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 June 20, 2006 01:06 PM