hannity & Colmes segment on which both Santorum and Hoekstra appeared, and actually applauds Alan Colmes' performance. Colmes noted that the weapons, classified in the report as pre-1991, probably couldn't have been deployed at all. Ellen reports on the whole segment. Democratic Daily refutes other GOP arguments on the story, and so does Jay Currie. TBogg compares Santorum to Joe McCarthy and thinks 500 shells ain't nothin': "Tell you what: If the neocons can find someone at the CPA to remember where they put that $9 billion they misplaced in 2003, maybe they can figure out how Saddam misplaced 500 artillery shells from pre-1991." Noting that the DoD is calling the report old and out of date, Bark Bark Woof Woof concludes Santorum's looking out for other priorities: "It should be noted that Mr. Santorum is in a desperate battle to retain his Senate seat -- recent polls show him far behind his Democratic oppoent, Robert Casey Jr. -- so next week, I fully expect him to launch an impeachment inquiry into the activities of President Clinton." Daily Kos header: "Santorum Makes S*%# Up." A Blog For All, John Aravosis, Think Progress, State of the Day, The Agonist, The Sideshow and Atrios comment.

IRAQ II: Liability Waiver

The New York Times's Nagourney and Rutenberg, in an article, slavishly praised, not unusually, by 'The Note,' tick-tock the WH's decision to "embrace" the "War" -- globally speaking -- and try to turn into a wedge issue for the midterms. "That emerging Republican approach reflects, at least for now, the success of a White House effort to bring a skittish party behind Mr. Bush on the war after months of political ambivalence in some vocal quarters. As President Bush offered another defense of his Iraq policy during a visit to Vienna on Wednesday, Republicans acknowledged that it was a strategy of necessity, an effort to turn what some party leaders had feared could become the party's greatest liability into an advantage in the midterm elections."

John Aravosis doesn't buy it. "George Bush's lies and incompetence have already killed 2,500 American soldiers. It's hard to spin their deaths as a good thing when they were killed by a president's folly. Second, Bush's incompetence has turned Iraq into an Islamo-fascist state that we now can't do anything about. And finally, George Bush's incompetence has handed us our most humiliating defeat since Vietnam."

Attygood's Will Bunch doesn't like how the Pentagon is dipping a toe into politics. Eric Boehlert finds it "so odd" that "despite the fact poll after poll shows Americans, completely fed up with the Iraq failure, agree with the Democratic initiative to start bringing the troops home, it's Republicans who are being portrayed by clubby Beltway insiders as having the winning hand." Apparently :if Karl Rove signs off on a political strategy (hit the Dems hard over Iraq), the press assumes it's a work of genius and shows little interest in dwelling on the pertinent questions, such as isn't there an obvious risk Republicans run in making the hugely unpopular war in Iraq, and specifically the notion that U.S. troops should pretty much stay there indefinitely, the centerpiece for their 2006 campaign? That angle has received a fraction of the attention the press has showered on whether Democrats will pay the price for Iraq." More from MediaNeedle, MyDD, BrilliantAtBreakfast and the dog.

IRAQ III: Piecing Together Pendelton

Before WMDs popped back up on the radar, some bloggers were concerned with the military's charging eight soldiers with the kidnapping and murder of an innocent Iraqi civilian. The New York Times provides deets. Blogs of War sums up the arguments of many on the right: "It's the rush to judgement and politicization of these events, especially by fellow Americans, that really irks so many of us. I hope that these men are ultimately found to be innocent but most importantly justice must prevail." Mary Katharine Ham: "I'm hoping that all the backtracking on Haditha may have taught the press to chill out just a little bit during this trial and let the evidence come out as it comes out before we start publicly convicting troops." Michelle Malkin links to soldiers' families' websites.

RightyBlue Star Chronicles thinks U.S. troops aren't getting a fair shake: "I notice in the news today a lot about Gitmo and the treatment of terrorists. I notice a lot about how bad the economy is (which is an out and out lie). I notice a lot of interviews with democrats like [H]illary [Clinton] and [J]ohn [K]erry about how we need to get out of the 'quagmire' of Iraq. I notice there are reports about the outrages our troops are doing to the poor terrorists. I see NOTHING about our Soldiers being captured, tortured, having their eyes gouged out, and finally being murdered by decapitation." Lefty Taylor Marsh, offering links with more background on the case, agrees, to an extent: "My assessment is that there is something wrong with the case that just doesn't seem quite right. One thing is certain and that's the fact that our soldiers are getting the shaft from the civilian and military leadership, which started long ago." Amygdala, citing reports that the family of one of the accused thinks he's taking the fall for failure to more quickly investigate unrelated events in Haditha: "I won't say 'the system works'; whether it works depends on outside pressure, and other factors, and it works rather sporadically, shall we say." Rhymes With Right: "It pains me to type those words. Having grown up in a military family, I would like to believe that each and every soldier is a hero in uniform, flawlessly following the rules and orders laid out for them. But having grown up surrounded by sailors and Marines, I know that isn't the case."

KOS/ARMSTRONGATE: On The Icon Of Progressive Politics

Let's get this out of the way: We've not seen or read anything -- and we read it all -- that proves or even strongly suggests that either Markos Moulitsas Zuniga or Jerome Armstrong have entered into a "buy one, get one free" relationship, or that Markos profits financially from his political action (aside from The Daily Kos site itself). Timelines and logical fallacies notwithstanding, the facts suggest that both men are (a) bloggers, (b) fallible, messy human beings like everyone else (c) and who have done nothing wrong. That said -- this is a fascinating story. The sociology of the liberal blogosphere has been laid out for all to gawk at. Simmering tensions between liberal and centrist bloggers are erupting. Conservatives are gloating -- but then blindly making generalizations that ignore their own side's history of shenanigans. The story does raise questions for Markos -- questions that he, as a public figure (an "icon of progressive politics") with an audience, has begun to answer.

So it turns out that there might be a strategy behind the (relative) silence among the upper rungs of the liberal blogosphere about the Kos/Armstrong "controversy." The New Republic'sPlank'er Jason Zengerle obtained a "missive" that Markos sent to "Townhouse," the "private email list comprising elite liberal bloggers, including Jane Hamsher, Matt Stoller, and Christy Hardin Smith. And what was Kos's message to this group that secretly plots strategy in the digital equivalent of a smoke-filled backroom? Stay mum!" More Zengerle: "So far, Kos's friends in the fiercely independent liberal blogosphere seem to have displayed a sheep-like obedience to his dictat. And while it's true that Kos himself hinted at the controversy in this blog post yesterday, he didn't come anywhere close to addressing the questions that really matter. You might even call Kos and company's behavior in this whole affair just another case of politics as usual. So much for crashing the gates." Zengerle updates his post here.

And the floodgates open.Steve Gilliard : "Pretty much everything he wrote is bullshit."

Markos himself: "TNR and its enablers are feeling the heat of their own irrelevance and this is how they fight it -- by undermining the progressive movement. Zengerle has made common cause with the wingnutosphere, using the laughable "kosola" frame they created and emailing his "scoops" to them for links. This is what the once-proud New Republic has evolved into -- just another cog of the Vast RIGHT Wing Conspiracy." More: "But I do admit being surprised by the sheer creativity of their invented attacks, such as my supposed "pay for play" scheme. Let me be crystal clear. I deny that charge completely. I have stated the sources of my income and they do not include money from people asking me to shill for anyone or anything. Problem for these writers, is that the law doesn't protect such defamation. The truth is an absolute defense to libel cases. If they have evidence for those smears, then they have nothing to fear. But if they, say, recklessly invented all manners of illegal or unethical activities by me without bothering to see if they bore any basis in truth, then they'll have plenty to worry about."

No joke: Stirling Newberry blames Joe Lieberman. "This current tirade from the establishment wing of the Democratic Party is not coincidental - Jerome and Markos now have real power, and more over, there is a real schism within the establishment over Joe Lieberman. Well, the Liebermanites have sunk to the challenge. The schism is over whether to back Joe Lieberman should he decide to leave the Democratic Party and run as an independent should he be defeated, or seem likely to be defeated, in the primary against Ned Lamont. This schism comes because while the hierarchy wants to insulate itself from the voters, doing so in such an obvious fasion would be fatal to their support." The Agonist, channelling Walter Lippmann (a TNR founder), defends Markos: "The New Republic, or rather, The Joe Lieberman Weekly, sucks. Why is a liberal publication purposefully trying to destroy an icon of progressive politics, especially when he is legally precluded from commenting on the issue?}." Non-Kos-lover Ezra Klein at Tapped, a member of the Liberal Ad Network, calls TNR's work "gotcha journalism." He writes: "Markos sent an e-mail over a closed list saying he thought the story was worthless and the best way to respond was to deny it oxygen or impact. And so he, and others, did. The e-mail could have been sent to a private CC list of the biggest bloggers, but he instead transmitted it through a semi-private message board with hundreds of members. One of the many hundreds of members forwarded the note to Zengerle, who breathlessly posted it up on the Plank." More: " Zengerle's follow-up post is a series of dark insinuations over the financial leverage Kos holds on the other bloggers. As the causal chain goes, Markos and Jerome founded the Liberal BlogAds Network, and thus have their talons lightly piercing the skin of all of our necks. The idea here is that Kos asked the other bloggers not to write about Jerome's closed SEC scandal, and because he can deny them revenue by expelling them from the list, a thousand keyboards instantly ceased clicking." Klein says it isn't so. "I'm a member of the Liberal BlogAds Network. I've mocked Kos's "Libertarian Democrats" concept, derided his elevator pitches, and generally been surly and disagreeable when it suited me. The idea that Markos can just throw folks off the list is a bit silly, particularly for any of us who remember the endless e-mail thread when Jerome and him tried to create some uniformity in the rules for entry." Max Sawicky check-checks.

Vodkapundit is warming the popcorn. As is Powerline. Riehl continues to track Jerome Armstrong. Captain Ed "can state pretty clearly that, as far as my involvement with conservative bloggers go, we have never sent around e-mails telling each other to not blog about an issue."

Glenn Reynolds, who is inclined to defend Kos (even though Kos says mean things about Instapundit), has a nice set of links. His take: "As for the scandal aspects, well, this seems to me like politics as usual. Perhaps, following Kinsley's Law, that's the real scandal, but -- except to the extent, probably small. that this causes Kos's readers to lose faith in him as something new and special -- I don't see a big scandal in this, though I can't help noting that if something like this were going on on the right, the bloggers of the "Townhouse" list would probably be somewhat less charitable."

Trevino at RedState (which knows a thing or two about "scandal,") concludes that "the internal mythos of online political activism on the left is almost wholly false. The storyline they tout is that they're a group of "regular" people -- chief among them, dim-bulb Hollywood producer Jane Hamsher, natch -- who rose up, seized control of the discourse, freed the people from the imposed narrative, etc., etc. "

Mark at Decision08 wonders if it "Isn't it more than just a little richly ironic that the centrist liberals (if you catch my drift) that Kos has threatened to 'make radioactive' have unveiled the backscratching hypocrisy that might yet do him in?"

Writes Daniel W. Drezner: " What's going on is not illegal, or even out of the ordinary in Washington, DC. It's politics as usual. The only reason the story is noteworthy is because bloggers like Kos have persistently said that they and theirs -- a.k.a., the netroots -- are not about politics as usual. Over time, however, that claim looks less and less viable. The question is whether bloggers like Kos find that their legions of readers are turned off by these kind of revelations, or whether they comfortably adjust into being middleweight power brokers. UPDATE: Commenters seem to be very upset that I'm accusing Moulitsas and Armstrong of corruption. I find this puzzling since I specifically did not do that. All I'm saying is that as Armstrong and Moulitsas rub elbows with powrerful Democrats on a repeated basis, it becomes tougher and tougher for them to play the role of independent outsiders without a stake in the system."

DEMOCRATS: Finally Admitting It -- They Got Nothin'

David Broder's column today focuses on blogs, bloggers and their role in the Dem party, as well as some of the new approaches the party is taking towards policy ideas, including launches of a dead-tree journal and a website run by top party strategists. Noting the success of righty think-tanks, Bull Moose Blog writes: "These publications may also give birth to ideas that help the donkey assume power." But there's more than that, he says: "The most successful Democratic President since FDR has been Bill Clinton. Yes, he was a man of ideas - welfare reform and national service were two notable ones that became law. But, perhaps most importantly, Bill Clinton had the right attitudes. ... Don't get the Moose wrong - he is not denigrating ideas. But, ideas must reflect attitudes that connect with the American people." Needlenose: "In a vacuum, all of these can be seen as worthy endeavors. In the immediate wake of a disappointing electoral defeat -- say, in December 2004 or early 2005 -- I'd be completely in favor of them. But could someone tell these people that we're five months away from a major election, with Republicans at nearly record-breaking levels of disrepute all across the United States?? Now isn't the time to be navel-gazing and feeling sorry for ourselves."

Says ParaPundit: "While Broder seems to hope that the think tanks can get beyond emotion and insults at this point I see little reason for his optomism. His description of the 'nutroots' is pretty accurate." Righty QandO takes the column as a warning, but concludes about Dems' plans: "Certainly not cutting edge stuff and certainly nothing which is going to help the left break out of the idea desert they find themselves lost within." "In theory," writes Ankle Biting Pundits, "their idea isn't a bad one. It's at least an attempt to mirror the methods used by the conservative movement decades ago that has borne so much fruit in recent years." RedState thinks Broder's just beating up on Kos for fun.

NORTH KOREA: Shoot It Down

Two biggies of the Dem defense establishment -- Ashton "Not Kutchar" Carter and ex-Sec/Def William Perry, make the case in a Post op-ed for shooting down North Korea's test-missile if it launches. Conservative bloggers and warbloggers were the first to react. Some betrayed ignorance at the distinction between op-eds, which are meant to provocative, and the opinion of the newspaper. Whether that ignorance was willful or tactical is beyond the scope of this introduction. Provocate, the article certainly did!

Blue Crab Boulevard wonders if this is "an attempt by some Democrats to prove how warlike they are? Could be. Is this a smart move politically or militarily? To quote the estimable authors, 'We think not'. Generally launching missiles at a foreign power with an enormous standing army right next door to one of our allies would be considered, how shall I put this, idiotic? Insane? Dumb as a box of rocks? All of the above, I think." USS Neverdock channels the UN. "Just pre-emptively launch a missile attack, without warning, on a fellow member of the UN and destroy state property? Evidently the Post doesn't think North Korea and China would consider this an act of war. Strange coming from a newspaper that is anti-war, no? What ever happened to the left wing media's demand that all such actions must be santioned by the UN?" (Hey guy -- it's an op-ed... it's not the Post's opinion. Cool down.) Neverdock notes that the authors refer to "failed diplomacy." That would be, he writes, the Clinton admin's failed diplomacy. Mark In Mexico headlines his post: "Washington Post says attack North Korea-- Holy Jeezus!" (Again we say: ey guy -- it's an op-ed... it's not the Post's opinion. Cool down.) Some conservative bloggers like the idea. PrairiePundit: "Their proposal makes some sense and is worthy of serious consideration." Dem Laura Rozenwonders if Carter, with whom she studied, ever ran this idea through diplo channels? Josh Marshall was "genuinely" surprised at the op-ed. "All sorts of people write all sorts of columns. But Bill Perry isn't some nut. Far from it. He was Bill Clinton's second defense secretary. He's a very shrewd, level-headed guy. And he's been deeply involved in the North Korea issue for years. Carter was an assistant secretary of defense under Perry."

IN THE STATES: Bluegrass Blog Blowup

It appears that the admin of KY Gov. Ernie Fletcher (R) has blocked access to several sites -- including a number of Dem and lefty blogs -- from state employees' computers. Bluegrass Report has all the details. Meanwhile, our own Beltway Blogroll offers another perspective on the scandal.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Let's All Keep This In Mind

Jane Hamsher, who is taking care of her seriously ill mother, reminds us all that there are more important things in life that what one blog says about another.

LEST WE FORGET: Take A Trip Down Memory Lane

We'd like to thank one Ms. Emily Bucy for introducing us to this site back when we barely knew what the internet was. Back when we measured site downloads in minutes rather than seconds, Emily had already turned us on to HomeStarRunner's best section ever, StrongBad Emails. Our favorite remains the English paper, and our nom de guerre remains "The Yellow Dart."

CORRECTION

In the 6/21 edition of blogometer, we noted Amygdala called Abu Zubaydah a "low-level fruitcase." In fact, he suggested that the terrorist was a "fruitcake." We apologize for the typo.

Posted by at 12:33 PM

June 21, 2006

6/21: If There Were A World Cup Of Blogs...

We've got another int'l edition for you today. Whether it's a debate over a purported missle defense shield to protect parts of AK from a North Korean missle, an "approval rating" from Iran (bet Pres. Bush would prefer this method of polling) or the latest 20th hijacker -- which some claim is as ubiquitous a title as Al Qaeda number 3 -- we're all over the map.

In, erm, local news, the debate over selling one's services in the blogosphere -- and what exactly comes with that -- continues to embroil two architects of the left. And who knew some GOPers spent so much money on engagement rings? Well, that's because they're buying more than one. And it looks like at least part of the left is already catching on.

NORTH KOREA: Shields Up

A report from the AP that U.S. officials are weighing using a missle defense system to shoot down a missle test-fired by North Korea received the attention of many bloggers last p.m. and this a.m. Alan W. Dowd updates the progress missle defense systems have made during the Bush presidency. Defense Tech, meanwhile, breaks down the technological abilities of both the North Korean missle and the missle shield. From a later post: "Kim Jong-il ain't exactly quaking in his boots, I imagine." == The left is skeptical of the system and the plan. The Talent Show, under the header "The Worst Bluff Ever": "There's a slight problem with that plan. After untold billions of dollars poured into the Star Wars program since the 80's, we still don't have the ability to shoot down a missile." Talking Dog, calling the plan the "latest 'bad idea'": "Their great new idea is 'Bear-bait unstable nuclear-armed regime on doorstep of two most critical allies in East Asia using method almost guaranteed to result in failure and probable national humiliation.'" Think Progress calls the move a stunt, while The Agonist, who lived in South Korea for a time, laments: "It really is sad when life imitates 'Team America: World Police.'" Even righty Blue Crab Boulevard isn't sold on the idea: "If it works, it reveals our capabilities. If it doesn't. it reveals a weakness. I do not see an upside here."

Others, though, see some merit in the concept. The Adventures Of Chester: "There are several very good reasons to go ahead and down any missiles launched by North Korea: it would provide a real test of our incipient missile defense systems; such a shootdown would reinforce the doctrine of nuclear assurance as it applies to Japan, one of our staunchest allies; and tactically, denyng the North Korean military the advantage gained by telemetry and other such data gathered from the flight could play no small role in retarding the advancement of their military capabilities. But the most compelling reason to shoot down any test missiles is simple and scarier: how does one really know it is a test? This is no [d]oubt what the Japanese are wondering. I was there in the 90s when the North tested their last missile, and it was ... not well received." Noting the capabilities of the Taepodong 2 missle, Captain Ed agrees: "Without a doubt, if the rocket fires, the US will have no choice but to respond in some forceful manner -- and if we're lucky, it will only be a successful demonstration of the missile defense system." Transterrestrial Musings, Tammy Bruce, Stop The ACLU and others concur. All Things Conservative, meanwhile, reaches back into history: "If not for Ronald Reagan, and his vision and leadership, we would now be at the mercy of that lunatic in North Korea. Instead, we have a workable missile defense against the threat. Not only are we still working on a space-based system, but the technology now being deployed was developed due to the efforts started by Reagan. We should definitely shoot down the test missile." == Carpetbagger Report responds to the Reagan post and other righties. == Righty Assorted Babble is keeping up with news of the situation as it develops.

NewsHog questions the MSM's wholesale swallowing of the story, leaked, as he points out, by an anonymous source. And from the MSM, Washington Post's William Arkin calls the whole situation "Much ado about nothing," while Jefferson Morley keeps tabs on what the rest of the world's MSM is saying.

IRAQ: New Guy, Hopefully Headed Same Place As Old Guy

Al Qaeda's new leader in Iraq claimed he killed two U.S. soliders, who were reportedly tortured after being captured. Righty blogs roundly criticized the MSM for paying too little attention to this and too much attention to alleged U.S. crimes. Gay Patriot: "Al Qaeda's remaining leaders in Iraq know that by murdering innocent civilians and relying on a compliant Western press, they will make it appear that despite numerous successes, U.S. and Iraqi forces are unable to control the situation ... That's because their strategy is getting headlines and winning this one not on the battlefield, but in the U.S. media." Belmont Club says the absence of a video of the GIs being tortured and killed "can only mean they found it too dangerous to go further, like a predator who must drop his victim because the beaters were right behind them." == Pro-war lefty Dean's World: "What's most appalling is the fact that those who are in the media know this is what's being done to them. But they just can't or won't make themselves do what it takes: refusing to let bombings be front page news, regularly noting the strategy the terrorist use, providing more positive coverage of war efforts, and etc."

Andrew Sullivan didn't express anger at the terrorists, but at torture in general, wondering "whether even Donald Rumsfeld will describe what has been done to two young American soldiers as a 'coercive interrogation technique.' Maybe the news of captured, tortured and murdered Americans will jog their conscience." Or it will make calls for "torture-reciprocity" by the Bush admin. louder. "And so the cycle of depravity and defeat deepens." Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds: "I do think that claims that Al Qaeda is torturing our soldiers because of some policy-manual for Guantanamo are implausible, to say the least."

WAR ON TERROR: Not Too SusKind To Bush. But Then Again, Bush Wasn't Too Kind To Abu Zubaydah.

Blogometer stayed up late last p.m. to read Ron Suskin's new book, "The One Percent Doctrine." It has lots of interesting, insider info about the CIA's success at foiling Al Qaeda, hints about the political motivation behind raising the terror alert levels, insight into how the gov't misjudged Al Qaeda (and almost willfully), extended disquisitions on presidential rhetoric, an unflattering portrayal of Condi Rice, a portrayal of Bush that's the anti-Barnes: His team protected him from the "fact-based" policy-making process. Bush is all instinct. Etc. Etc. And nary a reference to Karl Rove.

The title comes a phrase used by VP Cheney to describe the assumption that counter-terrorist planners in the US government should ACT even if there's only a one percent chance that the information they have is complete or correct. That the US hasn't been attacked domestically since 9/11 does not impress Suskind.

Amygdala's interest was piqued by Suskind's contention that Abu Zubaydah was a "low-level fruitcase" (the blogger's words) but nonetheless served a political talisman for Cheney. ThinkProgress headlines "Torture Of Mentally Ill Prisoner Led Administration To Pursue False Leads." More from Josh Marshall,Brad DeLong and Eric Umansky. The conservative Riehl World View finds contradictions in how unnamed sources looked at A.Z., and concludes: "Suskind and others may have been able to get away with a book like this before the new media. I predict there's going to be enough information which didn't originate with the Bush administration to make Suskind's book look more like swiss cheese, than red meat for the CIA and the Left, both so obviously intent on hurting the Bush administration."

Also in GWOT news, via the AP, Al Qaeda recently released footage of the man they claim was supposed to be the 20th hijacker on 9/11/01. The man was killed in an '04 fire fight with Saudi police. Lefties took the opportunity to jump on the admin for failures they see in the global war on terror. Brilliant At Breakfast: "Remember when Zacarias Moussaoui was "the 20th hijacker"? How many 20th hijackers have there been? I'd say it's about as many as there were Columbian druglords "responsible for 80% of the cocaine coming into this country" during the Reagan years: as many as was necessary to keep people afraid and keep them willing to sacrifice their civil liberties." John Aravosis is skeptical of the tape's timing: "Why is it that this video of the 20th 9/11 hijacker has suddenly appeared now? And wait a minute, I thought we were told that Moussaoui was the 20th and we found justice. Don't tell me that he was just another nutcase like Abu Zubaydah who was propped up to give the appearance of a big success in the so-called war on terror." == Righty Outside The Beltway links to the video and refutes Aravosis.

IRAN: Bet Bush Wishes This Were The Way The U.S. Were Polled

The UK's Guardian cites a political scientist at Tehran Univ. who claims that Iranian Pres. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad currently boasts 70% approval ratings. Rantings of a Sandmonkey points out that the prof. just pulled the number from thin air. Then again, he doesn't doubt its accuracy: Ahmadinejad's popularity "has nothing to do with the nuclear issue at all. It's about his payouts. The dude, the moment he got in power, doubled all the salaries of the government employees. The reason why he could afford that? Well, the Iranian nuclear crisis -- which he started -- is causing the oil prices to go up, providing him with the cash necessary to cover those costs. It's the same technique that [Venezualen Pres. Hugo] Chavez is using: By creating a crisis, he destabalizes the oil prices and brings them up, thus increasing his cash inflows." The Big Pharaoh goes through reasons for Ahmadinejad's popularity, and has some ideas about what would bring him down. The Corner's Andrew Stuttaford: "Ahmadinejad may be a religious nutter, but he understands that nationalism (at its essence something that that is tribal, not ideological) trumps theocracy as something to unify a people any day, and that's the game he's playing, and he's playing it well." == Captain Ed thinks Ahmadinejad's latest delay (he said his country would need until 8/22 to review the latest US/EU diplomatic offer) is just that -- stalling for time. A Blog For All agrees: Why the delay? "Is it to provide yet more time for the Iranian scientists to perfect their enrichment technologies to begin producing sufficient weapons grade uranium for nuclear weapons?"

WH '08: Kerry's Kool-Aid

John Kerry, who is driving the Dems' Iraq agenda these days, has relaxed, in his resolution, the targeted withdrawal date for troops.

Bark Bark Woof Woof confusingly refers to a media obsession with an "alleged internal debate" among Dems while ignorning the GOP's intention to "march in lockstep over the cliff with the administration." Their mantra is, "It really doesn't matter if we've royally screwed up everything we've touched; the important thing is that we did it together, as one united party, all drinking the Kool-Aid out of the same cup. Wouldn't you really rather have us in charge so we can keep on doing it?" He also doesn't like Kate Zernike's use of the adjective "some" (without defining who those "some" are) to describe Dems who complain about Kerry. Conservative McQ at QandO calls Kerry a "running joke" who, "if he continues to push [the date] back" will "eventually be right." Other comments on Kerry's iconoclasm from BlueCrabBoulevard, Greg

Liberals are waking up to the fact that the two GOP frontrunners -- ex-NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) -- have complex marital histories. Sen. George Allen's on his second marriage, too, but you wouldn't know that from the coverage. Anyway -- they're reacting to a Washington Monthly article written by Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen. Benen summarizes: "Here's the gist: for the first time, three admitted adulterers -- Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Newt Gingrich -- are planning to seek the Republican presidential nomination. Whereas infidelity was considered a dealbreaker in GOP circles just a few years ago, now the party that presents itself as the arbiter of virtue may field an unprecedented two-timing trifecta. It's an unusual development that, as far as I can tell, has gone unnoticed by the media. At the same time, however, the Clintons' marriage remains literally front-page news." Digby suggests "The CW seems to be that Clinton rules only apply to Democrats. Republicans are allowed to hypocrites because, well... just because." And the only politician who meets the forgiveness criteria set out by James Dobson in the article is... Bill Clinton. Other liberals engage in predictable "Jesus Freaks Are Hypocrites" bandinage, like AlterX. More soberly, the "gut" of OTB's James Joyner "tells me that the McCain and Giuliani affairs won't much matter and that Gingrich's will probably keep him from running. Neither McCain nor Giuliani present themselves as standard bearers of the social conservative movement and both have the "hero thing" to bolster their moral standing." Finally Ron Chusid notes Benen's...er...suggestion(?) that liberal bloggers keep talking about this. == What say you, conservatives? We'll treat your answers respectfully, of course. But the questions deserve your attention, too.

IMMIGRATION: Is This Even A Surprise?

AP's Espo reports that a House-Sen. compromise on immigration is unlikely to move forward this year, according to Cong. GOP leaders. == Most righties applaud the House for refusing to take up the Senate side of the bill. Captain Ed: "It looks like the GOP wants to win its base back rather than attempt broad-based legislation. In this case, that may well prove successful. The midterms have more risk for the House than anywhere else, and the Democrats have aimed their main efforts at capturing the lower chamber. This may be an acknowledgement of too much risk in November and offering a tough stance on immigration in order to drive conservatives back to the polls." John Hinderaker: Killing the bill is "both good policy and good politics. As we've said before, no bill is much better than a bad bill." Blue Crab Boulevard: "The House is suddenly developing a spine." Randall Parker: "A defeat for Bush on immigration would be a great victory for the American people." == Others on the right see the latest setback as deadly for the GOP come 11/06. Norbizness: "Remind me again what any incumbent Congressperson from the GOP is going to run on in the upcoming election?" More, on immigration: "Oh well, so much for riding that pony."

From the left, skepticism about the GOP's true intentions continues. Greg Saunders: "Immigration reform is dead for the time being because the Republicans in the House refuse to consider a bill that provides a path to citzenship for illegal immigrants (or even the President's back of the bus "guest worker program"). Then again, my description of the House Republicans' stance on the issue is a little misleading, since it implies that they actually give a shit about the issue. If they cared at all, they would have done something about it over the past five years." == The Moderate Voice's Jeremy Dibbell thinks it's time to get the job done.

BLOGGERS VS. BLOGGERS: Koola Sounds Like A Drink At The Riviera's Bar

Will the MSM ever pick up on this story? Will this story ever move beyond guilt-by-association accusations? Over to you, Adam Nagourney. Jim Geraghtyhas a timeline of "Kos-Armstrong," as he puts it. He writes: "When you hire Armstrong for consulting, do you get something besides good advice? Is Zephyr Teachout's mentality correct, that while it's 'consulting' on paper and in the records, what campaigns really want is good buzz from Markos and the support (financial, volunteering) of Kos readers?" Crank at Redstate piles on. Allah: "It sure looks like candidates are paying him to pull the string on Kos's back -- although why they'd want buzz from a guy who's as adept at picking political winners as his partner is at picking IPOs, I have no idea." Sensible caution from OTB's James Joyner: "As to the Kos-Armstrong payola charge, we'll need a lot more evidence before getting too carried away." Also: "The real question is the nature of the relationship between Armstrong's clients and the DailyKos blog. That Corzine was given a DailyKos diary is hardly evidence of anything sinister; there are thousands of diarists, few of whom are multi-millionaires. The seemingly odd touting by Kos at every opportunity of Mark Warner is really the only red flag but there could be a non-financial explanation. Regardless, the Kos angle is the one that bears watching." Piling on from RightVoices, an Ohio-obsessed Mickey Kaus, wondering about the Hackett switcharoo from the Commissar,Kaus on TV, news about Armstrong's accepting SEIU money from Riehl and childish gay baiting (they're not gay, btw) from Michael Rogers. == THe final word from Markos: "I haven't consulted since 2004. I don't plan on consulting in the future. I don't want to consult. Why would I consult when I have the sweetest gig in the world? I mean, I get paid to blog and write! Why would I mess with that formula? My only sources of revenue are this site (advertising and subscriptions), some freelance writings in places like the American Prospect, and CTG (eventually. It takes publishers ages to send out royalty checks). At some point in the future, SportsBlogs will be a source of revenue, but it's nowhere near that point yet. No politician, campaign, issue group, nor any other organization has directly or indirectly paid me for anything." (Check out the comments.) Glenn Reynolds sticks up for Kos.

Just Asking: If Kos is so beholden to Armstrong, why would he support James Webb? Webb wasn't the candidate of choice in Mark Warner's world.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: As Al Would Say, "Uh... No Peg."

We love Mystery Pollster. Turns out that, natch, "U.S. military officers are more Republican and conservative than the general population and their conservatism extends to social and domestic policy. The best known studies largely pertain to elite military officers. A more recent effort indicates that the larger pool of regular enlisted personnel may not be quite so Republican or conservative." So Peggy Noonan must tred in rarified circles.

LEST WE FORGET: Fat Jokes

What's with this sudden profusion of Karl Rove fat jokes? First there was Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA), and then there was a bizarre cartoon that the Democrats' communication shop sent around yesterday. Since when is it ok to criticize political actors based on their appearance?

And is Karl Rove really that fat? Can he not burn off those Darby-fed calories? Fat implies, you know, largeness of frame. Karl's frame is small. He's not big-boned. What he is is jowly. Pudgy and jowly. And a little beyond balding. The jowlicular curves of his face bear a striking resemblance to the jowl-frame of Jesse Helms. His facial features are bunched up close to the center; the jowls form apron-y cushions around the perimeter. (BTW: our favorite jowls: a tie between world-is-ending Pastor John Hagee -- when he tells us about the Rapture and swings his arms, his face responds as if were a different person -- or... goodness gracious, this guy.)

Anyway, the point is, Karl Rove isn't fat. No more than John Murtha is fat. Murtha is more squat, actually. So let's hope these jokes jump the shark. Before, that is, they fall on it and crush it to death. Dead Sharky.

Posted by at 12:53 PM

June 20, 2006

6/20: Trying Something New

We neglected to put up yesterday's Blogometer, thanks to an oversight and a very happy announcement from our usual blogometer author (which can be found in yesterday's "Lest We Forget" section). If you haven't gotten the chance to read yesterday's edition, click here. If you have, we return you to our regularly scheduled Blogometer.

Bloggers like to explain their views. They do so in lusty-throated shouts and yells. And they wholeheartedly love proving others wrong, be it the MSM -- a member of which is again taken to task today for being a WH lackey -- the, erm, "alternative" media -- part of which has apparently gotten ahold of some incredible new hallucinogen -- or even the U.S. head of the Episcopal Church.

Some, though, can go overboard. An otherwise good day was made melancholy by news this a.m. that two kidnapped soldiers in Iraq had been found dead, and, according to preliminary reports, their bodies had been treated in horrible ways. One of the soldiers' family members mentioned to CNN that he thought the U.S. should pay the kidnap ransom with money taken from Saddam Hussein's treasury. One blogger decided that today was the day to call that family member out for having "no shame." We might suggest that person look in the mirror.

Almost everyone in the 'sphere has gone overboard at one point or another. We wish someone would have the guts to say they were wrong and apologize. Today might be a good day to start.

PLAME/ROVE: The Truth Is Out There ... We Think

First, highlights from Truthout editor Marc Ash's latest non mea culpa mea culpa. Ash says the sources for the story "are career federal law enforcement and federal government officials speaking on condition of anonymity." And "for the record," a Fitzgerald spokesperson declined their requests for comments. Alas, "The Rove indictment story is way beyond -- in terms of complexity -- any other story we have ever covered. In essence, we found out something we were not supposed to find out, and things exploded from there. We were not prepared for the backlash." Ash admits to "frank discussions" about whether to retract the stories outright. But because their "sources continue to maintain" that an indictment has, in fact, been sent down, "we felt that it was premature to retract our report." The big question: "If our sources maintain that a grand jury has returned an indictment -- and we have pointed to a criminal case number that we are told corresponds to it -- then how is it possible that Patrick Fitzgerald is reported to have said that 'he does not anticipate seeking charges against Rove at this time?'" Well, Ash doesn't answer that question. "Fitzgerald appears to have used the indictment, and more importantly, the fear that it would go public, to extract information about the Plame outing case from Rove."

The first comment on Truthout's post: "I just want some of the stuff you are smoking!"

Bill at Punditguy is ebulliant. "Brilliant! Bravo! ENCORE!! ENCORE!! I can't wait for the next episode." Blue Crab Boulevard notes that the essay's message suggestions "the more it's disproved, the more right they are." To be sure, as Brainster notes, Ash is sticking up for his reporter. Donkey Cons, apparently believing that Leopold's sources exist, blames reporters for being too darn willing to use anonymous sources." Somewhat incredibly, Political Animal's Kevin Drum has no discernable opinion about the validity of Truthout's claims. He straightens his tie and proceeds to write: "Is this true? I don't have a clue, but I figure I should pass along the latest scuttlebutt regardless." Commissar at the Politburo Diktat considers Drum gullible. "Hey, Kevin, I saw a purple unicorn in my backyard last night. Pass that scuttlebutt along, okay?" TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt tries to summarize what she calls the key details of Ash's argument: "Are Truthout's sources saying the alleged last minute high-value concessions Luskin provided to Fitzgerald included cooperation against Cheney?" Coda: Is this Mr. Leopold's next story?Stephen Spruiell naturally wonders if "they've been using a Karl Rove robot for his public appearances. Take that, Murtha. You've been arguing with a robot."

IRAQ: Captured Marines Found Dead

Stories broke this a.m. that two U.S. soldiers captured by an Al Qaeda-linked group have been found dead. While the military refused to confirm or deny the reports, U.S. and Iraqi sources told the media that the two had been killed "in a barbaric way." Here's the AP story. Every blogger is sympathetic to the families' plights, and many are following the news as it breaks, including Gateway Pundit, Blogs of War, Sister Toldjah, Riehl World View (twice), Confederate Yankee, Occidentality and others. QandO blames the soldiers' commanding officer and has been following the story closely: "This is a sad end, a result of a basic tactical error by the leader of the group to which these soldiers belonged." RedState offers condolences as well. HyScience thinks treatment of the soldiers' bodies justifies U.S. actions in Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and other secret prisons around the world.

Captain Ed, noting that a family member of one of the victims suggested paying ransom money with that captured from Saddam: "I doubt that the soldiers even survived long enough for any negotiations to take place; they have been missing only a little under four days. In that time, the military received 66 intel tips, 18 of which were actionable, and they didn't have time to exploit them before the bodies were found." John Hinderaker decides to take after that family member.

The left, instead of attacking someone who's just lost a family member, uses the news as an opportunity to reiterate their oft-repeated points that the war isn't proceeding in the direction the Bush admin had anticipated. Taylor Marsh: "There used to be a time when we wept for those returning in body bags, only because of the loss of life. Now we cry out in anger over the misspent service of men and women who have been put into a far off country and left in limbo because our leaders don't know what they're doing. 'Stay the course' is not a plan. It's a death sentence, plain and simple." Duck of Minerva rants, while No More Mister Nice Blog writes: "This is the reality of Iraq right now, not Bush sneaking into Iraq and prancing around as if he owns the place."

WH '08: CNN Poll Spooks The Herd

A new CNN poll, available in our Poll Update section, shows 47% of Americans would definitely vote against Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), while 30% said the same of ex-NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) and 34% about Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). HRC doesn't get the worst marks, though. That honor goes to FL Gov. Jeb Bush (R), who would get 63% voting against him. Middle Earth Journal takes a whack at analysis: Noting every candidates' high negatives, "America seems to be sick of politicians at this point and nobody is able to generate any sort of wide ranging 'Oh my God, Yes! They should be President!' type approval." However, "keep an eye on Rudy and watch his moves. He could be the only silver bullet the Republicans have left in the gun given their current lack of popularity. And the Democrats should be watching him like a hawk." Scared Monkeys sees things from a decidedly GOP point of view and concludes: "You mean to tell me that GWB's all time low approval rating of 31% is higher than Hillary Clinton's positive percentage of 22% as to who would vote for her in 2008?" PoliBlog offers a similar take, while AJStrata and Outside The Beltway go for the HRC-only angle. Righty John Podhoretz throws some water on those excited GOPers.

Captain Ed thinks the poll is harmless fun, though "is notable for who has apparently been left out: Mark Warner and Barack Obama for the Democrats (as well as John Edwards, who has slipped through all the cracks), and Mitt Romney, George Allen, and Condi Rice for the GOP, the latter just for the fun of seeing how those numbers would look."

Near press time, The Moderate Voice offered his analysis. While he generally dismisses the poll, he finds a nugget of truth within: "It's generally more of a task to have people unlearn perceptions than learn them."

ELECTION '06: Working The Refs

Weekly Standard's Continetti writes, in the LA Times, that House Min Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) can learn a thing or two from ex-Speaker Newt Gingrich's quest to take back the House in '94. Continetti starts the piece with the claim that few pundits disagree that Dems will, in fact, take back the House. A reading of the blogosphere finds many who disagree, particularly from the left. Ezra Klein kicks it off: "There's a damn good reason rightwing pundits are trying to entrench these expectations: tangible fear of Democratic ascendance will turn out the dispirited conservative base, while high expectations will make anything but a 20-seat win further proof that Democrats are out-of-touch and electorally incapable." Kevin Drum agrees: "Where do people get this stuff? I'm hard pressed to think of even a single pundit who has confidently predicted that Democrats will win the House this November -- as opposed to merely warning that it might happen. Am I missing something?" From the right, The American Scene disagrees with Klein's assertions that Continetti is shilling for his team: "I know there are pundits out there who are effectively political operatives, spinning things for their sources or for their party, and there are probably more of these types on the Right than on the Left, in part because there's more of a 'team' attitude on the Right in general (which is what you'd expect in a movement that spent so long in the wilderness). But the idea that Matt, who is 1) more of a reporter than a wannabe pundit anyway, and 2) just wrote a book that absolutely savagedGrover Norquist , Tom DeLay, et. al., is sitting around his DC apartment plotting out ways to inject expectations-lowering GOP talking points into the nation's political bloodstream is just plain ludicrous."

CT SEN: When Is A Non-Withdrawal A Withdrawal?

So: "Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman said today that he will not withdraw from the Aug. 8 Democratic primary , but he left open the possibility of running in November as a petitioning candidate if he loses the primary." Even to outsiders, that reads: if Dems ain't good enough, I'm skedaddling. The other big news: the endorsement of Ned Lamont by well-connected for CT Dem chair George Jepsen. Here's what Jepsen told the Hotline: "I like and respect Joe Lieberman for his intelligence, wit, and sincerity. But I do not share his values and views on a wide range of issues -- his embrace of the so called "culture of life" in riding rough-shod over Terri Schiavo's personal rights, DOMA, school vouchers, medical care for rape victims, federal permitting of a natural gas facility in LI sound, and many more. Above all, I think the war in Iraq will go down in history as one of the great foreign policy blunders since WWII that will undermine, not enhance, America's long-term security. Connecticut needs a senator who will take on, not enable, George Bush on the war and other issues. Ned Lamont will be that senator. I've known Ned for a quarter century. He is intelligent, accomplished, and incredibly modest. He is driven not by ambition, but by the desire to do the right thing."

Jane Hamsher says Lieberman is cutting and running. RaisingKaine notes his bad press weekend. But Lieberman fan Allah (who actually uses "Joementum") lays out this scenario: "[If] he's going to play chicken with Lamont in the primary, he needs to raise the stakes and promise that he won't start collecting signatures until the primary's over. Wouldn't it be awesome on August 9th to watch the army of Joementum canvassers see if they can beat the clock? You know the nutroots retards would send out teams of anti-canvassers to harass them, too. Imagine someone opening their door in Danbury to find two kids with a clipboard in Lieberman t-shirts and two idiots behind them in black bloc gear trying to shout them down with blood-for-oil slogans. Please, god, make it happen." Blogger ThirdParty at "Lamont Blogspot" notices Lieberman decrying bipartisanship and calling his own strategy "risky." Says ThirdParty: "Brave, courageous Joe, sticking his neck out for the good name of 'bipartisanship' (i.e. 'agreeing 100% with Bush') at such dire political risk to himself. Actually, he's at zero political risk, considering he's pretty much said he will run as an Independent if he loses the Democratic nomination, and given that his base of support in Connecticut is overwhelmingly Republican, conservative, and pro-life. These are exactly the kind of voters he intends to court with statements like the above -- voters who cannot vote for Joe in August. It is clear he wants no part of a Democratic primary."

IMMIGRATION: A Crazy Game Of Poker

George Will's 6/18 column on the politics of immigration generated some attention from the right, in the form of a renewed debate over party purity. Ryan Sager sees the issue as a rising problem for the GOP in certain areas of the country: "The Southwest and the greater interior West constitute a swing region that the GOP needs to start worrying about. Anti-immigrant sentiment in America is strongest in the South, and the issue can be used strategically in races throughout the country. But it's very dangerous to the GOP in the West." Dinocrat.com thinks the argument ought to go elsewhere: "We've argued the point of view previously that the illegal immigration issue should be scored dynamically, not statically. There are perhaps significant numbers of votes to be gained from Democrats by taking a 'border control first' position. Maybe that is an incorrect assumption; maybe it is not. But why do we never hear this argument mentioned by pundits who frame the issue as short-term GOP gain versus long-term GOP loss?" Power Line agrees with the assertion that the party ought to stick to what it knows best: "What about the long-term tension between remaining a conservative party and trying to outbid Democrats for votes from a burgeoning Hispanic underclass? Given that tension, it may be a bit simplistic (from a conservative perspective) to think of the choice this year as 'short-term gain vs. long-term pain.'"

RELIGION: Episcopal Bishop Loves The Controversy

Newly minted U.S. Episcopal Church leader Katharine Jefferts Schori invited some bloggers' attention when she stated that homosexuality is no sin. Some conservative righties lashed out quickly. Say Anything: "This is a prime example of what is wrong with the moral relativism of today's American culture. Activities that are wrong, and ought to be treated as being wrong, are accepted because we are afraid to judge. ... I say shame on Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori for pushing the idea that behaviors are not to be judged; Shame on her for leading her church down the undeniable path of moral relativism." Vox Populi sees the matter as a logical result of female leadership of the Church. More moderate (though still righty) Southern Appeal takes issue with Schori's labeling homosexuality as a gift: "Usually, it seems that when Christians (esp. Church leaders) speak of gifts, they are generally referring to Paul's idea of gifts found in Romans 12:6-8, I Corinthians 12:8-10, etc. Seems like labeling homosexuality as a gift in this sense would be a stretch even for Schori." Outside The Beltway has "no theological dog in this fight" but analyzes the Bishop's thoughts -- and the pecking order of the Biblical sin chain -- nonetheless. From the left, few seem to be commenting on the matter, though Captialist Pig vs. Socialist Swine offers this nugget: "I don't find it strange that there are Christian folks out there who are all spazzy about the fact that there's a major American religious figure who's gay friendly (I've come to expect the religious right to be completely ridiculous). I do find it strange that there aren't any major Christian groups who are spazzy about people who work on Saturdays." Pressing The Flesh: "How refreshing it is to hear someone speak about Chrstianity in an open and inclusive manner." PoliBlog thinks it's all about timing: "Letting the whole 'woman in charge of the denomination' thing sink it first might've been a good idea before jumping into the next controversy."

PEOPLE: RFK Interview Leaves Everyone Pretty Skeptical

PRWeek sat down with Robert Kennedy Jr. to talk about this month's article he'd written for Rolling Stone, in which he suggests he may pursue litigation over purported irregularities in the '04 election, particularly in OH. The Democratic Daily: "If Kennedy can provide actual evidence that laws were broken then his Rolling Stone article will be seen as simply an opening statement to the public before actually presenting the real evidence. It will be interesting to watch and see both who he targets and the nature of the evidence provided." BlondeSense pulls out another positive nugget: "If nothing else, maybe this will rid politics of Ken Blackwell." From the right comes USS Neverdock: "Not only is Kennedy in a hole and still digging, PR Week has jumped in with a shovel to help. All of which helps explain why major media didn't cover this non story." The American Mind: "Waste your time and money. Be my guest."

BLOGGERS VS. THE MSM: Liberals Know What To Get Joe Klein For His Birthday

Another week, another chance to beat up Joe Klein. (We ain't gonna mention his sub rosa homoerotic fixation with the president's body language, either.) Klein writes that a "frothy" and "jaunty" Bush knows that (a) elections are choices, not referenda, that "cut and run" strategies make the Dmes look week; and that Dems should give the Iraq government "one last chance" to succeed.

Speaking of homoerotic, Digby uses the column to call Klein the codpiece sniffer-in-chief. "That's right. Bush is stuck in the mid-30s, his brain narrowly escaped indictment and he had to mount the most top secret trip since Kissinger went to China (someone left the cakewalk in the rain) yet Klein is drooling and panting over the president's pants again, getting all hot and bothered when the frat-boy in chief calls the Iraq defense Minister an "interesting cat" and al-Zarqawi a 'dangerous dude.'" The Heretik sums up why lefty bloggers hate Klein: "So to have any chance of winning the midterm elections, the Democrats have to offer nothing different than Bush offers on Iraq, a winning strategy which has lost them the last few elections." FallBackBelmont says the Dems do have a plan (or the Center for American Progress has one) but doesn't wonder why Dems dont' seem to be uniting around it. Conservative Greg has a smart thought on the Klein column: "This ought to be an excerpt that my friends to my left ponder and reflect on a good deal if they're to have some serious hope for a positive outcome in November. I mean, think about it ... the nation has a majority favoring withdrawal for a war they see as a mistake (polling data will support this), yet there's a huge sense of apprehension about what they see as an overeagerness to withdraw on the part of some/most Democrats (my own conjecture here, of course)." Crooks and Liars notes that non-lib John Cole can't figure Klein out. And "Klein wonders why the liberal blogosphere isn't too kind to him. Even the right wing thinks he's out of his mind." Lefty Taylor Marsh senses a change 'o tune for HRC, who was booed last week at the Campaign for America's Future Conference: "The truth is that Hillary Clinton got spanked last week and now she's changed her tune. Period. There's just no other way to read it. Let's face it, she had no other choice. When you're booed by your own, and we're not talking the blogosphere insurgent class, you've simply got to move your position, especially if you've got presidential ambitions, which after seeing her, I'm now convinced she has."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Who Does He Play?

From the "they can be bought" file, check out Talking Points Memo today. It appears -- and we really had to dig to find this -- that "Syriana" is coming out today. And it appears that Josh Marshall is either very, very excited for this development, or that he's been paid to pump the film.

Banner ads are fine. Sidebar ads are fine. But take a look at the picture Josh uses today. Nice to see someone can make a living off this stuff.

LEST WE FORGET: The Greatest Joke In The World

No, it's not anything about a man walking into a talent agency. It's the oldest one in the book, and for those of us in love with bad jokes, it's filled with opportunity. Why, indeed, did the chicken cross the road? The myriad possible answers sends our hearts atwitter. One may answer politically, as Pres. Bush is said to have: "We don't really care why the chicken crossed the road. We just want to know if the chicken is on our side of the road or not. The chicken is either with us or it is against us. There is no middle ground here." Al Gore also went political: "I invented the chicken. I invented the road. Therefore, the chicken crossing the road represented the application of these two different functions of government in a new, reinvented way designed to bring greater services to the American people."

Answering the question, one might choose a more literary track (Ernest Hemingway: "To die. In the rain. Alone.") or along an artistic bent (Salvador Dali: "The Fish."). Like sports more? How about Howard Cosell: "It may very well have been one of the most astonishing events to grace the annals of history. An historic, unprecedented avian biped with the temerity to attempt such an herculean achievement formerly relegated to homosapien pedestrians is truly a remarkable occurrence." A KFC fan? Colonel Sanders answers thusly: "I missed one?"

But nothing beats the inside joke within the joke, and that's why our favorite answer comes from the late, great Douglas Adams: "Forty-two."

All these and more (many, many more) are available here. We're sorry we couldn't come up with something better, but we do love chicken jokes.

Posted by at 01:06 PM

6/19: A Foreign Affair

Sorry, no one bothered to tell us about the new publishing platform, and our usual writer was out yesterday (to see why, scroll to the end of this post). So, here's our make-up to you.

Iraq is back on top of the agenda today, as two weekend controversies provided juicy fodder for fierce partisans on both sides, and North Korea's apparent preparations for missle tests causes some on the left to wonder what happened to priorities regarding the axis of evil.

But all is not foreign. Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) gets the blogger treatment today, while CT SEN and one candidate's ad -- featuring an apparently abused bear and some less-than-perfect voiceovers -- continues to be hot topics.

IRAQ I: Murtha, All About The MTP Facetime

Rep. John Murtha's (D-PA) appearance on 6/18's "Meet The Press" generated the usual applause from the left and scorn from the right. Some samples:

The left was generally impressed with the appearance, hailing Murtha as the master of rebuting GOP talking points. Huffington Post's Rachel Sklar: "This was as effective a performance on Meet The Press as I've seen, and demonstrated not only that Murtha is right but that he's good. He knew exactly what he was doing, and he did it expertly. Right off the bat he took the offensive, hammering away at Republican talking points and emphasizing and re-emphasizing his own." People's Republic of Seabrook, a solid Dem, calls Murtha "My New Hero #39." Gateway Pundit: "By not confronting this blowhard, the media is being totally irresponsible and unfair to the American people! Sick!" Riehl World View: "Can't we just put him in the senile column with [Sen. Robert] Byrd (D-WV) and be done with him?" Black Five (and here) offers a military perspective on Murtha. One header: "Murtha Jumps the Shark." while Blue Crab Boulevard, Expose The Left, RedState and others offer more commentary. Plenty of righty bloggers, including Gateway and Outside The Beltway, take host Tim Russert to task for not calling Murtha out. Ann Althouse, among others, questions the pot's calling the kettle, in this case, fat, over Murtha's comments on Dep WH CoS Karl Rove's large bottom. TBogg thinks Murtha's comment cost Dems the "fat-ass-American" vote: "War is hell. Pie is yummy." Stop The ACLU offers an interesting response that looks destined to make the left fight back: "As a former Army paratrooper and Somalia veteran, I would like to remind Congressman Murtha one one basic truth he may have blissfully overlooked: his star may be bronze, but silence is golden."

Murtha's calls to re-deploy U.S. troops to Okinawa generated most of the commentary from the right. Say Anything, responding to Murtha's calls for U.S. troops to be re-deployed to Okinawa: "Murtha would like us to redeploy our troops from Iraq to Okinawa. See, his plan is that we'll "withdraw to a safe distance" with our forces ready to "swoop back in" should Iraqis need us. That way we're not really cutting and running from Iraq, just 'getting the troops out of harm's way.'" Protein Wisdom: "Okinawa? Okinawa? That's, like, in Japan, isn't it? Which makes me wonder if, in speaking of quick strike troops redeployed outside of Iraq, Murtha isn't overhyping to ability of the military just a bit. Or perhaps it's just the laws of physics he's overhyping. And he's doing so, ironically, because the military is in his estimation unable to fight well enough when they are able to confront the enemy directly." Cold Fury, The Sundries Shack, Patterico and Anti-Idolitarian Rottweiler offer their takes on the Okinawa proposal. JustOneMinute summarizes Murtha's position in song:

Ooookinawa!
Where the planes come whistling from the sky
With our redeployed men we can leave right then
And it's just six thousand miles to fly!

Ooookinawa!
Ev'ry night my intel chief and I
Sit alone and talk and watch an AWAC
Makin' lazy circles in the sky.

We know we are here for John Kerry
And to the Iraqis we aren't very scary
And when we say
Yeeow! WTF is it now?
We're only sayin'
Why are we based in Okinawa?
Okinawa, no way.

Oliver Willis: "The message the right is trying to send out is that Murtha is endorsing a move that emboldened terror, and by a Democrat no less - but as Dick Cheney has himself alleged -- Reagan's pullout [from Beirut] helped terrorists in the eyes of the right." That was in response to righty comments criticizing Murtha's citation of ex-Pres. Clinton's pullout from Somalia, which the right thinks helped Osama bin Laden continue to add Al Qaeda recruits. Wizbang and Hot Air lay out the right's points.

IRAQ II: Zalmay The Pessimist

Washington Post's report on a memo from the U.S. embassy in Iraq on the less-than-ideal conditions there, as reported by Editor and Publisher, attracted attention this weekend as well. The left siezes on the report as proof that the situation in Iraq remains terrible. Bark Bark Woof Woof has a link to the memo, which claims, among other things, that ethnic cleansing is already under way. He concludes: "I didn't expect the president to come back from Iraq and say to the press in the Rose Garden that we are in deep s*** and that life inside the Green Zone is like a replay of Berlin in April 1945. Remember, we're dealing with an administration that scorns the idea of a reality-based community. But who does it serve to come back and put on this show when it's obvious that the situation there is anything but inspiring unless you're Dante working on a sequel?" Noting that most of the memo details hardships incured by employees of the embassy, Hullabaloo says: Amb. Zalmay Khalilzad "pretty much says that he doesn't know if he can trust his own employees much longer because they are being driven a little bit crazy by fear and paranoia. Heckuva job, there, Uncle Sammy."

American Street: "The memo reports a near complete breakdown of law and order, except for that which is dependent on 'local providers' of power and security." Anticipating Bush admin spin and noting the giant "KHALILZAD" on the bottom of the cable, Michael Stickings asks: "Shouldn't the U.S. embassy in Baghdad know what it's talking about? Its report of reality in Iraq surely bears far more resemblance to the truth than anything we've ever heard from Bush and his various mouthpieces of delusion." Road To Surfdom, skippy the bush kangaroo, Echidne, First Draft and Duck of Minerva all offer their takes. Left Coaster thinks the memo, followed shortly by Bush's visit to Baghdad, speaks to more than just the failing situation in Iraq: "We are becoming a country that cannot believe anything our government says to us because they have been so dishonest in so many ways for so long. On this front, Bush and his compatriots have surely lost their battle to create their reality. But what they have sown is distrust, cynicism and a whole boatload of conspiracy theories - not exactly what they had thought they would create with their scientific marketing plan."

NORTH KOREA: Let's Not Do Launch

Reports that North Korea could be close to test-firing a missle that could reach as far as Alaska have some bloggers worried -- for more than one reason. Calling any test-fire a "huge setback" to U.S. relations with the dictatorship, Suzanne Nossel wonders what the U.S. gains from talking to dictators anyway. Calling it "not quite the Cuban Missle Crisis -- but clearly it's a crisis that is rapidly growing," The Moderate Voice offers a round-up of Asian media reaction to the report. The left blames Pres. Bush for letting the situation get out of control. Michael Stickings notes: "Talks won't stop North Korea's test of its Taepodong 2 missile. Talk soon... or else. Or else what? The prospect of a nuclear Iran is frightening enough. Think of a nuclear North Korea with far more advanced technology. Diplomatic leadership, Bush ought to know, is just as important as, if not more important than, the capacity to wage shock-and-awe campaigns against perceived threats." Brilliant at Breakfast: "Heck of a job, Georgie." Booman Tribune also jumps in. Kevin Drum examines options and wonders just what Bill Kristol, Dick Cheney, Peter Beinart and Sen. Hillary Clinton think.

WH '08: The Other Joementum

A "flat-out" running for president Joe Biden made the rounds in NH this weekend. His message: "The next Democrat, whether it's me or Sen. Clinton or John Kerry, whomever -- the Democratic nominee -- they'd better be able to ante up right in front of the American people two things: security and faith." The occasion brought up a Good Joe vs. Bad Joe debate in the blogosphere. Good Joe has an intuitive, heartfelt and strong foreign policy platform and a great way of communicating it. Bad Joe turns out to be an awful legislator. American Footprints' Praktike gives the case for Bad Joe: "[W]hile he often gets things right about national security policy, seems to be lousy at getting actual bills passed despite his platform as ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Perhaps he should spend less time bloviating on the Sunday talk shows and more time shaking hands and having lunch and so forth with his fellow Senators, in order to build support for what he wants to do." Nadezhda, on the same blog, wonders if they're possibly talking about the Joe "whose proposed amendment to the defense budget would have ratcheted up the sanctions pressure on Iran and funded "democracy promotion" (read, regime change) efforts to the tune of $100 million. And Joe, working in tandem with Condi and the State Department, managed to defeat that piece of idiocy on the floor of the Senate last week. Even though Santorum has 61 (count them, 61!) co-sponsors on a piece of legislation that would do the same thing as his proposed budget amendment." Not to pick on Joe Biden, but Reader_IAM at Done With Mirrors picks up on Biden's calling for more Dem party bluntness by writing this: "Blunt? Um, O.K. Regardless of whether that prescription is true or not, it sounds wrong, somehow, coming from Sen. Biden, who is still stuck back on the concept of "brief," the perfect example of which was his substitution of bloviation for serious questions back in the Alito hearings. It's hard to hear "blunt" in the whirlpool of words that seems to be Joe's first instincts." We're not sure even his staff would disagree privately. Blue Crab Boulevard thinks Biden is "trying very hard to stake out the territory on the right side of the Democratic party," but maybe not so successfully. Riehl World View says if Biden wants to authenticate his not-from-the-left aura, he needs to be a little better on taxes.

IN THE STATES: Mean Joe Is Back

Matt Stoller's hair trigger fired at the news that Carter Eskew had produced Lieberman's first ad, which took a page from his 1988 slugfest with Lowell Weicker. Stoller notes that Eskew is a partner at Glover Park Group, which includes several "ex-Clintonite" bugbears for lefty bloggers. And while Stoller "doesn't want to point fingers," a certain digit does indeed extend: "Glover Park sell[s] access to Democratic and media insiders, and they sell their political judgment." Stoller (and virtually every blogger we've read) thinks the ad itself is a mess. Markos thinks the bear ad will be a "PR disaster" for Lieberman. "This has to be the most ridiculous ad I've ever seen. It's not even that it's mean. It's just too silly and stupid to believe. Does anyone really believe that Lieberman is in this fix because of Lowell Weicker? And pace Weicker, Lieberman and ad creator Carter Eskew, but even in Connecticut, Lowell Weicker has been out of the Senate for a really long time. I don't want to say he's ancient history. But he's sort of ancient history." Also -- "Notice how the Weicker bear is all patched up and stuff? Weicker has just gone through hip replacement surgery, and this appears to be mocking him."

Ned Lamont himself blogs about Lieberman's Washington Postinterview with David Broder, wherein Lieberman bemoaned the fact that his position is "not popular within the party." But, he said, "that is a challenge for the party --whether it will accept diversity of opinion or is on a kind of crusade or jihad of its own to have everybody toe the line. No successful political party has ever done that."" Well. Writes Lamont: "As we've said before, this isn't about "toeing the line" on one issue, namely Iraq. It's about undermining the Democratic Party at almost every turn, from judicial nominee votes, to appearances on Fox News to repeat GOP talking points, to Terri Schiavo, to the Bush energy policy, etc, etc etc.." And it "Seems to" "Roger Ailes" that "having a pro-war candidate and an anti-war candidate running against each other within a party is about accepting diversity of opinion. No one's kicked your ass out of the party or kept your name off the ballot, Joe." Blogger DHinMI, writing on Kos, who admits to have "had some concerns abotu Lamont," calls the comment "pathetic." Dem voters "haven't been on a jihad to cleanse the party of people who supported the Iraq war; hell, we even nominated a Presidential candidate who had voted for the Iraq War Resolution. Joementum's claim is a canard. His problems are entirely of his own doing, and have little to do with the policies he supports or the ideas he espouses and almost everything to do with the contempt he showers on those he would refer to as Jihadists, but who we call Democrats." Connecticut Local Politics'sGenghis Conn writes that the comment is a "good example" of the Two Liebermans. A "Noble Joe" who "is principled and unafraid to put party aside and take a stand for what he believes in. This is admirable and all-too-rare in a politician." And "Baron Joe," who "believes he deserves his seat for life, that his opponent has no right to challenge him, and that he is entitled to go to any and all lengths to retain his spot in the peerage."

Jumping to Joe's defense is Riehl World View, who writes that the "Kos Kids may not realize it, but they are helping to give Republicans precisely what they want." Which is: (we think improbably, but oh well) to get the RNC to give the race more attention. Meanwhile Captain Ed thinks (hopes, wants) Lieberman to (will) caucus with Republicans, a thought that California Conservative approvingly coos at. He then writes, in an unselfconscious sentence: "If there's one thing that the American people don't like, it's that they don't like "party unity" if it means playing politics with the war. Regardless of the polling, the American people know that pulling out of Iraq now that we're there isn't the right thing to do." Blue Crab Boulevard picks up Lieberman's final sentence from the quotation, which appears to be a warning to the Dems. Gay Patriot says the Dems have a dilemma, but not as large as his, apparently: "Right now, Joe Lieberman faces the dilemma of whether to make contingency plans to run as an independent or stake it all on winning the Democratic primary (which would make him a shoo-in for re-election). And I face the dilemma of whether to root for his victory as a sign the opposing party still has some sense or to hope for his defeat in order to strengthen my party's hand in the fall elections."

LIBBY: Something About Grey Poupon

Newsday's Brune reports that speculation about Pres. Bush pardoning Valerie Plame outer/ex-Cheney CoS Scooter Libby, and the piece got some bloggers all hot and bothered. It wasn't the idea of a pardon that incensed some, but the newslessness of the story, as some put it. Blue Crab Boulevard: "The entire article, from start to finish, is complete and utter smoke." Outside The Beltway

Righty Sundries Shop: "I find it incredible that the president would want to pardon Libby, or even slow his trial down in the slightest, considering that Libby has a great opportunity to crush the Fitzgerald investigation entire, exonerate the entire administration, and show Joseph Wilson to be an inveterate liar one more time. Pardoning Libby has nothing but downsides while letting his trial run its course does nothing but help the administration." Lawhawk offers similar reasoning.

Talk Left is taking the story with a grain of salt, too, thanks to quotes from Libby supporter/ex-US Atty. Joe diGenova. But there may be a strategy to the piece: "To put this out in the media through DiGenova now, Team Libby (the p.r. team, not the lawyers) is either testing the waters or hoping to demoralize Team Fitz by making them wonder if Libby's prosecution is all for naught." The Heretik also takes on diGenova and criticizes some of his statements in the piece. Brilliant at Breakfast thinks the admin is waiting until the next "American Idol" season to pardon.

BLOGGER VS. BLOGGER: Someone's Not Getting A Fruitcake For Xmas

In the battle for the netroots, it seems that some on the left might be getting a tad touchy about their less-than-stellar win record. They're claiming everything they can, and fighting as hard as possible to gain recognition for the victory by ex-Reagan Navy Sec. Jim Webb (D) in VA. Seems that the latest spat began as righty Glenn Reynolds claimed the Webb victory showed the lefty netroots still couldn't win, neglecting the fact that the lefty blogosphere had been firmly in Webb's camp.

Lefty Glenn Greenwald came after Reynolds, and with a vengence. After calling Reynolds' Instapundit "Fact-free," Greenwald continues: "The truth is, as is so often the case, the precise opposite of Instapundit's statements."

Needless to say, Reynolds responded, followed by a Greenwald response (no link -- update V). Kos provides a play-by-play, and he's firmly on Greenwald's side on this one.

BLOGGERS VS. THE MACHINE: If Only He'd Contributed To Rep. Cox's Races

By the way, speaking of Kos, after his buddy Jerome Armstrong signed on with VA Gov. Mark Warner (D), an avowed centrist who works with GOPers, Blogometer asked: "Is Kos Too Centrist For DailyKos?" This weekend, Armstrong took a little more heat for his work with Warner, as NYT's Opinionator blog reports. Turns out that while Armstrong was pumping Warner and ex-VT Gov. Howard Dean, he was also allegedly pushing stocks on a financial website, getting paid for promoting a company's favorite picks. An SEC complaint has been filed against him.

Ohio 2nd Blog sees Armstrong taking advantage of his reputation and position: "Candidates interested in trying to force the blogosphere by hiring such professionals as Armstrong need to look no further than to the barren landscape that is the opinion that many Ohio democrats have of Sherrod Brown online. Armstrong's ham handed efforts at manipulating online opinion for Brown were a disaster, and dozens of Ohio netizens that should be Brown's most fervent online supporters have written his campaign off entirely. Many blame Congressman Brown. Personally I see him as just another babe-in-the-woods investor lured into the flashing web of internet hucksters, and then systematically sucked dry. As a dot con veteran it's something that I've seen many times before." Buckeye State Blog, also not a fan of Kos and kin, jumps in the fray as well.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Paradise Lost

Christine Rosen, writing in The New Republic, focuses three solid pages on the above-mentioned Reynolds. The piece, which dismisses Reynolds' "comfy chair revolution" as a kind of naive utopia, is worth a read if you have a password. The piece has yet to garner much comment, but it could pop up as another catalyst for "the MSM hates us because we beat them all the time" posts.

LEST WE FORGET: A Good Day To Be A Carroll

Regular Blogometer author Conn Carroll and wife Wendy welcomed Owen Robert Carroll to the world at 7:05 a.m. ET today. Weighing in at a healthy 8 lbs., 9 ozs., Owen's doing just fine, as is Wendy. Our congrats to the new parents! Pictures, we're sure, when they come available.

Posted by at 01:02 PM

June 16, 2006

6/16: Freak Show

The Blogometer's job description does not include helping Ann Coulter sell books, so despite the broad blogger interest in the banshee's latest provocations, I've almost entirely ignored her existence. Coulter is very simply a freak show that entertainment outlets like the Today and Tonight Shows trod out for publicity stunts and, more specifically, ratings ploys. While Coulter's success in book sales is still distressing at least nobody in the left or right blogosphere takes her seriously and she has been largely kept out of serious news venues.

This is all a round-about introduction to ex-CIA analyst Larry Johnson's latest comment about Karl Rove on his blog No Quarter: "Karl is a shameless bastard. Small wonder his mother killed herself. Once she discovered what a despicable soul she had spawned she apparently saw no other way out." The Blogometer only posts this despicable comment in hopes that major news outlets that have allowed him to speak in the past (Jim Lehrer News Hour, National Public Radio, ABC's Nightline, NBC's Today Show, and the New York Times) never provide outlet for his hate again. Johnson was also a featured speaker at the YearlyKos panel on the Plame Affair. The vast majority of lefty bloggers have proven themselves capable of expressing their displeasure with Rove without uttering a comment as low as this. If lefty bloggers want to be taken seriously by Dems they must distance themselves from the Johnsons of the world the way righty bloggers have roundly criticized Coulter.

IRAQ: The KosCaucus

Righty bloggers celebrated the defeat of Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) Iraq-withdrawal resolution. Decision'08: "When it comes time to put up or shut up, once again we see a Democratic Party more than happy to snipe at the President's policies in Iraq for partisan gain, but far too cowardly to vote their conscience (and that's giving them the benefit of the doubt - either they're lying when they say they oppose the war, or they're too afraid of political backlash to vote the way they feel - you can't have both)." Hugh Hewitt thought the six Sen. Dems voting Yea ought to have their own name: "The KosCaucus: Boxer, Byrd, Feingold, Harkin, Kerry and Kennedy."

Fellow righty California Yankee at RedState thinks the vote will be a little different the House: "The vote on the House's Global War on Terror Resolution will be closer than the Senate's lopsided 93-6 vote. But not that close. House Democrats realize that voting against such a resolution will expose them to attacks that Democrats who oppose the resolution don't support U.S. troops and advocate a "cut-and-run" strategy.

Kerry also came in for unkind words from the usually left but pro-war sympathizing The Plank. Martin Peretz wonders how Kerry managed to produce such a lopsided defeat: "What was in the tactical side of his brain when he made this pronunciamento before he had figured out the details of his proposal? Well, a way to get headlines, I suppose. But every time Kerry speaks about Iraq you are almost automatically reminded of his seriatim record which shows that he was all over the place on the matter. ... For all their ragging against Bush's war, as they term it, even the Democratic Party isn't for a withdrawal from the field. Of course, this does not bode well for Kerry's perpetual aspirations to be president. But nothing else does either."

Fellow PlankerMichael Crowley offered a limited defense of Kerry: "there's a specific reason why Mitch McConnell forced a premature Senate vote on Kerry's Iraq-withdrawal resolution: Senate Democratic leaders, I'm reliably told, had been working on a middle-course alternative allowing their party members to oppose Kerry's plan without implicitly seeming to support Bush's policy (and thus without further enraging hard-core anti-war activists). Democrats had been expecting several more days to prepare, but it seems McConnell cut off his rivals at the parliamentary pass.

On the House side, Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) took to The Huffington Post to reiterate his support for Rep. John Murtha (D-PA):

The Iraq debate in the House should begin with one fundamental truth: We are in Iraq and our leaders have no plan to get out of Iraq. ... The extent of our involvement, the length of our stay, the number of our dead is controlled by religious clerics in Iraq, because we have no strategy except to wait for Iraqis to "stand up." U.S. soldiers in Iraq are doing a heroic job. But, we are not doing ours. It is not partisan politics to insist that a nation in war have a plan to achieve peace. ... I support the Murtha Resolution that puts in place a plan to protect our soldiers, protect American interests in the Middle East, and protect the American people here at home. ...The American people want change because the Pentagon under this admin. distributes PR plans, not military plans.

Rep. John Tierney (D-MA) also posted The Huffington Post, but he stopped by to tout his bipartisan efforts for more Iraq oversight:

As the cost of the war in Iraq approaches $400B the failure of the Republican Leadership in Congress to ensure proper oversight of these funds has led to waste, fraud and abuse of tax-payer dollars. This isn't just about saving money. It's about saving lives. Every single dollar that may be wasted or lost is one less dollar that can go to protect our troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. ...There are some solutions to this problem -- one of them is a bipartisan bill (H.Res. 116) I co-authored with Congressman Jim Leach of Iowa, which would re-establish the Truman Committee to ensure that American tax dollars are being judiciously spent in Iraq and Afghanistan. ...Congress must not continue to abdicate its responsibility to demand transparency and accountability in the allocation of funds for Iraq and Afghanistan. That is why I will continue urging my colleagues to pass my Truman Committee.

Many lefty bloggers noted the 2,500 U.S. deaths in Iraq. Meteor Blades at DailyKos took issue with WH press/sec Tony Snow's assertion that it was just a number: "Proving what a perfect spokesman he is for the chickenhawks who concocted this war and murdered the 2500 as surely as if they made them kneel with their thumbs tied behind their backs and personally beheaded them. The Bush Regime would surely prefer these 2500 to be just "a number." Nameless statistics." Meteor goes on to list the 2500 name of the American dead in honor of Father's Day.

STATE OF THE NETROOTS: We're Here, We're Polling, Get Used To It

Conducted 6/6-9 by MyDD.com; surveyed 1936 members of MoveOn.org's membership roster; margin of error +/- 2.2% (release, 6/15). Note: This poll was conducted online. Participants were contacted via email, and interviews were conducted over the web.

Fav/Unfav
Bill Clinton         93%/ 6%        Tom Daschle          64 /23
Al Gore              92 / 7         Dick Gephardt        62 /27
Barack Obama         90 / 2         Chuck Schumer        57 / 8
John Edwards         86 / 9         Harry Reid           56 /17
Barbara Boxer        85 / 7         Robert Byrd          56 /17
Nancy Pelosi         75 /16         Bill Richardson      47 / 8
Jack Murtha          71 / 3         Mark Warner          35 / 8
Russ Feingold        70 / 5         Evan Bayh            33 /11
John Kerry           68 /30         Paul Hackett         24 / 1
Wes Clark            66 /18         Rahm Emanuel         23 / 5
Joe Biden            65 /21         Tom Vilsack          14 / 5
Hillary Clinton      65 /33         Stephanie Herseth     6 / 1

Dems Have Done ___?                                 Excel/ Fair/

                                                     		Good  Poor

Getting own supporters to the polls                  		 25%  72%

Attacking GOPers                                      		 22   76

Standing up for what they believe in                 		 20   79

Pointing out differences btwn Dems/GOPers             	   	 17   81

Getting news media to cover message/arguments         		 11   87

Providing clear agenda for how they'll govern         		  8   91

Persuading undecideds to support their candidates     		  6   91

With Which Statement Do You Agree Most?

Dems should fight GOPers on most legislative battles, even when there

is little chance of winning.

Dems should fight GOPers only on leg. battles where there is a good

chance of winning.

Statement 1          72%

Statement 2          24

Dems need to concentrate mostly on offering a positive agenda showing

what policies they will enact when elected, even if it means spending

less time attacking GOPers for the mess they have made in DC.

Dems need to concentrate mostly on attacking GOPers for the mess they

have made in DC, even if it means spending less time offering a

positive agenda showing what policies they will enact when elected.

Statement 1          77%

Statement 2          21

MSM VS. BLOGGERS: Like Asking The Sharks How The Guppies Taste

This week's Political Insiders poll from National Journal talked to 71 GOPers and 66 Dems (6/17 issue). For complete question wording and more, click Poll Track.

What Impact Will The Netroots Have On 11/06?

                          GOP Dem

Help Dems                 14% 69%

Help GOPers               15   0

No significant impact     70  31

IMMIGRATION I: Amnesty John

Over at righty PoliPundit, KnightHawk checked at blogmate Oak Leaf's post about Border Patrol union local 2544 and likes what he finds: "I had a good laugh after following the links from from Oak Leaf's post about local 2544 as it seems a new moniker has been attached to John McCain by the US Border Patrol that suits him perfectly. They refer to him as "Amnesty John," well he sure is making friends all over the place."

The Corner's Kate O'Beirne believes there is little chance for an immigration bill this year: "It seems that this week the smart money is on no reform bill at all before the election. The Senate is preparing for a conference while the House is not. Opponents of the McCain/Kennedy/Hagel/Martinez legislation see the Senate conferees as stacked in favor of the bill, with only 4 of the 14 Republican conferees having voted with a a majority of the GOP caucus on key conservative amendments. House Republicans seem more convinced than ever that being seen as compromising at all with the fatally flawed Senate bill is bad politics."

And over at RedStateHoratious looks at Rep. Tom Tancredo's (R-CO) targeting of Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT) and thinks Tancredo is getting a little too big for his britches:

What is amazing about that development is that his GOP colleagues have not yet responded with any degree of outrage over his blatant disregard for Ronald Reagan's Eleventh Commandment in the midst of perhaps the most precarious election cycle since Republicans took control. ... Tom Tancredo is becoming a political hack, and there is simply no way that he speaks for all of the 99 Members who are in his caucus just because they think that illegal immigration is out of control and needs "reform." It is time for his colleagues to publicly reveal that he doesn't speak for them."

IMMIGRATION II: Cokie Cooked

Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum points to a fantastic map lefty Brendan Nyhan obtained. Nyhan posted the map as a follow up to Cokie Roberts' assertion that IA-01 was a very white area that doesn't really have any immigrants." The University of Wisconsin Applied Population Lab demonstrates that the state's Hispanic population has spiked around major meatpacking facilities in Iowa. Nyhan concludes: "Given that many of the Latinos taking the dangerous, grueling jobs in meatpacking facilities are likely to be undocumented immigrants, it's not surprising that Iowans are concerned about the issue of illegal immigration. Some of this may be xenophobia; some may be serious concern about policy; but in any case, Roberts, an alleged NPR "analyst," should understand how Iowa has changed before pontificating about its politics."

Drum comments: "It's an interesting data point that lends support to the idea that concern about immigration has spiked recently because it's increasingly affecting areas that have never experienced significant immigration before, rather than being confined primarily to border states like California and Texas.

CA 50: Buyers' Remorse

Barely a fortnight into his new office, Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-CA) has already rankled righty bloggers keen on cutting GOP earmarks. Instapundit highlights Club for Growth's assessment that Bilbray "claims to be a fiscal conservative, but so far he's off to a bad start." CFG reports that Bilbray voted against all four of righty blogger favorite Rep. Jeff Flake's (AZ) "anti-pork amendments." RedState chimes in: "I would have campaigned for Busby out in California 50. As Andy Roth notes, less than a week after getting re-elected to Congress, Bilbray voted for over 1500 earmarks and voted against all of Jeff Flake's earmark cutting amendments. With friends like these, we might as well have elected Busby."

Normally Dems wait till they lose in 11/06 before the soul searching begins, but with their dreams of taking over Congress slipping away, Democracy for America's Rick Jacobs writing at The Huffington Post wants to study what went wrong in CA 50 now. Jacobs is teaming up with MyDD to hire a professional, highly regarded polling firm to help us understand what happened" in womens' studies professor Francine Busby (D) loss. Jacobs' asks readers for both ideas for poll questions and money to help fund the project.

LEWIS: Exit Stage Right?

Talking Points Memo looks at Dem success in removing ethically troubled Rep. Allan Mollohan (D-WV) from the ethics cmte and the 6/15 vote to remove of Rep. Bill Jefferson (D-LA) from the Ways and Means Cmte and asks: "What about Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee? ... Appropriations is the committee that spends the money. It's probably, by definition, the most corruptible committee in the House. Interestingly, Lewis was the chairman of the Defense Appropriations subcommittee when Duke Cunningham was getting all that loot for Brent Wilkes and Mitchell Wade. As Chair of that subcommittee, Lewis had to sign off on all that stuff. Perhaps he was just oblivious to what was happening, though according to a knowledgeable source, Brent Wilkes says Lewis and he have been tight for years. Has anyone seen a talking head, an editorial page, anyone suggesting it may not be appropriate for Rep. Lewis to be in charge of House earmarks while all this is going on? If you have, let me know."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: So Which Party Does Jonah Think Is Saddam?

Jonah Goldberg at The Corner thinks the tide may have turned against the Dems, but he is no more happy about the current state of the world:

About a month ago I wrote somewhere around here that the Tony Snow appointment might be remembered as the start of the administration's turn around. I think this week may be remembered as the start of the Democrats, if not quite implosion, than at least it's major fumble. YearlyKos anointed the blogosphere lefties, Hillary got booed, John Kerry flip-flopped again, coming out in favor of a bug out and saying he was wrong about the war, Pelosi announced she's giving up on the "culture of corruption" mantra, Murtha retracted his bid to run for majority leader, this Billy Jefferson thing, etc. And, of course, last week the Democrats didn't take Duke Cunningham's seat.

I wish I could be happier for the Republicans, but they still vex me to distraction. What was it Kissinger said of the Iran-Iraq war? "Pity only one of them can lose."

LEST WE FORGET: Chris Henry For Congress!

At times it can seem there is no collection of individuals more reprehensible than the US Congress, but luckily we have the NFL to dissuade us of that notion. Deadspin updates us on the trials and tribulations of Cincinnati Bengal wide receiver Chris Henry:

"Getting arrested once during an offseason is a mistake. Getting arrested twice labels you a troublemaker. Three times, you're officially an epidemic. But when you're arrested for the fourth time in six months - aw, now you're just showing off."

"This is a roundabout way of saying that Bengals wide receiver Chris Henry got arrested again. The charge this time? Providing alcohol for three underage women in a hotel room in April; one was 18, one was 16, one was 15. ... So, if you're keeping tabs, that's a marijuana possession charge, an illegal gun-possession charge, a DUI and now providing liquor to a minor. Since December."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:24 PM

June 15, 2006

6/15: Do The Netroots Really Want A Dem Majority?

The bigger lefty bloggers active in Dem campaigns (read DailyKos, Swing State Project, and MyDD) claim that they are pragmatic activists bent on ridding the country of evil GOP rule. With DSCC chair Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) statement that the DSCC will support Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT), even if he doesn't win the Dem CT primary, these lefty bloggers face perhaps the biggest test of their brief existence. Do they continue to pour effort and resources into cable co. exec. Ned Lamont (D) campaign in their quest for ideological purity? Or do they move those resources to other states like with possible DEM pickups like VA and MT, knowing that both Lamont and Lieberman will vote for a Maj. Leader named Harry Reid? In his book Crashing the GateMarkos Moulitsas claims that a Senate in Dem hands is much better for progressives than ideological purity from any one candidate. The situation in CT SEN will let us find out if he actually means it.

CT SEN: Annoy the Blogosphere, Vote Joe.

Hotline's On Call (go team!) rocked the lefty blogosphere with news that DSCC Chair Chuck Schumer (NY) refused to rule out continuing support for Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) if Lieberman were to run as an independent against cable co. exec. Ned Lamont (D).

DailyKos wasted little time before declaring war on the DSCC: "The DSCC's mission is to support Democrats in elections. Supporting Lieberman over Lamont would be a violation of this mission. Schumer is a Democrat. He runs the DSCC. He needs to respect the will of the Democratic voters in Connecticut." Reax on DailyKos' comment boards were no less dire:

• redstar: "How are we supposed to stay committed to the Democratic party when the leadership isn't?"
• altscott: "I'm convinced a new party is needed. Taking over leadership AND party apparatus is expensive and time consuming. The grass and net roots need to cut a new path."
• inclusiveheart: "Chuck Schumer has failed to make one very important calculation ... He has no clue how easy it would be for the constituents of his party to get rid of him in a Democratic state like New York."
• Deano963: " Hey - we should all send emails an make calls to Chairman Dean about this. I'm really really pissed off by this. He needs to put Schumer in his f*****g place and let him know that it is not Schumer's decision on who the party backs - it is the CT primary voters' decision who the party backs."
• decon: "Unity '08...Stewart/Colbert.

Lefty blogger ire for beltway Dems was not relegated to DailyKos:

• the unofficial LamontBlog: "Schumer To CT Dems: "DROP DEAD"...The DSCC is now officially just an incumbent protection racket. It has nothing to do with any party."
• Atrios: "I know Chuck Schumer isn't likely to take advice from little old me, but if he decides to support the increasingly-likely independent run from Joe Lieberman he's really going to regret it. He'll regret it doubly when Joe bolts the party AND loses. It's going to be fun."
• firedoglake: "This is all about incumbency protection. The preservation of entrenched power and maintaining the status quo. ...It's All About Them.
• AMERICAblog: "I'd really hate to see Lieberman put in a position where he's holding all the cards - i.e., Lieberman runs as an independent, wins, the Senate is divided 49-50, and then the Dems have to BEG Lieberman to support Harry Reid as the party leader rather than the Republicans. ... That's not good for the Democratic party or America."
• Hullabaloo: "If they do this, it will cause a full on backlash against the Democratic Party by the rank and file and the party elders like Schumer have no one to blame but themselves."
• The Left Coaster: "So although in my perfect world I would prefer that we all work together towards the same goal, and that the media and the Beltway Democrats would respect accountability and the truth as well as the blogs, this is admittedly Pollyanna on my part. The blogs should keep on the warpath and pick their battles, and collect some scalps along the way.
• Blogging of the President: "Let me give fair warning - if Schumer does this, I suspect the DSCC, Schumer himself, and anyone they support, can kiss goodbye the vast majority of any netroots support. And Schumer may want to start preparing for the nasty primary challenge that I can assure him will come if his way if anyone even remotely credible steps up to the plate. Disloyalty is the cardinal political sin, and Schumer is only two steps away from committing treason."

Over at lefty-but-Lieberman-sympathetic The Plank, Jason Zengrle's "heart goes out to the poor soul who has to monitor Schumer's e-mail account." Zengrle also plays sloganeer for Team Lieberman: "Remember those Bush '88 campaign shirts, "Annoy the Media, Vote Bush"? Maybe Lieberman should print up some ones that say, "Annoy the Blogosphere, Vote Joe." (although as the Blogometer's know-it-all editor John Mercurio points out, it ought to read '92 and not '88)

VA SEN: Larry Who?

16-year-old Kenton Ngo puts UVA prof. Larry Sabato (and the rest of us) to shame with his exemplary turnout analysis from 6/13's VA primary on his blog 750 Volts:

Normally when analyzing turnout in a VA primary observers just take the raw turnout: That is, votes divided by registered voters. The fallacy, however, is that you do not determine Democratic turnout. 2% turnout in a 40% Democratic county is not the same as 2% turnout in a 60% Democratic county. The former is bad, the latter is abysmal, but that fact would be hidden. To find where the most Democrats came out to vote, let's take the number of votes cast in this primary and divide them not by registered voters, but by the number of people who voted for Tim Kaine.

We find that not only does the huge 2-ton canary in Virginia politics, Fairfax County, have a huge population, the county's Democrats turned out twice as much as some areas of the state. Fairfax and Arlington where Jim Webb won this primary. This huge spike in turnout in Arlington and Fairfax carried the day.
The lowest turnout - perhaps the highest number of disaffected Democrats - appears to be around Richmond and in Southwest. The most committed, primary - voting Democrats in the state appear again to be in Fairfax and Arlington.

Speaking of Sabato, The Corner's Rich Lowry checked in with him to report this Webb-will-help-Allen angle on the race: "It's unwise for Allen to try to run a two-track campaign-nationally. ... It actually works to his advantage the higher profile the Senate race is. "He benefits from elevating the race to national status. Then he will be seen by Republican activists as doing the same thing as John McCain, defending the president and defending the war." This is why it ultimately might benefit Allen that the weaker candidate, Miller, lost and Webb won. People would have tuned out an Allen v. Miller race. Allen v. Webb could get a lot of attention and allow Allen to increase his national profile in a helpful way, so long, of course, as he wins and performs strongly."

IRAQ: Let's Get it On

Lefty bloggers are itching for a strong Dem pushback to House Maj. Leader John Boehners (R-OH) Iraq resolution this week. The Left Coaster: " if the GOP wants to reopen that door this week, Democrats should push back hard on the findings of the various inquiries that Saddam had few if any connections to Al Qaeda and had no role in 9/11. And if Boehner wants to raise flout the "9/11 Equals Iraq" bloody shirt tomorrow, then Harry Reid should renew his demand that Pat Roberts stop stalling and get on with the Phase Two inquiry into how the Administration, and how specifically Dick Cheney used pre-war intelligence and responded to dissent. Trust me, the GOP does not want to go there."

AMERICAblog also thinks the country is ready for a Dem victory in an Iraq debate: "What moron came up with the brilliant idea of debating Iraq as a way of helping Republicans in the fall elections? Yeah, Republicans get to stand up before the country and profess their undying admiration for Bush as commander in chief and for how 'great' they think the war is going."

On the right Blue Crab Boulevard recognizes the debate is a political ploy, but wishes the MSM would cover more Dem dissent on the issue. Other righty bloggers are less cynical. Hugh Hewitt: "Open, long and serious debate over the central issue of our time, and conducting the elections as a referendum on the necessity of continuing the war on terror are exactly what the serious party should be doing. PrairiePundit: "I think the Republicans should have let the Dems bring alternative resolutions to the floor so they would have no excuse for their vote. Let them structure an alternative that the GOP can defeat. Let the Democrats embrace their inner defeatism."

WARNER: Where's The beef?

Discussion of DailyKos' support for ex-VA Gov. Mark Warner continues to percolate around the blogosphere. TPM Cafe'sMatthew Yglesias has no problem with what he's seen so far. But also wants to know, "Where's the beef?" Yglesias goes on to describe an encounter with an acquaintance on Team Warner: "I told him Warner seemed to have a lot going for him, but I'd be interested in knowing where he stood on, well, any policy issue. He assured me they were working on that."

Kausfiles picked up on lefty blogger discussion of the issue and threw his two cents in: "Indeed, isn't Warner a Democratic Leadership Council type of the sort the Kossacks ordinarily loathe? (The one time I've seen Warner in person was at a DLC event during the 2004 Democratic Convention, where he was proudly presented by DLC chief Al From). You don't think that Warner's popularity with Markos Moulitsas ("Governor Mark Warner in Virginia has delivered") could have anything to do with Warner's hiring of Moulitsas' buddy, Jerome Armstrong, do you? ... I mean, if a candidate or corporation hired, say, Tom DeLay's buddy and then gotten strangely good play at a DeLay-run convention, nobody on the left would raise a peep, right?"

Righty Ryan Sager at RCP Blog doesn't think Armstrong's hiring is the entire story: "Kaus attributes this treatment to "Warner's hiring of Moulitsas' buddy, Jerome Armstrong." That's part of it. Another part of it is that, as Markos said in his introduction, Warner was the second big shot - after Harry Reid, in whose backyard (Las Vegas) the whole event was being held - to accept the Kos invitation. Pandering, apparently, can get you to second base with these folks. ... Not that there's anything wrong with that. ... But Kaus is right that it's more than a little hypocritical for a group of bloggers that constantly rails against the political establishment, and particularly centrist Democrats, to extend political-establishment-like treatment to a centrist Democrat just because he returns their phone calls."

OBAMA: Newt Borrower

The Huffington Post's Art Levine reports that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) "put forward a positive program for Democrats," that won applause at 6/14's final day of the Take Back America conference. Obama "offered ... a searing critique of Bush administration policies, borrowing from Newt Gingrich's recommended attack phrase, "Had enough?" Yet at the same time providing reassurance and hope for progressives." Obama urged attendees: "The time for our identity crisis as progressives is over. Don't let anybody tell you that we don't know what we stand for."

ELECTION'06: Seems Like Everyone's Got Their Own Direction

Min. Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) 6/14 "New Direction for America" platform received tepid reaction from lefty bloggers and predictable derision from the right. Left on the Lake did like the change in focus: "Protecting American Security, lowering health care costs, providing a living wage, eliminating tax breaks for big oil, and lowering the cost of higher education all sound pretty good to me... It's the exact opposite of what's been happening in this country for the past five years as real wages have fallen, national security funding has been wasted, big tax breaks have gone to the oil companies and richest 1%, and higher education and health care costs have skyrocketed."

Art Levine at The Huffington Post thought effort came out too narrow: "The Democratic leadership offered a litany of ideas, billed as a "New Direction" for America, such as lowering the cost of prescription drugs, raising the minimum wage, etc. ...What was missing from this Democratic list was the broader big idea , "The Common Good," best articulated by Michael Tomasky in a recent, highly influential American Prospect article about Democrats moving beyond single-issue ideas and interest groups into a broader civic republicanism." The Democratic Daily also preferred other Dem plans: "I like the Dem's new plan, their "New Direction," but John Kerry's principles for progressives have a better ring to them in my book. Let's get started with the first two points ASAP: "Tell the truth to the American people" and '"Fire the incompetents" and hold government accountable."

Over at righty blogger HQ NRO, Greg Pollowitz claims the new Dem platform avoids all of the country's real concerns: "Nothing on Iraq. Nothing on Homeland Security. Nothing on Afghanistan. Nothing on immigration. Nothing on lobbying reform. Nothing on public school reform. For the left: Nothing on global warming. Nothing on stem cell research. Nothing on gay marriage. Nothing on affirmative action. Nothing on abortion. Nothing on NAFTA. Nothing on labor unions. And if by "Require Fiscal Responsibility" Democrats mean, "raise taxes", please say so in the addendum to this agenda that is sure to follow.

IMMIGRATION: Finally, A Union Righty Bloggers Love

The right was not impressed at all with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement recent round up of illegal immigrants. DailyPundit: "We have been told over and over again by those supporting Bush's amnesty for illegal aliens policies that we can't "solve" the problem of illegal immigrants by deporting them. So what are we to make of this sudden supposed effort to deport "thousands" of illegals?" FullosseousFlap’s Dental Blog: "Flap wish he could beleive the new found enforcement by ICE is serious. But, Flap remains cynical and knows this is show for an amnesty-laden comprehensive immigration bill."

Over at The Corner, conservative Jack Fowler looks at new polling numbers and questions Sen. min. leader Harry Reid's (D-NV) recent name-calling: "A new Rasmussen Reports Survey shows 85% of Americans want English to be the official language of the U.S. The political breakdown: 92% of Republicans, 86% of unaffiliated voters, and 79% of Democrats back the stand. Did Harry Reid know there were so many “racists” in his party?"

Meanwhile righty PoliPundit has discovered his new favorite immigration expert: "Who can best comment on securing the border? College Professors? Politicians in Washington? How about the members of the largest Union Local representing actual Border Patrol Agents? Here are the opinions of these brave agents, in their own words:

"Local 2544 has not been consulted in any way, shape, or form regarding the deployment of National Guard troops in this Sector. ...Senator McCain has never been a friend to rank-and-file Border Patrol agents. He routinely ignores correspondence from Border Patrol agents and often gives the impression that he is just too big and too important to deal with us. ...Every day that President Bush and the Senate hold real border security hostage to their misguided amnesty program, thousands upon thousands of illegal aliens continue to flood into the country."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: A Brief History In Blogosphere Feuding

MaxKelly at DailyKos offers the netroots version of the DLC-DailyKos feud:

Now, let's look back at 5/03. dKos was just 1 year old, and the "blogosphere" was in relative infancy. Howard Dean was THE story, because he wasn't afraid to state his opinions, while most of the Washington Dems were scared of looking unpatriotic if they disagreed with Bush. Dean, a DC outsider, went from being an unknown to media sensation in a short amount of time, with the help of the new "netroots" and other Democrats looking to excite the party. He wasn't taking cues from Washington consultants, instead he went to the "regular" people, even Kos, to help with his campaign... and it was effective. It was so effective, the insider Dems came face-to-face with their irrelevance, and possible extinction. Instead of adapting to the emerging change, and trying to bring EVERYONE into the party, the DLC made the decision to divide.

It's a long post ... for the full flavor read the whole thing.

LEST WE FORGET: At Least He Wasn't Having "Brad Pitt-Like Fantasies"

The St.Louis.com Blog reported 6/14 on the growing feud between MO Gov. Matt Blunt's office and late Gov. Mel Carnahan CoS-turned-blogger Roy Temple. Temple was temporarily detained by state Capitol police after Blunt comm dir Spence Jackson told police that Temple was "a physical threat to the governor" during a public bill signing ceremony. Later justifying the detention, Jackson accused Temple of having "Timothy McVeigh-like fantasies."

Temple's account of the incident can be found at his blog, fired up! Missouri and St.Louis.com reports he's weighing whether to seek legal action in response to Jackson's statements.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:15 PM

June 14, 2006

6/14: Unstoppable

Dismiss them all you want but the Kossacks are now 2-for-2 in DEM SEN primaries (MT & VA). Looking at the latest development from CT and they could be 3-for-3 (and they just might do it a lot sooner than 8/8 if Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) decides to go independent). But as the netroots gets more successful, they're starting to realize they're shooting with real bullets. Lefty blogger consternation is growing on what to do if Lieberman does in fact elect to run against cable co. exec. Ned Lamont (D) as an independent in 11/06. Are Lieberman's crimes really so great that Senate Min. Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) wouldn't welcome him back into the caucus? Here's to hoping the drama plays out in full.

VA SEN: Kossacks Love Reagan Republicans

VA progressive blogger Raising Kaine, who has been behind Ex-Navy Sec. James Webb (D) from the beginning has plenty of 6/13 photos and updates from Webb HQ. Summing up the night RK writes: "Jim Webb's victory tonight is a victory for Virginia's netroots. Virginia's progressive blogosphere was not thrilled with the default candidate emerging earlier this year. So ... they drafted a Reagan Republican with a stellar resume to run as a Democrat and propelled him to victory in the primary."

DailyKos quotes UVA prof. Larry Sabato, "Jim Webb is George Allen's worst nightmare," and goes on to note where Webb's support first came from: "Webb was the outsider candidate for most of the race, and that establishment support really followed in the heels of the great grass/netroots support Webb built inside Virginia." Oliver Willis congratulates the netroots for supporting "the more pragmatic candidate." While Greg's Opinion wonders if ex-telecom lobbyist Harris Miller (D) might harbor some resentment.

Expo at DailyKos thinks Webb's strong showing in northern Virginia can be attributed to his blogger support: "People don't realize that Miller dominated the paid media. Absolutely dominated. Webb benefited from strong earned media, but that was more than balanced by Miller's strength in paid media. ... Guys, what in the hell happened here? ... The only two plausible explanations are (1) the extreme level of online activism for Webb, or (2) a major backlash against Miller for his negative ads. NoVa is one of the most wired and most politically-knowledgeable communities in America. In a low turnout election it's conceivable that NoVa voters, who are more likely to get political information through the web, ended up turning out and going for Webb big. It also makes sense that like in most low-turnout primaries, older voters (55+) tend to show up most heavily and they, already angry at politics as usual, revolted against a negative, politics-as-usual campaign from Miller."

Righty bloggers seem to want no part of a Webb candidacy:

• John J. Miller at The Corner: "This race will get a lot of national attention: It will take place right outside the DC media market, Allen is of course a contender for 2008, and Webb is an unconventional candidate who has the ability to make Republicans squirm. One bit of good news for Allen: Turnout was exceedingly low."
• Instapundit: "probably bad news for George Allen."
• Kathryn Jean Lopez at NRO: "A headache for George Allen but an opportunity, too, as his race for reelection becomes a national race-which some will consider to be a referendum on the war in Iraq."

Fellow righty Wizbang thinks Webb might be a one trick pony: "Considering what a political novice Webb is it's a safe bet that both Republicans and Democrats are in for many surprises as he is forced to take positions on issues besides the war in Iraq."

The vacationing Instapundit seems not to have followed the race to closely. He quotes a reader: "Don't you think it's also bad news for the left fringe of the Democrat party? I think it shows that voters will not support the Howard Dean-Kos-fringe and it makes for interesting times as Democrats try to find a presidential candidate for 2008," and then adds his own thoughts: "Yes, when Democrats move to the center, it's bad news for both Republicans and the Democratic far-left." Maybe by the time Nov rolls around Instapundit will figure out who the "Howard Dean-Kos-fringe" actually supported in this race.

CT SEN: Who You Callin' Weirdo?

Lefty bloggers are doing their best to force Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) to commit to support the winner of the 8/8 Dem primary. Many were up in arms over Lieberman campaign manager Sean Smith's 6/13 answer to WSTC/WNLK's Erik Campano asking whether Lieberman would support cable co. exec. Ned Lamont (D) should he win. According to My Left Nutmeg Smith said, "Are we going to support Ned Lamont? Ah, no!" Audio of the interview can be found here.

ConnecticutBLOG asks Dems generally: "How can you support a person who cares more about himself over the will of the Democratic voters in Connecticut? Joe's campaign just said the very thing we've been saying about Joe from the very beginning ... Lieberman is a Democrat in Name Only." While the unofficial LamontBlog wants commitments from CT Dems specifically: "Which Connecticut Democrats will support their party's candidate for senator after Lieberman abandons them? Malloy? DeStefano? DeLauro? Larson? Murphy? Farrell? Courtney? DiNardo? Let me know if you can find a statement on the record from any of these officials about unconditionally supporting the Democratic candidate for Senate in November. If not, please try to contact them, as well as any other prominent local or state officials. It's time to get the Connecticut Democratic party on the record on this."

The netroots are also still smarting over former Dem state party chair John F. Droney, Jr "Every single weirdo in the left wing will be there," Droney said. "That's what the Lamont strategy is all about." from the 6/13 Hartford Courant. Tim Tagaris at the official Ned Lamont Blog posts pictures of non-weirdo looking CT Dems from Lamont campaign events and comments: "Yup Real radical. If you support Ned, it would be nice to know what your job is. I've met a ton of teachers, students, manufacturers, etc. who support Ned-real radicals, right?" Atrios weighs in: "Only Lieberman Democrats and their kind seem to enjoy insulting voters instead of wooing them. ... Ah, reading through Lieberman's people distanced themselves from their supporter's comments. They're going to have to get all their people on the same page. Lamont can't be both a Republican and the darling of far left weirdos."

The ramifications of a Lieberman independent run following a progressive purge from the party is just now beginning to dawn on lefty bloggers. DailyKos acknowledges that no good could come from the situation of his own creating: "While on the book tour I ran into a top Reid aide. I pressed this aide on what Reid would do if Lieberman quit the party and went independent. After a bit of runaround, the aide finally said, "We have a Lieberman problem." ...I left it at that. My take was that they had no clue what they would do. No solution would be a good one. God knows that we in the netroots and grassroots would demand that committee seats assigned to Democrats should be held by Democrats (with an exception for Republicans who leave their party). But that would be a drastic action to take against someone who was the Democratic vice presidential nominee just a short six years ago."

Jane Hamsher at firedoglake reports on her questioning of Sen. Min. Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) from YearlyKos last weekend: "So I asked him -- if Joe Lieberman leaves the party, what will happen with regard to his committee appointments? Reid was very careful with his words, and very specific. He said that his letter written to delegates on behalf of Lieberman had made it crystal clear that he was endorsing Joe specifically because Joe was committing to stay in the party. But, I pointed out - Lieberman has since that time given several interviews where he has refused to run out the possibility of an independent run. ...Reid said it to me twice, and he chose his words very carefully: It's important for people to know that their actions have consequences."

CLINTON: Bubble Girl

The Take Back America conference is crawling with bloggers and libertarian David Weigel reported on the scene during Sen. Hillary Clinton's (D-NY) 6/13 speech for Hit and Run: "There's a definite tension at Take Back America preceding Hillary Clinton's 8:15 (or whenever she shows up) speech. ... One of the organizers for Draft Gore is speculating on the reception Hillary will get. "I really hope she doesn't get heckled or booed," he says. "I just plan to give her tepid applause." There are murmurs of agreement. There's no apparent upside for her in coming here. ... There are some boos; Code Pink and other activists have moved themselves up front, so it sounds like half the room is angry, but the ratio is more like one in 50. ... As soon as she starts talking about our troops and "keeping faith with them," there are shouts of "Bring 'em home." That stops her for maybe half a second, but she continues elucidating her non-position on the war, almost feeding off the angry rump of activists."

Common Dreams reported on the efforts of Code Pink at HRC's speech: "Fearing that CODEPINK would openly confront Clinton on her pro-war policy, the organizers of Take Back America entered into negotiations with CODEPINK a few days before the conference. "We had lengthy discussions where they pleaded with us not to protest during her keynote breakfast address," explained Gael Murphy, one of the cofounders of CODEPINK. "Instead, we were told that we could distribute flyers explaining Hillary's pro-war position to the crowd inside and outside the hotel, and we would be called on to ask her the first question after the speech. We agreed." ... A few CODEPINK women did manage to get inside the breakfast, however, as they were legitimate ticket holders. Once inside, the CODEPINK women soon realized that they had been deceived about the second part of the agreement: They would not be allowed to ask the first question, or any question, because Hillary Clinton would not be fielding questions from the audience."

Mahablog was also at the convo and reports a distinct lack of pro-HRC buzz: "Schmoozing in the hall with other attendees, one senses a lack of interest in a Hillary Clinton candidacy. The MSM has been telling us for years that Hillary is a "rock star" with party activists, but I'm not seeing that here. "She can't win" seems to be conventional wisdom."

Matt Stoller at MyDD thinks HRC is out of touch, but doesn't blame her: "I sympathize deeply with Senator Clinton. She has not lived in the real world since 1993 out of necessity. The vicious smears by the right-wing forced her to build a phalanx of advisors who protect her from feedback. This was necessary, but it carries a severe cost. That cost is that she lives in a bubble. It's a different bubble than that of Bush, but not as different as you might imagine. It is a bubble built of big money donors, right-wing beltway pundits, campaign consultants, and constituency group leaders."

Conservative John Podhoretz at The Corner believes HRC got exactly what she wanted out of the event: "There's a lot of talk about how Hillary's rep on the far Left has taken such a hit that she's going to have trouble getting the Democratic nomination. Come on. How does sounding responsible and sober about America's policy in Iraq hurt her? Scenes like this, if they continue through the campaign season, are going to get her elected."

KERRY: But Where's The Keymaster?

Where HRC struggled Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) thrived at the Take Back America conference 6/13. Lefty Taylor Marsh: "To say John Kerry was on fire today at the Take Back America conference is an understatement. He was relaxed, confident and his message was clearly defined, without hesitation or reservation. He made it absolutely clear that he didn't intend to take any crap from Hillary Clinton, or anyone else for that matter." Video of Kerry's speech can be found here.

Lefty Los Angeles blogger Martini Republic sat down with The Democratic Daily'sPamela Leavy why she is such a huge Kerry fan:

MR: You just put together a small blogger conversation with John Kerry here in LA. You're now the Kerry Gatekeeper in the blogosphere. In fact, you're really been that for some time. You've been very close to the Kerry people since 2003, maybe even before. What do you think Kerry has to offer people that others in the Democratic Party do not?

Leavey: The Kerry Gatekeeper in the blogosphere...I guess that's a good description. I think a couple of people at the "Blooger" meeting here in LA expressed that John Kerry frequently does more in the Senate than many of his peers. From the day he went back to work in the Senate a few days after the election, he's been out there fighting for us. Some would prefer to not acknowledge that. I feel he deserves credit for what he does and so do my readers. On any given day we have new readers chime in and thank us for providing Kerry news and many who say they hope the Senator runs again. There were mistakes made during the campaign, he's working hard to correct that. He's changed a lot in recent months. Having spent some time with him twice in the space of a little over two months, at events here in LA, I've seen that change myself firsthand. There's not much I don't see eye to eye with John Kerry on. From education to the environment, the economy to healthcare, civil rights to perceived needs - I think Kerry gets what America needs. He's a brilliant man, very idealistic and also realistic - I relate to that because I too am very idealistic and realistic. I don't think anyone is more qualified to lead this country out of the mess it is in. I felt that in 2003 when I first got involved with his campaign, three years ago next month and I still feel that.

Catching up on his post YearlyKos press DailyKos didn't let IA Gov. Tom Vilsack's 6/11 (D) New York Timesswipe go unrefuted: "I won't be mean about it, since I'm glad he came to YearlyKos. I think engagement is a good thing, even from the guy who is running the DLC. But perhaps he should worry less about the DLC and me, and worry more about his potential bid. In his own home state of Iowa, Vilsack came in with just 10 percent support, fourth behind Edwards, Hillary, and Kerry."

IA progressive Political Forest also had unkind words for Vilsack, this time for a quote in the 6/13 Des Moines Register not supporting a date for withdraw from Iraq. PF writes: "I'm not sure what Vilsack is trying to do here. Going into the midterms of November, if Democrats don't have a solid policy alternative on Iraq, we're still going to get creamed in certain areas, even if we do make some pick-ups or gain control over one house of Congress. I respect Governor Vilsack for his work here in Iowa, but when it comes to Iraq he's terribly mistaken. You can't move up from 4th in Iowa polling if you think that the current course (no withdrawal) is going to work. Most Americans, 61% disapprove of Bush's current handling and course. Change is needed. Let's get out of there."

GIULIANI: Is Springfield In A Red State?

Former NY mayor Rudy Giuliani's (R) Manhattan Institute energy policy speech generated positive righty blogger buzz. Bryan at HotAir writes: "The fact is, lefties especially should note, if you want to reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, you have to either a) find oil elsewhere; b) buy it from other existing sources; c) produce more oil from known US sources; or d) use something other than oil. ...So let's cowboy up and build some nuke plants. I used to scuba dive right next to the Comanche Peak nuke plant in Texas. I only glowed for an hour or two; otherwise no problem! ...He (Giuliani) still has some New York cleaning up to do on immigration and guns, though, before he can possibly win a GOP primary in a red state."

Fellow righty Decision'08 was also impressed: "I'm glad to see Rudy Giuliani talking up the prospects of nuclear plants. ...I don't how much political resonance this issue has (energy policy is not the most thrilling of topics), but it's good policy made somewhat inevitable due to declining alternatives. The sooner we embark on new nuclear plants, the better."

BLOGGER VS. THE WORLD: The Warner Party At YearlyKos: Day Four

Markos Moulitsas is still taking flak for ex-VA Gov. Mark Warner's (D) 6/10 Las Vegas party. Miles Mogulsecu at The Huffington Post worries that kos is selling his soul to the DLC: "I'm concerned that many in this sector of the liberal blogosphere can be bought off by a politician showing a little interest and stroking their outsider egos. ...Warner is another pro-business politician supported by the corporate-sponsored DLC. To the extent he has taken any positions (his speech was full of generalities and light on specifics), he is hard to distinguish from Hillary Clinton. ...It should take more than a few free Drinks and a shrimp on a stick in a Las Vega hotel to gain the support of the liberal bloggers."

Lefty Kevin Drum at The Washington Monthly worries that the party proved bloggers to be just another interest group: "Mainly, though, I wonder what the politicians thought of it. Do they really think the blogosphere is where the action is, or is it...just the "new Iowa" - except with speeches about direct democracy and net neutrality instead of ethanol and crop subsidies? I'm not yet sure about that. But in any case, should I really support a candidate just because he "gets the internet"? Whatever that means? I'm not sure about that either."

Kausfiles (no permalink, must scroll) jumps into the DailyKos fray wondering when the MSM honeymoon will end for Markos: "I rag on Markos Moulitsas for his 2004 "screw them" comment about the four American security contractors killed in Fallujah. That comment was more offensive than anything Ann Coulter's book is currently being criticized for. ...Yet Tim Russert and the rest of the MSM are falling over themselves giving respect to Kos. Is this due to a) liberal bias or b) Kos' seemingly determined Graydon-Carteresque attempt to make himself presentable** and join the club [$] he's been attacking? I suspect (b).

MURTHA: Stay The Course

Lefty Michael Crowley at The Plank doesn't see much news in the suspension of Rep. John Murtha's (D-PA) campaign for majority leader. Crowley quotes a Hill reader: " Murtha "suspending" operations means nothing. These races are all on the DL, and this just means there won't be public commitment lists. But make no mistake about it, the fissures have come through, the tensions will only grow and fester. Everything will be seen in light of whose side someone is on, whether they are a Hoyer person or Pelosi/Murtha person. This announcement is the rhetorical equivalent of trying to put Astroturf on the San Andreas fault."

Meanwhile, DailyKos not only wants Murtha to push Rep. Stenny Hoyer (D-MD) out of the leadership after Nov, he also wants Dems to replace Hoyer all together and move Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) out of leadership too: "Steny Hoyer is a real danger to House Democrats and must be taken out. Now was the wrong time to launch his challenge, but as soon as the elections are over, we need to make it a top priority of ours to help Murtha wipe Hoyer from the Democratic leadership. And Maryland Democrats, start looking around for a Hoyer challenger for 2008. You guys deserve better. I wouldn't mind a leadership challenge to Nancy Pelosi either, for that matter, but more than one congressperson has told me that's wishful thinking and won't happen.

Admittedly for different reason Hotline-alum Craig Crawford writing at The Huffington Post wants to see Murtha challenge Pelosi now: "Hey Jack Murtha, why stop at declaring yourself a candidate for "Majority Leader" if Democrats win the House? Challenge Nancy Pelosi now. Giving Pelosi as much benefit of the doubt as possible, I simply do not think the Democrats will succeed with her at the helm. For starters, Pelosi's miserable performance on NBC's "Meet The Press" (5/7/06) was as insecure, halting and equivocal as it gets - and her many appearances elsewhere have been no better. Pelosi might be a skilled backroom operator, but compared to Newt Gingrich's fiery crusade to GOP victory in 1994 -- well, there is no comparison."

Huffington Post commenter MrLion likes Crawford's analysis: "The Democratic Party is like the New York Yankees during the 1960s. They won five straight pennants at the start of the decade. Then something happened. Years of neglecting the farm system caught up to them. They finished below .500 four of the next five seasons. Which makes Nancy Pelosi the Ralph Houk of the Democratic Party."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Conservatism's Never Really Been Tried

Talking Points Memo isn't buying conservative pundit distancing from Pres. Bush. For TPM their case is beginning to sound like communist true-believers in deep denial:

"With all the efforts now to disassociate President Bush from conservatism, I am starting to believe that conservatism itself -- not the political machine, mind you, but the ideology -- is heading toward that misty land-over-the-ocean where ideologies go after they've shuffled off this mortal coil. Sort of like the way post-Stalinist lefties used to say, "You can't say Communism's failed. It's just never really been tried."

"But as it was with Communism, so with conservatism. When all the people who call themselves conservatives get together and run the government, they're on the line for it. Conservative president. Conservative House. Conservative Senate. What we appear to be in for now is the emergence of this phantom conservatism existing out in the ether, wholly cut loose from any connection to the actual people who are universally identified as the conservatives and who claim the label for themselves."

LEST WE FORGET: Self-Parody Department

The Blogometer quotes Chris Bowers at MyDD almost daily. He consistently provides clear and poignant analysis on many subjects that the Blogometer covers. That said, Bowers can go a little over the top sometimes, especially when it comes to self-praise:

"A wise man once told me that he thought MyDD had better commentators than any other blog around. When I heard that, my reaction was a mix of dismissive gawfaws, and total agreement. Looking at the comments below my two posts today (here and here), I have no choice but to agree with the positive assessments. Given this, I just want to make one thing clear to some people who do not view MyDD as a place for thoughtful, strategic appreciation of the progressive movement: your days are numbered."

This is not a casual chat room. This is not another random political message board. When MyDD is fulfilling its mission, it is a place for serious people to make serious comments. I have always argued that bloggers should be taken seriously because they are serious people. Live up to that promise on MyDD, and you will be rewarded. Think this is child's play, and you will not be. That is my promise. That is my threat. Don't for a minute think that I won't follow thought on it, given proper time and attention.

As Jerry Seinfeld quipped: "It's that little bit of arrogance in the medical community, I think we could all live without."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:25 PM

June 13, 2006

6/13: Left Behind?

Reaction to prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's Karl Rove non-indictment announcement is dominating the blogosphere 6/13. Gloating and truthout.org-grave-stomping are the order of the day for those on the right while those lefties who are commenting note the investigation is still ongoing and hope that further Bush admin. nefariousness will still be uncovered.

In other developments the progressive 'sphere continues to pull Dems in their direction. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) comes in for some, by now expected, lefty-blogger hate, but there's also lefty concern over a rightward drift in Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), and DailyKos founder Markos Moulitsas also finds himself protecting his left flank over his support for ex-VA Gov. Mark Warner (D).

VA SEN: Web Loves Webb

Not only does DailyKos support Ex-Navy Sec. Jim Webb (D), he thinks Webb represents everything the netroots wants in a candidate: "One of the main knocks against Webb is that he's a former Republican. And, in fact, a former Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan. Far from a bad thing, this is exactly what we want: Republicans realizing that if they truly want a better America they need to switch to the Democrats. Republicans realizing that America's security isn't being strengthened, but weakened by the party of CIA agent outings and the Dubai ports deal. I'll be blunt. If Harris Miller wins, there probably won't be much of a Senate race in Virginia in November. If Webb wins, this race will catapult to the top second-tier and could become a top-tier race before long."

Berkeley bloggers aren't the only ones supporting Webb. Virginia Progressive: "I support Jim Webb and I want to tell you why. ... Jim is reliably pro-choice. ... On gay-related issues ... he supports civil unions ... Webb is opposed to the Constitutional Amendment (so-called Marriage Amendment) on the ballot in Virginia this fall ... Webb opposed the Iraq War before it started and has consistently spoken out against it ever since ... Webb can win in November."

VB Dems Blog offers more tepid Webb support: "I am the most shallow person on the face of this planet. Like many others, I have flipped and flopped on who to support between Harris Miller and Jim Webb. ... Here's where my shallowness comes in. I'm voting for Webb because most of my friends are. That's pretty bad, isn't it?"

The Virginia Centrist sees the primary more as a test for the blogosphere than the Dems: "In reality, Tuesday's election is a referendum on the liberal primary voters' view of Harris Miller or Jim Webb. However, in politics, perception is reality, and the perception is that tomorrow is a referendum on blogs and their role in primaries. ... I suspect that there are plenty of politicians in both parties who hope Harris Miller pulls this off tomorrow. For them, a Miller win will signify that bloggers shrill sense of self-importance is unjustified. This will be a great victory for Virginia politicians who miss the good old days (2 years ago) when they could legislate from the shadows, completely immune to any scrutiny from activists or citizens."

BLOGGER VS. BLOGGER: Is Kos Too Centrist For DailyKos?

Feeling pressure from his own comment boards, Kos posted a lengthy defense of ex-VA Gov. Mark Warner's (D) 6/10 Las Vegas party:

Warner sent a strong message not just to us, but to the media and political establishments that the netroots matters. And in politics, $100K is pocket change. Better spend it on a blogger party where the candidate socialized with regular people than on bulls**t television ads or crappy consultants. ... Lost in the hubbub was the fact that Wes Clark also had a big bash for bloggers at the Hard Rock Casino with open bar. Sure, it wasn't the Stratosphere, but all such parties in Vegas cost serious money. ...All politics costs serious money. It's not a bad thing for us, or them, to have them spend some of it talking to us.

A completely unscientific survey of comments to kos' post shows the DLC is still hated and most Kossacks are weary of Warner:

• blogswarm: "He is with the DLC on policy, with the netroots when it comes to picking up the bar tab. That isn't a leader, it is a lobbyist."
• DeanFan84: "Jerome and Kos SOLD access. That is what happened this weekend. Frankly, I would have liked to have heard more from Tom Vilsack and Bill Richardson, who were also in attendance. What I wanted to hear was a dialogue about how the Democratic Party can fix its problems and move forward together. Instead Warner skipped over the dialogue in a show of power and glamour."
• landrew: "Wasn't it Kos himself...ho just told us a few weeks ago that the DLC was one of the worst organizations in the world - that it was a dinosaur destined for extinction?"
• Joe Buck: "My issue with Warner is that he seems to be adopting foreign policy stands from the DLC wing of the party. That's a recipe for disaster. ...Up until now, most Europeans distinguish between the American people and the American government. But elect a Democrat with neocon war-hawk ideas, and it's over; the hostility to Americans abroad is likely to go through the roof."

Still many Kossacks were willing to cut Warner and the DLC some slack. JTA: "So what if he gave a speech to the DLC or associated with the organization? It's not the republican party, last I checked."

ETHICS: Early Bird Special

TPMmuckraker reports that 40-year-old Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) aide Jeffrey Shockey, who reportedly earned $2M in '05, is a senior citizen according to DC records. The senior citizen status "qualifies him for a major break on the taxes he pays on his home, a manse thought to be worth over a million dollars."

Talking Points Memo also followed up on earlier TPMmuckraker reports that Shockey claimed the House Ethics Cmte signed off on his extracurricular lobbying firm payments. Talking Points Memo quotes two readers, a Dem staffer and a DC campaign finance lawyer who doubt the veracity of Shockey's claims. From the lawyer: "If Shockey didn't get a written opinion from the House Ethics Committee then the Committee didn't approve his arrangement. Anyone who has ever dealt with the professional staff on the Ethics Committee will tell you that if you call and make an oral request for advice they will give you they best guidance they can given the facts presented, but that their oral advice doesn't constitute Ethics Committee approval for any proposed course of action."

MORAN: MORON

Righty bloggers jumped all over Rep. Jim Moran's (D-VA) 6/12 "I'm going to earmark the s#1t out of it" comment. The Political Pit Bull noted some dissonance on the spending issue.

"Democrats pledge to restore responsible budgeting, and follow the strict rules of pay-as-you go. Fiscal responsibility will be the only option when we control the Congress." - House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, May 18, 2006. "When I become chairman [of a House approps subcmte] I'm going to earmark the sh** out of it!" - Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA), 6/9/06.

The Pit Bull finishes: "As bad as Republicans have been in terms of fiscal responsibility, I don't think I've heard any use such a, umm, colorful expression to imply that they'll increase the number of earmarks like crazy. But I'm sure it was just a slip of the tongue ..."

Righty Captain's Quarters quips: "So far, that may be the only specific action on the Democratic agenda for this mid-term election." And Blue Crab Boulevard concludes: "And this is why the Democrats are just not getting the traction they think they should have."

Lefty TPMmuckraker asks: "So this is how Dems run an anti-corruption platform?"

OBAMA: The Insider

Matt Stoller at MyDD notes this Nationpiece on Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) and worries that Obama is: "an insider first, an institutionalist second, and a progressive third." Stoller theorizes: "One thing to consider is that Obama walked into the Senate. His primary opponent and his general election opponent both self-destructed. In some small way, he thinks of himself as a fraud who snuck into the Senate, undeserving of the attention he gets on a regular basis. He's never had to make that call to pull the trigger on the negative ads. He's never weathered the scandals. He's never been won an actual media intensive campaign. That might be why he's cautious."

CLINTON: The More You Blog, The More You Hate HRC

Chris Bowers at MyDD has a graphic up analyzing Sen. Hillary Clinton's (D-NY) approval ratings' among Dems as they report more blog reading. Bowers: "The more frequently a netroots activist readers blogs, the less likely s/he is to have a favorable opinion of Hillary Clinton. While netroots activists who never read blogs have an opinion of Hillary Clinton roughly comparable to all Democrats, netroots activists who regularly read political blogs actually have an overall negative opinion of Hillary Clinton, at 45% favorable and 54% unfavorable. ...Given these rather remarkable numbers, the $640,000,000 question is whether or not blog readers really are the influential, cutting edge of Democratic public opinion, or whether we are an isolated group that has little overall impact on the sentiment of the Democratic rank and file. Considering results from the recent Iowa poll, the recent Connecticut poll, and the Montana Senatorial primary (among other things), I am strongly inclined to believe that the opinions held by progressive, political blog readers eventually come to be shared by a wide percentage of the Democratic rank and file."

Norman Solomon at The Huffington Post explains why HRC ought not be warmly welcomed by progressive 6/13 at the "Take Back America 2006" conference: "The Take Back America schedule set aside half an hour for a speech from Clinton but not a minute for any words from Jonathan Tasini, the longtime union activist who's running -- on an antiwar and all-around progressive platform -- against Clinton in this year's Democratic primary for senator from New York. ...It's sad to see that the progressive conference has excluded from the podium the vigorous primary challenger Tasini while featuring a speaker who has stood against the progressive agenda consistently for more than a decade on issues ranging from NAFTA to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Tasini points out that Hillary Clinton remains for the war in Iraq, for so-called "free trade" agreements and for the death penalty.

ROVE: The Teflon President Aide

The lion's share of blogging on the non-indictment of Karl Rove is being done by the right so far 6/13. Hot Air celebrates under the header: "Let the gloating begin." Meanwhile Another Rovian Conspiracy has a detailed take down of truthout.org's Jason Leopold and Marc Ash.

Lefty Christy Hardin Smith at firedoglake isn't ready to throw in the towel yet: "I've said this before, and I will say it again: unless and until I hear it from Patrick Fitzgerald, the investigation continues to be ongoing. Which means that there are still potential developments down the road, should the evidence (like handwritten marching orders on the Wilson op-ed in Dick Cheney's handwriting) lead there."

Also on the left MediaMatters makes sure no one forgets there is still the issue of Rove's security clearance: "As Media Matters has previously explained, both Rove's apparent confirmation of CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity to syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak and his alleged disclosure of her identity to Time magazine correspondent Matthew Cooper should trigger the loss of his security clearance under the Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement. ...Now that Rove is apparently no longer the subject of an "ongoing investigation" into the Plame matter, Media Matters hopes reporters will demand answers about his security clearance."

BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: Gary Farber

Today the Blogometer talks to lefty funny-man Gary Farber, who writes Amygdala.

What is your full name?

Gary Farber. You don't get the unused middle name.

What is your age?

When I first got this q and a, 46; now 47.

Where did you grow up?

Born in Flatbush, Brooklyn, NY; moved to Midwood, Brooklyn, NY, when 3, though just slavishly following my parents.

Where do you live now?

Boulder, Colorado

What is your occupation?

Slacker.

Have you ever worked on a political campaign or for the mainstream media?

Have you ever worked on a political campaign or for the mainstream media? Trivial volunteer work on a smattering of campaigns, including John Anderson and Gary Hart in '80, Hart again in '84, Dukakis in '88, Tsongas, then Clinton in '92. Plus a smattering of local races; I first did some volunteering for Elizabeth Holtzman in Brooklyn in the Seventies, when she was my Congressional Rep.

When did you start blogging and why?

December, 2001; it was purely an extension of precisely the same sort of writing/linking I'd been doing on certain Usenet newsgroups, particularly the rec.arts.sf.* hierarchy (along with other sorts of writing more like blog comments), since 1995, which flowed out of the sort of writing I'd been doing for science fiction fanzines and amateur press association since age 12 in 1971; it's all one long flow/continuum for me.

I have a lot of opinions, though mostly I try to publically express them only on a smattering of specific subjects I like to think I have some minimal knowledge of; I've also always been a neophile, and like to share news about what excites or intrigues or cracks me up. It's part social thing, part attempt to Do Good, part attempt to justify my existence in the universe, part attempt to make it easier for me to find where bits of info I want to later refer to came from, part arrogance, and part why not?

What has been your favorite post, or favorite story to write about, in that time?

Geez, I've been doing this for more than four and a half years, and thousands of posts: who can sort that out? Things that still get hits at times from years past include writing about Site R, Cheney's favorite Undisclosed Location; using my knowledge of typewriter history to write about the Rather/Bush document questions, in which I first pointed out that many of the claims as to why they were forgeries were factually incorrect, but then had to conclude that the documents were nonethless clearly forgeries anyway (thus pleasing absolutely no one, which is typical for me); various things about science fiction, which field I essentially grew up in (I keep forgetting that even casual posts about Robert Heinlein wind up getting unexpected amounts of attention). "I've been following the NSA "Program" story with close attention, and now am also giving considerable coverage to the Haditha story."

Describe your typical blogging schedule. And what is your average output?

Have trouble keeping to a regular sleep/wake schedule; deal with insomnia by making lots of coffee; fall asleep again. As has been pointed out, I used to cycle between periods of not-much-blogging and 60-posts-a-day. In recent months I've been experimenting with trying to keep to strictly under 10-20 posts a day, hoping that more of them will actually be read by more people that way; since I seem to remain largely dependent on getting links from Bigger Name Bloggers to get read by more than a handful of people other than random search engine users, none of this seems to make much difference, so my schedule in the long term seems to consist of posting something, then six weeks or six months later, I point out to someone in their comments that I already posted on that Back Then.

Who is your favorite political blogger? Favorite non-political blogger?

I hate questions that ask for single favorites; I never have 'em. Among my favorites are, in random order, Jim Henley, Ted Barlow, Hilzoy of Obsidian Wings, Katherine of Obsidian Wings, Thomas Nephew, and, of course, the kings, Giblets, Fafnir, and the Medium Lobster of Fafblog!.

Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?

I used to have several; now I mostly range from hating them to having only mild contempt for them. I think the form is problematic and too limiting: few humans can churn out quality in 500 words 3 times a week, or even 1500 words weekly, for very long. I'm not sure anyone hasn't suffered visible burnout after a few years. But columnists I once liked I'd be embarassed to name after their output in the last year or in recent years. (Friedman, Ignatius, once Dowd, etc.) I appreciate Kristof on Darfur, but not much on domestic politics; I still like Kinsley when he's on a roll, but sometimes he's awful; I can still get everyone to hate me if I say that I appreciate C. Hitchens for being stimulating, even though I think he's wildly wrong much of the time; I find British columnists such as Johann Hari and David Aaronovitch and Matthew Parris interesting.

What is your favorite television news program, either network or cable?

network or cable? I've not had cable in a long time, and never for long long periods, so my choices are extremely limited. I still watch fairly promiscuoulsy most of what the networks provide, both nightly and Sunday morning; the regular morning shows have become an insult to consider "news"; they're just long commercials, interspersed with crap and cooking segments, and I lost interest years ago. I don't let not having cable stop me from despising Bill O'Reilly; I do read transcripts. PBS Newshour, actually, come to think of it, is my "favorite," I guess; once Nightline, but not in umpty years.

What MSM-produced websites (i.e. newspapers, magazines) do you visit on a daily basis?

NY Times, Washington Post, often Slate.

What non-MSM websites (i.e. blogs) do you visit on a daily basis?

Mememorandom, Unqualified Offerings.

How often, or do you ever, read a newspaper in its dead-tree (i.e. print) form?

Not often; if I ever get back to a job where I'm commuting by mass transit, it would be either the local paper or NY Times.

How do you see the new media and old media affecting and influencing each other in the next five years?

Lots of sex and mutant babies.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Fight Club

Arianna Huffington at The Huffington Post looks at Rep. Jack Murtha's (D-PA) announced challenge to House Min. Whip/potential maj. leader candidate Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and concludes that a resolution of this fight before Nov. could benefit Dems takeover chances:

"I see Murtha's decision, and the debate it has begun to spark, as the perfect chance for the party to find its voice and clearly define itself -- particularly when it comes to Iraq, the paramount issue in American politics. ..."At the moment, the Democrats' equivocating position on Iraq is a major reason why they are failing to fully capitalize on voters' widespread desire for change - or, as the latest Democracy Corps poll puts it, "underperforming." Indeed, according to the poll [pdf], "there has been no improvement in feelings about Democrats in this change environment; in fact positive views of the party have actually declined over the past few months."

"The rapidly coalescing conventional wisdom is that a leadership race among House Democrats is the last thing the party needs heading into November, and plays right into the GOP's hands. ...By making it clear that the party intends to follow Murtha's call for immediate redeployment of our troops rather than Hoyer's Bush-lite approach, Democrats can draw a sharp contrast with the GOP (and isn't that what elections are about?) on the issue that has become the Republicans' greatest vulnerability."

"Rather than divisive, the leadership battle could prove decisive -- and mean the difference between winning and losing in November."

LEST WE FORGET: Fight Club II

Still upset over soccer USA's absolute embarrassment 6/12? Want to take out your anger on other countries? Then Betfair World Cup has just the slick promo to relieve your anxieties (and of course entice you to lose all your $$$ on a sport you know nothing about). The World Cup Mascot Smackdown allows to chose a country mascot for yourself and the computer, and then you just start beating the crap out of each other. Mascots include a German Sausage, a Spanish Bull, and buxom Swedish beauty.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:13 PM

June 12, 2006

6/12: Can't Buy Me Love

Ex-Gov. Mark Warner was by far the most blogged about candidate at the YearlyKos convention, but it is not too early to wonder if he got all that he was hoping for from his $100k investment in the weekend. Warner may be first in the heart of Markos Moulitsas, but many in the larger lefty 'sphere as well as on DailyKos' message boards are wary of Warner's hawkish foreign policy stances and his ties to the DLC. Fellow WH'08 hopeful Ret. Gen. Wes Clark received rave reviews for his appearances, but was not nearly as hot a topic of conversation. Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) and DNC Chair Howard Dean, however, both brought the Kossacks to their feet repeatedly with red-meat speeches, while Reid's Iran-intelligence bill introduction was approvingly received.

Participants uniformly found the event to be a success and there will undoubtedly be another event, and bigger, in '07 (New Orleans?). If it is held at the same time of year, and blogger influence does not stagnate, how can a '08 hopeful pass up next year's convo? Will YearlyKos '07 be the site of the first '08 Dem primary debate?

YEARLYKOS I: Coming Out Party

SusanG at DailyKos summed up the sentiments of many attendees: "Big names may be here, but it is the extraordinary electricity of coming home to each other and our causes - "coming out" in a sense as liberals, not only unafraid but kicka** proud after years of being called extreme and hate-filled and crazed - that is making up the magic of this event. We are here. We are at the gates. ... We have arrived." Skippy the Bush Kangaroo thought attendees made a good showing to the outside world: "I have said to more than one person here that we will look very good to the outside world: we're not pajama-clad adolescents picking our nose and discussing the star trek experience over at the vegas hilton (although i can't wait to try it out... they've got a new show, borg 4d, and ... but i digress) ... we are professional, and enthusiastic. ... and i believe the outside world (read: msm) is actually starting to take note."

Dem activist NPI Blog much preferred YealyKos to last weeks WA Dem convo: "One thing I truly enjoyed about YearlyKos that made this gathering very different from the state convention last weekend is that the atmosphere was just more relaxing. No tension over platforms, resolutions, or Maria Cantwell."

Air America Radio provided streaming video of many panel discussions, all of which can be found on the YearlyKos schedule here. Many attendees liveblogged the events they went to including:

• Cream Puff of DailyKos at the student caucus: "The first thing one notices upon coming into the Student Caucus, and in fact the entire Yearly Kos convention, is the fact that there are very few actual students here at the Convention."
• John Aravosis of AMERICAblog at a foreign policy panel: "Arianna is really quite amazing. The woman is SMART. I don't have a large enough font to truly express how intelligent this woman is. Smart, smart, smart."
• caitiedidit at The South's Importance in the American Political Arena panel: "The YearlyKos panel on whether or not the Democrats need the South to win was freaking FABULOUS. Worth the $10 bucks alone. Oh, man. It was so awesome. The panel members fought and got really angry, and the crowd was yelling stuff at the stage and people asking questions were so emotional that their voices shook when they spoke. Other people shouted at the panel members with rage. It was a collision of the conflicting attitudes and resentment and tensions between the Democratic HQ and Southern Democrats and Christian Southern Democrats."
• Kety Esquivelof DailyKos at a religion panel: "The discussion was free-wheeling. Some expressed optimism at the growing strength of the religious left. Others focused on their dismay at the influence and dominance of the religious right. A graduate of the Divinity School at University of Chicago commended a study it had conducted shows trends toward greater secularity and greater orthodoxy. All seemed to agree that this discussion about faith and politics was important for progressives and asked to continued the roundtable the next day."
• baratundeof DailyKos at the African- American Caucus: "We started the way every session at a conference like this starts: where are the black people? Why aren't there more black bloggers in the political blogosphere? What is needed to change this? Is something needed to change this?"
• pastordan at DailyKos: "First, we do need to talk for a minute about the relationship between religion and politics. I want to lay out for you a positive agenda, not one that responds to the attacks of political opponents, nor one that allows ourselves to be defined by our anger. We need, I think, a way of looking beyond the short-term goals of electoral victory or increased representation in the mass media to what alternatives to the dominant conservative ideologies we can offer to our nation and our local communities. We need a way of imagining a new world, a new way of life, in which our hopes and dreams have been realized. We need a way to seek the healing of the world."

YEARLYKOS II: KOSSACKS GONE WILD

A treasure trove of YearlyKos video and audio is available. Link TV has the best collection of videos including: a foreign policy panel with Arianna Huffington, Dean's speech, Amb. Joe Wilson, a panel on net neutrality, a panel on progressive infrastructure, Sen. Barbara Boxer's (D-CA) speech, Tom Tomorrow, and Markos

Texas Nate at DailyKos also has video featuring bigger DailyKos diarists like mcjoan and SusanG, along with highlights from Warner's 6/10 "Blogosphere at the Stratosphere" party including Marko's Warner introduction.

PoliticsTV has video of Reid, Dean, Warner, and Joe Trippi. The YoungTurks has an interview with Clark, and BlipTV has a Clark address from the Hard Rock Casino.

YEARLYKOS III: BMOC (And We Don't Mean Kos)

Arianna Huffington arrived at YearlyKos and declared Ex-Gov. Mark Warner "the runaway winner of this pre-Iowa caucus." But she then quickly noted: "money no doubt helped his cause: I'm hearing that Warner, being shepherded by Jerome Armstrong, the MyDD blogger and co-author with Kos himself of Crashing the Gate, has spent over $100,000 courting the netroots here in Vegas. He spent $75,000 alone to host all the convention-goers at the Stratosphere tower for a party."

The time and money definitely paid some dividends. American Street: "Warner has more virtues than the ability to throw a good party, though. His talk the next day was excellent, and he hit all the points I care about: he spoke strongly in favor of science and education and healthcare and the obligation to take care of the least advantaged as well as the wealthy, he definitely understands the importance of technology, and he was very much against the war." Time Travel Toaster described Warner's speech as "funny and inspiring" and concluded: "Keep an eye on this guy for '08. The universal health care for everyone under 18 idea that he and other Dems are talking about now is great."

Most other Warner reax were tepid at best:

• NPI Blog: "He did sound presidential, but if he's going to run for the Democratic nomination, he's going to need to talk more about the whole country and not just Virginia."
• Bob Geiger at Democratic Underground: "Mark Warner...spoke to a lunchtime crowd that, while not providing the standing ovations accorded to Dean, was eager to hear how his well-known centrist approach would address progressive political concerns."
• Cocktail Party Physics: "Majikthise wondered aloud whether these kinds of events really changed anyone's mind for election purposes. No sooner had she spoken, when an inebriated blogger stumbled up and declared, "Mark Warner rocks! I am SOO voting for him!" So apparently Warner has a lock on the drunken freeloader sector of the blogosphere.
• Micah Sifry at Personal Democracy: "all I saw at the Stratosphere was an old-fashioned politician spending something like $70,000 on a garish party to soften up a constituency. (Apparently, his PAC needs to spend the money before the end of the cycle, one of his staffers told me, which was hardly a convincing reason for the conspicuous display.) But I've now had two opportunities to ask Markos Moulitsas why he thinks Warner is THE candidate who gets the Internet, and both times his answer is, essentially, "He hired Jerome." ...But I'm beginning to wonder if this isn't a new version of the Bob Shrum primary, where we're supposed to be impressed by the campaign with the best consultant."

Warner's lefty blogger love only got worse from there. Pacific Views took great exception to Warner's listing of Venezuela as a threat to the US: "Heck, the Reagan administration fired all the air traffic controllers just for demanding better working conditions and the Bush administration just busts unions out of spite. Mike Noonan of the AFL-CIO said yesterday at a panel that as of 2005, the Bush administration's actions had expressly forbidden over 20 million American workers from organizing unions. But Venezuela, they're the big threat."

Back on the DailyKos comment boards, Warner was faring much worse:

• astronautagogo: "Warner is a DLC member. Granted a more likeable DLC member ... but a DLC member nevertheless. The same DLC that supported the Iraq war. The same DLC that sold out the working class in exchange for corporate dollars. Thanks but no thanks Warner."
• dkmich: "If I'm gonna settle for a DLC, I'm going to settle for Hillary. She is familiar, has a useful husband, is a liberal, a woman, and can give our jobs away as easy as Warner. I know I've said this before, but it is true. Both DLC - one a newbie, the other not. Who needs Warner?"
• CarolynC967: "Warner's hawkish on defense. He doesn't have much foreign policy experience and it shows. He's great on domestic policy, but is consistently with the DLC crowd on Iraq and Iran. It's really a shame.
• Bob Johnson: "I don't understand the fascination with Warner. The guy holds positions that seem to be the antithesis of what Marko professes he wants, nevermind the fact that Warner is the DLC poster boy for 2008. What happened to "taking down the DLC?" ...Yeah, I know Jerome is on the payroll. But what the hell, kos? How does Warner differ from Clinton on any issue of substance? And he is THE MAIN MAN OF THE DLC. There is a disconnect."
• Lolligolli: "My biggest problem with Mark Warner is that he is the only potential 2008 Democratic Candidates that has opposed both Civil Unions and Marriage Equality. Plus as folks point out he is deeply tied to the DLC and well to the right of all other Democratic candidates."

Righty bloggers were also paying attention and wanted to know if Warner knew everything about his new friends. Smagar at RedState had the following questions for Warner: "Is there any portion of the tone of DailyKos that you do not embrace? (Oh, do tell! Your date is listening!)Did the Kossacks tell you, as they imbibed your drinks and ate your food, that you could hope to run for President by throwing rocks at President Bush's handling of the Iraq War without going on the record with specifics on WHAT should have been done differently and HOW it should have been done? If so, what was in those drinks?"

YEARLYKOS IV: Give 'Em Hell, Harry!

Democrats.com describes the atmosphere at Sen. Harry Reid's (D-NV) keynote address: "As the Rolling Stones''Street Fighting Man' blared from the speakers, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid entered the massive ballroom at the Riviera Hotel to speak to 1,000 YearlyKos attendees and, it's safe to say, wasn't sure of precisely what reception he would get."

Buzz of Reid's speech centered on his announcement of new legislation designed to keep Bush honest on Iran intel. Pacific Views: "Reid just told us this evening that his legislation will require everything the Bush administration says about Iran to be monitored and backed up in writing. To be checked and verified. Reid said that "everything they say will have to be backed up by facts," though he added that he didn't expect the Bush administration would like that requirement much. No more yellowcake. No more aluminum tubes." NPI Blog has the full text of Reid's speech.

YEARLYKOS V: Still First In Their Hearts?

Under the header "Howard Dean is a rockstar" the American Street writes: "His keynote drew more than one standing ovation with his passion and his clearly stated goals." Drinking Liberally, Boulder was also touched: "The morning started out with the man who gave tremendous energy to this whole movement: Howard Dean. I got into the 2004 election pretty late in the cycle, so I wasn't a part of the Dean craze I've heard so much about since then. After having heard Dean speak, I lament that I didn't get involved sooner. This man is simply incredible: charismatic, visionary, and passionate."

Thereisnospoon at DailyKos liveblogged the speech and the following Q and A. A sample: "QUESTION: What can we do to help our people get elected? ANSWER: We're interested in long-term. We're interested in ground game, getting volunteers into campaigns. I think that McCain-Feingold was a good thing, all this considered. But McCain-Feingold is also very strict about what we can discuss openly. We can't sit and strategize openly about what we're doing. But we will be on the ground in particular races where we think we have a remote chance."

YEARLYKOS VI: He's A Sputnik Guy

Ret. Gen. Wes Clark received rave reviews for his appearance on a science panel. Chris Mooney at Science Blogs: "Facing a full room, Wesley Clark got up there and riffed for at least twenty minutes, with impressive eloquence, about the importance of science to the American future. ... Here's a guy whose past -- unbeknownst to me -- had a lot of science in it; he's a kid of the Sputnik era, and really grasps how far we've fallen from the days when scientific innovation was at the center of America's image of itself. I was very, very impressed."

CLINTON: Left Turn Ahead?

Right Wing News looks at the Des Moines Register Dem '08 poll and sees Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) tilting left soon: "Hillary is losing to the Silky Pony in Iowa? That's not a good omen for a supposedly unstoppable front runner and it may throw a real monkey wrench into Hillary's strategy. ... with her support getting softer and gooier by the month, she's going to feel a lot of pressure to veer back to the left. That could put Hillary in a real pickle, because the one thing that would really shore up her support with her base would be to loudly get behind cutting and running in Iraq."

The Irish Trojan Blog thinks is "the first time a major poll of Democrats has produced a non-Hillary front-runner," and speculates that the Register's photo editor most not like HRC.

EDWARDS: The Un-Clinton?

Mark Noonan at GOP Bloggers sees opportunity for John Edwards in the Des Moines Register poll: "Edwards did well in Iowa in 2004 - mostly, I think, because he's speaks the liberal-populist lingo well enough to gull the Democrats in Iowa who still like to think of themselves as average Joes. He's taken the antiwar stance - and took it early enough that even his vote to liberate Iraq in 2003 is forgiven. ...It will be the Un-Clinton who ends up with the Democratic nomination - whomever adheres to the most left; whoever, that is, who most definitively doesn't try to triangulate themselves into office. My bet is that Al Gore is best equipped to do this - but ... an allegedly fresh face like Edwards could sneak up and grap the whole."

Chris Bowers at MyDD thinks Edwards is uniquely qualified to capitalize on the progressive movement: "From now on, Democratic primaries are not going to be determined only by the typical strategy of raising early money or early buzz from a finite pool of donors / media and using that edge to knock other candidates out. With a newly energized, people-powered progressive movement, increasingly the key to success in Democratic primaries is going to be be determined by which candidate or candidates can inspire that movement and release its potential energy and resources. Edwards is one of the few candidates right now who I see with the potential to do just that. If other candidates instead decide that this new movement does not matter and focus on building an organization designed to procure the largest share of what they perceive to be a fixed pool of Democratic resources, not only will they not win the nomination, they may not even be significant players in the nomination battle."

GIULIANI: Not Cooked Yet

Righty supporters of ex-NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) were not happy with Charlie Cook's latest assessment of Giuliani's chances in '08. The American Thinker believes Cook underestimates GOP discomfort with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ): "Giuliani may decide that Cook is right and not compete, in which case his analysis may be valid. What Cook misses is that many Republicans are not enthusiastic about McCain, but would accept him as the Republican candidate most likely to beat Hillary Clinton, if she were the Democratic nominee. But what Cook is missing is that among many of these same folks who would accept McCain, Giuliani is considered a better alternative, and a stronger candidate in a general election were he nominated."

The unofficial GiulianiBlog looks at online polls at hard right Free Republic and also concludes that Giuliani is more acceptable to the GOP base than McCain: "These are the results of polls taken on Free Republic, a destination that makes even conservatives in the blogosphere blanch. And while a significant chunk say they'd go third party with Rudy (they're Tancredoites, analogous to the Feingold backers on Daily Kos), just look at those McCain numbers. More Freepers would go third party than vote for McCain. Fully a third of Freepers would be willing to back Rudy but not McCain in a general election. If the pro-life, anti-illegal immigrant core of the party is given a clear choice between Rudy and McCain, they'll pick Rudy by a mile."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Battle On The Bayou In '07?

Pitin at DailyKos looks at the success of YearlyKos'06 and dreams speculates about '07: "As has been pointed out numerously, we had 4 presidential aspirants turn out; General Wes Clark, Governor Mark Warner (my pick, and not just cause he gave me free booze), Governor Richardson, and Governor Vilsack. A group of us was talking about how even if the number of DailyKos users is frozen as of today, the number of YearlyKos 2007 attendees will be at least double that based on all the positive experiences of this year. So, can we not honestly expect that every candidate will be at YearlyKos 2007, I say yes, even Hillary. If 7 of 8 sign up, please believe that Hillary can't avoid showing up. And, is it not logical to assume that if they are all in the same room, that we will take that opportunity to put them on the same panel. Regardless of what you call this panel, it will have all the candidates on the same stage, for likely the first time."

LEST WE FORGET: The Next Dittoheads?

Zoopnfunk at DailyKos was not happy to find that some of his fellow Kossacks held a tin foil hat building competition: "Thanks for making the rest of us look like nutbags, guys. ... If I didn't think there was so much potential in this community I would call it quits now. There is no quicker way to make yourself look like a delusional whackjob than by sporting a tin foil hat. I don't care if it was a fun competition or a serious display of paranoia -- if we want to be taken seriously we don't need a group of our own showing up in the media wearing tin foil on our heads.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:28 PM

June 10, 2006

6/10: TWIB Notes

Libertarian Dem or Liberal Fundamentalist?

In his keynote address to the YearlyKos convention Markos Moulitsas declared: "The blogosphere may be the only place where people from all corners of the party's ideological spectrum can get together and fight over the details, before we come together on Election Day to fight for our Big Tent Party. Popular movements are rarely as practical as ours."

Underscoring the practical side of his movement Markos writes on page 37 of Crashing the Gate: "The Democratic Party stands for everything, yet it stands for nothing. It's a gaggle of special and narrow interests, often in conflict with each other, rarely working in concert to advance their common causes. Members of each group – environmentalists, pro-choice activists, civil libertarians, plaintiff's attorneys and so on – promote their agenda above all others and show little or no understanding of the larger progressive values they share with other groups. And so the whole is never really greater than the sum of its parts."

Illustrating his point, on page 40 Markos described a "Center for a New American Dream" conference in Monterey, California where "single-issue dogmatists" demonstrated all that was wrong with the Democratic Party. Example A for Markos was NARAL and NOW celebration over their success in pressuring Rep. Jim Langevin (D-RI) out of a potential challenge to Sen. Lincoln Chafee (D-RI) due to Langevin's less than pure pro-choice record. Markos lauded the rest of Langevin's record and found "plenty for any good progressive to like." The larger lesson Markos took from the story is that Dems ought not sacrifice winning candidates to the whims of single issue groups.

There's just one problem. Substitute "Iraq" for "abortion" and "CT" for "RI" and suddenly Markos becomes everything he hates about the Democratic Party. Now Markos may claim he's just a big tent progressive trying to influence the Dems the way Grover Norquist influences the GOP, but look at his pre-YearlyKos manifesto, "The Libertarian Dem." In the post, Markos tries to locate the unifying theme to his support of Jon Tester, Jim Webb, and Paul Hackett and labels them all "Libertarian Dems." Markos explains: "Libertarian Dems are not hostile to government like traditional libertarians. But unlike the liberal Democrats of old times (now all but extinct), the Libertarian Dem doesn't believe government is the solution for everything."

As Ezra Klein quips over at TAPPED: "From second-term Bill Clinton's mouth to his ears." Klein argues that Jon Tester, Brian Schweitzer, Jim Webb, and Paul Hackett don't share anything like an ideology but rather "a muscular authenticity." Klein may be right about those three kos-picked candidates but throw Ned Lamont into the mix and the common denominator punches you in the face (hint it starts with "I" and ends with "q").

The New Dem Dispatch highlighted this point on 6/2 under the header: "The Return of Liberal Fundamentalism." In language eerily similar to Markos' they write: "One of the major reasons for the DLC's founding in 1985 was to resist what we called "liberal fundamentalism," a conformist tendency to stifle dissent among Democrats and require adherence to litmus tests devised by interest groups and ideological advocates."

Like Markos' defense of Langevin the NDN goes on to point out that while they don't agree "with Lieberman's views on Iraq in every particular" Lieberman votes "with Democrats 90 percent of the time." The NDN finishes, "A party with no room for Joe Lieberman...is a party with no prospects for a majority."

So how practical is Markos' new progressive movement? Do they have any ideological coherence outside of withdrawing from Iraq? Just look at the comment board from Markos' Libertarian Dem post, there are clear divisions among his followers over major issues like trade, taxes, and labor. Iraq is an important issue, but one issue does not a movement, nor a party, make.

NOTE: We asked Markos for comment on this post, and when we get any we will post it ASAP

UPDATE: Zachary Drake of http://zdrake.blogspot.com/ and zdrake on DailyKos responds:

I don't know how Markos will resond to your assertion that he is applying an Iraq litmus test to all Democrats, in contradiction of his "big tent" Democratic philosophy. But here is my personal response: What makes Lieberman so hurtful to the Democratic party is not his stance on the Iraq war. Other Democrats like Hillary Clinton have a similar stance on the war, and they do not attract the ire that Liberman does. We may disagree with Clinton on this issue, but we're not funding a primary challenger or otherwise trying to get her out of the Senate.

The reason Markos, myself, and other members of the progressive movement want to take Lieberman out is that despite his voting record, he often offers the Republican extremists "bi-partisan" cover, and says things like "we [Democrats] undermine the president's credibility at our peril." This propagates the ludicrous Republican meme that it is somehow wrong to criticize Bush. He, on the other hand, is often heard criticising Democrats, and seems more concerned with ingratiating himself with the administration than with the Democratic party. He hasn't even agreed to support the winner of the Democratic primary if it isn't him! He has been unwilling to rule out running as an Independent agaisnt the Democratic candidate. That is why we don't like him. Not because he fails some issue-based litmus-test that we're secretly holding everyone to.

To futher illustrate this point, I offer the example of Senate Minority Leader Harrry Reid. Ideologically, he's more conservative than the Netroots Left would like, and as far as I know he's more conservative than Lieberman. But he's in the tent because he's been willing to fight the Republicans. Not as much as the netroots left wishes he would, but we know but he's on our side. We don't have that confidence in Lieberman, and there's no reason a Sentor from blue-as-it-gets CT shouldn't be a reliable Democrat, both in voting record and in public stance.

No matter how big we make the tent (and I think it should be big), we can't include someone who is taking an axe to the tent itself! And Lieberman has been willing to do so with staggering regularity. The common thread that unites the candidates supported by the Netroots is that they're proud to be Democrats.

Posted by at 04:01 PM

June 09, 2006

6/9: Viva Las Vegas!!!

While the rest of the blogosphere is still talking about Zarqawi, the biggest story 6/9 and through the weekend will be the YearlyKos convention in Las Vegas. Non-blogger speakers include: Gen. Wesley Clark former Amb. Joseph Wilson, Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM), Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC), DNC Chair Howard Dean, Gov. Tom Vilsack (D-IA), Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV,) UC Berkeley prof. George Lakoff, and People for the American Way's Ralph Neas.

YEARLYKOS: Live From Vegas!!!

Nolan at DailyKos has a list of links for those who don't want to miss a second of YearlyKos coverage. You can catch AirAmerica's streaming coverage online here. Politics TV and The Young Turks are all covering the event. Nolan ends: "Thursday was a great day but just a warm up for the real show on Friday, Saturday and Sunday." The schedule for the entire conference can be found here.

Warm up or not Markos Moulitsas delivered the keynote address last night. Highlights include:

We were born in '02, and sort of gingerly set out into this brave new world. None of us expected to be more than a lonely voice shouting into the wilderness. But liberal blogs grew rapidly, proving there was a desperate need for strong progressive voices in this country. That was 2002. 2003 was the year of Howard Dean, where an unknown governor from a small, remote, and usually forgotten state was propelled to front-runner status on the strength of netroots activism. 2004 ... well, let's forget 2004. In 2005, we helped Dean become DNC chairman, and we helped Paul Hackett prove that a strong, unapologetic, progressive voice could compete in the deepest red districts. And now it's 2006, and it looks like we've arrived.

There have been so many efforts to marginalize us by the media and political elite because we had the temerity to feel passionate about politics. How dare us riff raff demand a voice in our democracy? So they marginalize us. They say we're extremists. We're politically naive. We're young.

It's great that so much of the DC political press is here, since now they have to make sense of all the gray hairs in the audience. The average age of a Daily Kos reader is 45. We're not that young. Young at heart, perhaps, but we've lived. Some of us are newer to politics than others, but we have a shared body of experience that is mind-boggling.Unlike the out-of-touch establishment in D.C., we actually know what it's like to live day-to-day in George Bush's America. Chris Matthews may say that only the kooks don't like George W. Bush, but we, like the rest of the country, know better. We come from every corner of this nation. We are blue collar and white collar. We are liberal, moderate, and conservative Democrats.

It's our turn to inject some good ol' fashioned common sense into Washington D.C. It's our responsibility to demand accountability and reform from the Democratic Party and allied organizations that claim to represent us.
And if they refuse to reform, if they refuse to be more accountable, if they refuse to join this people-powered movement as it seeks to move our country forward ... well then, they'll be relegated to the dustbin of history.

Drinking Liberally Boulder reported on the address:

Markos got up and spoke about the history of the site and how DC is out of touch and we're Crashing The Gates. He spoke a little about the Tester primary victory and how people-powered politics is slowly starting to have some kind of an effect on the political scene. It's not the end all-be all, of course. But after 2004, I'll take the small victories where we get them. It will take time to have the kind of influence and elect the kind of candidates we really deserve. But it will happen based on today's struggles. Will Keenan joined with another fellow to produce a video of "Mission Accomplished Man." One of the funniest things I've heard of came from the video: gay terrorist immigrants. The video was a good rendition of fear-based voting trends that Republicans have married themselves to. I expect and hope to see more things from Will.

The Left Coaster attended the Pacific Coast caucus and the Science Bloggers caucus:

"The Pacific Coast caucus ... was a very lively session and at least part of it was filmed by someone from the NOW program. (Wow, how cool that NOW is attending the conference!) ... one fellow from Busby's campaign explained about what it was like on the ground with her campaign. He believed that this primary election had been the best chance for electing a Democrat in a district that is so heavily weighted to the Republicans, but it was always a long shot. And he believed that the gaff that Busby made was one of the main reasons she lost. The week before the election, the undecided vote was 10%, and after the right-wing noise machine picked up the gaff, those undecided probably broke 80% against her. ...The Science Blog caucus ... was on what could be done to fight the radical right who were actively working to undermine science. LondonYank told us that this session was nothing like she had expected: the discussion was all about religion and its war on science rather than science. Jerome agreed, in the rest of Europe, the subject of religion in relation to science would not be necessary."

Erin in Flagstaff at DailyKos was admittedly starstruck:

"The highlight so far was not having Wesley Clark standing near our table tonight talking to John and some other folks, it was as Mike Caccioppoli (who is running for the AZ CD1 seat) and I turn a corner in our hunt for snack food and I'm passing someone who reminds me of Joseph Wilson. I catch his eye and with a dumbfounded look I point at him and say, "You're...aren't you?"
Yeah, I'm quite the witty and eloquent gal. He smiles, comes over, and shakes Mike's and my hand. Oh. My. God. We actually have a conversation with Joseph Wilson. With Joseph Wilson!"

As I'm chatting with Mr. Valerie Plame, guess who he calls over and introduces us to? Larry Johnson! The four of us are talking about Zarqawi and Iraq. La di da. Fiddle dee dee. Doesn't everyone chat with Larry Johnson and Joseph Wilson about Iraq? Oh, was I giddy when we went our separate ways. I wanted to jump up and down and scream in excitement."

Ezra Klein at TAPPED felt as if DC had just been transplanted to the desert: "Wondering why the magazines are a bit quiet? Possibly because large segments of their staffs are in Las Vegas, making a fishbowl of YearlyKos. In the rooms I've been in, attendees have barely outnumbered those writing about the attendees. A CAP-sponsored seminar on media appearances this morning saw the second row populated by The Weekly Standard'sMatt Labash , The National Review'sByron York , and The American Prospect's me. Also darting in and out of the session were The New Republic'sRyan Lizza , Time'sAna Marie-Cox , Salon'sMichael Scherer , a Chicago Tribune reporter, and Maureen Dowd. And this was not, mind you, a large room."

ZARQAWI I: It Won't Change Anything Unless It'll Make Things Worse But It Was All Just A Stunt

The most common reaction to the death of Zarqawi in lefty blogistan was low key approval tempered by claims that the event would not change current realities in Iraq. Matthew Yglesisias at TAPPED: "TURNING POINT! TURNING POINT! Look, it's great that Zarqawi's dead, and it's certainly too bad the Bush administration chose not to kill him when they had the chance years ago, preferring to keep him alive since it was useful to bolstering the set of deceptions they used to launch a war in which tens of thousands of innocent people have been killed, but let's not kid ourselves here. Zarqawi's importance to the tactical situation in Iraq has always been overstated, and I doubt he has any significance at all to the strategic situation."

Fellow lefty Ivo Daalder at TPMCafe turned in a similar opinion: "A truly evil man is dead. That's a very good thing. But Zarqawi's death is no more likely to be turning point in Iraq than was Saddam Hussein's capture in December 2003. Because while Zarqawi and his terrorist henchmen were responsible for a lot of horrific violence, the present state of anarchy is the result of very different causes." Booman Tribune also compared the news to the capture of Saddam: "Obviously good news for an administration desperate for something positive to report from Iraq. The question remains, however: Has anything really changed? My initial reaction is that, as with the capture of Saddam Hussein, the various elections and the formation of the new "unity" government in Iraq, not really.

Not all on the left welcomed the news. Many thought Zarqawi's death would only make things worse. RJ Eskow at The Huffington Post: "Targeted assassinations are unethical, and they don't work. For those reasons, I was wrong to exult over Zarqawi's death yesterday. Sure, he was an evil human being. But all that's been accomplished by this strike is one death that encourages those on both sides who would escalate the cycle of violence even further." Factesque concurred: "But beyond all the uncomfortable talk of revenge, which isn't justice at all ... the fact is that Zarqawi's killing will only make matters in Iraq worse."

Whether they thought Zarqawi's death was good news or bad, many on the left smelled conspiracy in either the timing of his death, the portrayal of his role importance in Iraq. Scot Thill at The Huffington Post hits both notes: "It almost felt great clapping along with the rest of the administration-approved puppets in power at the press conference. Well, almost. Why? Well, for one thing, Zarqawi was an invented menace. Before the great "Iraq experiment" in democracy delivered not by necessity but by bullets and bombs (as well as WMD pretexts), Zarqawi was about as popular as Carrot Top. ...If there are any Americans left who believe that the death of Zarqawi is anything other than an orchestrated photo-op, then it's time to start scouting out apartments in Vancouver." TalkLeft had similar thoughts: "I'm not sorry he's dead. I don't doubt the U.S. killed him. But I do wonder when he really died."

Under the header "Zarqawi's Take-Out Politically Timed? Here's Betting Osama's Will Be as Well," Lefty Russell Shaw at The Huffington Post thought similar new about Osama could be around the corner: "Was Zarqawi was operating from within Iraq, so his mere presence was handy as a straw man to establish a "link" between Saddam and Osama. ...Given the possibility the Bush Administration is playing political timing-games with the terrorist card, will we conveniently kill Osama the week before November's mid-term Congressional elections? I think you know the answer to that."

Lefty media critic Eric Boehlert at The Huffington Post, however, took the Washington Times to task for claiming elected Dems also were describing the Zarqawi killing as a stunt. Boehlert: "The Washington Times article does not quote a single Democrat who thinks the Zarqawi killing was a "stunt." The article, as far as I can tell, was a pure Democratic hit piece from the right-wing daily owned by the Rev. Sung Myung Moon, who fancies himself to be the son of God. ...The article as posted online quotes exactly five Democrats in the story. Three of them, Sen. Harry Reid, Sen. Kent Conrad, and Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, all label the killing "good news." The other two Democrats quoted are well-known war critics, Rep. Pete Stark and Rep.

Dennis Kucinich. Neither one of them though, suggested the killing was a stunt."

ZARQAWI II: Dems (And The MSM) Hate America

While there were righty bloggers who doubted Zarqawi's death would change much in Iraq (Rich Lowry at The Corner: "Just talked to an administration official who is generally an optimist on Iraq. Says "I'd be leery of those who say this is a strategic turning point." Power Line: "On the other hand, I don't think Zarqawi's demise is going to change things in Iraq.")

Many on the right couldn't help but take some pot shots at anti-war Dems. Jonah Goldberg at The Corner: "Where's Dean? A reader asks: "Isn't it about time for Chairman Howard to say something like I suppose it's a good thing that Zarqawi is dead..." Littlegreenfootballs: "The cut-and-run crowd has wasted no time mobilizing their spokesmen of negativity; I turned on CNN a little while ago and who did they pick to comment on Zarqawi's death? The poster boy for cut-and-run, Rep. John Murtha (D-PA). And on the very day US forces targeted and killed Al Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Murtha said to Wolf Blitzer, "I think we cannot win this."

The MSM also came in for righty derision. John J. Miller at The Corner: "Both Time and Newsweek have Haditha on the cover this week. Will they put Zarqawi on the cover next week?"

Hugh Hewitt blew a gasket over Joel Achenbach's blog post on how the air strike must have looked to the American pilot. Hewitt: "I don't see how these paragraphs can easily be read as anything other than an assertion of moral equivalence between the American pilot who deliver the bombs and Zarqawi." Mark Steyn agreed: "Well, this man is disgusting. And to hell with him, frankly. You know, the Archbishop of Canterbury made this point. He said that the terrorists and the United States Air Force were both equivalent."

Instapundit thought his righty friends had just mis-read the post: "I have to say that I didn't read it that way. To me, it seemed that Achenbach was juxtaposing the bestial approach of Zarqawi with the matter-of-fact tradesmanlike approach of the U.S. military. Now some of the comments below Achenbach's post, on the other hand, are just pathetic -- but not surprising.

CT SEN: It Just Got Personal

Lefty bloggers jumped on 6/8 Quinnipiac Univ. poll numbers showing cable exec. Ned Lamont (D) within 15 points of Sen. Joe Lieberman (D). Georgia10 at DailyKos notes that: "Among Democrats, Lieberman's approval has plummeted by 11 points in a little over one month. Perhaps it has something to do with Lieberman's attack ads? It will be interesting to see how the numbers change as voters become more familiar with Ned Lamont (76% of registered Dems still "haven't heard enough" about Lamont to have a favorable/unfavorable opinion of him), and as they begin to see the true Joe Lieberman." Steve Benen at TAPPED points out the issue driving Lamont's campaign: "Among Democrats in the state, 56 percent say they believe Lieberman deserves another term. Most of those who want him reelected point to his overall record, while most of those don't point to Lieberman's support for the war in Iraq.

Spazebay at DailyKos reports that a 6/8 noon DFA and MoveOn PAX pep-rally in New Haven "was overflowing, with estimates of over 200 supporters in attendance." With Tim Tagaris at YearlyKos Aldon at the official Ned Lamont blog live-blogged the event. Spazeboy also provides video of local CT TV coverage of the race as well as Lieberman's 6/8 Imus appearance.

Over at the unofficial Lamontblog thirdparty gets personal with Lieberman campaign manager Sean Smith: "Dear Sean, If, as you claimed yesterday, Ned Lamont's candidacy "is supported mostly by out-of-state political activists," then why did 300-400 motivated Connecticut voters show up at today's rally in New Haven at noon on a weekday? Could you get even a quarter as many people to show up for Joe? (Without paying a bunch of college kids, I mean.) MoveOn and DFA have 60,000 members in Connecticut, almost all of them - unlike your candidate - committed Democrats. Only Connecticut members voted on these endorsements - and hell, Jim Dean even lives in Connecticut. Are they suddenly all "out-of-state political activists" because they are on an organization's national email list? Or are you just talking out of your ass again?"

All this was enough to get lefty Talking Points Memo re-thinking his Lieberman ambivalence: "I've wanted for some time to comment on the Lamont/Lieberman race - basically on whether I think it's a good idea, what it says about the direction of the Democratic party and so forth. I have to confess that I find myself ambivalent. But it's an ambivalence I'm not particularly impressed with. At some basic level, I have a hard time not liking Lieberman. I have friends who either used to work for him or remain in his orbit. And that probably has some effect on me. And it's quite true that his actual voting record is far more solidly Democratic than the atmospherics surrounding him and his reputation. ...I think the most generous read on Lieberman is that he's just out of step with the parliamentary turn of recent American politics which I myself, Mark Schmitt and many others have discussed. But I think that's too generous. The whining in Washington that it's somehow an affront that Lieberman's hold on his senate is being threatened is entirely misplaced, a good example of what's wrong with DC's permanent class."

LEWIS: The Natives Are Restless

TPMmuckraker has another update on the deepening Rep. Jerry Lewis's (R-CA) saga reporting that: "Shortly after Lewis rose to be the chairman of that subcommittee, Letitia White's husband, up until that point a tobacco industry lobbyist, made a curious professional decision: he began lobbying on defense spending issues. ...Richard White was a tobacco man until 2000. ... But in 2000, one year after Jerry Lewis became chair of the defense appropriations subcommittee (taking Letitia White along with him), Richard White registered to lobby for "defense spending items" on behalf of a lobbyist. It's not clear which of the lobbyist's clients White was working for."

But perhaps more importantly, righty bloggers are beginning to pick up on the story and they are perfectly ready to through Lewis under the bus. Leon H. Wolf at RedState: "Memo to Congressional Republicans: Stop Acting Like Democrats. ...If we wanted stuff like this to happen, we'd have left the Democrats in power." Captain's Quarters: "Federal investigators have an open investigation into Lewis' dealings with Trident and Small Biz Tech PAC. If they find enough evidence, they should prosecute him to the full extent of the law. Even if they cannot find any laws being broken, this tawdry arrangement shows just how much power earmarks have to corrupt our system of government. We need to push Congress on every instance of abuse to reform the earmarking system to make it completely transparent, creating the Trent Lott Pork Database for rapid discovery of our worst sausage-makers and the ability to glean the possible influences between pork and political payoffs."

JEFFERSON: You Think You're Better Than Tom DeLay?

Lefty Middle Earth Journal looks at Dem failure to discipline Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) and remembers why he doesn't count himself in their ranks: "While I've abandoned the Republican party myself, I never cease to be disappointed by certain aspects of the Democrats, thus keeping me from joining their ranks. ... May I remind everyone that I didn't see any Democrats complaining when the Republicans were pushing Tom DeLay to step down from his leadership position as soon as news leaked that he was going to be indicted in Texas?

Righty Baseball Crank at RedState sees Dem race-baiting coming back to haunt them: "Remember when Hillary Clinton argued that Republicans ran the House like a plantation? Well, looks like it's the Democrats who are facing a revolt along racial lines for high-handed tactics. ...The caucus chairman, Rep. Melvin Watt of North Carolina, told reporters that some black voters might ask why action was sought against "a black member of Congress" when there was neither precedent nor rule for it. ...In point of fact, Pelosi is actually trying to do the right thing as well as acting in the best interests of her party. But she who lives by the race card..."

DELAY: Speak Of The Devil

Lefty Michael Crowley at The Plank mocks Rep. Tom DeLay's (R-TX) description of himself as a "principled partisan" in his farewell speech. Crowley: "Of course, the problem here is that DeLay really wasn't all that principled. From the GOP's 2003 Medicare bill to farm subsidies to pork spending--not to mention the shameless use of government to enrich legislators and lobbyists--DeLay cast aside the conservative ideals he espoused in the name of political power and personal gain. As even the Wall Street Journal harrumphed last year: "The problem... is that Mr. DeLay, who rode to power in 1994 on a wave of revulsion at the everyday ways of big government, has become the living exemplar of some of its worst habits." Right down to the self-important, self-deluding farewell address."

GORE: No Warming Here

John Podhoretz at The Corner notes that global temperatures may be rising but Al Gore's approval ratings are not: "After three weeks of lionizing publicity, Al Gore is only a teeny tiny bit better off against Hillary Clinton in a new Gallup poll on the 2008 race. Previously she was leading 38-14; now she's leading 36-16. He'll never get better press than he's gotten recently, and Hillary has been the subject of some pretty bad press at the same time. Yet she still holds a commanding lead. I know the primaries won't take place for 19 months, but trust me, this is very good news for her."

CLINTON: Admit It, You Read The Story Too

Kausfiles (no permalink, must scroll down) seeks to deflate some pompous critics who claim the public doesn't care about HRC's marriage. under the header "Media Ethicists 0, Readers 1" Kaus writes: "That widely-denounced Patrick Healy story on the state of the Clinton marriage was the NYT's #2 most-emailed story of the month. The emailers have a point, no? More Clinton gossip, please! (And better.)"

OBAMA: Too Mainstream For Lefty Bloggers

Populist David Sirota at The Huffington Post writes that his enthusiasm for a Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) presidential run is tempered by Obama's centrist tendencies. Sirota: "I wanted to get a sense of what Obama wants for himself - rather than what we the public are projecting onto him. And in exploring that question, I found the answers were not easy to find. He strongly supports some very progressive policies, but he also called Sen. Paul Wellstone a "gadfly" - a negative term that suggests Obama doesn't aspire to pursue a similar courageous path as the late progressive hero from Minnesota charted. ...To be sure, Obama is a sincere guy who has great talent and great potential - but only if he is willing to reject Washington's definition of "mainstream" and use his talents to redefine "mainstream" to make it represent ordinary people. The question remains: does he have the guts - or desire - to take on that monumental task?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Who Framed Frank Luntz?

Lefty academic darling George Lakoff at The Huffington Post points readers to a Rockridge Institute article comparing their "Framing of Immigration" with an analysis by Frank Luntz. From Rockridge:

"Framing the situation in terms of "illegal immigrants" skews the discourse. It characterizes people who are almost all honest and hardworking as criminals, thereby ignoring their contributions to American lifestyles and the American economy. And it ignores the systemic causes and problems: our cheap-labor economy that drives down the cost of labor, and the many political and economic causes that contribute to pushing so many people to leave their home countries."

Contrast this approach with Luntz's. Luntz understands the power of language and political frames. However, he uses it for manipulative ends. Here's a sample: "This is about overcrowding YOUR schools, emergency room chaos in YOUR hospitals, the increases in YOUR taxes, the crime in YOUR communities."

LEST WE FORGET: Tom DeLay We Hardly Knew Ya

In celebration of Rep. Tom DeLay's final good-bye the Public Campaign Action Fund has posted a "Tom DeLay Gift Registry" so that we can all help him get a fresh start in his new life. The list includes:

A Can of Raid: Perhaps his next job will be his old one -- exterminator!

Unused Frequent Flyer Miles: Lobbyists and corporate donors don't have any more reasons to fly him around the world.

Autographed Picture of Jack Abramoff: Maybe he already has one -- but just in case!

Glass of Dirty Water and Jar of Dirty Air: DeLay led fights to damage the environment to help out his polluting donors. Let's return the favor!

A Copy of the Constitution: Think he'll read it?

Golden Handcuffs: He must already have the matching golden cufflinks.

$90,000 From William Jefferson's Freezer: Isn't that what he always wanted? Cold hard cash?

Clean Elections-Style Public Financing for Federal Races: Wouldn't it be nice to think that DeLay's corruption led to passing real reform?

Posted by at 12:21 PM

June 08, 2006

6/8: Zarqawi Is Dead: Day I

As the Blogometer hits deadline, blogosphere reaction to the death of Abu Musa'ab al-Zarqawi grows faster than can possibly be read, let alone commented on. So far though, some quick generalizations can be made. Like last week's arrest of the Toronto terror suspects, this is by and large a righty blogosphere story. Lefty comments are perfunctory, if they exist at all. If this changes we'll note it tomorrow.

On the domestic front the blogosphere is still buzzing about the 6/6 results from CA 50. Lefty bloggers look like they are ready to punt on the "culture of corruption" meme, but outside of that they are still divided as to why women's studies professor Francine Busby (D) lost. Righty bloggers are now unified in using the victory to push GOPers nationwide to abandon the Senate immigration plan.

ZARQAWI: There Is Always Something To Complain About

Iraq the Model sums up righty blogger reaction to news of Abu Musa'ab al-Zarqawi's death: "CONGRATULATIONS TO IRAQ, CONGRATULATIONS TO THE WHOLE WORLD ON THIS VICTORY." Michelle Malkin has video of the announcement and Outside the Beltway links to CNN footage explaining how Zarqawi's body was identified.

Earlier in the day Strategy Page reported: "Except for his verbal attacks on the U.S. and the Iraqi government, he is almost totally distanced himself from the central leadership. Other al Qaeda leaders have been trying to down play anti-Iranian and anti-Shia rhetoric, and have been strongly discouraging attacks on civilians. ...Given that Zarqawi has become a loose cannon and that his actions are handicapping Al Qaeda's efforts, it seems reasonable to expect that an accident may befall him at some point in the near future."

Righty blogs were quick to jump on any MSM coverage that downplayed the significance of the news. Rantingprofs highlights just one example: "As I type this, NBC's Mike Boettcher breathlessly reports that the "reaction isn't good" because there's just been a bombing in response to this. Imus asks the obvious question: how do we know the bombing is a response to Zarqawi? and Boettcher is obviously caught up completely although to his credit after a beat he replies, "you're right, we don't know."

Fellow righty NewsBusters ads: "You just knew it. The MSM had to find a way to downplay the significance of the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Whereas he had been portrayed as the key to violence in the country, now that he's dead, he is described as just one among 'many thousands'. And sure enough, on CNN this morning at about 6:20 AM, there was Octavia Nasr CNN's senior editor for Arab affairs, interviewed by host Soledad O'Brien, suggesting that Zarqawi's death might not really be such a 'big deal', after all." NRO's Mediablog has a thorough roundup of MSM coverage.

Other righty reax include:

• Counterterrorism Blog: "Reacting to the killing of al Zarqawi in Iraq, pro-Jihadi commentators on al Jazeera rushed to assert that the "death of Zarqawi won't weaken al Qaida but will actually unify the organization." Abdelbari Atwan, the editor of al Quds al Arabi accused Jordanian and US intelligence of penetrating the inner circles of Zarqawi and were successful in getting to him." He added that the killing of Zarqawi was coordinated with the appointment of the ministers of defense and interior in Baghdad."
• American Footprints: "This should be a pick-me-up for morale for a few days at least."
• Mudville Gazzette: " Small wonder the locals turned him in - but the fact that they did so reveals much about Iraq, where such events are happening more frequently as Iraqi troops "take the lead" and terrorists resort to increasingly heinous actions in response."
• Cliff May at The Corner: "It's very good news. It's not 'mission accomplished' but it is substantial progress. No, this won't persuade every suicide bomber to leave Iraq, go home to Peshawar and open a health spa. But when you eliminate the top general, it makes a difference. When a major corporation loses its CEO its stock goes down."
• Jonah Goldberg at The Corner: "Oil Drops Below 70...on news of Zarqawi's death.
• Peter Brookes at The Corner: "The death of Zarqawi couldn't come at a better time considering the violence we've seen in Iraq in recent days. But, perhaps, most intriguing is the (early) reporting that Zarqawi's end came from tips given by associates. This sort of "actionable intelligence" is critical in prosecuting an insurgency and, perhaps, most importantly shows significant discord in al Qaeda's ranks."

Very little reaction from lefty bloggers. Under the header "Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is Dead" at DailyKos Georgia10 writes simply: "Finally." Other lefty takes:

• Taylor Marsh: "This is a psychological lift, but reality remains terribly grim in Iraq. Al-Zarqawi's killing doesn't dent the insurgency reality."
• AMERICAblog: "My first reaction, though, is this: GREAT. Whatever you think about the war in Iraq, Zarqawi was a significant threat to Coalition troops and Iraqi military forces and civilians, and his death is a victory for progress and security."
• The Democratic Daily: "If the insurgency is slowed long enough for the newly completed Cabinet to begin establishing more order and security, progress may become more than the Bush administration's opinion."
• Peking Duck: "That's what they say. Maybe this is the great turning point (like the taking of Baghdad, the capture of Saddam, the new elections, the new constitution, the new government, the new new government, etc., etc.) that'll launch us to victory."

CA 50 I: Blame Diebold

Lefty bloggers are still spinning their big 6/6 loss in CA 50. The Brad Blog isn't so sure Busby actually lost 6/6: "The biggest concern about the race, by far, is that San Diego County uses two types of Diebold voting systems -- optical-scan and touch-screen -- both of which have not only proven to be disastrously unreliable in San Diego County and California in the past, but have also been demonstrated over the last six months to feature dozens of exceedingly well-documented and remarkable security vulnerability, making them extremely accessible to tampering." Seeing the Forest picked up on Brad's insight: "The result of the election is left open to doubt based on the integrity of the Republicans -- in a special election made necessary by a corrupt Republican."

Swing State Project blamed Busby's ground game: "There's another take on this, though, and that's the Busby campaign's failure to fire up their base. I'm inclined to agree with this assessment -- when I saw a plea by Busby on the DCCC blog on the 11th hour of race, saying that they needed 100 more volunteers to execute their ground game effectively, I knew that this was gonna be rough. If the Busby campaign was more effective at firing up the base, they would have had more than 300 volunteers for their election-day ground game and wouldn't have needed that last-minute plea."

Michael Crowley at The Plank highlighted differing views from some papers you might have heard of:

Dueling Headlines: Victory In California Calms GOP - washingtonpost.com; Narrow Victory By GOP Signals Fall Problems - nytimes.com

Crowley also posted on the results showed the GOP base is open to Pres. Bush immigration reform plan: "It's worth noting that William Griffith, the conservative immigration-Buchananite in the CA-50 race, pulled a pathetic 3.7 percent of the vote. That's despite the calculated effort by Busby to pump him up in hopes of peeling off votes from GOP frontrunner Brian Bilbray. Doesn't that offer some minor consolation for pro-"amnesty" Republicans quaking over the disquiet of hard-line border-security voters? (Yes, Bilbray was apparently fairly tough on immigration himself; but Griffith was endorsed by the San Diego Minutemen. You don't get much more cred than that....)"

CA 50 II: Immigration, Immigration, Immigration

Righty bloggers are in agreement that CA 50 ought to signal House GOPers to stand tough against Pres. Bush's immigration plan. Under the header "CA 50 Votes Against 'Comprehensive' Immigration Reform" PoliPundit writes: "President Bush "defeated John Kerry by 10 points here in 2004, and Republicans have a 44 percent to 29 percent edge over Democrats in voter registration." ... Last night, the Republican candidate did not receive 9.55% of 'natural leaning' Republican voters, which happens to be President Bush's margin over John Kerry. Bilbray did not receive those votes because they were lost inside the Beltway. ... The Republican Party can not afford to loose 10% of its base in November nor can they replicate this level of funding in other Congressional races."

Right Wing News reports on conference call with Ken Mehlman 6/7: "He said the Republican ground game made a big difference and turned a 31% margin for Busby in absentee ballots into a 20% margin, which helped guarantee Bilbray's victory. ... I asked Ken if the fact that Bilbray won was an indication that Republican voters and the public in general favored the House plan. Mehlman basically said no -- they really favor the comprehensive plan the president wants and they don't know that much about the specifics." RWN did not like that answer at all:

Let's think about this. Bilbray's top issue was his get tough stance on illegal immigration and he was very vocal about his opposition to the comprehensive illegal immigration reform that came through the Senate. In fact, everyone seems to be willing to acknowledge that is why he managed to win the Republican primary. Then, Bilbray gets into a race with Busby who strongly supports the comprehensive illegal immigration that came out of the Senate, so much so that she was even inviting illegal aliens to vote and work on her campaign. Then, after a campaign which seemed to revolve around illegal immigration finally ends, Bilbray wins and Busby loses. Yet, Mehlman looks at all and comes to the conclusion that even though people voted against the candidate who supported comprehensive immigration reform, that's what people really want? Ken, Ken, Ken, you're great, but people aren't going to be fooled by that ridiculous spin.

Also on the conference call, Hugh Hewitt asked Mehlman what Bilbray's small margin of victory meant for GOPers in the fall: "It is lower than it was for Bush," he said, but added that the Dems' strategy hinges on the idea that the margins will fall precipitously all over the country, and he thinks this race shows that isn't a likelihood. Am I saying we're not in a tough race this year? No, we're in a very tough race this year. But I think what we're seeing is this alleged harbinger of things to come, which a lot of the MSM is saying will be a Democratic majority, is in fact a harbinger of something different."

MT SEN: Victory Lap

State Senate Pres. Jon Tester (D) stopped by MyDD to thank his netroots supporters for their contribution to his big 6/6 win: "You did this. Thanks to your dedication, hard work and support, yesterday we surged to victory in the MT Dem primary. Sen. Conrad Burns' tally yesterday was the worst primary election performance by an incumbent MT senator in over two decades. Nearly 108K Montanans voted the Dem ticket yesterday -- more than any other Dem primary since '94 and nearly 11K more than the GOPers this year.

ETHICS I: Jerry Lewis Edition

TPMmuckraker reports that the Capitol Hill house bought by Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) ex-staffer Letitia White and a defense contractor is also the headquarters of the Small Biz Tech PAC which is run by Lewis' stepdaughter, Julie Willis-Leon. TPMmuckraker's Justin Rood asked Willis-Leon if the PAC received any special treatment from Lewis: "Absolutely not," she told me. "You might note that the PAC has never contributed to him," she added." Rood then went to the 114 3rd St. SE address, took pictures, and reports: "The upkeep of the outside property isn't what I'd call hospitable, and I don't just mean the doorbell. Look at those bushes in front of the house - those need some serious trimming.

Josh Marshall at the mother ship Talking Points Memo has some non-GOP ax to grind on the issue: "And then late this evening, the LA Times ran the developing story of Lewis-White-Willis-Leon lobbying operation as their own without mentioning that each of the key points was first reported by Rood. When a reporter who writes for a 'blog' breaks stories with his own enterprise reporting, you should credit his work just as you would a reporter who works for a print publication."

ETHICS II: William Jefferson Edition

DailyKos notes TPMmuckraker reports that the CBC is still backing Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) and wonders: "I still don't get why the Congressional Black Caucus insists on standing firmly behind Jefferson. It doesn't say much good for the organization to close ranks behind a crook and thief like Jefferson."

TPMmuckraker also looks at the international angle and wonders, "At what point does this become a diplomatic issue?" The muckraker goes on:

According to the FBI affidavit released yesterday, the FBI is convinced that Nigerian Vice President Atiku Abubakar agreed to help push through a telecom deal in his country in exchange for some serious money. ... As I noted yesterday, Abubakar is making a run for the presidency in Nigeria now - and apparently running on something like an anti-anti-corruption campaign. It's a distinct possibility that the FBI will be reaching the climax of its investigation just as he's rising to power. ...According to The New York Times, Bush administration officials "have been reluctant to speculate publicly about the effect of the investigation of Mr. Jefferson on American relations with Nigeria, which is one of largest exporters of oil to the United States."

BLOGGERS VS. CAREER DEVELOPEMENT: Blogging And Your Day Job Just Might Not Mix

Two major lefty bloggers had their careers crash into their professional lives this week. The nomination of University of Michigan professor Juan Cole, whose Informed Comment blog is wildly popular in lefty 'sphere circles, was voted down by Yale's tenure committee. The Jewish Week contacted Cole for comment:

"The articles published in the Yale Standard, the New York Sun, the Wall Street Journal, Slate, and the Washington Times, as part of what was clearly an orchestrated campaign, contained made-up quotes, inaccuracies, and false charges," he said. "The idea that I am any sort of anti-Jewish racist because I think Israel would be better off without the occupied territories is bizarre, but I fear that a falsehood repeated often enough and in high enough places may begin to lose its air of absurdity."

Talking Points Memo believes Cole's rejected nomination was part of an organized neocon campaign. Seeing the Forest also sees conspiracy: "Yale caved to the far-right. Suppose you want a career in academia, want to rise up, want to buy (or keep) a house and car, have health insurance etc., how does your brain digest this news? We remember McCarthyism as a dark period because people were smeared and denied jobs because of their political beliefs."

Over at DailyKos popular diarist and successful spin off blogger Armando is claiming to be throwing in his blogger towel after NRO's Mediablog revealed his Wal-Mart lawyer day-job.

Armando writes: "A major Right wing site has chosen to support a troll's campaign started at this site to out me. The writing is on the wall. I will likely be giving up blogging as a result.
If people were wondering about why I was so adamant about this, I hope this explains it. I have never written about my clients and whenever I had a conflict, I disclosed it. But people of ill will have no decency or limits. If I sound bitter, it is because I am quite bitter about this."

NRO's Mediablog got the Armando info from an intrepid reader: "Our second Kos-related item was brought to our attention by reader W.J.M.L., who directed us to some strange activity on the "Daily Kos" Wikipedia entry. Apparently, Kos diarist Armando Lloréns-Sar isn't comfortable with too many people knowing about his day job as an attorney at McConnell Valdés. ...Then here he writes, "this post should be deleted. It constitutes harassment." W.J.M.L. did some digging and discovered a few reasons why Lloréns-Sar might be uncomfortable with too many people knowing about his professional activities (he threatened to ban one commenter for getting too close to his "personal circumstances"):

"During his time filling in for Kos as the "front page diarist" he wrote a number of pro-corporate articles, of course without disclosing that he is a corporate attorney promoting these same issues for his clients. For example, in this post he takes the pro-corporate position that modern anti-trust law is based on activist judges' rulings and not as the law as written. He fails to mention that he recently represented Wal-Mart in an anti-trust capacity in Puerto Rico. A Daily Kos guy working for Wal-Mart? No wonder he doesn't want anyone to know."

BLOGGERS SPOTLIGHT: Stephen Gilliard

Today the Blogometer talks to Kossack alum Stephen Gilliard , who writes The News Blog.

What is your full name?

Stephen Gilliard Jr.

What is your age?

41

Where did you grow up?

New York

Where do you live now?

New York

What is your occupation? Have you ever worked on a political campaign or for the mainstream media?

Writer. Yes I have worked for both political campaigns and the mainstream media.

When did you start blogging and why?

I wrote for a site called Netslaves starting in 1998. IN January 2003, I started to post on Daily Kos. In August, 2003 I started the News Blog.

What has been your favorite post, or favorite story to write about, in that time?

Two things, a 35 part post on colonial history and the hot dog debate. It seems that people in Chicago are offended when you suggest that the meat in their hot dogs must be inferior because they hide them under a lot of crap.

In terms of politics, writing about veterans has been the most fufilling. My father had a 40 year career at the VA, and watching the mistreatment of the Iraq War vets is like reliving my childhood.

Describe your typical blogging schedule. And what is your average output?

Well, after the sauna and pedicure.......seriously, I try to post articles by midnight so that readers on the east coast can hit the site before breakfast, like my partner Jen. She has to be at work by 8:30. It usually also reaches our European readers before their day starts as well. I'm usually in bed before three and wake up around 10, answer mail, post up a couple of stories and then go about my errands. I usually will start posting again after 6PM. I think it's important to have new content up so people can read it over breakfast, but that's an advantage of living on the east coast.

Who is your favorite political blogger? Favorite non-political blogger?

While I love Kos, running the site means there are many voices there and it limits his writing. But on a daily basis, Matt Stoller of MyDD. His voice is strong, clear and he's got a strong sense of ethics and doesn't try to show everyone how smart he is by being obtuse. He gets right to the point. Jesus's General would come second and Digby third.

Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?

Warren Strobel of Knight Ridder, it is Joe Galloway until he retires and Jimmy Breslin before he retired.

What is your favorite television news program, either network or cable?

Countdown. The Daily Show is a parody, even if it's hard to tell some days.

What MSM-produced websites (i.e. newspapers, magazines) do you visit on a daily basis?

NY Times, WaPo, Guardian, CNN, MSNBC,

What non-MSM websites (i.e. blogs) do you visit on a daily basis?

Daily Kos, Escaton, Informed Comment, Firedoglake, Huffington Post, Talking Points Memo, Jesus's General

How often, or do you ever, read a newspaper in its dead-tree (i.e. print) form?

Every day, seven days a week. My parents would buy the NY Daily News in the morning and the NY Post in the afternoon.

How do you see the new media and old media affecting and influencing each other in the next five years?

Newspapers have reacted poorly to being challenged online. The impression is that it is smart aleck college kids, when most of my peers are in their 30's and have professional degrees. Josh Marshall has a doctorate in American History from Brown, Duncan Black has a Ph.d in economics, John Aravosis and Kos are lawyers. These are hardly pissed off 22 year olds ranting at the world. I've been freelancing for 20 years and covered everything from real estate to employment. I like to think my opinions are informed.

Yet, you get an amazing amount of arrogance from editors in a variety of areas. The fact is that bloggers are probably more informed than their reporters in specific subject areas. I know reporters have paper thin skins when challenged, but they need to get over it. You get ridiculous things like the SF Chronicle attacking Craig Newmark for Craig's List. That's silly Or trying to hire a right wing hack and then being embarrassed when it was clear they didn't do due diligence.

Many bloggers don't have the respect for reporting skills that they need to, but the media doesn't encourage them to. They see unvarnished arrogance, despite numerous errors on the part of traditional media. . Bloggers are not the enemy of traditional media anymore than radio is the enemy of TV. But the lack of accountability seen in traditional media, is disheartening.

Bloggers will adopt journalistic standards, if they do journalism, because they work, they provide a safeguard, as I learned at NYU. And Newspapers will find, as the Times Picayune did during Kartrina, blogging technology can cut their costs and work to their advantage. It can also get product from bureau chiefs, photographers and editors who don't get space in the main pages. Newspapers are going to find, as CNN and MSNBC have found, breaking down some of the barriers between reporter and reader is healthy. As long as newspapers refuse to engage readers, they will lose them.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Neo-Libertarian?

Kos thinks he has identified the future of the Dems: the Libertarian Dem. Kos writes: "It's no secret that I look to the Mountain West for the future of the Democratic Party, people like Brian Schweitzer and Jon Tester. But I also look to candidates like Jim Webb in Virginia and Paul Hackett in Ohio.
And what is the common thread amongst these candidates? They are all Libertarian Democrats. Ack, the "L" word! But hear me out..."

"The problem with this form of libertarianism is that it assumes that only two forces can infringe on liberty...the government and other individuals. The Libertarian Democrat understands that there is a third danger to personal liberty -- the corporation. The Libertarian Dem understands that corporations, left unchecked, can be huge dangers to our personal liberties.
Libertarian Dems are not hostile to government like traditional libertarians. But unlike the liberal Democrats of old times (now all but extinct), the Libertarian Dem doesn't believe government is the solution for everything. But it sure as heck is effective in checking the power of corporations...."

"Of course, this also means that government isn't always the solution to the nation's problems. There are times when business-government partnerships can be extremely effective (such as job retraining efforts for displaced workers). There are times when government really should butt out (like a great deal of small-business regulation). Our first proposed solution to a problem facing our nation shouldn't be more regulation, more government programs, more bureaucracy. The key here isn't universal liberty from government intrusion, but policies that maximize individual freedom, and who can protect those individual freedoms best from those who would infringe."

LEST WE FORGET: We're Just Impressed They Came Up With Five

Jake Tapper at his new Political Punch reports that House Dems are cooking up their own "Contract with America" for later this year entitled "Six in '06."... Unfortunately they haven't quite mastered what their six agenda items should be. For now they look like this:

(1) a minimum-wage increase;

(2) repealing the portion of the Medicare prescription drug

      law that prevents Medicare from negotiating for lower drug prices;

(3) implementing all of the 9/11 Commission's homeland security 

     recommendations;

(4) reinstating pay-as-you-go budget rules;

(5) making college more affordable; and

(6) a sixth plank that has not yet been settled upon.

Wonkette ran with the "not yet settled upon" line and linked to some intrepid entrepreneur at cafepress who was already trying to capitalize on the gaffe by selling "a sixth plank that has not yet been settled upon" t-shirts emblazoned with a DNC logo.

Posted by at 12:24 PM

June 07, 2006

6/7: Netroots Breakthrough?

Memories of Howard Dean, Paul Hackett and Andrew Horn may fade quickly if lefty bloggers can keep up the momentum from their first big win 6/6 in MT SEN. Lefty blogger elation over state Senate Pres. Jon Tester's (D) victory over Aud. John Morrison (D) was cut short, however, by women's studies professor Francine Busby's (D) loss to ex-Rep. Brian Bilbray (R). Through lefty donation bundler ActBlue, bloggers raised nearly $150K for the two candidates. By 6/6, Busby pulled in almost twice as much as Tester from ActBlue. With Tester facing Sen. Conrad Burns (R) and Busby squaring off against Bilbray again, we will revisit those numbers in five months to see if they have been reversed.

MT SEN: Netroots Pass Their First Tester

It wasn't so much that Tester beat Morrison. It was how badly he beat him. Chris Bowers at MyDD: "I am still having a hard time believing what happened in Montana tonight. Not only did Jon Tester win, he demolished Morrison. Tester had only 20% in a poll back in January. Now, it looks like he is going to win by 20%." Lefty blogger interest was so high that MT progressive Left in the West crashed at least once 6/6 (but were quickly back up). Luckily fellow lefty 4 and 20 was there to pick up the slack: "I'm stunned. I thought it would be close. This thing is not close. ...This thing is a rout, folks. All the poll numbers were way off. This is ridiculous." Fellow Montanan Wulfgar's Mountain View was also ecstatic: "We did it, Montana. We did the right thing. Tomorrow, the work of beating Conrad Burns begins, but we can be proud as hell, tonight. We done good."

All the major lefty bloggers were in the mood for a victory lap:

• David Sirota: "Populist Jon Tester Scores Huge Win Against D.C. Dems & For the Rest of Us. ... His victory will likely send yet more shockwaves through the increasingly insulated and isolated Democratic Establishment in Washington. ... That Establishment has either refused to take basic, concrete positions on the key issues of the day like Iraq, or worse, has high-profile factions publicly insulting middle-class voters, such as when former Clintonites on Wall Street insulted those Democrats who are trying to reform America's sellout trade policy."
• DailyKos: "This was the perfect primary. Democratic voters in Montana got a clear choice between a populist Democrat in the mold of Gov. Schweitzer and a DLC rising star from a prominent political family.
• Swing State Project: "On Dec. 31, 2004, when Swing State Project dropped his name for the first time, few could foresee that Tester, an organic farmer from Big Sandy, could absolutely wallop one of the most popular and well-funded Democrats in the state, Auditor John Morrison, and do so without slinging mud, without creating an intra-party rift, or without a massive warchest. Jon Tester accomplished what he did today by getting people to genuinely like him, which is a damn rare thing in politics these days. And that's exactly how he's going to convince Montana voters that he should be the next Senator from Montana. The rebirth of the Democratic Party begins in Big Sky Country."

CA 50: Everybody's Fault But Busby's

Neither the left nor right has coalesced around a single narrative to explain Bilbray's victory over Busby. Righty reax range from pleas to nationalize the immigration issue to the weakness of the Dems culture of corruption meme. The one unifying element is that the victory ought not breed complacency for 11/06. On the left most found blame for the loss outside the Busby camp including the up ticket CA Dem races as well as the nat'l cash the GOP poured into the district. Like the right, however, all eyes are on 11/06.

Blue Crab Boulevard summed up righty blogger thinking: "Regardless of how the Republicans try to spin this, they just had a squeaker in a heavily Republican district, despite throwing national resources behind Bilbray. That should be scaring their strategists." Other righties were more relieved by the win. John Podhoretz at The Corner: "This will come as a blow to Democrats and mediacrats who, as usual, got themselves all excited about taking a safe GOP seat as a harbinger of Republican disaster come November. But the question is whether Republicans are going to get overexcited by the results too, and overestimate the meaning of this victory - which may simply be a very mild indicator that the public is not, in fact, in a revolutionary mood." Captain's Quarters: "Did this signal a weakness in the overall Republican position for the midterms? The Democrats will claim it does. ...With the previous winner serving time for corruption, it would be expected that the incumbent party would have difficulty convincing the district to turn out in great numbers...and indeed, turnout remained low throughout the state for this primary election, which in this district would hurt Bilbray."

Conservative PoliPundit hoped national GOPers learned that immigration could trump the Dems favorite '06 issue:

"In yesterday's special election for California's 50th House district, two competing strategies were tested. ... On the one hand, Republican Brian Bilbray represented the position of people like me, who have been saying for years that illegal immigration could trump all other issues in 2006 and 2008. Bilbray is a former lobbyist for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, and is a virtual poster-child for the Tom Tancredo wing of the GOP. ...On the other side was Francine Busby, a pro-illegal Democrat, who hammered hard on the "Republican culture of corruption" theme. If there is one district where this might have worked, it is CA-50, where disgraced former Congressman Randy Duke Cunningham resigned, leading to this special election. About 4 percent of the vote went to a candidate who was to the right of Bilbray on immigration! ...I hope House Republicans learn from this race. If they have any political sense, they will cling to the issue of illegal immigration, and comfortably defeat the Democrats in November."

Hugh Hewitt also saw immigration as the savior: "Border security trumped "culture of corruption," and my guess is that Michael Barone will conclude, as he did after Ohio's primary, that the GOP base may not be happy, but they are smart and know the effects of a Democratic majority on the war on terror and the economy, and thus keep turning up."

Greg Pollowitz at NRO's new blog Sixers also pins the Bilbray victory on immigration but he thinks it ought to stay a local issue: "I do think the 50th shows that the House races will focus more on local races than Democratic leadership was hoping. I also don't think Busby was that strong a candidate for the district she was running in. ...One of the ads she ran and paid for actually told voters to vote for the ultra conservative on immigration in the race, on the hope it would takes votes away from Bilbray. Busby also spent considerable ad space touting her approval of John McCain's immigration plan. In the end, McCain's last minute cancellation was probably more to take ammo from Busby than it was a slap to Bilbray. ... Republicans spoke yesterday in the 50th and they picked the guy they thought could win in November. This raises some interesting questions on the McCain immigration plan. House Republicans might not need to fear a slightly stronger version of the McCain plan getting passed by the House."

Also on the right Big Lizards thought Busby's downfall exposed overall Dem weakness: "The main unifying theme of the Democrats this year has been the Republican Kulture of Korruption; but if it's going to work anywhere, it would have to be either in Cal-50 or in Tex-22 (Tom DeLay's erstwhile seat). The Democrats just lost Cal-50 when it was open; I don't think they're likely to win it in November, when Bilbray will be the incumbent. ...When all is said and done, I doubt that this election is going to turn on charges of Republican corruption - especially with the various Democrats who have suddenly found themselves on the wrong end of the law. I believe it will turn on other issues: policy issues, such as immigration, taxes, and the Iraq war."

Reaction on righty hangout RedState's comment boards was also mixed. Some were not impressed by Bilbray's win: "Does it matter who wins this district tonight? They are going to be contesting it again against each other in just 5 months with completely different turnout drivers." Others enjoyed a quick swipe at the other team: "I'd like to congratulate Dems on another valiant Moral Victory! I'll drink to a Democratic Moral Victory in November!"

A few on the left thought the negative Dem Gov primary hurt Busby. DailyKos: "Our two inept campaigns for governor may help cost us the House seat in the 50th." Democrats.com: "Phil Angelides won the Democratic primary despite a $35 million onslaught from Steve Westly, but the race was highly negative and drove Democratic turnout down - which probably hurt Francine Busby in CA-50."

Over at the left's The Huffington PostRick Jacobs blamed GOP money for the Dem setback: "I write this morning from the Busby for Congress campaign office in San Diego where it looks like Francine Busby will have gotten about seventeen points over Democratic registration here. Of over $15 million spent in this race, the Republicans put up $10 million in an otherwise "safe" Republican seat. They will not have those $10 million to spend in marginal seats. They had to defend a district that was gerrymandered for them and even then they nearly lost it." Chris Bowers at MyDD also thanked Busby for helping to drain GOP swamps but was even more optimistic on what the final vote totals mean for Nov.: " In 2004, Busby lost the CA-50 by 22.0%. Today, it looks like she will lose by around 4.5%. And that was with the NRCC spending $4.5M on the race. If Republicans want to spin losing 18 points after spending $4.5M of committee money as a good thing, go for it. No matter what the media says, no Democrat should be mistaken about this result. First, this is a huge, seismic shift in our favor that bodes extremely well for November. If we receive an 18% shift nationwide, we will win the House easily."

Under the heading "Progressive Messaging Wins: Tester, Angelides, Winograd, and Bilbray" Matt Stoller at MyDD has weighed in with his take on why Busby lost: "Brian Bilbray ran to the left of Francine Busby. I know it sounds weird, but he did. That he won on a progressive platform is biggest story of the night."

Stoller complains that Busby: "The lesson from last night should be clear. Hiding from progressives and the left will lead to Democratic losses in 2006. Running as a progressive will lead to victory. Running on 'issues' and 'competence' instead of character will lead to Democratic losses. Talking about how the 'American people' care about gas prices and not gay marriage is insulting and loser politics. Running on bullet points is wrong. Running on character is right."

IA GOV: Are Vilsack's '08 Hopes Blouin Away?

Radio Iowa connects two 6/6 IA results and sees problems ahead for Gov. Tom Vilsack (D):

"If you look at the Democratic gubernatorial primary and the Democratic race for the Ag Secretary nomination, one could conclude that Tom Vilsack holds little sway with members of his own party. Vilsack's economic development director, Mike Blouin, staged a furious rally in the ninth inning of this primary stretch but came up short. While Vilsack and Blouin repeatedly made public comments that Vilsack had not encouraged Blouin to enter the race and Vilsack never publicly endorsed Blouin in this campaign, party insiders knew Vilsack's mark on the primary ballot was in Blouin's box."

"Vilsack did endorse in the Secretary of Agriculture primary, announcing his backing for long-time aide Dusky Terry in a statehouse news conference a couple of months ago. The O'Brien upset of Terry was the big surprise of the evening. But her name is a much more generic looking name on the ballot to folks who had no idea who either one of the candidates were. Lots of generic names trump weird ones all the time in elections."

"So Tom Vilsack, potential presidential candidate, I would guess is reviewing these primary results closely as they could be clear signals of problems he'd have in an Iowa Caucus campaign."

Also in IA news, lefty Political Forecast celebrated over some righty anxiety: "Over in the First Congressional District, there was lots of drama tonight. It looks like Mike Whalen cleaned up decisively on the Republican side, which can't be pleasing for a lot of conservative bloggers from over in the 1st CD (I'm looking at you Krusty)." Krusty Konservative was in fact distressed: "I'll start by saying that I was very surprised at the results from the 1st CD Republican Primary. Here is how it played out. ...While Dix won more counties, his only large victories were in the relatively small Butler and Bremer counties. The rest were all pretty close. Whalen beat Bill Dix in Scott County by 4268 votes, and Dix simply could not recover, he needed a lot more votes out of Black Hawk County. Scott Counties turnout increased by 726 votes since 2002, Black Hawk's turn out dropped a staggering 2966 votes since 2002, costing Dix the nomination."

SUPER TUESDAY: Round Up

AL: Libertarian Instapundit gleefully announced: "Judge Roy Moore is a loser in Alabama."

CA: Righty California Campaigns points out a less than joyous not for Golden State GOPers: "For the first time in at least 20 years--there will be no official California Republican Party "Victory Party". On Arnold's orders this tradition has ended. There will be many local party parties, but none that Arnold will be at. Normally, the party would highlight a GOP incumbent during election night coverage of the Dem primary. Unlike Wilson and Deukmejian, Arnold's staff doesn't want the Governor linked to the GOP. Maybe they think it will confuse voters ... or Arnold."

NJ: Lefty Blue Jersey looks at an upset in the race for Bergen County Executive and sees bad news state Sen. Tom Kean Jr. (R) despite his primary victory: "This is bad news for the Kean Jr campaign. Caliguire<