July 13, 2006

7/13: A Contrast in Styles?

Looking at Hugh Hewitt's latest anti-Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) rant, the Blogometer was struck by how similar it sounded to DailyKos and MyDD critiques of Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT). Like his lefty doppelgangers, Hewitt is more upset with a prominent Senator from his own party because of that Senator's willingness to buy into opposition attacks on his own party. Also attempting to mimic the left, Patrick Casey at NRO takes the NRSC to task for siding with Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) in his contest with Cranston Mayor Steven Laffey.

Meanwhile the best trafficked blog on the right, Instapundit hosts a civil discussion with McCain on a wide range of topics. While the two have their differences (campaign finance reform being the biggest), Instapundit chooses to disagree on that subject and instead highlight their agreements (limiting GOP spending).

Righty traffic king and libertarian Instapundit nabbed Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) for his weekly podcast, The Glenn and Helen Show (Helen being Instapundit's lovely and talented wife Dr. Helen Smith). Highlights include:

• McCain's opening line: "Well it's hard trying to do the lord's work in the city of satan."
• McCain on his pod cast appearance: "Glenn is such a powerful and influential American I thought this would shore up any ambitions I might have for the presidency." (followed by laughter from all)
• On the biggest issues of '06: "Iraq, immigration, and for the GOP base spending."
• On Iraq: "It's long, it's hard, and it's tough. ... The consequences of failure are profound. When we lost Vietnam and come home the Vietnamese didn't come after us. That's not true with Al-Qaeda."
• On Iraq debate in Sen: "I was very pleased with th debate we had in the Senate a few weeks ago. You had a Dem resolution that basically called for a time for withdrawal or "withdrawal" and we were able to prevail in the debate by saying look we're all for withdrawal. No one is against withdrawal but its got to be determined by how we leave not when we leave and we got overwhelming votes."
• On immigration: "Forty or Fifty years of failed federal policy has put us into this situation where we have broken borders and 11 million people walking around our country. ... We all agree its a national security issue. Where we differ with our House friends is that they believe [enforcement] is enough and we believe you gotta have a guest worker program and somehow dispose of, in a humane fashion, these 11 million people."
• On spending: "I think it would be very helpful if Pres. Bush vetoed the next App. bill that had a single pork barrel item on it. ... I thought a terrible mistake we made was the passage of the Medicare prescription drug bill because it added huge unfunded liability onto the medicare system.
• On FL Gov. Jeb Bush: "Bush has been incredibly successful governor of the state of Florida. And they're ahead of literally most every other state on education. Jeb Bush knows education better than anybody I've ever talked to just about."
• To bloggers: "Keep up the good work. Don't get too angry and please try not to get too personal. I pay attention to the criticism as well as the scant praise and I think this is an incredible new exciting method of communicating and it makes every person a publisher that wants to be."

Conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt hadn't caught McCain's podcast yet but did have a response to a preview of McCain's up coming Esquire profile:

"Senator, I have said this on the air and in print many times: You are a great American, a lousy senator, and a terrible Republican. You are a great American, and I will stand up in any room you enter, and applaud as long as anyone because of the service you have rendered and sacrifices you have made. But you are a lousy senator, and I offer up McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, the Gang of 14 and your vote on the Marriage Amendment as four evidences for my judgment. The legislation was not bad because you worked with Senator Kennedy, by the way, but because it was lousy legislation."

"You are a terrible Republican because of personal attacks on your opponents like this latest one on talk radio hosts and the "religious Right." You repeatedly refuse to debate your Republican critics or answer their questions. You are a regular on Hardball where only softballs are pitched underhand, but you are as rare as rain in California in August when it comes to appearing on center-right programs. While I understand your reluctance to engage anyone who has made personal attacks on you, most of the criticism you receive --and all of it when it comes from me-- is about your policy choices and your political decisions. You confuse such criticisms with personal attacks, and lash out at other Republicans."

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) took to The Huffington Post to persuade more Americans to help Hurricane Katrina victims: "After Banda Aceh in Indonesia was devastated by a horrific tsunami in 2004, the people there faced the challenge of rebuilding and restarting their lives. ... I visited Banda Aceh earlier this year on a trip to Indonesia, and earlier this week I visited some of the neighborhoods ravaged by Hurricane Katrina. ... I was struck by what the people in Banda Aceh and New Orleans had in common, both because of what they went through, and because of the incredible resilience they have shown in the wake of those tragedies. What I saw in New Orleans, New Orleans East, the 9th Ward, St. Bernard Parish, and Lakeview, was that in many ways, despite people's tremendous efforts, there has been less progress in those areas than there was in Banda Aceh a year after the tsunami. It is something I will never forget. ... Almost a year after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, after more than 1,500 people were killed and countless lives were disrupted, our fellow Americans do still need us, and we still need to stand by them as they rebuild their lives."

Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) sat down with DailyKos contributor PastorDan for his spinoff site Street Prophets to defend his 6/28 Call to Renewal conference call that was not well received by the progressive blogging community. Highlights include:

Q: What were you trying to accomplish with your speech?A: I have gotten frustrated at times in observing the public debate, seeing the degree to which the conservative right has been able to dominate the conversation about religion and politics, and to determine what it means to be a good Christian. Part of the reason they've been able to do that because progressives have not engaged the faith community as effectively as we could.

A: To some degree the speech has already accomplished what I intended, which is a conversation, a robust and fruitful one, hopefully.One of the points I was trying to make in the speech is it's not enough for progressives simply to say "leave your religion at the door" or "keep it private" - because that's not what conservatives do.

Q: One of the charges that people have laid against your speech is that it was unnecessarily critical of the Democratic party.A: Which I found misplaced - some of it that response had to do with people reading the AP story that came over the wire instead of reading the speech. If you look at the speech, I was far more critical of the religious right, and give a vigorous defense of the separation of church and state.

Q: I've heard that same kind of critique from people who are secular. What I found a little more compelling was the notion that portraying progressives or the Democratic as being unfriendly to people of faith buys into Republican framesA: This idea that somehow - that any time that Democrats or progressives engage in self-reflection we are adopting a Republican frame - the popularity of this George Lakoff critique of everything we do, I think hampers us from being able to improve our game. You know, I love Lakoff. I think he's an insightful guy. But the fact is that I am not a propagandist. That's not my job. My job and my intent in delivering a speech like this is I'm trying to speak truthfully as I can about what I see out there. If I'm restricted or prescribed in my statements because the media or Republicans - or Democrats - are going to interpret what I say through the Republican frame, I'm not going to spend a lot of time saying very much.

Chris Bowers at progressive activist MyDD wasn;t mollified: "While it is true that my criticism of Obama last month was based not on something he actually said, but rather on something that the AP reporter wrote about him, it doesn't stop me from feeling used. As a union organizer for the IFT, I was one of the ground troops for Obama's campaign during the 2004 Illinois Senate primary, and his victory turned out to be the first electoral victory for a progressive movement candidate in the netroots era. It was a great, great moment, and using the new movement was critical to his success in that primary. Whether I am right or wrong in feeling this, it makes me feel as though he used us to get into office, and now he is Sista Soljuh-ing us through liberal strawmen to improve his national image. Frankly, I think he is running with the wrong people in DC, and he needs to remember that the progressive movement is his friend, not the New Republic."

Dan Gerstein of the pro-Lieberman LieberDem isn't terribly happy with populist David Sirota for his op-ed suggestions that Sen. Joe Lieberman (D) doesn't represent CT Dems. Gerstein asks: "Now what standing and credibility does Sirota have to make either claim? Well, he spent most of his limited adult life working in Washington -- including a stint with the lone socialist in Congress -- before moving to Montana. To my knowledge, the closest he's come to spending any meaningful time in Connecticut is interviewing for a job in Joe Lieberman's Senate office (with yours truly) and in his Presidential campaign in 2003."

Gerstein goes on: "Yes, that's right: the same guy who is viciously attacking Joe Lieberman as the great Satan of the Democratic Party actually sought not one but two jobs from the target of his hatred, and did so at time when all of the supposed sins that Sirota is attacking Lieberman for now were well known. The polite term for that would be chutzpah. Some one less charitable might call Sirota a fraud. But in fairness to Sirota, he isn't just attacking Lieberman. He has accused Bill Clinton and Barack Obama of being bad Democrats as well. That alone should resolve any question about Sirota's qualifications for discerning what a mainstream Democrat is, be it in Connecticut or anywhere else."

At deadline there was no response at SirotaBlog.

Progressive and Natural Born Killers producer Jane Hamsher at firedoglake is still following up loose threads from the 7/6 Lieberman/cable co. exec. Ned Lamont (D) debate: Joe has evidently got a bug up his ass about Annie and Ned Lamont's tax returns ... and he's polling about that too. So Joe Conason quite fairly asks this morning - why won't Lieberman release the tax returns and financial information regarding his pharmaceutical lobbyist wife Hadassah? It's especially relevant in light of Holy Joe's big bucks donations from Big Pharma and his enthusiastic support of regressive drug legislation that hurts consumers, especially old people. I'd just like to remind everyone that Hadassah's firm, Hill and Knowlton, are the ones who completely fabricated the story about Iraqi soldiers snatching babies out of incubators and killing them during the first Gulf War. That's some high moral ground."

Progressive Matt Stoller at MyDD is impressed with how CT SEN is demonstrating the power of the netroots: "We've shocked DC to the core and challenged every major interest group and Senator to figure out where they stand on Lieberman. I went to an American Prospect breakfast this morning with Chuck Schumer, and he refused to talk about Lieberman flat-out. ... The firepower lined up against us is remarkable. The DSCC, the Connecticut Democratic Party, Sierra Club, NARAL, League of Conservation Voters, Planned Parenthood, AFL-CIO, SEIU, CWA, NALC, NAGE, Food and Commercial Workers, Teamster's, Firefighters, Carpenters, Postal Workers, IBEW, Human Rights Campaign, 40+ Senators, John Lewis, etc. ... We did not make this happen, the voters of Connecticut made it happen. But we created some space, as we do for all our political pushes."

DailyKos founder Markos Moulitsas promotes his favorite SEN candidate, state Senate Pres. Jon Tester (D) who is "swooping into Silicon Valley next Monday to scoop up some campaign cash, and if you live in the area you can do your part to help out people-powered Jon Tester. The first is a low-dollar event, where the future Senator from the great state of Montana will pour you a beer for a modest contribution (I think it'll be $35)" at Washington Square in San Francisco. "The second event is for those with a few more clams in your pocket, but, as a bonus, you get to meet Pearl Jam" at Pier 39 in San Francisco with tickets going for $250. "I'll be at both events. You locals please mark it on your calendar. ... It's a meet-and-greet. Get autographs and pictures taken with the folks from Pearl Jam and, of course, Jon himself."

The Corner's Ramesh Ponnuru can't figure out why Sen. Rick Santorum (R) gave a speech attacking libertarianism and he "can't imagine this kind of theoretical intervention will win him any votes; I think he thinks that what he has to say is just too important to go unsaid. He is mistaken. He quickly gets out of his depth when he tries to play the role of the philosopher-statesman. It's not his strength. That said, Pennsylvania is a pretty pro-big government state. As disheartening as it is, bragging about pork will probably help Santorum. Attacks on libertarianism as a philosophy, on the other hand, will probably baffle most people."

The NRSC has filed a complaint with the FEC over a mailing paid for by the city and sent by Cranston mayor Steven Laffey (R) sent to Cranston residents about cutting their taxes. Laffey is mounting a righty challenge to Sen. Lincoln Chafee, whom Patrick Casey at NRO's midterm hangout, Sixers notes has been "crying about Laffey's raising property taxes in Cranston while hoping that people don't remember the context in which that was done (he had no choice by law - municipalities, as opposed to the federal government, can't run cash deficits), or are too lazy to research it. Laffey releases the real tax facts to his constituents, something that they are entitled to know, and Chafee and the NRSC freak because their charade has been blown. ....the NRSC is in real danger of having many Republicans and conservative independents in Rhode Island give a 'screw-you' vote to the NRSC and Chafee (and for [Sheldon] Whitehouse [D]) in the fall. Looking at this, why should anyone donate to an NRSC that stands for nothing except the quest for power, and is now indistinguishable from the Democrats? Why should anyone take them (or Chafee) seriously?"

A new DCCC fundraising video using flag-drapped coffins drew mixed reactions from righty bloggers. Among the incensed:

• Erick at RedState: "This is outrageous. This is disgusting. This is why the Democrats must lose in November. They refuse to hold sacred the lives of American soldiers. Instead, their dead bodies are instruments of fundraising for the DCCC. But remember, we cannot question their patriotism."
• Ankle Biting Pundits: "The Democrats' landslide must not be working out as planned, because the DCCC has just unleashed the most appalling wed video since MoveOn.org's "Bush is Hitler" ads. My guess is the backlash against this video will be so strong, it will have a similar effect on the electorate as well: so repulsing them that they turn enmasse against Democrats everywhere."
• Stephen Spruiell at NRO: "I find two things about this ad very revealing. First, here again we see the Democrats' trope the the men and women of the U.S. armed forces are helpless victims of the Bush administration, as opposed to incredible warriors who are committed to winning in Iraq, making America safer and ensuring that the fallen have not died in vain. America should be proud of its heroes; the Democrats see their sacrifice as just one of many things that's wrong with America, like high gas prices."

Others on the right welcomed a debate on Iraq:

• Ryan Sager at RCP Blog: "The GOP held its national convention in New York City in 2004 for a reason, to highlight 9/11. It left the party open to criticism that it was "exploiting 9/11." But 9/11 defines our modern era, so the criticism rang hollow. For Democrats opposed to the Iraq war, the pictures of coffins symbolize the human toll they believe isn't justified by the mission in Iraq. We, as conservatives, are likely to disagree with this -- but it's a perfectly legitimate piece of political message-making."
• Tom Bevan at RCP Blog: "The war in Iraq is the defining issue of our time, and the Democratic party is vehemently opposed to it. Soldiers are, in fact, dying in Iraq on an almost daily basis. So why can't the Democrats show a split-second visual depiction of that reality? What are they supposed to do, show a graph of the U.S. casualty rate to depict the sacrifices we're making in Iraq? Not mention them at all?"
• Captain's Quarters: "The DCCC certainly invites criticism with its use of that imagery, but we should be careful with our moral outrage. The Democrats have every right to campaign on a belief that the Iraq War has failed, all evidence to the contrary. Part of that argument involves the loss of American life, and like it or not, that is certainly a rational basis on which to argue the war's value. My objection to this does not come so much from their use of the imagery, but from their inability to provide a coherent argument about how to proceed with a war against terrorists by running away from the biggest operational network of Islamists."

IMMIGRATION: Flor De Caca

The Corner's conservative John Derbyshire was not impressed with Karl Rove's performance in front of La Raza ( which can be heard here): "There was an odd little contradiction. At one point Rove seemed to claim that Mexicans just want to stay here a while to save money, to start a business in Mexico (which, said Rove, costs $5,000). Five minutes later he was talking about "Illegal immigrants who have roots in America... who want to stay..." What happened to those sojourning entrepreneurs, Karl?"

Derbyshire also had plenty of unkind words for Rove's host: "[Rove] got a big cheer at the end when he mentioned Bill Richardson, though. Why? Because Richardson is half-Mexican. It's race, race, race. That's why they call themselves "The Race." As La Raza's sister organization Mecha says: "For those in the race, everything. For those outside the race, nothing." Race, race, race—-that's what these people are all about. This is an outfit the administration wants to court?"

Right Wing News notices some recent MSM claims that the Senate immigration bill is popular among the GOP base and wants to put those rumors to rest:

"Let's take a few moments and break down the popularity of the House Bill Vs. the popularity of the Senate Bill in a number of different ways, shall we?"

• The Wall Street Journal quotes a poll by the "Tarrance Group?" Well, let me quote a poll by Zogby. According to the Zogby Poll, 69% of Republicans, 87% of "very conservative" Americans, and 72% of "conservative" Americans support the House Bill.


• I've seen literally hundreds of comments from readers across the blogosphere saying they will sit out the election if the Senate Bill passes, but not a single person saying the same about the House bill.


• I've received about 8-12 "chain emails" suggesting that Republicans sit out the election in 2006 if the Senate bill is passed, but not a single person saying the same about the House bill.


• I polled right-of-center bloggers on their preference between the House and Senate bills and 88% said the House Bill, "would be best for America" while 91% said the House Bill, "would most benefit the Republican Party in the 2006 elections."


• The bottom line is that the Senate's Bill is about as popular as gun control or gay marriage with the Republican base. They don't like it, they don't want it, and no matter how much lipstick you slap on the pig, it's still not going to start appealing to them.

Voting Rights advocate Spencer Overton at MyDD congratulates a federal distirict court for blocking enforement of GA;s phot ID requirement for the 7/18 primary. Overton explains: "Voting is different than flying, buying cigarettes, and other activities that require photo ID. For example, it makes sense to prevent 1000 legitimate travelers without ID from boarding an airplane to stop one terrorist who could blow up the plane, but it doesn't make sense to prevent 1000 legitimate voters from casting a ballot in the off chance that we'll stop one improper voter. Such an approach moves us away from rather than closer to the objective of democracy--ascertaining the will of the people. Based on the current evidence, a photo ID is likely to result in more rather than fewer erroneous election outcomes.

Overton continues: "Further, fake IDs are very accessible. While a photo identification requirement would exclude millions of legitimate voters, ineligible individuals determined to cast a ballot would still be able to vote (to the right is a phony ID a Bush daughter allegedly used to buy alcohol).

Nick Gillespie at Reason Online has a report on the front lines of our nation's intelectual property battles (where he sides with his decidedly non-fellow religous brethren): "Our story thus far: CleanFlicks is one of several companies that clean up sex and violence and foul language in movies and then sell the bowdlerized versions (which are clearly labeled as such) to their mostly religious customers. Among the sanitizers' most widely reported edits was the redaction of Kate Winslet's breasts from the arty scenes in James Cameron's Titanic."

"Such simple acts of repurposing content ran afoul of, among others, the Directors Guild of America, which claimed that such actions infringed on moviemakers' copyright protections. Now, according to an account at E! Online, "a federal judge in Denver has ordered several companies to cease and desist from editing out movie content they find offensive."

As for the case just decided in Denver: I have no problem with gratuitous nudity (is there any other kind in a movie?), foul language, and graphic violence; but I'm squarely on the side of the easily offended CleanFlicks' customers. They are doing precisely what technology is there for: to create the sort of art, music, video, and text that an individual or group of individuals wants to consume.

By all accounts, the CleanFlicks-type outfits weren't ripping off Hollywood in any way, shape, or form-they were paying full fees for content-and they weren't fooling anyone into thinking their versions were the originals; the whole selling point of CleanFlicks' Titanic is that it spared audiences the original movie's brief moment of full-frontal Winslet. CleanFlicks was simply part of a great and liberatory trend in which audiences are empowered to consume culture on their own terms-not the producers'. Big content providers may have prevailed in this specific case, but the sooner they understand and adapt to a much larger and more powerful cultural dynamic, the better they'll be at serving the audiences who are increasingly in control of what they watch, listen to, and read.

Deadspin reader Trevor from Corona, Calif. follows up on Deadspin coverage of the Lake Elsinore Storm's 6/30 Tom Cruise Bobblecouches giveaway:

"At first, it was tough to tell whether or not they were making fun of Tom Cruise & Scientology. The LA Times article was ambiguous (mentioning that there was a booth to provide information on Scientology), and knowing that the secret Scientology headquarters is just 15 miles away in Hemet, it seemed very probable that they were actually promoting Scientology. Glancing around at the crowd, I noticed a fair amount of attendees who seemed out of place for a baseball game. They had lost looks on their faces - Scientologists perhaps? I made it a point to keep an eye on them throughout the game."

"In the middle of the 4th inning, the jumbotron cleared up the mystery. All of a sudden, I look up to see the "Tom Cruise won't come out of the closet" South Park episode. They are showing the scene when he firsts goes into the closet in Stan's room. Classic! I quickly glanced at my "Scientology suspects," and there seems to be some level of confusion amongst them. To my chagrin, they muted the sound once Tom entered the closet. Not sure of what just happened, my suspects weren't fazed."

"Fast forward to the middle of the 6th. South Park back on, sound on full blast this time. And oh yes - we got the goods. A good 2-3 minutes of Mr. Cruise being persuaded to come out of the closet, including the John Travolta scene. Keep in mind that this is Lake Elsinore, Calif.: a place where people really like to hate gay people. Combine the Jumbotron scene with a crowd full of gay-bashers, and any Scientologists in the crowd would get a bit uncomfortable. Sure enough, I noticed at least five different groups of people grabbing their bobbleheads and leaving the game in disgust. It totally made my night."

Posted by Conn Carroll at July 13, 2006 12:33 PM