July 12, 2006
7/12: Calm Before The Storm?
The blogosphere's left is far more active in campaigns then their counterparts on the right, so the Blogometer may make it seem like only liberals and progressives have internal fights while the right coasts merrily along. Everyone's focus on CT SEN only worsens the situation, but as the Washington Post's E.J. Dionne Jr. points out 7/11, the post-Bush vacuum may change all that. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is no GOP uniter and the righty blogosphere has not come close to coalescing around an alternative. Additionally, the biggest bloggers on the right traffic-wise (Instapundit, Andrew Sullivan, Kausfiles) are all decidedly less socially conservative than the traditional GOP base (represented on line better by The Corner and RedState). Maybe, just maybe, Dems and the 'spheres left could benefit by having their big proxy fight in '06 (ie CT SEN) instead of in '08.
GOP '08: His Heirlessness
Conservative bloggers were amused by E.J. Dionne Jr.'s 7/11 op-ed handicapping the GOP WH field. Ankle Biting Pundits was "tickled" by Dionne's assertion that the GOP is on the cusp of "a far more searching philosophical battle than are the Democrats." ABP looks at Dionne's ex-NY Mayor Rudy Giuliani example and concludes: "Giuliani is a true anomaly. But for 9/11, no one would be talking about his prospective presidential aspirations. That means - let's be clear - that the present Giuliani boomlet is a validation of his leadership style, not his ideology, which is decidedly "New York" on social issues and, I can say with confidence, would never see him through to the GOP nomination. So let us dispense of the GOP in philosophical crisis talk."
Also taking on Dionne from the right Ryan Sager at RCP Blog acknowledges that "Bush has no heir" but that "with Bush's poll numbers where they are, nobody really wants to be his heir." Sager then looks at the major GOP hopefuls: "McCain is really the only Republican who benefits right now from tying himself to Bush. He's already known as Bush's antagonist, so he won't be tied to the administration's failures. ... The most anti-Bush candidate is probably Newt Gingrich, who has been highly critical of the administration recently. ... Rudy and Mitt are both somewhere in between. Both support the president intensely, but both stand ready to paint themselves as 'problem solvers' who (by implication) will actually get something done in Washington, D.C., where Bush has failed."
ROMNEY: Bush III?
Progressive Ezra Klein at TAPPED also read Dionne's column but focuses entirely on MA Gov. Mitt Romney (R): "[Romney]'ll shift the terms of the health care debate left, forcing his opponents to counter with similarly productive and substantial proposals. But remember, George W. Bush ran as a uniter, not a divider, too, and we saw how that turned out. So it's worth not being too quick to take Romney at his word. ... So Romney may live up to his genial, compromising rhetoric, but his experience in Massachusetts, much like Bush's in Texas, isn't telling enough to confidently draw a conclusion. State politics are very different from national politics, and Romney's state is even more different than most."
MCCAIN: Hemlock Needed At RedState
Trying to police his own, Ryan Sager at RCP Blog notes "a discussion" over at conservative activist hang out RedState on "whether John McCain's breaking under torture in North Vietnam is something his political opponents (conservatives, that is) can use against him. It's a disgusting idea. And it's likely to backfire on the person who tries it."
Posted on a diary away from the main page, Socrates at RedState does lead of his diary writing: "I do not yet know who I support for President in 2008, but I know I that do not support John McCain. From all the evidence of his public life, he lacks the fortitude, the executive experience, and the strength of conviction needed in a President. ...McCain broke under pressure in Viet Nam, both to reveal such details of his mission as would help him gain medical treatment and by signing what he describes as a confession of war crimes. Not all prisoners revealed the details of their missions or signed such confessions. If we must elect a Viet Nam POW, it would be from the pool of those who upheld their nation's honor that I would like a president chosen."
The following comments at RedState are uniformly negative and hardly qualify as a discussion. RedState commenter SlimJim: "Criticizing McCain for "breaking under torture" is beneath redstate.com. One would expect this kind of hatred at Daily Kos. Someone should consider banning this Socrates."
CLINTON: Mmmmmmm, Bush-Lite
Arianna Huffington's unhappiness with the Clinton family does not end with Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY). Huffington highlights Bill's comment from Aspen that Democrats "ought to be whipped if we allow our differences over what to do now over Iraq divide us," and asks at The Huffington Post: "Is he serious? He makes it sound as if the debate over the war is petty squabbling on the level of whether one should wear white after Labor Day." Huffington continues: "There is no way a politician as savvy as Bill Clinton could be this clueless about just how seismic a division Iraq is for Democrats, so I can only assume it was the guilt talking -- the former president trying to make up for the wrong-headed advice he's been giving Hillary about adopting a Bush-lite, "centrist" stance on the war." ... One thing is certain: papering over Democratic differences on Iraq is no longer possible. Let Democrats fight it out and choose. And, if they want to be a majority party again, let's hope they choose to reject the Hillary-Lieberman-Humphrey war-apologist wing of the party, and take a decisive stand on Iraq. Bill Clinton can't be allowed to whip the party into submission."
CT SEN I: The Gift That Keeps On Giving
The MSM aren't the only ones that can't get enough of the Sen. Joe Lieberman (D)/cable co. exec. Ned Lamont match up. Conservative bloggers are loving every second of it too. Thespis at RedState writes: "
"There is a fascinating political primary race going on in Connecticut for the US Senate seat currently held by Joe Lieberman, and Lieberman seems to be the gift that keeps on giving for conservatives. This primary battle is rich in political drama as the Democrats play out all of their frustrations on the stage in Connecticut. Just like their multiplicity of tortured views on the Iraqi War, the national Democrats have no well matched unison on all things Lieberman, and appear to be in total chaos as the mid-term elections grow near. Hillary Clinton and John Kerry have typically nuanced positions in this primary race scheduled for August 8. Hillary supports old Joe now, but will support Ned Lamont if he wins the democrat primary. Kerry says he doesn't get involved in primary races, but has actively selected and supported candidates in primaries in the past. In other words, Kerry voted for Joe before he voted against him."
Back on the left, a pro-Lieberman voice has finally established a web presence the unofficial Joe Lieberman Blog reports: "John Lewis (D-GA), the greatest living leader of the civil rights movement - and my Congressman when I was growing up - endorsed Sen. Lieberman today, even as the Senator filed papers to collect signatures for a possible run in November as an independent Democrat. Please, Lieberhaters, I'm begging you - try and tell me that John Lewis is only endorsing Lieberman because he is part of a "Washington insider" effort to cling to power. Try and tell me that John Lewis is "out of touch" with progressives because he backs Joe Lieberman. Just try and tell me that John Lewis is abandoning his principles by campaigning for a pro-war Democrat, or that he is a Democrat In Name Only."
Over at the also unofficial Lamont BlogTparty isn't happy with a 7/11 Danbury News-Times headline "Lamont: My appeal goes beyond bloggers." Lamont Blog responds: "This is a ridiculous lede for an article about a candidate who is at 40% in the polls, and is scaring the crap out of an incumbent 18-year senator to the point where he thinks he stands a very good chance of losing the primary. Of course Ned Lamont's appeal goes "beyond bloggers." How many of us are there, anyway? Ask Joe if his internal polling tells him Ned's appeal goes "beyond bloggers."
The Lieberman/Lamont fight continues to divide otherwise common-caused progressive bloggers as well. Ed Kilgore's New Donkey seeks to educate MyDD's Chris Bowers on the DLC's Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI) non-involvement: "the DLC has nothing at all to do with Case's challenge to Akaka, which is, best I can tell, mainly about Akaka's advanced age (81) and the possibility that he could be replaced at some point during the next six years by a Republican appointee. Now I don't expect Chris Bowers to read this blog regularly, but he's pretty influential in some circles, and insofar as he seems to have lurid ideas about the DLC's trans-Pacific reach, he might want to actually find out if this DLC- goes-after-Akaka story line has any basis in reality. It doesn't."
Bowers wasn't about to take the lecture sitting down: "First, I want to say that I respect Ed Kilgore as well ... However, if I am to take his words to their logical conclusion, it would appear that the DLC is not only not actually supporting Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont, but that they are opposed to the idea that any candidates receive any resources or help from people who live outside of their district. That is fine. ... However, I don't know a single federal candidate that follows this philosophy, including Joe Lieberman. Joe Lieberman has raised 79.6% of his money in this election cycle from out of state donors. Unless Lieberman returns all of that money, will the DLC now decry the national effort on behalf of Lieberman to thwart the sovereign rights of Connecticut Democrats to choose whomever they want? Interestingly, Ned Lamont has actually raised a far great percentage of his money in state than Lieberman, simply because Lamont is significantly self-funded."
CT SEN II: The Pollsters Take CT
Mystery Pollster bemoans the fact that "for all the attention paid lately" to CT SEN "public polls on the race remain few and far between." MP explains: "That scarcity may owe something to the huge challenge of selecting "likely voters" for a rare summer primary in Connecticut where turnout is largely unknown. This is the sort of race that gives pollsters nightmares. Contested statewide primaries in Connecticut are relatively rare, as party nominees are typically chosen by state party conventions. ... The most recent "hotly contested" primary, at least according to the Advocate, was a September 1994 primary in which 26% of Connecticut's registered Democrats cast ballots."
MP goes on to urge all pollsters working the race to be as open as possible about their methodology: "The one thing we do know with some confidence...is that the assumptions the pollster makes about turnout matter a great deal to the results. Or at least they did in early June, when Quinnipiac had Lieberman leading by 25 percentage points (57% to 32%) among all Democrats, but by only 15 points (55% to 40%) among the smaller subgroup of "likely voters." ... Presumably, we will see more polls released in Connecticut over the next four weeks. Hopefully, the pollsters will tell us a bit more about how they select "likely voters" and about how those likely voters compare to all registered Democrats in their samples.
Fellow poll guru Political Arithmetik also looks at the race but uses Survey USA approval ratings as a proxy for a Lieberman/Lamont question: "It is incredibly rare to see a Senator more popular among opposition partisans than within his own party. Yet that is increasingly the case for Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman. Since late in 2005, Lieberman's approval rating among Democrats has dropped from around 70%, to the mid-50s. While slowly trending down recently, Lieberman's job approval among Republicans remains in the upper 60s, while job approval among independents has fallen to the mid-to-upper 50s, as has overall approval. Much of this has to do with opposition to the war and Lieberman's support of it, and an angry and vocal group of Democratic activists and bloggers. Of the 34% of CT Democrats who say Lieberman does not deserve to be reelected, the largest group (30%) cite his support for the war as the primary reason."
PA concludes: "In any case, it is ironic that Democrats are locked in a fight over the renomination of a Senator who looked like a shoo-in six months ago. It would be ironic indeed if Democrats pick up the six Republican seats they need to take back the Senate, only to have forced one of their own out of the party. An independent Joe Lieberman might possibly decide which party controls the Senate in 2007. Wouldn't that be interesting."
MT SEN: Victories Are Good For Victors (Except When They're Not)
Ignoring his 7/10 CA GOV tiradeDailyKos ' founder Markos Moulitsas pumps the latest Rasmussen poll numbers showing state Senate Pres. Jon Tester (D) at 50% to Sen. Conrad Burns (R) 43% by writing: "Nice post-primary boost for Tester (more proof that primaries are generally a good thing for the victorious candidates)."
PA SEN: Like Rats On A Sinking Ship
Following up on a Cato-at-LibertyDavid Boaz piece attacking Sen. Rick Santorum (R) for being "a porker, an earmarker, and Senator Pothole," and for declaring himself "against this whole idea of personal autonomy" Jonah Goldberg at the conservative hang out the Corner responds: "I know this is a pretty pro-Santorum forum, but I must say this scored more than mere glancing blows. .. I agree that radical individualism is bad, but I don't see how by conceding this point I have to believe that the State therefore has a writ to impose its vision of civil society wherever it sees fit."
VA SEN: The Blueing Of Virginia?
Raising Kaine links to a precinct by precinct maps of Fairfax County colored red and blue corresponding to Bush/Kerry in'04 and Kilgore/Kaine in '05 (Courtesy of patrickottenhoff.com). The maps demonstrate a distinct blueing of the county and RK asks hopefully: "And as goes Fairfax, so goes Virginia?"
HOUSE LANDSCAPE: Tally Totalling
James L. at Dem-activist Swing State Project promises to tally up Q2 fundraising totals as he finds them so far he has:
CO-07:
Ed Perlmutter (D): $300k raised ($515k cash-on-hand)
Peggy Lamm (D): $243k raised
Rick O'Donnell (R): $305k raised ($859,000 cash-on-hand)
MN-01:
Tim Walz (D): $198k raised ($250k cash-on-hand)
Gil Gutknecht (R-Inc.): $190k raised ($800k+ cash-on-hand)
NY-20:
Kirsten Gillibrand (D): $500k raised ($750k cash-on-hand)
John Sweeney (R-Inc.): $479k raised ($1M cash-on-hand)
WA-08:
Darcy Burner (D): $581k raised ($754,800 cash-on-hand)
NE-01:
Maxine Moul (D): $310k raised ($360k cash-on-hand)
NE-03:
Scott Kleeb (D): $203k raised ($277k cash on hand)
PA 07: Thanks For The 20K
Joe Sestak for Congress at DailyKos takes the time to thank the Kossacks: "Netroots-endorsed Fightin' Dem Joe Sestak recently announced that he has raised $700,000 in the 2nd Quarter - beating his opponent, career politician Curt Weldon by almost $300,000! ... The Democratic candidate for Congress in 2004 raised $27,000. By comparison, the Netroots have raised almost $20,000 for Joe just this cycle, for which we are incredibly grateful!"
110th CONGRESS: Chicken Countin'
David Kowalski at progressive activist MyDD uses a "Progressive Punch Score" to size up progressive gains at the cmte chairman level should the Dems take the House in 11/06: "Overall, the 24 Democrats have a Progressive Punch score of 84.15, meaning they cast a "progressive" vote 84% of the time. Current Republican chairs cast a progressive vote just 8.90% of the time. Although this is not a strong a switch as the move from Pelosi (score of 93.62) from Hastert (in the 4s IIRC), it is close."
BLOGGERS VS. BELTWAY: Choosier Dems Choose Lamont
The major natl pro-choice orgs have not been able to steer clear of progressive blogger anger stemming from CT SEN. Progressive and Natural Born Killers producer Jane Hamsher at firedoglake pens a faux-open letter from Planned Parenthood in protest over the org's Sen. Joe Lieberman (D) endorsement: "I know there were a few raised eyebrows over our recent endorsement of Joe Lieberman for the US Senate over his solidly pro-choice opponent, Ned Lamont, especially given Joe's recent comments telling rape victims to take a hike short ride. ... We want you to know we have only begun to plumb the depths of what we're willing to do to insure that the threats to choice in this country persist and the cash register keeps churning. Screw all the "little people" we have in clinics across the country whose lives are increasingly on the line as anti-choice nutjobs become emboldened by the actions of people like you - they just do not understand How Things Are Done."
Others piling on from the left:
- Matt Stoller at MyDD: "In allowing Senator Lieberman to not filibuster Alito and still backing him for his reelection campaign against a reliably progressive candidate, the leaders of NARAL and Planned Parenthood have decided to throw away their political capital."
- Taylor Marsh: "The militancy of both groups is annoying to people like me. But then when they're militancy is required, they take a powder. They're absolutely worthless to our political cause. That both groups have walked away from women who are victims of sexual violence makes me furious."
- feministe: "I have a lot of respect for Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America, but I have to ask: What the hell are you thinking? I'm really, really disappointed in NARAL and Planned Parenthood today. I realize they have to make political decisions, and perhaps they feel it's in their best interest to support an incumbent who they think has a better chance at winning. But this should be about standing up for women, and backing the candidate who will do the most to support our rights and liberties."
IMMIGRATION: VRA Meets Immigration
The conservative Right Angle reports on Rep. Steve King's (R-IA) efforts "to advance his Voting Rights Act amendment to end the federal government's foreign-language ballot mandate. In short, King said his amendment would remove the unfunded federal mandate that requires localities to provide foreign-language ballots. King would rather put that decision in the hands of state and local governments.
All is not well in righty land however. Right Angle explains that "standing in [King's] way are House GOP leaders, several of whom voted against a similar amendment from Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) last month. Voting against the Stearns amendment were: Maj. Leader John Boehner (R-OH), Maj. Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO), Judiciary Chair James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and Govt Reform Chair Tom Davis (R-VA). Right Angle encourages readers: "If your congressman hasn't signed King's letter or voted against the Stearns amendment, call the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121 or send your congressman an e-mail voicing your support for King's amendment."
TIP OF THE DAY: Deputizing Bloggers
DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas suggests an easy way for campaigns to help bloggers help candidates: "Suggestion for campaigns -- see that picture of Jon Tester by his tractor in the post below? Those sorts of pictures really allow bloggers to spice up posts. Yet most campaigns don't have them. They may have pictures of the candidate campaigning, but those are usually poorly lit, poorly staged, and simply not very attractive. So take a couple of professional pictures. Not just a headshot, but also a couple between 200 and 400 pixels wide. Some vertical, some horizontal. And label them "for bloggers" so we know it's okay to grab and use them."
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: One Of The Big Boys
Inspired by (what else) CT SEN Scott Winship at The Democratic Strategist wants to know "how influential will the netroots be in elections" and attempts to answer the question by using "size as one indicator."
Using a post-election survey from 2004, I defined "the Democratic netroots" as those adults who "regularly" get "news or information" from "Online columns or blogs such as Talking Points Memo, the Daily Kos, or Instapundit" and who are either self-identified Democrats or liberals. Blogs were one of twelve media sources that were asked about, and each of the twelve was a separate question (so respondents didn't have to choose between competing sources). Rather than answering that they consulted a source "regularly", respondents could say that they did so "sometimes" or "hardly at all.
What does your gut tell you when you think of the percentage of adults that can claim membership in the Democratic netroots? The answer, according to this survey, is 1 percent. One percent of adults translates into 2.24 million people. At first glance, one percent may sound pathetic. But let's provide some context. Since one strand of the blogosphere debate has compared the netroots with various special interest groups, it might be instructive to consider how large those groups might be. Take a look:
Union members: 15.7 million
NOW: 500,000 contributing members
NARAL Pro-Choice America: 900,000
Sierra Club: 750,000 members
National Resources Defense Council: over 1 million members
ACLUL over 500,000 members
Human Rights Campaign: nearly 600,000 members
It's difficult to make comparisons because these groups do not include all activists in a given issue area. Plus there's obviously substantial overlap among the groups. But it's safe to say that there are more Democratic netroots activists than civil liberties or gay-rights activists, at least as many as there are feminist activists (and hence probably minority activists), but fewer than there are environmental activists or (especially) union members. Given the influence these groups have had on the Party, it seems reasonable to conclude that the netroots really is a force to be reckoned with.
LEST WE FORGET: Who Doesn't Hate Tim McCarver?
kausfiles brother Stephen Kaus took to The Huffington Post to list five (and then six) things he doesn't like about Major League Baseball's new TV deals with FOX and Turner Sports:" 1. Tim McCarver. The worst national announcer in the history of baseball will continue to deface broadcasts of Saturday games and post season games. McCarver could not shut up if his life depended on it. The Giants hired him to do a few telecasts and he was run out of town quicker than Crazy Crab. He was fired by both the Mets and the Yankees, but somehow he has stuck at FOX. Joe Buck is passionless and annoying, but McCarver is so bad that one does not realize it. Check out shutup timmccarver.com.
Also included on the list: 2. Less ESPN; 3. Blackouts; 4. No HD; 5. Less Braves; and "UPDATE: watching the All-Star Game, I realized there is a reason number 6: Jeanne Zelasko. Spare me!"
Posted by Conn Carroll at July 12, 2006 12:30 PM
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
