July 26, 2006

7/26: Bloggers 1, MSM 0

If there was some type of race to nail down who Dana Milbank's 7/25 mystery GOPer was, the blogosphere won it before it really began. Patrick Gavin at FishbowlDC had MD LG Michael Steele (R-MD) at 7:34 AM and The Corner spent most of the morning already dissecting the fall out for Steele while the MSMers spun their wheels nailing down a story that already wasn't.

Dana Milbank's 7/25 Washington Sketch set off a blogswarm guessing game. FishbowlDC's Patrick Gavin managed to get his correct guess, MD LG Michael Steele (R-MD) posted with the earliest time stamp (7:34 AM). After analyzing similarities between the Milbank piece and a 5/29 Robert Novak column on Steele's opinion of Pres. Bush's Hurricane Katrina response, Jim Geraghty at National Review Online posted his Steele guess at 9:54 AM.

By 9:55 AM Wonkette had a "Milbank Mystery Chiller Theater" poll up. Steele ended up in first followed by Sen. Tom Kean Jr. (R), and "a figment of Milbank's imagination" in a close third.

At National Review's The Corner Geraghty's analysis was enough to get John Podhoretz to announce at 10:16 AM "the guy it really is sounds like a crab cake." Cornerites continued to all but say Steele's name until 8:15 PM when Kathryn Jean Lopezreported "this afternoon, Michael Steele's campaign admitted on the record that he had been the candidate in question (including to me). A few of us at NR knew right away when reading the piece early this morning that it was Steele, because (among other things) he had said much of what he said at his Monday lunch at Charlie Palmers during an off-the-record session at NR World Headquarters a few weeks ago."

Lopez went on to provide the official Team Steele line: "Talking to the campaign earlier today, a spokesman who was at the lunch said he considered the piece a misrepresentation of the overall tone of the lunch. Steele, he said, didn't "berate" the president over lunch, he "didn't spend 90 minutes attacking the president." He "was critical, sure," but he also praised the president on "growth of the economy, record-low unemployment," and his speech to the NAACP, among other things. Steele "would absolutely welcome" the president campaigning for him again and has been "grateful" for his support so far."

As the guessing game raged on, Cornerites mused on how the episode would play out:

• John Podhoretz: "By the way, I can't for the life of me understand what purpose it served Mr. Crab Cake to participate in this unattributed talk with reporters. If talk like this would help him with his potential voters, then he should do it openly. If it wouldn't help him with his voters, then it does come across as a kind of preemptive whining about how difficult a race he has. Given the nature of his red state, the race would have been tough under any circumstances."
• Kathryn Jean Lopez: "He's done some of this on the record. I'm guessing they just made a quick bad decision. A shame, but he'll overcome ... but it will still be tough race.
• Ramesh Ponnuru: "Just a hunch. Steele sets up an off-the-record meal with national reporters in order to try to persuade them that he can win the race, so that their coverage will reflect that view. In the process of making that case, he explains that he understands that being tied to Bush is a liability in Maryland and that running with a capital-R would not be smart. If he didn't make such points, the reporters would think that he was in denial about things that a successful candidate would know. But because he made those points, they became the focus of one of the stories arising from the meal-which didn't help him at all.

The left also played Sherlock Holmes. DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas wrote: "So my vote is George Voinovich of Ohio. Not only has he betrayed frustrations before being whipped back into line (he originally opposed Bolton at the UN before flipping), but he lives in a state where Bush is radioactive. One more clue -- the Ohio Republican Party is a disaster, collapsing under the weight of dramatic, high-profile scandals and outright theft of the public trust." Over at TNRJason Zengerle guessed: "My money's on Tom Kean, Jr." TAPPED's Ezra Klein wondered what the fallout would be: "ABC News confirms that the man behind the mask is Maryland's Michael Steele. I wonder how the rest of the GOP feels about him publicly blasting the party to reporters, feeding the Bush-is-unpopular and GOP-is-doomed narratives, while hiding behind assured anonymity."

The progressive blogosphere is still buzzing over Pres. Clinton's 7/24 Waterbury, CT, appearance for Sen. Joe Lieberman (D), but not about anything that went on inside the event. Rachel Weiner at TPM Cafe reports: "A Ned Lamont supporter and blogger named Beau Anderson, a.k.a. Spazeboy, was barred from attending the big Clinton-Lieberman event, even though he had a ticket. We've now spoken with Marion Steinfels, Lieberman's campaign spokeswoman. She tells us that although Spazeboy had a ticket (which was apparently given to him by someone else), his name wasn't on the list, and no one whose name wasn't on the list was admitted -- ticket or no ticket. "You had to have your name on the list, for security reasons," she told us. "Every ticket had a number and the name corresponded." It appears that the person at the door recognized Spazeboy and knew his name wasn't on the list, and thus barred him."

The unofficial Lamont Blog quoted the end of an early version of Weiner's post: " We're not going to call Steinfels a liar, but maybe she should do a little research of her own. It seems suspicious that the Lieberman campaign could know he wasn't on a list of 2,000 before he even got to the actual entrance." Lamont Blog notes that Weiner later edited the end to read: "Clearly, there are still plenty of unanswered questions here."

The episode received wide attention across the lefty blogosphere, including Chris Bowers at MyDD who compared Lieberman campaign "tactics" to Pres. Bush's. Natural Born Killers producer, and progressive activist, and birthday girl (7/25) Jane Hamsher at firedoglake re-enacted the ejection with Spazeboy in this video.

Meanwhile in NY, media mogul Howard Stern spent 3 minutes talking about the race on his Sirius Radio show. Joementum has a complete audio of the segment and transcribes these Stern thoughts:

"Lieberman's looking a little too Republican with all his religious ranting and morality crap. ... I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican you gotta admit the President's been running the war horribly. And the fact of the matter is that Lieberman's there [as] his biggest cheerleader. He oughta put on a dress and [expletive] jump up and down."

Bloggers were also still talking about Sen. Barbara Boxer's (D-CA) Lieberman endorsement. CT progressive Maura at firedoglake bemoaned the position Lieberman has put Dem women Sens in: "At that moment, it seemed to me to illustrate how little progress women have made in the Senate. Lieberman has suggested repeatedly that Democrats who oppose the war are undermining our national security and undermining the future of the party. However chummy they and their spouses may be in private, in public Lieberman has essentially undercut Boxer's authority and questioned her patriotism for criticizing Bush. Yet here she was praising him effusively, calling him "Sir Galahad". I couldn't help but think it analagous to a woman whose spouse badmouths her, undermines her in public, cheats on her, but buys her flowers every once in a while, so she tells her friends he is romantic."

Matt Stoller at progressive activist MyDD looks at a recent uptick in Lieberman's Survey USA approval ratings but is not surprised: "[The data] makes sense considering the flood of single issue mail, Bill Clinton coming to town, huge TV spending by Lieberman, and liberal stalwart Barbara Boxer stumping for the incumbent. ... This is in fact a fight between the entire machine of the Democratic party and the new progressive movement. We should not assume that they bring no firepower or loyalty to the table." Stoller also includes video of Lieberman's first finance chair Carl Feen endorsing cable exec Ned Lamont.

Over at The Huffington Post Campaign for America's Future co-director Robert L. Borosage describes Clinton's trip to CT as an effort "to try to fend off the DLC's worst nightmare - Ned Lamont's primary challenge to DLC stalwart Sen. Joe Lieberman." Borosage admits that Lamont's candidacy is "fueled by the fundamental issue of Iraq" but argues that "this is not a one-issue campaign, and Lieberman is not a one-issue Republican knock-off. Rather, he personifies the DLC's policy of pushing off Democrats and capitulating to the Right." Borosage heralds the Lamont campaign as "a rising tide in American politics - a growing progressive movement ready to ignore the gatekeepers; shed the timid, accommodating positioning represented by the DLC."

Also at The Huffington Post, under the header "Memo to Lieberman: 'Real Democrats' Don't Run as Independents if They Lose" queen bee Arianna writes: "Not spitting in the face of Democratic voters should be Item One on any "Are You Are A Real Democrat?" check list." The post prompted Michael Crowley at TNR to pull out a 1995 Los Angeles Times article detailing Huffington coziness with then House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) and notes: "By July 2000, Huffington had shifted to a pox-on-both-houses populism. "I have become radicalized, but it's not as though I'm suddenly praising the Democratic Party. Both parties are equally bankrupt, equally at fault," she told Time magazine. (Lieberman, meanwhile, was furiously at work trying to, er, maintain Democratic control over the White House.) Six years later, Huffington has decided she can speak with authority for "real" Democrats. One might forgive them for not listening too closely."

Finally, from the right Tom Bevan at RCP Blog looks at Lieberman's gay-rights record and argues Lamont supporters doth protest too much: "Look at Lieberman's voting record as determined by the largest gay & lesbian interest group, the Human Rights Campaign. Out of the seven votes they deemed most important last year, Lieberman voted for the HRC supported-position on six of them. Only eight Democrats in the Senate voted for all seven, putting Lieberman in the same company with Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer, and ahead of Senators like Jim Jeffords, Tom Harkin, Dianne Feinstein and, oh yeah, Chris Dodd. ... I understand the desire of the Lamont folks to try and make their candidate out to be more than a suit stuffed with antiwar anger and a resentment against Lieberman for not hating George Bush as much as they do, but the effort to attack Lieberman on other issues where he has a solidly progressive voting record makes them look even more like a group of hardcore ideological purists."

The progressive blogosphere was underwhelmed by Sen. Hillary Clinton's (D-NY) 7/25 DLC's American Dream Initiative. TAPPED's Ezra Klein writes: "None of the plans are particularly inspirational, and the health care section is packed with the usual pabulum about electronic medicine, small business buying pools, and giving kids insurance. All the easy stuff, in other words. This is the problem many of us have with Hillary. She can focus press attention at will, but she uses her powers for, at best, mediocrity. So the press will report today on a Democratic plan to do nothing interesting and ignore one that would actually solve the health care crisis."

At The Huffington Post Drum Major Institute leader Andrea Batista Schlesingercriticized also wanted more: "Advocating for the middle class isn't inherently some kind of political compromise or centrist bargain, ala the Democratic Leadership Council. ... Just because you're talking about the middle class doesn't mean that your policy initiatives must consist only of tax credits and deductions that apply to a narrow income range. Advocating for the strengthening and expansion of our middle class shouldn't just be political code for "I'm inoffensive." It should mean that you're willing to do whatever it takes to create the economic policy that will directly benefit the overwhelming majority of Americans."

The Huffington Post Campaign for America's Future co-director Robert L. Borosage describes the initiative as "characteristically cautious," and finishes: "Its health care proposals would do nothing for most uninsured Americans and little to control prices. It says nothing about empowering workers to organize and little about holding CEOs accountable. It skimps on any investment agenda, while promising to don a permanent budgetary straight jacket. It fails to call for either fundamental tax reform or rolling back any of Bush's top end tax cuts, while offering up a bushel of new tax credits and write offs."

The Democratic Strategist's Scott Winship urged progressive to stress their agreements with DLC: "It remains to be seen how DLC critics will react, but to my mind, there is far more here that they should embrace than reject. To begin with, the initiative was undertaken cooperatively not only with the moderate Third Way, but with the Center for American Progress and the Howard Dean- and labor-friendly NDN."

The plan prompted a discussion at TAPPED over which education problem progressives should care about the most. Matt Yglesiaswrites : "The thing of it is that as you can read in Third Way's report (PDF) on "The Politics of Opportunity," Americans are already quite well-educated: "American students spend an average of 13.8 years in formal education-more than any other industrialized nation in the world except Norway." ... There's a real education problem in America concerning our large number of high school dropouts who, economically, end up doing quite poorly."

Ezra Kleinresponds: "it's worth noticing that the obsessive focus on college education bespeaks a certain cowardice and calculation in Democratic circles. College is a cost that primarily affects the middle class and the well-to-do but, particularly in the private context, is hefty enough that it can be burdensome for both. Talk of making it more affordable, while ostensibly aimed at subsidizing the poor, is really a poll-tested way to speak to the politically potent middle- and upper-income quintiles -- it's a way for the Democratic Party to speak up the income ladder, where the votes are."

Garance Franke-Ruta later notes: "Regarding Matt's and Ezra's contentions that Democratic initiatives to strengthen and build the middle class by making it easier and less expensive to attend college are less important than focusing on high-school drop-outs, I'd just like to note that Hillary Clinton is probably taking this approach because Democratic presidential candidates have in the past two elections lost college-educated and college drop-out voters as a group, even while they consistently won high-school drop-outs."

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas weighed in with his opinion of the DNC's new '08 primary schedule: "They've got to be celebrating over at Edwards' HQ, because this map is designed to give him a huge boost. Caucuses, unlike primaries, really are exercises in organization. Witness Kerry's victory in Iowa in 2004. And Nevada is a serious labor state. In fact, labor is essentially the organizing arm of the Nevada Democratic Party, especially UNITE-HERE's Local 226 of the Culinary Union. It's 60,000 strong, and firmly behind John Edward's candidacy. ... Next is NH, with Kerry, Hillary, and Feingold fighting for supremacy. Edwards makes the required cursory efforts, but instead focuses on South Carolina, which is close to being home-field advantage. And for all Edwards knows, NH may follow suit as in 2004 and rubber stamp the Iowa decision. The media boost for the winner of Iowa will be HUGE, with the media essentially coronating the winner. It's the problem with the 24-7 media environment."

Ryan Sager at RCP Blog posts video of Sen. John McCain (R-NV)7/24 Daily Show appearance and comments: "Conservatives should especially watch that ever-present McCain tension: between wanting to say what will make the crowd love him more and wanting not to hack away at President Bush."

Machiavel at conservative RedState posts Rep. Mark Kennedy's (R) newest TV ad and writes: "This is why, more often than not, Republicans win. We tend to nominate regular people for elective office. ... The ad is funny, touching, human, and touches a responsive chord. It's a reminder than in elections, personal attributes and values trump detailed policy agendas."

Also on the right Captain's Quarters links to new Survey USA numbers showing Hennepin Co. Atty. Amy Klobuchar (D) up only 5 points on Kennedy and then takes the Minneapolis Star-Tribune's Minnesota Poll to task: "Mark Kennedy's campaign laughed off the Strib's ridiculous reporting last week; now the entire state is in on the joke that the MinnPoll has become. One wonders what fairy tales the Strib will dream up next."

Ex-Navy Sec. Jim Webb's (D) Netroots Coordinator Lowell Feld at Rasing Kaine responded directly to National Review Online's 7/24 use of a 1988 New York Timeseditorial to attack Webb's exit from the Reagan administration. Lowell cites "a 114-page thesis on the subject of Webb's resignation as Navy Secretary" by Bradly Hanner at the Naval Postgraduate School that concludes: "Webb's insistence on maintaining the United States' Navy's force structure in the face of Secretary of Defense Carlucci's unwillingness to do the same, led to his resignation. His opposition to the reduction in force structure was rooted in his fundamental belief that it was unwise for the United States, as a maritime nation, to undercut a service upon which it relied so heavily." Feld comments: "No sign of "pique" there, just principle."

Sen. George Allen (R) comes in for some not so friendly conservative fire from libertarian GOPer Ryan Sager at RCP Blog: "The GOP majority in Congress (and the White House) has become extremely comfortable with the trappings of power. Sens. Allen and Burns are quintessential big-government conservatives, and increasingly symbols of what's wrong with the current Republican Party. ... For instance, in a recent debate, presidential hopeful Sen. George Allen of Virginia bragged about securing a $671.3 million expansion of Craney Island, adding 580 acres and "offering a boost for a future port there."

Joel Bleifuss of In These Times reports on MoveOn TV campaign targeting GOPers Rep. Deborah Pryce (OH-15), Rep. Nancy Johnson (CT-05), Rep. Thelma Drake (VA-02), and Rep. Chris Chocola (IN-02). The ads "expose the lawmakers' fealty to the corporations that fund their campaigns," and Bleifuss reports on RNC efforts to get local stations to pull the ads.

Progressive Preemptive Karma is in the midst of a House election preview. Previews of top house races in PA, VA, NC, and FL can be found here; OH, IN, and MI races here; KY and OH races here; IA, WI, and MN races here; and IL and NE races here.

Progressive hangout MyDD's heaviest poster Chris Bowers announced he has signed on with Rep. Brad Miller (NC-13): "It is absolutely my pleasure to be working with a progressive Democrat and a real friend of the netroots. I hope this campaign will allow the emerging North Carolina netroots scene to really show its stuff, and to send professional wingnut Vernon Robinson to yet another electoral defeat. It will be like campaigning against Ann Coulter, only Vernon Robinson is probably worse.

Robert B. Bluey at Human Events Online was part of an interview with "Ohio gubernatorial candidate Ken Blackwell (R.) [who] dropped by the HUMAN EVENTS/Heritage Foundation weekly bloggers' meeting, bringing with him an upbeat and positive message about his chances in November. When I asked Blackwell if he could win despite the sour mood toward Republicans in Ohio, he told us about the energy of the conservative base and the turnout he expects from the African-American community." At the Townhall BlogMary Katharine Ham was also in on the interview and highlighted Blackwell's desire to "work on jump-starting the economy with changes in tax structure, regulatory structure, torts, and K-12 education. He addressed mostly the first three with us." Blackwell said:

• "There's no more important job for the next governor of Ohio than getting the economy going."
• "We've put too many roadblocks in the way of incoming capital."
• "We have a regulatory environment that is redundant and red-tape-filled."
• "Right now, Ohio is still in the Top 10 of the 50 states in terms of lawsuit abuse."

"Blackwell pointed out that [Rep. Ted] Strickland's Congressional voting record, 'almost mirrors that of Nancy Pelosi, so this will be a campaign about Ohio values vs. San Francisco values.'"

The OK primaries were yesterday and Rep. Ernest Istook (R) handily defeated oil tycoon Bob Sullivan and two others, though Sullivan grabbed 26%. Dales of RedState "picked Istook as a sleeper to win in November for the RedState prognostication contest. Between the four candidates on the GOP ballot today, (with 1871 of 2249 precincts reporting) there were approximately 138,000 votes tallied. In the Democratic primary, the two candidates (with the same number of precincts) tallied 225,000 votes. Yes, I know that OK has a major Democratic advantage in registration, and yes I know that the closed primaries means that independents (who trend conservative in Oklahoma) could not vote, but those are daunting numbers when one considers that Henry's approval ratings are healthy. Istook faces an uphill battle."

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas reports a new poll carries bad news for Treas. Phil Angelides (D) against Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), with 45% of likely voters backing Arnold, 37% backing Angelides and 15% undecided. Kos admits that the "the California Republican Party's ads using Steve Westley's words against Angelides was pretty brutal. While the GOP has spent $12 million in ads, Angelides has responded with a measly $1.2 million. The California Democratic Party has finally gone on the air this week."

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas thinks Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D) is continuing to "lead the revitalization of her state's Democratic Party." Sebelius has banked nearly $2.1M. "And she is a phenomenon. First elected because of the split in the state's Republican Party between moderates and the 'evolution didn't happen' loons, Sebelius wasn't content to serve out her term. Instead, she's tirelessly worked to bring over those disenchanted moderates over to the Democratic side (including a former state chair of the Republican Party). In a state that was hopelessly Republican just a short four years ago, she has methodically made the case for the Democratic Party and worked to win new converts. It's nothing short of remarkable. Sebelius is a rock star, and my favorite for the veep nod in 2008."

RadioBlogger has Chris Matthews coming "unglued on the Imus In The Morning program." Radio Blogger provides an excerpt of audio and a full transcript from Matthews' Imus bit and writes: "Listening is fine, but you need to really read what he had to say." 07-25matthews-imus.mp3"

GayPatriot says Pat Buchanan has done worse than call "Israel's military actions against Hezbollah 'un-Christian.' John Podhoretz called the one-time Nixon aide's comments 'anti-Semitism' while the more diplomatic Glenn Reynolds declined to say what he'd 'call Pat Buchanan.' As you may recall, in his celebrated speech to the Republican National Convention that summer ['92], not only did he make angry statements, but he spoke far longer than the time allotted to him, thus, delaying the speech of the man who was to speak later that evening, a man whose ideas Buchanan once claimed to have championed -- Ronald Wilson Reagan. ... But, apparently indifferent to delaying Reagan's speech, Buchanan, in his arrogance, rambled on and on, his angry remarks hurting his party. On that day in 1992, Pat Buchanan, in deed if not in word, abandoned contemporary conservatism and cast his lot with those on the extreme fringe, his hateful words contrasting so clearly with Ronald Reagan's optimistic vision."

LiebrDem admits to a '90s flashback when reading blogger attacks on Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT): "whenever I read this list of charges, I was reminded of Snopes.com's debunking of the ridiculous Clinton Body Count." The body count was a ridiculous laundry list distributed by GOPers in the 1990's listing dozens of people connected to Clinton who had died over the course of his political career. It was a crock, and Mikkelson did a masterful job of exposing it as such. Here are what Mikkelson cited as the rules of thumb in creating such laundry lists."

• List every vote or statement that Lieberman has made that even remotely suggests he is not progressive. It doesn't matter what his stated position on the issue is, or how he ultimately voted on the issue in question. The longer the list, the more impressive it looks and the less likely anyone is to challenge it.
• Play word games. Make sure that not voting for a filibuster on a bill is framed as "supporting" that bill.
• Make sure every vote or statement by Lieberman that you can dredge up is offered as evidence that he is a Republican, without regard to the context and relative significance of the vote/statement in question.
• If the data doesn't fit your conclusion, ignore it. You don't have to explain why all the Democrats who know Lieberman best - Bill Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Larson, John Lewis, etc - are still going around endorsing him and talking up his progressive credentials. It's inconvenient for you, so don't mention it.
• Most importantly, don't let facts and details stand in your way! If you can pass off the fact that he has never proposed a bill on something as evidence that he is against it - do it! If a critical vote contradicts your theory, claim that particular vote was "irrelevant."

Extreme Mortman looks at the following washingtonpost.com online discussion fawning:

• Michael Abramowitz: "That's an interesting observation."
• Jeffrey Birnbaum: "Well, Sanibel, as usual, you put your finger on it."
• Jeffrey Birnbaum: "Well, Sanibel, as usual, you put your finger on it."
• Jim VandeHei: "Good political eye, Louisville."
• David Broder: "Your arguments are perfectly phrased."
• Marc Fisher: "Even more fabulous."

Mortman "is so inspired by these niceties, I'd like to take a whirl at being so cheerful to be around. So here's a fake question and how I would respond, if Extreme Mortman chatted at washingtonpost.com.

Question: Don't you know they carefully pre-screen the questions? And you yourself have selectively edited the answers to make a flimsy, juvenile point! What are you - a lunatic? Answer: A lovely question. Thank you for being so nice. I agree. Makes sense. You're right. You're smart. Want my lunch money?

Posted by Conn Carroll at July 26, 2006 12:30 PM