6/1: GOP Malaise

The right and left blogosphere share more in common than they would probably like to admit. Both are heavily critical of their respective party's leadership and both claim they have a better feel for their respective party rank-and-file. This theme comes up in each of the Blogometer's stories today. In CA-50, women's studies professor Francine Busby's (D) "You don't need papers for voting," comment could not be designed better to rile up the GOP base. If Busby wins then Hugh Hewitt doubts immigration is the powerful issue right bloggers claim it is. In CT, lefty bloggers look at recent MSM coverage of cable co. exec. Ned Lamont's (D-CT) campaign and believe their anti-Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) message is getting through despite beltway Dem pushback. Meanwhile, unlike the recent immigration debate, the right-'sphere is almost completely silent as Senate GOPers gets ready to debate the Federal Marriage Amendment. And the left doubts that the New York Times has an accurate handle on what news their readers want concerning their elected leaders.

CA-50: Papers? You Don't Need No Stinking Papers

Righty bloggers jumped all over reports of Busby's comment at a San Diego senior center that: "Everybody can help, yeah, absolutely, you can all help. You don't need papers for voting, you don't need to be a registered voter to help." Most bloggers on the right truncated the quote to: "You don't need papers for voting," (See Michelle Malkin, Hugh Hewitt, Red State, and PoliPundit) and indignation was quick to follow.

Powerline took the time to put the entire quote in context and provided Busby's defense that she was: "clarifying the question that was being asked in Spanish and then stated that you do not have to be a registered voter to help the campaign because there were many people who appeared to be to be under 18 in the group who wanted to volunteer." Powerline wasn't buying: "Busby's 'clarification' is untenable. Her words were spoken in response to an adult Latino who had just told her he was an illegal, not to a minor. She was obviously answering his question, and her claim that she was addressing her comments to children in the audience won't be believed by anyone. Moreover, the fact that Busby has offered such an inadequate excuse will no doubt cause many to believe that she must have meant exactly what she said."

RedState and PoliPundit used the episode to exhort their readers to support ex-Rep. Brian Bilbray (R) final drive to 6/6. RedState: "If you're anywhere near San Diego, volunteer for Bilbray's campaign this weekend. If you're not, make an emergency contribution to fight Busby's last-minute skulduggery. We simply cannot allow this election to be decided by illegal votes." PoliPundit : "There is already concern that there will be illegal voting in CA-50. We need to compensate for that and still get a majority."

Conservative Hugh Hewitt believes the result of CA-50 will be a bellwether for GOP prospects on the immigration issue: "If the 50th goes "D" anyway, it will be very difficult to argue that illegal immigration is the seismic political issue that many believe it to be." Jay Tea at Wizbang thinks his righty brethren are overplaying their hand: "As a hard-nose on the illegal alien issue, the thought of this happening infuriated me, so I started looking into it myself. And my conclusion? As Dorothy Parker said, "there's no 'there' there." ... From the full context of the discussion, it's clear to me that Ms. Busby was asked if one needed to prove one was a legal voter in order to "help" her campaign -- with the clear implication of volunteering to work for her,not simply vote. She replied that they do not check IDs for volunteers, and anyone was welcome to assist. And under current law, they I do not believe they are required to verify the immigration status of an unpaid volunteer."

Talking Points Memo wondered if the episode afforded Bilbray "his race-baiting card to run on to replace Duke Cunningham?" Atrios highlighted Wizbang's much-ado-about-nothing analysis and concluded: "Yes, it's the kind of thing her political opponents will try to make something of. That's politics. But those who wish to operate in the factual world instead of the fact-free world of the racist Michelle Malkin should acknowledge that it's clear to any honest sentient being what was meant."

DavidNYC at SwingState kept his eye on the ball plugging a DCCC phone bank for his DC readers that quickly filled.

Lefty bloggers are think they may have turned a corner with the MSM over their coverage of Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT). DailyKos looks at Hartford Courant' Paul Bass' latest column on Lieberman ties to conservative GOPers as well as a New Haven Registerarticle on Lieberman's ad campaign and declares: "Not a good media day for Lieberman in his home state newspapers. They're calling bulls**t on his attacks on Lamont's wealth, his attempts to paint himself a loyal Democrat, and his dishonest negative campaign ads." Tim Tagaris at Cable co. exec. Ned Lamont's (D) official blog also links the Register piece: "It's an insult to the people of Connecticut and the journalists who work hard to cut through the clutter to provide context and depth. That's just another reason their campaign is so afraid of the blogs, a medium rich with educated opinion leaders, a critical link in the two-step flow of information. ...I'll get into more about the article in a bit, but one thing everyone needs to know is that none of this matters to Joe Lieberman and his campaign manager, Sean Smith. Their campaign strategy necessarily assumes that voters are idiots. They'll continue to run their huge, misleading television ad buys (paid for by the defense industry and pharmaceutical manufacturers) during the middle of American Idol."

The unofficial LamontBlog attacks Lieberman's record on the environment and notes: "...at the very same time the energy bill was being debated in the Senate, Lieberman Communications Director Matt Gobushleft his job ...to become "Manager of Executive Communications" ... for Exxon Mobil.

The latest New Dem Dispatch defending Lieberman from "The Return of Liberal Fundamentalism" also drew lefty ire this weekend. Booman Tribune writes: "The DLC says, "We deplore this purge effort because Joe Lieberman is an outstanding and respected U.S. Senator." Well, we deplore the lack of progressive voices in the Senate and all efforts to eliminate primary challengers to our established politicians. Where is the DLC complaining about the lack of primary challengers to Sherrod Brown and Bob Casey, Jr. Where are their complaints about the primary challenger to Lincoln Chafee? Does the DLC think Joe Lieberman should have a free ride to the nomination just because he is "outstanding and respected", as they put it? Shouldn't the Democrats of Connecticut make the ultimate decision? And why should they deplore whatever that decision is?"

Heading into the Senate debate over immigration almost all of the bigger blogs on the right would have three or four posts a day on immigration. Heading into this week's Senate debate on the Federal Marriage Amendment only three righty blogs bother to mention the issue; two of them against the amendment, and the third linking to a debate on a spin-off site. Whoever the FMA is designed to please, the righty blogosphere isn't it.

While "The Corner" has hosted plenty of anti-gay marriage thoughts in the past very little could be found on the issue this weekend other than this link to a debate between Jonathan Adler and Ed Whelan at NRO'sBench Memos . Over at the admittedly more libertarian than conservative The Volokh ConspiracyDale Carpenter reports from the 'Hope Springs Eternal Press Agency' that: "Bush to retract support for a federal marriage amendment in Monday speech, news report says." Righty Andrew Sullivan links to an AEI poll showing the country divided on the issue and concludes: "This seems to me to work in favor of the federalist answer, with various options being tried out across the country. But the other finding of all the polls is equally indisputable. There has been a massive shift in the last thirty years toward acceptance of gay equality. This has continued despite (or even because of) the campaign against marriage rights by the Christianist movement. The proportion of people who say they know a gay person has doubled in twenty years. In my view, that has been the real agent for change. And if gay people want their civil rights, they know what to do. If you're in the closet, you have no one to blame for your inequality but yourself."

At lefty AMERICAblog, John Aravosis is taking names: "I need names of current members of Congress who support the anti-gay constitutional amendment and who are divorced, have had an affair, or have in any other way jeopardized the institution of marriage, or more generally are family values hypocrites. ...We have the list of divorced Senators. I'd like divorced Republican House members (again, with solid proof), and CURRENT Senators and House members who have had family values scandals." Aravosis wants to keep the whole operation above board so he stresses he wants proof, not rumors: "Some folks have sent me some good URLs for Web site that list Republican adulterers, and more. The only problem is that those sites do not provide any sources whatsoever for the information they provide, so we can't use them unless every name is fact-checked. I want a newspaper (or other reliable) source for each and every name on those pages, then we can use them (and in the future, let this be a lesson to you if you decide to create lists like this in the future - people can't use them without sources proving they're correct)."

If New York Times public editor Byron Calame was looking to fill his inbox, his 6/4 piece defending Times reporting of Sen. Hillary Clinton's (D-NY) marriage ought to do the trick. The Grit led the league in lefty links on the issue: "One thing is clear in this ongoing struggle between progressive bloggers and the establishment media: GOP-propping and Dem-trashing is an addiction that won't be relinquished without a fight. ... Fine. If it's a fight they want, it's a fight they're surely getting. But as netroots power grows and reality continues to undermine the Bush-loving fantasies of these so-called 'journalists', it isn't hard to guess who will come out on top."

Greg Sargent at The Horse's Mouth thought addiction was an accurate description: "Another way to think of it is as a kind of nervous habit -- the journalistic equivalent of a facial tic -- born of terror at the prospect of being branded with a big scarlet "L" for "liberal." And a very big fight is what it's going to take to break that habit. ...The bottom line is that Calame had a huge opportunity: He could have put the Times on notice that all the journalistic shenanigans often directed at Dems that were on display in the original piece...will no longer be tolerated by readers."

Chris Bowers at MyDD was also in the chiding mood: "The established news media is fond of labeling the netroots as juvenile teenagers, but it strikes me in the case that they are both acting in a juvenile fashion and assuming that the nation as a whole is juvenile. We could bring you a story about the Clintons that had nothing to do with their private lives, but then neither we nor anyone else in this juvenile nation of ours would find that interesting!" Substituting for Kevin Drum, Steve Benen at The Political Animal also doubts the Times has an accurate grasp on the nation's interests: "The Clintons' "unique relationship" will be on voters' minds? That's highly unlikely -- unless news outlets like The New York Times continue to publish front-page analyses that literally count how many weekends they're together."

Lefties Middle Earth Journal and Penguins On The Equator demanded equal treatment for GOPers. MEJ: Another problem that...Mr Calame didn't address was no comparison was made between the Clinton's relationship and the relationship of other Senators and their spouses. In fact the Clinton's relationship is not that different. Of course if that had been pointed out in the article it would have been obvious that the story was NOT news worthy and in fact was "yellow journalism' at best." Penguins: "The problem is this: Certainly you can make an argument that the private lives of politicians are relevant for readers (and voters), but, setting the debate on that question aside, why is it that Republicans seem to get off the hook so easily? Where are the articles on McCain's multiple marriages, Giuliani's strange marital history, or Mitt Romney's family life and religious faith?" Lefty The American Street, on the other hand, thought other Dems should get the same treatment: "Yet I think it more important to lessen our engagement in the debate when the subject is Hillary and pursue balanced reportage in a different way. Report on the marriages of the numerous potential Dem presidential candidates and display that there's not even rumors of disloyalty or infidelity in their loving and committed relationships."

Righty bloggers picked up on a Thomas Lipscomb article in Real Clear Politics criticizing the New York Times "embarrassingly poor coverage of Kerry in the face of the Swift Boat Veterans' for Truth charges in the 2004 election." Lipscomb takes the Times to task for acting "as if the issues involved were between Kerry's latest representations of his record and the "unsubstantiated" charges of the Swift Boat group. The Times used the term "unsubstantiated" more than twenty times during its election coverage and continues to make no discernible effort to examine any of the charges in detail." Lipscomb then details six instances where he found the Swift Boaters' charges had merit. Lipscomb notes that the Times: "appears to have made no effort to look at any record besides listing Kerry's latest assertions with obligatory quotes from the usual Swiftie suspects to provide "balance."

Captain's Quarters heavily quotes the piece and writes: "One would think that after eighteen months, if anyone wanted to dredge this up again, a reporter would want to do so in order to achieve more clarity on the allegations. ...if the media wants to re-open this as a story, it should be prepared to demand all of the records from Kerry as well as thoroughly review the evidence gathered by the 250 veterans who opposed Kerry's bid for the presidency. If no one is prepared for that commitment, then it should remain where the voters left it in November 2004.

Bruce Kesler at Democracy Project condemns "the utterly incompetent flackery of Kate Zernike, condoned by the New York Times," and concludes: "Kerry wouldn't dare go to court, as the legal right of discovery in his journals and records are just the light of day that Kerry can't stand, and has refused to open to the public. Virtually everything that is open to the public, including the witnessing of over sixty Swiftees who know different, exposes Kerry, the New York Times, and their prairie home companion paper to withering truth." Dean's World notes that "Kerry never granted another interview with a reporter" except for Jon Stewart after the Swift Boaters "charges made national attention," and concludes the MSM was guilty of a "dereliction of duty." Decision'08 argues: "Let's get one thing out of the way up front: John Kerry served his country during Vietnam; I honor him for that. He did not take the easy way out that so many did, and that's to his eternal credit. Nevertheless, his actions after the war, and his somewhat active imagination concerning some of the things that took place during the war (Winter Soldier, anyone?) left him wide open for an inevitable counterattack - and the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth led a masterful campaign that delivered a tremendous bang for very little buck."

Chris Bowers at MyDD looks at the heightened attention Lamont's progressive challenge to Sen. Lieberman has received compared to insurgencies from the right against Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) and Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI) and asks "Why is the political and media establishment coming to the defense of Joe Lieberman and not Lincoln Chafee or Daniel Akaka, even though Lieberman's situation is less perilous than either Akaka's or Chafee's?"

Those in power, even Dems in power, despise the progressive movement more than they despise the conservative movement. They hate that the new progressive movement has made itself relevant to the national political scene in any, shape or form. They seek to continue and reify the narrative in our national political discourse that progressive, but not conservatives, are extremists.

If I had to postulate a reason for this, it would be, as Matt (Stoller) and I wrote in our paper last year, that the new progressive movement, especially the netroots, has developed independently of existing institutions of political and media power, developing new leaders, ideas and networks. By contrast, the right-wing movement rose to prominence by connecting established institutions of conservative power to the conservative grassroots. The progressive movement has truly developed outside of the existing the political infrastructure in America, and as such is perceived as a true career threat to those who make a living within that infrastructure. This makes our threats to their power structure true threats.

LEST WE FORGET: Ebay Do's and Don'ts

If you're planning on selling a defective laptop on Ebay after explicitly claiming that it works, be sure to remember to erase the laptop's hard drive before shipping it out to your intended victim. If you do forget to perform the memory wipe your victim may create a website featuring your name, pictures of you, pictures of your friends, differing versions of your resume, and embarrasing emails and other downloads (read porn) like this site here.