August 31, 2006

8/31: If This Was A Slow Month

...then the Blogometer does not want to see a busy one. Beginning with CT SEN and ending with the macaca fracas, August has been a busy month for the blogosphere and with an expected pick-up after Labor Day the Blogometer has real worries about how to cover everything. Don't fear, though, we have a plan! Starting 9/5, expect a more compact Blogometer to fill its daily Hotline space, but an expanded online effort with updates throughout the day, including increased coverage of House races as well as more detailed coverage of issues like Iraq, Iran, Wal Mart, and immigration. The Blogometer is also still accepting applications for virtual interns. But hurry, that window will be closing with the end of this month!

TERROR POLITICS: "An Instant Classic Of Nutroots Porn"

Keith Oblermann's 8/30 six-minute and forty-two second The Countdown sign-off on Defense Sec. Donald Rumsfeld speech to the Annual American Legion National Convention in Salt Lake City, UT, quickly spread throughout the lefty blogosphere. Crooks and Liars writes: "Olbermann delivered this commentary with fire and passion while highlighting how Rumsfeld's comments echoes other times in our world's history when anyone who questioned the administration was coined as a traitor, unpatriotic, communist or any other colorful term. Luckily we pulled out of those times and we will pull out of these times." C&L has video and a transcript including Olbermann's opening line: "The man who sees absolutes, where all other men see nuances and shades of meaning, is either a prophet, or a quack. Donald S. Rumsfeld is not a prophet."

Comparison's to Olbermann's idol Edward R. Murrow abounded:

• Steven DBooman Tribune: "The most brilliant on-air broadcast political essay since the days of Edward R. Murrow."
• The Left Coaster: "Keith Olbermann stepped into Edward R. Murrow's shoes for a night with a devastating critique of Rummy and the Bush Administration. The shoes fit pretty well, and there is a lot of ammo to use against Rummy and the rest of the fascists."
• Brilliant at Breakfast: "Keith Olbermann gets in touch with his inner Ed Murrow."

The right sight of the 'sphere was less impressed. Allahpundit at Hot Air had the best conservative take: "It's an instant classic of nutroots porn, second only to Colbert's faux-dissident burlesque at the White House correspondents' dinner. In fact, Olby goes further than Colby: we're all used to the comparisons of Bush to Hitler and the Democrats to Neville Chamberlain, but never before have I heard someone compare Bush to Chamberlain - and to Hitler (or some generic "fascist," if you prefer), both in the span of a few moments."

Also on the right McQ at QandO draws blood from the AP for their "hatchet" job on Rumsfeld speech. QandO juxtaposed sections of Rumsfeld speech with the AP write up and highlighted two distinct cases where the AP took Rumsfeld out of context. QandO updates his post to alert his readers that the AP went back and changed the two parts of their story that QanO criticized. old lead graph:

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday accused critics of the Bush administration's Iraq and counterterrorism policies of trying to appease "a new type of fascism."

new lead graph:

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday the world faces "a new type of fascism" and warned against repeating the pre-World War II mistake of appeasement.

Meanwhile conservative talk-show host Hugh Hewitt pushes the fascism meme and reminds readers that "Appeasers can and usually are patriots. ... just deeply misguided, foolish patriots."

LANDSCAPE '06: Big Improvements

Chris Bowers at MyDD looks at the cash on hand for the party committees in the latest FEC report:

Democratic Party: $95,189,180 Republican Party: $134,140,387
DNC: $11,312,588 RNC:$43,622,105
DCCC: $33,046,326 NRCC: $34,147,575
DSCC: $35,091,284 NRSC: $20,570,361
DGA: $3,000,322 RGA: $10,915,046
DLCC: $1,010,258 RSLC: $1,905,311

Bowers comments: "as grim as most of these numbers may seem, they actually are a big improvement on previous cycles."

CT SEN: The Editing Room Defense

Following claims from Sen. Joe Lieberman's (I-CT) campaign that their new TV ad was a sunrise and not a sunset, EdwardsRaysOfSunshine at DailyKos tracked down the original footage from getty images, and posted the clips caption which read: "Wide shot sun setting over ocean / birds walking along water's edge / Santa Barbara"

Later 8/30 Greg Sargent at TPM Cafe received confirmation from Lieberman media consultant Josh Isay that the ad featured a sunset: "I made an honest mistake. I thought the footage was of a sunrise, but when I went back to check, it was in fact of a sunset. It is clear that I am spending too much time in the editing room."

Progressive bloggers were also up in arms over an 8/30 FOX news package on CT SEN affect on CT House races. My Left Nutmeg has video of the segment where FOX asks a CT labor leader: "Do you think he's[Lieberman] actually going to motivate Republicans to come out and vote against Democrats?" Later, Lieberman responds to a question not shown in the clip: "Well, I guess they should have thought of that before they had the primary."

Christy Hardin Smith at firedoglake notes that later in the segment Rep. Chris Shays (R-04) embraces Lieberman: "Oh, and for all those who have been questioning whether Lieberman is campaigning with Republicans, you can watch Lieberman and Chris Shays campaigning together on video at a rally. Including Chris Shays saying about Lieberman that "we have a national treasure" in him at this public event, while introducing him to the crowd - and then later hugging him on camera (and then getting an admonishment from such PDAs in the future from a skittish Turncoat Joe). "

MI SEN: Pounding A Woman's Nose Sounds Like A Winning Message To Us

Right Wing News reports on a teleconference with Oakland Co. Sheriff Mike Bouchard (R):

My first impression? Bouchard seems to be charismatic, energetic, and as tough as you'd expect a sheriff to be. He also had no problem pulling out the brass knuckles to use on Stabenow. At one point he said he was going to, "pound her in the nose with reality." He also accused her of being a "jellyfish" who talked in "Washingtonspeak." He made a good case for that, by the way. ... He pointed out that he supports the House position on illegal immigration -- while Stabenow voted for giving Social Security to illegals, but against making English America's official language

.

OH SEN: "Down" Does Rhyme With "Brown"

Greg Sargent at TPM Cafe claims the NRSC "is seriously worried about" Rep. Sherrod Brown's (D-13) challenge to Sen. Mike DeWine (R) since they spent "an astonishing $656,054.58 to date this year on the race." TPM Cafe posts an NRSC television ad currently running (tag line: "Sherrod Brown let us down") and quotes a Brown advisor: "It's a huge buy ... But clearly they're worried -- and we're gonna respond."

TN SEN: Intriguing, But Not Progressive, But Acceptable

Matt Stoller at MyDD looks at Rep. Harold Ford Jr.'s (D-09) latest TV spot.

This ad is clever and slick. I'm really intrigued with the Ford campaign, because while the tactical execution is good, it's not clear to me that this messaging differentiates him from his Republican opponent. ... Based on our accountability memo, and other polling coming in that shows that voters are choosing between Iraq and terrorism, Ford is making the absolutely wrong strategic decision. When given a choice between a Republican and a fake Republican, they'll pick the real one every time. But then, Ford's not a progressive. ... My guess is that Ford's messaging will not work, but it's possible that Corker could simply self-destruct and Ford could look like an acceptable alternative.

VA SEN: Do Not Underestimate The Power Of The Dark Side's Outreach Program

Tom Bevan at RCP Blog passes along conclusions from Democracy Corps strategy memo based of results of a post-election survey from VA GOV '05.

• Failure to mobilize the Republican base doomed Kilgore. The demoralization of Bush voters and lack of enthusiasm for Kilgore seriously hindered the Republican candidate's chances, underscoring the dangers of taking the base for granted.
• Non-voters were disillusioned with Bush, unimpressed by Kilgore.
• Positive agenda was crucial to winning over swing voters.
• Republicans voter outreach program is not to be underestimated. Although Kilgore's turnout effort came up short, his campaign was much more effective at contacting both base and swing voters, as well as those who were still undecided in the final days of the campaign.
• Essential to have sufficient resources for the final few weeks of the campaign. Nearly one in five voters did not to decide who to vote for until the last few days of the campaign and 40 percent held off until October.

MCCAIN: He Don't Know Shi'ite

Hullabaloo is sick and tired of MSM types and their deference to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) on foreign policy issues. "Their halting explanations are all perfect illustrations of typical vapid, courtier sensibilities," Digby writes. He goes on to highlight a Howard Fineman appearance from the 8/27 Chris Matthews Show where Fineman says: "He knows what he's talking about. He clearly has a lot of experience, militarily, from the inside out on the Armed Services Committee." Digby then quote McCain from earlier this year: ""One of the things I would do if I were President would be to sit the Shiites and the Sunnis down and say, 'Stop the bull [excrement],'" Digby concludes: "There's a man who knows what he's talking about, alright."

GORE: Every Leading Washington Dem Was Dead Wrong

Brent Budowsky at The Huffington Post again appeals for an Al Gore presidential run:

Unlike virtually every major Democrat in Washington Al Gore was dead right about Iraq from day one. This commends him for the Presidency for two reasons, both equally important. The first reason is that with decades of national security experience he was wise enough and smart enough to know that the Iraq War was a tragic mistake. The second reason is profound: Al Gore had the courage and clarity to speak out clearly, forcefully, and unequivocally without the maneuvering and positioning that led virtually every leading Washington Democrat to be dead wrong.

WARNER: Busty Women In Bikinis Are The Future

Ryan Sager at conservative leaning RCP Blog posts text from a ex-VA Gov. Mark Warner Forward Together PAC email that claims Warner will hold the first "event in the virtual world." Warner believes "Social technologies can be great tools for political change, and virtual worlds like Second Life might be the next tool for engaging people in the real world democratic process." Sager has no complaints noting: "For those interested, here's the Web page for Second Life. What you might notice right off the bat is that the virtual world is full of a lot of avatars of busty women in bikinis. This is clearly the political medium of the future."

GIULIANI: Neville Chamberlain As Genghis Khan

Right Wing News responds to critics of his "Conservative Case Against Rudy Giuliani" that argue abortion, immigration, and gun control won't predominate the '08 election. RWN writes:

First of all, I would agree that fighting the war on terrorism will be a big issue in the 2008 election, especially since the Democrats have become such wusses that they make Neville Chamberlain look like Genghis Khan. However, the war on terrorism probably WILL NOT be a decisive factor in the Republican primaries simply because most of the candidates will probably have very similar positions on national defense. In fact, other than Chuck Hagel, I believe all the major candidates could, at least at this point, be fairly called hawks on national security issues.

BLOGGERS VS. BELTWAY: Apparently Stevens And Coburn Don't Get Along ... Who Knew?

Paul Kiel at TPM Muckraker talked to Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) spokesman Aaron Saunders who confirmed Stevens placed a non-secret hold on the publicly searchable pork database bill S. 2590 so "a cost-benefit analysis" could be performed to prevent "an extra layer of unnecessary bureaucracy."

Tapscott's Copy Desk chips in with a helpful timeline demonstrating that Stevens did "everything possible to avoid working with Coburn or his staff to address the Alaska senator's objections to the proposal."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: A Second Draft

Mother Jones has a new tool up called "Lie by Lie: Chronicle of a War Foretold: August 1990 to March 2003." Mother Jones explains: "The first drafts of history are fragmentary. Important revelations arrive late, and out of order. In this timeline, we've assembled the history of the Iraq War to create a resource we hope will help resolve open questions of the Bush era. What did our leaders know and when did they know it? And, perhaps just as important, what red flags did we miss, and how could we have missed them? This is the first installment in our Iraq War timeline project."

LEST WE FORGET: Hacks On A Sinking Ship

The Real Ugly American didn;t take too kindly to Bruce Kegler's 8/30 USA Todayop-ed belittling the "blogosphere" for, among other things, the failure of Snakes on a Plane at the box office and Sen. Joe Lieberman's (I-CT) refusal to exit stage right. The Ugly American writes:

The "blogosphere" is not a gigantic megaphone for the "blogger" collective all speaking unanimously with one voice. It is exactly the opposite. It is a collection of small and large voices each advocating their own ideas and opinions. I had no idea any blogger said Snakes on a Plane was going to be a blockbuster and I read blogs night and day. ... If Hollywood executives actually believed that something some blogger or group of bloggers says, can make a stupid movie appealing to the mass market, then that speaks to the idiocy of those particular executives not the effectiveness of the blogosphere.

I couldn't disagree with folks like Daily Kos or Firedog Lake more, and I realize the obvious point made by Kluger above, a minority of Americans actually vote, an even smaller minority vote in primaries, and an even smaller group of them have their own political blog. All that being said discounting the real and powerful effect a group of left wing activist bloggers had on a Democratic Primary election is whistling past the grave yard.

The newsflash for Mr. Kluger might be, The New York Times, and CBS get it wrong pretty often themselves while supposedly playing it right down the middle. Anyone seen Dan Rather or Mary Mapes lately? It seems to me the people doing all the kicking and screaming lately are MSM hacks trying to protect their endangered gigs.

NOTES AND ERRATA: Team Hotline Needs You!

The Hotline is looking for a Virtual Intern (three hours, five days a week) to assist in daily compilation of Blogometer updates and assist on special projects. Applicants must consider themselves regular consumers of blogs, be familiar with nationally read blogs from across the spectrum; know how to use blog search engines/aggregators (such as Technorati and Memeorandum); be able to quickly analyze and synthesize developments in the news as well as summarize ongoing blog activity with brevity, clarity and accuracy. Excellent writing and time-management skills are also a must.

This is a "virtual" position, so as long as you have always-on Internet access, Firefox, a plain text editor, and a pulse (i.e. actual presence in DC not necessary) you can apply. As with every Hotline position, we don't expect our writers to not have an opinion, we just expect them to keep it out of their work. Interested applicants should send their resumes to ccarroll@nationaljournal.com

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:02 PM

August 30, 2006

8/30: So What?

In sum, that's Ramesh Ponnuru response to lefty criticism of Club for Growth's targeting of Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) at the possible expense of a GOP majority in the Sen. For months now, progressive bloggers have been decrying the lack of media attention RI SEN has received compared to their efforts to unseat Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT). There are many things that distinguish the two races (Chafee was never a GOP VP candidate, for starters) but the more important difference is mentioned by Ponnuru: the Club for Growth does not exist to help the GOP control Congress. On the other hand, pure partisanship is the stated goal of DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas in his book Crashing the Gates. This is part of what made the targeting of Lieberman such a story. Perhaps it is a function of who is in power, and who is not, but the lefty blogosphere is much more concerned with tactics and strategy than ideological purity. If the Dems have a Sweet November, then maybe we'll see if Lieberman-like purges become the norm, instead of the exception.

LANDSCAPE '06: Wipeout?

Conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt interviewed Roll Call's Stu Rothenberg 8/29 on the GOP's '06 prospects (audio/transcript). Rothenberg told Hewitt:

The environment is not improving for Republican candidates around the country. There's no indication that it will. And increasingly, I am familiar with ... there's both public, but also private polling suggesting real problems for Republican incumbents. The Republican polling shows the Republican vote down. It shows Democratic challengers who are unknown getting a surprisingly large percentage of the vote. What we're really seeing is that voters are simply inclined to change, for change, and that's hurting Republicans.

Hewitt argues that Rothenberg is caught up in his own spin and hunts down polling data on the six races Rothenberg saw as "the worst news for the GOP." The list includes: CO-7, IA-1, AZ-8, IN-2, IN-8, and IN-9. Hewitt has comments on each race and comments: "This is simply not the stuff of which "waves" are made."

On the left Chris Bowers at MyDD celebrates the success of the Dailykos / MyDD / Swing State ProjectAct Blue Netroots pre-Labor Day fund raise push, which netted $175,459.05 for 17 Dem House and Sen candidates.

CT SEN: Miles Away From Ordinary

Lefty blogger's enjoyed Sen. Joe Lieberman's (I-CT) new television ad, which features a setting sun and invites CT voters to "just sit back and think about good stuff." The best quips: Crooks and Liars: "I was waiting for the Corona beer bottle to appear." The unofficial Lamont Blog: "Who was the genius strategist who though a "setting sun" might be a good visual metaphor for Lieberman's last days in the Senate? Morning in America? More like Twilight in Connecticut."

MT SEN: Testin' The Waters In The Puget Sound

Ken Camp at DailyKos attended a State Senate Pres. Jon Tester (D) in Seattle hosted by Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Max Baucus (R-MT) and Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA). Camp reports: "Jon talked about his farm, a place that his grandfather homesteaded in order to give his family a better life. He talked about the legacy and responsibility that previous generations have left to us, that in this land of opportunity, we must make the most of our opportunity to leave a better world for our children and grandchildren. ... Jon explained that his opponent, Senator Conrad Burns, has taken more money from convicted felon Jack Abramoff, than any other member of Congress. He also noted that Conrad is bought and paid for by the special interests."

RI SEN: The Club For Shrinkage?

Greg Sargent at TPM Cafe looks at recent FEC filings that show the NRSCC spent $181,587.66 on direct mail targeting Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey (R). Paul Kiel at Talking Points Memo notes: "Minimum amount spent by the National Republican Senatorial Committee on direct mail against Steve Laffey in Rhode Island: $181,587.66. Amount spent by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in Connecticut: $0."

On a similar theme David Weigel subbing for the vacationing Andrew Sullivan looks at Club For Growth challenges in CO-5 and RI SEN and observes: "Living last year in Virginia I saw this happen on a smaller scale. Conservative Republicans primaried a number of moderate, squishy Republican state legislators in the DC suburbs and exurbs, in large part because of anger over Gov. Mark Warner's tax hikes (which said legislators supported). The victorious conservatives got summarily creamed by Democrats."

Responding to a similar argument from TNR's Michael Crowley, Ramesh Ponnuru at National Review Online offers a limited defense of CFG strategy: "So what? [The Club for Growth] doesn't exist to help the Republican party. ... And it isn't at all clear what Chafee would do if the party's "control" of the Senate depended on him. I think the Club made the right call."

TN SEN: The Bill Frist Clone Vs. The Surrendercrat

The Ford Report looks at ex-Chattanooga Mayor Bob Corker's (R) refusal to release his full tax returns and recounts an effort Corker made to seal court documents in a lawsuit involving Chattanooga and Wal Mart. The Ford Report concludes: "Don't be fooled this fall. It is time we had a U.S. Senator who is open and honest with the people of Tennessee. Not another Bill Frist clone."

Over at RedState, Erick Erickson looks ar Rep. Harold Ford Jr. (D-09) voting record in response to Ford's latest television ad on nat'l security: "During his time in Congress, Ford voted: Against the 9/11 Commission recommendations, which he uses in his ad, Against the PATRIOT Act extension, Against securing the border with Mexico, Against American energy independence, Ford spoke out against the NSA's surveillance program." Erick concludes: "Harold Ford, Jr. wants to run as a law and order Republican. His record is one of a cut and run surrendercrat."

VA SEN: Too ... Many ... Book Titles ... To Chose From ...

Ex-Navy Sec. Jim Webb's (D) Netroots Coordinator Lowell Feld reports at Raising Kaine that John "The Rainmaker" Grisham plans to team up with Stephen "Needful Things" King for a 9/24 Webb fundraiser in Charlottesville, VA. Feld writes: "Now, it's time for some bad puns and other plays on book titles. Will Stephen King's support for Jim Webb "Carrie" a lot of weight, fueling a "Storm of the Century" in Virginia, politically speaking? Will the receiving line at this event be a "Long Walk" or a "Dead Zone?" Will George Allen and Dick Wadhams feel "Misery" or "Rage" upon hearing news of this event?"

Plenty of lefty blogger reaction to The Nation's 8/30 article. DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas writes: "These are Allen's allies, and it's why it's so important to get rid of Sen. Felix Macaca. Politics matters, and we have a duty and responsibility to help cleanse our government of those who might be wearing hoods were it 50 years ago."

MCCAIN: The Security, Spending, and Social Issues Candidate?

Responding to in-house questioning, Patrick Hynes of Ankle Biting Pundits lays out his reasons for supporting Sen. John McCain (R-AZ): "There are, at this point in my life, two hills upon which I'm willing to fight and die in terms of issues and policy: the Global War on Terror and the life of the unborn. ... Sen. John McCain is not only the strongest available candidate to engineer a victory in the Global War on Terror, he is the strongest possible candidate. ... Sen. McCain is pro-life. ... George Allen, Mitt Romney, Condi Rice, Rudy Giuliani are not."

IA GOPer Caucus Cooler passes along state Sen. Chuck Larson's (R-IA) explanation for his endorsement of McCain on "The Big Show" with John Gibson:

For a couple of different reasons, No. 1, Sen. John McCain is a fiscal hawk. Secondly, he is a social conservative, with a 24-year pro-life voting record. But from my perspective, the most important issue, whether it's 2006 or 2008, is going to be national security and the global War on Terror. And Sen. McCain recognizes that we must win this war for our own nation's security.

It wasn't all roses for McCain on the righty side o' the 'sphere. Tapscott's Copy Desk looks at the FEC's recent ruling on paid political broadcast ads two months before an election and writes: "This is the ultimate form of Incumbent Protection Act, short of repealing elections. I say it again - if the Republican Party nominates Sen. John McCain, R-AZ, for president in 2008 without his official apology for and repudiation of McCain-Feingold, plus introduction of legislation to repeal that monstrous outrage against the First Amendment, no conservative, libertarian or honest liberal can support him for the White House."

Finally, Blogometer alum William Beutler at Blog PI argues that neither McCain nor Nicco Mele have come completely clean on the length and extent of their relationship: "But there is another aspect of the McCain/Mele cooperation that strikes me as troublesome: The current McCain/Mele relationship stretches back to last fall, yet Mele didn't step aside until called out by Hotline just this week. So in the past year since they first hooked up, Mele has been doing paid work for Democrats in his primary job while doing unpaid work for a Republican in his free time. This is highly problematic for EchoDitto, but it doesn't reflect all that well on the McCain camp, either."

GIULIANI: His Heirness?

The unofficial Giuliani Blog looks at the Cook Political Report's RT Strategies poll and declares: "Rudy Giuliani is the clear frontrunner for the '08 GOP nomination." Giuliani Blog highlights these findings:

• Rudy Giuliani is George Bush's heir apparent. McCain voters don't much care for the President, and are unhappy with the current direction of the country.
• Rudy: Popular with the Republican base, with more potential to grow.
• Giuliani supporters are more Republican than McCain supporters.
• People who do not want Rudy Giuliani to be the nominee are more split among rival campaigns.
• Younger and middle aged voters seem to favor Giuliani. Older voters are more likely to favor McCain.

FRIST: 15 Days Of Fun

Senate Maj. leader Bill Frist (R-TN) spent part of his 8/29 with conservative bloggers including John Hinderaker of Power Line and Captain Ed of Captain's Quarters.

Hinderaker writes: "Based on my observations today, Senator Frist is a highly viable Presidential candidate. His intelligence, competence, judgment and reliability cannot be questioned. His views are compatible with those of the Republican base across a broad range of issues. He needs to beef up his Presidential persona, by, for example, learning what to do with his legs when he is addressing a group.

Captain's Quarters transcribed a discussion on politics, including this exchange between Frist and Hinderaker:

BF: I will do port security next these are my general plans, I haven't even told my colleagues this. I want to do port security, I want to address the Bolton nomination, I want to address the Hamdan decision on these security issues, I want to address the Specter-FISA compromise. That right there I've only got 15 legislative days, so you can imagine the challenge. JH: Do you think those things will have an impact in November? BF: I don't know, but as I travel around and talk with people, everything gravitates back to security. I think there will be clarification with some people, instead of saying "I'm for the war on terror but I don't like this." We'll look at the tools we need to fight the war on terror, and we'll look at the issue the Supreme Court gave us. So there will be a lot of discussion of those, which will lead to the clarification. That's what people want to feel safer and more secure.

CLINTON: How Do You Solve A Problem Like Hillary?

At The Huffington PostWhen Harry Met Sally screenwriter Nora Ephron looks at Sen. Hillary Clinton's (D-NY) success on the morning-after pill and her meeting with cable exec Ned Lamont (D-CT) and sees only one more blemish on HRC's resume: Iraq. Ephron argues that HRC will eventually bend to popular opinion on the war, but finds that leaves HRC doubters in a pickle:

What are those of us who believe that she will do anything to win, who believe she doesn't really take a position unless it's completely safe, who believe she has taken the concept of triangulation and pushed it to a geometric level never achieved by anyone including her own husband, who can't stand her position on the war, who don't trust her as far as you can spit - what are we going to do if she ends up in agreement with us?
It's going to be an interesting moment for us Hillary Resisters. And we're not going to be able to say we're not supporting her because she can't win. Because let's face it, we don't have a candidate who can win.

TERROR POLITICS: What Would A Progressive Do?

Associate at The Project on Middle East Democracy Shadi Hamid got progressives talking foreign policy with his American Prospectweb exclusive "Vision Gap" arguing "for resisting the realist temptation and reclaiming democracy promotion from Bush."

Ernest Wilson at TPM Cafe identifies four critical Hamid errors: " He fails to provide a principled rationale for 'progressive foreign policy' (PFP); he doesn't adequately link a PFP to a progressive domestic agenda; his defense of democracy as the core tenet is deeply flawed; and he conflates U.S. policy toward the Middle East with U.S. foreign policy more generally.

Spencer Ackerman at TAPPED offers a response to Hamid titled: "Why human rights, not democracy, should be the lodestar of a liberal foreign policy."

TERROR POLITICS II: What Would Posner Do?

U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner sat down for a podcast with The Glenn & Helen Show at Instapundit to discuss his new book Not a Suicide Pact: The Constitution in a Time of National Emergency.

From the left Glenn Greenwald notes: "Posner's relentless characterization of the Constitution as this amorphous, evolving document which must be shaped and molded by political events led Reynolds to ask the right if not obvious question -- isn't Posner advocating the very theory of a "living, breathing Constitution" which conservatives have long claimed to despise, even consider tyrannical? ... Posner paused and stuttered quite a bit after being asked that question, and then admitted, quite astonishingly, that he "hadn't thought about that" painfully obvious point before. But he then told Reynolds that he's "right" about the fact that he, Posner, has an elastic view of the Constitution -- that it is a "flexible" document."

Instapundit responds:

Glenn Greenwald

says Posner is being un-conservative by advocating "drastically expanded police powers." Some things that Posner advocates in his book might fall within that category, though generally I think that's something of an overstatement. As I note in the podcast, what's interesting is that Posner's advocating a "more European" approach to national security powers, which produces a left/right role reversal. Posner also makes the point that it's interesting that the Supreme Court's foreign-law enthusiasts don't look to Europe as a model in these areas, as they do in the case of capital punishment.

BLOGGERS VS. BELTWAY: The Revelation To Nowhere

After all that calling, some good old fashion Googling may have uncovered the secret Sen. behind the hold of Sens. Barack Obama (D-IL) and Tom Coburn (R-OK) publicly searchable pork database bill, S. 2590. TPM Muckraker's Justin Rood passes a long a Fort Smith Times Recordreport from a Coburn townhall meeting where Coburn said of Stevens: "He's the only senator blocking it," in response to a question about the bill.

Muckraker goes on to report: "But did he really do it? Well, he had a motive: As the paper and others have noted, Stevens and Coburn have clashed before -- in particular over Stevens' now-legendary "bridge to nowhere." Coburn attempted (and failed) to block the $233 million boondoggle. And revenge certainly fits the senior Alaskan's m.o."

Only one blogger has stepped forward to defend the practice of secret holds (but not this specific one). Conservative Tim Chapman writes:

But with all the excitement over outing the holder, there appears to be momentum building to abolish the secret hold in general. On its face, that seems to make sense. But conservatives should rethink abolishing the secret hold. ... More often than not it is conservatives - anti pork, limited government types - who employ the secret hold. They use the hold to slow down legislation that is incessantly offered by liberals in the Senate. Legislation that would appropriate x amount of billions of dollars to this or that socially acceptable and politically popular cause is often the target of these holds. Why? because without a hold the bill goes to the Senate floor and passes with unanimous consent for fear of opposing a politically popular piece of legislation that is often either not constitutional or further bloats the federal government.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Ahmadinejad Must Be Really Far Behind If He's Challenging Bush To All These Debates

Ryan Sager at RCP Blog recognizes that it is only a CNN online poll but still marvels at the results showing 63% of CNN.com readers believe Pres. Bush would lose a debate to Iranian Pres. Ahmadinejad.

LEST WE FORGET: Offsides On Socrates

One of the guest posters at Andrew Sullivan has uploaded a YouTube of a Monty Python classic: a Greek vs. German philosopher soccer match. The play by play includes: "Socrates scores on a beautiful cross from Archimedes and the Germans are disputing it. Hagel is arguing that the reality is merely an a priori adjunct of non-naturalistic ethics. Kant, by the categorical imperative is holding that the ontological exists only in the imagination. And Marx is claiming offsides."

NOTES AND ERRATA: Team Hotline Needs You!

The Hotline is looking for a Virtual Intern (three hours, five days a week) to assist in daily compilation of Blogometer updates and assist on special projects. Applicants must consider themselves regular consumers of blogs, be familiar with nationally read blogs from across the spectrum; know how to use blog search engines/aggregators (such as Technorati and Memeorandum); be able to quickly analyze and synthesize developments in the news as well as summarize ongoing blog activity with brevity, clarity and accuracy. Excellent writing and time-management skills are also a must.

This is a "virtual" position, so as long as you have always-on Internet access, Firefox, a plain text editor, and a pulse (i.e. actual presence in DC not necessary) you can apply. As with every Hotline position, we don't expect our writers to not have an opinion, we just expect them to keep it out of their work. Interested applicants should send their resumes to ccarroll@nationaljournal.com

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:07 PM

August 29, 2006

8/29: You Win Some, You Lose Some...

... friends, that is. It's not often enough that bloggers can put aside petty name-calling (ed. confession: the Blogometer loves well-crafted petty name-calling) and works together for a common cause. Now that TPM Muckraker is engaging its readers in the outing of the Senator who put a secret hold on the anti-pork S. 2590, it's safe to call the effort bipartisan. But while friends are being gained in some areas, the web's partisan nature is ending friendships elsewhere. Nicco Mele's ex-communication from the progressive blogger community, following his decision to sign with Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) Straight Talk America PAC, may extend to the web consultant company he founded (despite his departure from the firm). And finally, Matt Stoller at MyDD attacks DCCC Chair Rahm Emanuel (IL) for his alleged crimes against progressivism.

BLOGGERS VS. BELTWAY: Bloggers Of The World Unite!

The bulk of the effort is still coming from the right flank of the 'sphere but TPM Muckraker's Justin Rood has joined righty traffic leader Instapundit's quest to identify the mystery senator who put a secret hold on Sens. Barack Obama (D-IL) and Tom Coburn (R-OK) publicly searchable pork database bill, S. 2590. By 9 a.m. Muckraker had some form of a commitment from 59 Senate offices that their boss was not the "secret hold" senator. Bloggers on both sides are all urging readers to contact their sens' office and demand to know if their Sen. is the holder.

Instapundit comments: "The circle continues to close! Some readers wonder what happens if the secret-hold Senator just lies about it? Well, if we get to 100 denials, it's going to be pretty embarrassing for the Senate, which has already had about all the embarrassment it should want in an election year. But I don't think that will happen." Other thoughts from the right:

• Mary Katherine Ham at Townhall: "Is it Debbie Stabenow? If so, I'm doubting that will play well in her fight against Bouchard."
• Captain's Quarters: "This entire episode should shame every member of the Upper Chamber. Using a cheap and secret political maneuver to block passage of a bill that would do more to provide open government than anything since the Freedom of Information Act is not ironic, it's cynical beyond belief."
• Just One Minute: "What's missing is a proper betting pool - my money would be on Robert Byrd as the secret holder, mainly because he is a traditionalist and the King of Pork."
• Hot Air has video of Brit Hume's FOX News coverage.

BLOGGERS vs. BELTWAY II: Mmmmm, Kool Aid

Progressive Matt Stoller at MyDD continued his war on DCCC Chair Rahm Emanuel 8/28:

"Rather than running on a progressive winning set of messages, Rahm has decided that primping before the press as 'Rahmbo' while whining about progressives will give him a win-win. If we win the house, he's a hero. If we lose the House, it's because of bloggers/Al Sharpton/Lamont/ Moveon/Soros/Pelosi. ... Rahm Emanuel is not a party strategist. He is an extremist ideologue, a Bourbon Democrat, and he will be a huge problem for progressives moving forward."

Tom Bevan at conservative hang-out RCP Blog comes to Emanuel's defense: "I spit Diet Coke all over it after reading Stoller, of all people, fingering Rahm Emanuel an "extremist ideologue." This is the sort of stuff that should scare sensible Democrats out of their minds. Rahm is a centrist. He's a Clintonite. Six years ago years ago that wasn't a sin. Now to a growing portion of the party, it's grounds for excommunication. Apparently, unless you've taken a heavy pull from the nutroot Kool-Aid, you're not welcome or wanted."

BLOGGERS VS. BLOGGERS: Ex-Communication Edition

Blogometer alum William Beutler at Blog PI serves up in-depth coverage of lefty blogger community fallout from Nicco Mele's decision to sign with Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) Straight Talk America PAC. Highlights include:

• After [Howard] Dean, Mele went on to found the Democratic-oriented website building firm EchoDitto, which has built a solid reputation for itself. This revelation, however, is causing trouble not just for consultant Mele himself but for his consulting firm as well.
• Most consequentially, however, lead Kossack Markos Moulitsas revealed in his take nothing we didn't know already, namely that he can't be friends with people whose political beliefs he doesn't share.
• It's certainly an appropriate strategy; in national politics, you can switch allegiances exactly once, and as Mele is finding out, even that comes at a price.
• But Kos went further, giving the impression that EchoDitto itself had a material connection to the campaign, because the "expertise and intelligence he is gathering from the following clients can and will end up as part of the McCain arsenal in 2008."
• If EchoDitto had remained silent, he might've had a point. But I'm still waiting for Kos and a host of others to acknowledge that one evening later EchoDitto New York dir. Harish Rao announced that Mele was stepping aside as CEO.
• Yet the Kos-imposed embargo remains in place. And so does the one from Steve Gilliard. More suprisingly - at least based on my own impression - so does the one from DavidNYC at Swing State Project, and he'd even allowed that the perfect solution would be for McCain Mele to go.

LANDSCAPE '06: Questioning The Whole Premise

Progressive Chris Bowers at MyDD released his House Forecast 2006 8/28. His conclusion: "I currently project Democrats to take 15-25 seats, which would give them a narrow majority of between 218-228 seats. ... Overall I think it is a very good forecast even if, perhaps, very slightly too optimistic." DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas highlights the rankings but isn't as optimistic: "And for the record, I still don't think we'll win back either chamber. I've seen the GOP close the deal too many times before for me to get complacent and cocky. Nah. I think we'll win 7-14 seats in the House, 3-5 in the Senate."

Conservative Robert Moran at Crosstabs sees a "Speaker Pelosi in the next Congress" but agrees with James Carville's 8/28 assertion: "We have to go back to 1974 (during Watergate) to find such a favorable environment,'' says James Carville, who ran Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign. ``If we can't win in this environment, we have to question the whole premise of the party."

Moran goes on to highlight other GOP small silver linings: "If Democrats take back the House they will over-play their hand, make silly comments and generally anger voters. Pelosi won't wear well. ... it would make things much, much harder for a Democratic Presidential nominee in 2008, as they won't have the Congress to run against. This, in fact, would make things especially hard for Mrs. Clinton in the 2008 general election. ... And I believe that the electoral drubbing we're about to receive will end up triggering a series of events that eventually lead to us trading the 18 or so Kerry/GOP seats in 2004 for the 40 odd Bush/Dem seats."

CT SEN: Who Needs Firefighters?

Natural Born Killers producer and progressive activist Jane Hamsher at firedoglake has Washington Post's Chris Cilizza in her sights over his 8/27 blog post on "one of the strongest union backers" of Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), the International Association of Firefighters, decision to back Lieberman in the general. Hamsher writes:

Right-o. One of the most critical unions in this race, the SEIU, is the first to abandon Lieberman and back Lamont instead, and what's the story for Cillizza? Today, when it comes to the Firefighters well tie me up and call me Loretta. ... I think it's reasonable in this situation to ask where, exactly, Cizzilla got his information - and his spin. Would it be from a reliably unreliable LieberLiar who has been the source of bad information in the past and has no trouble punking journalists who carry his water? Enquiring minds want to know. ... Hey Chris - I hope [Dan] Gerstein at least bought you dinner.

RI SEN: More And More Like CT SEN Everyday

Righty bloggers were not happy with Hotline On Call (go team!) reports that the RNC had activated its 72 hour program. Under the header "NRSC Must Support RI Winner" Matt Lewis at Right Angle Blog writes: "The NRSC has effectively painted themselves in a corner by vowing not to support Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey ... Should the NRSC stubbornly stick to this threat, they would effectively be allowing the Democrats to take the seat, uncontested. This would be disastrous because every dime the Democrats don't spend in Rhode Island is a dime they will spend in Ohio ... or Pennsylvania ... or Maryland ... or Tennessee, etc."

Also on the right, Bull Dog Pundit at Ankle Biting Pundits asks the RNC to stop spitting in the face of the GOP base: "My personal opinions about the man aside, doesn't the GOP realize that spending scads of money on a guy who didn't even vote for the President, let alone favors abortion on demand, voted against Sam Alito, voted against the Iraq war, is in favor of rights for terrorists, and is against ANWR drilling, isn't exactly how you want to treat the very people you need to turn out on Election Day to keep the majority in both houses."

This time its the lefties turn for glee over intra-party warfare. DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas: "Keep in mind what this means: assuming this report by the Hotline is accurate, the NRSC is pulling valuable workers in important battleground states like Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania for a full two weeks." Natural Born Killers producer and progressive activist Jane Hamsher at firedoglake: "Now, I never quite got the Club for Growth's logic because to blame Lincoln Chafee for high taxes is like blaming Kobe for the high price of gas. Chafee is about as big a eunuch as exists in the Senate today, and there's some serious denial going on as to what the kleptocrats which wingnuttia ritualistically prostrates itself before are actually busying themselves about in DC."

TN SEN: Liquids On A Plane

Greg Sargent at TPM Cafe has video of Rep. Harold Ford Jr. (D-09) latest tv ad on national security: "By our estimation it may be the first Dem TV ad this cycle wholly focused on national security questions. Ford -- who has a slight edge over GOP nominee Bob Corker -- is pictured carrying a bottle of liquid on a plane and demanding the adoption of all the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission."

VA SEN: Does That Make Richmond The Next Pittsburgh?

Ben Adler at TAPPED passes along David Weigel's thoughts on the future of VA:

In 4-10 years, I think Virginia's politics will look more like Pennsylvania's, with the DC burbs playing the part of Philly and its suburbs. At the very least Democrats are going to start picking up the northern VA congressional seats now held by Tom Davis and Frank Wolf.

Adler adds: "Indeed, that seems to be where the long-term trend is going. Furthermore, just double the number of years and, with all the Northern retirees flocking to Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill and the rest of the Research Triangle Park area, North Carolina may be in exactly the place Virginia finds itself now. The more immediate question is whether this process is far enough along to affect this year's Senate race. Given George Allen's longstanding popularity in the state, my guess is that once the word Macaca is forgotten, it won't be."

GIULIANI: Country Clubbin'

Right Wing News wants to put an end to the "inordinate amount of positive attention" ex-NY mayor Rudy Giuliani is receiving around the blogosphere. RWN has a lengthy "Conservative Case Against Rudy Giulliani" with subheads including: Rudy's Strong Pro-Abortion Stance, An Anti-Second Amendment Candidate, Soft On Gay Marriage, Pro-Illegal Immigration, Rudy Giuliani: A More Charismatic Version Of Arlen Specter, He Can't Keep His Pants Up, and How Electable Is Rudy Giuliani Really?

Hawkins conclusion: "Despite all of his charisma and the wonderful leadership he showed after 9/11, Rudy Giuliani is not a Reagan Republican. To the contrary, Giuliani is another Christie Todd Whitman, another Arlen Specter, another Olympia Snowe. He's a throwback to the "bad old days" before Reagan, when the GOP was run by moderate, Country Club Republicans who considered conservatives to be extremists."

MCCAIN: We Hope We Never Get Birthday Card From Al

Editor-at-Large of The Hill Albert Eisle takes to The Huffington Post to wish Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) a happy birthday:

"When you celebrate -- if that's the word -- your 70th birthday today (Tuesday), you must be thinking what it would be like to be the oldest person ever to enter the White House should that happen in 2009. ... The bad news is that political reporters, and undoubtedly your rivals, will never let voters forget that you were diagnosed with a deadly form of skin cancer six years ago and had malignant tumors removed from your face and arm after an earlier encounter with skin cancer in 1993. ... Any indication of a possible return of your cancer or evident dimunition in your energy or any other health problem that might keep you from the campaign trail could have a devastating impact on your presidential hopes. That's what political reporters and your rivals will be looking for in the months ahead.
So happy birthday again. Just don't hurt yourself trying to blow out all your candles."

OBAMA: Obamarama

Tom Bevan at the conservative RCP Blog has kudos for Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) performance in Africa:

If you've followed the trip at all you know that Obama's reception in Africa (Kenya in particular) has bordered on reverential. I was particularly impressed by Obama's decision to publicly take an AIDS test on Saturday to raise awareness of the issue and to help break down some of the social taboos that still exist regarding AIDS in Africa. Give Obama credit for making a smart, meaningful gesture - and one he certainly didn't have to make.

BIDEN: Who Needs The South?

Charles P. Pierce at TAPPED looks at Sen. Joe Biden's (D-DE) "My state was a slave state" quote and asks, "It's only August of 2006, and we've already heard the single dumbest thing a Democratic presidential candidate is going to say prior to the 2008 election?"

Also at TAPPED, Tom Schaller questions Biden's need to appeal to southern voters at all. Schaller notes that while it is true that the last three Dems in the WH were all southerners, Clinton's margin over George H. W. Bush was 9.5% lower in the south than in the non-South "making the Big Dog the first Democratic candidate since the Civil War to win the White House despite losing the South."

KATRINA: The Blogging Dems

House min leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) all took to The Huffington Post to criticize Pres. Bush's handling of Katrina and to highlight their own post-Katrina efforts.

• Pelosi: "The incompetence, mishandling, and shear opportunistic greed that has occurred under the President's watch has been stunning. ... Last week, House Democrats formed a Waste, Fraud and Abuse Truth Squad, chaired by Congressmen Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Dennis Cardoza (D-CA). ... Last week, the Truth Squad released a detailed report highlighting the financial mishandling and corruption that has marred the recovery process, dedicating the first Golden Drain Award to the President's Hurricane Katrina contract process. ... And we still need an independent commission, modeled after the 9/11 Commission, to find out what exactly went wrong, why it went wrong, and how to fix it.
• Kennedy: "New Orleans and the Gulf are a national treasure that Americans hold dear for its rich history, vibrant culture and economic vitality. We cannot allow the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress to continue its incompetent response to this terrible tragedy. We owe it not just to those directly affected by Katrina, but to our nation, to meet our commitments and get the job done.
• Feingold: "We've got to do something to help displaced residents - particularly low-income people - who want to move back to New Orleans. I have put together a few different ideas into one bill ... It doesn't tackle every problem, but it will help address some of the tough housing issues facing New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. It includes housing vouchers to help make rents affordable for the lowest income people and families. It also makes housing like the Katrina Cottages - which are more like homes, and less like trailers - more available to those who want them. ... I have been working for years, along with Sen. John McCain, to ensure certain Army Corps of Engineer projects, including the levees, undergo independent peer review. Earlier this summer, I offered an amendment with Senator McCain and others to the Water Resources Development Act to require independent peer review of future Army Corps of Engineers projects that are costly, controversial, or critical to public safety.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Meet The New Kos, Not The Same As The Old Kos

Subbing for the vacationing Andrew Sullivan, David Weigel looks at the RNC's recent anti-Kos hatchet job and laments:

The RNC's briefing reminded me, though, of how much blogs have changed since their liftoff in 2001 and 2002. Kos started off a pro-Democrat blogger who engaged in tense-but-civil discussions with the right-wing and pro-GOP sides of the blogosphere. (I touched on this in a July Reason story about the mainstreaming of blogs.) The first Daily Kos post, archived here, now read like the musings of a Democratic activist calmed beyond reason by a combination of Quaaludes and Republicans holding his family hostage."

LEST WE FORGET: What If A Bear Pooped In The Woods And No One Was There To Smell It?

At TownhallMary Katherine Ham announces "The Club for Growth is uploading some of its classic ads" and includes her '04 flip-flopper favorite. As an added bonus Ham also uploads the '84 Reagan "Bear in the woods" ad and comments:

And, then we have some of that old-school, classic-style, Republican fear-mongering. And, by that I mean audacious ads by Republicans aimed at reminding voters there are real threats out there that the Dems haven't shown as much of an inclination for aggressively defending against. But, you know-- tomato, tomato (which, by the way, is a near-useless phrase in writing).

NOTES AND ERRATA: Team Hotline Needs You!

The Hotline is looking for a Virtual Intern (three hours, five days a week) to assist in daily compilation of Blogometer updates and assist on special projects. Applicants must consider themselves regular consumers of blogs, be familiar with nationally read blogs from across the spectrum; know how to use blog search engines/aggregators (such as Technorati and Memeorandum); be able to quickly analyze and synthesize developments in the news as well as summarize ongoing blog activity with brevity, clarity and accuracy. Excellent writing and time-management skills are also a must.

This is a "virtual" position, so as long as you have always-on Internet access, Firefox, a plain text editor, and a pulse (i.e. actual presence in DC not necessary) you can apply. As with every Hotline position, we don't expect our writers to not have an opinion, we just expect them to keep it out of their work. Interested applicants should send their resumes to ccarroll@nationaljournal.com

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:11 PM

August 28, 2006

8/28: Virtual Straw Better Than Real?

Despite a shaky track record for predicting the final nominee, sometime next year the MSM and a slew of '08 hopefuls will descend on IA for the first '08 straw polls. The rest of the nation may not care a wink, but for hardcore observers (that means you) the results are at least a snapshot of each candidate's momentum and organizational competence. On line, however, straw polls are conducted almost every month. The frequency of these contests allow for a greater sense of momentum, and the technology allows for a more detailed picture of where each candidates support is coming from, and where it might go once that candidate is forced out of the race. The results from GOP Bloggers 8/25-27 '08 straw poll are a great example of on line straw poll potential.

GOP FIELD: Macacad Right Out Of The Race?

GOP Bloggers conducted their latest online '08 straw poll over the weekend. Compared to their July numbers, the biggest winners were ex-Speaker Newt Gingrich, ex-NY mayor Rudy Giuliani, and MA Gov. Mitt Romney. Sen. George Allen's (VA) '08 hopes were "devastated" by the macaca incident. The straw poll asks readers which '08ers are "acceptable" or "not acceptable" and allows readers to select their top choice. Only Allen, Gingrich, Giuliani, and Romney have net positives (Sen. John McCain (AZ) has the 3rd highest neg net rating at 33%).

Machiavel at RedState observes:

• The Macaca incident has clearly devastated Allen's numbers in the blogosphere, his stronghold. ... Once undefined, he has now been defined in a hugely negative way, dropping to fourth with 11.5% support.
• Who's the new conservative "it" candidate? Newt! The conservative mantle has shifted to Newt over the last few months. He got a huge boost last month for being all over the Israel-Hezbollah war.
• Giuliani and Romney show positive movement. There's a consistent pattern of Romney and Giuliani momentum among a few of the bigger blogs participating in the poll. Among RedState readers, Romney moved up a net 10.9% and Giuliani a net 10.8% in acceptability. On RealClearPolitics, Romney moved up 18.9% to Giuliani's 12.5%. On Blogs for Bush, Giuliani moved up 22.8% and Romney was up 14.8%.
• McCain supporters love Giuliani and Giuliani supporters are pretty fond of Romney. A handy reference should either of the two offline frontrunners falter.

The final first choice results looked like this:

Giuliani 24.6%
Gingrich 21.1
Romney 12.8
Allen 11.5
Tancredo 6.7
McCain 6.4
Hagel 2.8
Brownback 2.5
Huckabee 1.5
Frist 1.1
Pataki 0.3

Lefty bloggers took note of their blogger brethren preferences. Under a header "GOP bloggers lining up behind Gingrich as insurgent" Jerome Armstrong at MyDD writes: "They don't have the first-choice numbers from a month ago, but in August, the net movers (compared to the phone polling done) shows the candidacy of Gingrich is alive on the net; that Romney is gaining traction; Giuliani is having the strongest online/offline crossover; and McCain is trailing Tancredo in online support."

MCCAIN: A Rising Dem Tide Will Not Lift All Boats

Zack Exley at DailyKos sums up lefty blogger reaction to Hotline On Call (go team!) reports that ex-Howard Dean aide Nicco Mele has promised to work for Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) Straight Talk America PAC:

I'm friends with Nicco, I really love the guy, and his dance with McCain doesn't change any of that. But here's the deal: McCain has a credible chance of convincing large numbers of uninformed liberals that he is compatible with a progressive agenda. ... Therefore: when folks jump up to help McCain achieve this, there's got to be a price -- even when they're friends of ours. That doesn't mean we stop being friends with them, or that we do anything mean. It just means don't let them have it both ways when it comes to politics and business. Democratic consultants and figureheads need to know that going off to work for McCain means losing their place in the rising Democratic tide.

HAGEL: First They Came For Specter, Then They Came For Chafee...

Adam C at RedState notices that Sen. primary challenges are "en vogue recently" and predicts that Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) will lose his GOP primary should he run for re-election in '08. Adam C writes:

Sen. Hagel has the same negatives (in a mirror image way) as Sen. Lieberman. He hails from a rather conservative state and he has a record of disloyalty that upsets activists. He is obviously contemplating running for President as the Pacifist Republican in 2008 which would leave his seat open. If he decides to run for the Senate, I expect some conservative will challenge him. ... And after 2-4 years of hearing Sen. Hagel spend his time and effort denigrating the U.S. military efforts in the Middle East and the War on Terror, NE GOPers just might follow their hearts to a primary challenger.

ROMNEY: Thanksgiving Already

IA GOP blogger Caucus Cooler reports on MA Gov. Mitt Romney Commonwealth PAC chairman Doug Gross' appearance on "The Insiders." CC reports: "Gross predicted that Rudy Giuliani "would not get in the race unless McCain got out" and would likely "not run for President." He said that if Rudy were to enter, it would likely be at the very end of the campaign and he would ride in on his white horse. Gross reasoned that would give caucus goers less time to "vet" Rudy, and realize how liberal he is on social issues. ... He also said that Romney's poll numbers in Iowa probably wouldn't shoot up for a while citing Thanksgiving 07 as "plenty early."

CLINTON: The Rich Get Richer?

Robert Schlesinger at The Huffington Post takes a minority opinion on who the DNC's new '08 primary schedule benefits the most:

While the rise of the blogosphere, netroots and Internet politics are very exciting, money still makes politics go. And more to the point here, money let's politicians go. To wit: The ground war (grass-roots organizing) and the air war (TV) in the first round of caucuses and primaries will cost more this year since it will take place virtually simultaneously in two states in distinct parts of the country. And bopping the candidate around those four states? The price of jet fuel isn't dropping, in case you haven't noticed.
Broadening the primary, making it more national -- this only benefits the candidate with deep bank accounts. And while Mrs. Clinton has a host of potential problems, being cash-strapped won't be one of them.

Over at TPM CafeM.J. Rosenberg looks at the 8/25 HRC/cable exec Ned Lamont (D-CT) meeting and sees encouraging growth on HRC's part:

In fact, dispatching [Howard] Wolfson to an antiwar campaign to unseat an old Clinton friend is pretty remarkable. Gutsy move by Clinton. I've never been a fan, and am deeply put off by her AIPAC stand on the Israel-Palestinian conflict, but this indicates that she is capable of change. God knows she's smart enough to change. Anyway, it is good news for anti-Iraq war Democrats.

BLOGGERS VS. BELTWAY: Mmmmmm, Warmed Over Second Term Clintonism

DCCC Chair Rahm Emanuel did not make any new friends in the blogosphere with his "Explain to me how two Democrats running is bad" quote from 8/27's New York Times on the impact of Sen. Joe Lieberman's (I-CT) independent run against cable exec Ned Lamont (D).

Natural Born Killers producer and progressive activist Jane Hamsher at firedoglake writes: "But do you really believe Rush Limbaugh or Fox News or Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity talking every day about how great Joe Lieberman is will energize Democrats in November? Because I have to say I have a tough time seeing this, Rahm. I really do." Down with Tyranny sees two possibilities: "Boss Rahm is as stupid as he's pretending to be" or "Boss Rahm is being disingenuous, and in fact is every bit as comfortable as GOP Joe with the Republicans' maintaining control of the House." Atrios honored Emanuel as his " Wanker of the Day."

Meanwhile Emanuel's book The Plan: Big Ideas for America continued to get a chilly blogger reaction. Ezra Klein writes: "Incidentally, I've flipped through The Plan a bit, and I doubt I've ever seen a book with a subtitle so deeply misleading. This is warmed over, second term Clintonism at its incrementialist."

Matt Stoller at MyDD surveys the Emanuel wreckage and forwards his own beef: "Fair enough, though I'm annoyed for a slightly different reason. I just don't see Democratic campaigns doing well. They aren't putting Iraq front and center, and it's not clear to me that the will exists to take on the right clearly and honestly. You can look at the generic Congressional balloting all you want, but it won't mean anything unless campaigns around the country decide that it's in fact a good thing to be a Democrat."

LANDSCAPE '06: Now That We're In Power, What Should We Do?

Chris Bowers at MyDD acknowledges fate tempting but still feels its important to ask "with chances that Democrats will actually win control of at least one branch of congress now very real, what should we do once we are actually governing?" Bowers answer:

My first reaction would be to pass a series of bills that Bush could not possibly veto, such as a real minimum wage hike and earmark reform. Then, I think we should move into passing popular legislation that Bush will probably veto, such as rolling back the tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans, fixing the hideous Medicare bills, and global warming initiatives. From that point on, it is time to investigate, investigate, investigate, especially when it comes to all things Iraq. Don't impeach or censure right away, but keep saying that all options are on the table (thus drawing more attention to the investigations without it seeming like revenge for Clinton). Also, we need to make John McCain vote against a lot of things that are popular and progressive too.

Stirling Newberry at TPM Cafe advises the new Dem majority to "act like outsiders who just came into town" and to immediately start holding hearings on Bush administration malfeasance.

Meanwhile, Adam Hanft at The Huffington Post looks at Dems recent crusade against Wal-Mart and comments: "you can bet a case of Sam's Choice that it's a bad idea." Hanft offers five supporting arguments:

• 1.It brings up the worst of the old lefty imprint. I'm not the first to say this, and I hope I won't be the last. Bashing America's largest company is redolent of a messianic extremism that will not bring back the Reagan Democrats.
• 2.It's hypocritical. There are a lot of companies who are worse corporate citizens than Wal-Mart, whether it comes to health insurance coverage or being the agent of child labor around the world, or energy policy.
• 3.It's a distraction from the real work the Democrats need to do in creating a coherent narrative.
• 4.It's not even the best way to address the widening income gap.
• 5.It's too late. Wal-Mart has seen the green light, even Al Gore has praised their environmental commitment and embrace of sustainability. Geez, they've even joined the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce.

The News Blog hits back with the case against the low-price leader:

• It supports Republicans. The vast majority of their political support goes to the GOP.
• It is virulent anti-union. It spends millions to prevent the unionization of their stores. It is clear that in North America, stores that unionize will be closed. Which is why Wal Mart hasn't opened in New York.
• It's expansion plans have drawn repeated grass roots opposition in blue areas like Chicago and New York. Chicago just passed a forced hike in the minimum wage for Wal Mart.
• The cost of health care by the miserable insurance Wal Mart has provided has created legislative action.
• Wal Mart is a miserable corporate citizen, who's gained such a bad reputation that they have to now make minor concessions to public outrage.

CT SEN: You're Doin A Heck Of A Job Joey

Maura at My Left Nutmeg looks at 8/25's New York Timescoverage of cable exec Ned Lamont's (D-CT) attempt to link Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) with the Katrina disaster and argues the Times left out an important detail: "I'm not sure whether the Lamont campaign didn't hit Lieberman directly on this or whether Medina didn't pick up on it, but what is totally missing from this article is the critical information that Joe Lieberman presided over the 2002 Senate confirmation hearings for Michael Brown and enthusiastically supported his confirmation as Deputy Director of FEMA."

Joejoejoe at DailyKos has a more in depth look at Lieberman's role in FEMA's transition into DHS, including: "Lieberman ignored the advice of many Democratic experts and pushed ahead with his own vision for DHS. People of good will can disagree but shouldn't the Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee and later Ranking Member do some kind of operational oversight to ensure his vision was actually being fulfilled? Sen. Lieberman did no such thing. Just a week before Daalder's prescient testimony Sen. Lieberman confirmed Michael Brown as Deputy Director of FEMA in a 42-minute rubber stamp abomination of a hearing."

At The Huffington Post, Bob Geiger looks at blogger pressure on Senate Dem Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to strip Lieberman of his committee assignments and counsels for cooler heads: "Joe needs to go -- and quickly. And, while many of the calls for harsh action from Reid may be righteous, bloggers castigating him for not stripping Lieberman of his committee assignments ... are simply wrong and not reporting accurately on what is or is not within Reid's authority. ... Based on that procedural construct, Harry Reid can't just unilaterally, or even by a closed vote of the Democratic caucus, strip Lieberman of his committee assignments."

Still looking for ways to force Lieberman out of the race, DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas asks Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) to apply the pressure necessary to dry up Lieberman's money supply: "One of Lieberman's supposed sources of money is Steve Rattner, the NY financier married to former DNC finance director and top Hillary fundraiser Maureen White. It's probably one of his last Democratic-based sources of money. ... Now I don't pretend to know the ins-and-outs of the gazillionaire scene in NYC, I can't imagine anything more boring than that, but Hillary controls a lot of money in that town. And even if she can't pull Rattner out of Lieberman's pocket, she can put pressure on his circle as well. Hillary is the queen bee of NY politics these days.

Finally, Greg Sargent at TPM Cafe calls attention to Lieberman's continued "Contortions On Iraq" outlined in an 8/27 Hartford Courant op-ed and goes on to state Lamont's Iraq position:

Ned Lamont supports the plan advocated by senators John Kerry and Russ Feingold, which calls for a phased withdrawal over the next year. But Lamont has also indicated that in the interests of party unity, he'd also be supportive of an open-ended phased withdrawal, if his party deemed that the better way to go. That's actually a flexible position -- it's a preference for withdrawal within a year, but tempered by a willingness to draw out the withdrawal over a longer period if that's what his party's consensus dictates. It's not solely a rigid commitment to a single arbitrary date.

RI SEN: When's The Circus Coming To Town?

TPM Cafe's Greg Sargent looks at favorable MSM coverage of Cranston Mayor Stephen Laffey (R) and asks: "When is the national press corps going to descend on Rhode Island? When will Wolf Blitzer, Tim Russert and other bigfoot national pundits bemoan the fact that "sensible" and "courageous" moderate Chafee may have no place in his party? When will we start hearing dire warnings that the GOP risks being captured by its extreme right wing? When?"

VA SEN: Kissing Kossack Macacas

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas reports that the UVA Law student that disrupted a Sen George Allen event at the (R-VA) Staunton, VA Holiday Inn is a regular DailyKos diarist and adds: "And the monkey and banana suits are brilliant, with the potential of becoming as iconic as the Kiss Float in Connecticut if local activists adopt the stunt."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: What's Cookin?

As part of an ongoing series, Extreme Mortman gets Cook Political Report Publisher Charlie Cook to identify which blogs he uses to cover the '06 elections:

Now getting closer to the actual question, my favorite political sites are politicalarithmetik.blogspot.com and mysterypollster.com for polling analysis. News aggregators I use are Drudge, Realclearpolitics and Taegan Goddard's politicalwire.
Larry Sabato and David Wasserman down at UVA do a great job with crystalball too.

In terms of races, I only check in with the blogs once or twice a week, don't have time to do it any more often than that. Everything I've mentioned above totals hundreds of pages of reading each week. On the left, it's easier: Daily Kos, MyDD and Swingstateproject all have pretty good discussions of races. There is a lot of cheerleading by various people posting but useful insights can also be found.

It's harder on the right, because while there are plenty of right-of-center political sites, freerepublic.com for example. Not many have conversations about specific contests - redstate.com is the one that stands out. I've heard the theory that since the left is out of power, they are more focused on the individual races needed to get back in power. On the right, much more of the conversation is about political topics, but not individual races. That sounds plausible to me. Presumably whenever conservatives lose power, their focus will shift as well.

The bloggers got my attention last summer when they spotted the special election in Ohio's second district as getting competitive before anyone in DC did. While many political bloggers are wrong far often more than right, they credentialed themselves as worth looking at just because I hate being wrong about anything.

LEST WE FORGET: Mel's Company

Yes But No But Yes sympathizes with Mel Gibson over his love for Dewars (but not for anti-semittism) and goes on to offer his 20 worst Hollywood career moves including

• After seven seasons of helping build Late Night with Conan O'Brien into a cult comedy hit, sidekick Andy Richter leaves to pursue an acting career. Hey, that Andy Richter controls the universe show lasted a while, didn't it?
• After five seasons, Shelley Long leaves the cast of Cheers to pursue a career in film. Her first project after leaving the show, Troop Beverly Hills makes 5 million at the box office. Shelley should be the spokesperson for Bad Career Choice Magazine, as her case is always the one mentioned when it comes to poor tv-to-movie decisions. Cheers lasted six more seasons, but Shelley did go on to make The Brady Bunch in the White House, so who's laughing now?
• Craig Kilborn leaves The Daily Show after three seasons to host the CBS Late Late show. Then leaves the CBS show to shift to a career behind the scenes as a writer. Hey look, a two-time winner. I'll bet you forgot Craig Kilborn was the original host of the Daily Show. But if he left the late night gig to be a writer, why has he taken supporting roles in Shaggy Dog and The Benchwarmers.

NOTES AND ERRATA: Team Hotline Needs You!

The Hotline is looking for a Virtual Intern (three hours, five days a week) to assist in daily compilation of Blogometer updates and assist on special projects. Applicants must consider themselves regular consumers of blogs, be familiar with nationally read blogs from across the spectrum; know how to use blog search engines/aggregators (such as Technorati and Memeorandum); be able to quickly analyze and synthesize developments in the news as well as summarize ongoing blog activity with brevity, clarity and accuracy. Excellent writing and time-management skills are also a must.

This is a "virtual" position, so as long as you have always-on Internet access, Firefox, a plain text editor, and a pulse (i.e. actual presence in DC not necessary) you can apply. As with every Hotline position, we don't expect our writers to not have an opinion, we just expect them to keep it out of their work. Interested applicants should send their resumes to ccarroll@nationaljournal.com

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:31 PM

August 24, 2006

8/24: Markos Who?

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas officially made the RNC's hit list 8/23 when the RNC sent out "Who Is Markos Moulitsas Zuniga?" briefing. The Blogometer has doubts about how effective this tactic will be especially in light of 8/24's Scott Winship's observations on the political knowledge of the average American. Markos may be a household name in DC, but to be an effective Michael Moore like foil, the RNC better hope he gets a lot more famous.

BLOGGERS VS. BELTWAY: It's An Old Fashion Crazy Off

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas wasted little time responding to the RNC's "attack piece" on him: "I'd fire whoever wrote it. I expect future Republican Party hit pieces on me to be better focused and use more effective examples of my liberalism. I'm not exaggerating, I've had over 10 reporters email me the hit-piece laughing at how bad it is."

Hullabaloo took the opportunity to note the RNC's support of UN amb. John Bolton who recently gave an interview to one of the most shocking extremists in the right blogosphere" Pamela "Atlas" Oshry [ed. note: seen here live-blogging from the beach in her bikini]. Hullabaloo asks: "Why he was being "interviewed" one-on-one by the wingnut-gone-wild while he was supposedly right in the middle of brokering a cease-fire between Israel and Lebanon a couple of weeks ago."

Seeing the Forest ads: "If you are wondering why Bush sounds SO far, far right lately - things like his new war against Islam ("Islamofascists") theme - it's because of who he is spending time with. .. Power Line is a far, far right-wing weblog. This is the Democrats-are-terrorists-who-must-be-executed-for-treason and immediately-nuke-Iran crowd."

BLOGGERS VS. AMERICA: Apparently Winship Never Catches The Tonight Show

The Democratic Strategist's Scott Winship got lefty bloggers ruminating over the ignorance of the American electorate with a link to Stephen Earl Bennett's latest article in Public Opinion Press on the "ignorance" of American adults. Winship highlights some Bennett findings:

Bennett found that nearly one-third of adults were unaware that the Republican Party is more conservative than the Democratic Party. And lest the reader think that this is an expression of cynicism rather than a lack of knowledge, Bennett found that whether or not respondents knew there were major differences between the two parties was associated with the amount of knowledge they had of major politicians and the parties but not with their levels of governmental trust.

Winship underscores the importance of the findings:

The whole point of polling is to obtain an accurate picture of the state of public opinion and preferences, but if voters are generally uninformed, then we might hesitate to craft public policies around those preferences. Furthermore, uninformed voters might be vulnerable to deceptive framing of policy debates, such that their preferences may be quite malleable, which of course renders polling data problematic as a guide to strategy. The textbook example illustrating both points is the majoritarian belief that Saddam Hussein had a hand in the 9/11 attacks, which greatly facilitated the Administration's goal of invading Iraq and overthrowing Hussein.

Lefty bloggers saw the results as a call to action:

• Dave Johnson at Huffington Post: "It's so important to understand that we are not the audience we need to reach. We think that others know what we know. And we get so far ahead of regular people in our online discussions that people tuning in for the first time can barely understand what we're talking about -- or can't understand at all."
• Matthew Yglesias at Talking Points Memo: "Ignorance is, if not bliss, then at least widespread. One of the things political pundits least appreciate about America is that substantial numbers of people basically have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to politics and that the deeply ignorant are also much more persuadable than the well-informed."
• Hullabaloo: "But the fact remains that this is not good for the country. We simply cannot adequately govern ourselves if a large number of us are dumb as posts and vote for reasons that make no sense."
• Atrios: "Centrist voters who conform to the rough Washington Post editorial board center-right position do exist, but most of what we think of as "swing voters" are either completely clueless or they're more in the Ross Perot/Pat Buchanan/Reform Party mold (not mutually exclusive categories) for which there is no clear party. .. You reach clueless voters by leading, not pandering, because their cluelessness makes them somewhat difficult to pander to. ... And, no, saying people are clueless about politics is not necessarily insulting them. I pay attention to politics. A lot of people don't. They may be smart about many things but not so smart about politics.

CLINTON: Standing At The Crossroads, Is Clinton Sinking Down?

Arianna Huffington at her Huffington Post sees the upcoming Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY)/cable exec Ned Lamont (D-CT) meeting as "a crossroads moment for both Hillary and the Democratic Party." Arianna argues HRC's tepid support of Lamont validates "behind-the-scenes rumblings" that HRC wants Lieberman victory to cover her left flank on the Iraq war. Huffington writes:

She's not raising money for Lamont and she's not yet scheduled any campaign appearances with him either. It's not by accident that their meeting is in Chappaqua, not Connecticut. The mountain/Mohammad casting is clear. Compare her actions with those of John Kerry and John Edwards who are doing all they can to help Lamont.

Huffington argues that GOPers are backing Lieberman, because they have proven they can beat "Lieberman Democrats" but that "Lamont Democrats" which "represent a re-energized opposition, a reinvigorated Democratic Party fueled by progressive ideals, a willingness to stand up to the GOP smear machine" scare "the hell out of Bush and company." Huffington concludes:

Which is why Hillary needs to come out of her meeting with Lamont and hit the campaign trail on his behalf. Hard and often. Not only is this the right thing to do, it's also the smart thing to do to improve her chances for '08. Ned Lamont represents the future of the Democratic Party; Lieberman its past.

WARNER: We Get It, Bloggers Don't Wear Suits And Ties

Ex-VA Gov. Mark Warner (D) blazed a blogger trail through PA 8/22. First Warner and Iraq war vet Patrick Murphy (D) sat down for lunch with Booman Tribune, Atrios, Susie Madrak, and Alex Urevick-Ackelsberg at "the law offices of Dilworth-Paxon LLP." Booman reports: "Alex and I crashed their suit party in our typical summer garb, much to the consternation of some of the more staid rainmakers. ... high powered attorneys look just like Republicans...white, well-fed, expensive cuff links, big white fuzzy untrimmed eyebrows. But looks can be deceiving. These are the real DLC Democrats. They want free trade and corporate friendly policies. And they don't want anyone to mess with the bottom line for trial attorneys. They're allies, but only to a point. Warner knew just what to say to them."

Booman again gushed about Warner's performance: "And Warner was very, very impressive. He keeps improving every time I see him, and I would characterize his performance as just shy of Clintonesque. He was inspiring." Iraq also came up and Booman gave Warner credit for not sounding like Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT):

Warner's position has changed since I talked to him in April or May. His new line is: staying in Iraq isn't making us safer and we need to get out. But getting out without a plan isn't any better than going in without a plan. When asked what the plan is, he says the plan is to take back Congress. It's a slippery piece of rhetoric, but very effective. The timeline debate didn't come up, and I am sure that was intentional. Nevertheless, there is a now a visible gap between Warner and Lieberman's respective positions.

Later that same day Warner spoke at a fundraiser for Adm. Joe Sestak (D-PA) also attended by Chris Bowers of MyDD who "still, wearing a "blog" tee shirt and a pair of slacks...stuck out like a sore thumb in the crowd." Bowers reports: "Mark Warner was at the event. I can tell you right now: he is going to raise a ton of money in 2008. He really knows how to communicate with this type of crowd."

MCCAIN: Back-Stabber Or Rove Operative, You Decide

Many, but not all, righty bloggers linked to Hotline On Call's report that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) hired Dean for America's webmaster Nicco Mele. Conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt writes: "Senator John McCain has assembled a very talented online campaign team, with many Bush-Cheney pros. But he also has brought on board the head of Howard Dean's online operations."

Many more righty pixels were devoted to McCain's 8/22 criticism of Pres. Bush's pre-Iraq war statements:

• K at RedState: "John McCain has always thrived as an outsider, a maverick. He is at his best when he is back-stabbing fellow Republicans and earning kudos from an admiring press. Can he survive, let alone function as GOP Frontrunner/Nominee and Party leader? I don't think so."
• Instapundit: "The substance of McCain's claim is pretty weak ... But this isn't a "backstab." In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it were choreographed by Karl Rove. Democrats forget it, but Bush doesn't matter much from the perspective of 2008, and if the GOP can get mileage out of Bush-bashing, it will.
• Ryan Sager at RCP Blog: "I think McCain is probably right on the substance here. The administration did under-sell the difficulties at times. But this also highlights one of the great political difficulties when it comes to McCain's '08 run (at least in the primaries): He can't distance himself from an unpopular president and an unpopular war without playing into the "McCain is disloyal" storyline. A lot of conservatives don't want "a repeat of Bush," so to speak, but any criticism -- however veiled -- from Sen. Maverick is going to be ill-taken.

FRIST: Between Blogging And Heart Surgery Its A Wonder He Has Time To Be Majority Leader

At VOLPAC.org Sen. maj leader Bill Frist (R-TN) reports: "On the road tonight, after a full day with great candidates and committed patriots in Alabama. While scrolling down Instapundit a little while ago, I found a blog post from Andrew Stuttaford at The Corner, discussing the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (S. 2590), an important bill that I co-sponsored and that I tried to pass earlier this month."

Stuttaford's earlier post warned Sen GOPers of a "throw the bums out" mentality and asked "Are you paying attention, Senator Frist?" Frist was and answered:

Many in the blogosphere, left and right, have rallied to support this crucial legislation, which is fitting, for no group better knows the power of technologically empowered grassroots activism. And, for reasons of policy and politics, many bloggers are rightly outraged that S. 2590 was shot down when I attempted to bring it up for a vote prior to the August recess. ... I hope folks recognize that there is a real choice between Democrats and Republicans on matters of taxes and spending. ... So the choice you make at the ballot box this fall is important: a Republican party willing to tackle the budget, remember, we froze non-defense, nonhomeland security spending this year, then reallocated spending so that the border will be secured first, or Democrats who just can't resist their impulse to tax and spend.

As always with the 'sphere, the story did not end there. Kathryn Jean Lopez, also at The Corner, responded: "I'd be more interested in Frist's blogging if the Majority Leader had more leader-like language ... A few kudos to Frist though - for being on board the database bill, which we've editorialized in favor of, for recognizing Andrew's mood is a real one out there, for responding to Stuttaford."

Robert Bluey at Right Angle Blog also liked the effort but demanded to see follow through: "I'm glad Senator Frist chose to respond to Stuttaford's question. But he needs to realize that bloggers will hold him to his promise -- just like we won't forget about his commitment to confirming John Bolton and conservative judges."

By deadline, Lopez had also soured: "I think it's great that folks are pressuring him to bring the database bill up in the two weeks Senate has left in this Congress. But I have my doubts anything will happen - and gauging the mood of some Senate staff yesterday I didn't notice optimism but the same-old-Senate realism in the air. Bill Frist could have made some news yesterday, instead he just used the blogosphere to expand his misleadership."

GILMORE: Maybe He Can Get A Show On The WB

IA GOP blogger Caucus Cooler pokes fun at DraftGilmore.com's "Why Jim Gilmore for President?" banner. The Cooler quips "Great Question" and adds: "The best part is that they have a website. draftgilmore.com. They have a flier titled "America needs Gilmore." America needs Gilmore like the Cooler staff needs hemroids. ... Maybe Jim Nicholson or Bill Brock want to run. This is great comedy. We really hope the Gilmore folks come into the Cooler and argue for their guy. That would be great."

LANDSCAPE: Mine's Bigger

Chris Bowers at MyDD celebrates the fundraising success of the MyDD, DailyKos & Swing State Project Act Blue candidate slate: "Our big pre-Labor Day fundraiser is going extremely well. As of 9:10 pm, we have raised a total of $55,951.84 for the candidates on our list since 12:01 a.m. on Monday. With the 50K barrier smashed, we are now very close to $500,000 raised for the entire page. In less than three days, this one Act Blue page has out-raised Rightroots for this entire cycle (they currently stand at $43,899)."

Howie Klein at firedoglake sits down with Act Blue Co-Founder Ben Rahn. Rahn jokes: "When I started blogging it was such a solitary deal just me and my computers and my iTunes in my pajamas down in the office. But now oh, it's just a non-stop party. Actually I don't even own pajamas and I'm not a partier but blogging has become way more than just a solitary endeavor."

CT SEN: Your Endorsements Fine, But I Don't Want Your Dirty Money

Spazeboy has video from UAW's 8/23 endorsement of cable exec. Ned Lamont (D-CT). The video includes Region 9A director Bob Madore announcing that UAW's PAC is giving $5K to Lamont, and hands Lamont an oversized check. This led to the following exchange:

Reporter: "Ned your campaign has said they wouldn't except contributions from PACs, are you excepting this contrubution?"Lamont: "No."Reporter: "So where will it go?"Lamont: "We will see."

The video ends with Madore promising 5K volunteers in place of the $5k.

Later BranfordBoy at MyLeftNutmeg educated reporters on Lamont's PAC contribution distinctions: "Lamont has made it clear that he thinks the lobbyists and special interests who own politicians like Joe Lieberman are the only bipartisan force on Capitol Hill. These groups form PACs (Political Action Committees) to funnel money to pols who will do their bidding. Lamont has pledged not to accept this kind of PAC money. ... However -- wake up members of the Fourth Estate, important point ahead -- Lamont will accept contributions from so-called Leadership PACs set up by other Democrats."

The official Lamont Blog also updates Lieberman's efforts to nail down a new web presence:

First was Blue State Digital. When approached by the Lieberman campaign, their response was "Thank you for your inquiry about Blue State Digital's technology services. Unfortunately, we cannot be of service to the Lieberman campaign. We work exclusively with Democratic candidates."

Many ironies here, folks. First, Blue State Digital does our technical work, and provides our tools for meaningful online participation. That Senator Lieberman's staff didn't know that is another sign of their web-incompetence. Second, it's the Blue State tech team we offered to send them on election day as they cried foul over their website "hack" to anyone with a camera, microphone, or steno notepad.

And after Blue State Digital, Plus Three closed the door as well. In a similar fashion, the company told Senator Lieberman to find another vendor, they too will not work with the Connecticut for Lieberman Party. I wonder what Democratic technology vendor would work with Senator Lieberman this election cycle? With all the damage he is doing to the Party in CT and across the country, coupled with the online support we have earned who?

MT SEN: You Can Never Go Home

John Derbyshire at National Review Online forwards one readers pessimistic outlooks on Sen. Conrad Burns (R) chances:

My family is from Western Montana. In 80% of the country my father would be seen as a reddest of red Republicans, but he is a registered Dem. He voted for Bush twice, but is looking forward to voting AGAINST Burns. ... Speaking of Burns, he will lose, but not due to some overwhelming desire to replace him with a Democrat, but because he's the kind of guy that really gets under your skin after a while. As much as Republicans will try and paint Tester as a Daily Kos liberal loon, it won't fly.

I'm not sure how much time you spent in [Missoula] itself but even a few hours and you'd see that 'crunchy' is a good way to decribe the place. However, even among the Saab driving, Kashi eating, merlot drinking crowd, the county went 50/50 red/blue in both 2000 and 2004. It's like San Francisco living with Ohio style voting. ... I left Montana for college 12 years ago and ended up on the east coast and then in California. I go back to visit every 3-4 months .. I want to stay. But then I realize that since I am neither a professor, a doctor or a BLM manager, my job prospects are very limited. At least prospects to make the kind of money I make now. But some day, when I've stashed enough away, I will return.

PA SEN: Don't Call It A Comeback

Conservative bloggers hopes for retaining Sen. Rick Santorum's (R-PA) seat are high after recent polls show Santorum closing the gap between himself and Treas. Bob Casey. Erick at RedState writes: "While it's never good for an incumbent to be down, the trend lines have been favorable to Senator Santorum over the past few months. And a number of people on the left and right are in agreement that the more people hear Junior talk, the more people will be inclined to support Santorum. And, will the militant pro-abortion folks, really want to vote for a pro-life Democrat? I doubt it."

Conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt chimes in: "The latest polling data from Pennsylvania shows the tightening in the Santorum-Casey race. Senator Santorum's political history is a replay of the come-from-behind-and-win in the last days story, and the 2006 edition of this familiar tale is being helped along by the hapless campaign of Robert Casey, Jr, who thinks if he says almost nothing about anything he can slip in. It isn't working, and the campaign hasn't even gotten into the middle rounds yet."

Over on the left Rachel Weiner at TPM Cafe notes a CT SEN crossover into the race: "GOP incumbent Senator Rick Santorum is using Joe Lieberman to paint his Dem opponent, Bob Casey Jr., as bad for the Jews. According to OpEd news, Santorum sent out a letter extolling Lieberman as a "well-known supporter of Israel" and bashing Casey for not supporting him: "You may not be shocked to find out that Bobby Casey, Jr. DOES NOT SUPPORT Senator Lieberman in the upcoming election."

RI SEN: Something The Corner And Kos Agree On?

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas looks at the NRSC's latest pro-Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) ad under the header "NRSC goes racist" and asks: "I wonder what "moderate" Lincoln Chafee thinks about this NRSC fear-mongering. Apparently, it's bad that Laffey, a real wingnut mind you, didn't put Mexicans in concentration camps as mayor of Cranston. As an aside, that's the Republican Party running ads against Republican Steve Laffey. As much as we get pissed at the DSCC and DCCC for meddling in primaries, neither has done anything this heavy handed."

Meanwhile Kathryn Jean Lopez at National Review Online is just happy she's found something her and kos agree on: "The National Republican Senatorial Committee runs an ad against Steve Laffey - hitting him on allowing Mexicans to use consular IDs in Cranston. (More on this smoldering debate here.) I believe that means the NRSC holds the mayor of Cranston, Rhode Island, to a higher standard that the GOP expects anyone to hold the president of the United States to - nevermind Chafee (What have you done to ban consular ids lately, Senator?)"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: It's The Growth Stupid

Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly argues that liberals are not concerned with income inequality per se, but rather stagnant middle class wages. Drum identifies two ways unequal growth can happen:

1.The rich suck up vast amounts of income growth, and this leaves very little money for the middle class. Thus, wages for the middle class are stagnant or, at best, rising slowly. 2.Middle class wages are kept stagnant, and this frees up vast amounts of money from economic growth. The money has to go somewhere, and it goes to the rich.

Drum goes on:

"Now, obviously, it doesn't have to be one or the other. It could be both. But I suspect there's a lot more analytic power in #2 than in #1. ... Government policies simply don't seem to have a big enough direct impact on the pretax income of high earners to explain the vast shift we've seen over the past few decades. What's more, the middle class is big. If there were significant pressure to keep middle class incomes rising in line with economic growth, it would take titanic amounts of government action to swim against that tide and direct the money instead to the rich. It's nearly impossible to see a mechanism that could allow this to happen."

But - government policies that affect #2 seem far more plausible. For example: Appoint members to the Federal Reserve who are obsessed with inflation and act to cool down the economy at the least sign that average hourly wages are rising. Make it harder to form unions in new industries, thus reducing the bargaining power of the working class. Support free trade agreements that put downward wage pressure on low-income workers. Support tax and deregulation policies that make middle class jobs less secure.

This seems far more likely to account for most of what's happening. If you can maintain pressure on median wages, the rest happens automatically. After all, the income from economic growth has to go somewhere, and if it's not going to the middle class it's going to end up going to the rich. Where else can it go?

LEST WE FORGET: Sometimes A Puppet Is Just A Puppet

Bull Dog Pundit at Ankle Biting Pundits notes a Philadelphia Inquirerstory on PC and "stupid-right winger" push back against Sesame Street's newest character Abby who is : "3, talkative, but shy around strangers. Sometimes she gets so nervous that she disappears. She's capable of turning things into pumpkins, but not so good at turning them back."

Bull dog writes:

Why is it that adults can't just stay out of such matters and let kids enjoy it. They did this crap with the "Math Is Hard" Barbie, the Teletubbies (who all should be shot, not because one of them might be gay according to Jerry Falwell, but because they are perhaps the most annoying characters ever on Children's TV, with Barney running a close second), and even my favorite, Spongebob Squarepants, has not been immune from criticism by stupid-right wingers who have implied that he promotes homosexuality.

Dear God, can people on both sides just stay out of harmless characters - especially FREAKING PUPPETS - on children's TV and let kids be kids. There are more than enough adult things to fight about. You all should be ashamed of yourselves. And besides, for those of us with little kids, sometimes the TV can be a great 15-30 minute "babysitter."

NOTES AND ERRATA: Team Hotline Needs You!

The Hotline is looking for a Virtual Intern (three hours, five days a week) to assist in daily compilation of Blogometer updates and assist on special projects. Applicants must consider themselves regular consumers of blogs, be familiar with nationally read blogs from across the spectrum; know how to use blog search engines/aggregators (such as Technorati and Memeorandum); be able to quickly analyze and synthesize developments in the news as well as summarize ongoing blog activity with brevity, clarity and accuracy. Excellent writing and time-management skills are also a must.

This is a "virtual" position, so as long as you have always-on Internet access, Firefox, a plain text editor, and a pulse (i.e. actual presence in DC not necessary) you can apply. As with every Hotline position, we don't expect our writers to not have an opinion, we just expect them to keep it out of their work. Interested applicants should send their resumes to ccarroll@nationaljournal.com

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:29 PM

August 23, 2006

8/23: Where Nothing Ever Dies

One of the problems Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts authors David Dunbar and Brad Reaganidentified when refuting 9/11 conspiracies on the internet is that once posted on the internet, stories keep returning in different places no matter how many times they are refuted. The Blogometer's top two stories 8/23 share a similar theme. "Macaca" may or may not have been as big a story without blogger help, but Sen. George Allen (R-VA) campaign manager Dick Wadhams gave bloggers fodder for at least one more day with the leak of a memo on a "tough week" that began with Allen's 8/11 macaca statement. Also on that day, a conference call between Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) Iraq war veteran Patrick Murphy (D-PA) turned ugly twice when; first it was crashed by Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (R-PA) CoS Mike Conallen and now audio posted by bloggers has surfaced of a contentious exchange between Kerry and The Hill reporter Jonathan Kaplan. The fall out from the second exchange has been limited so far, but the Blogometer doesn't expect the issue to die anytime soon.

BLOGGERS VS. MSM: That Must've Been Some Conference Call

The highlight reel from 8/11's conference call between Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) Iraq war veteran Patrick Murphy (D-PA) continues to grow with the release of more confrontational audio, this time between Kerry and The Hill reporter Jonathan Kaplan. The latest excitement began when Kaplan asked Murphy: "Do you think Ned Lamont's victory in Connecticut hurts or helps your chances of defeating the GOP incumbent?" Not satisfied with Murphy response Kaplan pushed the question again and after Murphy answered Kerry lectured Kaplan that the press: ""should not allow them [the GOP] to be able to try to transform failure into an offensive policy to suggest that someone is weak because they have an alternative that works."

Kaplan was not amused by Kerry's tone and shot back: "Isn't that your job not ours?" Kerry did not back down: ""We communicate through you ... We need to invite you to hold them accountable ... We speak but if it doesn't get out there, the American people don't hear it."

The fun didn't stop there. Kaplan later asked bloggers on the conference the call "Hey if you're going to blog about it and rip Fitzpatrick, why don't you rip Kerry for blaming the media for how he can't communicate with the American people." When a blogger responded "the media does not put the Kerry message out" Kaplan shot back: "Screw that and Screw him!! For Him to criticize us, it's his own fault." The call breaks down from there but Kaplan can be heard saying: "Actually i shouldn't have even said that because I'm going to get in trouble."

VA SEN: Macaca Day 9

Lefty bloggers gleefully picked up Sen. George Allen (R-VA) campaign manager Dick Wadhams' leaked campaign memo "Notes on a tough week." Reactions include:

• John in DC at AMERICAblog: "Particularly interesting is that the campaign manager claims Allen apologized to the guy he attacked. In fact, Allen has yet to talk to the student.
• Matt Stoller at MyDD: "Reading this memo, it's become clear that George Allen isn't sorry for his racist comment. Allen put out some soft words to appease those who are uncomfortable with racism, but is also allowing his campaign manager to embrace the full-throated repudiation of that fake apology. As long as Wadhams is George Allen's campaign manager, we'll know that Allen stands behind his racist quip."
• Michael Crowley at TNR: "This is a real classic of the conservative-damage-control genre. Media-bashing/conspiracism. "The race card." Name-dropping MoveOn. The only things missing are Jane Fonda and the word "chardonnay." (P.S. Truly shocking omission: blog-bashing!)"

VA SEN II: Army Officers On A Train

Todd Smyth at pro-Webb Raising Kaine reports from the metro:

"I was wearing a Webb brochure in my shirt pocket on the Metro coming home from DC to Virginia and struck up a conversation with a quiet fellow Democratic passenger. There was an army officer in front of us and we were talking softly about the drain our country is now circling and how we need people like Jim Webb in office to help stop the disaster. Eventually the Army officer turned around and asked me "Yea, but what's he gonna do about Iraq?" He said it like he just pulled it off the official GOP teletype of talking points; certain he had delivered the final word. Without even thinking, I softly blurted out: "He's gonna tell the truth." ... You could have heard a pin drop and the look on the guys face was like I just informed him there was no Santa Claus."

Also at Raising Kainephriendlyjaime wants to import the Lieberman "kiss float" idea to VA: "Think of what it could look like! George Bush and George Allen, both in cowboy boots and hats, with a big 97% sign hanging between them to show the voting record. We could put a noose on a tree on the float, and we could adorn it with confederate flags and of course, pictures of monkeys."

Raising Kaine also links to Webb's new internet ad and Webb Netroots Coordinator Lowell Feld picks up on a Hotline On Call report that Team Allen is looking to employ a conservative blogger "who can blunt future attacks and help rally conservatives in the state and elsewhere behind Allen's campaign." Feld comments: "Seems to me that Chris LaCivita and Company should be able to pick someone up at this weekend's blogger conference in Martinsville."

Conservatives also picked up on the O.C.'s item, Captain's Quarters writes: "Bloggers have to write quickly and effectively about breaking news stories, the same kinds of skills needed to succeed in political damage control. The more successful bloggers have influence with a number of other bloggers, gaining at least enough credibility for their positions for a fair hearing. ... Will a blogger help Allen recover from the "macaca" gaffe? It might be a chicken-soup solution: it certainly wouldn't hurt. In the best possible relationship, a well-connected blogger would have consulted on the response to ensure it didn't make matters worse."

CLINTON: Well It Is A Big Decision

Arianna Huffington at her own Huffington Post links to Time's Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) cover story and comments: "On top of 32 full-time employees and 10 Senate staffers partially assigned to it, Clinton's "political operation" now includes 13 political consultants. That seems like quite a bit of input for someone the article describes as "genuinely undecided" about running for president. ... But it is very much in keeping with the political profile that has emerged since Hillary transformed herself from First Lady to Presumptive Presidential Frontrunner. And that profile is unmistakably of a politician more comfortable following than leading."

EDWARDS: How Many Americas Are There?

Kate O'Beirne at National Review Online is buzy keeping an eye on John Edwards (D) so her conservative readers don't have to:

The former senator has been in Connecticut raising money for Lamont, says Lieberman should get out of the race, and all his senior aides from the '04 campaign have signed on for '08. He has campaign organizations set up in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. The Democratic party has scheduled the South Carolina primary just a week after New Hampshire in 2008. Unlike in 2004, Edwards's native state won't be sharing the spotlight with a handful of others. His political PAC's website (confusingly called "One America") offers podcasts of his conversation with Jimmy Carter and has a special appeal to "citizen journalists." His children remain adorable. John "Two Americas" Edwards, who wants to be president of both of them, is working it hard - he bears watching even if we can't bear watching.

GIULIANI: Hawkeye Doldrums

The unofficial Giuliani Blog pumps Victory Enterprises numbers showing NY mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) leading the GOP field, and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) by 13 points, among IA caucus growers.

The Caucus Cooler was less impressed: "Seriously if we have to post any more polls that have Rudy, McCain or Condi in the lead and everyone else at 3%- with maybe a Newt wildcard- we're going to die of boredom. It's all name ID. The only thing this shows you is that Rudy will a contender if he jumps in."

HAGEL: Alex Trebek Loves Him

Mark Kilmer at RedState fingers Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) as the next MSM darling:

As has been pointed out this morning, Chuck Hagel has now "officially" supplanted John McCain, at least in the eyes of this WashPost book reviewer, as the straight talkin', outsider, maverick, martyr for his belief in what's right. John McCain has been reduced to "administration booster," while Chuck Hagel has fallen out of favor with the rightwing, GOP establishment for "repeatedly challenging the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill and leveling bruising critiques of President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq and domestic policy."

ROMNEY: Will GOPers Buy Evolution Story?

Kathryn Jean Lopez at National Review Online looks at Hotline On Call reports of Campaign for Michigan Families chairman Gary Glenn recent anti-Romney fatwa and responds:

I, ahem, know a few folks partial to Romney. Among them, I don't think I know anyone who has not raised questions. For one thing, there's no denying he is a born-again pro-lifer. (I rather that direction than the other - popular with many a pol.) Do you buy his evolution or not? That's a question....
It'd be pretty silly to not question and know what you're dealing with this far out. That's in part what 2006 is for."

LANDSCAPE: How Big Of A Deal Is This?

Rob Autry at GOP pollster hangout crosstabs sees good news in USA Today/Gallup's latest numbers showing generic GOPers within two points of Dems (45%-47%) but wonders how permanent it is: "How big of a deal is this? Well, we should wait and see if other polls follow this trend, but should it hold, this is very big deal. Whether this is a temporary tilt or a more permanent shift, only time will tell. Fortunately for Republicans, Americans do change their mind."

If, however, the trend does not continue, ShopFloor.org looks at the National Association of Manufacturers vote ratings for the would be Dem committee chairs should Dems retake the house. [ed note: NAM rankings aren't kind to Dem leadership].

AZ SEN: MS 13 Ain't Exactly The Boy Scouts

Greg Sargent at TPM Cafe is not impressed with Sen. Jon Kyl's (R-AZ) newest TV ad: "GOP incumbent Senator Jon Kyl -- who's facing a challenge from Dem Jim Pederson -- equates Mexican immigration with terrorism in his latest TV ad. The whole spot is about terrorism, featuring pictures of terrorists and planes taking off. At one point, the ad's narrator says, "Jon Kyl wrote the law that now allows search and intercept of terrorists like Moussaoui." For about a second during the narration of that line, the screen presents a picture of Kyl standing near what appears to be the Mexican border -- a clear effort by the Kyl campaign to link Mexican immigration with terrorism."

CT SEN: WW III

Greg Sargent at TPM Cafe had his tape recorder on for Sen. Joe Lieberman's (I-CT) appearance on the "ultra-conservative" Glenn Beck radio show. Sargent transcribes some highlights and summarizes: "Lieberman agreed with virtually everything Beck said, and claimed he was "proud" of the conservative host. Lieberman agreed with Beck that we're in the middle of World War III. Lieberman agreed with Beck when he said that there was a risk that the "entire Middle East will be on fire." And Lieberman agreed with Beck when he said that the real reason we invaded Iraq wasn't over WMD but because we wanted to "pop the head of the snake in Iran."

ARG's latest poll showing Lieberman with a two point lead over cable exec Ned Lamont (D-CT), 44%-42%, pleased progressive bloggers. Chris Bowers at MyDD comments on the poll: "It also has too many Republicans ... I am liking our chances more and more."

Bill Cullo at GOP pollster hangout crosstabs comments on the polls undecideds: " The really interesting part of ARG's CT Statewide is the undecided voters. ARG shows the undecided portion at 11%. While Lieberman is well known and largely viewed favorably by undecided voters (57% fav/43% unfav), Lamont faces real trouble with this crowd. Specifically among the undecided voters, Lamont is pretty much a blank slate (55% i.e. 6% total) have no impression of him - how that's possible is beyond me. Still, that's a problem/opportunity certainly. However, the balance of the undecided largely views Lamont unfavorably.

MD SEN: She Said, He Said

Rachel Weiner at TPM Cafe notices something missing from LG Michael Steele's latest TV ad: "It never once mentions the GOP, whose logo is nowhere to be seen. "Instead of the spin, I'll talk straight about what's wrong in both parties," Steele says. Watch the ad here."

Leon H Wolf at RedState responds: "Of course, the fact that Steele is running against a partisan tilt of at least 15 points has nothing to do with his failure to trumpet his party affiliation at all. Nossir."

PA SEN: Santorum A New One?

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas looks at a Hotline On Call (go team!) report that Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) recent rise in some polls coincided with a $5 mil ad buy while Treas. Bob Casey (D) did nothing: "Ahh, this explains Santorum's surge ...Casey's "sit on my ass" strategy at work."

Mark Kilmer at RedState picked up on kos' griping: "It is apparent that Kos has never seen Casey junior campaigning against a worthy opponent by doing something other than sitting on his junior rear. Ask current Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell about it. Casey was leading Ed in the '02 gubernatorial primary by double digits until Junior opened his mouth."

TN SEN: Is Ford Built Tough?

Following up on lefty blogger criticism of LG Michael Steele's (R-MD) non-mention of the GOP, Leon H Wolf at RedState peruses Rep. Harold Ford Jr.'s (D-09) ads and points out that Ford neglects to mention his Dem affiliation: "Ford's ads, by the way, are a study in intellectual and ideological vapidity. Tennessee is filled with conservatives first and libertarians second, so anywhere east of Jackson the ideas popular with modern Democrats (socialized medicine, abortion-on-demand, hating Bush) are the political death knell for a candidate. Accordingly, Ford has had to resort to some rather interesting campaign messages in order to say literally anything at all."

Ryan Sager at RCP Blog also links to a YouTube video of Ford "ranting against globalization."

CA GOV: Arnold Schwarzenegger: Equinologist

John J. Pixley at National Review Online looks at Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) recent deal to raise the minimum wage in CA and comments: "It was a classic horse trade. Schwarzenegger agreed to a higher increase than he had offered, and Democratic leaders gave up their demand that the law index the minimum wage to inflation. ... If Democratic leaders had stonewalled on indexing, Phil Angelides would have been able to use the minimum wage issue against the governor in the fall campaign. They probably think that Schwarzenegger will win, however, so they grabbed the best deal they could."

PRIMARIES: Porker Of The Month

Few GOP tears were shed for Gov. Frank Murkowski (R-AK) defeat in the GOP primary 8/22. Kathryn Jean Lopez at National Review Online reports: "Here's what the Alaska governor is facing today, via the Washington Post.One Republican Senate staffer sending the article around today uses the subject line, "PORK DOESN'T PAY AT THE BALLOT BOX" - Frank Murkowski was Citizen Against Government Waste's "Porker of the Month" in January."

Moving south and west Greg Pollowitz at National Review Online looks at results from WY: "

In Wyoming, Republican Barbara Cubin (and the state's lone House member) won her primary 61%-39%.
Cubin will take on Democrat Gary Trauner, who has been big news in Democratic circles for some time. Howard Dean would love to pull an upset in Wyoming, as it would validate his 50 state strategy right quick. Cubin won in 2004 with only 55% of the vote and is considered vulnerable by the DNC.
Trauner is an internet entrepreneur and seems to be a tougher challenge than Cubin's 2004 opponent. He's not the usual Democrat, that's for sure. For example, when's the last time a Democrat used an image of a child shooting a rifle in their campaign material to hammer home the point that he or she is pro guns?

BLOGGERS VS. BLOGGERS: Dog Days Decline

Chris Bowers at MyDD and DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas celebrated National Journal Tech Daily's (go team!) detailing of conservative blogger traffic woes. Kos and Bowers both pointed out that liberal blog traffic was headed in the opposite direction. Bowers writes:

Go MyDD--way to buck the trend! Our traffic has indeed been fantastic of late. The information on the official websites is also particularly interesting. Democrats just seem to be doing better. Apart from knowing that the progressive netroots are larger and more advanced than the conservative netroots, which we already knew, I do not know if this forecasts anything. If nothing else, it is nice to se people turning away from conservative media. The more that happens the better off this country will be.

Over at RedState, Erick Erickson kicked off a 50 state right wing blogger search: "RedState gets contacted all the time by people looking for bloggers in various states. We know of a few, but we also know there are a lot more out there that we don't know about. ... RedState is going to compile a list, state by state, of the right of center political bloggers in each state. We're not going to list every blog -- just the politically oriented blogs that focus on the politics in a particular state or location within a state. ... You can see the list here.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Everybody And Nobody Can't Be Wrong

Patrick at firedoglake looks at Sen. Joe Lieberman's (I-CT) fate and authors some lessons learned for all incumbents, including these two:

• Do not speak to the voters (or on the record with media) about blogs. You may as well talk to the public about astrology or hieroglyphics. Nobody reads blogs.
• Do not talk privately to the media and pundits as if blogs don't exist, because they are all reading them. Everybody reads blogs.

LEST WE FORGET: The Literary Virgin

Ezra Klein at TAPPED isn't buying Pres. Bush's new found love for the written word:

Chalk me up as one of those skeptics who don't buy, not even for a second, the spin that George W. Bush has read more than sixty books this year (via Steve Benen). C-SPAN claims to have a partial catalog of his reading list, but none of it makes any sense. While I'm pleased Bush is trying to accrue some intellectual credibility, the boast reminds me of nothing so much as Steve Carell in The 40-Year-Old Virgin recounting how "her" breasts felt like big bags full of sand! Right guys!?

NOTES AND ERRATA: Team Hotline Needs You!

The Hotline is looking for a Virtual Intern (three hours, five days a week) to assist in daily compilation of Blogometer updates and assist on special projects. Applicants must consider themselves regular consumers of blogs, be familiar with nationally read blogs from across the spectrum; know how to use blog search engines/aggregators (such as Technorati and Memeorandum); be able to quickly analyze and synthesize developments in the news as well as summarize ongoing blog activity with brevity, clarity and accuracy. Excellent writing and time-management skills are also a must.

This is a "virtual" position, so as long as you have always-on Internet access, Firefox, a plain text editor, and a pulse (i.e. actual presence in DC not necessary) you can apply. As with every Hotline position, we don't expect our writers to not have an opinion, we just expect them to keep it out of their work. Interested applicants should send their resumes to ccarroll@nationaljournal.com

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:19 PM

August 22, 2006

8/22: For Those Of You Keeping Score At Home

Accountability seems to be the watchword of the blogosphere today. For lefty bloggers, it has developed into a major theme for the '06 campaign, and Pres. Bush's 8/21 suggestion that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 sent bloggers scurrying to their archives to prove otherwise. But GOPers aren't the only ones in lefty bloggers' sights. Sen. Joe Lieberman's (I-CT) recent hire, Dan Gerstein, is fast developing into progressive blogger enemy #1 for his stepped-up roll in attacking cable exec Ned Lamont (D-CT), Brookings Institute's Kenneth Pollack gets a cold reception for his pre-Iraq war views, and Dem consultant Steve McMahon takes fire for his contribution to the Darcy Burner (D-WA 08) campaign. Progressive bloggers strongly believe that increased criticism of their own can increase their party's effectiveness down the road. For that accountability to be effective, skins on all sides are going to have to thicken up a bit.

TERROR POLITICS: It Depends On What Your Definition Of Nothing Is

Bloggers of all stripes tuned into Pres. Bush's 8/21 presser. Viewers' political leanings dictated their reviews. The left's AMERICAblog's John in DC: "35% of the American public is all this disaster of a war, and this disaster of a president, have left. When George Bush attacks Democrats for wanting to change the course in Iraq, he now attacks the overwhelming majority of the American public. Note to Republicans: Keep this jackass talking." Many on the left also celebrated Bush's admission that Iraq did not order the 9/11 attacks. ThinkProgress has video of the segment and comments:

As ThinkProgress has repeatedlydocumented , Vice President Cheney cited "evidence" cooked up by Douglas Feith and others to claim it was "pretty well confirmed" that Iraq had contacts with 9/11 hijackers.

On the right, AcademicElephant at RedState had a glowing review for Bush, particularly Bush's distinction between criticizing one's patriotism and judgement:

I have long been amazed by the pique displayed by the left when they feel their patriotism is being called into question. "How dare you question my patriotism?" is now the standard response to any suggestion that their collective stance on a security issue is not in our best national interests. Don't you dare criticize them. They're patriots. ... The reason that I find this amazing is that personally, I don't care if they're patriots and I find it rather bizarre that they care so much what I (as a representative of pro-Bush Republicans) think of their patriotism. ... I do, however, care about their judgment. These are the sort of specific questions I would like to see answered by those on the left who are eager to leave Iraq now. I am not, however, interested in an abstract debate over their patriotism. And I'm very glad to see the President and his administration start to call the Democrats on this canard of an argument.

Meanwhile Kausfiles picks up on an Edward Luttwakarticle in the Jerusalem Post reminding readers that "6,821 Americans ... died to conquer the eight square miles of Iwo Jima." Kaus rationalizes "That's more than twice the number of Americans who've died in the entire Iraq war."

TERROR POLITICS II: We Thought Those Names Sounded Familiar

Lefty bloggers were impressed with an 8/21 Washington Postop-ed on the Iraq civil war, but were not about to let authors Daniel L. Byman and Kenneth M. Pollack off without a trip down memory lane. Matthew Yglesias at TAPPED looks at a Washington Quarterlyeffort by the same duo and notes a difference in troop requirements:

Note the pointed absence of a call for 300,000 or 400,000 or 500,000 troops. Rather, "at least 100,000" was said to be adequate. And if you look back at the record, you'll find that this was entirely typical of hawkish writing at the time -- the adequacy of a small force wasn't an eccentric Rumsfeldian view; it was held by almost all of the hawks, liberal or otherwise, who backed the war. The people talking about a much larger force were overwhelmingly invasion skeptics who were not so much calling for such a force than simply raising (warranted) questions about the feasibility of the mission.

John Quiggin at Crooked Timber focussed on this Pollack passage: "How Iraq got to this point is now an issue for historians (and perhaps for voters in 2008); what matters today is how to move forward." Quiggin comments:
"This was so brazen that I thought I must have got him confused with someone else. But no, it's the same Kenneth Pollack who wrote The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq."

CLINTON: All The Time, Atrios

Atrios looks at Time's 8/20 poll showing a hypothetical McCain/Clinton race at 49%-47% and finds that "given the sycophantic press McCain always gets it's actually interesting that such a thing would be within the" margin of error. Atrios then asks: "Clinton doesn't get bad press overall -- it's a bit of a mix - but is nonetheless often associated with "divisive" or "polarizing" or "love her or hate her" kind of rhetoric. As is almost always the case with issues or people who "divide the country" such descriptions are completely arbitrary and could apply to just about any well-known person or issue. How often does such rhetoric get applied to George W. Bush for example?"

BROWNBACK: The John McCain Of '08

Daniel Drezner acknowledges Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) '08 frontrunner status and asks the "obvious" question: "who's going to play the role of insurgent outsider to McCain's front-runner?" Drezner's money is on Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS).

Pejam Yousefzdeh at RedState has similar thoughts: "I suggest that Sam Brownback will be the new McCain. He will appeal to the ideologues on the Right throughout the primary and caucus season. He will also serve as the conscience of the Republican Party given his involvement in humanitarian issues like Darfur and given his rather complex set of policy priorities. This isn't to say that I necessarily support Brownback; indeed, I don't know enough about him and probably would find another candidate to gravitate towards (Tim Pawlenty? Mark Sanford, if he can be persuaded to run?), but Brownback is well-positioned to hold the GOP's feet to the fire on a whole host of issues of consequence."

MCCAIN: The Howard Dean Of '08

Patrick Hynes at Ankle Biting Pundits picks up on conservative blogger complaints that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is not as new media savvy as he could be and responds:

The idea here is that McCain may have top-notch strategists on board, but they are all stuck in 2000 and won't be able compete with other campaigns in the blogosphere. Well, maybe. I mean, sure, Sen. McCain has a lot of work to do if he's going to convince established right-of-center bloggers like, say, John Hawkins, who don't like him much at all, that he's the right guy for the top job. ... But maybe he's already doing that. Take, for example, the Senator's timely and impactful guest post at Porkbusters.com. Or his well-received Podcast interview on the Glenn & Helen Show. Then there's the fact that media consultant Mark McKinnon is pretty clued in to the Web 2.0 phenomenon. ... He may not be the "Howard Dean of 2008" (who wants to be that!?), but McCain clearly understands the power of the New Media."

ROMNEY: The Monagomist Of '08

Kate O'Beirne at National Review Online looks at a Salt Lake Tribune 8/21 article on MA Gov. Mitt Romney's great-grandfathers polygamy and quips: "While some might note the upside of generously sharing those handsome Romney genes in the past, current history is noteworthy. Should Mitt Romney join a 2008 race that included John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich and George Allen, the only guy in the GOP field with only one wife would be the Mormon."

Back in IA, the Caucus Cooler notes McCain's frontrunner status in the state but argues Romney is best positioned to become the alternative: "Someone will have to emerge as the alternative, but only Gov. Romney has lined up an organization that can compare and the longer Rudy waits the more trouble he will be in. How can the McCain machine be overcome? And where will the other pieces fall?"

CT SEN: Public Enemy

TRex at progressive hangout firedoglake announces: "Ladies and gentlemen, meet Dan Gerstein, Joe Lieberman's director of media relations and Public Enema No. 1." TRex explains: "Gerstein's mendacity, his insatiable desire to play the victim, not to mention his unabashed media whorishness all combine to make him Joe's kinda guy, the ideal staffer for a campaign utterly devoid of shame but which is positively bursting with a toxic cocktail of hubris, wounded egotism, and a blazing sense of entitlement."

The unofficial Lamont Blog chips in with "Dan Gerstein's Greatest Hits" including:

• In early March, Gerstein anonymously demanded that the Huffington Post censor Howie Klein because Klein had the audacity to write a hard-hitting blog post about Lieberman's troubled history on civil rights and gay rights. Gerstein refused a chance to respond, he just wanted Klein's piece removed.
• Post-primary, Gerstein took the lead in pushing a non-story about a joke Lamont's campaign manager made about two (very corrupt) Republican mayors of Waterbury, forgetting to inform reporters that Lieberman himself made similar jokes about Waterbury while defending his buddy Rowland a few years ago.
• The same week, Gerstein went to reporters attacking Lamont for having the support of Rev. Jackson and Rev. Sharpton, forgetting to inform reporters that Lieberman asked for Sharpton's endorsement a week before he endorsed Ned, and forgetting Lieberman's courting of Farrakhan in 2000.

CT SEN II: Breakdown Party

Mystery Pollster hasn't gotten around to dissecting Quinnipiac's 8/17 CT SEN poll showing Lieberman leading Lamont 53%-41%, but reader Alan phoned Quinnipiac for the % of total respondents in each party. Quinnipiac passed along this data:

Generally speaking, do you consider yourself a Republican, a Democrat an Independent, or what?

LIKELY VOTERS
Republican 25%
Democrat 36
Independent 34
Other 4
DK/NA 1

CT SEN III: Tin Foil Hat Department

Altercation provides a new twist to lefty Lieberman-as-Def/Sec theories: "Here's my prediction: If Lieberman wins the election, he will not switch to the Republicans, as some fear. But he will do the functional equivalent, which is accept Bush's appointment to replace Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense, resign his seat and allow the Republican governor of Connecticut to appoint a Republican in his stead. That is the implicit deal between the Lieberman camp and Rove, Cheney, Bush etc and the reason, that alone, in the entire country, this is the only race where this most partisan of political operations, refuses to support the Republican in the race."

Right Wing News still isn't buying: "You have wonder if Alterman is actually dumb enough to believe this or whether he's just trying to come up with a scare scenario to try to drive more Democratic voters in Connecticut to Lamont. ... I mean, as we speak, millions of dollars are pouring into the Connecticut, on both sides of the race, that could have very well gone to other Democratic candidates. Turning the Connecticut Senate race into a Democratic money pit could help the GOP pull out another couple of close races in the Senate this November. Plus, just imagine what a black eye it will be for the netroots crowd and the anti-war movement if Lieberman wins as an independent."

Rachel Weiner at TPM Cafe reminds readers who Lieberman's new friends also work for: "If you were wondering which Republicans Joe Lieberman's new GOP pollster, Neil Newhouse, is working for, know this: he's toiling for the reelection campaign of embattled right-wing standardbearer Rick Santorum.

LANDSCAPE: Drops In The Bucket

DavidNYC of Swing State Project took to DailyKos 8/21 to announce the latest DailyKos, MyDD and Swing State Project combined Netroots ActBlue page. David explains: "We picked each of these races in large part because, at least at the time they were added, they were all non-top-tier races. In other words, we - the netroots community - identified races where netroots dollars could go the furthest. When you give to any of these candidates, you'll have the satisfaction of knowing that, collectively, our money is not a mere drop in the bucket, but is actually making a difference." The slate includes: Darcy Burner (WA-08), John Courage (TX-21), Jay Fawcett (CO-05), Paul Hodes (NH-02), Larry Kissell (NC-08), Ned Lamont (CT-SEN), Eric Massa (NY-29), Jerry McNerney (CA-11), Patrick Murphy (PA-08), Dan Seals (IL-10), Joseph Sestak (PA-07), Linda Stender (NJ-07), Jon Tester (MT-Sen), and James Webb (VA-Sen)

Not to be out done Robert B. Bluey at Right Angle Blog pumped Rightroots fundraising efforts which have garnered $42,754 so far. Bluey also highlights recent Rightroot candidate net activity: Michele Bachmann Interview (Captain's Quarters), A Mini-Interview With Chuck Blasdel (Right Wing News), Van Taylor Fights For Texas (RedState Radio), and A Mini-Interview With Mike Whalen (Right Wing News)

Back on the left Chris Bowers at MyDD has his latest Sen outlook:

Overall: Republicans currently control the Senate 55-43-2. Democrats need at least a net total of six seats in order to take control. One incoming Independent, Bernie Sanders (I-VT), has indicated he will caucus with the Democrats. One Independent in a dogfight, Joe Lieberman (CfL-CT), currently indicates that he will caucus with Democrats. Thirty-second forecast, August 21: I currently project Republicans to hold the Senate, 51-48-1, with Democratic pickups in Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Montana and Connecticut. Dick Cheney will be the tie-breaking vote. I do not project any Republican pickups at this time

HI SEN: Akaka Is The New Lamont

Mcjoan at DailyKos shines her light on Sen. Daniel Akaka's (D-HI) fight against Rep. Ed Case (D-02):

Most political talk in Hawaii these days is focused on when, whether, and how the Akaka-Case debate is going to occur. Slated for August 31, the PBS debate is now called into question because Case apparently doesn't want to comply with the AARP's, the debate sponsor, rules for negotiating format. Case is far behind in money. In the last FEC filings, Akaka had over $1 million, and Case just under $400K. But polling leading up to the September 23rd primary is all over the place. That issue aside, we have a Lieberman/Lamont type primary brewing in Hawaii, just with incumbent/challenger roles reversed. The candidate who will keep Bush accountable on the majority of issue that matter, particularly Iraq, is Daniel Akaka.

MI SEN: Righty Bloggers Love David All

Robert B. Bluey at Right Angle Blog, Conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt, and Erick Erickson at RedState all welcomed the addition of Rep. Jack Kingston's (R-GA) comm. dir. David All to Oakland Co. Sheriff Michael Bouchard (R) campaign staff. Erick writes: "David has been a successful pioneer on Capitol Hill when it comes to blogs. He has encouraged GOP congressmen to reach out. He has done so ably and has been very supportive of the conservative blogosphere. ... If he does half as good for Bouchard as he has done for Kingston, Bouchard will be very well served."

MO SEN: The '70s Were Stupid

Robert B. Bluey at Right Angle Blog picks up on some 2004 KCTV in Kansas City news stories about "a mid-1990s federal drug investigation involving Dem Claire McCaskill when she was Jackson County prosecutor" that found their way on to YouTube. Bluey questions the wisdom of "McCaskill's decision to join forces tomorrow with famous songwriter Willie Nelson, known for his marijuana-smoking and hippie image." RedState also has the videos which include this exchange:

Dave Helling: When did you stop using drugs? Did you ever use drugs? Claire McCaskill: Here's how I'm going to answer your question, and I think it's very fair: In the '70s when I was very young, I did some stupid things.

VA SEN: This Macaca Has Legs

Lefty bloggers rejoiced over an 8/21 Survey USA poll showing ex-Navy Sec. James Webb (D) within 3 points of Sen. George Allen (R) -- 48%-45%. Jonathan Singer at MyDD writes: "Could it be that George Allen is this cycle's Jim Bunning, a candidate who buckles under pressure and completely loses composure as the media begin to take a real look at him? Could it be that Allen's 'macaca' comment will affect his campaign as much as Bunning's teleprompter incident affected his in 2004?" Greg Sargent at TPM Cafe adds: "Don't mess with Macaca!"

Conservatives were skeptical of the news. Outside the Beltway: "I'm more than a bit skeptical over the size of the drop, although other polls are also showing Allen's lead narrowing. Despite a ridiculous amount of coverage and analysis of the "macaca" incident, though, it strikes me unlikely that the use of a word that no one had heard a week ago had this much resonance." John McIntyre at RCP Blog: "Let's just say that I remain skeptical that this race has suddenly become a 3-5 point race because of the Macaca incident 10 days ago. The Survey USA poll indicates a 40 point swing among younger voters toward Webb which the size of in some ways defies common sense. Ten, fifteen, even twenty points sure, but a 40-point swing I don't buy."

High school student Kenton Ngo notices that righty bloggers seem to dominate the podcast output in the blogosphere and attempts to rectify the situation with 9:00 on VA SEN.

Meanwhile Ryan Sager at RCP Blog took some heat for posting video of Allen's cameo in Gods and Generals as a Confederate officer. Ryan answers the common reader question "Is anyone who takes pride in their Southern heritage a racist, by my logic?" writing:

"Well, here was my main point: GEORGE ALLEN DOES NOT HAVE A SOUTHERN HERITAGE! He grew up moving around the country following his father's coaching career; and his father was from the Midwest. His obsession with cultivating a Southern, good ol' boy image and embracing all things Confederate is, therefore, rather inexplicable and a little bit disturbing."

BLOGGERS VS. BELTWAY: But Is He Worse Than Dan Gerstein?

Matt Stoller at MyDD did not like the look of Microsoft exec Darcy Burner's (D-WA) new ad: "Notice anything missing? I-R-A-Q. Notice anything else missing? Well if you saw this ad, you wouldn't know whether Darcy is a Democrat or a Republican. ... Notice anything else missing? Bush. In other words, this ad is a complete failure. Not only does it not mention the major issue in the country, Iraq, it doesn't mention our wildly unpopular President, and it doesn't mention the Republican brand, which is associated with failure in Iraq and a lack of accountability."

Natural Born Killers producer and progressive activist Jane Hamsher at firedoglake didn't like the effort either: "Somebody needs to step forward and defend the creation of this ungodly Darcy Burner ad. I know Democratic consultants are notoriously loathe to put their stuff through focus groups before launching horrendously expensive media buys, but aside from all the important political points it manages to not hit, it's an amateur night stinker with all the warmth and charm of a 1950's Soviet training film on the dangers of VD."

Later Stoller returned after some research to slam the ad's producer: "The firm is run by all around nice guy and progressive champion Steve McMahon. Aside from working for progressive powerhouses know as the tobacco and the pharmaceutical industries, McMahon made a a great impression on Markos and Jerome when they worked for Dean. I wonder what this super-advertising maven did to charm the guys who wrote Crashing the Gates."

"In my four years in politics, I haven't met a bigger [explitive], a more unsavory character than McMahon. When we met, his first words out of his mouth were literally, "If you get us more clients, we'll give you guys a percentage." No "hello", or "nice to meet you", or "Nice day, huh?" No, it was, "If you get us more clients, we'll give you guys a percentage."

DEMS: We're Gonna Need A Montage

Tracy Joan at MyDD has a slate of YouTube links of speeches from the DNC's General Session in Chicago. Speeches include: DNC Chair Howard Dean Part I and Part II, Darcy Burner (D-WA), Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D-IL) Part I and Part II, Rev. Jesse Jackson, on the 50-State Strategy, and a montage of Dem ads.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Tradesports And Bayes Theorem Should Get Together More Often

Harvard econ prof. Greg Mankiw uses data from Tradesports.com and combines it with Bayes Theorem to make some '08 observations.

According to the betting over at Tradesports, here's the probability that the following individuals will be President of the United States after the 2008 election:

McCain 23.5
Clinton 19.9
Giuliani 8.5
Edwards 4.7

Fortunately, Tradesports also gives us the probability that each of these individuals will be nominated by his or her party:

McCain 39.5
Clinton 41.2
Giuliani 14.6
Edwards 8.2

Now apply Bayes Theorem. By dividing the first number by the second, we can obtain for each candidate the conditional probability--the probability that the person will win the general election if nominated. Here are the results:

McCain 59.5
Clinton 48.3
Giuliani 58.2
Edwards 57.3

Note the relative performance of Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. Although Clinton is more likely to end up President than Edwards is, Edwards is more likely to win the general election conditional on being nominated. At least that's what the market says.

LEST WE FORGET: 'Cause America Loves Sequels

Nihilist In Golf Pants has suggestions for movie execs who just can't get enough of Samuel Jackson, the "Top 11 Sequels To 'Snakes On A Plane'."

11. Gay Shepherds On A Plane
10. Dick Cheney Hunting On A Plane
9. Skanks On A Plane
8. David Hasselhoff, Andy Dick, and Mel Gibson Drinking On A Plane
7. Michael Moore's: Snakes On A Diebold Voting Machine, Illegally
Disenfranchising Minority Voters
6. Water Bottles On A Plane
5. A Prairie Home Companion On A Plane
4. A Plane On Some Snakes: The Revenge
3. An Inconvenient Truth About Global Warming Forcing More And More
Snakes To Fly North On A Plane
2. Four Hours Sitting Next To A Packers Fan On A Plane
1. Amy Klobuchar starring in: Plain Janes On A Plane To Washington DC

NOTES AND ERRATA: Team Hotline Needs You!

The Hotline is looking for a Virtual Intern (three hours, five days a week) to assist in daily compilation of Blogometer updates and assist on special projects. Applicants must consider themselves regular consumers of blogs, be familiar with nationally read blogs from across the spectrum; know how to use blog search engines/aggregators (such as Technorati and Memeorandum); be able to quickly analyze and synthesize developments in the news as well as summarize ongoing blog activity with brevity, clarity and accuracy. Excellent writing and time-management skills are also a must.

This is a "virtual" position, so as long as you have always-on Internet access, Firefox, a plain text editor, and a pulse (i.e. actual presence in DC not necessary) you can apply. As with every Hotline position, we don't expect our writers to not have an opinion, we just expect them to keep it out of their work. Interested applicants should send their resumes to ccarroll@nationaljournal.com

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:34 PM

August 21, 2006

8/21: Where Do We Go From Here?

As the rest of the nation ponders solutions to Iraq war troubles, progressive bloggers are also mired in their own strategic quagmire in CT. After toppling Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) in the 8/8 Dem primary, progressives are finding it more difficult than anticipated to rid themselves permanently of the 18-year incumbent. Now that it's clear cable exec Ned Lamont (D-CT) faces a tough battle that threatens to drain progressive resources and attention from other races, as well as draw out GOPers in close House races, some are arguing that Lamont should be cut loose to focus on the larger war against the GOP. For now, the "stay the course" crowd is winning the debate. But a lot, as they say, can change between now and 11/06.

CT SEN: You're Either With Lamont, Or You're With The Neo-cons

Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) 8/20 comparison of Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) to VP Cheney on ABC's This Week (video here) led the league in blogger reaction 8/20.

Middle Earth Journal thought the description was pretty accurate and wanted to see more Dems take a similar position: "So where do some of the other personalities in the Democratic party fall. We will find out in the next couple of weeks. The litmus test will be if they actively campaign for Ned Lamont. Now it's really nice that many of them have endorsed Lamont but that's not enough. Are they going to side with the pro-neocon Republican Lite of the DLC or a majority of the base. Yes, they are going to have to decide who they are going to alienate. This is especially true of any who have presidential aspirations. Yes, Hillary I'm talking to you and that goes for Bill as well. Yes, Joe Biden I'm talking to you. The next couple of weeks you need to decide - are you with us or against us?"

CT Blog has video of Lieberman on Face The Nation and asks readers to "point out Joe's lie in the interview." Under the header "Iraq Better Than One Year Ago, Worse Than Six Months Ago" Lamont Blog was already on the case, summarizing Lieberman positions on Iraq: "July 6th: Iraq better than it was a year ago. Iraqi military ready to lead the fight. August 20th: Iraq worse than it was six months ago. Iraqi military not ready to lead the fight."

Conservatives also noted the dust up. Allahpundit at Hot Air posted heavily edited video of the two performances but questions recent Lieberman personnel decisions: "Question: is he going too far to woo Republican voters? James Joyner notes that Liebs just hired Neil Newhouse, a pollster who, literally, has never had a Democrat for a client. Connecticut's a blue state last I checked; as such, he might do well to worry a little more about alienating left-wing fencesitters than right-wingers who would sooner burn their ballot than vote for the McGovernite candidate."

Also on the right Captain's Quarters finds the Lieberman-Cheney comparison farcical: "Democrats seem intent on painting Joe Lieberman as a pariah these days. The ever-ridiculous Kerry has to push it even farther with a ludicrous comparison to conservative Dick Cheney. I doubt that Cheney ever garnered a 75 rating with NARAL (identical to Chris Dodd), nor did the VP's legislative voting record land him square in the middle of the Democratic caucus, as does Lieberman's."

CT SEN II: Lamont As Loss Leader?

DK at Talking Points Memo set off a lefty blogswarm by questioning progressive priorities in CT: "Should progressives shift their money and attention from the Connecticut Senate race to more important contests? Lamont v. Lieberman is a carnival sideshow, a titillating and distracting spectacle. Rove is the carnival barker. So ignore the hoopla and keep moving on down the midway, folks. The main event is still to come, and it will be in places like Montana, Missouri, and Ohio. We've come too far to get side-tracked now. Absolutely."

Atrios was annoyed by DK's focus: "I'd like more of that advice going to, say, the people who gave money so that Hillary Clinton could have $22 million cash-on-hand. Does Bill Nelson need $12 million to run against Katie Harris? On the House side, does Marty Meehan, who won with 67% of the vote last time, really need to have 5 million bucks in the bank? There is always an incredible misallocation of resources in elections and that's the money which flows to incumbents. Sure, they're not all safe and it's understandable that they need somewhat of a defensive warchest just in case, but if you want to criticize where donors are directing their money (and attention) start there."

Nathan Newman at TPM Cafe linked to data on HRC campaign fund sources and questioned Atrios' reasoning: "That incumbent money isn't progressive money that cares whether Dems control the Senate-- it's money by special interests looking to buy access and influence with those with potential power. .. So the issue for labor and ideological groups is not whether to give money to Hillary or Lamont-- almost none of them are doing so now. The groups interested in progressive control of the Senate are choosing between Lamont and [Sherrod] Brown and [Clair] McGaskill. Talking about lobbyists giving money to Hillary has little to do with the choices progressive groups are making in deciding which challengers to fund to increase progressive power."

DK fired back on his own: "Call me crazy, but I think I'll stick with criticizing the circular firing squad that is the Lieberman-Lamont race, rather than focusing on whether everyone has their fair share of bullets, as Atrios seems to want to do." Atrios responded by shifting the blame to Dem leadership: "this race is about more than Lamont now, it's about 3 important House races that Lieberman's going to [mess up] with all of his Republican pals. Attention must be paid by time-wasters like myself because too many of the powers that be have apparently forgotten that they do, indeed, have a Lieberman Problem. It's not a circular firing squad, it's the implicit Republican candidate (Lieberman) versus the explicit Democratic one (Lamont). Joe's going to try to win by bringing Republicans to the polls, and when he does it won't be the fault of Lamont supporters, it'll be the fault of Lieberman and Dems who failed to confront him."

Consensus on the left centered on the value of Lieberman's defeat outside CT:

• AR at Talking Points Memo: "Strategically, those of us who work on "brand architecture" understand the notion of "anchor brands". This race is not an either/or proposition (support Lamont and ignore the other races). There is an interaction effect -- the more traction Lamont gets, the more the "Democrat" brand benefits, and vice versa."
• mcjoan at DailyKos: "What is important in this race, and why it deserves the attention it has garnered not only in the blogosphere, but also in the traditional media, is the national implications it has. ... He is an obstacle to holding George W. Bush accountable for the myriad disasters he's wreaked upon the nation and a good chunk of the world. Joe must go."
• a TPM reader: "Sorry but with your and Atrios' blog battle over Joe Momentum the real issue is being missed. This is now an issue about the basis of the Democratic Party - if Lieberman gets re-elected as a Independent after loosing a Democratic Party primary and the Dems in the Senate welcome him back into their caucus like nothing has happened our Party is dead. If there is no Party discipline there is no Party - if there aren't rules and regulations there isn't a Party.
• Matt Stoller at MyDD: "You see, Capitol Hill is a small place, and it's a place where there's a certain incestuous cycle of staffers, lobbyists, journalists, and politicians. It's a community, with its own rules about who you can talk to, what can be said in polite company, and who you can bribe. There's a partisan divide, sure, but there's a much bigger divide between those on the inside of the Hill and those of us who aren't. We get our news from the New York Times, but they know the personalities involved and the real story. Many Dodd staffers were Lieberman staffers, and vice versa. Puncturing this bubble is a really big deal, because it changes how laws are passed."

KERRY: No Negotiating New Nomination Necessity

Conservative bloggers read Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) 8/20 comparison of Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and VP Cheney as part of Kerry's '08 ambitions. Blue Crab Boulevard: "Mindlessly ambitious, Kerry does not realize how utterly silly he sounds these days. This is a fundamentally uncurious person with a long record of mediocrity (that being the kindest assessment of his political career). His vilification of Lieberman is all about Joe's failure to recant a position that Kerry once openly backed. A position that Kerry abandoned not out of principle, but to advance his career."

Ace of Spades also focussed on Kerry's principles: "Republicans voted for the Iraq War because they believed in it. ... Democrats voted for the Iraq War, a war they believed was doomed to become a Vietnam-style quagmire, in order to to retain/expand political power. Which is worse? John Kerry voted for a war he never believed in, and always thought would result in thousands of American casualties, because he was too chicken[excrement] to voice his true beliefs." Decision '08 questioned Kerry's commitment to democracy: "Tell me something, Mr. Jackass - er, I mean, Senator Kerry; if Joe Lieberman is so out of touch with the voters of Connecticut, why are you attacking him? His Independent candidacy doesn't matter, right, since he'll surely lose? Isn't the Democratic Party big enough for dissent, or is it a Soviet-style home for apparatchiks now?

Pamela LeaveyThe Democratic Daily responded to Decision'08 directly: "When John Kerry spoke out about Joe Lieberman on 'This Week' today, he spoke out because Lieberman is "making a Republican case," and "adopting the rhetoric of Dick Cheney," on the issue of Iraq. Kerry spoke out not only about Lieberman but the Republican "stay the course" rhetoric. In a word, what Kerry said today was classic "dissent" against Iraq and the current administration. Sorry Decision '08, but you can't have it both ways. Kerry's entire interview today with George Stephanopoulos was all about "dissent" - "dissent" against an administration out of control, a president who has overstepped his authority over and over again."

Natural Born Killers producer and progressive activist Jane Hamsher at firedoglake also sang Kerry's praises: "Kerry has done the right thing before - he had the courage to lead the filibuster against Alito even though he knew all the hacks were going to accuse him of pandering to the base. ... but Kerry now looks prophetic - Alito is a third-rate legal mind who owes his fealty to the fundies, and Kerry's actions will be well remembered both in the blogosphere and the history books." SusanG at DailyKos argues Kerry has defined a new litmus test for all '08ers: "Let's hope all 2008 hopefuls jump on the bandwagon and begin to realize that cutting Joe off is one non-negotiable requirement to nomination."

GOP FIELD: GOP Lazers Locked?

Mark Davis at RCP Blog sees security as the issue for GOP '08 primary voters and argues that ex-NY mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) are the big beneficiaries: " I might prefer other candidates along the way. George Allen and Sam Brownback could wind up duking it out for the Reagan base. Mitt Romney will get deserved attention, and a Newt Gingrich candidacy does not draw as much skepticism as it used to. ... But if Rudy Giuliani can top a Pew Research Center poll as he did last week, and if his numbers and McCain's can reach 45 percent when no single candidate can crack 25, that says GOP voters are laser-locked on the war views of the candidates (Condoleezza Rice at 21 was the only other name topping 9 percent), and less compelled by the "God, guns and gays" issues which have lifted some recent candidacies and destroyed others. This is a good thing."

ALLEN: But Enough About Allen, Let's Talk About Me

Ryan Lizza at TNR phoned Charlie Cook for his take on Macacagate's affect on Sen. George Allen's (R-VA) '08 chances:

To answer your question, I think Allen's presidential hopes had dimmed considerably from last fall when insiders might -- and many did -- say that he was a co-frontrunner for the Republican nomination. To be honest, your TNR piece raised a ton of questions about Allen, that further eroded his position, but more than directly hurt him, simply put some suspicions up in the air, floating around. Then when the macaca hit the fan, this incident just began to corroborate some of the questions you raised.

Later Lizza plugs his 8/20 New York Timesarticle on YouTube-ization of politics: "I'm guessing that right now George Allen is wishing he never appeared as a Confederate officer in the 2003 Civil War movie Gods and Generals in which he sings, "Hurrah! Hurrah! For Southern rights, hurrah!" (Allen's closeups are at 00:12 and 1:18.)"

GIULIANI: Palmettoes Prefer Powerful Leaders

Chrunchy GOP looks at 2000 SC primary exit poll data and sees good news for ex-NY mayor Rudy Giuliani (R): "When asked which was more important in deciding their vote on Primary day, 55% of the 2,078 voters surveyed said a candidate's leadership/personal qualities were more important while 41% said a candidate's position on the issues were more important. ... Matching Rudy's strong personality with South Carolina Republicans' preference for strong leaders above all else could prove to be a winning combination for America's Mayor. Of course, there's a lot time between now and that wintry day when the SCGOP holds its primary, but if Republicans are looking for a strong leader in 2008, Giuliani may have already cornered the market.

MCCAIN: Little Use For Bush, Outside Of War And Taxes

Conservative Captain's Quarters looks at a New York Times 8/21 article on Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) recruiting efforts in SC and sees "the heart of this article is the question as to whether McCain is the logical choice to bear the Bush mantle into another election. However, outside of war policy and taxes, many Republicans may ask themselves if they want to continue the policies of George Bush at all, especially on domestic spending. And this is where McCain has the advantage."

CQ sees two major barriers between McCain and the GOP base: "McCain still has to answer for the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, the monstrosity that put political-speech restrictions into American law. Conservatives have opposed this strongly since before it passed Congress, and are not likely to trust McCain with executive power while he continues to support government restrictions on political speech. Had it not been for the BCRA, McCain could probably have won the nomination by acclaim. ... Nor will they easily trust him with judicial appointments, not after his Gang of 14 grandstanding maneuver. McCain gave liberals cover for their assertions that prominent jurists like Henry Saad and Janice Rogers Brown were either incompetent or too radical to sit on appellate courts."

Machiavel at RedState also looks at McCain maneuverings in SC, Hotline On Call (go team!) report on McCain locking up Maj. General Stan Spears, and argues McCain is barking up the wrong tree: "McCain is in essence fighting the last war, locking up the endorsements he imagines were denied to him last time. ... In short, McCain thinks he was doomed by a powerful, insular cabal of Republican insiders, so he's building a powerful, insular cabal of his own. But Bush in 2000 also had plenty of grassroots support and led decisively in public opinion polls, while McCain's position with the grassroots is much more precarious and will likely remain so."

ROMNEY: The Macaca Winner?

John McIntyre at RCP Blog looks at Sen. George Allen's (R-VA) falling stock and tabs MA Gov. Mitt Romney as the biggest '08 beneficiary: "With Virginia Senator George Allen's recent Macaca gaffe downgrading his status a few clicks, Romney is fast emerging as the alternative to the two moderate heavyweights McCain and Giuliani. Allen's bigger problem (who in many ways was poised to become the conservative choice in the race) is the reality that the country is not exactly pining for another southern, folksy-talking politician wearing cowboy boots. So, Macaca or no Macaca, 2008 was probably not going to be George Allen's year, simply because he reminds people too much of George W. Bush and he appears to be not seasoned enough, especially when compared to Giuliani, Romney and McCain."

MT SEN: Where There's A Will, Not Always A Way

Noting that Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT) campaigned recently with VP Cheney, DailyKos' SusanG points out a Great Falls Tribune piece in which Burns said the US would stay in Iraq "as long as it takes, regardless of whether popular support for the war diminishes." SusanG writes: "This is truly an astounding statement, even considering how accustomed the American people have become under Bush rule to blatant disregard of their wishes. Burns is saying, in so many words, that no matter what the citizens of this country want, he will help continue to ram this fiasco of a war down their throats. So much for the will of the people, eh?"

RI SEN: Laffey All The Way To The Bank

BruinKid, also a Kossack, parses the second debate between Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R) and his opponent, Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey (R), saying he's concerned "about whether or not Laffey's challenge will help or hurt Democrats here. Laffey shows just how right-wing he is in this debate, allowing Chafee to come out looking like a reasonable moderate."

VA SEN: Snakes On A Gun Show

Todd Smyth at Raising Kaine reports on the ex-Navy Sec. Jim Webb (D) campaign's foray into deep Red territory: "The gun show in Roanoke, VA this weekend was a telling tale. A table of Democrats supporting a native Virginian and not one shot was fired. We confounded expectations by not having pentagrams etched on our foreheads dispelling many rumors to the contrary. We actually got a number of compliments for having the balls to show up at all and there was no Allen table around." Brian reports on the rest of the weekend's events.

Righty Outside The Beltway, meanwhile, thinks the Washington Post is "gunning for [Sen.] George Allen (R)" and points out over 30 items on Macacagate. Glenn Reynolds contributes a zinger, then goes on "Reliable Sources" to talk about the scandal.

Highlighting what may be considered a good week for Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), Taylor Marsh points out not only his comments on ABC's "This Week," but also a speech Kerry gave to a group of Indian-Americans. The speech, according to Marsh, "nails George Allen, a man who does not deserve to be in the United States Senate." Kerry: "Well, to Senator Allen I think it's time we said 'welcome to the twenty first century' where slurs and slights aren't a laughing matter."

TERROR POLITICS: The Best Defense ...

Lefty bloggers went on the attack in response to Sen. Orrin Hatch's (R-UT) comments on terrorists waiting for Dem electoral victory before striking. SusanG at DailyKos described the GOP strategy: "It's becoming easier and easier to see why the Republicans are so unconcerned about the whereabouts of Bin-Laden. Apparently capturing him and his fellow conspirators is less important to our national security than ensuring a Democratic defeat in November. In the world according to Republicans, the more words spent trashing the opposition party and its candidates for daring to even question the wisdom of our foreign policy - much less offering specific alternatives - the safer we are.

Ezra Klein at TAPPED offered the solution: "That means, however, that Democrats shouldn't be afraid to mention that the Bush administration is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of American troops, World Trade Center employees, Iraqi civilians, and adorable little puppies. It also wouldn't hurt to wonder if Bush isn't some sort of Manchurian plant, so dedicated has he been to ensuring that America did exactly what its enemies hoped it would. Democrats too often complain that the GOP politicizes terror. But the response to terrorism is a political issue, and it's to the Democrats' discredit that they refuse to treat it as such."

Greg Sargent at TPM Cafe noticed that Dems may be gaining traction on the issue: "It appears that gung-ho pro-war GOP incumbent Rep. Chris Shays -- under fire from antiwar challenger Diane Farrell -- is planning to hold hearings next month on whether Iraq has devolved into civil war. This is important, because it shows how dramatically Ned Lamont's victory has intensified pressure on Shays to distance himself from his party's leadership on Iraq. What's more, the hearings could spotlight the chaos in Iraq, making life unpleasant for other endangered GOP pro-war incumbents who may soon be forced to break ranks over the war, too."

John in DC at AMERICAblog simply asks: "Where the hell is Osama?"

Conservative bloggers were not deterred, stepping up their rhetoric if anything. Radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt: "Not a single Democrat of any stature or visibility has stepped forward to criticize much less reject the opinion from Judge Anna Diggs Taylor declaring NSA surveillance of our enemies contacting their operatives inside our country to be unconstitutional. ... The Democrats cannot be seen to say anything against the opinion because of Kosputin and his minions. The party of Lamont is unhinged, and Judge Taylor's opinion is now a new icon of the movement. ... Any vote for any Democrat is a vote against victory and a vote for vulnerability.

Extreme Mortman quotes Iraqi Amb. Samir Sumaida'ie's 8/21 op-ed and asks if it is "An Iraqi Attack On Ned Lamont?" Sumaida'i's quoted portion:

Plan B, advocated by Friedman and others, is to abandon the region to religious fanatics and Baathist terrorists. It is nothing but a declaration of defeat dressed up to look like a vision for the future. Not only would abandoning Iraq to its fate now be irresponsible, it would almost certainly lead to disintegration and dictatorship, with a high risk of a wide regional conflict.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: From Politics To Platform

Tom Hayden at The Huffington Post offers up a six point peace movement platform on violence in the Middle East:

• Instead of staying the course, we demand that our officials immediately change the course we are on.
  Instead, we must prevent a military escalation by our stalemated warmakers. There should be no US or [US-backed] Israeli bombing against Iran or Syria. We demand to know if the White House and Pentagon have any active plans to do so, as reported by such reputable sources as Seymour Hersh.
• Second, we demand that the White House yield to the bipartisan Congressional demand that there be no funding of permanent military bases in Iraq.
• Third, we demand a timetable for ending the US occupation and bringing the US troops home. We will petition and demand that the White House relinquish its formal role to the United Nations Security Council when a re-authorization vote is scheduled later this year.
• Fourth, a "Marshall Plan" for Iraq. A US transfer to the UN would permit a fresh approach to negotiations with the insurgents, reconciliation, humanitarian assistance, reconstruction. and transitional security arrangements. We must shift from unilateralism to multi-lateralism.
• Fifth, respect for the sovereignty of Iraq in all its diversity must be at the heart of any transition. A UN-appointed body must mediate the complex issues of amnesty for those who fought the occupation, and an agreement on equitable power sharing concerning oil revenues and security arrangements, among other issues. Proposals for a false federalism that would actually subdivide the country into satelites should be rejected.
• Finally, the US will have to change course in the region, seriously promote a viable Palestinian state, and abandon all neo-conservative fantasies of turning Sunnis against Shiites in a regional sectarian conflict.

LEST WE FORGET: The Next Bob Barker

The Sneeze shares a story of his six-year-old Game Show Network loving son dinner antics:

My 6-year-old (who's now okay with being six) has been watching the Game Show Network. I know this because he turned our dinner into a game show in which he was the host and I was the contestant. The rules are easy. You're given a multiple choice question with 4 possible answers. Each question is worth 1 million dollars. What makes the game fun is sometimes the questions don't make sense, sometimes there's more than one correct answer and sometimes he's just wrong.

It's very entertaining to watch him run the game, especially as he comes up with the multiple choice answers on the fly. I wrote down all the questions and answers, essentially creating a "home version." [For space the Blogometer offers one example].

2. Which restaurant invented chicken? A) Islands B) Deli C) El Pollo Loco D) In 'N Out

Answer-->El Pollo Loco

NOTES AND ERRATA: Team Hotline Needs You!

The Hotline is looking for a Virtual Intern (three hours, five days a week) to assist in daily compilation of Blogometer updates and assist on special projects. Applicants must consider themselves regular consumers of blogs, be familiar with nationally read blogs from across the spectrum; know how to use blog search engines/aggregators (such as Technorati and Memeorandum); be able to quickly analyze and synthesize developments in the news as well as summarize ongoing blog activity with brevity, clarity and accuracy. Excellent writing and time-management skills are also a must.

This is a "virtual" position, so as long as you have always-on Internet access, Firefox, a plain text editor, and a pulse (i.e. actual presence in DC not necessary) you can apply. As with every Hotline position, we don't expect our writers to not have an opinion, we just expect them to keep it out of their work. Interested applicants should send their resumes to ccarroll@nationaljournal.com

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:37 PM

August 17, 2006

8/17: No Rest For The Weary

Is it just a coincidence that the two biggest election stories so far this month (CT and VA SEN) are in large part blog driven? Sure the placing of the CT primary in early Aug. helped, but instead of falling off the radar screen as it might have in the past, bloggers have only redoubled their interest on the race, moving their focus to DC where they can pressure Dems to force Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) out of the race. In VA the Blogometer wonders how much of a story Macacagate would be if not for the blogs. Without the ability to quickly distribute the results, would ex-Navy sec. James Webb (D-VA) even have a volunteer shadowing Sen. George Allen (R-VA) with a video camera? How much of Allen's post-incident spin was affected by the ability of anyone anywhere to view the video for themselves? We'll never know the answers to these questions, but it is definitely true that unlike DC, the blogosphere does not take August off.

CT SEN: Wake-Up Calls

BranfordBoy at My Left Nutmeg looks at 8/17's Quinnipiac Poll showing Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) with a 53%-41% lead over cable exec. Ned Lamont (D-CT) and comments: "The poll is sure to strength Lieberman's already egomaniacal resolve to press on with his (hopefully) quixotic attempt to cling to power. It is also a wake-up call to those who believe Lawrence O'Donnell's Hollywood ending (Joe will drop out) or who think Joe is so vile that surely the majority of Connecticut voters will agree." Chris Bowers at MyDD, on the other hand, sees only progress. Under a "Lamont Cuts Lieberman's Lead In Half" header he writes: "Personally, considering the primary results and the vicious anti-Lamont narratives in the media, I thought that Lamont would still be behind by about 20-25 points. As such, I had been panicking to a few people behind the scenes earlier in the week that this poll could spell serious trouble. However, these numbers make me quite relieved as they still show a positive trendline."

Back in DC blogger inspired calls to Dem Sen offices are having an affect. Natural Born Killers producer and progressive activist Jane Hamsher at firedoglake passes on an email from reader Bob: "I think that between Kos and Firedoglake readers we rang their phones off the hook today and spokesmen for Feinstein and others who have committed are begging me to get an update out there so that their boss's tepid endorsements will get them off the hook." Hamsher goes on to urge reader to pressure Mary Landrieu (D-LA) to rethink her support of Lieberman in light of Bush's Katrina response (video of Lieberman on Fox "defending King George's divine right to appoint any useless crony he saw fit even in the wake of Katrina" included).

Mcjoan at DailyKos reaches back to 1953 for a historical argument in favor of showing Lieberman the door: "The Independent, Oregon's Wayne Morse, had recently left the Republican party, but he assured party leaders that he would vote with them to organize the Senate under Republican control. ... Morse realized that his defection would cost him his seniority on the Armed Services and Labor committees, but he believed that his eight years of Senate seniority entitled him at least to remain on these prime committees. Consequently, he was unprepared for Majority Leader Robert Taft's decision that he be removed altogether from the Labor Committee - his most prized assignment."

Bowers also picked up on a Arkansas Times Blog report of awkwardness from a Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) event: "I was at a "Brown Bag" Question and Answer lunch today with Sen. Pryor in Jonesboro, Arkansas. I asked him the question, "How can you be a member of the DSCC, with a mission to elect Democrats to Congress, and at the same time support Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont?" The room got very quite. With a smile on his face he said, "Don't ask me to be consistent."

CT SEN II: Working The Refs

Matt Stoller at MyDD is none too pleased with Nick Confessore's 8/16 New York Timesarticle on Lamont's campaign. Stoller sees no good reason for quoting Dem strategist Donna Brazile: "Why is Confessore quoting Donna Brazile? She is not from Connecticut, she knows nothing about the race, and she is a corporate consultant who lives in DC." Stoller would have preferred the story consisted of "a discussion of Lieberman's meltdown, his alienation of Senate Democrats, his use of Enron lobbyists to raise money, the lack of talented consultants available to him now, his 'loser' mantra, the collapse of his support among Democratic voters, or any other storyline."

CT Blog has video of Lamont's 8/16 Hardball appearance where "Matthews gave Ned a thumbs for correctly stating the details of the Iraq Liberation Act while slamming Lieberman spokesgoon Dan Gerstein for being "dead wrong" on the issue."

CT SEN III: No Right Turns Allowed

The right side of the 'sphere is still picking at Lamont's 8/16 Wall Street Journalop-ed . Greg Pollowitz at National Review Online hits Lamont for forgetting "the part about when he decided to run his business as a non-union operation" and for criticising outsourcing while his cable co. partnered with Vonage which "outsources a ton of their operations."

Over at RedState, Crank takes Lamont's "the bottom line means everything" line and writes: "The purpose of government is to protect the rest of society, enabling private citizens to make money and do all the other good things of life. Once you treat government like an enterprise with value and profit motives unto itself, you head down a very dark path."

VA SEN: Sh*tty Shtick

On Call's (go team!) report on the excrement origins of Sen. George Allen's (R-VA) "macaca" nickname for a ex-Navy sec. James Webb (D-VA) campaign volunteer assuaged no one on the left. SusanG at DailyKos: "Umm. Okay. I guess it's time to put that little incident behind us. "Shithead" seeming so much more ... senatorial and all. Keep on talking, guys." Michael Crowley at TNR: "So Allen would have us believe that "macaca" is a wacky nickname combining "mohawk" (even though the Webb staffer in question really doesn't have one in the typical sense) and a word (caca) which English-speakers rarely use--and which just happens to be a racial slur in a language Allen speaks? That's some coincidence. Even if you accept that Allen was "only" calling the guy a shithead instead of a monkey, a friend asks: "Is that a defense--or an allegation"?"

Meanwhile, Webb Netroots Coordinator Lowell Feld at Raising Kaine has video of Webb taking the high road at a volunteer party at Webb HQ: "Let me say one more thing about that incident: it does not represent the greatness of the people who live in that part of southwest Virginia. It does not."

On Call's story didn't impress many on the right either. Right Wing News: "We're talking about anonymous sources here, but the explanation rings true. Either Allen heard a staffer use that word in reference to Webb's aide and just repeated it without catching on to what the "caca" portion was in reference to or he knew what "caca" meant and was trying to be cute, but didn't realize that "macaca" was actually a real word and that it had the potential to get him in trouble. Either way, Allen should have known better."

Matt Lewis at Right Angle Blog argued from personal experience that the "welcome to America" line was taken completely out of context: "The first time I met George Allen was in Wakefield, VA in 2000. He was running for U.S. Senate. When I told him I was from Maryland, Senator Allen smiled and said, "well, welcome to America." Of course, he said it in jest. He was smiling and as gracious as could be, and, in truth, it struck me as simply being part of his usual shtick."

Back on the left SusanG at DailyKos expects some major league help for Webb's beleaguered fundraising: "Leaving the entertaining but regrettably R-rated version of George Felix Allen Junior news, it looks like Bill Clinton has committed to doing some old-fashioned fundraising for Jim Webb. Expect that $6 million edge to dry up pretty quickly with Clinton on the case and George Felix Allen Junior's explanations - and those of his Republican "friends" - rolling out by the hour."

NJ SEN: Patient In NJ

Gerry Daly at CrossTabs looks at a Strategic Vision poll showing Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) with a 42%-40% lead over state Sen. Tom Kean Jr. (R) and comments: "As usual, New Jersey voters are taking their own sweet time in deciding. ... While a lot of attention is being focused on the GOP's vulnerability in the Senate, there remain a few seats currently held by Democrats which are in play. In general, the Democrats currently have the advantage in those races (such as here, and in Maryland, and in Washington, and possibly in Michigan), but the leads are small enough that a few percentage points swing in the national mood could create a very different picture than folk are now anticipating."

OH SEN: Fighting Team Clinton Since 1992

Howie Klein introduces firedoglake readers to Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-13) as "a tower of strength when it comes to all the issues that matter to grassroots progressives outside the Beltway." Other highlights include:

• He spits in the eye of the lobbyists and corporate criminals who corrupt our entire political system. He has been one of a handful of congressmen who has consistently fought back the encroachments of Big Pharma as they're unquenchable greed and penchant for corruption have all but wrecked the American health care system.
• When Bill Clinton and the odious DLC (a branch of the Republican Party inside the Democratic Party) were pushing the corporate agenda, Sherrod stood up to them and fought back. He led the battle against "free" trade (and tried to make people understand why FAIR trade is better) and he battled Clinton and his reactionary allies on NAFTA and on PNTR with China as hard as he battled Bush and the same reactionaries greedballs on CAFTA.
• Similarly, Sherrod was in the front lines fighting Clinton's catastrophic welfare "reform" proposals and his misguided DOMA legislation.

HOUSE LANDSCAPE: Who's This Chuck Todd Guy Anyway?

DavidNYC at Swing State Project celebrates the success of netroots candidates moving up the Hotline's House Race Rankings: "Chuck Todd's newest House race rankings are available here. Five netroots candidates make the list (previous rankings in parens):

15 (26) Patrick Murphy
16 (17) Joe Sestak
19 (24) Darcy Burner
46 (--) Paul Hodes
50 (49) Jerry McNerney

David comments: "Hodes is back after being dropped from the previous list. And bullish jumps for Burner and especially Murphy."

Chris Bowers at MyDD, however, is not happy with Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) and the DLC's Bruce Reed for their new book "The Plan." Bowers writes: "Wow. In just a few paragraphs, Reed and Emanuel manage to reinforce virtually every anti-Democratic narrative in existence. We have no new ideas, we don't stand for anything, we are equally to blame for polarized politics, we have been taken over by the angry left, conservatism is the only good ideology, Democrats won't do any better, our predecessors expanded government too much, and maverick John McCain is the only hope for unifying this country. And so our national image as a party is completely destroyed. ... Don't read this book. Stay as far away form it as you can. It may very well succeed in wiping out any and all progress we have tried to make on anti-Democratic media narratives for the past couple years."

CLINTON: What Would John Kerry Do?

Se. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) did little to endear herself to Arianna Huffington with her prediction in 8/16's New York Times that Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) "had more than a 50-50 chance of winning re-election." Huffington writes at HuffPo: "Since when is it Hillary's job to go around giving odds on Senate races? Sure, she said she'd abide by the results of the primary and endorse the nominee. But what else could she say? ... The only appropriate response to the Lieberman/Lamont race for a Democratic leader is to work to help create the conditions necessary for Lamont to win. ... Things to put on her to-do list could be: doing everything she can to encourage Lieberman to drop out, and using her list to fundraise for Lamont as John Kerry is doing."

KERRY: What Other Lieberman Statements Does Kerry Regret Lieberman Made?

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) was on The Young Turksradio show 8/16. Responding to a Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) statement that the cable exec Ned Lamont (D-CT) backed Kerry plan would strengthen the terrorists Kerry said, "That's scare tactic bunk. It's an unfortunate statement from someone of Joe's quality and I regret it."

Kerry also received kudos from Atrios for sending "out a fundraising email, with link to actblue-style direct candidate donations, for Lamont, Akaka, and Menendez, with the pitch being about their willingness to "tell the truth about Iraq."

GIULIANI: Rudy As Rosey Post-Roe?

Leon H Wolf at RedState doesn't think social conservatives ought to be mollified by ex-NY mayor Rudy Giuliani promises to appoint strict constructionists to the bench. Wolf writes: "In the first place, the record of Presidents who have made a similar commitment to appoint constructionist judges in the absence of a personal commitment to the pro-life cause has not been stellar. However, assuming arguendo that Rudy could be trusted to appoint Emilio Garza to replace Justice Stevens, and Roe fell, that would not by any means be the end of that particular story. Immediately into Congress would come a bill, sponsored by the Democrats, to write the basic tenets of Roe and Casey into codebooks. ... What is needed, at that point, is a President with the personal pro-life convictions, and the long-range foresight to have the willingness to veto such a bill, and the strength to realize that things are going to be okay in the long-term. Bottom line: Rudy is not that candidate."

TERROR POLITICS: Tin Foil Hat Department

Conservative Bush critic Andrew Sullivan notes "no one has been charged in the alleged terror plot to blow up several airplanes across the Atlantic" and "no evidence has been produced supporting the contention that such a plot was indeed imminent." Sullivan concludes: "I wonder if Lieberman's defeat, the resilience of Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the emergence of a Hezbollah-style government in Iraq had any bearing on the decision by Bush and Blair to pre-empt the British police and order this alleged plot disabled. I wish I didn't find these questions popping into my head. But the alternative is to trust the Bush administration. Been there. Done that. Learned my lesson."

Lefty bloggers picked up on Sullivan's thoughts and admitted to harbouring similar feelings. Talking Points MemoJoshua Micah Marshall : "I'm not ready to say the London bomb plot is another bamboozlement. It at least seems clear the Brits were involved in a serious investigation. But even this case now seems to be turning out to be less than met the eye. And there are real grounds to question whether Bush and Blair jumped the gun for reasons other than counter-terrorism. We'll see." Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly: "As little a year or two ago I would have rolled my eyes at the idea that even the timing of the arrests was politically motivated, let alone the possibility that the plot itself was being exaggerated. But today? I don't know."

On the right John Podhoretz at National Review Online jumped at the chance to settle old scores: "Andrew Sullivan appears extremely eager - desperately eager, hysterically eager - to believe there was far less to the British terror plot than meets the eye. Why? I suspect because of the news stories yesterday suggesting that it was broken up in part due to the use of torture in Pakistan. If that is true, Sullivan's passionate project over the past two-and-a-half years to declare torture everywhere, at every moment, and in every circumstance unacceptable goes up in smoke."

In none conspiracy thoughts on the war, Josh Marshall argues that the London plot exposes Iraq as distraction in the larger war on terror: "On the basic ground of 'Is fighting in Iraq helping reduce the threat of terrorism at home?' the answer is clearly 'No'. ... And yet, I wonder if this recent terror scare out of London may have actually driven that point home in a new and more resonant way. ... It now seems that even this London bomb plot may not be all it's cracked up to be. But it did give me a moment of that gut level fear. And in that moment, as much as I've thought what I've thought about Iraq, I'm not sure I ever felt as clearly how completely beside the point Iraq is from the real threat we face of deracinated Islamic radicals (in the Muslim world and sprinkled about the West) trying to perpetrate mass terror attacks."

TERROR POLITICS II: A Triumph For Will?

Paul Mirengoff at Power Line summarizes a lengthy deputy assistant to the president and director of the White House's Office of Strategic Initiatives Peter Wehner email response to George Will's 8/15 op-ed "The Triumph of Unrealism." Highlights include:

• Wehner's first point is that the Middle East was not stable prior to the Bush administration and, in fact, past Middle East policies were unsustainable.
• Wehner next produces a series of past statements in which Will took the position that the Middle East was far from stable and that the status quo there was not acceptable.
• Next Wehner turns to Will's contention that only "intellectual contortions" can "sustain the illusion that the war in Iraq is central to the war on terrorism." Wehner responds that the world's leading terrorists (not noted for their intellectual contortions) have declared Iraq to be the place where the "Third World War is raging" (Osama bin Laden) and "the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era" (Ayman al-Zawahiri).
• As to Will's embrace of John Kerry's belief that the war on terrorism is primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation, Wehner counters that law enforcement, while obviously important, is imperfect and therefore not enough. As evidence, he cites successful terrorist attacks in Madrid, Riyadh, Amman, Bali, London, and elsewhere.
• Wehner concludes: "The status quo in the Middle East was a downward spiral of oppression, officially-sanctioned conspiracy theories, economic stagnation, growing radicalism, and an ideology of violence. Mr. Will's kind of "stability" and "realism" -- a kind of world-weary belief that nothing can be done and so nothing should be tried -- would eventually lead to death and destruction on a scale that is almost unimaginable. He wants what never was and cannot be: stability and peace anchored in oppression. His brand of "realism" is divorced from both reality and history. It ought to be rejected."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Dems Love Messy Scraggly Haired College Students

Mystery Pollster uses the first hand account of a "reader/reporter" Melanie to examine possible causes for Dem skewing of exit polls. MP posts her report from 8/8's CT SEN primary:

The poll person was a young guy, maybe 20 - looked like a college student (tall, a little messy, scraggly hair, very diffident). I think he had some sort of ID around his neck or clipped to his pocket, but I didn't notice what it said (he was in the midst of a discussion with the woman running the voting site about where he could be set up - she said she had just gotten a faxed letter from someone giving this young guy permission to be there, wherever he wanted to be as long as he didn't interrupt anyone, so she told him he could stay out of the sun - he was about 5 feet from the door of the site).

MP writes: "Melanie's experience gives us a unique window into the real world challenge of trying to select voters randomly as they exit a polling place. She happened to overhear the interviewer's most important interaction of the day, the one that enabled him to stand just outside the door of the polling place. Had he been forced to stand farther away, his ability to sample exiting voters randomly would have been severely compromised. The post-election report provided by the two companies that conducted the 2004 exit polls (Edison Research and Mitofsky International**) showed that errors in John Kerry's favor were more than twice as large (-12.3) when interviewers were forced to stand 100 feet or more from the door of the polling place than when they could stand right outside the door (-5.3, p. 37)."

MP further notes that Melanie's report came at 9 am which meant the poll taker probably had to contact his supervisor to produce the fax allowing him to move closer to the poll. MP guesses this caused the pollster to miss 105 of the days sample. MP also reminds readers that the pollster "looked like a college student" with "messy scraggly hair" and a "diffident" attitude. MP asks: "Now dear reader, ask yourself what you might guess about the politics or personality of that interviewer. How would you react to an approach from such a person? Is it possible that your choice -- whether you make eye contact, approach with interest or walk briskly in the opposite direction -- might have some relationship to your politics?"

LEST WE FORGET: It's Hard Out There For A Straight Man

It's obvious form this video that Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) is in on the whole Daily Show/Colbert Report joke. This only makes his recent unflappable Daily Show appearence, posted at RedState all the more impressive.

NOTES AND ERRATA: Team Hotline Needs You!

The Hotline is looking for a Virtual Intern (three hours, five days a week) to assist in daily compilation of Blogometer updates and assist on special projects. Applicants must consider themselves regular consumers of blogs, be familiar with nationally read blogs from across the spectrum; know how to use blog search engines/aggregators (such as Technorati and Memeorandum); be able to quickly analyze and synthesize developments in the news as well as summarize ongoing blog activity with brevity, clarity and accuracy. Excellent writing and time-management skills are also a must.

This is a "virtual" position, so as long as you have always-on Internet access, Firefox, a plain text editor, and a pulse (i.e. actual presence in DC not necessary) you can apply. As with every Hotline position, we don't expect our writers to not have an opinion, we just expect them to keep it out of their work. Interested applicants should send their resumes to ccarroll@nationaljournal.com

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:35 PM

August 16, 2006

8/16: Let The Sunshine In

Perhaps it's due to the GOP's recent electoral success, but the right side of the 'sphere continues to focus less on campaigns and elections and more on other (still political) projects. 8/16 is yet another example of the trend as a broad coalition of conservative bloggers and other established institutions join forces to promote an anti-pork spending project that, since the GOP's in power, ought to bring embarrassment to GOP lawmakers in the midst of a tough cycle. With their current belief in partisanship at all costs (see CT SEN), would lefty bloggers ever put forward such an effort that had the potential to hurt so many Dems?

BLOGGERS VS. BELTWAY: Mmmmmm, Pork

Robert B. Bluey at Right Angle Blog announces a partnership between Human Events Online, the Sunlight Foundation, Citizens Against Government Waste, Porkbusters.com, Heritage Foundation, Club for Growth, Townhall.com, the Washington Examiner, and Tapscott's Copy Desk to help citizens research pork projects.

The Examiner is hosting a state by state database of 1,867 pork projects hidden in the 2007 Labor-HHS appropriations bill awaiting approval in the U.S. House. The Examiner invites readers to: "Check out the earmarks for your state and then call your congressman and ask if he or she sponsored any of your state's earmarks. If the answer is yes, ask why the congressman's name isn't on the earmark. If you recognize the institution designated to receive the earmarked tax dollars, call them and ask them what they intend to do with your money. ... Then email us at info@examiner.com with the subject line "Earmarks" and tell us what you found out. The Examiner will be asking more questions about who got the earmarks and why, so your information could be very important. You will be part of an army of citizen journalists determined to shine some much-needed light on spending decisions made behind closed doors by powerful Members of Congress.

Captain's Quarters has already located his favorite project: " I already found the three million dollars that went to the Charles B Rangel Center for Public Service. That one's mine. Go find yours now!"

TERROR POLITICS: Terror, It's Like Global Warming Only Less Important

Whether it's the London-aviation plot, fallout from CT SEN, or the impending 9/11 anniversary, lefty bloggers have significantly stepped up their posting on foreign policy. Bloggers clearly want US troops out of Iraq, but outside but after, that foreign policy consensuses and priorities are unclear. Matt Stoller at MyDD for instance, believes "the reality of America is that we cannot be destroyed by outside forces, we can only destroy ourselves ... Now, to be clear for the idiot right-wingers reading this, terrorism is one of many problems that we must solve, and it's a serious problem, though probably a lot less serious than global warming."

Others on the left feel that while the Dems should go on the offensive on security issues, scare tactics are not the answer. Adele Stan at TAPPED: "I've just watched the new scare-mongering television ad from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), and I can't say it makes me feel terribly cheerful. While I do think it's high time that the Dems played the security issue to their advantage, this thing has an icky feel to it, especially with its implication that the Democrats will be tougher on illegal immigration than are the Republicans."

Also at TAPPED Matthew Yglesias argues the DSCC hit the right message: "the great thing about the spot is that it doesn't really make any kind of argument or logical sense. Rather, it simply has a clear emotive message -- if you find yourself increasingly frightened by the world situation, blame the guys who've been running the country. That's crucial. Ever since 9-11, Bush has been locked in a "heads I win, tales you lose" dynamic where if people feel reassured they're supposed to credit him, but if people feel frightened they're supposed to . . . turn to him for comfort. Simply put, Democrats are going to have a very hard time winning elections fighting from within that framework. The ad is a great step toward changing it."

Ed Kilgore at New Donkey looks back at GOP rationalizations for Bush's '04 re-election and argues that incident's like the London plot undermine GOP strength on the issue: "Back during the last presidential campaign, I became convinced ... that the most powerful thing the incumbent had going for him was a rough and unsophisticated argument that went like this: "Some Arabs came here and killed a bunch of Americans. George Bush went over to Iraq and killed even more Arabs. Since then there have been no attacks. He must be doing something right." ... Anything and everything that reminds Americans that the Iraq War has not done a thing to reduce the terrorist threat against the United States will erode that argument, and with it, the GOP's belief that any and all concerns about national security will benefit it at the ballot box."

Finally Larry Beinhart at The Huffington Post offers a list of facts Dems should hit the GOP with on security:

1. 9/11 happened on their watch.
2. George Bush and the Republicans failed to get Osama bin Laden.
3. George Bush and the Republicans gave Osama bin Laden
what he wanted.
4. George Bush and the Republicans squandered America's
power and prestige.
5. The Bush administration empowered Hezbollah.
6. The Bush administration radicalized Hamas.
7. Bush and the Republicans tied down our forces in Iraq while Iran
and North Korea invested in nuclear technology.
8. By the way, every major European nation has had successful arrests
and real trials of real, dangerous terrorists.
9. We have trashed the bill of rights.

TERROR POLITICS II: Conflicted On The Right?

The right side of the 'sphere is buzzing over a Guardian report that some of the information used to stop the London attacks may have come from torture. Karol Sheinin subbing for Michelle Malkin highlights this passage:

Reports from Pakistan suggest that much of the intelligence that led to the raids came from that country and that some of it may have been obtained in ways entirely unacceptable here. In particular Rashid Rauf, a British citizen said to be a prime source of information leading to last week's arrests, has been held without access to full consular or legal assistance. Disturbing reports in Pakistani papers that he had "broken" under interrogation have been echoed by local human rights bodies. The Guardian has quoted one, Asma Jehangir, of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, who has no doubt about the meaning of broken. "I don't deduce, I know - torture," she said. "There is simply no doubt about that, no doubt at all."

Sheinin comments: "Personally, I have no such quandary. It is one thing to debate the ethics of torture in a general sense, whether captured terrorists can be subject to uncomfortable conditions in order to extract information about their network and associates. It's quite another to understand the use of torture in order to save the lives of innocent people. An attack was imminent, and the information had to be obtained, no matter the method."

Ace of Spades uses the report to frame a torture debate: "It's time for liberals to stop dodging the question: What is worse -- for a terrorist to be made to suffer, or for thousands of innocent people, guilty of no more than conspiring to maximize air-miles, should be permitted to be murdered? ... Liberals really ought to stop insisting over and over that torture doesn't work and bother to read an expert's opinion on the matter. ... Liberals need torture to never work in order to claim that it is a zero-cost decision to not engage in the practice; that way they can claim we can act perfectly morally with absolutely no compromise in safety. A win-win situation. ... Well, there's a thing called nuance liberals should look into. It turns out that in at least one case torture has worked spectacularly well, and, given that it directly led to the survival of 2000-4000 innocent civilians, seems to have been the moral course of action."

Not everyone on the right was ready to concede the point. Say Anything asks: "Personally, I'm not willing to conclude that torture was used as I'm not willing to take some international human rights activist's word for it. Her definition of torture and mine probably aren't the same. That being said, this does pose something of an interesting moral question. The information from this detainee in Pakistan was undoubtedly crucial in thwarting a major terror plot that could have killed thousands and had dire consequences on the global economy. ... When we're talking about stopping a terror attack that is imminent how concerned can we afford to be about the treatment of one informant?"

Captain's Quarters argues that supporting regimes that use torture undermines the larger war on terror: "Strategically, supporting regimes that torture their captives makes little sense if we want to transform the region. Part of the reason we needed to eject Saddam from power was to allow democracy and respect for human rights change the Middle East from a powderkeg of suppressed and radicalized rage to a region of responsible self-government. Our alliance with Pervez Musharraf paid off in the protection of perhaps three thousand lives now -- but how long will we tolerate his form of oppression, and the radicalized anger it produces?"

GORE: MoveOn vs. DLC

Altercation sees larger forces at work when handicapping the '08 Dem field: "When Al Gore endorsed Howard Dean in 2004 right before Dean's campaign imploded, taking $40 million with it, everyone treated Gore as if he had gone even crazier -- what with growing a beard, pointing out that Iraq was a mistake and George W. Bush was a liar. My thought was that Gore was positioning himself for 2008. Hillary was already remaking herself as the DLC candidate and Gore was fitting into his role as the Moveon.org candidate. Those were the party's two national power bases, and their strength varies from region to region, but they both produce money and Moveon produces money and volunteers. ... If both Gore and Hillary do run for the presidency, I still think that's the way the race will shake out. With these two heavyweights in the race, there will be no "oxygen"--i.e. money and media attention--for anyone to cut-in on this meta-and mega-grudge match."

GOP FIELD: The Luntz Report

Ankle Biting Pundits Patrick Hynes reports on results from focus group expert Frank Luntz session with GOP voters in IA and NH: "John McCain and Newt Gingrich scored very high, Rudy Giuliani is beloved but faces issues problems, Mitt Romney faces religion problems, George Allen turns women off, and Bill Frist doesn't appear comfortable in his own skin." Hynes reminds readers of his McCain ties and includes more Luntz observations including:

• "Expectations for John McCain are the highest of any candidate. . . . He walks into any room, and figuratively into our sessions, with a decisive lead. And Republicans certainly like what they hear."
• While he didn't start with any measurable support, Luntz said, Gingrich ended both the Iowa and New Hampshire sessions "with the most new converts."
• "Rudy will always be America's mayor. But after hearing the whole story, Republican voters just aren't sure he's the right choice for America's next president," Luntz said.

CT SEN: Bloggers Get Results?

The unofficial Lamont Blog highlights anonymous quotes from a 8/16 The Hill article on Dem displeasure with Sen. Joe Lieberman's (I-CT) indy run including: "At this point Lieberman cannot expect to just keep his seniority," said the aide. "He can't run against a Democrat and expect to waltz back to the caucus with the same seniority as before."

Chris Bowers at MyDD comments: "For now, it is good to know that some Democrats in DC are looking into it. ... In order to put an end to this trashing of our own party and for the Democratic nominee in Connecticut to win, we are going to need a lot more pressure on Lieberman from the Democratic establishment. Specifically, once he is certified on the ballot as the Connecticut for Lieberman candidate, and all challenges to his signatures have been dropped, we are going to need the Democratic leadership in the Senate to strip him of his committee assignments. ... Actions have consequences, and the price for ignoring the will of Democratic voters, and then trashing the Democratic Party for your own benefit while simultaneously feeding at the Democratic Party seniority trough must be made clear. If Lieberman wants to run on his own, then he should be forced to get seniority on his own. Party seniority is earned through consistently receiving the endorsement of the will of Democratic voters, and Joe Lieberman has lost that."

Meanwhile Greg Sargent at TPM Cafe asked Lieberman senior adviser Dan Gerstein for a Lieberman committment to caucus with Dems and received this answer: "Senator Lieberman is a Democrat, will continue to be a Democrat and is committed to caucusing with the Democrats should he be reelected. If reelected, he is absolutely committed to supporting Senator Reid as leader, and he very much hopes it will be as majority leader."

CT SEN II: Swiftboaters For Everything

Lefty bloggers are picking up on the Hartford Courant's 8/15 report on the new 537 Vets for Freedom. Taylor Marsh writes: "Funny how Dan Senor's group is listed as a 527, but is doing highly partisan work. Does anyone actually believe that by siding with Lieberman against Ned Lamont the Swiftboaters for Freedom are being non-partisan? It's especially interesting given information I was handed this morning. Senor's group didn't even file their papers until the very end of July, wherein they signed on as a 527, which is not supposed to use any funds to directly defeat a candidate. Yeah, right."

Spencer Ackerman at TNR picks out another name from the piece: "Who's Taylor Gross? Only one of the GOP apparatchiks who assisted Bush in the Florida recount fiasco. As Gross's college alumni magazine wrote, he "found himself between Tallahassee and Miami, assisting with the recount hullabaloo and setting up press conferences for former White House Chief of Staff Jim Baker." In other words, had it not been for Gross and his ilk, Lieberman would be vice president, the Iraq war in all likelihood never would have happened, and Lieberman's increasingly mutual estrangement from the Democratic Party would be unthinkable."

CT SEN III: A Day Late And A Dollar Short

Christy Hardin Smith at firedoglake looks at ex-Pres. Bill Clinton's 8/15 GMAappearance and comments: "It's time for Bill Clinton and other Democrats to get their butt to Connecticut and campaign for the Democratic candidate Ned Lamont."

Arianna Huffington also saw Clinton's kind words for Lamont but wants more from Team Clinton: "If the Powell Doctrine can be distilled as never enter a battle without force so decisive you know you can easily win it, the Clinton Doctrine can be distilled as never enter a battle in any serious way until it's so late that your contribution is meaningless. ... Want an example? How about the Battle of Connecticut, in which we were treated on Monday to the following brave statement from the most famous face of the Democratic Party. Now, as I recall, the Democratic Party was pretty loyal to Bill Clinton in his hour of need. Had it not been, it's not likely he would have finished his second term. And the most he can now do for his Party is throw out meaningless truisms like, as the ABC reporter put it, "A vote for Lamont was not, as Lieberman had implied, a vote against the country's security." That's a profile in something, but it ain't courage."

CT SEN IV: Round Up

Stephen Spruiell at National Review Online looks at Lamont's 8/16 WSJ op-ed and finds no difference between Lamont's current health care prescription and the one Lamont criticized Lieberman for in a 5/13 interview with WSJ's James Taranto.

Bob Geiger and RedState are both keeping track of Sen Dem Lieberman/Lamont positions. The only major difference between the lists: RedState has Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI) in the pro-Lieberman camp and Geiger has him as being "firm about not being firm."

Finally, TPM Cafe has gambler Alan Schlesinger on Hardball and Open Source has a radio conversation between bloggers Matt Stoller at MyDD, John Nichols of the Nation, and Townhall's Mary Katherine Ham.

VA SEN: Welcome To America, Senator

Progressive blogger opinion of Sen. George Allen's (R-VA) 8/11 use of the name "Macaca" to describe a ex-Navy sec. Jim Webb (D) volunteer has not evolved:

• Atrios: "Sad to say that the real reason George Felix Allen, Jr. shouldn't be a senator isn't that he's a racist - which he clearly is - it's that he's dumb as a box of rocks."
• Talking Points Memo: "So he's either a closet racist who let the truth slip. Or a very calculating crypto-racist. Nice range of choices. And this guy's a major GOP prez aspirant."
• Matt Stoller at MyDD: "George Allen, bigot, is becoming a de facto narrative."

On the right, Commonwealth Conservative ("one of the racist Virginia crackers") reports he was at the event, admittedly after the comment occurred, but guarantees "that not one single person in the crowd took it as a racial comment." Commonwealth has a photo of the Webb volunteer from 8/11 and writes: "In my neck of the woods, we call that a mohawk. What's laughable is that the guy says he has a mullet. Listen, I was born and raised in the mountains of Southwest Virginia, on the Kentucky border. I know what a mullet looks like. That ain't one. ... Also, I can verify that the Allen campaign had discussed this guy's mohawk hairstyle long before the Breaks event. Before noon that day, prior to the Norton event, they called and told me that "a guy with a mohawk" would probably be there; he had been trailing them at other events. So the campaign had been identifying him by his hairstyle."

No one on the right bought into the racism charges, but Allen did come in for some heavy criticism. Rich Lowry at National Review Online offered two pretty representative thoughts:

• -I find it hard to believe that he was trying to speak a coded racist language with his listeners. I do, however, think Allen has a mean streak that showed here. If you are going to single out a 20-year old kid working for an opposing campaign, you better do it with a real light touch that seems to have been lacking in this case.
• -An experienced politician operating at this level is simply not allowed to make gaffes like this. Yes, some of the commentary might be unfair; yes, the media coverage might be over-blown, etc., etc. But this is a blatant unforced error, and to make a mistake with the slightest tinge of race about it is doubly damaging for Allen. This will be in the backs of the minds of Republican primary voters for a long time to come.

Also at NRO Byron York hoped Webb didn't get a free ride on racial issues: "In all the controversy over George Allen's use of the M-word, commentators and news reports are bringing up the senator's alleged fondness for all things Confederate. That's not surprising, but it's useful to remember that the Confederate issue, stirred up a few months by a long New Republic article, mostly disappeared after the Richmond Times-Dispatch, looking into why Democrat James Webb had not criticized Allen over the New Republic piece, reported that Webb himself has expressed deep reverence for the Confederacy. In May, the Times-Dispatch published an article , "Webb speech praised Confederate army; In 1990, the Senate hopeful spoke of forebears' sacrifices," that discussed a speech Webb gave at the Confederate Memorial at Arlington National Cemetery on June 3, 1990. The entire text of the speech is available at Webb's website, and it is worth reading."

PA SEN: Are "Garrison America" and "Fortress America" The Only Options?

Mary Katharine Ham at Townhall sat down with Sen. Rick Santorum (R). Highlights include:

• Q: Let's start with the big news of the day. In light of the foiled terrorist plot in Great Britain this week, tell me a little bit about your vision for how we should fight the war on Islamic extremism, and how it differs from your opponent's.
• A: The difference between where the Democratic Party is and where my opponent is on this issue and me, is that my opponent runs around and talks about the 9/11 Commission and talks about how we have to spend more money on homeland security. That approach to me is basically the approach of "garrison America" or "fortress America." that the way to fight this war against Islamic fascism is to defend against it. I think that is a fundamentally flawed strategy. It's flawed because, while we have to take prudent measures to defend ourselves, the idea that focusing our attention on a defensive struggle against Islamic fascism is a failed strategy.
• Q: On immigration, many conservatives are upset about the Republican Congress' conduct, particularly the Senate bill. Is that going to be obstacle for you in pumping up the base and what are you doing about it?
• A: It's not an obstacle for me because I probably share their opinion on immigration. I voted against the Senate bill. I've been making that one of the major planks of our campaign. I talk about it all the time.
• UPDATE: Oh, I forgot to mention that I asked the Senator what blogs he reads: Little Green Footballs, RedState, and The Corner.

NV: Too Close To Call

Right Angle Blog reports that as of early 8/16 the race to replace Rep. Jim Gibbons (R-02) between "conservative Club for Growth candidate" Sharron Angle (R) and Sec/State Dean Heller (R) "appeared to be up in the air. to a 428 vote lead out of nearly 70,000 votes counted." RAB writes: "The lead swung back and forth all through the night as Angle ran up a 2,000 vote lead in the district's largest county and her home area of Washoe County (Reno). But Heller was ahead in 13 of the district's 17 counties including a 1,000 vote margin in Carson City, the state capital. The district contains almost every county in the state and a small part of Clark County (Las Vegas area). In fact, most of Heller's lead was based on a big victory he won 979 to 701 for Angle in the small part of Clark County in the district."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Beware Your Inbox

Natural Born Killers producer and progressive activist Jane Hamsher at firedoglake unveils a new tool for progressive bloggers to influence MSM coverage: "The Spotlight Project." Hamsher writes: "It's a work in progress and since FDL has a wonderfully engaged readership, we'll ask for your patience and participation in test-driving this new feature. At the bottom of each post you'll now see a "Spotlight" tag next to the permalink. Clicking it takes you to The Spotlight Project, which offers you a list of contact information which allows you to forward the post of your choice to specific journalists. I'll ask that folks consider several things when doing this:

• * Please be polite and reasonable. We don't want folks to get angry and up-in-arms over a bunch of ad hominem attacks.
• * Since it's a serious tool that could have a profound effect as we try to re-shape the dominant narrative with key opinion makers, abusing it could not only lessen its effectiveness, it could neutralize it completely.
• * Praise is just as important - if not more so - than criticism.
• * We may have some initial birth pangs, so if you have any problems please report them here.

Hamsher goes on to suggest a first target: "Might I suggest following up on journalists who have printed Dan Gerstein's bogus allegations about site hacking that were never substantiated? That certainly fell into a media black hole after its damage was done, and I don't think those base fabrications should be allowed to disappear quite so painlessly."

LEST WE FORGET: Make Love, Not Grand Theft Auto

The Blogometer will be going a little corporate today, plugging a Coca-Cola commercial, but for all the sex and violence in youth culture these days this on-line ad is worth spreading around.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:32 PM

August 15, 2006

8/15: The Revolution Will Be YouTubed

John Dickerson devoted an entire Slate item to the role anti-Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) YouTube clips played in delivering a Dem primary victory to cable exec Ned Lamont (D-CT). The Blogometer believes Dickerson overstates his case more than a little bit, but here we are less than a week later and already YouTube is making news again. How damning the clip of Sen. George Allen (R-VA) using the moniker "Macaca" probably depends on your opinion of Allen before viewing it. For those less partisan however, the clip does fit into a purposefully developed story line of Allen's insensitivity to racial matters. Just like with Lieberman, a video like this can't sink Allen alone, but it is now forever out there on the web ready to rile the base up or dissuade potential swing voters.

VA SEN: YouTube Politics

Not Larry Sabato began torturing the Blogometer 8/13 with a "MAJOR SENATE RACE SHAKEUP" header and teaser reading "George Allen steps in it. Video coming soon." By deadline 8/14 the details of the incident were still a mystery. Finally, late 8/14 Not Larry Sabato linked to video of Allen from a campaign rally in southwest VA where Allen "welcomed" an ex-Navy Sec. James Webb (D-VA) volunteer taping the event saying: "This fellow over here with the yellow shirt, Macaca, or whatever his name is ... let's give a welcome to Macaca here."

Matt Stoller at MyDD summed up lefty reaction to the story: "George Allen, I'm glad you're finally out of the closet as a racist. It must have been really hard to restrain yourself for all these years." Wonkette quipped: "George Allen! He's edgy! Like Chris Rock, or John Rocker!"

Ryan Lizza at TNR explains: "Not only is macaque apparently a French slur used to describe North Africans, Allen would have good reason to know it is. His mother is French Tunisian (yeah, that's in North Africa), and Allen speaks French." Lizza then looks at possible fallout: "A politician without Allen's record might get the benefit of the doubt since these are arguably ambiguous statements. (Did Allen just mean the real America, as opposed to Hollywood? Was he calling Sidarth a monkey or just playing on the word mohawk, the nickname Allen's campaign uses for Sidarth?) But given Allen's history, he won't get the benefit of the doubt. And he shouldn't." Teacherken at Raising Kaine has similar thoughts: "The story may be a one-day or two-day wonder, but because it fits a meme that was already out there about Allen -- which he had tried to counteract by cosponsoring the renewal of the Voting Rights Act and appearing with Congressman John Lewis - the story also might have 'legs.'"

Reaction on the right was mixed. Allen definitely had his defenders but no one was buying Team Allen's original story that Allen was saying "mohawk." James Joyner at Outside the Beltway writes: "Allen's explanation is hard to swallow: "Asked what macaca means, Allen said: "I don't know what it means." He said the word sounds similar to "mohawk," a term that his campaign staff had nicknamed Sidarth because of his haircut. Sidarth said his hairstyle is a mullet, tight on top, long in the back." So, Allen didn't know the name and decided to make one up on the spot that reminded him, but presumably nobody in the audience, of "mohawk"? That's just absurd. Especially since, Jane Hamsher (who knows something about racial slander) points out, Sidarth's haircut doesn't at all resemble a mohawk.

But Joyner, like many on the right, wasn't buying the MSM story line either: "Now, isn't it interesting that WaPo doesn't capitalize "Macaca"? After all, Allen's clearly using it as a name, not a descriptor. If Allen had said "Mohawk" rather than "Macaca," it'd still be capitalized in that context. Putting it in lower case, though, makes it seem more as if it was being used as a slur."

Also at Outside the BeltwayGreg Tinti thinks Allen's intellect is getting too much credit: "For someone that is typically derided as, er, not that worldly, Sen. George Allen is sure being given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to his knowledge of really obscure ethnic slurs. ... Macaca, according to The Washington Post, "is considered a racial slur against African immigrants" in some "European cultures" according to "several Web sites that track ethnic slurs." In other words, it is a slur but we had to be told it is slur by the people that track all the slurs from around the world. ... But it seems to me that Allen called Sidarth "Macaca" because he had no idea what his real name was.

John McIntyre at RCP Blog also doubts the Webb volunteer was singled out for his skin color: "Watch the video for yourself. It is pretty clear, at least to me, that Allen is good naturedly ribbing a guy who is following him around and harassing him. The reason for him being singled out is not because the Webb volunteer, is non-white, but rather because the guy is following Allen around, unwanted, trying to catch him on film in an embarrassing incident."

Not all on the right were convinced Allen was innocent. Under a header "Allen Under Fire...and Rightly So" Too Conservative writes: "I am pretty disappointed in Senator George Allen right now." Too Conservative later passes on a readers thoughts: "As someone who is Indian, Republican, a huge Davis supporter, and (formerly) a casual Allen supporter, I am a little bit upset at Senator Allen and let me explain why. ... He appears to be singling out this person in front of a crowd that is presumably mostly white and he thinks that this is going to somehow score him political points. Now, if Senator Allen were making fun of the guy cause he was a Webb staffer, that would be different. But he goes above and beyond that. In other words, it's the tone, spirit, and context of the situation that has me upset.

GWOT: We Ain't Afraid Of No Terrorists

DarkSyde at DailyKos asks, "I know there are millions of brave, decent conservatives. ... But good grief, when did the Republican Party become infested with what sound like so many loud, whining cowardly pundits?" DarkSyde goes on to explain: "Here's a message for both our home grown Neoconservative, bloggy, gutless wonders and the Jihadi nutcases overseas: I grew up in the cold-war, my parents went through WW2 for crying out loud. We are not paralyzed with fear over Osama. Despite your best efforts, I'm not obsessed with terrorism. Sheesh, I barely even think about it. I face bigger statistical risks, in every way, every day, and on every scale, just driving across a set of railroad tracks and down the interstate smoking a cigarette in the rain, and I don't worry much about that either."

Right Wing News claimed the post was evidence of Dem weakness on terror: "You know why I love this? Because it's honest. Here's a liberal saying what Howard Dean, Ned Lamont, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats really think. This allows people to take a very clear, open eyed look at what conservatives and liberals really believe.

• -- Conservatives believe we must do whatever it takes to stop another 9/11 from occurring on our soil. -- Liberals, like Darksyde, don't think that's the case.
• -- Conservatives believe WMDs falling into the hands of terrorists is a serious threat. -- Liberals, like Darksyde, do not.
• -- Conservatives think the British terrorism plot, that would have featured numerous planes being blown up in mid air, would have been a major disaster had it happened. -- Liberals, like Darksyde, do not.

RWN continues: "Boiled down to it's simplest level, conservatives believe terrorism is a serious threat and spend a lot of time thinking about how to combat it. Liberals like Darksyde, "barely even think about," terrorism and consider preventing terrorist attacks to be a low priority."

DarkSyde later responds: "Yay! I got linked quoted on one right-wing chicken-[excrement] site already. Redstate is whining that we must join them under the bed. How do these wimps make it through the day without a jug of Xanax? Who will be the next yellow-elephant to complain that we're not sharing in their abject cowardice enough? I'm taking bets."

Meanwhile AMERICAblog promotes a new DSCC video "Feel Safer" on GOP security failures: "Rove wants national security to be the issue this year. Looks like it will be, but the Dems. are doing it on their terms in 2006. And those terms include draping Iraq around the necks of every Republican. That's the GOP's greatest fear this year."

Greg Pollowitz at National Review Online responds: "This new video from the DSCC lists all the ways George Bush has made America less safe. Not enough money for law enforcement to not enough money for container inspection to too many illegal immigrants. It's an ad designed to scare the electorate into voting for Democrats. But Ted Kennedy, in this Hartford Courant op-ed, cautions against the Republican use of fear "to cling to power." Democrats: We're actually for scaring voters before we were against it.

Finally, Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) takes to The Huffington Post to demand the administration stop the Iraq war like they stopped the war in Lebanon: "Sixty percent of Americans oppose the war in Iraq. The latest polling of Iraqis indicate that 80 percent want the U.S. to leave and a majority believes that Iraq will be more stable without the presence of U.S. troops. Many intelligence reports indicate that the war in Iraq has radicalized more European Muslims and strengthened terrorist recruitment efforts throughout the world. And yet given these facts, the Bush Administration refuses to consider a policy aimed at a timely and responsible disengagement of our military from Iraq. Instead they insist on staying a course with no end in site."

Murtha continues: "Compare this against the backdrop of the war in Lebanon. The United States and virtually all other members of the United Nations Security Council continue to push for an end to the war between Israel and Hezbollah. The lead taken by the United States to end the violence and to stop the loss of innocent lives has been applauded. The Bush Administration is moving with speed and deliberation to end the one war, but not the other. Those who speak of ending the war in Lebanon, to stop the loss of more lives, are seen as skillful diplomats. Yet those who dare speak about ending the war in Iraq are labeled by Bush's henchmen as unpatriotic defeatists. The American public opposes the war in Iraq. The Iraqi population opposes an open ended occupation of their country. The International community opposes the war the Iraq. So, why the dichotomy of the two wars?"

FEINGOLD: Looking For Excuses

John Nichols at The Nation Blog argues "anti-war challenger Ned Lamont's Connecticut Democratic primary win over pro-war incumbent U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman Tuesday was a clear victory for the activist wing of the Democratic Party that -- if liberal Internet blogs are to be believed -- sees Feingold as perhaps its most attractive contender for the party's presidential nomination in 2008." Nichols also reports: "On the morning after the Connecticut results came in, Feingold notes, a former staffer told him, "Hey, if you were looking for an excuse to not run for president, Russ, you didn't get it last night."

Matthew Yglesias at TAPPED thinks Nichols reasoning "is missing a whole bunch of steps." Yglesias notes: "Realistically, Hillary Clinton is no Joe Lieberman in terms of political profile, even though I agree that their views on Iraq are less different at the end of the day than Clinton would like us to think. But that brings us to the larger point, Lieberman lost by a pretty narrow margin at the end of the day. ... What's more, the dynamics of the Connecticut primary were very different from a presidential one. Had Lieberman agreed to respect the outcome of the primary, the general election would have been a blowout win for whoever won the Democratic nomination. That took the dread "electability" off the table as an issue. The 2008 primary won't be like that. And Feingold is close to the opposite (being from Wisconsin is okay; being a twice-divorced non-practicing Jewish senator is terrible) of the person I would come up with as a messenger for Feingold's message."

GORE: Gore-mania!

Ezra Klein at TAPPED notes that An Inconvenient Truth is resting comfortably atop the New York Times Bestseller List, but doubts "that customers are buying a coffee table tome on global warming rather than a little piece of Gore-mania." Klein concludes: "while a bestseller does not make a presidential campaign, it's got to be one more siren song tempting the ambitions of the former contender."

On the right, Steven Foley at RedState picks up on a USA Today article titled: "Gore isn't quite as green as he's led the world to believe." Foley writes: "Here's a tip Mr. Gore; if you're going to tell us what to do you have to make these changes before someone calls you out! This is just one more in a long laundry list of examples of the hypocrisy coming from the left. Not to say we on the right don't have our share of hypocrites but in comparison the left takes the cake. The reason for the lopsided numbers is simple, conservative live by the same set of ideals they advocate for others. The liberals want the people to do as they say and not as they do!

GIULIANI: 4,821 Instapundit Readers Can't Be Wrong

Righty traffic leader Instapundit is conducting a straw poll of his readers. Currently ex-NY mayor Rudy Giuliani is the clear winner.

Candidate				%		Votes
George Allen		12%		561
Bill Frist		1%		44
Newt Gingrich	19%		917
Rudy Giuliani	47%		2,262
John McCain		9%		449
Mitt Romney		12%		588
total							4,821 

McCAIN: Baseless?

Right Wing News wants no part of Michael Barone's McCain\Lieberman ticket: "What could be a worse idea than taking the guy who represents most of what's wrong with the Republican Party and putting him together with a liberal Democrat\Independent so that they can be the standard bearers for the GOP? We keep seeing some Republicans demand that the GOP move to the middle. Yet, who's the most beloved Republican President of the last 50 years? Ronald Reagan, a guy who was 4 or 5 steps to George Bush's right. ... So, why do people think that RINOs on the national ticket are the answer? Because they, incorrectly, believe that moderate candidates can draw in more independents and Democrats without paying a serious price with the base."

ROMNEY: Pure Politician

Instapundit reader Brian Erst handicaps the GOP field after seeing the straw poll above: "I've always thought the faithful Instapundit reader was first and foremost a security voter, not a Republican, and they are definitely going to break for Giuliani. Wonks and geeks make up a big chunk of the rest, so they (like me) went for Gingrich, the geekiest wonk out there. Neither will probably survive the real Republican primary though. Giuliani is too liberal for primary voters, and Gingrich is (brilliantly) damaged goods. That leaves the real fight - McCain/Allen/Romney. McCain can easily win the main election, and is the second-place finisher in the last Republican primaries (Repubs tend to promote the runner-up to the head of the next ticket), so he's the prohibitive favorite. George Allen can make watching wallpaper dry seem like the mosh pit at a late-80s Pantera concert, but has a good organization. Romney is the best pure politician out there - if McCain stumbles, Romney will be turned into the Ronald Reagan of Latter-Day Saints."

CT SEN: Stand By Your Man

Progressive Christy Hardin Smith at firedoglake was none too happy to hear from reader TeddySanFran that NARAL intended to stick with its Sen. Joe Lieberman (I) endorsement over cable exec. Ned Lamont (D) so she called NARAL HQ to confirm: "And I was told, yes indeed, they are continuing to endorse Joe Lieberman, loser of the Democratic primary. You, too, can contact NARAL if you would like, and ask why it is that they continue to endorse Joe Lieberman, whether they plan on ever contacting the Lamont campaign to even speak with a fully pro-choice candidate, instead of a pseudo-pro-choice-but-voting-for-Alito-cloture-short-ride-kinda-guy like Lieberman, and just what they are thinking with this myopic decision-making in general."

The official Lamont Blog promised 8/14 that the Lamont campaign "will not be outspent in the genereal election. The Lamont Blog also announced that John Edwards (D) will be the first WH '08er to campaign for Lamont. Edwards will appear with Lamont and Mayor John Destefano (D) 8/17 in New Haven, CT.

Meanwhile, Greg Sargent at TPM Cafe reports businessman Jack Orchulli pledges to spend at least $1.5 mil if Alan Schlesinger is pushed off the ballot. Apparently the pledge is time sensitive. Orchulli: "If Schlesinger doesn't step down within two weeks, it'll be too late."

RI SEN: Doorman

Ivy J. Sellers at Right Angle Blog looks at an Exprss blog item from CenterBlue.org pulling for Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) and comments: "With liberal blogs such as this one eagerly rooting him on, it's high time the GOP showed Chafee the door."

Also at Right Angle, Matt Lewis argues CT SEN should not be confused with RI SEN: "Obviously, both races have drawn national attention. Both Chafee and Lieberman are sitting U.S. Senators from New England. Both are also philosophically outside the mainstream of their party orthodoxy."

Lewis continues: "And then, there are the differences. Joe Lieberman is convivial. Chafee is not. Lieberman is closer to his party's ideology than is Chafee. And on the challenger side, there are differences, too; Laffey is a Mayor while Lamont is a millionaire businessman. ... But perhaps most importantly, the hot-button issue of the Iraq war will likely not play as significant a role in determining the outcome of the Chafee/Laffey race. If you believe Lamont's victory was about Iraq, then there probably is no need for Chafee to worry. But if you believe that Lamont's victory was about more than Iraq -- that it was about "change" -- that it was about being ideologically pure -- or that it was simply an anti-incumbent thing -- then maybe there is room to worry."

WA SEN: Rightroots Not Left In Dust

Right Wing News reports from a conference call with Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) introducing "Rightroots endorsed candidate Mike McGavick" (R) to conservative bloggers: "We discussed fund raising a bit because McGavick has been lagging behind Cantwell, who has raised nearly 16 million dollars so far while McGavick has raised less than 5 million. The good news is that Cantwell has already spent more than half of that money and she only has a 4 point lead. Moreover, McGavick is going to put 2 million dollars of his own money into the campaign to make sure she doesn't leave him in the dust in the home stretch. ... McGavick talked about a variety of issues, but what he said about the war on terrorism was really spot-on."

DEMS: Pulling Your Weight

Paul Glastris at The Washington Monthly "obtained an internal scorecard showing which House Democrats have been the most diligent at dialing for dollars on behalf of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee." Glastris reports: "The DCCC sets fundraising goals for each member based on committee assignment and whether the member stands to become a committee or subcommittee chair should the Democrats win the majority. Each member is then expected to contribute to the team in three ways: by paying "dues" directly to the DCCC (which the committee then spends on TV ads in competitive districts); by holding fundraisers that benefit the DCCC; and by directly giving to or raising money for Democratic challengers through a program called "Red to Blue."

Glastris names his winners and losers: "As you can see, there are some real heroes, like Reps. Mike Thompson (D-Ca) and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla), who have raised millions for their fellow Dems. And there are serious laggards, like Reps. Pete Stark (D-Ca) and Jim Moran (D-Va), who have not only raised little or nothing for others but haven't even paid their own dues.

BLOGGERS VS. BELTWAY: Wither The Blue New Democrat Dogs

Chris Bowers at MyDD links to a Roll Call article on the growing strength of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and writes: "This is another sign of how power in the Democratic Party is shifting. The Blue Dogs and the New Democrats are both losing members in the House, but progressive are gaining. Back in June of 2005, these is exactly the sort of steps that I argued needed to be taken in order to help bring more progressive depth for higher office in the Senate, Governorships, and the Presidency. Instead of complaining about the lack of progressive in the party, we needed to work to bring more progressives into the party, and into higher levels of the party. After all, that is what the New Dems did back in the 1980's and 1990's, and that is why their candidate dominate the potential Presidential field for 2008. However, these new trends are very encouraging. We have a national progressive movement building outside of DC, but it seems quite clear that we have one building inside DC as well. Rock on."

Furthering the progressive ascendancy DavidNYC at Swing State Project announced the final round of nominations for MyDD/DailyKos/Swing State Project Netroots Candidates list. David explains who can be nominated: "It's a list of strong - but not quite top-tier - candidates who either already have broad support in the netroots or who ought to have such support. Our goal, in other words, is to identify campaigns where our ability to impact the race will be greatest. We don't want to pile on after the big boys - we want to get the ball rolling so that the big boys will come in and pile on after us."

BLOGGERS VS. MSM: No, Just You're Arguing

CNN Headline News anchor Chuck Roberts is heading into a blogswarm over his 8/11 question to Hotline senior editor John Mercurio: "How does this factor into the Lieberman/Lamont contest? And might some argue, as some have, that Lamont is the al Qaeda candidate?" Think Progress has video of the exchange here.

AMERICAblog calls Roberts question "despicable" and Media Matters' David Brock has an open letter to CNN President Jonathan Klein asking: "Will CNN be issuing a retraction? Will Mr. Roberts be offering Mr. Lamont an on-air apology? Will some disciplinary action be taken against Mr. Roberts?"

Meanwhile Arianna Huffington dissembles CNN's claim that "some people" are calling Lamont "tha Al Qaeda candidate." Her Huffington Post item reads: "Indeed, an exhaustive Lexis Nexis search confirms that no one has called Lamont "the Al Qaeda candidate." Except for Chuck Roberts. In fact, you know what you find if you Google "Al Qaeda candidate"? A lot of references to John Kerry being smeared by the RNC and its cronies during the 2004 election. Clearly, Lamont as is the latest rendition of an old G.O.P. tune. When will the mainstream media finally start holding elected officials and fellow journalists accountable for fraudulent words the way they rightly held Hajj, Reuters, and others accountable for fraudulent images? And how about starting by holding Chuck Roberts accountable?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Fear The Insurgents

Spurred by a Kausfiles observation on CT SEN late polling and actual results, Mystery Pollster revisits the "Incumbent Rule" which posits that the majority of undecided will almost always break for a challenger over an incumbent. MP writes:

In September 2004, MyDD's Chris Bowers persuaded Panagakis to share his database and updated it with polls conducted from 1992 to early 2004. Bowers took the process a step further, calculating the average split of the undecided vote over all the elections. He noticed something obviously important in retrospect. The incumbent rule seemed to be weakening (although he had little data from 1996): 80% of the undecided vote broke to challengers in the poll Panagakis collected between 1976 and 1988, but only 60% went to the challenger in the polls Bowers gathered between 1992 and the summer of 2004. And challengers did worst of all in the polls in 2002 and the spring/summer of 2004 (42% to the incumbent, 58% to the challenger).

The more important question is why undecided voters have stopped breaking toward challengers in the final week of the campaign. There are many theories.

• One possibility is that post 9/11 politics makes voters more reluctant to take a chance on challengers.
• There is also the alternative theory Barone articulated in his column last week: The left is noisy, assertive, in your face, quick to declare its passionate support. Voters on the right and in the center may be quieter but then stubbornly resist the instruction of the mainstream media and show up on Election Day and vote Republican, as they did in 2004, or for Lieberman, as some apparently did this week.
• Or could this change reflect a change in the nature of campaigning? Negative television ads were a rarity in the 1970s, but have grown increasingly commonplace in the years since. Has the willingness of incumbents to "go negative" limited the ability of challengers to make the race a referendum on the incumbent and shifted the attention of late breaking voters to the alleged shortcomings of the challengers?

LEST WE FORGET: We Were All Young Once

The Blogometer has no joke here. But whether you love or hate Jon Stewart this (10 years at least) old clip of Stewart singing with Elmo ought to bring a smile to your face.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:05 PM

August 14, 2006

Blogometer PM Extra II

BLOGGERS VS. GOP: Policy vs. Theology

Heather Mac Donald is making blogosphere waves with her 8/28 issue article in The American Conservative decrying the "religious triumphalism" of the current GOP leadership. Andrew Sullivan quotes from the article at length:

Conservative atheists and agnostics support traditional American values. They believe in personal responsibility, self-reliance, and deferred gratification as the bedrock virtues of a prosperous society. They view marriage between a man and a woman as the surest way to raise stable, law-abiding children. They deplore the encroachments of the welfare state on matters best left to private effort.

The presumption of religious belief — not to mention the contradictory thinking that so often accompanies it — does damage to conservatism by resting its claims on revealed truth. But on such truth there can be no agreement without faith. And a lot of us do not have such faith — nor do we need it to be conservative.

and writes: "This is indeed one of the main themes of my forthcoming book, although my skeptical conservatism is compatible not only with atheism and agnosticism but also with a Christianity that eschews fundamentalist dogma and psychology. I have differed with Heather on issues like torture and police power - for conservative reasons. I agree with her about heterosexual marriage, but I do not see homosexual marriage as a threat to it, but rather as a compliment and complement. Still, for all our small differecnes, I am delighted that others are seeing the danger that Christianism poses to conservatism and are beginning to marshall the necessary arguments to fight back."

Ramesh Ponnuru joins the converation noting "MacDonald is talking good sense when she says that conservatives should be able to agree on policy without agreeing on theology." But Ponnuru wants to know more about what Mac Donald means by "natural law" and is troubled by this pgraph:

"[T]he conservative movement is crippling itself by leaning too heavily on religion to the exclusion of these temperamentally compatible allies. Conservative atheists and agnostics . . . . view marriage between a man and a woman as the surest way to raise stable, law-abiding children."

Ponnuru comments: "I take this passage to express opposition to same-sex marriage. Let us leave aside two questions here in evaluating MacDonald's claim. The first question to ignore is whether opposition to same-sex marriage should be a central conservative cause. The second is whether valid and decisive rational, non-religious arguments against same-sex marriage exist. Is it true that the conservative movement has been "crippling itself" by alienating atheists and agnostics who oppose same-sex marriage? How many such people are there, and how alienated are they? My guess is that there are only a handful of non-religious people who object to same-sex marriage, and that the few people who hold that set of views will almost always be willing to work with conservatives who, to coin a phrase, agree with them on policy while disagreeing on theology.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 03:23 PM

Blogometer PM Extra

BLOGGER VS. BLOGGER: Making Friends And Influencing People

Ed Kilgore at New Donkey bemoans a "toxic little note" he recently recieved from populist David Sirota following Kilgore's recent defense of the DLC. Kilgore admits his post was "written in a tone of bored sarcasm" but believes Sirota was over the top in calling Kiglgore a liar.

Kilgore writes: "What's hilarious is that the "lie" David accuses me of comes from my suggestion that maybe the DLC isn't the political behemoth its more pnoid critics always assume it to be. Why is that so offensive to Sirota? Maybe because if the DLC is not the ultimate Giant, then David Sirota ain't no giant-killer, either."

Kilgore later fulminates on Sirota's place in the larger progressive movement: "Lots of bloggers I talk with have the same private opinion of David Sirota's tactics as I do, but think he's useful to The Cause, precisely because he matches the single-minded energy and "take no prisoners" style of bloggers and pundits on the Right. ... If that's so; if Sirota's type of fulmination actually contributes to the goal of expelling the venal GOP gang that's running our country right now, then I suppose the offense caused by his chronic character attacks on fellow Democrats is just acceptable collateral damage. But I really don't see that calling people like me...liars serves any purpose other than to start stupid fights that aggrandize Sirota's self-image as a brave truth-teller fighting the godless and omnipotent Washington Establishment. I wish some of his friends who find his talent for invective so useful would have a private word to him now and then and suggest there are a few lines in intra-party debate that should not be crossed."

Sirota responds unapologetically at The Huffington Post: "Of course, all of this ultra-personal nastiness coming from Kilgore is a very tired and frankly ineffective distraction technique that insults readers' intelligence. The heart of the matter is that the DLC has been bullying progressives around for years - even, including bullying its own original members like Al Gore when they thought he was straying too far from the corporate line. When this indisputable reality is brought up and factually substantiated, the DLC has no answer."

Sirota goes on: "I'm not going to change my tone, because I'm not going to play Washington's rhetorically acrobatic game - a game that more and more Americans know is a scam. As Rolling Stone noted in its recent article, Washington insiders like Ed Kilgore and the DLC get all hot and bothered by passion, outrage and most of all idealism. They are afraid of actual emotion, and the justifiable anger that Americans throughout the heartland feel right now at a government that has sold them out. They are similarly afraid of people who tell the blunt truth. Why? Because insiders in Washington aren't outraged and they don't want the truth out there - they are very comfortably enjoying the status quo. So they throw out superheated red herrings attacking George McGovern, attacking truthtellers, attacking the netroots - and above all else, attacking the very concept that ordinary people should have a say over a political process we are supposed to own. What they want, in short, is for politics to continue on as the exclusive property of the elite, whereby bloodless, money-drenched automatons in Congress obediently carry out the wishes of their corporate puppetmasters."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 03:11 PM

8/14: Frame This

Whether UC Berkeley prof. George "Don't Think Of An Elephant" Lakoff will help or not, the same framing battle that's dominating the Dem/GOP MSM debate can be seen throughout the blogosphere. For those on the left, 11/06 is about Pres. Bush's failed Iraq policy and cong. unwillingness/inability to stand up to it. For the right, 11/06 is about the broader WOT and summoning the strength to meet the challenge on multiple fronts. In this sense, CT SEN offers the perfect microcosm for '06. Rebuffed by Dems, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) has stepped up his rhetoric describing "the threat to American security and evil of the enemy that faces us - more evil, or as evil, as Nazism." It is often difficult to divide the blogosphere into left and right, but one's reaction to this statement is probably the best indicator available. We know where bloggers on all sides stand now, we'll find out about the American people in 11/06.

LEBANON: Frowns All Around

Their explanations may differ dramatically, but both left and right are both pessimistic about the strength of the Israel-Hezbollah cease-fire and what it means for Israel in the long run. Under the header "Syria and Iran win big" Paul Mirengoff at Power Line sums up the sentiments of many on the right: "Syria and Iran have paid no price for their sponsorship of Hezbollah's aggression against Israel. To the contrary, both regimes have gained significantly in the eyes of the Arab world (and their own citizens) by virtue of having supplied the weapons that killed Israelis and having backed a force that had some success in resisting Israel's response. ... It seems to me that the Bush administration bears some of the responsibility for the triumph by Syria and Iran. Instead of working with the French to limit the damage that Israel could inflict on Hezbollah, perhaps the administration should have pushed for condemnation of, and sanctions against, the powers who supplied Hezbollah."

Right Wing News offers a minority perspective: "A lot of people on the right side of the blogosphere are calling this resolution a big win for Hezbollah. I think it's a bit murkier than that. After all, Israel did enormous damage to Hezbollah and their assets. Moreover, the UN resolution specifically calls for Hezbollah to be disarmed and for them to lose military control of Southern Lebanon. On top of all that, Israel still retains the right to attack Hezbollah for "defensive" reasons while Hezbollah is supposed to be constrained from attacking Israel at all."

On the left, Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly sees "little chance that this withdrawal can be pulled off without incident" but hopes Israel sees the tactical advantage in doing so: "They've made their point, they've significantly damaged Hezbollah's infrastructure, and the last thing they need now is to get stuck in southern Lebanon again."

Meanwhile, Stirling Newberry at TPM Cafe sees the conflict as "The Fall of the Israeli Empire" and writes: "While the UN votes for an "immediate cease fire", the war goes on. Israel's talking points are increasingly thin, and there are clear implications that the war will represent a significant blow to Israel's prestige. The big push seems to be an attempt to gain a political victory out of a military loss. Hezbollah has become one and the same with a Lebanese resistance, and is now a power center to be reckoned with. They are, for all intents and purposes, the most powerful armed force in Lebanon's politics."

Also at TPM Cafe, M.J. Rosenberg hopes Israel will apply current lessons to other problems: "Will this war only teach them lessons about being prepared militarily, about how they need better hardware, about the foibles of their politicians and generals -- or will they learn something even more important. That is to cut a deal with the Palestinians while they still can. Their vaunted "security wall" won't protect them if the Palestinians acquire katuyshas or other fairly sophisticated rockets. ... As for unilateral withdrawals, it is now clear that withdrawals which do not confer obligations on both sides won't do the job. The only security for Israel will come when it resumes negotiations with the Palestinians (i.e. any Palestinians who can deliver and will negotiate with them) toward a final status agreement."

CT SEN I: Let The Polling Begin

The first post-primary 3-way poll released caused plenty of analysing in the blogosphere over the weekend. Rasmussen (EDITOR'S NOTE: Rasumussen is not a firm The Hotline recognizes for polling as their methodology is something we're not comfortable putting our name behind) puts the race at: Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) 46, Ned Lamont (D) 41, and gambler Alan Schlesinger (R) 6%.

First out of the spin box, Winston Smith at DailyKos: "Its still too early to poll on this race. I think it will take a week or two for the dust to settle before polls can start to capture what is going on in Connecticut. ... Lamont, the glorified winner of the primary, is now polling 41%. He has yet to benefit from the active help of the national Democratic party. When analysing the poll, we have to consider this to be Lamont's floor. Lieberman's support has dropped, and now stands at 46%. This is his ceiling. Assuming the GOP candidate gets at least 25% of the vote, a minimum in my opinion, Lieberman's numbers will drop significantly. In the next few weeks, it will become clear the Joe lacks the support he needs to stay competitive in the race."

Progressive Chris Bowers at MyDD has a lengthy analysis of the poll including: "As the Rasmussen poll shows, Lieberman's only hope to win in Connecticut is based not only on winning some Republican votes, but actually upon winning about 70% of Republican votes ... If a non-scandal plagued, even vaguely competent Republican were on the ballot, this campaign would already be over. ... It is time to strip Lieberman of his committee seats, and to freeze off his donors, lest they end up reflecting badly on the rest of the party in the wake of his disastrous plummet. For months, the DLC and the national punditry warned Democrats how bad they would look if they nominated Ned Lamont instead of Joe Lieberman. They may yet be proven right, but for different reasons than they claimed. Lieberman's continued downward spiral is going to be ugly and make him look even more pathetic than he looks now."

Jason Zengerle at TNR notes that "Half (52%) of Lamont voters believe Bush should be impeached and removed from office" and "the most surprising finding, though, is that Lamont's "very unfavorable" rating (23%) is actually higher than Lieberman's (18%)." Zengerle concludes: "Is it time for a reconsideration of that bear cub ad?"

James Zogby at The Huffington Post comments on his own poll of national Dem reaction to Lamont's victory: "A new Zogby Interactive poll shows he shouldn't waste too much time waiting by the mailbox. An overwhelming majority of Democrats - 79% - nationwide said they are glad that the three-term senator was defeated by Lamont, who ran a powerful anti-Iraq war campaign. They also said Lamont's victory over one of the few pro-war Democrats in Washington makes them optimistic they can win control of at least one of the two houses of Congress in November."

CT SEN II: Last Blogger Standing

Joshua Micah Marshall at Talking Points Memo "was ambivalent about the primary race, didn't have a horse in it" but after seeing Lieberman's "A win for Lamont will be a victory for the terrorists" quote Marshall fired off a message to his TPM Media staff: "I've always liked Joe, but with this 'victory for the terrorists', it's enough. [screw] him." Marshall writes: "Lieberman is not only running as the de facto Republican in the race, he's running as the worst sort of Republican, going on the trail claiming that any serious questioning of our policy in Iraq is a victory for the terrorists, even pulling in yesterday's terror plot take-down into his angle against Lamont. So it's not just about the independent candidacy any more. It's about him. Enough. Just leave."

The rest of the lefty blogosphere abandoned Lieberman long ago, including Mark Schmitt at TPM Cafe who did not like this recent Lieberman quote: "I'm worried that too many people, both in politics and out, don't appreciate the seriousness of the threat to American security and the evil of the enemy that faces us - more evil, or as evil, as Nazism and probably more dangerous than the Soviet Communists we fought during the long Cold War." Schmitt comments: "I'm sorry, but this is just a deranged, or at best deeply confused and manic, thing to say. It shows a lack of perspective and reality and responsibility, even in its lack of clarity about what exactly the threat is and how to defeat it." DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas chimes in: "More evil than the guys who gassed 6 million Jews? More dangerous than the guys who had thousands of nuclear warheads pointed at us and could've snuffed out all life on the planet at the press of a button? Lieberman has lost it. Completely and utterly. He is insane."

Matt Stoller at MyDD picks up on a change of message from Lieberman's new "unity" commercial on Iraq and announces that immediate withdrawl from Iraq is not a reason to vote for Lamont: "Lieberman seems to be calling for an end to the war in Iraq, which is a newish place for him to go. He's already pandering to the voters by misrepresenting his position, since he wants to keep permanent military bases in Iraq. ... The thing is, policy differences on military strategy don't matter, since Senators do not set military strategy. If Ned Lamont is elected, and Democrats take the House and Senate, Donald Rumsfeld is still commanding our military. ... What matters is that Lieberman has never held the President accountable for failures in Iraq, and if reelected, will continue to give him a blank check for war profiteering, intelligence failures, incompetence, and outright dishonesty. Whether you seek a withdrawal or not, it's better to have a Senator who will challenge George Bush and his failed conservative policies. Republicans, Democrats, and Independents can all agree on that."

CT SEN III: From the Right

Conservative Bush critic Andrew Sullivan likes the idea of a McCain-Lieberman ticket despite "nanny-state issues" since "the alternatives are Christianism or Kossism."

Meanwhile RedState is keeping a running tab on Sen Dem support for Lamont/Lieberman:

For Lieberman (5): Carper, Inouye, Nelson (NE), Pryor, and Salazar.
For Lamont (19): Akaka, Bayh, Biden, Boxer, Cantwell, Clinton, Dodd,
Durbin, Feingold, Feinstein, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry,
Lautenberg, Menendez, Obama, Reid, Schumer, and Wyden.
Neutral (1): Lincoln.
Silent (18): Baucus, Bingaman, Byrd, Conrad, Dayton, Dorgan, Johnson,
Kohl, Landrieu, Leahy, Levin, Mikulski, Murray,
Nelson (FL), Reed, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, and Stabenow.

CT SEN IV: Fall Out Boy

Following their victory in CT progressive bloggers are demanding Sen Dems stand up to the Bush admin. foreign policy beginning with the confirmation of UN Amb John Bolton. Matt Stoller at MyDD writes: "You see, both Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton are considering switching their vote on Bolton, and there's probably a bunch of Senators who will follow them. Schumer in particular has been awful, publicly saying that there will probably be no filibuster of Bolton. So here we have a clear progressive electoral victory over the most right-wing Democrat, combined with a horrible year for Bush and a clearly disastrous foreign policy, and yet his nominee to the UN has an easier path to nomination. Why would Democrats even consider ratifying Bush's foreign policy through Bolton?"

Stoller then answers his own question: "Many of you will not like this answer, just as I didn't like discovering it, but the reality is that right-wing wealthy neoconservatives whose pet project is Israel are the ones who are forcing the Democrats to the right. After 9/11, a special breed of incredibly wealthy coastal elites that I call 'Bloomberg Democrats' after their desire to have Michael Bloomberg run on a third party Presidential unity ticket went sharply to the right in their foreign policy thinking. Lieberman is part of this group, always supportive of Israeli hawkishness, but whose fearful instincts were unleashed by 9/11. Torture, lies, dead soldiers, a collapse of American moral authority - all of these pale in comparison to Islamofascism, but it's cool, because they are pro-choice and made a lot of money. That's the type."

Meanwhile Natural Born Killers producer and progressive activist Jane Hamsher at firedoglake sets her sites on Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) for his suggestion that Lieberman's indy run could help CT Dem House candidates. Hamsher writes: "I guess it must be true that if Rahm loses the House he'll be rewarded with Pelosi's job after all, because I really can't think of a single other reason why he would say anything quite that obtuse. He's refused to call on Joe to pull out of the race and doesn't seem to acknowledge what everyone in Connecticut seems to be acutely aware of - the Democratic dream of November control of the House could go down in flames as a result of Joe's selfish, shortsighted and characteristically Republican-enabling actions.

ROMNEY: You Cheeky Monkey You

IA conservative and WH '08 watcher Caucus Cooler enjoyed the 8/12 war of words between MS Gov. Mitt Romney and Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) staff over national security in the Boston Globe: "We at the Cooler are happy with Mitt for not taking any sh** from Horseface. Maybe John Kerry had devised a coherent national security message 2 years ago, his Communications Director wouldn't be making cheeky comments to the Boston Globe for a lame-duck wannabe President right now."

KERRY: We Thought There Was Peace In Northern Ireland

Pamela Leavey at The Democratic Daily has audio of a conference call with Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) in support of Iraq war veteran Patrick Murphy (D-PA) that was "hijacked" by Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (R-PA) CoS Mike Conallen who "challenged Murphy to a series of debates, which Murphy stated he had already agreed to." Kerry commented: "I find it rather fascinating that members of a campaign staff get on a press conference call and ask questions ... that's sort of a new tactic."

RI SEN: Outside The Mainstream (Of GOP Thought)

Conservative Captain's Quarters is no fan of comparison's between Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) and Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R). CQ writes: "Lieberman's voting record showed that he solidly supported his party on its agenda and policy. He consistently voted in the middle of his Senate caucus. In the Poole reports for the last three sessions, at least 15 Democrats voted more conservatively than Lieberman in each. The notion that a politician whose voting record remained almost dead center of his caucus could be out of touch with the Democratic mainstream is laughable on its face. ... Chafee presents a much different picture. In the last three sessions that comprises his entire last term of office, Chafee has consistently been the outlier of the GOP caucus. In two sessions, he managed to vote less with his caucus than a Democrat (Ben Nelson this session, Zell Miller in the 107th). Chafee can be described very reasonably as outside the mainstream of Republican thought

IRAQ: How To Stop A War On Your Summer Vacation

SusanG at DailyKos looks at a Christian Science Monitorarticle reporting that congressmen will spend the August recess gauging constituent opinion on the Iraq war and writes under the header "Let's help them out here in calibrating the intensity of our very public sentiment, shall we? Rattled by Lieberman's loss, it's quite possible our reps have ears that are finally ready to hear."

Also looking at Iraq war fallout from Lieberman's loss, Outside the Beltway defends VP Dick Cheney's recent comments linking Lamont's victory and the goals of al Qaeda: "Cheney was not saying that Lamont is on al Qaeda's side or that he is al Qaeda's candidate, as some MSM coverage portrayed but rather arguing that Lamont's desire to pull troops out of Iraq by a certain date is exactly what the terrorists want. And I don't see how anyone could argue to the contrary; that is, that the terrorists in Iraq wouldn't be happy if Lamont got his way. American troops out of Iraq is their stated goal, after all. ... Why is pulling out of Iraq the right thing do now, or, as Lamont would like, by the end of the year? How will this move help make Iraq safer, the Middle East safer, and the United States safer? How will it lead to more stability in the region? How will it help the fight against jihadism? And how will it not serve to embolden our enemies that have already concluded from events past that the United States doesn't have the stamina to endure a tough battle""

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Sagebrush Rebellion II?

Randy Stapilus at left leaning Ridenbaugh Press looks at WA-05 and sees signs of a possibly larger movement:

A century and more ago, farmers and the other people of rural communities were in an almost riotous protest. They were being abused by powerful interests and social forces, these things could be addressed by politics, and they knew it, and they acted accordingly. They formed political parties, they did battle within political parties, they got leaders of major political parties (William Jennings Bryan, for one) to pay attention and take up their cause. They got radical and they got uppity. And partly as a result, their lot gradually improved in the early 20th century.

Much of rural America in a condition no less dire today, and a good many of the reasons are external and attributable to decisions made by politicians and leaders of various powerful interests.
One of the best places to consider this, and it the impact a rural revolt could prospectively have, is in Washington's 5th congressional district. ... The Washington 5th includes a large city, Spokane, and its surrounding area, and Spokane County accounts for almost two-thirds of the district's population. ... These rural counties - Adams, Asotin, Columbia, Garfield, Okanogan, Ferry, Stevens, Pend Oreille, Lincoln, Spokane, Whitman, Walla Walla - are as a whole much more Republican than Spokane. A Democratic win in the 5th usually has been predicated on the idea of winnig strongly enough in Spokane to overcome the rest. But if - if - a populist revolt were to start out in the farm country and turn to a Democratic voting pattern, as has happened well back in our history, that calculus could be upended.

Actual evidence that this generation of rural people, in contrast to those of a century-plus ago, are willing to do more than complain isn't yet very apparent. But there is a national revolt underway, and if some of that spirit jumps to some of the rural communities in places like the 5th, who knows what kind of explosion that spark might bring about?

LEST WE FORGET: We're [Not] Going Streaking!

I Dislike Your Favorite Team continues its ongoing series of Redskin Cheerleader likes and dislikes this time with movies and found that the girls had multiple favorites including top vote getter "The Wedding Crashers." IDYFT comments:

That's a lot of votes for a movie that stops being funny after the first 45 minutes. No votes for: The 40 Year Old Virgin, The Legend of Ron Burgandy. 2 votes for Old School.

"What this says: Women--well, dumb women--think this movie a great comedy and a redemptive story about men who realize, eventually, there is more to [screwing] cold-crazy nymphos at weddings--there is also the marrying of them. Cheerleaders, dear Cheerleaders, this isn't a documentary. It's a pretty stupid comedy, with a bull[excrement] romantic comedy tacked on at the end, to appeal to guess who? YOU!"

Why I dislike the movie: Any movie that suggests we'll see Jane Seymour's taps and then doesn't deliver is on the side of the terrorists. Also, I believe Isla Fisher should be doing hardcore porn. At my house.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:36 PM

August 10, 2006

Blogometer PM Extra II

CT SEN: More Righty Reax

Patrick Hynes at Ankle Biting Pundits wins the prize for most audacious CT SEN reaction. His header "Um, the Bush Candidate Got 48% in a Dem Primary [!]" and he writes: "There is very little Democrats should be happy about regarding this debacle. The party’s 2000 Vice Presidential nominee has bolted. The white rats are running the laboratory. And the pro-Bush candidate just got 48% in a Democrat primary. Yeah, that last one’s gotta sting. You see, I take Markos Moulitsas and other liberal enthusiasts at their word that their support for Ned Lamont was “not all about the war.” But it was all about President Bush. There seemed, frankly, to be more discussion about “the kiss” than about troop levels in Iraq.

Meanwhile Right Wing News offers eight reasons GOPers should get behind Lieberman:

• #1) The Republican candidate, Alan Schlesinger, is not going to win. So, that means the choice is between Lieberman and the ultra, left-wing thrall of the netroots, Ned Lamont.
• #2) If Lieberman wins as an Independent, with lots of Republican and Independent support, the Democrats will no longer be able to strong arm him into party line votes and it seems very likely that he'll move to the center to better represent the make-up of his new constituency.
• #3) Even if Lamont and Lieberman were exactly the same on domestic issues (and they're not), Lieberman is serious about national security while Lamont isn't. That alone gives Republicans a good reason to support him.
• #4) By backing Lieberman, the GOP may help widen their appeal to Jews, hawks, and moderates that have been leaning towards the Democratic Party.
• #5) If Lieberman stays strong, it will divert millions of dollars in Democratic resources and time to Connecticut that could be better used elsewhere. Moreover, it'll create nasty rifts in the Democratic Party as the hard core left-wingers slug it out with the moderates.
• #6) The Democrats are portraying Lamont's win as a huge victory for the anti-war movement. Therefore, it follows that if Lieberman wins in a liberal state like Connecticut, it'll be viewed as a loss by the anti-war crowd.
• #7) The liberal netroots "own" this win by Lamont so it also follows that they would "own" the loss. Having Joe Lieberman knock off their candidate would be a real thumb in the eye to the left side of the blogosphere.
• #8) If Lieberman wins, it's possible that he may end up voting to give control of Congress to the GOP. Now, he may not say that, but if it gets really nasty, and the GOP is friendly enough, you never know what might happen in 2006 and beyond. In any case, if control of the Senate comes down to one vote, Republicans would be much better off having Joe Lieberman as that vote than Ned Lamont.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 03:21 PM

Blogometer PM Extra

DLC: What Was Your Favorite Moment Of The DLC Era?

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas sees tough times ahead for the DLC now that they've lost: "two contested primaries in a row, including the loss of their patron saint." Progressive bloggers are in agreement, the DLC is on the run:

• DailyKos diarist Bob Johnson: "Actually, irony may not be the correct term to describe the way the worm has turned for Al From and the DLC acolytes here (who now seem to have disappeared into the Witness Protection Program). Hypocritical liars seems a better fit. Doesn't it?
• Jonathan Singer at MyDD: "While we like to blame the Bill Clinton crowd at the DLC for trying to move the Democratic Party to the right in the 1980s and the 1990s, the trend away from 1960s liberalism began -- well -- in the late 1960s and the early 1970s. ...However, with the victory of Ned Lamont this week, the momentum has begun to change. Whereas once the more progressive Senators had to worry about being outflanked to the right -- a sign of the rightward drift of American politics over the past several years -- now overly hawkish and regressive Democrats will have to worry about losing the party base. If ever there were proof of ascendency of progressivism, this is it."
• Charles P. Pierce at TAPPED: "More than anything else, the DLC created a generation of gun-shy Democrats, and that was fine, as long as we could be reasonably confident that the other side would not throw the entire United States government into the monkeyhouse. Confronted with actual existential threats to the progressive tradition, the Democratic Party looked around after Bill Clinton blew town and found that all its shock troops had melted away. (Indeed, Clinton, that priapic dunderhead, owed his survival in office to the steadfast loyalty of people he'd earlier knuckled for cynical political effect.) This is a good, legitimate argument for a political party to have within itself, and perhaps the best indication of what Feingold's talking about is that at least some very big D's are going to be afraid to engage in it."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 03:20 PM

8/10: Partisanship Is The New Black

Faced with the reality of an independent run by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), progressive bloggers are broadly singing the praises of strict partisanship. A major theme in DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas book Crashing The Gate outfits like the NDN are coming around to the view that the only answer to a Rove-led GOP is unflinching unity to the party and not single issues.

CT SEN I: We Didn't Start The Fire ...

In the wake of Lieberman's announced independent run, progressive bloggers are uniformly rejecting issues-based bipartisanship and embracing strict partisanship. DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas: "After watching Bush spend his term not just refusing to compromise on a single issue, but declaring his intent via "signing statements" to utterly reject the bills he was signing into law, it strikes me as hilarious to see conservatives and their media enablers decry the rise of the Democratic partisan. We're here. It's good. And when we have a Republican Party once again willing to compromise, then we can start talking about "bipartisanship". As mcjoan wrote: Bipartisanship only works when the other side compromises, too. Otherwise it's just capitulation."

Kos links to similar thoughts from NDN's Simon Rosenberg: "In this new era, partisanship is a virtue. The conservatives rise to power, and their utter failure to govern responsibly or effectively, requires a new progressive politics of confrontation, not accommodation. This new politics may be uncomfortable to those used to an America governed by Democrats and progressive values, but for our politics and values to triumph progressives must and are learning how to resist "cutting deals," working to "get things done" on terms set by an irresponsible governing majority."

Over at MyDDJerome Armstrong sings the same note: "I was up in New Hampshire yesterday with college age Sierra Club activists, doing a back and forth debate/discussion with the Sierra Club President, Lisa Renstrom, over the issue of their embracing partisan politics, and advancing the progressive movement ahead of their own single-issue advocacy. I laid out the argument that single-issue advocacy was something that seemed to work in a previous time, but not in today's partisan atmosphere, and that if a substantive, transformative change in environmental policy was to happen, it would occur because the millions of environmentalists decided to join the netroots/grassroots activists now taking over the Democratic Party."

Nathan Newman at TPM Cafe cited evidence from 8/8 GOP primaries to boost the partisan claim: "As the purge of Congressman Joe Schwartz in the Michigan GOP primary yesterday shows, the Republicans are not interested in bipartisanship. The GOP is quite clear what their ideological goals are and are just looking for wayward Democrats to support those goals-- but some "principled" bipartisanship like Lieberman is trying to espouse is a bit of a joke, given that the GOP has no interest in deals on anything other than the areas like the war where Lieberman already agrees with GOP ideology."

CT SEN II: Carrot Or Stick?

Progressive bloggers are in brainstorm mode as Lieberman signals his intent to continue his independent run. Mark Schmitt at TAPPED believes Lieberman "eventually...will give up" but "that at the end, Lieberman needs a dignified way out." Schmitt allows that Lieberman "doesn't deserve it, not at all" but suggests bloggers "find a way to give him a dignified way out, and accord him exactly the level of respect for his service that Lamont did last night, which was considerable and was deserved."

Greg Sargent at TPM Cafe picked up on the theme: "Most Dems who've now endorsed Ned Lamont have stopped short of publicly urging Lieberman to leave the race. Perhaps for good reason: Publicly slamming Lieberman now, right after his searing defeat and his morning making a defiant stand on the talk shows, could get him to dig in further. So what to do?" Some reader suggestions:

• Dan K: Stop talking about Lieberman. Start talking about Lamont! The best way to weaken any remaining legs in the Lieberman Senate bid is just to generate lots of excitement about Lamont.
• entprof: Lieberman will be out by mid September. His polls will start dropping. His campaign will increasingly look like a vanity campaign. The wise-men of the Democratic party will quietly explain to him that if he stays in and loses he's history, but if he drops out works hard for a Democratic victory in '08 there is a strong possibility of a Cabinet post. In the meantime he can spend two years earning way too damn much money on K.
• destor23: "Maybe we should be less worried about getting him to drop out and more worried about delivering a sound spanking in November. I know, it's not ideal, but it might be the best mindset to have."
• drv: "Isn't it obvious what to do to get Lieberman out of the race? Stop giving him money! It's the mother's milk of politics and without it he'd quickly go away. Any Dem who gives him money from now on is doing so at their own peril, politically, that is, and should be told so if they don't know it already.

Also at TAPPEDEzra Klein sees the situation only getting uglier: "To add to the post-mortems of the day, my guess is that the relationship between Joe Lieberman and the Democratic Party is about to get a whole lot more fraught. Previously, there was a real unwillingness on the part of the party mandarins to go against Joe who, even if he were to run as an independent, would still be bound in the Senate by long ties of friendship and esteem with the Democratic caucus. But now that so many from the caucus have bowed to base pressure and endorsed Ned Lamont -- I'm thinking here of Dodd, Clinton, Feingold, Kerry, Bayh, Kennedy, Schumer, Emmanuel, Reid, Obama etc -- Lieberman is apt to feel as betrayed by his colleagues as he does by his voters. That radically increases the chance he'll switch parties or leverage his independence against his side which, in turn, radically increases the importance that the party kill off his candidacy and ensure Lamont's election. So Lieberman's in a rough cycle here -- his loss in the primary forced his colleagues to turn on his candidacy which, in turn, forces them to seriously support Lamont lest Lieberman exact revenge."

At The Huffington Post, a hit-Liberman-now-and-hit-him-hard consensus was forming:

• Arianna Huffington: "But it's not enough for party leaders to back Lamont, they have to do everything in their power -- publicly and privately -- to pressure Lieberman to drop his For the Sake of My Ego run. And that includes making it crystal clear that if Lieberman insists on running and somehow wins, they will refuse to allow him to caucus with them in the future. They should also, as David Sirota and Kos suggest, remove Lieberman from his committee assignments. Bottom line: all Democrats should immediately begin treating Lieberman as what he is -- a party-ditching, party-pooping, control-of-Congress-risking spoiler, ie a danger to the Party."
• David Sirota: "Democratic politicians in Washington are tripping over themselves to issue statements officially endorsing Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Ned Lamont. That's a very good thing. But what isn't so good is that most of these Democrats are blathering on about what a great guy Joe Lieberman is - even as Lieberman is leaving the Democratic Party. ... D.C. Democrats realize they absolutely have to officially support Lamont because of the election results, they also are engaging in a wink-and-nod strategy, doing everything they can to still protect Lieberman and tacitly undermine the will of primary voters. ... The reaction to Joe Lieberman from Democrats should not be "wow, what a great guy he is" - it should be "we must crush this craven, selfish anti-democratic opportunist because he is trying to destroy the Democratic Party and ignore the will of voters."

TAPPED's Micahel Tomasky still believes Lieberman will eventually succumb to Dem pressure, but offer four reasons why he will not anyways:

• 1. Leverage: What leverage over Lieberman do all these people have? Not much; just moral suasion. They can't make him do anything.
• 2. Polls: Undoubtedly a 3-way poll will come out next week. What will it say? If it says something like Lamont 47, Lieberman 33, and Schlesinger 20, then that's pressure (and leverage for the Dems). But if it's more like 40-40-20, then that's a boost for Joe.
• 3. Money: Will Lieberman still have access to dough? His cash-on-hand as of July 19 (the last filing) was $3.5 million. Assuming he both spent a lot and raised a lot since then, he's sitting on a nice chunk of change. And he wouldn't really have to campaign hard until mid-September.
• 4. The Pundit Class: When all is said and done, the pundits are Lieberman's most loyal constituency. What is Cokie thinking today? Broder? This Sunday's shows will be key here.

Fellow TAPPERAlec Oveis adds: "I would include the candidate's personality. The man loves playing the martyr, taking the role of the besieged man of "principle." Just as he loves criticizing fellow Democrats about their positions on the war, he'll take pleasure in attacking Lamont and his backers in the general election."

CT SEN III: Early Handicapping

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas looks at CBS News exit poll results showing Lamont beating Lieberman 49-36 (12% "not sure") in a three-way match up among those who voted 8/8 and writes: "And that number will go down as the campaign progresses. Lieberman will focus his efforts on independent voters, by far the state's largest voting bloc."

Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly looks at the same poll and comments: "Basically...all of Lamont's supporters think Lieberman should stand down, hardly a surprising opinion, and 20% of Lieberman's own supporters think he should stand down. Presumably, this means that 80% of Lieberman's supporters still support him and plan to vote for him as an independent in November. If a substantial portion of Republican voters split their tickets and vote for him as well, he could beat Lamont. ... Basically, Lamont has the support of about 60% of Connecticut's Democrats already, and it won't be long before that's up to 70% or more. That's more than enough to win, and unless Lieberman is even less tethered to reality than it seems, he'll figure this out pretty soon and bow out.

Over at TNRJason Zengerle reaches into Quinnipiac's archives for a guess on how GOPers might react: "Check out this QPoll from 1/06: 75 percent of Connecticut Republicans believed Lieberman deserved another term. It's hard to know where that number is right now. Part of me thinks that it must be lower, given how Lieberman's fortunes have obviously declined since January. Then again, maybe Lieberman's defeat in a Democratic Primary has solidified his support among Republicans. I guess we'll know more after the next QPoll. Either way, I think Lieberman can count on a good amount of support from Connecticut Republicans--which means that if he can hold on to 80 percent of his Democratic support, he's got a very good shot at winning an independent bid."

Kausfiles taps an emailer for some negative Lieberman news: "a lot of loyalist Dems who voted for Joe will vote for Ned in November as their nominee (count me as one of many such of whom I am already aware -- a lot of people in the Distefano for Gov HQs last night -- and not just Ned partisans -- were booing, hissing and cat-calling Joe's, again, self-serving speech bemoaning nasty, excessive partisanship, hello?). I would not at all be surprised to see Ned draw 70%+ of Democrats who turn out to vote this fall, maybe even 75+.

Finally, Kos believes the lack of a natural consultant constituency will doom Lieberman's effort: "Really, what Democratic consulting firm wants to be splashed all over the blogs for working with a turncoat Democrat? And it's obvious that the party committees have little patience for Lieberman at this point. He's standing in the way of a unified Democratic juggernaut for this fall. ... Lieberman will be hard pressed to put together an operation unless he goes over to the dark side. That's probably why Karl Rove called him today. The offer must be on the table. The question is, will Lieberman resist as his predicament becomes increasingly desperate.

CT SEN IV: It's Not About Iraq (Unless It Is) And It's Not A Big Deal (Unless It Is)

BBC World News listener Atrios "realized how much Ned Lamont's victory truly matters" when a "lipped English voice suddenly" reported Lamont's victory over Lieberman. Atrios felt: "A different and saner debate might, just might, be possible at last. We can now point out that bipartisanship doesn't mean turning into a blind sheep in the administration's flock, just as approaching the center of the bed doesn't mean jumping over your partner and hugging the other side. We can start a real debate about what fighting terrorism entails to keep us all safe, and how to do it without turning the international politics of this country into the best recruiting aid AlQaeda ever dreamt about. Or so I hope."

Meanwhile Kos celebrated Lamont's victory as a unifying moment for Dems on Iraq: "So now, Democrats are united in their desire to withdraw our troops from Iraq. We're offering a clear distinction to the Republican's "stay the course" to disaster spiel. ... That's why Republicans are freaking out. They've put on their happy face for public consumption, but their actions don't lie. They're not happy to lose their useful idiot inside the Democratic caucus, and they don't really want to fight an election with the war front and center. ... It's game on. And we'll see in a few weeks just how much Republican candidates truly want to emphasize their war support in their campaigns."

Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly looks at Jacob Weisberg's Slatepiece GOP euphoria over Lamont's win and concedes: "As I'm reluctant to agree with him, Weisberg has a point: aside from kvetching about Bush's policies, the liberal blogosphere has chosen to almost unanimously sit out any substantive discussion of the fight against radical jihadism and what to do about it. Emphasis counts, and this widespread silence makes it hard to avoid the conclusion that liberal bloggers just don't find the subject very engaging."

But at Talking Points MemoJoshua Micah Marshall looks at a similar thesis from Mike Allen in Time and argues CT SEN is not about Iraq and isn't even important: "I don't think most voters around the country really know or care that much about Joe Lieberman. And to the extent that they know who he is, outside of the committed partisans on both sides, they don't realize or think or imagine (as the Russert/Kristol/Matalin/Broder axis does) that he's this symbolically resonant figure on whom the fate of the nation may alas rest. ... The heart of the matter here is that everyone knows Joe in DC. They like him. They think he's a nice guy, which he is. ... But really he's just a pol who ignored his constituents, went into serious denial about a major foreign policy disaster, was more lockstep with the president's non-policy than many Republicans, and got bounced by his constituents. ... That's politics. And that's accountability. And, really? It's not that big a deal."

CT SEN V: Bad Company?

Looking at winners and losers from 8/8 Matt Stoller at MyDD announces: "Politically speaking, the biggest winners out of all of this, aside from Lamont and his campaign backers, are the blogs and Maxine Waters. Waters is now a kingmaker, a key piece of the magic coalition that struck down the former VP nominee in what seemed like an impossible race.

TAPPED's Michael Tomasky meanwhile isn't so sure Lamont did a good job choosing his company 8/8: "Lamont did himself zero favors last night by having Sharpton and Jesse Jackson standing next to him. NO, not for that reason. And I know they helped him get votes. But they did not belong on the stage, because a) they're not from Connecticut, and b) they do have baggage (especially Sharpton; Jesse at this point is mostly sort of past his prime). ... (Ned: When someone calls you an "Al Sharpton Democrat," the idea is not to go out and become one!)."

Also at TAPPEDMark Schmitt voiced a similar concern: "The disappointing thing about having Sharpton over his shoulder is that it took away from the actually very impressive tableau of people on stage with Lamont. Not exactly the crowd of latte-swilling suburban reformers you would be led to expect! I don't know my minor Connecticut political figures by sight anymore, but I did spot the House Majority Leader up there, Chris Donovan, and some guys who sure look like labor guys, and some Latinos and a good number of African-Americans who were not named Sharpton or Jackson or Waters."

Over at DailyKos, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) did not appreciate Lieberman's use of Sharpton et al. to attack Lamont: "I am already concerned that Senator Lieberman's independent bid seems destined to divide Democrats in the most insidious ways. His supporters have called Ned Lamont an "Al Sharpton Democrat" and this morning Lieberman stated on the Today Show that he was committed "to bringing the Democratic Party back from the extreme, back from Ned Lamont and Maxine Waters." It is not lost on me that both of these appeals seem designed to peel off support for Mr. Lamont by highlighting his support from prominent African Americans. This type of rhetoric degrades the political process and should not be tolerated."

CT SEN VI: Late-Breakers Love Lieberman

Political Arithmetik's Univ. of WI professor Charles Franklin has many lengthy and valuable posts on CBS News exit poll data. Observations include:

• The data here suggest that at least those who waited until the end to make up their mind did in fact give more support to Lieberman. Lamont got 44% of the last minute deciders, to Lieberman's 54%, while Lamont won 53-46 among those who decided a month or more before the election.
• Where voters were most energized, they turned out in high proportions for Ned Lamont. Where they reluctantly went to the polls, Lieberman was the beneficiary. Lamont's problem here is getting a high percentage of high turnout but in small places.
• The class lines reflected in the voting pattern are interesting, if not surprising. They also point to the division in the Democratic party between the highly educated and well paid compared to the traditional working class base. The latter often don't share the ideology of the former.
• African-Americans actually voted for Lamont at higher rates than did whites.
• The CBS/NYT exit poll in Connecticut would seem to undercut those who claim there was a big class divide between Lamont's allegedly upscale voters and Lieberman's allegedly working class voters--at least a big income class divide. ... There was a split along educational lines, though, with Lieberman winning the "high school or less" category 59% to 39%. More evidence, I guess, that "class" in this country means education level, not how much money you make.

Looking at actual voting data Mark Leon Goldberg at TAPPED worries: "Looking at the town-by-town returns, it seems that Lieberman took the lower Naugatuck river valley quite handily. And to the extent that Democrats were drawn to Lamont primarily for his anti-war views, we anti-Iraq war liberals should be concerned by this. Connecticut has a reputation for being the land of Wall Street executives, hip-hop moguls, retired tennis stars, and Vince McMahon. But just to the northeast of the ridiculously wealthy towns populated by those types sits the predominately white working class lower Naugatuck valley. This includes the towns of Ansonia, Derby, Shelton, Beacon Falls, Oxford and Naugatuck. Lieberman won each of these towns (except Oxford) by a very solid margin."

RNC: Full-Bore Blog Outreach

RNC chair Ken Mehlman obviously noticed that 8/8 was lefties' "day in the sun" and he was doing some serious righty blog outreach yesterday. Robert B. Bluey at Human Events Online was on a "call with bloggers from the Conservative Edge, Wizbang Politics and Powerline. The RNC's outreach to bloggers came after a morning of spinning Lieberman's defeat. The party released a web video documenting the "Defeatocrats" and Mehlman gave a speech in Cleveland criticizing the "blame America first" attitude of Democrats.

"On the call, I asked Mehlman to assess the impact of Lamont's victory on the Netroots effort to raise money and build support for Lamont among liberal bloggers and online activists." Mehlman: "We all need to put it in perspective. Think about this. The state of Connecticut is 34% Democrat; 40% of those people voted. So you have about 14% of eligible voters participating. Ned Lamont got about 50% of the vote. So what you have is 7.25% of the voters in Connecticut determining that Joe Lieberman, nominee for vice president in 2000, a guy who helped build the state party, is not welcome in the Democratic Party anymore. There's no question the Netroots will feel emboldened. But it's useful to put it in perspective. The media's immediate response is there's this massive movement; 7.25% of a liberal state is what decided this election."

"Brian Goettl at the Conservative Edge asked Mehlman if there was any chance the GOP will ask Republican Alan Schlesinger to drop out." Mehlman: "I don't know the answer to that question. I think that's unlikely, but I don't know the answer. ... I think this is something Connecticut Republicans will have to decide how they want to handle, and each Connecticut Republican will have to make that decision."

Right Wing News was there too and reports that Mehlman was "hammering away" at CT primary results. "He pointed out that Lieberman is a liberal who opposed ANWR, opposed banning partial birth abortion, but that he was purged because he supported the war. Mehlman added that shows that the Democratic Party is isolationist, defeatist, and blames America first. Additionally, he said that the Democrats want to cut and run in Iraq, which would let the terrorists win and he also noted that Lieberman's loss shows that there is no room for anyone in the Democratic Party who doesn't agree with the most liberal, most isolationist, and most defeatist activists. My reaction? It's great to see the RNC really going after the Democrats. If the Dems want to run as the wimp party, that's just dying to give up and hand victory to our enemies in Iraq, then we should be calling them on it. It's too bad Bush isn't a little more active in going after these guys like Mehlman did today."

THE DARK SIDE: Mehl-Bush-Rove Convinced The UK To Ground Hundreds Of Flights Because Of CT SEN Results

AmericaBLOG's John in DC donned his tin-foil hat and said it was "queer that the emergency is declared within a day of Republican party leader Ken Mehlman launching an all-out offensive against Democrats following Joe Lieberman's loss in Connecticut, an offensive in which Mehlman, the White House and Republican operatives are claiming that Democrats no longer care about national security or the war on terror. Bottom line: Joe Lieberbush lost. The message is spreading across the land that incumbents who embrace the president are in serious trouble. And the Republicans needed to divert attention, to stop this meme in its tracks, and lo' and behold we have our first terror alert that I can recall since the last election, and it's our first ever Red Alert! What a coincidence!"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Rich-People Powered Politics

Edward H. Crane at Cato at Liberty believes the anti-war movement would be stronger were it not for campaign finance reform:

Ned Lamont's remarkable victory over three-term incumbent Sen. Joe Lieberman yesterday exposes the true nature of contribution limits. They aren't about the "appearance of corruption." They're about preventing a challenger from having a snowball's chance in hell of winning. The one "loophole" the Supremes created with their incoherent 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo was that candidates have rights the rest of us don't have. Apparently, they can't be corrupted by their own money, so there are no limits on what they can spend on their own campaigns.

More than 60 percent of Ned's campaign expenditures came from Ned. Without Ned, Ned loses. In fact, no political observer thought any candidate dependent on a $2000 contribution limit had any kind of chance of ousting Lieberman. Ned was a very poor candidate. Inarticulate with zero charisma. But by spending his own money he enfranchised the Democrats of Connecticut who otherwise, given the contribution limits, were disenfranchised. The Democrats in Connecticut hate the war in Iraq, Lieberman has rather energetically endorsed it. Yet the federal election laws would have assured Lieberman reelection were it not for the "loophole."

This anti-war election is directly analogous to my late friend Gene McCarthy's race for the presidency in 1968. Gene used six-figure contributions from wealthy liberals like Stewart Mott who opposed the war in Vietnam to fund a campaign that ousted a sitting president from his own party. Gene often said that had the '74 amendments to the FECA been in place in '68, he would not have run. Campaign finance laws should not have the power to change American history. But they do. Give everyone the "loophole" of being able to spend as much of their own money to promote their political beliefs and we'll throw a remarkable number of incumbents out of office. And with good candidates instead of bumbling millionaires.

LEST WE FORGET: Buck Passing

Dilbert's Scott Adams passes on this sure-fire tip for parents trapped at Best Buy who only want to buy their child one video game:

6-year old: Yay! A new video game!
Me: Put on your shoes and you can go pick it out with me.
6-year old: Can we buy TWO video games?
Me: No, just one.
6-year old: Why can't we buy two? You're rich.

Well, at this point, I'm totally screwed. I feel a responsibility to give good reasons for my decisions whenever possible. I refuse to use "because I said so" or "we can't afford it" because he'd see through those in a heartbeat. And I couldn't lecture to him about the benefits of moderation because at the time we were preparing for a cruise to the Caribbean. I had nothing. ... Luckily, what I lack in parenting skills I make up for in weasel experience. My strategy, and it has been extremely successful so far, is to offer such boringly technical explanations that his 6-year old eyes glaze over and he wanders away. For example:

Me: Well, the reason you can have one but not two video games will require an explanation that spans the fields of economics and psychology. Pull up a chair and I'll begin by discussing the future expected value of good character development versus the present incremental value of an extra video game. Would it help to review the concept of discounted cash flows?
6-year old: Never mind. I'll ask Mom.

My method has the advantage that he understands I have a reason, and he's reminded that I'm still smarter than he is. I plan to milk this approach until he starts reading my blog.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:50 PM

August 09, 2006

Blogometer PM Extra

Sen Dem Pressure Not Materializing So Far

Stephen Spruiell at National Review Online reports from the Dem Unity rally in Hartford, CT:

"Talking to reporters in the hallway after today's Dem Unity conference in Hartford, Chris Dodd said that the coming weeks are going to be "very hard" for Democrats, especially those who supported Joe Lieberman. ... Dodd added: "[Yesterday's vote] was all about Bush. I think people made the connection — I don't think fairly — but they did." But he added that as a Democrat he had to respect the choice of the state's Democrats. "I don't disregard their votes." He also said he wouldn't try to talk Joe out of making an independent run, nor did he imagine many prominent Democrats would. "We all know Joe and like Joe... I think it would be pretty futile having a conversation with Joe, who's made up his mind."

"Ned Lamont emerged a few minutes later and disagreed. "The Senator has to make up his own mind," he said, but he added that he knew some Democrats would be urging him to step aside. When asked what he thought about Dodd's assessment that yesterday's vote was "all about Bush," Lamont answered, "I think there's a great deal of dismay with where he's taken the country. People know I'll challenge him, but that I'll challenge him by putting forward a constructive agenda."

None of the top trafficked lefty blogs filed reports from the Hartford rally, but local progressive bloggers are posting lists of Dem support of Lamont.

Will Sen Dem support for Lamont satiate bloggers, or will the press Dodd and co to make a substantive effort to push Lieberman out of the race?

Posted by Conn Carroll at 02:34 PM

8/9: Nightmares and Dreamscapes

Savour this moment. Cable exec Ned Lamont's (D) CT Dem primary win over Sen. Joe Lieberman (D) may well be the last time for a long time that bloggers from the left and right are genuinely pleased with the exact same election result. For progressives though the victory will probably remain at least a little bittersweet unless Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) can talk Lieberman out of his indy run. We believe Dodd faces an uphill climb though. No one who's been at the business end of a blogswarm comes out thinking: "Wow, that was a well reasoned, civil discussion of ideas and values and I look forward to working with bloggers in the future." (Ask Dan Rather, Mary Mapes or John Kerry). It's just hard to picture Lieberman accepting defeat at the hands of a movement that calls him "rape gurney Joe." Thus at the very moment bloggers ought to be celebrating their biggest accomplishment to date, they're instead heading straight on into a train wreck.

CT SEN I: It's A Shame Lamont Didn't Know Anybody At His Own Victory Party

Lamont HQ was filled with bloggers 8/8. TPM Cafe's Stirling Newberry reports: "Atrios, Matt Stoller, Jane Hamsher are here. The MyLeftNutmeg crew - early and avid backers of Lamont - are here." Also in Meriden:

• Chris Bowers at MyDD: "This is a very, very happy scene here. We need to make many Democrats, including the Clintons, make good on their promise now. Support the Democratic nominee. Just watching Lamont's victory speech reminded me of all the edreams I had about other elections that never came true. But this one did. We won. Be happy. Biggest. Upset. Ever. Ever. Ever. Ever. Be happy. The deed is done. Admist record turnout, Ned Lamont won. And now it is time for Democrats to support him.
• Kirby at Connecticut Bob: "Before I left, though, I brought Maxine Waters from the ballroom to the blog room -- it was just terrific. The respect for us is amazing. We are the new precinct captains. ... The gal second in command for media tonight was in the middle of the ballroom when Ned came off the podium, and her phone rang. "Hello, this is Senator Kennedy, and I would like to personally congratulate Ned!" She scrambled to get her phone to Ned right away. No gloating, just deep felt satisfaction that we.won.one."
• Hullabaloo: "We won. I forgot what that feels like. It feels good."
• CT Bob of Connecticut Bob has video of the party here.

Across the country Huffington Post contributors expressed their pleasure as well:

• Trey Ellis: "It's a Great Day to Be a New Democrat. ... Today's Democratic grassroots win is the beginning of the end of Republican hegemony and Democratic centrists need to either snap out of their stupor or prepare for their own forcible retirement.
• Rick Jacobs: "This race is not just about Connecticut. It is about every Democrat this year standing up and demanding change, demanding leadership. This race is not just about the war, it is about believing again in an America that "can do."
• Cenk Uygur: "This is a watershed moment. The message has been sent loud and clear -- Democrats can no longer ignore their own constituents and constantly run to the right. They must be wary. This is a good thing. The best thing we can hope for the next time a vote like Sam Alito's filibuster or the Iraq War resolution comes up again is for the Democratic Senators to think, "Well, I don't want what happened to Joe to happen to me." Mission accomplished!"
• David Sirota: "It's time for Joe Lieberman and his friends in the Washington Establishment who distrust Ned Lamont and ordinary voters to acknowledge that Ned is now the Democratic Party's nominee for U.S. Senate, and that we as Democrats undermine our nominee's credibility at our party and our democracy's peril."

Not all were happy in blogoland. Pro-Lieberman LieberDem: "Remember that result I said I couldn't stomach? This was it. Lieberman lost, but by a close enough margin that he thinks he could and should have won. I certainly think Lieberman should drop out now, but I can't imagine that he will after such a close result. ... We'll know what the lay of the land is for November once we see the first post-primary poll. I think Lamont will get a 10 point bounce from the last Q-poll, making the first post-primary poll look something like: Lieberman 43%, Lamont 36%, Schlesinger 11%, and 10% undecided."

CT SEN II: It Ain't Over Til ...

Before the party at Lamont HQ could get under way, bloggers had to sit through Lieberman's non-concession speech. They didn't like it. TRex at firedoglake: "Lieberman has taken the podium. UGH!! He just called it "a much closer race than the pundits were predicting"?! Oh, [screw] this guy. He's bloviating about how this is just the end of the "first half". He's announcing his independent run. And we're just going to have to kick his [butt] again. The arrogance! The delusional [member] weed!"

Also at firedoglakeChristy Hardin Smith writes: "Joe Lieberman is on C-Span right now thumbing his nose at the Democratic voters and the Democratic party, and announcing his run independent from the party. He's saying he wants to "unite not divide." This speech is right out of the Karl Rove playbook. Word on the street in Connecticut is that Lieberman will be running as an independent with Republican backing. Any doubts that his loyalty first and foremost is to Joe Lieberman, whatever it takes?"

From Paris, France, AMERICABlog's John in DC predicts the outcome "will be a disaster for the Democratic party, and it is all of Joe Lieberman's making. ... If Lieberman runs as an independent, HE will be "the" big story of the November elections, rather than the endangered incumbent Republicans. ... Rather than have this be a national election about the Republican incompetence, Joe Lieberman will make the entire country focus on his election in which he will portray himself as the last "strong on security Democrat."

CT SEN III: Sen Staffs Beware Your Inbox

Progressive bloggers quickly coalesced around a response to Lieberman's independent run: pressure Dem leadership to officially kick Lieberman out of the party.

• DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas: "Here's what we all need to do the next few days ... Push Harry Reid to strip Lieberman of all committee assignments. ... Joe Lieberman is not an independent Democrat. He needs to be stripped of his committee assignments and have those handed to real Democrats. And then we need to buckle down and finish the job we started."
• TRex at firedoglake: "Go here and write to Harry Reid. Now that Joe isn't a Democrat, he needs to be stripped of all his committee memberships. And remember that the Democratic party has to get behind the winner of the Democratic primary."
• John in DC at AMERICAblog: "Call every single Democratic office in the Senate on Wednesday and demand two things: 1. That the Senator immediately come out in support of the Democratic Senate candidate from Connecticut, Ned Lamont. 2. That Joe Lieberman be immediately kicked out of every single committee seat given to him by the Democratic party. Joe Lieberman is more interested in his own welfare than the welfare of the party.

Under the header "Ken Salazar: Worse than Lieberman" Stagarite at DailyKos writes: "Ned Lamont's victory in Connecticut should send chills up the spines of appeasement Democrats everywhere. In particular, Colorado's junior senator Ken Salazar should reconsider his July 5th statement that he would "support Joe Lieberman for the primary and beyond the primary." What happened in the Nutmeg State can happen in the Centennial State; what happened to Lieberman can happen to Salazar. But it's not clear that Salazar will change his accommodationist ways. Ever since the DLC and party insiders strong-armed Colorado Democrats into accepting Salazar as the 2004 US Senate nominee, almost every month we have had to swallow another Salazar betrayal."

CT SEN IV: Whither The DLC?

Kos included a list of winners and losers from 8'8's results. Winners included: Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) ("Damn that woman busted her butt for Lamont, and she did so with class and flair"), Sens Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Evan Bayh (D-IN), and John Edwards ("who moved most aggressively to embrace Lamont after the winner was called"). Losers included: Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) ("Lieberman's staunchest defender can still redeem himself if he brokers Lieberman's exit from the race"), the DLC, the New Republic, NARAL, Al From, Ex-Pres. Bill Clinton, Sen. Barbara Boxer, and "the DC Democratic establishment."

cos at MyDD tied CT SEN into CT GOV: "DLC got crunched!" ... That's how someone here just summed up Connecticut's Democratic primary results. He wasn't just talking about the Lamont-Lieberman race. Dan Malloy, four term mayor of Stamford, CT, and John DeStefano, sixth-term mayor of New Haven, were competing for the Democratic nomination for governor. ... Malloy's liability was being seen as part of the party establishment, the corporate/DLC wing of the party. With support from progressives, DeStefano won 51% to Malloy's 49%."

CT SEN V: Views From The Right

The conservative side of the 'sphere largely welcomed Lamont's victory as great news for GOP chances in Nov:

• John McIntyre at RCP Blog: "Lieberman's 48% makes him the clear favorite in the three-way. Republicans Chris Shays and Rob Simmons have received a boost in holding on in their vulnerable districts, two seats the Dems have to win if they hope to capture the House. And as much as mainstream Democrats may try to downplay this result as a Connecticut issue, the rejection of a three-term Senator who was the party's VP nominee only six years ago will have repercussions throughout the country and they don't help the Democratic Party."
• Robert Bluey at Right Angle Blog: "Liberals in Connecticut may have won the battle tonight by choosing Democrat Ned Lamont as their U.S. Senate nominee, but they did the GOP a huge favor, ensuring Connecticut will be a distraction in November. Although most Democrats will almost certainly rally behind Lamont, the dynamics of the general election will keep reporters busy from now until Election Day."
• Gary Andres at National Review Online: "And what about the possibility of Senator John McCain going to Connecticut to stump for his friend - and independent candidate - Joe Lieberman? McCain campaigning in that state for his Senate "independent" colleague, talking about how we need to "rise above the bitter partisanship that has engulfed Washington," is just the kind of message that will resonate with the type of voter Shays, Simmons and Johnson need to win. As Lieberman said Tuesday night in his concession speech "petty partisanship is blocking progress." He said he's "fed up" and he wants Washington to "stop playing political games."
• Captain's Quarters: "Had Lamont beaten Lieberman decisively tonight, Lieberman may have concluded that an independent run would waste time and money. ... The race finished much closer than anyone expected. ... As I posted earlier, this is the nightmare scenario for the Democrats. ... Yet that's exactly what Democrats face, and the media will be only too happy to follow this race and the split it will generate in the ranks of party leadership and big-money donors."
• PoliPundit: "The results aren't fully in yet. But, as I write this, if the trends hold, August 8 will have been a very good day for conservatives and the GOP. ... Lamont's victory today will be the subject of much water-cooler talk. Obnoxious lefties will preen in their obnoxious way, and normal people will see that the Democrat party has been taken over by a cabal of loony defeatists. I wish this race had been held a week before the general election; it would have put the GOP over the top all over the country."

Kausfiles emailer Thomas Riehle snarks: "Will history record that the first significant victory of moveon.org was the defeat of a ... Democratic incumbent?" It's on the books!" Pejman Yousefzadeh at RedState picks up on that theme and sees bad news for HRC ahead: "So the left-of-center netroots have won a victory . . . over a Democrat today. Well, a win is a win, in the eyes of many, and as such, the netroots will party like it's 1972. .. Apart from Joe Lieberman, the biggest loser tonight was Hillary Clinton. She has sought to capture the political center throughout her time as a Senator. ... Instead, Clinton, Lieberman and others of like mind have had the rug pulled out from underneath them tonight. They cannot be happy campers."

Other righties looked at Lamont's stage mates and liked what they saw. Extreme Mortman has photos of Lieberman with Maxine Waters and Al Sharpton from "Happier Days" and Kathryn Jean Lopez at National Review Online comments: "Lamont's surrounded by Jesse Jackson, Kim Gandy, Al Sharpton.... Yep. Those are your peeps. This is the Democratic party.

Not all on the right thought Lieberman could pull it out in Nov. Dean Barnett at Townhall: "So it looks like Nedmentum carried this round. But it looks like Joementum came close enough to live and fight another day. Given the way the race has played the last week or so, the initial polls should show Lieberman with a big lead. I think Joe will soon be brought down by the Sore Loserman taint of demanding a rematch, but what do I know? I said Lamont would win by 5 and he actually won by only 4, so my word's not to be trusted in such matters."

Meanwhile Bill Cullo at RedState argues Lieberman's indy run will bring unwanted voters out to the polls: "Personally, I see certain aspects of this race spelling real potential trouble for Republicans in November. To me, what's most significant about this race isn't the potential of a hurting being put on Pro-War candidates. Rather, it's the 28,000 some non traditional Democrat primary voters that voted in this primary. Approximately 14,000 of these non traditional D primary voters are actually new voters. These new voters (the 14,000) account for about 5% of what will likely be the ultimate voter turnout which is also about the percentage Lamont is likely to win by."

Outside the Beltway put in a fine live-blogging effort including video of news coverage from 8/8. OTB also notes that lefties are picking up on the "Sore Loserman" theme and directs them to some favorite GOP merchandise: "I think there are some vintage t-shirts, caps, and buttons available cheap. Why not?"

CT SEN VI: X-Files Edition

Justin Rood at TPM Muckraker reports the "FBI has begun inquiring into allegations that a Web site and email services belonging to Sen. Joe Lieberman's (D) re-election campaign were maliciously tampered with on the eve of Tuesday's primary election, according to two senior employees at technology firms involved in handling the candidate's internet services."

Rood also notes the employees refuted earlier assertions by progressive bloggers concerning Lieberman's internet hosting bills: "The employees also confirmed that the Lieberman campaign had a contract for robust service allowing them several hundred gigabytes of data transfer per month, not a cheaper plan reported previously elsewhere."

CT SEN VII: Multimedia Edition

Progressive PoliticsTV has tons of video from 8/8 including: Lamont's victory speech, Lieberman's Indy Announcement, Kos on Countdown, Lanny Davis on Hardball, and many more.

YouTube has a great video by Chris Bowers of MyDD interviewing Lamont staff members (noteworthy how many of them cut their teeth with DNC chair Howard Dean's presidential run).

CO-07: Pres. Bush just Might Be An Issue In More Than One Campaign This Year

Paul Preston at Colorado Confidential reports from ex-state Sen. Ed Perlmutter (D) HQ: "We need a change." "We need a change." ... That was the refrain tonight as almost 100 Perlmutter supporters gathered at the Alamos Verdes restaurant in Arvada, celebrating their victory in the Seventh Congressional District Democratic Primary. ... There were two reasons for their victory tonight ... First, his connections to the community ...Second, his message of change a theme Perlmutter will be taking to his upcoming battle with Republican Rick O'Donnell. An image of O'Donnell exiting Air Force One arm-in-arm with President Bush, taken at a recent fundraiser graced video monitors during the night's festivities.

GA-04: GA SEN Of The Future?

Conservative Drumwaster's Rants live-blogged Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-07) runoff: "A little time to breathe and think. McKinney's local career is done...after her second loss to good alternative candidates (remember, she lost a primary in this district in 2002 as well), I can't see her being able to climb back into the saddle, especially after the year she has had. The police assault, then her reaction to it, and her complete disdain for the primary election as it occurred (her no-shows for the debates, to be specific) have united people against her. Maybe she has a future in another office, but I can't see it. Comment on that ... could she run for Senate?"

Progressives were happy with the results as well. Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly: "I suppose it may already be too late for this, but when the punditocracy starts chattering about how Ned Lamont's victory in Connecticut is a sign that the Democratic Party is diving headlong over some kind of wild-eyed lefty peacenik cliff, I hope they keep in mind that Hank Johnson also won a landslide victory over Cynthia McKinney down in Georgia. Seems to me the party acquitted itself pretty well tonight."

MI-07: Comeback Kid

Conservative bloggers were uniformly pleased with ex-state Rep. Tim Walberg (R) over freshman moderate Rep. Joe Schwarz (R):

• Erick at RedState: "This is a tremendous victory for conservatives. Tim Walberg has beaten liberal Joe Schwarz in the Republican primary in Michigan. Well done! Well done to you all. Conservatives must make their voice heard and a Republican primary is the best way to do it."
• Robert Bluey at Right Angle Blog: "Former U.S. Rep. Pat Toomey has made a remarkable comeback. No, he hasn't been elected to any office or appointed to any job in the Bush Administration. Toomey did something more impressive yesterday, guiding the Club for Growth's endorsed candidate, Tim Walberg, to a huge victory over liberal GOP Rep. Joe Schwarz in Michigan's 7th District."

BLOGGERS vs. MSM: Fauxtography

The doctored Reuters photos have opened the floodgate to righty debunking of posed or doctored photos from Lebanon. Michelle Malkin takes down two of the more famous images. "Case study number one: The NYTimes and the Lebanese pieta. Take a close look at the above photo. (Pay close attention to his shorts, his dustless chest, muscular torso, the dust on his hands, and the hat tucked in the crook of his arm.) You've probably seen the image before. It was part of a NYTimes photo essay series published online here. It's an iconic image of Lebanese death at the hands of Israel--even described as the Lebanese pieta. ... Only guess what? The body depicted 'buried under the rubble' appears to have been up and walking in the photographer's photo series of the scene throughout the day as a rescuer, not a bombing victim."

Malkin's second case study is the picture of an AK-wielding fighter looking over what appears to be a burning city, taken by infamous Reuters photog Adnan Hajj. The picture was on the "cover of US News magazine. It's from the July 31 edition, titled "Lebanon's new ruins"--spotlighting the destruction of Lebanon at the hands of Israel. Thomas S. and Allah and Hot Air readers examined it carefully. The armed Lebanese man is identified on the cover as a "Hezbollah fighter near Beirut." Near what? Only guess what? The site is......as Allah points out, a garbage dump." Gateway Pundit also looks at the scandal.

LANDSCAPE: Rush Regales RedState Radio

Erick at RedState sat down with conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh for a lengthy interview, including: "The Republican Congress has a problem. It is working without the presence of an elected conservative leader. ... George W. Bush is conservative but he is not a conservative. He's Republican, but he's not a conservative. He is not leading the conservative movement."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Olive Branch, Blogger Style

Natural Born Killers producer and "rape gurney Joe" moniker-maker Jane Hamsher at firedoglake is willing to live and let live, but only if Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) agrees to accept defeat:

It's all a little unreal right now - we'll have plenty of time to digest the results and analyze the implications going forward - but today I'm actually going to cut Lieberman a bit of slack and say it's time for bygones to be bygones if he does the right thing and drops out of the race. Chris Dodd was tasked with the difficult job of telling Joe he had to go, which he was to commence either last night or this morning according to varying reports. I know Joe has vocal support from DLCers and so-called "centrists" who see themselves next in line if Lieberman falls. They want Joe to hold back the barbarian horde for all of them. It's a stupid, shortsighted and solipsistic construct. The self-righteous indignation of people like Lanny Davis and Martin Peretz are buoying Lieberman into a wholesale purchase of the myth that he is a great man and a great wrong has been done to him. Here on planet earth we call it a primary challenge, an integral part of the Democratic process. It's time for Joe to realize that in their own blindness they may be preparing him as the sacrificial lamb.

Colin McEnroe and Lowell Weicker both think that if Lieberman continues in the race it will only be in league with the GOP and I agree that it is his only chance. Is Joe willing to go that far to stay in the Senate? Or will enough pressure be brought to bear on him today that it will offer him a reality check and enlighten him to the fact that his brand of politics is obsolete? I hope Joe does the right thing and withdraws today. It must've been difficult to lose the race last night in such a high-profile way. Many forces are aligning behind Lamont right now that weren't there before, and if Joe goes the indy route he will only be beaten again. We've done it once. We can do it again.

LEST WE FORGET: Wouldn't You Like To Get Away ...

Nihilist in Golf Pants hops in the way back machine to reach for this CT SEN comparison:

Do you remember the classic episode of Cheers where Sam is dating a city councilwoman named Janet Eldridge (Kate Mulgrew)? Although they don't ever call her a Republican, she is a pro-business and disagrees with everything Diane (an obvious liberal) believes. Diane, in a fit of jealousy decides to help campaign for her opponent named Jim Fleener, played by none other than Max Wright.

Max literally is Joe Lieberman. He is indecisive, uninspiring and weak. He even comes up with a slogan as lame as Joe-mentum. His campaign buttons say "Wim with Jim", leading to this exchange between Diane and Carla:

Carla: "Wim with Jim?"
Diane: I thought it up. It's very Joycian.
Carla: If that means stupid, I agree.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:23 PM

August 08, 2006

Blogometer PM Extra III

Joe Scarborough: Kossack

Kos has reprinted a lengthy note from email buddy Joe Scarborough. Scarborough writes:

The conventional wisdom for tonight's Connecticut primary seems to be that a Joe Leiberman loss will yank the Democratic Party so far left as to make other Democratic candidates unelectable this fall. The logic is laughable and similar to what I heard from Republican leaders in 1994. … That was the election year when the most conservative wing of the GOP took over the party and swept into power in the US Congress. … A week before the primary, the Republican Congressional Committee campaign director let me know that I might as well give up. 1994 would be the year of the Moderate. Yeah, right. … Within a few months of that conversation, scores of right-wing, knuckle-dragging, spear-carrying conservative barbarians like myself ran through our moderate Democratic opponents like Barry Bonds through a bottle of roids. It was ugly Fast forward twelve years and now we find many making the same misguided arguments, except this time they are giving their stupid advice to Democrats generally and Connecticut voters specifically. … My advice to Democratic voters this year is "Go left, young man!

Kos comments: “While one may wonder why Scarborough is so intent on giving good advice to Democrats, it bears noting that 1) his advice contracits that of every other "well meaning" conservative eager to defend the Democratic Party's good graces, and 2) it does line up nicely with his own experiences in 1994. If nothing else, food for thought. Though I don't disagree. Well, partly. I think Dems need to play to their base, I just don't think that means "moving left". That means being more partisan, and it means being an "outsider" foil to the insiders screwing things up in DC.”

Posted by Conn Carroll at 07:27 PM

Blogometer PM Extra II

CT SEN X: Innocent Till Proven Guilty?

For once the Lieberman campaign seems to have the bloggers on their heels. With the MSM running with Team Lieberman's hacker story line, the netroots are scrambling to prove they didn't do it. Even sympathetic progressive bloggers are going with the story. hard core Lamonsters are not amused But for once the blogosphere's size is working against them as it is proving difficult for the bloggers to prove a negative. Matt Stoller at MyDD offers this guide for reporters from a "technical contact."

UPDATE:

Paul Kiel at TPM Muckraker is still on the story with denials from Lieberman's internet consultant Dan Geary to blogger claims that the Lieberman campaign "are paying $15/month for hosting." Kiel reports Geary claims "they pay a bit more" but Geary refused to comment further. Geary did admit: "the campaign's technical staff wasn't prepared to deal with a malicious intruder. "We have nobody with a security background helping with this," Geary told me. "It's just us, what we know, how we work with our server network."

UPDATE II: DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas is now linking to a Wonkette post that tracks down Team Lieberman's FEC filing for internet consulting services. Wonkette has a pdf of the filing and writes:

Why the hell is Joe Lieberman’s campaign site hosted by these people (site down — probably not because of dirty deeds, by the way) under the cheapest plan available? And why do Lieberman’s FEC filings say he’s paying $1500 to a different company for web hosting? No, we seriously want to know. These aren’t rhetorical questions. ... We have to assume that Lieberman paid the guys named above (click to enlarge slightly) to find hosting, and “2 Dog Media” went with the cheapest option available, using the rest of their paycheck to buy Ecstasy or whatever Internet people ingest. With Friends of Joe Lieberman like this, etc.

Kos comments:

So it's clearly apparent that the Lieberman campaign has no clue how much they really spent on hosting. They handed over $1,500 over the last quarter to "2 Dog Media" (no hit on Google) to do "web hosting and web changes". So this guy, 2 Dog Media, went out and bought the cheapest web hosting he could find, $15/month, to best maximize his profits.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 03:28 PM

Blogometer PM Extra I

CT SEN IX: Early Returns

Bloggers are will be posting throughout the day. The best are ConnecticutBlog, ConnecticutBob, CTBlue, LamontBlog, MyLeftNutmeg, firedoglake, and MyDD.

Here are the best reports so far:

• CTBob from Hamden, CT: "The numbers are looking promising. We asked a total of 57 voters who they voted for, with 23 not responding (snoots). Results were as follows: Lamont 22, Lieberman 13"
• cos at MyDD: "I spent 8am-noon this morning at a polling place in eastern Connecticut, where turnout was steady through the morning. It felt more like general election level turnout than a primary. One man declined my card on the grounds that he's a Republican, but on the way back, he remarked to me, "I was a Democrat for 25 years, and I think Joe's got a problem today."
• TheC at DailyKos: "I am in West Hartford, and let me tell you folks - West Hartford is for Ned! I was working at one polling location and it was easily 50+ votes for Ned and maybe 3 for Joe during the time I was there. And people were pumped up. They would give me thumbs up or come talk to me for a while. People are motivated.
• BranfordBoy at My Left Nutmeg: "Just back from four-plus hours of poll watching duty in Branford's fourth district and I am much more hopeful than I was after grumping through the third and (thank God!) final Blogger central gathering last night. Overall, turnout seemed light, which conventional wisdom says is good for Lamont. I was surprised that they have alloted less space and fewer voting booths than I'm used to here."
• CTBob: "Maura just called in and reports that in the home precinct of Dan Malloy, one of the gubernatorial candidates, in Stamford, turnout at 1:45p is 31%, and at the Rogers School in Stamford, where turnout is traditionally very low, it was at 18% and poll workers were delighted. Here in my home district in Meriden, 111 of 419 had voted as of 1:15pm, or 26%, which was amazing – they had already run out of “I voted today” stickers."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 02:54 PM

8/8: Have The Bloggers Already Won?

No matter who wins Lieberman vs. Lamont, the self-described netroots have already accomplished much of their goals just by setting the tone of '06. Non-netroots fan Rep. Rahm Emmanuel (D-IL) looks like he is adopting an '06 theme the netroots can love and MSM titans like Paul Krugman are taking traditional interest groups like the Sierra Club head on for their support of GOPers (a key wish of DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas). Whether a netroots-based Dem party can succeed electorally is yet to be determined. But it can't do much worse then the Dem Party of the last 6 years.

CT SEN I: Frodo Lives

The big names of the progressive blogosphere continue to pour into CT. Chris Bowers at MyDD finally made the trip up from Philadelphia, PA, and writes: "I feel as though this is the quiet before the start of the great battle at the end of a major blockbuster trilogy: as though we are about to storm the gates of Mordor or send a tiny fleet out toward the Death Star. In just two hours, I have met droves of volunteers, but I have also run into numerous bloggers who are prominently players in the national scene. ... In this environment, we are obviously the rag-tag group of rebels lined up against what seems to be a massive, hyper-efficient army that no one ever thought could be beat. Use the force and aim for the exhaust port. Do it for Frodo."

Native bloggers are already turning in reports on early voting. Connecticut Bob: "6:30 - I just woke up, then turned on the TV. Channel 8 in New Haven was in the middle of a report from a voting place. They said that at least six voters were turned away because they weren't on the voter lists. Apparently they were previously unaffiliated voters and their change to the Democratic party wasn't processed properly. My immediate impression is that this was a paperwork problem and not anything sinister, but I'll monitor the situation."

Also in CT for the primary, Tom Schaller at TAPPED loosely reports on a last minute interview with Lieberman spokesperson Marion Steinfels:

1. Did the latest poll [showing Lieberman down only 6 points, instead of the earlier 13-point deficit] give the Lieberman camp a lift?

I feel like there's been a bit of a shift, but I think it's coming down to people having to make a decision...4. How accurate is the New York Times story about your campaign decelerating its field operation?

I think that story was over-reported. We did make a strategic decision to allocate a little bit more money on TV; we upped our media buy. With that said, tomorrow, on the streets of Connecticut, there will be an unprecedented vote operation on the ground...

Many bloggers stressed the role GOTV would play, like BranfordBoy at My Left Nutmeg: "I haven't had a chance to check it, but I was told by the usual "reliable source" that the Secretary of State's office is reporting that 20,000 people have switched their registration to Democrat. How many are for Ned? That's the million dollar question. Don't underestimate those right-wing unafilliateds. Keep up your GOTV efforts, official and unofficial.

Others highlighted the resources at Lieberman's disposal. Bowers at MyDD: "Ok, so why is this race tightening? First of all, don't underestimate Connecticut machine. Machines are very powerful. Did I say very powerful? I meant very very powerful. sign that the machine is putting everything on the line is that they are sending the kitchen sink into Connecticut. It's not just Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Even wonder-politico Corey Booker is out of the closet as a Lieberman backer, stumping for him yesterday." Jane Hamsher at firedoglake: "Lieberman has turned out the machine and he's flooding the cities with cash - $150 per day for kids in Hartford (up from $60). All we've got to combat that with are passion and commitment. If you can volunteer to phone bank, you can do so through MoveOn here. If you can make it to Connecticut to turn out the vote, you can get more info here."

Finally, out of towner TRex of firedoglake sums up her impressions upon arrival: "I got interviewed by CT Bob tonight out in front of Sullivan's. (It seems to have become the de facto roosting point for all the crazy liberal bloggers in the area.) He asked me what the difference is between my perception of the campaign before I came here and how I think about it now. I told him it's like the difference between watching two people have sex in a movie and actually having sex. And really, it's about like that. In sex scenes in movies, everything is so choreographed and artful, no one ever falls off the bed, gets hair in their mouth, makes ridiculous noises, or gets a massive cramp in their foot from curling their toes. In fact, watching people have sex in a movie is really nothing like having sex at all. Similarly, watching TV anchors and pundits parse and pontificate about this primary race is absolutely nothing like being here at the white-hot center of the action."

CT SEN II: How Many Dem Primary Voters Watch Fox News Anyways?

The Political Wire has video of a Lieberman interview with Fox News where he announces his intention to go forward with an independent run if he loses 8/8.

Jason Zengerle at Lieberman sympathetic TNR: "Uh, it seems like the last thing Joe Lieberman should be doing the evening before the Democratic Primary is reminding Democrats that, should he lose the primary, he plans to go forward with his independent bid. He especially shouldn't be issuing that reminder via a reporter from Fox News, given the popular charge that Lieberman's a "Fox News Democrat."

The unofficial Lamont Blog noticed the report and wasn't happy: "Lieberman will be under unbelievable pressure to concede gracefully if he loses tomorrow night. From D.C. insiders, from state officials, from the media, from his colleagues in the Senate and the leadership of the House. All are already involved in distancing themselves from him. Branded a loser, he will gain no traction in the general, and cause huge headaches for local and national Democrats. Yet today, he told Fox News, of all outlets, he was committed to keeping the Joementum alive after tomorrow, no matter what."

CT SEN III: Nomentum

Poll bloggers are unanimously downplaying the Lieberman bounce story line form Quinnipiac's 8/6 poll. Mystery Pollster writes: "While the latest survey shows Ned Lamont leading by closer margin than their last survey, the differences are small and evidence of a shift in momentum is sketchy at best. ... The difference between the two polls seems to be mostly among moderate to conservative Democrats." Political Arithmetik also sees moderates as the key: "Lieberman's losses among his core supporters, the moderates, are less extreme but politically devastating. From a 67-18 lead 4/30 he dropped to a thin 49-45 margin 7/31, and has recovered a bit in the 8/6 poll to 53-43." Mystery Pollster concludes: "Regardless of the reasons for the change, this latest Quinnipiac snapshot of the race is probably the more accurate read, especially given that the results are closer to those obtained by Research 2000 and (if we believe the rumor) the internal Lamont tracking polls as well."

CT SEN IV: No Easing Of Tensions Here

The Hotline's On Call (go team!) noticed 8/7 afternoon that Lieberman's campaign website was down. Reached for comment, Lieberman spokesperson Marion Steinfels claimed: "There's a coordinated effort to overload our bandwidth and that has brought down our website and our e-mail."

The official Ned Lamont Blog called the accusation delusional: "I post because Marion Steinfels is running around proclaiming that someone hacked her site. This isn't the first time they haven't paid their bills, it happened when the stupid bear-cub ad ran and Sean Smith bragged all the traffic (from people mocking the ad) crashed their site. Same notice. But since the Hotline Blog ran with Marion's story (sort of), I had to post this here because they are undoubtedly peddling the story to other outlets as well. Passing on a different screen shot than the one above, from after they paid their hosting fees."

Matt Stoller of MyDD summed up the sentiment of most progressive bloggers: "Apparently the Lieberman campaign is claiming that the Lamont campaign hacked their web site. Here's a screenshot from earlier in the day. What a bunch of liars."

Josh Marshall at Talking Point Memo blegged his readers for expertise and got this response: " I own a web hosting company that uses the same software as the Lieberman site. That screenshot that the Lamont folks grabbed is a standard automated warning from a website control panel known as "Cpanel". Most large webhosts host many thousands of domains and their systems are automated. If a bill goes unpaid, or bandwidth is exceeded by a specified amount, the site gets auto-suspended and that Cpanel page replaces the index page. It's possible that the site was suspended for exceeding their bandwidth allotment as opposed to not paying their bills, but for someone like Joe Lieberman to not have his ducks in a row on the night before an election like this is quite telling." Marshall comments: "Other knowledgeable emailers suggest the same possibility -- not that Joe folks necessarily forgot to pay their bill but that they tripped some bandwidth or server load limit and hadn't made arrangements in advance to keep the site online if this happened."

CT SEN V: Why They Hate Him

The dawning of primary day led many on the left to reflect on why they made such an effort to single out Lieberman this primary season. Reasons include:

• Maura at My Left Nutmeg reacting to Lieberman's 8/8 description of Lamont supporters as "the antisecurity wing" of the Dems: "Now we're the ANTISECURITY WING?!?!? ANTI-SECURITY?!?! You know what? Go to hell, Joe. Antisecurity wing. You're worse than the Zell Miller of Connecticut. You deserve to lose big today, and I'm going to do EVERYTHING I possibly can to make that a reality."
• Charles P. Pierce at TAPPED reacting to a 8/8 Lieberman quote on the GOP's defeat of Max Cleland: "If anybody in Connecticut needed a reason to vote against Weepin' Joe Lieberman -- whose bladder, as my old Irish granny used to put it, is far too close to his eyes -- that quote should just about do it. (And, before anyone mentions it, yes, I know Cleland has campaigned for him. Hell, Joe's made a career out of sponging off the loyalty of his betters, why stop now?)"
• Steve Anderson at The Huffington Post: "As it comes down to the wire in CT, Joe Lieberman and his mouthpiece Lanny Davis are chanting "90%" as in, Lieberman voted with the Democratic Leadership 90% of the time, so why isn't that good enough? Because that 10% you didn't get right, Joe, included some heavy issues. ... But here's the issue that starts and stops the discussion for me. This past Sunday Michael Schiavo said this: Not only did Joe Lieberman support the illegal political intervention in the private and legally protected decisions of my family, he went out of his way to defend it. On national television."
• Glen Greenwald: "The love which right-wing extremists have for Joe Lieberman isn't based on the fact that he's a "centrist." If Lieberman were a "centrist," extremists would not care about him. They would not be vigorously urging his re-election, or praising his potential appointment as Bush Defense Secretary, or touting him as a Vice-Presidential running mate for George Allen. They do that because he is one of them -- a neoconservative extremist who is with them on virtually every major issue of the day."
• Hullabaloo: "This is more than simple ideology, although there's plenty of that at work. I suspect that some of the support for Joe on the right comes from the shared neurotic sense of beseigement the conservatives have developed as their cultural identity."

CT SEN VI: Tails Bloggers Win, Heads Bloggers Lose

Chris Bowers at MyDD predicts "the worst day of press for the progressive netroots in years" no matter what happens 8/8: "If Lamont loses, we will be branded as ineffectual, irrelevant, extremist, and destructive. If Ned Lamont wins, we will be branded as powerful, relevant, extremist, and destructive. Both descriptions are inaccurate and unfair because this goes so far beyond the blogosphere, but if I have to choose I would much rather have the second one be the story. If we are going to get trashed and be forced to take credit for the fantastic work of others, I would at least like to get trashed as powerful and relevant."

Populist Sirotablog meanwhile is a bit more optimistic and offers four possible out comes:

• 1. Lieberman wins by more than 10 points: Champagne purchases in Washington, D.C. skyrocket, as the professional Democratic Party apparatus (ie. consultants, Hill staffers, think tankers, etc.) collectively celebrates the perception that they still do not have to worry at all about small-d democracy threatening their cushy lifestyles.
• 2. Lieberman barely wins (less than 10 points): Again, champagne purchases in the Beltway are high, and Rothenberg, Roberts, Kagan, Beinart and the DLC crowd begin calling all of their reporter friends telling them in coded language that this means that ordinary voters still - thankfully - have no say in their own political process.
• 3. Lamont ekes out a win (less than 4 points): Xanax and Prosac fly off the shelves of DC pharmacies, as the Democratic Party Establishment goes into a depression because it realizes it no longer gets to give orders from Mt. Olympus. ... Lieberman, who for weeks has been trying to downplay expectations, cites the closeness of the results as a reason to go ahead with an Independent Lieberman for Lieberman bid ... The divide in the Democratic Party has a chance to be bridged, but the insistence by some Democratic incumbents and moneyed interests to keep pushing Lieberman's candidacy unfortunately preserves the fault line.
• 4. Lamont wins big (by more than 5 points): ... Because Lamont is no firebrand and because he won by pushing positions at the real center of public opinion, more Democratic insiders realize their fight against ordinary citizens is a losing battle and realize their careers are about to be cut short lest they change their ways. Thanks to this change, the Democratic Party actually start winning national elections for the first time in a generation.

CT SEN VII: The Lamonsters Have Already Won

The right side of the blogosphere has significantly increased their coverage of CT SEN in the final days. A more thorough look will be posted later, but for now the emerging consensus is that 8/8's final result is largely irrelevant.

Dean Barnett answers questions at Townhall including: "5) Will Lieberman prevail in the general election? No. There's something un-American about demanding a rematch. ... 7) Does tomorrow's election mean the Nutroots officially own the Democratic Party? Whatever the result, they own it already. The only difference will be the media will take belated widespread notice of this fact if Lamont wins."

Byron York at National Review Online believes the netroots financial prowess has been overplayed: "Of course, if Lamont wins, it will be the Triumph of the Blogs. But looking at campaign finance reports this morning, it's hard to see that that would be the real meaning of a Lamont victory. ... but the rough numbers are these: Lamont has raised $4.1 million, $2.5 million of which came from himself and $298,000 of which came from bloggers. Now, $298,000 is not nothing. But is it the sort of fundraising power that will upend Democratic Party politics? And will a Lamont victory truly be the Triumph of the Blogs?

CT SEN VIII: Multimedia Edition

Video from CT includes: Fox News package on CT SEN from Politicstv, local tv coverage from CT Bob, Rev. Al Sharpton campaigning for Lamont from CT Bob, and Beyond the Headlines interview with Lieberman from My Left Nutmeg

Spazeboy has audio of a Lieberman robocall while Rachel Weiner at TPM Cafe tallies up CT paper endorsements for Lieberman and Lamont (8-3 Lieberman):

Lieberman:
Hartford Courant
Litchfield County Times
Connecticut Post
New Haven Register
The Day
Norwich Bulletin
Danbury News Times
Greenwich Time
Lamont:
Journal-Inquirer
Lakeville Journal
Hartford Advocate

MI SEN: Primary Wasting Time To Fight Stabenow

Matt Lewis at Human Events Online tells us "In Michigan today, two Republicans will face off for the chance to take on unpopular incumbent U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow [D]. While the two Republican challengers (Keith Butler and Michael Bouchard) have been campaigning against each other, U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow has been able to save her resources (she reportedly has been 'husbanding' about $7 million). But the truth is that this election should not have happened. Conservative Keith Butler entered the race only after Sheriff Michael Bouchard decided not to run. (It was only after additional prodding and meddling by Liddy Dole and the NRSC that Bouchard was persuaded to the race.) Sure, some will argue that the winner of a primary always comes out a better candidate. While that may sometimes be true (McCain's challenge made Bush a better candidate in 2000), the rule does not apply in the case of Michigan. ... Today's race is predicted to be close, but frankly, it is a waste. Either Butler or Bouchard should have spent this valuable time raising money to defeat Stabenow's $7 million -- not each other. ... This is a prime example of what happens when Washington meddles."

MI-07: Righties Pulling For Walberg

The Corner's Ramesh Ponnuru reminds us that Rep. Joe Schwarz won the '04 GOP primary because "conservatives were divided among five other candidates. Tomorrow, he's facing just one conservative: former state rep. Tim Walberg. The winner is likely to win the general election, too. It's a safe Republican seat, which Bush carried 54 percent in 2004. The social issues have gotten a good deal of attention in the race: Walberg is a pro-life social conservative, Schwarz a pro-choice social liberal. (Schwarz has called Michigan's right-to-carry law 'nuts.') But there are major fiscal-policy differences as well. Schwarz has supported tax hikes, voted for sugar subsidies, demanded that Katrina rebuilders comply with Davis-Bacon union pay schedules, and opposed the Republican Study Committee's tight budget. He favored raising the payroll tax rather than personal accounts as a solution to Social Security's problems. Walberg, on the other hand, promises to be a budget-cutter in the mold of Texas's Jeb Hensarling. The League of Conservation Voters and the Service Employees International Union are working to re-elect Schwarz; the Club for Growth is behind Walberg."

RedState continues it's anti-Schwarz campaign reiterates it's "top ten reasons why Joe Schwarz Must Go":

"10.Schwarz Opposes ANWR drilling.
9. Schwarz Supports Government Subsidized Viagra.
8. Schwarz Is Wrong on Marriage -- he supports same sex marriage.
7. Schwarz Is Wrong on Private Property -- he supports the Kelo decision.
6. Schwarz Is A Tax & Spend Liberal.
5. Schwarz Is Pro-Choice -- he's being backed by Planned Parenthood and
other liberal pro-abortion groups.
4. Schwarz Is Anti-Free Speech -- he voted for BCRA and against
protecting blogs from the FEC.
3. Schwarz Is A Hypocrite -- having voting for BCRA, he violated it
to try to win this campaign.
2. Schwarz Is A Tax Hiker -- he's on record willing to repeal
the President's tax cuts.
1. It will send a message to Republican leaders in Congress"

CO: "That Boy's A Straight Shooter, With Upper Management Written All Over Him"

GOPer Clay Calhoun doesn't "live within the district, but if I did live within Colorado's 5th Congressional District, I would cast my vote on Tuesday for Jeff Crank [R] for Congress. Here's why: Today, we Americans -- each and every one us, no matter our economic, cultural, geographic, ethnic, or you-pick-whatever status -- are faced with common issues, problems, and opportunities. From my perspective, these fall into the key categories of national security, fiscal responsibility, and economic development. Each of these greatly impact the well being of Colorado and the nation. And on each of the many issues that fall into these categories, Jeff Crank is the only candidate in the CO-5 primary that is focused, able, and experienced at driving to and working for a solution at both the state and national levels."

Bubbagump29 at RedState says the GOP primary race is the "epitome of a tossup. The only public poll I've seen was one back in June from the [Colorado Springs mayor Lionel] Rivera camp putting obviously himself is first with [state Sen. Doug] Lamborn being his runner up, the heir-designate Crank and others close behind except for General Bentley Rayburn (who?) at 2%. Critics called it a push poll and it could well have been, but that's what we have. My gut feeling is that Lamborn buried Crank with the Right to Life endorsements. That, I think, probably sealed the deal for social conservatives and fiscal conservatives are excited about the Club for Growth endorsement. Lamborn now has much of the base. Another important one to watch will be District 7 for the Democratic primaries, where the winner faces another Club for Growth endorsee Rick O'Donnell to replace [ex-Rep.] Bob Beauprez [R], who is running for governor, and I keep reading that this seat is the most competitive in the nation."

CLINTON: Sly Support

A new poll of NH Dems showed a good deal of unfavorability toward Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and it has the lefty blogosphere abuzz with HRC. TAPPED's Ezra Klein serves up some of the characterizations of Clinton: "'Lying b****...shrew...Machiavellian...evil, power-mad witch...the ultimate self-serving politician.' So said the grassroots Democrats who were part of New Hampshire pollster Dick Bennet's focus groups. And this is New Hampshire, Hillary's strong primary state, not Iowa, where she's already trailing John Edwards in the polls. Now, that's not to say these haters represent the median opinion of Clinton. But if a significant portion of the Democratic electorate in New Hampshire is strongly motivated to turn out against her, her much vaunted strength in the state may be almost entirely illusory -- particularly if she loses in the preceding caucuses, as may very well happen."

Fellow lefty James Boyce at Huffington Post supports Clinton for who she is right now, a senator -- and who she isn't, a GOPer: "There's been a lot of chortling online about the articles today detailing the poll...where over 400 registered Democrats were shown to be, well, less than fond of the Senator from New York. I am not a supporter of Hillary Clinton in terms of presidential politics, but I am a supporter of Hillary Clinton, Democratic Senator who has worked very hard for the people of New York and has helped Democrats across the country raise millions of dollars. ... And don't forget -- who wins when the Democrats bash one of their leaders? The Republicans. Keeping the Hillary The Hated narrative running helps them, not us. Support whoever you want. Disagree with Senator Clinton on everything she does. But when people start calling one of the leaders of your party a 'whore,' it's time to start asking questions about who's paying the bills."

MCCAIN: Who Isn't Working For Straight Talk America?

Jim Geraghty at National Review Online has identified a second righty blogger with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) connections: "John Balbach, a Michigan political professional and an employee of a firm currently under contract to McCain's PAC Straight Talk America, wrote two posts on RedState.com touting the Arizona Senator and one criticizing the ethics of Rudy Giuliani, a likely rival of McCain's in the 2008 Republican presidential primary. However, Balbach is not currently working for McCain's PAC; he is working on other accounts for the firm, Strategic National Consulting. Balbach was previously employed by former U.S. Ambassador Ron Weiser, who is a veteran GOP fundraiser and currently finance chair of the Michigan Republican Party."

"Balbach's case has some distinctions from that of Patrick Hynes, a consultant who posted several pro-McCain and anti-Romney items to his blog, AnkleBitingPundits, without disclosing his financial ties to the Arizona Senator's PAC. One could argue that as a former employee of a figure who raised funds for McCain, and as an employee of a firm currently contracted to McCain, Balbach ought have disclosed that in his RedState posts. But as of now, there is no evidence of Straight Talk America money going directly to Balbach; in fact, the opposite is true $1,000 went from Balbach to Straight Talk America. And once again, he did introduce himself to his readers at RedState as "a long time supporter of Senator McCain."

MD SEN: Direct To You

Robert Bluey at Right Angle Blog congratualtes LG Michael Steele for "standing up to the liberal editors at the [Baltimore] Sun" by not letting them "distort where he stands on the issues" and posting his answers to their candidate survey directly on his webiste. Bluey comments: "Little by little, the old guard at places like the Sun is losing its influence while more voters turn to blogs and other outlets for the information they desire."

PA SEN: First, They Came For Lieberman ...

Regular Weekly Standard reader Chris Bowers at progressive MyDD isn't happy with PA Gov. Ed Rendell's (D) recent pro-Sen. Rick Santorum (R) statements and advises Rendell to pay attention to CT: "Why is Governor Rendell saying positive things about Rick Santorum in the Weekly Standard? For that matter, why is Governor Rendell giving an interview with the Weekly Standard at all? Now Rick Santorum is using those comments in his ads. Of course, I am talking about a Democrat who went on Fox News in order to support Samuel Alito during the confirmation hearings and repeat the talking points Republicans were using about Democrats during those hearings. I am also talking about someone who was openly a member of the Fainthearted Faction during the Social security fight. Whatever lesson Democrats in DC may or may not learn from the Connecticut Senate primary, I wonder sometime how long it will take that lesson to filter down from DC and back into Pennsylvania."

Mark Kilmer at RedState noticed Bowers lecture: "But Rendell is a traitor to their cause, and must pay the price. He has crossed the mighty lefty netroots, and you know what happened to the last candidate who did that. (Well, Lieberman might have to win reelection as an independent. Hillary ticked them off too, I think, but I think all that happened to her was that she continued raising funds apace. I don't know if Paul Hackett angered them so much as they abandoned him.)"

RI SEN: Guilt By Marriage

Patrick Casey at National Review Online is no fan of Sen. Lincoln Chafee's (R) latest choice in consultants: "Here's something interesting that I heard about over the weekend, but couldn't find in the Providence Journal (although apparently it was on a newscast on WJAR10 Saturday) the Chafee campaign has hired a Maine telemarketing firm owned by the wife of James Tobin, who was convicted in 12/05 of criminally violating federal campaign laws in New Hampshire. That means that Chafee has hired the wife of a convicted felon who is in the same business as her convicted felon husband as a paid consultant. Democrats are still trying to tie Tobin to the Bush administration via a civil lawsuit, saying that the White House directed Tobin's activities."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Role Reversal

Byron York at national Review Online notesa gender reversal in the Quinnipiac 8/6 CT SEN cross tabs: "While the overall result of the poll shows Lamont ahead 51-45, among likely Democratic primary voters, there is a significant gender difference in the numbers. Among men, Lamont leads Lieberman 55-42. Among women, the two candidates are tied, 47-47. Intuitively, that doesn't seem to make sense. Is it more evidence of the unreliability of polling in this August primary?"

LEST WE FORGET: The Perfect Distraction In Any Meeting

The official Ned Lamont Blog offers CT SEN theme ringed tones with titles including: "But I Agree With the Republicans 80% of the Time," "I'm Ned Lamont and I approve this message" (Bear Ad), Joe Lieberman on FEMA's Michael Brown, "FEMA, of course, has done an outstanding job," and Everyone's Favorite Lobbyist, Richard Goodstein.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:23 PM

August 07, 2006

Blogometer PM Extra III

BLOGGERS VS. DEMS: Major Leaugers?

Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly asks, “If Ned Lamont beats Joe Lieberman in Tuesday's Connecticut primary, will it mean that blogs have truly broken into the big time?” Drum goes on to quote Publius at Law and Policis:

if Joe goes down this week, I don’t think that blogs will have had all that much to do with it. It’s hard to keep this in mind sometimes, but most people simply don’t know anything about blogs. To be clear, blogs are certainly helping. But Joe is beating himself just fine, thank you. … But, because people like Wittman, TNR, and even the Lieberman campaign have harped on about those crazy bloggers throughout the campaign, they are inflating the power of blogs in people’s minds. And as a result, a Lamont victory will create a perception that blogs are far more important than they are (particularly among party insider types who do keep up with blogs). Putting aside the question of whether a Lamont victory is a net positive or negative for the Party (I think positive), it’s going to be an enormous victory for the blogosphere as an institution, thanks in no small part to the wails and cries of people like Wittman. The upshot is that, when the smoke clears this week, blogs are going to have a bigger place at the Party table going into future elections. Probably a bigger one than they deserve. But hey, I’ll take it. Can't be worse than who's already there.

Drum concludes: “That sounds about right to me. We're in an odd situation where bloggers like Atrios and Kos are trying to downplay the influence of blogs while mainstream pundits are trying to exaggerate it. Both sides have their reasons, but the end result is that the underlying reality doesn't matter much anymore. In the same way that all the chatter about "who won" a presidential debate is more important than the debates themselves, the chatter about the power of the blogs is probably more important than whether they really had any power to begin with. Like it or not, they do now.”

Atrios follows the debate, promises a longer article on the subject later and writes: “Blogs mattered as a tool for local activists, but not so much bloggers in the sense of "known blogs with big traffic."

Also keeping tabs on the discuission, Michael Crowley at TNR argues that at minimum bloggers have helped set the parameters of the debate: “Sometimes the impact has more of a bank-shot quality, but it's no less effective: Yesterday the Hartford Courant, exercising a dubious sense of proportionality, ran an entire story about Lieberman's refusal to appear on the "Colbert Report," making Lieberman look like a big ol' scaredy-cat. But why does Colbert care enough about Lieberman to make a big show of inviting him on in the first place? The anti-Joe frenzy generated by the blogs, of course. … While I despise the savage tone many bloggers adopt towards Lieberman, I'm not saying there's anything sinister about this. As far as I know, pro-Lamont bloggers haven't harassed and intimidated Connecticut reporters the way Republicans did in the 2004 South Dakota Senate race. But I'm sure their impact on coverage has been far greater. So the next time you hear someone like Kos downplay the role he played in this race, take it with a grain of salt.”

Posted by Conn Carroll at 04:37 PM

Blogometer PM Extra II

BLOGGERS V. GOP: Bloggers Heart Who?

Follawing up on his 7/31 post on who righty bloggers did not like, Right Wing News makes nice with a list of people that righty bloggers love. RWN writes: "Right Wing News emailed more than 225 right-of-center bloggers and asked them to send us a list of whom they considered to be their "Favorite People On The Right." Representatives from the following 51 blogs responded."

The list includes (with the number of votes beside of each selection in parentheses):

21) Glenn Reynolds (6)
21) Laura Ingraham (6)
21) Sean Hannity (6)
21) Milton Friedman (6)
21) George Allen (6)
20) Antonin Scalia (7)
17) Hugh Hewitt (8)
17) Ann Coulter (8)
17) Tom Coburn (8)
15) Walter Williams (9)
15) Tom Tancredo (9)
14) Victor David Hanson (10)
12) Jonah Goldberg (11)
12) John Bolton (11)
11) Newt Gingrich (12)
10) Dick Cheney (13)
9) Rush Limbaugh (15)
7) Donald Rumsfeld (16)
7) Charles Krauthammer (16)
6) Michelle Malkin (17)
4) Mark Steyn (19)
4) George W. Bush (19)
2) Thomas Sowell (20)
2) Rudy Giuliani (20)
1) Condi Rice (22)

A quick comparison with the do not like list shows the following overlaps:

16) Michelle Malkin (5)
6) Ann Coulter (17)

Posted by Conn Carroll at 03:23 PM

Blogometer PM Extra I

BLOGGERS VS. MSM II: An International Investigation Righty Bloggers Can Get Behind

Following more evidence of Adnan Hajj dupery righty bloggers are not satisfied with Reuters official response to the growing scandal. Power Line forwards this reder observation after examining the complete works of Hajj: "You are missing the bigger point. There is NO WAY this one guy could be taking all of these pictures - look at the images and dates. Does he have a flying car? The question: is he simply a clearinghouse for Hezbollah propaganda, routed expeditiously through Reuters? Looks like they pay the guy to forward unverified images (sometimes doctored or staged, as you've helped explain) taken by others."

Law professor David Bersteinwrites at Volokh Conspiracy: "And remember how the various news agencies, including Reuters, were shocked at the very suggestion that some photos in Qana might have been staged? Certainly, photographers willing to doctor photos would be willing to stage them."

American Thinker was the first to call for an external investigation: "Reuters now admits supplying the world’s media with crude propaganda pictures, faked by an Arab photographer. The agency’s journalistic standards are now a global laughingstock. If the agency hopes to regain credibility it must appoint an outside panel of experts to review other work of the same photographer, including the controversial photos supplied from Qana."

Michelle Malkin reports that Rush Limbaugh is also calling for an inverstigation into what could be "the tip of the iceburg."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 03:12 PM

8/7: Bloggers 2, MSM 0

From the same blogger who brought you Rathergate (littlegreenfootballs) comes word that a Reuters photograph of Beirut had been altered to make damage to the city look worse than it really was. The right side of the 'sphere is busy connecting dots, already noting that the same Reuters photographer was also the first MSMer at the Qana tragedy. The Blogometer will feature a more thorough write-up in the PM because there is still plenty going on in CT SEN and leading Dems are using the I-word again.

BLOGGERS VS. MSM: We Didn't Know Mary Mapes Ended Up At Reuters

On 8/6 Little Green Footballs reported: "This Reuters photograph shows blatant evidence of manipulation. Notice the repeating patterns in the smoke; this is almost certainly caused by using the Photoshop 'clone' tool to add more smoke to the image. (Hat tip: Mike.) It's so incredibly obvious, it reminds me of the faked CBS memos. ... The photographer who took this picture (probably also the person who doctored it), Adnan Hajj, is rather well-known to LGF readers. In fact, rather well-known to the entire world. He also took this infamous photograph from Qana of the guy in the green helmet, parading a dead body around for pictures, featured on the front pages of newspapers worldwide."

LGF updated the original post throughout the weekend including linking to a discussion of the photo on the Professional sports photographers message board SportsShooter

Other righties jumped on the story, including, Scott Johnson at Power Line who described the manipulation this way: "contrast in the photo was heightened to make it more dramatic. The smoke was darkened and expanded through cloning, so that it appeared (to me at least) that there were two sources of fire rather than one. Buildings in the lower left were cloned, to make it appear, I assume, that the area of the fire was more heavily populated. There may be other changes that those better versed in photography can identify." In another post, Johnson thinks this "should be a severe embarrassment to Reuters. The photographer whose photo was doctored is the same person who shot some of the famous propaganda images from Qana, which can only add to the doubts about happened there.

Even progressives were picking up on the story. Huffington Post's Taylor Marsh writes this is the "type of fakery like we need John Bolton at the United Nations. But that's not the worst news today. As if we needed more corporate media disrespect, we've now got Reuters' propaganda. They've now admitted to actually doctoring a picture to show more smoke and disaster in Lebanon than was happening in a certain snapshot. It's bad enough in Beirut, so we surely don't need to push this envelope, not to mention heighten mistrust of the media. There are not that many corporate outlets willing to risk their people in war zones as it is."

HOUSE: Just What Nancy Wants To Hear

Following up on the House Dem Judiciary Cmte's "Constitution in Crisis" report TPM Muckraker's Justin Rood asked Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), "If the Democrats take back the House, would this lead to impeachment?" Conyers responded: "There's no way I can predict whether there will ultimately be an impeachment proceeding underway or not," Conyers replied. But with three months to go until the midterm elections, "to be putting together a list, an agenda for the Judiciary Committee. . . smacks me as being a little. . ." TPMMuck reports, "he didn't finish the sentence."

Michael Crowley at TNR writes: "Hmmm... Doesn't sound to me like Conyers got Nancy Pelosi's 'off the table' memo!" and under the header "What November Means in the House" National Review Online's Kathryn Jean Lopez comments: "If the Dems take the House, John Conyers has the impeachment plan ready to roll."

CT SEN I: Not Dead Yet

Neal Fink at My Left Nutmeg described 8/7's Quinnipiac poll showing Sen. Joe Lieberman (D) down 51 - 45% to cable exec Ned Lamont "sobering." For some progressive bloggers, though, the results only affirmed what they had been saying all weekend. Tim Tagaris at the officialNed Lamont Blog on 8/4: "I'll be honest, there seems to be a lot of premature celebration right now for a race that's a whole hell of a lot closer than ... the 13 point lead Quinnipiac gave us yesterday. I can tell you one thing, our numbers don't show us up 13 - and that is no spin."

Chris Bowers at MyDD also was out controlling expectations: "I have looked at some numbers this morning, and I now think that this is going to be a very close election. Right now, in my opinion, Lamont is more likely to lose the primary than he is to win it by the ... double-digit threshold necessary to knock out Lieberman once and for all." Later Bowers reaffirmed his analysis: "In my gut, I still do not expect Lamont to blow Lieberman out."

With Lieberman's numbers slightly rebounding, progressive bloggers fought back against the notion that a only a Lamont blow out could force Lieberman out of an independent run. Natural Born Killers producer and the blogger Lamont has never ever heard even heard ofJane Hamsher at firedoglake commented on Sen. Frank Lautenberg's (D-NJ) suggestion that a big primary loss should force Lieberman to look at reality: "Kill this now. It's an attempt to set the limits of Joe's indy run. Most polls show the race much tighter than ten points, and it's a way to inject the notion that if Lieberman loses by less than that he's entitled to cut and run. ... No. If Lieberman loses he should bow out gracefully and back the winner of the race, Ned Lamont. Anything less is nothing but a commitment to his own self-aggrandizement at the expense of the party. Staying in the race threatens three Connecticut House seats. His kiss-my-ring vanity party is an exercise in narcissism and self-indulgence that cannot and should not be tolerated."

Even the lone pro-Lieberman voice in the lefty blogosphere, LieberDem, hopes Lieberman will pack it in if he loses 8/8: "It has become painfully clear to me that little good (and plenty bad) will come out of this race for Democrats, regardless of whether Lamont or Lieberman is the last man standing. That's why I wanted to get it over with as quickly as possible. Until today, the only way to make sure this intraparty slugfest ended August 8 was for Lieberman to win the primary. But today, Frank Lautenberg hinted that there might be an alternative -- he said Joe Lieberman might forgo his independent bid if Ned Lamont wins the primary by a double-digit margin. ... I don't much care anymore whether Lamont or Lieberman wins this Senate seat. The only outcome that gives me pause at this point is Lamont winning by a narrow enough margin that Lieberman decides stays in the race. The two ways to end this race on Tuesday are through a Lieberman victory or a Lamont rout. I could live with either option, but if you asked me now, I'd probably tell you that I would prefer the latter."

CT SEN II: In The Trenches

Following up on an 8/3 heckling of Lamont in progressive bloggers tracked down the name of Lamont in Meridan, CT, progressive bloggers tracked down the heckler's name, Richard Goodstein, and began searching his background. Aldon at MyDD found pictures of Goodstein at flickr and identified him as a "Washington lobbyist" that "contributed to Lieberman's campaign in 2004, Kerry's campaign and to Hillary's PAC." Matt Stoller at MyDD wondered: "Is this the same Richard Goodstein who gave Lieberman $1500 for his 2004 Presidential run? Because that Goodstein is a lobbyist in DC for the chemical and health supplies industry."

Greg Sargent at TPM Cafe then contacted Goldtsein's office in DC, obtained his cell phone number, and called him: "When I asked him if he was a Lieberman supporter and was the man in the pic on the front of the Herald-Record, he confirmed that, yes, he was a Lieberman backer and that he was the same man as pictured on the paper's front page. Then the conversation went south." TPM Muckraker then dug some dirt: "It turns out, this recent flap isn't the first time Goodstein's been in hot water. Way back in 1983, Goodstein -- then a lawyer for the doomed Mondale for President campaign -- "surreptitiously took" a notebook from a Philadelphia office in order to hide the nature of the campaign's scheme to use rather flimsy outside organizations to evade fundraising laws."

Christy Hardin Smith at firedoglake thought the whole event encapsulated why Lieberman had to go: "The DC beltway has become so intertwined with politicians, politicians' wives who double as campaign staffers or lobbyists or other levels of influence (just look no further than the Wives' Club from the Abramoff investigation), to political staffers rotating in and out of KStreet, to the lobbying firms who drive campaign donations in exchange for favors, to the Beltway media who see all of this going on but only a few of them bother to give it coverage, perhaps because it has become such a "normal" part of Washington life that they don't even see it any longer. It's time to clean up the mess - one politician at a time. Electing Ned Lamont is an awfully good start."

Greg Sargent at TPM Cafe has the text of Lieberman's latest 60-second radio ad:

"In the 1960s, as a college student, Joe Lieberman fought for equality and marched with our civil rights leaders in the South," a narrator says. "Ned Lamont says he will stand up for all the people of Connecticut, but did you know that for 16 years, Ned belonged to Round Hill, an exclusive country club not known for its diversity?"..."Ned Lamont only resigned from Round Hill after he decided to run for the Senate because he was afraid it would become a campaign issue. Born into wealth, Ned Lamont is trying to buy a seat in the United States Senate. Membership may have its privileges, but the Senate isn't one of them."

CT SEN III: The Tigers Had A Heck Of Year In '68 Too

Two items from Dan Balz' 8/6 Washington Postarticle were heavily discussed in the blogosphere. First, lefty bloggers loved Rep. Rahm Emanuel's (D-IL) quote: "What's playing out here is that being a rubber stamp for George Bush is politically dangerous to life-threatening." Reactions included:

• Christy Hardin Smith at firedoglake: "Whether he intended it or not, though, Rahm is correct: being a rubber stamp for George Bush when you are a Senator from Connecticut is asking for trouble."
• Atrios: "If this is Rahm's plan, then Joe might find out that not only will his old friends disappear rather quickly, his primary loss might be the launching pad for the '06 campaign. Stand with Bush, and you lose."
• the official Ned Lamont Blog: "Indeed. And it's dangerous for Republicans as well. That's why you see them flying the president in under-cover for fundraisers, taking the word "Republican" off their website, and falling over themselves on the way to the microphone to criticize the President. Yet one remains steadfast in his un-yielding support for the president, and on Tuesday, we have a shot to replace him with Ned Lamont in the United States Senate."
• Hullabaloo: "It isn't just the war or the unpopular Bush --- it's his Republican majority enablers in the congress. The record is clear and damning. Failing to do their constitutional duty, the GOP Eunuch Caucus has rubber stamped every failed policy he put forward. They are as responsible for this mess as Bush is. The chickens are coming home to roost."

The other heavily commented item was Balz discussion of Iraq/Vietnam political fallout similarities. Mark Schmitt at TPM Cafe did not like the comparison at all: "I'm really tired of the Vietnam/Democrats analogy, in which the entire political history of Vietnam is reduced to McGovern's loss in 1972. The real reason the Vietnam War divided and discredited Democrats and splintered the liberal consensus was because - let's not be afraid to admit it -- Democrats started that war. Opposition to the war didn't unify or define the party, it divided it. Nixon won the 1968 election because Humphrey was associated with the war, couldn't split with LBJ, and Nixon promised - dishonestly -- to end it. The national security gap for Democrats first appeared in polls in 1967-68, because LBJ was held responsible for the war itself, not because they were associated with antiwar activists."

DailyKos diarist DemFromCT didn't like the comparison either: "Here's a concept for them to chew over. It's not the war, stupid as much as it's this stupid war. This is not 1968 or 1972, even if Bush uses the Nixon playbook to blame his enemies. Republicans are in trouble all over the country, not just CT. They're in trouble for many reasons besides the war, but let's be clear. The Iraq War is not a source of Republican strength any more than Bush is a popular president. And that's the message CT will send the country Tuesday."

Conservative bloggers smelled inconsistency. Tom Bevan at RCP Blog found left blogger distinctions between '06and '68 "rather humorous" and writes: "In other words, Iraq is Vietnam, except when it isn't. We'll know soon enough whether the netroots are the cutting-edge of antiwar activism sweeping the nation or, to paraphrase Marshall Wittmann, just a bunch of "McGovernites with modems." Captain's Quarters makes a similar point after reading Martin Peretz' Wall Street Journalarticle : "Peretz' excellent article shows how the Democratic Left has forgotten lessons of political history and strategy, and appears poised to return their party to national irrelevancy. He drives home the naivete of Ned Lamont in foreign policy, where every crisis appears to Lamont as a failure to provide incentives. ... This time the future looks even more bleak, as the Democrats have few national politicians with the credibility on foreign policy and national security to rescue them from disaster -- and the Left is in the middle of pillorying one of them right now in Connecticut."

Others on the right also saw historical comparisons but couldn't agree on a year. Conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt: "The great news for the center-right is that the left's netroots will be focused on the Lamont campaign for the next three months. The hard left will pour money and energy into Lamont's effort, and the Lamont campaign will have a deeply divisive effect on the national Democratic party, a sort of purist's litmus test for the near and long term. "I was with Lamont in '06" will be up there with Republican declarations of having been with Reagan in '76 and Goldwater in '64. ... The party is moving much farther to the left than either the Goldwater or Reagan candidacies took the GOP."

CT SEN IV: Not Ready To Make Nice

Pachacutec at firedoglake posts video from the Dixie Chicks 5/26 GMA appearance and writes: "No matter what happens Tuesday, I guarantee you, I won't be ready to make nice. I expect you won't either. Let's get out the vote for Ned, but if things don't go our way, my advice is, be sad for a day or two, and then let's get back to work." Atrios also takes a second to ponder a Lamont loss: "I'd like to think that if Lamont loses something will still have been gained, though I'm not sure I can actually make that case. I do think this campaign has helped to shift CW somewhat on certain issues, but a Lamont loss will probably snap it right back to where it was."

Hullabaloo, meanwhile, questions Lieberman's campaign strategy: "What has struck me the most as I watched this campaign unfold from afar, is just how inept the Lieberman campaign has been on almost all levels. For instance, is it even remotely understandable why, in the final week-end of the campaign, it was Atrios who dug out statements by Lieberman from 2003 in which he quite aggressively challenged Bush on the war? Why in the world didn't the Lieberman campaign have that appearance in an ad running on a loop?"

As does Jane Hamsher at firedoglake: "The odd decision of Joe Lieberman and his incompetent (and soon-to-be- justifiably-unemployed campaign staff) to run against Lowell Weicker, then the blogs, and now me has been a bit of a head scratcher. It's allowed Ned Lamont to run virtually unopposed. His "unfavorables" are outrageously low at this point in the game, and Lieberman's politically tin-eared choice of Ned's money as a key campaign issue probably worked to diffuse the other narrative he was pushing so aggressively: That this is a party purge by angry radical lefty extremists, a story which is near and dear to Joe's heart."

CT SEN V: Multimedia Edition

Tons of great CT SEN video circulating. Highlights include

• Lamont and Lieberman on This Week from PoliticsTV
• Newt Gingrich on Fox News calling the netroots an "insurgency" from Think Progress
• CNN coverage of "the Kiss" float from YouTube
• Lanny Davis and Jim Dean on Meet the Press from PoliticsTV
• Cokie Roberts on This Week describing a Lamont victory as a "disaster" for Dems from Media Matters
• The McLuahlgin Group on CT SEN from Connecticut Blog
• Quinnipiac Poll's Douglas Schwartz on Face the State from Connecticut Blog
• Lamont spokesperson Liz Dupont-Diehl and Lieberman campaign manager Seam Smith on Beyond the Headlines from Connecticut Blog

GIULIANI: Weekend At Bernie's

Progressive Jonathan Singer at MyDD believes social issues are just the beginning of Ex-NY mayor Rudy Giuliani's (R) liabilities in GOP primary: "The more Americans take look at Rudy Giuliani the more quickly they will realize that he is not the homeland security hero so many believe he is. To take just one example, it was on Giuliani's advice that President Bush nominated Bernie Kerik -- who has since come under intense scrutiny for possible corruption -- to serve as Secretary of Homeland Security."

ROMNEY: Not The First Time Heritage And Cato Have Gone At It

National Review Online's John Hood reports MA Gov Mitt Romney (R) is setting agendas not only for other Govs nationwide, but also think tanks in DC: "The National Governors Association's annual meeting began Sunday in Charleston, and it appears that the hot talk of the trade is state initiatives to reform health care. Seeing how much good national publicity Gov. Mitt Romney got for a just-enacted plan in Massachusetts - despite the fact that its merits are debatable - the nation's governors are scrambling to come up with their own versions. ... The Romney model, by the way, is the subject of spirited debate among Washington free-marketeers. Analysts at the Heritage Foundation helped draft and promote it, while the Cato Institute has been highly critical."

CLINTON: All The News That HRC Deems Fit To Print?

Kausfiles isn't happy with the New York Times coverage of CT SEN fallout: "If you're Hillary Clinton, and you fear people might interpret a Lieberman loss in Tuesday's Connecticut Senate primary as trouble for other pro-war Senate Dems, what do you do? Get the credulous New York Times to print your damage-controlling spin on the front page!** Here's the headline:

Clinton Dodges Political Peril for War Vote

"Oh yeah? Says who? Anne Kornblut ... claims that "skillful repositioning and adaptation to changing circumstances have enabled her to avoid political damage." Kornblut then outlines Hillary's attempts to make up for her war vote (by "repositioning" and criticizing the Bush administration) but she offers zero evidence that this in fact has enabled Hillary to avoid political damage -- at least on the national stage on which Hillary aspires to play. Among the anti-war Democrats I know, Hillary has suffered huge political damage. ... Still, it's impressive that her 'advisers' can still make the New York Times jump."

GORE: The Specialist

Alec Baldwin at The Huffington Post on An Inconvenient Truth: "Watching Gore, I realized that other emerging candidates for the 2008 election may have ideas on a range of issues that confront us today. But there may be one problem that, in an actual triage sense, must be solved before any other. Just as the patient with multiple fractures but one truly life-threatening injury must be treated promptly and effectively, global warming may be the thing we have to address before we set all of the other broken bones. And for that job there seems, at least for now, only one specialist to call on. Watching Gore, I couldn't help but think how we owe him, and ourselves, another look at the man."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: A Clarifying Opportunity

John Zogby at The Huffington Post looks forward to a Lamont victory as an opportunity for Dems to form a coherent position on Iraq:

I have stated on The Huffington Post several times that the Democrats will have a tough time convincing that they are ready to take back control of Congress without offering any clarity on the Iraq War. ... Overall, only 36% of likely voters told us that they agree that the war in Iraq has been "worth the loss of American lives", while 57% disagree. But the partisan splits are more revealing: only 16% of the Democrats polled said the war has been worth while 82% disagree and only 26% of Independents agree the war has been worth it while 72% disagree. On the Republican side, 64% said the war has been worth it, while 23% disagree. The war has been the principal cause of the nation's polarization in the past three years. The polling evidence shows the degree to which Iraq has become a Republican war. And these latest numbers are also noteworthy in that they show that about one in four Republicans have now pretty much given up on the war.

All of which is to suggest that Democratic candidates will now probably be emboldened to take a stronger stance against the war. If principle doesn't win the day, at least the polling numbers are pretty clear what their base wants. Indeed, the polling numbers were pretty clear what Democrats and Independents wanted in 2004 - and the fact that they didn't receive the opposition to the war they were looking for from their standard-bearers is the main reason that they lost both the Presidency and did not pick up seats in either house of Congress.

Meanwhile, look for Ned Lamont, who is running a strong antiwar campaign, to be the new face of the Democrats in 2006 and perhaps beyond. And look for Democratic voters to push harder for even more clarity on where Democrats stand. Lieberman will be gone and Clinton will be distancing herself from her previous stand. But calling an obvious failure a failure will not be enough. The next step in offering voters some clarity on Iraq will be to develop an exit strategy. That is what leadership is all about and Democrats, fresh from sending the pro-war Lieberman a clear message, will be looking very closely.

LEST WE FORGET: That's Some Great Sauce

Details has a barely suitable for a family publication item titled: "Orgasm or Excellent Marinara." The site cycles through a slide show of cropped images of pleased male and female faces. The viewer has mere seconds to guess whether the complete photo is from a cooking show or a porn flick. Enjoy.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:43 PM

August 04, 2006

Blogometer Dog Days Extra

It’s Gettin’ Hot In CT

The Hotline does not publish on Fridays in August, but the action in CT is just too good to stay away from. Progressive Matt Stoller at MyDD passes on a story from Ted’s Cheeseburgers in Meridan, CT:

There were about 15 Ned supporters outside, holding signs and milling about. There were also some reporters, a photographer, and a bunch of journalists. Ned arrived at 5:05, and spent about 10 or 15 minutes outside before heading in to give a speech and eat a cheeseburger. He goes inside, and all of sudden the field organizer who was behind Ned heard a lot of screaming directed at Ned. There were only four booths and six stools in the whole place, and they were basically all occupied. When Ned went in, all of the supporters ripped off their 'civilian clothes' and revealed their Lieberman T-Shirts.

A large man, around 50 years old or so, then started screaming at Ned, "Are you an Al Sharpton Democrat, or a Bill Clinton Democrat?" Ned was trying to answer, and the gentleman kept yelling. The Lamont press secretary tried to intervene, and meanwhile, the people behind the counter who owned the restaurant were horrified and embarrassed. Then Ned Lamont went up to the few people in regular clothes and introduced himself, even as the Lieberman supporters kept screaming. He also tried to introduce himself to the Lieberman staffers, but to no avail. The screaming continued, and it was so abrasive that he left, and the whole crowd followed him outside.

These kids poured out, and a half a dozen reporters were mostly outside. The large man kept yelling, and was joined by one particularly obnoxious Lieberman supporter who started yelling about national security and how Lamont would endanger the country. The messaging seemed rehearsed. The Lieberman supporters started getting aggressive, pushing some of the Lamont staffers. When confronted, the Lieberman staffers said that they are just doing what the bloggers did.

In the whole affair, one photographer caught an elbow and got a bloody nose. It seems that the Lieberman campaign is explicitly setting up their supporters at Lamont events in tense and aggressive situations, all in the presence of reporters. When asked, the Lieberman campaign is expressing outrage at the unsavory and unruly behavior of the Lamont supporters.

Emphasis added

Posted by Conn Carroll at 10:22 AM

August 03, 2006

Blogometer PM Extra III

BLOGGERS VS. BLOGGERS: Talkin' 'Bout My Generation

Prompted by a New Donkey post on CT SEN, TAPPED's Matthew Yglesias identifies a "generation gap" among Dems: "I'd say that there were a series of events from 1998-2003 -- the Clinton impeachment, the Florida recount fiasco, the Iraq War -- which served to draw a lot of people into higher levels of political engagement, sometimes because we were little kids during earlier dramas, but often just because the people in question were doing something else earlier. ... People who look to those years as their reference points just have very different ideas and perceptions about a lot of things. I always find it intriguing that Bill Clinton, his wife, and his friends, advisors, and collaborators seem to have been a lot less radicalized by the events surrounding his impeachment than, say, I was."

Noam Schieber at TNR picked up on Yglesias' thoughts and wrote: "I think there's a lot to this, but I don't think it's 100 percent right. I'd put it this way: The first group basically thinks George W. Bush and the GOP are the biggest threat to the country these days. From that it follows that anyone who enables the Bush-era GOP is complicit in hurting the country. The second group--at least the portion that was supportive of Bill Clinton--came of age at a time when you could argue that the threats to the party (and the country) from the left were as big as the threats from the right. Back then, this group regarded the left wing of the Democratic Party as substantively wrong and politically self-defeating. ... Most of the second group no longer thinks the far left represents as big a threat as Bush and the GOP; some, like Lieberman, still do. But, either way, it's tough to get over your formative political experiences, which is why there's still a lot of sympathy in this group for the Liebermans of the world."

Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly follows the debate and agrees with Schieber: "This attitude is what I've come to think of as Kaus-ism. Although reasonable minds can differ on this subject, Noam is right that beating up on loony-lefty Dems in the 70s and early 80s was arguably necessary for the health of both the party and the country. But here's the thing: it worked. In the late 80s and 90s the party became far more soberminded, adopting nearly all the prescriptions that the centrist neoliberals had been fighting for. The neolibs didn't win every single battle — no faction ever does — but they sure won a lot of them."

Hullabaloo wasn't buying any of it though: "There's a fascinating conversation going on around the blogosphere about the "young turks" vs "the fogies" in the Democratic party that feeds into my critique of the establishment as having an irrational fear of hippies. This latest discussion stems from an observation by Matt Yglesias that a lot of young people don't remember the age of bipartisanship and only see the polarized political world of 1998 on. Therefore, they see a politics that is far more partisan than those who came before. ... I find this fascinating because I think I am twice Yglesias's age and have been following politics very closely for more than thirty years. Yet I was first shocked, then radicalized by the actions of the modern GOP during the 90's and I believe exactly as he does that hyper-partisanship is going to be with us for the forseeable future."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 03:36 PM

Blogometer PM Extra II

IRAQ: MessoRedStatia

The "realist" v. "neo-con" fissure evidenced by last week's George Will/William Kristol dust-up is now showing up at RedState. Paul Cella writes:

Among the Editors here, I stand as perhaps the most skeptical of the American adventure in Iraq. I wrote that “I support a war of self-defense, but I am very skeptical about the idea of preemptive war” — and I stand firmly by this. The issue of preemptive war, which focused the controversy back in 2003, has since receded from view because the supposition of Iraq’s possession of nuclear weapons proved false; but I remain profoundly wary of it.

I see that I have ranged too far afield. My point is that the political theory behind the war in Iraq is, to my eye, a sloppy admixture of Christian sentimentality and a theory of politics subversive of Christian and Conservative teaching. How Conservatives — even if they thought Saddam was an imminent threat — can in good conscience sign on to this, is hard to understand; unless we stipulate that either (1) they do not know their political theory or (2) they do not know their history.

Later Crank