6/6: Bloggers vs. the FMA

It's official, nobody in the blogosphere like the Federal Marriage Amendment. Lefty opposition is hardly worth mentioning but as the Senate officially takes up debate today, righty bloggers are speaking out and they have no love for their party's stance. The estate tax, on the other hand, is something they can get behind ... but they would really rather be talking about immigration, which now even lefties are admitting may be the death knell for Dem hopes in CA-50.

Lefty bloggers have not given up on women's studies professor Francine Busby's (D) campaign, but they are already lowering expectations and diverting blame. Chris Bowers at MyDD explains that, "If Busby wins [Tuesday], Republicans are almost certainly finished in November. Even if Bilbray ekes out a win, Republicans remain in serious trouble." Bowers also takes issue with an On Call (go team!) assessment that "Francine Busby really stepped in it with her "papers" comment regarding Latino voters." Bowers claims the story isn't getting any mention in the mainstream press (living on the east coast he must not get the San Diego Union-Tribune or the San Francisco Chronicle) and compares Busby's fate to veteran Paul Hackett (D-OH): "Did Paul Hackett 'step in it' because Rush Limbaugh was criticizing her military service? Did Busby 'step in it' two months ago because the NRCC was misquoting her? Of course not. The point is that the conservative media will use anything, whether true or not, in an attempt to drive up turnout before an election. What Busby did or did not do on this matter is irrelevant."

Libertarian Hit and Run contributor Dave Weigel has a similar take at lefty hang-out DailyKos: "I've got a sneaking suspicion that Brian Bilbray will win the special election for CA-50. ... At the 11th hour, Busby gave Bilbray a gift that the mighty SoCal conservative talk-radio empire has transformed into a horn of plenty. ... The lesson to take out of this isn't the weakness of Democratic candidates or the stupidity of Busby. Recall that the same thing happened in OH-02 last year. In the 11th hour, when Hackett was gaining momentum, talk radio led by Rush Limbaugh started beating Hackett to death with quotes about Bush being a 'son of a bitch' and a 'chicken hawk.' The goal wasn't to publicize the quotes so that swing voters would sour on Hackett. It was to tell the thousands of conservatives in the Cincinatti suburbs, who listen to Limbaugh or other conservative talkers during drive time or during the work day, that they had to swallow their dissatisfaction with the GOP and storm the polls to beat this unhinged Democrat. The Busby 'gaffe' is old wine in a new bottle."

SUPER TUESDAY: Previews

Lefty James L. at Swing State Project has a run down of the CA and MT races progressives will be watching 6/6 here. Swing State looks at: CA-50, CA-42, CA-36, CA-11, CA-06, and MT Senate. Swing State does not look at CA Gov.: "Obviously, I left out the contentious Angelides-Westly battle for the Democratic nomination for governor against Schwarzeneggar. The mud-slinging is pretty off-putting in this race, and I'm not inclined to blog much about it other than I hope that the battle will be one more factor to help energize Democratic turn-out in CA-50." In a separate postSwing State also looks at AL Gov., IA Gov., SD Gov., and MS-02.

Ezra Klein at TAPPED is no fan of the Dem '06 moniker: "Together, America can do better." Klein previews criticism from Geoffrey Numberg: "Given the slogan's resounding vacuity, it might seem like piling on to point out that it's ungrammatical in the bargain, with the together sitting uncomfortably with the singular America. Saying "Together, America can do better" is a bit like saying "Together, the North won the Civil War" -- you know what it's supposed to mean, but you have to do a little mental stutter-step to get there. It's clearly a sentence written by a committee: you can tell that one faction wanted to go with "America can do better" while another favored "Together, we can do better" to get the unity theme in there, so they decided to split the difference." Klein goes on to quip: "I figure the phrase alone will cost the Dems three House seats and four percent in the Brown-DeWine Senate match."

Participants in Hugh Hewitt's recent GOP WH '08 online poll (the Blogometer votes in every online poll found) received an e-mail asking: "Are you willing to invest in the future by contributing $50 to each of the ten GOP Senate candidates that are best positioned to either retain their seats or take a blue seat red? Go online and support the Big Ten right now." Hewitt's Big Ten does not list the Wolverines but does include: Arizona's Jon Kyl, Maryland's Michael Steele , Minnesota's Mark Kennedy, Missouri's Jim Talent , Montana's Conrad Burns, Nebraska's Pete Ricketts , New Jersey's Tom Kean, Ohio's Mike DeWine, Pennsylvania's Rick Santorum, and Washington's Mike McGavick .

Right Wings News put together a list of the most "dangerous" WH'08 Dems. The list is "based purely on electability, not on the likelihood the candidate will take the nomination." RWN has analysis for each pol but the top ten looks like this:

1) Mark Warner
2) Bill Richardson
3) Evan Bayh
4) Hillary Clinton
5) Al Gore
6) Barack Obama
7) Wesley Clark
8) John Kerry
9) John Edwards
10) Russ Feingold

The Left Coaster also surveys the Dem field: "Fresh faces have a distinct advantage in the 2008 race, as we are surely going to see the usual suspects on the Democratic side of the race. With Kerry, Edwards, and perhaps Wes Clark as certain to run again, and Hillary looming in the background, the base as well as the media will give the "new meat" a long look over the coming months, and that gives certain candidates a chance to make a big impression. With Gore out, I think the two candidates that will prove to be the most interesting will be Feingold and Mark Warner, from different sides of the party. ...Warner isn't trying to keep up with Feingold in seizing the hearts and minds of the base. He is simply getting known and positioning himself as the outside-the-Beltway moderate alternative to Hillary and everyone else

Kausfiles looks at the tea leaves from Al Gore's 6/4 appearence on This Week under the header: "Gore Pulls Out ... of Kosistan" Kaus notes that Gore did not call for the immediate withdraw of troops from Iraq and speculates: "Gore might have said this because he didn't want to make news that would distract from his global warming pitch; he might have said it because he's willing to cede John Kerry the left in any presidential primary Iraq debate. But the most likely reason he said it is because he actually believes it, which will be highly disappointing to pro-withdrawal Democrats who have been pushing a Gore candidacy out of frustration with Hillary's pro-war stands. Turns out he's just another 'now-that-we're-there' Democrat. Sorry, Arianna."

Garance Franke-Ruta at TAPPED thinks the stance just shows Gore's true centrist colors: "That he's continuing to articulate inconvenient truths about the war suggests to me that Gore's demurrals about his political future are real. If he were really going to run for President, why would he, at the height of his comeback, potentially alienate the affections of the party activists drawn to him over the past few years and relinquish a chance to define himself in opposition to Hillary Clinton? Maybe because he's genuinely not running. The alternate explanation, of course, would be that he agrees with Clinton that a more centrist public image and not setting a deadline for withdrawal are both good politics and good policy."

Following an L.A. address to the Pacific Council Sen. John Kerry met with area bloggers 6/2. Pamela Leavey at The Democratic Daily reports: "As we made our way from the speech to the room reserved for our meeting with John Kerry we found the way paved with the sign above stating: John Kerry Bloogers Meeting. The humor of the misspelling was not missed by any of us."

Hekebolos at DailyKos has a transcript of Kerry's address to the Pacific Council as well as the follow up Q and A. Hekeblos also had this to say about the private meeting with Kerry after the speech: "Kerry wanted it to be a personal conversation and off the public record, so I'm honoring that request and not posting details--suffice it to say that Kerry is actually sync with lots of the issues that concern us here on the blogosphere, including the internal workings of the Democratic Party and its election strategy."

Some bloggers in attendance were a little more shaky on the whole "off the record" concept. The Hollywood Liberal reported: "The meeting was off the record so no one took any notes or recorded what was said. The first question went straight to the point, about how pissed off so many Democratic voters, are about what happened with the election. ... Kerry responded by dropping the whole political routine and speaking like he was off the record to a bunch of people that already know what's going on anyway. "Look I know how bad things are, I know that people are pissed off, I know we screwed up." ...Kerry agreed completely with someone's assessment that everything that Bush does is solely for the purpose of looting the country. He basically said that Bush and his cohorts are criminals and that history will judge them so."

Lefty Steve Audio left the meeting a convert: "Folks, I take back everything I ever said about him post 11/04. He completely understands what happened, how he was defeated, and how his legitimacy is still being questioned by the Swift Boat Bastards from hell. ...We both came away feeling that this guy really gets it, that he has the 'rock star' vibe that only Al Gore & the Clintons have today. ...And he plays guitar."

Pamela Leavy at The Democratic Daily followed up the Kerry-lovefest with an attack on Thomas Lipscomb for his 6/5 Real Clear Politics article: "So here's a little taste of the truth about Thomas Lipscomb: Thomas Lipscomb is a Conservative Propagandist and a Destroyer of Veterans. ...Funny thing about that claim that Lipscomb was nominated for a Pulitzer - Pulitzer.org provides lists of all nominees and winners on their website, Lipscomb's name is NO WHERE TO BE FOUND in 2004 or 2005."

No major stand alone righty blogger has come out in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment. All blogosphere energy on the issue is eminating from the left, and none are as focused on the issue as AMERICAblog: "Yes, it's 6-6-6 and the spawn of Satan in the GOP at the White House and on Capitol Hill are dutifully spreading his message of hate." AMERICAblog doesn't stop there...they've asked their readers to call the offices of GOP Sens. in favor of the amendment and ask about the boss' "Biblical sins." Here is a typical report:

Good morning, Senator Allen's office
Yes I'm calling to see if the senator supports traditional marriage.
Yes he does, he supports the bill.
Okay, and he's divorced?
Uh (uncomfortably) yes sir.
Yes, okay,
(she quickly adds) But he's remarried.
What was the cause of his divorce? Do you know the reason? Is his wife remarried?
I don't know, it was a long time ago sir.
Okay, could you tell me if the senator masturbates?
I'm sorry, I can't answer these questions.
Can you tell me, do you masturbate?
(click)

Lefty bloggers jumped on WH press sec. Tony Snow's verbal stumble following his mention of civil rights in the context of the FMA debate. Raw Story has a transcript of the episode and Think Progress has video. The Carpetbagger Report comments: "First, the right was irritated enough that Laura Bush and Dick Cheney oppose the amendment, and the president hasn't shown any interest in it. Now, with the White House press secretary making comments like this, Karl Rove is going to have to work overtime to keep James Dobson happy. Second, Tony Snow has been on the job for about three weeks now after years at the White House annex. How long will he try to use the "I'm new here" defense?

Hugh Hewitt comes the closest to defending the FMA: "On the subject, I'll point you to one of my favorite things I've ever read on this subject-- "A really, really, really long post on gay marriage that does not, in the end, support one side or the other," by Jane Galt." Gay Patriot is ready to defend Pres. Bush, but not the FMA: "Let me repeat; the president is wrong on this one. But, in gaining a public audience for a topic so important to gay and lesbian Americans, he has given advocates of gay marriage an opportunity to take issue with his points and articulate a positive case for gay marriage. Alas, that activists have preferred insults to ideas. It appears they believe vitriol is the only way to address those who disagree with them."

Righty Captain's Quarters is also no fan of the amendment, but does believe judicial activism riles the GOP base more: "For the record, it makes little difference to me whether gays marry or form civil unions. ...If Andrew Sullivan wants to marry his significant other, it has no affect on my relationship with the First Mate. ...What matters to me is that decisions about the nature of public policy get made in a democratic fashion. Marriage is a public recognition of a legal status between two people, and the public has the right and responsibility to define that as they see fit. ...From my perspective, judicial activism offends the conservative base much more than gay marriage itself."

Most righty bloggers would much rather see the GOP devote his efforts to securing the border. La Shawn Barber's Corner: "Bush has the wherewithal to fight to change the freakin' Constitution, yet when it comes to stopping illegal aliens from crossing the border, he has no fight in him to execute laws already on the books? OK." Blue Crab Boulevard: "I'm Not Real Impressed With this little bit of political strategy. ... First, I can't see it passing through Congress, second it smacks of trying to divert attention away from the real issue on voter's minds - illegal immigration. A Blog For All: "It's nice to know that Congress has more important things to do with its time. Border control and immigration policy don't compare with issues that have no chance of passage and the import of which is dubious at best."

Unlike the FMA, right bloggers are all for the GOP push to repeal the estate tax. Libertarian QandO: "My property. I own it. Taxes have already been paid on it. And besides, in a free country, it should be none of the government's business who I choose to leave it too." QandO goes onto paragraph by paragraph response to a Sebastian MallabyWashington Postop-ed against the GOP plan. Right Wing Howler and Outside The Beltway also have detailed response to the Post.

ShopFloor.org takes issue with the Mallaby's characterization of estate tax supporters as the "hereditary elites." ShopFloor.org: "These are men and women --- manufacturers all -- who own family companies and will pass the companies on to the next generation. They create jobs, they create prosperity and wealth for their employees and communities. Remember, a $10 million or $20 million manufacturing company is very small. As you'll see from the comments to our last post on this topic, these are folks who are running small manufacturing companies, trying their level best to compete."

Harvard economics professor Greg Mankiw doesn't think Mallaby keeps up with his reading: "In fact, the estate tax is controversial among economists. Economists Ed Prescott, Martin Feldstein, Gary Becker, and Jeff Miron are all on record favoring repeal. There is a vast literature in economics arguing against capital taxation in favor of consumption taxation. Anyone who takes that literature seriously would likely favor estate tax repeal, because the estate tax is just a particular form of capital taxation."

Andrew Roth at Club for Growth has a little whip count: "I was a little sloppy with my earlier whip count on the Death Tax so let me put a finer point on it. There are probably 53 strong YES votes right now. That's 55 Republicans minus Lincoln Chafee, John McCain, Olympia Snowe, and George Voinovich, but includes Democrats Ben Nelson and Bill Nelson. You can bump that number up to 54 because McCain, who desperately wants to be liked by conservatives, has promised to vote for cloture, but not final repeal."

Lefty bloggers also picked up on the Post's op-ed page, but they had digs for Sen. Jeff Sessions' (R-AL) instead. Ezra Klein at TAPPED: "Sessions, remember, is the guy who sought to revitalize the estate tax repeal movement by scouring post-Katrina New Orleans for a corpse with an estate subject to the tax. The ghoulish endeavor netted precisely no examples. Steve Benen at The Political Animal also looked at Sessions' Katrina connection. Think Progress wants to rename the effort the "Paris Hilton Tax Cut."

BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: Joe Gandelman

Today the Blogometer talks to ventriloquist Joe Gandelman, who writes The Moderate Voice.

What is your full name?

Joe Gandelman

What is your age?

56 years old

Where did you grow up?

I grew up in New Haven and Woodbridge, Connecticut. I then went to college at Colgate University in Hamilton, New York, and went on to graduate school at Northwestern University's Medill School of Journalism, where I go my masters in journalism.

Where do you live now?

San Diego, California. I also spent some years overseas freelancing in Madrid (Spain), New Delhi (India) and visited and wrote from countries such as Bangladesh, Cypress and Greece. Then I worked on newspapers in Wichita, KS and San Diego, CA

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

Right now I'm an entertainer -- a ventriloquist, which makes me the only ADMITTED dummy who writes a weblog. I worked, as mentioned above, overseas writing for publications such as the Chicago Daily News (I was their accredited stringer in New Delhi, India 1973-1975) and the Christian Science Monitor (I was their accredited Special Correspondent which is a position much like Jill Carroll had, where I was a freelance but writing primary form them and doing some trips where they paid parts of the expenses) in Madrid 1975-1978.. I was staff reporter on Knight Ridder's Wichita Eagle-Beacon 1980-1982 and on the San Diego Union 1982-1990. I left to go into the entertainment business (my vent website is www.familyentertainer.com ) and eventually get back into freelance writing projects..

When did you start blogging and why?

I started blogging at the end of 2003 because I hadn't written much of anything since I left the newspaper in 1990 and wanted to get back into writing. I was NOT at ALL interested in doing writing criticizing other bloggers' ideas or writing. That STILL leaves me cold. I wanted to write on issues. I also wanted to do a kind of site that offered differing ideas -- but was not afraid to take a stand. I was hoping to do a site that could be read by people of the left and right who didn't think that reading an opposing idea gave them brain cancer. I was not interested in doing a site that would only be ready by Democrats, or Republicans. And I noted that many blogs only linked to those they already agree with. I wanted to offer links that offered a menu of viewpoints. I wanted to use some of the kinds of writing I did when I was in the media -- but also forget about space constraints or even stylistic constraints from time to time.

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

I'm still very interested in anything dealing with politics since I was a political science major and remain a political junkie. BUT I also love doing the offbeat kinds of stories -- frankly, silly posts on feature stories. Or posts on things such as The Sopranos. The Stephen Colbert speech actually got me some of the most massive hits I ever had and on that one I was trying to step outside of being a blogger and write about the difficult of doing irony and satire before an audience.

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

You DON"T want to know. I book my show, I travel, and I blog. I often blog on 500 mile drives or at hotels between shows in various states. I blog at Starbucks A LOT. I added cobloggers over the past year because my blog would be dead due to all of the travel time. I tried to assemble people who were not predictable -- center, center right, center left. A large number stopped blogging due to personal commitments or getting burned out. My two latest are a coblogger in New Delhi and a coblogger in The Netherlands.

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

I'm not being political when I tell you that's an impossible question. I like a LOT of people who don't even agree with each other, and for varying reasons. For instance, I like what Glenn Reynolds does with his short posts and his MSNBC columns. I think John Amato picks the perfect bits for his Crooks And Liars and also says a great deal in his short posts, quite eloquently. I love Bull Moose (DLC) and also The Talking Dog (progressive) and Captain Ed Morrissey (conservative). I can't tell you "just one blogger" because I like different aspects of them. My blog has a HUGE categorized blogroll -- and it is NOT for show. I surf many sites and read many different ideas. I've only removed links of blogs that were inactive or that either got into or tried to do a blogwar with me (I don't do blogwars since I'm interested in issues and not personalities and just stop reading those blogs that try to suck me into it)

Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?

My favorite isn't alive these days. Mike Royko. The. Best. Ever.

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

Crossfire.

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

Again, I can't answer this because I read so many. On a typical day I will read Crooks & Liars, Red State. Instapundit, Daily Kos, Bull Moose, Oxblog, Watching America (A GREAT SITE), Citizen Smash, Fire Dog Lake, Centerfield, The Might Middle and others.

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

A LOT. When I travel I buy up every newspaper I can and read them at meals. I'm talking about walking into a restaurant with five of 6 papers (one of them USA Today invariably).

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

Newspaper circulation is obviously falling. The death of the Knight-Ridder chain was bad news because it's clear they slashed so much to cut costs that readers started to turn away from their product, which had impact in other areas. On the other hand, when I first joined the San Diego Union in 1982 I had the supreme displeasure of meeting a prominent journalism professor in Los Angeles who was the epitome of arrogance (and I LIKE educators and professors) who sneering told me that within 5 years I would be out of a newspaper job because newspapers were going to go to the way of dinosaurs.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Wrong But Right

Mystery Pollster has a lengthy post up dissecting Rolling Stone'sRFK Jr. article, "Was the 2004 Election Stolen?" Mystery Pollster ultimately concludes that the Kennedy article "disappoints in its discussion of the exit poll controversy" and that Kennedy "manages to dredge up nearly every long-ago discredited distortion or half-truth on this subject without any acknowledgement of contrary arguments or the weaknesses in his argument."

Mystery Pollster continues: "But before getting to exit polls I want to make two things clear. First, despite its weaknesses, the Kennedy article raises some important and troubling questions about real problems in Ohio in 2004. ...The summary of problems deserving attention includes long lines in minority precincts, efforts of the Republican Party to selectively challenge (or "cage") new registrants and the many examples of pure incompetence by local election officials. ...Second... I have never argued that the exit polls can be used to rule out or disprove the possibility that vote fraud may have occurred in Ohio or anywhere else during

in 2004."

LEST WE FORGET: Apocalypse Soon

For those of who enjoyed the Left Behind books, or for those of you who just love video games, soon you will be able to experience "the ultimate fight of Good against Evil" as a real-time strategy game. Left Behind Games Inc. is developing a PC game that allows players to:

Lead the Tribulation Force from the book series, including Rayford, Chloe, Buck and Bruce against Nicolae Carpathia...the AntiChrist.

Conduct physical and spiritual warfare : using the power of prayer to strengthen your troops in combat and wield modern military weaponry throughout the game world.

Play multiplayer games as Tribulation Force or the AntiChrist's Global Community Peacekeepers with up to eight players via LAN or over the internet!