June 02, 2006

6/2: The Dogs That Didn't Bark

Plenty of lefty blogs picked up environmental atty Robert Kennedy Jr.'s vote-fraud story in Rolling Stone but The Left Coaster noted that many of the big boys didn't: "I find it a little troubling that a half hour after this story is online, not one of the A-list center-left blogs is even posting on it. Has possible election fraud now become taboo with the larger blogs?" As the Blogometer goes to deadline, this statement is still largely true. There is a diary on DailyKos with over 750 comments, but kos hasn't chimed in. Talking Points Memo, The Huffington Post, and Atrios are all not touching the story. Why are they avoiding what ought to be a story right in their wheel house? Do they not care? Do they think Kennedy is wrong? Are they concentrating on '06? Or maybe they just do not want to be associated with conspiracy theories. Only they know. Hopefully they'll tell us soon.

ELECION'04: Buckeye Redux

Except for a few exceptions noted below, those lefties who did talk about the article loved it.

• OneCrankyDom at DailyKos: "This is finally being told by a Magazine somewhat in the mainstream. ...It's a long article with lots of stats. Unless you are really into the numbers or a real CT nut you may find it boring after a couple pages, but no one I know could possibly walk away without being mad as Hell.
• Democrats.com: "Of Course the 2004 Election Was Stolen...If you've read Congressman Conyers report or Greg Palast's book or Mark Crispin Miller's book or if you had access to the internet last November and December, or if you follow Brad Blog, then you probably already know the answer to the question in the title of this new Rolling Stone article: Was the 2004 Election Stolen?"
• Attytood: "We hate sounding so earnest and unsnarky, but we hope everyone who reads Attytood takes the time to read this important article. By everyone, we also mean we'd like the pro-Bush folks who hang around here to knock down Kennedy's argument; we'd like to hear the other side, but mainly we want to see a debate. Who knows, maybe one of these days a "real journalist" will even take up the story."
• The Reaction: "RFK's article is quite long, but it's absolutely a must-read. It's a thoughtful, argumentative piece backed up by sound research and analysis (and detailed documentation). It may not persuade closed minds to reconsider their prejudices, but it seems to me that an open and honest evaluation of what really happened back in 2004 is long overdue."
• firedoglake: "That the GOP devotes plenty of time, money and manpower to these illegal and deplorable tactics is undeniable, and that they both stick by and reward those who engage in them is undeniable. Trying to keep people from voting is anti-Democratic and anti-American, and there are few places where wingnuttia's contempt for democracy becomes more blatantly obvious."
• Peking Duck: "At least we can't fault him for lack of consistency, consistently using dirty tricks and fraud to "win" the White House. I was suspicious back then, and am convinced now: John Kerry was the real winner of the 2004 presidential election, just as Al Gore was the winner in 2000."
• Democratic Underground: "It's funny that when places like DU are discussing issues like this two years ago, we're labeled as paranoid and conspiracy theorists. Then a couple years later, this stuff starts to become mainstream."
• democracy guy: "RFK Jr.'s exit polling argument isn't a smoking gun, but it does argue for a broader, better funded, longer term election observation operation in EVERY precinct in Ohio."

OH Sec/State Ken Blackwell (R) received plenty of scorn. Pam's House Blend: "You cannot come away without at seeing how Ohio Secretary of State (and now gubernatorial candidate) Ken Blackwell is just f***ing evil." Hullabaloo: "Plain and simple, the Republicans stole the presidential election and Kenneth Blackwell, who seems to be up to his eyeballs in the shenanigans, is quite an accomplished liar." Pandagon takes the opportunity to tear apart Blackwell's new book.

Lefties unhappy with the piece were not gentle. The Poor Man Institute: "Amazingly, with this one article, Kennedy has not only fed unreasonable cynicism about democracy and undermined real electoral reform, he even made Cap'n "Special" Ed be non-horribly wrong about something. It's a dumbass trifecta. My tinfoil hat is off to you, sir." Chris Bowers at MyDD avoided taking shots at the article and instead criticized bloggers picking up on the story:

There has always been something that bothered me about the "stolen election" diaries that have a tendency to rocket up the diaries at Dailykos. ... I'm sure part of it stems from how the "stolen election" sentiment online began by calling me, and several other bloggers, cowards for not blogging about it all the time after the election. ... However, even though all of these factors play a role, reading OneCrankyDom's diary today finally crystallized for me what really bothers me about these diaries and the culture surrounding them: laziness. ... The mentality surrounding the "stolen election" diaries has the clear stink of looking for someone else to solve the problem for you.

Righty reaction was uniform and predictable.

• Captain's Quarters: "Kennedy's lead argument gives readers enough excuse to stop on the first page. He argues that exit polls are "exquisitely accurate," and therefore since the pollsters are infallible, their early returns must have been the truth."
• Outside the Beltway: "I saw mention earlier today of a piece in Rolling Stone by Robert Kennedy, Jr. arguing that the Republicans stole the 2004 election. Given that it was 1) a Kennedy, and a junior at that; 2) in a rock mag; and 3) plainly idiotic, I ignored it.
• Riehl World View quoting NPR: "There also was a session called, "Who Really Won the Election 2004?" This was an opportunity for the cyber-active bloggers who think the Ohio vote was somehow fraudulent to present their best case. They didn't. Their presentations were confusing, if not incoherent to this listener, and they all seemed to boil down to one complaint: namely, that the vote totals didn't match the exit polls. The problem with that argument is that if you can give good reasons why the exit polls were wrong in Ohio (and there are many), their entire complaint disappears."
• Winds of Change: "Look, I don't doubt that there were a host of irregularities in Ohio, which went narrowly for Bush. Just as there were in Minnesota, which went narrowly for Kerry. To take my earlier metaphor of umpiring a step further - and as someone who has been Chief Umpire of a competitive Little League - the goal is to minimize the number of bad calls, try and make sure they don't favor one team over the other, and hope like hell they don't determine the outcome of the game."
• Brainster's Blog: "The idiots questioning the election always focus in on the Exit Polls. But even the Exit Pollsters admit they were flawed. This is Sore Loserman all over again. Get over it, Democrats!"
• Expose the Left: "Prepare for liberals/socialists to wet their pants in excitement over the Rolling Stones editorial that charges Republicans, but more importantly the Bush administration, stole the 2004 Election. This crap comes from the same crowd who believes the Bush administration was behind 9/11."

Righty bloggers also noticed Blackwell's prominence in the article, but unlike the lefties they didn't like it one bit.

• Captain's Quarters: "Why would Kennedy put on his tinfoil hat in this manner? We find out in his second unsupported pillar of the stolen-election conspiracy theory -- Ken Blackwell, the conservative Republican running for governor."
• The Real Ugly American: "The Left Smears Another Black Republican"
• Confederate Yankee: "Kennedy's article was constructed for on reason, and one reason only; to smear a black fiscal and socially conservative candidate that has charisma, integrity, and cross-cultural appeal--in short, a real chance of winning."
• Sundries Shack: "In the RS article, the obvious and recurring villain is then-Secretary of State Ken Blackwell. Blackwell is currently in a dogfight for Governor of Ohio and, according to the latest news, has pulled to within 6 percentage points of Democratic candidate and Congressman Ted Strickland."

WH'08: Bloggers United

Reagan speech writer Peggy Noonan got righty bloggers talking about Unity'08 with her Wall Street Journal op-ed arguing that it's the American people who are divided, not the two major political parties. Blue Crab Boulevard thinks she's onto something: "The two existing parties are so closely aligned these days that the people on the ground really can't tell them apart anymore. Tax and spend Democrats morph seamlessly into tax and spend Republicans. I still don't know if a third party can succeed, but there is certainly some food for thought here for both parties right now." Allahpundit at Hot Air thinks Noonan just wishes the GOP was different: "She thinks the big divide isn't between left and right but between the public and its cloddish, imperious elected officials. So she's calling for a new party, one that believes in small government, strong borders, and effective Homeland Security. In other words, the Republican Party that George Bush pretends to belong to, not the one to which he actually does."

Righty Texas Rainmaker thinks Unity'08 has a chance: "The problem is the two-party system has created such an atmosphere that makes it virtually impossible for a third-party to gain much traction. At least, that's the way it used to be. But now with the grassroots effort of the Internet, I think the tide could be changing. Now anyone with a computer and Internet access can reach millions of potential voters and get something close to "equal time" especially as citizens continue to shun the traditional media outlets." Tapscott's Copy Desk also sees possibilities: "People have been predicting the demise of the current parties for decades, but the coming of the Internet is providing the tools to empower outsiders to oust insiders and force reforms needed to make our government more responsive, transparent and accountable."

Most righties don't see the movement going anywhere. Some for structural reasons. Libertarian QandO: "So, I also believe that we are on the verge of a major change in the two-party system. In the end, I think that the structural nature of the political system described by the Constitution requires a two-party system. I suspect, however, that in the near future, it won't be the two parties we are familiar with today." Conservative Say Anything: "From my perspective, the best a third party can hope for is to steal enough voters away from one of the two major parties to cause a shift in the principles and ideals of that party. I don't think any third party will ever grow to the point of being on par with the D's and R's because before that could happen either the D's or the R's would assimilate the third party and makes it's ideas their own.

Others on the right thought issues would do Unity'08 in. Chicago Boyz: "Their assumption: consensus exists outside the closed world of Washington. ...Jordan and Bailey consider global warming and budget deficits neglected issues. ...But both have been part of the public discussion...Indeed, some "ordinary people" see global warming as a wedge rather than crucial issue." Right Wing News: "Ok, then I have one question: what's their platform? ... Most "moderates" are either people who break from conservatives or liberals on a few issues or people who just don't know enough about politics in the first place to figure out what they want. So the issues that "moderates" support vary wildly from person to person. So what popular "moderate" positions can a third party take that neither of the major parties is already taking? Whichever way they go on those issues, they alienate another block of voters and in the end all they'll end up accomplishing is draining off enough support to cost one party or the other the election.)

Very little on Unity'08 on the left, but Redshift at DailyKos thinks they might as well be Dems: "The weird thing is, though, that I can't find anything specific in their issues or complaints that would actually be points of disagreement with the Democrats. They seem to be opposed to the Republicans and the GOP's caricature of the Democrats, and unable to recognize that both are created by the Republicans. I understand the desire to bring back the politics of compromise that many of us grew up with, but it's not going to happen by pretending that it's everyone's fault equally. Conservatives deliberately poisoned the well."

DHS: Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho, Michael Chertoff's Got To Go!

No love for the DHS today in the blogosphere. Apparently bloggers seem to agree that there is stuff in NYC worth protecting. Lefty outrage was stronger by far.

• Shakespeare's Sister: "I'm actually not all that surprised to see the U.N. not listed... we all know the Bush Administration would love to see that building wiped out. And yeah, the Statue of Liberty needs to go as well... it's French, after all.
• Atrios: "I'm so glad we're past the stage when everyone in the country pretended to love the city they'd spent their lives hating, but this is ridiculous. ...I'm certain there's a mall somewhere in kabumf**k American that really needs some DHS grant money."
• The Reality Based Community: "New York per capita grant funding is down to less than $3 per goddam blue-voting-liberal-free-thinking capita; we're paying $15 each to save Wyoming folks, who know how to vote properly, which certainly seems like a sound judgment of relative individual worth."
• Crooks and Liars: "This is a sad response by the DHS. Why do they hate America?"
• Garance Franke-Ruta at TAPPED: "The Daily News is right on this one: Michael Chertoff should step down. It truly boggles the mind that this idiocy could have passed without notice through the DHS bureaucracy."
• AMERICAblog: "So let's just see what Peter King actually does to fix this problem. Like Arlen Specter in the Senate, Peter King is more than a little late to the game. And like Arlen Specter, King will probably just launch feel-good hearings that are meant to make the public think he's doing something, but in fact they'll be hearings that do nothing at all."
• Lawyers, Guns, and Money: "Back when the Republicans introduced their poison pill into the act establishing the DHS, the one that stripped civil-service protections from its employees and thereby forced many Democrats who supported the creation of the Department to vote against it, a relative of mine pointed out that doing so not only provided Republicans with a way of smearing the Democrats as being "soft on terror" during the 2002 midterms...the act would also turn the new DHS into a patronage mill for the administration."

Righties were in no mood to defend the Bush admin on this one. The American Mind: "Once upon a time I thought the Department of Homeland Security was a good idea. With new terrorist threats I thought a "person in charge who could force the CIA and FBI to work together instead of worrying about turf would bring better security to the nation." What's happened is we're stuck with a department that thinks there are no national monuments and icons in New York City." A Blog For All: "This is bureaucratic stupidity at its finest. Did anyone who reviewed this particular document even bother to notice the big fat zero where it lists national monument or icon? Also, for those who think this is simply about politics, several North Jersey counties that are predominantly Democrat received a significant increase in funding."

Only lefty Michael Tomasky at TAPPED saw a method to DHS madness: "Therefore, I could easily imagine a scenario in which the next terror attacks occur in, say, Wichita, Des Moines, Memphis, and Omaha. Such a series of coordinated strikes in heartland small cities would be pretty devastating, I've always thought, and might well rattle many Americans even more than another attack on Manhattan, which, let's face it, many Americans think of as a western province of France. And if they happened, everyone would be sitting around saying, "Gee, it never occurred to us they'd strike there."... But I'll go against what history teaches us about this administration (i.e. that everything is political) and assume, for now, that there's an actual substantive reason why DHS did what it did."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: InstaInterview

The Examiner.com sat down with Instapundit author Glenn Reynolds but for some reason doesn't actually name him at any point. An excerpt:

Q: At this point, who has the upper hand in utilizing the Internet for political purposes: Democrats? Republicans? Liberals? Conservatives? Or does the concept of netroots obliterate political power along party lines?

A: Different people are organized in different ways. The left felt that the Democratic Party was weak on organization and grassroots activism, and in the pockets of the small number of big donors from whom it gets most of its money. So they put together a grassroots activism and fundraising machine. On the right, the concern was with media bias, partisanship and dishonesty, so you saw a network of alternative news and opinion sources, which played a pretty important role in the 2004 election. In both cases, though outsiders have different priorities than insiders. Members of Congress like Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., aren't very happy with the "PorkBusters" program (www.porkbusters.org) against pork-barrel spending, for example, but it's had a lot more impact than a movement like that could have had pre-Internet. The parties still have a very important role, but if they act like threatened middle managers in a big corporation, and focus on protecting individuals' jobs in place of fixing the organization, they'll wind up obsolete and left behind.

LEST WE FORGET: The CIA Is Too Slow

Contactmusic.com reports that Kiefer Sutherland has few friends in the CIA: "I'll tell you a funny thing. I was in a ski lift and the guy there with me told me that he worked for the CIA and said he was a fan of the show. "He told me I had made his life difficult because when he was a way in Europe for four months, his mother got really upset with him being away for so long. "Apparently she said to him, 'You should be more like Jack Bauer because he gets things done in a hurry.'"

Posted by at June 2, 2006 12:10 PM