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.

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."

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.

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.

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."

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.

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."

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."

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."

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?

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.

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."

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?)"

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?

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."

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 August 24, 2006 12:29 PM