Blogometer Extra

House Update

CO 04: Mus-Grave Situation

  Upstart Dem challenger Angie Paccione has come almost out of nowhere in what was thought to be an easy re-election year for staunchly conservative incumbent Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R) in Colorado's 4th.  CQ Politics has, per Greg Sargent at TPMCafe, "changed the rating of the race from 'Republican Favored' to 'Leans Republican.'"  And it may be Musgrave's unmovable rightness that is the root cause for the swing.  She recently declared at a so-called "values voter" Republican retreat that, despite everything else going on in the nation and the world, "gay marriage is the most important issue facing the country."  Potential voters seem inclined to disagree.

FL 16: The Folly Of Foley

  Friday morning, Tim Mahoney woke up in relative obscurity as the Democratic congressional challenger to an entrenched Republican incumbent likely to steamroll his way to re-election.  Within hours, Mahoney was the decided favorite to take the seat.  That's because Rep. Mark Foley (R) went from Congressman to unemployed pariah as news spread like a dust devil across the country of his illicit communications with a 16-year-old page.  As the story first spread, Foley and his team pooh-poohed it, saying (as John Aravosis at AMERICAblog reports) the messages in question "were entirely appropriate and that their release is part of a smear campaign by his opponent."  But then more and more e-mails and instant messages were released, and it became clear that this was much more than just simple hellos and goodbyes.  (We'll spare you the details in this column, but they're available for your viewing here, and be warned--they are graphic.)

  In quick fashion, the news made national headlines and before long, Foley had tendered his resignation with apologies--but curiously, no direct acknowledgment of wrongdoing.  By late Friday afternoon, revelations that House GOP leadership had been made aware of Foley's behavior for almost a year and done nothing--even while Foley sat on sex crimes caucus--began to spread throughout the blogosphere, and by the evening, Raw Story reported (using Roll Call as its source) that House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) had offered "a resolution ordering an immediate ethics probe into the behavior" of Foley, the House passing it by a vote of 410-0. 

  Where this sordid story may lead and how much fallout will occur remains to be seen as details are worked out and culpability assigned, but this is certainly among the biggest stories of the election season so far, if not the political year... and it's turned the formerly unheralded Tim Mahoney into an instant frontrunner.

NY 26: Reynolds Green With Envy

  Incumbent Rep. Tom Reynolds (R), head of the National Republican Congressional Committee, is, as Greg Sargent at TPMCafe points out, "at risk of losing his own seat."  Sargent reports on a new poll showing Reynolds "clinging to a two-point lead over Dem challenger Jack Davis," whom Reynolds defeated in 2004.  "Interestingly," Sargent writes, "the Green Party candidate ... may decide the race," scoring 8 points on the poll.  And wouldn't you know it, right after the poll was completed, the Green Party candidate was apparently "knocked off the ballot ... making the race even closer," by presumably favoring Davis with left-leaning Greens looking for a home.

VA 02: That '70s Blow

  Jim Hoeft at Bearing Drift wants to "make this perfectly clear: ... I am not a paid blogger... Please give me more credit than that."  Hoeft's moment in the sun comes courtesy of his research that reveals Democratic congressional candidate Phil Kellam was "convicted of assaulting a woman in 1978 when he was a college student in North Carolina."  (Jon Frank at The Virginian-Pilot notes more accurately that Kellam plead guilty to, but was never convicted of, simple assault "after a confrontation with a woman after a traffic incident.")

  How did all of this information come to Hoeft's attention?  Frank at the V-P reports:

Tim Murtaugh, the campaign manager for U.S. Rep. Thelma Drake, Kellam's opponent, acknowledged that he traveled to North Carolina in August to check out an anonymous tip about the charge, get a copy of the legal document and talk to the victim.  However, Murtaugh said he did nothing with the information, insisting that the campaign was not responsible for the reports on the Internet.

The blog's editor also insisted he did not get the document from Drake's campaign.

  Regardless of the details, the story was out and Kellam camp damage control commenced at once.  Kellam himself acknowledged the incident and issued a statement of regret for his actions 28 years ago, and then lashed out at Hoeft, saying his post was "egregious, wrong and libelous."  It remains to be seen what impact the situation will have on district polling, but given the closeness of the battle between Drake and her challenger, it may tip things in favor of the incumbent, to Kellam's chagrin.

9/29: Crossing The Great Divide

The Blogometer harbors no illusions that the divisions between the right and left blogosphere will ever be bridged. But we do believe that as the blogosphere continues to mature, bloggers' proficiency in projecting their influence outside of "a series of tubes" and into the real world will only continue. On 9/28, lefty bloggers are left lamenting their failure to get Dems to stand up to the GOP on torture and feel obliged to defend their record in contested elections, but could real-world victories be just around the corner? Sen. Conrad Burns' (R-MT) continued troubles point to a win for netroots primary-backed state Senate Pres. Jon Tester (D-MT) and netroots recruited ex-Navy sec. James Webb (D-VA) has a real shot of knocking off early WH'08 favorite Sen. George Allen (R-VA). If the netroots continue to honestly look at their strengths and weaknesses, as MyDD's Matt Stoller does 9/28, it might not be too long before the netroots can be proud of Dems again.

TORTURE POLITICS: The "Padilla Treatment" For All?

Discussion of the Military Commissions Act dominated lefty blogs 9/29. A sampling of reax:

• Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall: "As others have noted in more detail, this law allows the president to detain any US citizen in the United States and hold him or her without trial forever. All the president needs to do is find that you are an 'enemy combatant'. And it's entirely his call.
• Christy Hardin Smith at firedoglake: "It expressly forbids suspension of the writ of habeas corpus except under very specific and highly limited circumstances - and as we are neither dealing with a case of rebellion or invasion at the time of this attempted enactment of this torture law in Congress, I am really wondering on what leg they propose to stand when arguing constitutionality at the first legal challenge to this law."
• Atrios: "The writ of habeas corpus is one of those basic foundations of modern Democracy. Without it, words like liberty and freedom have no meaning. These are bad people running our government. Very bad."
• Unclaimed Territory: "even if there were a habeas corpus right inserted back into the legislation (which is unlikely at this point anyway), it wouldn't matter much, if at all, because the law would authorize your detention simply based on the DoD's decree that you are an enemy combatant, regardless of whether it was accurate. This is basically the legalization of the Jose Padilla treatment -- empowering the President to throw people into black holes with little or no recourse, based solely on his say-so."
• Matthew Yglesias: "There will certainly be challenges, but I wouldn't count on anything. The court-stripping issue hasn't been litigated all that much, but the idea that congress has the power to do this kind of thing has some real support from the text of the constitution. What's more, courts are generally disinclined to interfere in national security questions. And, of course, there's no particular reason to think that the Supreme Court's five conservative justices disagree with America's conservative politicians about this."
• Balkinization: "although the MCA attempts to eliminate judicial review, and in particular the writ of habeas corpus, it is by no means certain that it has succeeded. The suspension of habeas may be unconstitutional. Any such suspension must be consistent with the Suspension Clause of Article I, section 9."

Righty blogs were less concerned. The Volokh Conspiracy's Orin Kerr's even pens a defense of his non-posting on the issue. National Review Online's Jonah Goldberg turns to a reader for analysis on the habeas provisions of the bill: "This has nothing to do with American citizens or anyone who is voluntarily within the United States. In fact those who have been found to be Americans (e.g. Hamdi and Padilla) cannot even be held at GITMO (see John Yoo's new book, where he describes in detail how this policy was arrived at)."

Instapundit offers his own similar conclusions: "I've seen some people calling this an abolition of habeas corpus, but as I understand it, habeas is suspended only with regard to non-citizens. This removes a key danger of abuse, since the potential politically-motivated abuses that are most worrisome involve U.S. citizens, not aliens. And Congress quite explicitly has the Constitutional power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, though whether this counts as a "suspension" of the writ is open for debate."

Back on the left, there was also plenty of thoughts on the vagueness of the detainee treatment provision. DailyKos' Hunter first claims "McCain Torture Compromise Bill Allows Sodomy, Rape of Prisoners" but hen later recants: "Actually, now I feel badly about this post. It would be more accurate to say that it is "unclear" whether or not actual rape is allowed, or merely all sexual violence up to and possibly including rape. Some interpreters of the bill say yes: some interpreters say no, the torturer must stop the sexual assault at the point of entry. The Senate chose to refuse further debate on the issue, deeming that clarity unimportant."

Iraq war supporter and fierce Pres. Bush critic Andrew Sullivan argues for the nationalization of the election on the torture bill issue: "The only response is for the public to send a message this fall. In congressional races, your decision should always take into account the quality of the individual candidates. But this November, the stakes are higher. If this Republican party maintains control of all branches of government, the danger to individual liberty is extremely grave. Put aside all your concerns about the Democratic leadership. What matters now is that this juggernaut against individual liberty and constitutional rights be stopped."

LANDSCAPE: Put This in Your Poll And Smoke It

Chris Bowers at MyDD looks at end of September generic ballot averages for the past five cycles

Bowers concludes: "[W]hat I want to point out is that our chances in this election are not like our chances in other recent elections. ... This is a whole different ballgame. This is nothing like the other recent elections."

Bowers finds further evidence of a Dem "Wave" in Des Moines Registerarticle reporting: "More than 50,000 Democrats had requested ballots, according to the Iowa secretary of state's office as of Wednesday, compared with just more than 11,000 Republicans, continuing a trend by Democrats in Iowa of emphasizing early voting."

Meanwhile Mystery Pollster has video of The Daily Show's Poll Smoking segment poking fun at the wide divergence in generic ballot results.

LANDSCAPE II: National Or Personal?

Conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt wants to put the growing "Senate-in-play meme" to rest. Hewitt argues: "Voters are smart, and they are concerned that the nation be defended. Which means that they will not be voting Democrat." Hewitt then looks at five Senate races, including MT, and then writes: "Rick Santorum is the only GOP incumbent facing off against a Democratic nominee pretending not to be in favor of retreat in the face of the enemy, and thus his race is the toughest."

Over at RCP Blog, Jay Cost has a lengthy post on the Senate landscape but concludes: "What I can say is that the theory upon which so many pundits have been relying, the idea of the electorate being magically transformed into a "nationalized" one that thinks about their pocketbook and Bush rather than the individual candidates in the race, is incorrect in important respects. They need to reevaluate. Otherwise, this will not be the first time between now and November that a result will surprise them so much."

CT SEN: Lieberman Under 50%!

The unofficial Lamont Blog has the go to lefty blogger spin on the latest Quinnipiac numbers showing Sen. Joe Lieberman (I) up 49%-39% over cable exec Ned Lamont (D):

• New Q-Poll out this morning, as Lieberman falls under 50% for the first time in Quinnipiac ... This is -4 for Lieberman from their last poll in August.
• The key differences seem to rest with "likely voter" models (the Q-Poll did not release RV data this time), as well as predicting which way unaffliateds will go - in this poll they break for Lieberman, in the most recent ARG poll, they break for Lamont.
• Ned's favorability numbers are still rising as Republicans and Independents get to know him (+6 since last month) while his unfavorable numbers are actually falling as more people form opinions of him.

Amarko55 at My Left Nutmeg adds: "To steal a line from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe, Do Not Panic! Yeah, I'd like to be up 10 but to be within 10 of a three term senator 5 weeks out is acceptable."

Matt Stoller at MyDD hits Lieberman for granting an interview to "the right-wing billionaire backed blog outlet" Pajamas Media: "Lieberman is throwing the whole party under the bus. It's time for 2008 candidates to step up."

MT SEN: No, They're Saying Booooo-urns

Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall looks at AP reports of Sen. Conrad Burns (R) use of a mocking Swedish accent and joking about the number of Italian-Americans at the Federal Aviation Administration and quips: "Conrad Burns (R-MT) working to keep on schedule to insult every ethnic group in advance of November elections."

NJ SEN: The Old Switcheroo II?

Following new reports of ethics troubles for Sen. Robert Menendez (D) National Review Online's John Podhoretz received "lots of e-mails about how New Jersey's Democrats will just dump" Menendez "in the next few weeks for former interim Gov. Dick Codey - just as Bob Torricelli quit the race and allowed former Sen. Frank Lautenberg to waltz in. Sorry. Not gonna happen this time. Tom Kean is just too credible a candidate, far more palatable to New Jersey voters than Doug Forrester was in either of his last two races. You can play that switcheroo once."

Also at The CornerJonah Goldberg argues Kean should pre-empt such a move: "I think Kean should make an issue of this now. He could say - or suggest - that this is standard operating procedure of the Democrats and that this buzz shows how corrupt the entire New Jersey Democratic Party is. ... The benefit of doing all this is that it would make it much harder for the Democrats to actually drop Menendez and it would prepare the public to react negatively to the tactic if they did.

Meanwhile, on the left Jason Zengerle at The Plank makes the case for dropping Menendez: "It's become fashionable among some conservatives to root for the Republicans to lose control of Congress this November so that it might serve as a wake-up call to the GOP that the party has lost its way. I thought I might try to start a similar trend among liberals: We should root for Bob Menendez's defeat in the New Jersey Senate race so that it might serve as a wake-up call to the New Jersey Democratic party that it really needs to clean up its act."

OH SEN: Life, Liberty, And The Pursuit Of Poll-Tested Cowardice

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum looks at email from OH Dems promising to abandon Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-13) for his vote in favor of the torture bill and argues that despite his own dislike for Dem "poll-tested cowardice on the detainee bill over the past couple of weeks" such a decision would play right into Karl Rove's hands: "The leadership of the Republican Party decided after 9/11 to govern the country by trying to keep it in a state of permanent panic and tarring anyone who opposed their calculated panic as a weak-kneed appeaser. The way to fight this is not to give in to Karl Rove's political machinations, it's to fight them. It worked for Thomas Jefferson, after all, and Democrats consider him the founder of their party. They should take a lesson from him."

PA SEN: We're Gonna Need A Montage

Following Treas. Bob Casey's (D) repeated no shows at debates, National Review Online's Alex Charyna passes along a video montage of Casey non-debate clips from the Sen. Rick Santorum (R) campaign.

VA SEN: You Stay Classy, VA SEN

Under the header "Allen spits on women" DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas links to a Swing State Project collection of four separate examples "of Allen spitting chewing tobacco on women or little girls, all of them leaving tobacco spittle on their shoes."

Over at Raising Kaine, Eric posts a copy of "Allen's New Mailer" featuring a deer head in a mail box and writes: "I'm kinda hoping that I don't get one." TPM Cafe's Greg Sargent has video of Chesterton, MD resident Pat WaringHardball appearance claiming to have heard Allen use the n-word at a UVA rugby game in 1978.

VA SEN II: The Socially Liberal Paleocon

National Review Online's John Podhoretz argues that ex-Navy sec. James Webb (D) "is a brilliant and unclassifiable guy" who is "very close to being a paleocon with socially liberal attitudes." Podhoretz therefore finds it ironic "that his campaign has now staked itself on the incredibly dreary politically correct issue of "offensive language" dating back decades. Instead of being the philosopher-novelist candidate, Webb is instead on the line in the most dispiriting and unintelligent political contest the United States has seen in years."

Meanwhile Captain's Quarters takes the Washington Post to task for ignoring Allen's introduction of "a measure intended to benefit black farmers who missed a deadline for a settlement of a discrimination lawsuit against the Department of Agriculture" and instead painting "a one-sided picture" of the "mudslinging in Virginia."

Finally, Chad Dotson at RedState has video of Allen's new TV ad featuring female Naval Academy grads attacking Webb.

CONVENTION '08: Veepstakes Preview?

John McIntyre at RCP Blog looks at how each party's choice in convention site may foretell their eventual choice in VP candidate. On the GOP: "The Bush-Cheney ticket won 46% in Minnesota in 2000 and 48% in 2004. Governor Tim Pawlenty faces a tough reelection battle this year, but he's generally believed to have a slight edge. Assuming Mr. Pawlenty can take care of business this fall and remain reasonably popular through the summer of 2008, the 45-year old-will almost certainly be near the top of the short list for the eventual GOP Veep nominee." On Dems: "Don't be surprised to see the Democrats settle on Denver for their convention (Denver and New York are the finalists) and also take a long, hard look hard at New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson for VP and maybe Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano if Senator Hillary Clinton is not the Democratic nominee."

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas also argues that a Denver choice would provide the best opportunity to showcase Dem strength in the mountain west: "Colorado Democrats are about to build on their 2004 successes ... with even more dramatic victories this year -- at least the governor's race and one House seat, and potentially three additional House seats. By the end of this year, we should have Democratic governors in much of the Mountain West -- Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico. Republicans are down to Nevada (maybe) and their two lonely outposts in Idaho and Utah. Here we have a banner opportunity to deliver the party message straight into the heart of this new rising political force, and the party establishment wants to have their convention in frakin' New York?"

GIULIANI: Unlikely Emerald Ground Gainer

John Podhoretz at National Review Online notes Strategic Vision's latest WA poll has ex-NY mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) leading Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) 43%-24% with MA Gov. Mitt Romney at 7%. Podhoretz writes: "Don't get me wrong. I like Romney. But Rudy just keeps gaining ground in unlikely places."

CLINTON: It's "I Love HRC Day" For Andrew Sullivan

Andrew Sullivan posts the text of Sen. Hillary Clinton's (D-NY) speech against the detainee treatment bill under the header "The Goldwater Girl." Sullivan also has video of the speech under the header "Hillary's Break-Through Speech" and writes: "Someone finally says no to torture."

FRIST: Frist's Feckapoolaza

Power Line's Scott Johnson notes Senate maj. leader Bill Frist's (R-TN) success in securing a cloture vote for the Secure Fence Act 9/28 despite Kausfiles prediction that Frist would "flakeout" on the issue. For his part, Kaus now finds Frist to be "brimming with feck."

BLOGGER VS. BLOGGER: "The Fringe Right-Wing National Review" Strikes Again

Sirotablog takes Jim Geraghty "of the fringe right-wing National Review" to task for his Washington Timesop-ed on the relative success of "netroots" backed Dem candidates. Sirota notes: "there is a deeper point here: every single candidate on this list who lost was a challenger. ... Even the ones who were challengers in open-seat elections were running in states or districts that were HEAVILY Republican - states/districts where no challenger was even supposed to have a shred of a chance to compete, much less win. For the very few who don't understand why this is an important point, let me spell it out here: incumbents win somewhere in the neighborhood of 95-99% of all congressional races."

Sirota goes on to highlight the longterm importance of these challenges: "What he doesn't say, of course, is that the list is chock full of candidates who almost won in districts they weren't even supposed to be able to break 40 percent in. What he doesn't say is that these candidates were able to do that with the help of a political medium that has been at full speed for all of about 3 years - a political medium going up against a Republican machine that has been on overdrive for the last 3 decades."

MyDD's Chris Bowers links to Sirota and adds: "Memo to everyone: Democrats only flipped six Republican-held House seats in 2004, and two Republican held Senate seats. Of those eight flips, the blogosphere was heavily involved in three. Find me a progressive advocacy group with a win rate like that anywhere. When you only focus on challengers, you will always lose more than you will win. The blogosphere will always focus on challenging Republicans in their own turf--that is just the way we work."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Ya Can't Win Without A Good Ground Game

MyDD's Matt Stoller catalogues the strength of the netroots and then asks: "Where are we weakest?" Stoller answers: "I would argue that our understanding of field and our ability to discuss it are lacking." Stoller continued:

Over the next few years, the blogosphere will change the dialogue even more than it already has. My guess is that voter registration and mobilization is going to move (at least partially) online, and whole new segments of voters will respond to different messaging in somewhat unpredictable ways. We should get familiar with field. There are many ways to do so, of course. You can go phone-bank, you can canvass, and you can poll-watch. On election day, I recommend that if you're not heavily involved in an existing campaign that you become an actual poll worker. You can sign up at Pollworkers for Democracy. What I saw in the Donna Edwards campaign was a total lack of competence and ability in the Maryland Board of Elections, and I imagine that's true across the country.

LEST WE FORGET: For Proficiency In Stereotyping

Matthew Yglesias doesn't "want to get too crudely reductive here," but does note that despite a "entirely African-American staff" the "Mocha Hut on 13th Street" plays music that "bears on odd resemblance to . . . what's on my iPod." Yglesias then wonders: "Is it possible that there's some kind of gentrification consultant out there telling the Hut's management team what kind of music will appeal to the neighborhood's newer demographic?" But rather than complain about his stereotyping victimization Yglesias offers a personal request: "If so, can that person tell the owners of the Mercadito Ramos that they should refrigerate their Diet Coke supply?"

Blogometer Extra

TERROR POLITICS: Survey Says... Scram!

  A new poll of Iraqi citizens finds that "seven in ten Iraqis want US-led forces to commit to withdraw within a year."  The poll was conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) for WorldPublicOpinion.org.

  Faiz at Think Progress excised meatier portions from the poll, the report of which can be found in a PDF file here.  Faiz summarizes:

A large majority of Iraqis–71%–say they would like the Iraqi government to ask for US-led forces to be withdrawn from Iraq within a year or less.  Given four options, 37 percent take the position that they would like US-led forces withdrawn “within six months,” while another 34 percent opt for “gradually withdraw[ing] US-led forces according to a one-year timeline.”

Support for attacks against US-led forces has increased sharply to 61 percent (27% strongly, 34% somewhat).  This represents a 14-point increase from January 2006, when only 47 percent of Iraqis supported attacks.

More broadly, 79 percent of Iraqis say that the US is having a negative influence on the situation in Iraq, with just 14 percent saying that it is having a positive influence.

Asked “If the US made a commitment to withdraw from Iraq according to a timeline, do you think this would strengthen the Iraqi government, weaken it, or have no effect either way?”  53 percent said that it would strengthen the government, while just 24 percent said it would weaken the government.

Asked what effect it would have “if US-led forces withdraw from Iraq in the next six months,” 58 percent overall say that violence would decrease (35% a lot, 23% a little).

  "An overwhelming majority," Faiz notes, "believes that the US military presence in Iraq is provoking more conflict than it is preventing."

  Chris Bowers at MyDD leaps on one particular item.  "Only 9% of Iraqis want the United States to 'stay as long as it takes' in Iraq," he writes. "That is one helluva democracy we are building in Iraq, when a foreign country occupies it indefinitely against the will of 91% of the population."

  Kevin Drum at The Washington Monthly comments on the poll, as well as two others with similarly disheartening results.  He quotes the Washington Post on the two additional surveys:

In Baghdad, for example, nearly three-quarters of residents polled said they would feel safer if U.S. and other foreign forces left Iraq, with 65 percent of those asked favoring an immediate pullout, according to State Department polling results obtained by The Washington Post.

The director of another Iraqi polling firm, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he feared being killed, said public opinion surveys he conducted last month showed that 80 percent of Iraqis who were questioned favored an immediate withdrawal.

  Drum wraps, "[T]he results are clear and discouraging for 'stay the course' fans.  The Iraqi leadership may be reluctant to see us go, but what are the odds that an occupation force can succeed in quelling violence if three-quarters of the population wants them to leave?"  Commenter Al retorts, "We're building democracy in Iraq.  We can't be distracted by polls.

TERROR POLITICS II: The Knights Who Say "NIE!"

  Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), the top Dem on the House intelligence committee, created quite a stir when on Tuesday she let it be known that there was a draft of a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) focused solely on Iraq, held up because "some of our leaders don't want us to see it until after the election."  It came shortly after the hubbub over the (different) NIE that President Bush released a few pages of earlier after pressure from many sides.

  As might be expected, the Harman revelation caught the notice of attentive bloggers, in particular the crew at Talking Points Memo and its sister site, TPMmuckracker.  First things first; did this Iraq NIE draft exist, was Harman talking straight?  Justin Rood at the 'raker said, well, yes and no.  "[It] was never a big secret," Rood writes; "After Democrats bellowed for one in late July, Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte announced Aug. 4 he'd whip one up."  A caveat, though: "There's scant evidence the report exists 'in draft form' -- Harman may have an inside track on the matter, but sources tell me the process remains in a nascent stage."

  His sources were right, if Homeland Security Advisor Frances Townsend is to be believed.  Josh Marshall at TPM: "[She] confirmed its existence but said it won't be released till January.  Townsend claimed the timing has nothing to do with the election, just the ordinary schedule."  He later added, "We're now hearing Townsend's statement in the briefing may have included some sleight of hand to confuse people as to which report is being discussed."

  Rep. Harman responded to Townsend's curious obfuscation with a followup letter directed at Negroponte.  Rood at 'raker quotes from it:

...Though you promised that the NIE would be completed "in a timely manner," senior White House officials have indicated publicly that the report may not be completed until January 2007.

This timetable is unacceptable.  Sectarian violence, which has reached record levels and continues to grow, is putting our troops - not to mention millions of Iraqis - at grave risk. ...

NIEs have been produced in as little as several weeks, as in the case of the 2002 report on Iraqi WMD.  While I understand the desire to be thorough, events in Iraq make it urgent that the Intelligence Community produce this NIE immediately.  If your intention is to delay this report until after the November elections, I do not think that is appropriate given that U.S. troops are at risk at this moment.

  Marshall digests all of this at TPM, writing, "The president says the election is supposed to be about national security.  So where's the report?  What's the delay?  What are they afraid of?"

  Rood has an answer:

In prognosticating what the upcoming Iraq NIE would say, Newsweek's Mark Hosenball reported two weeks ago that Defense officials briefing lawmakers were "paint[ing] a scenario in which Iraq could dissolve into civil war if Iraqi security forces don't soon get their act together." ... Seeing those conclusions leaked to the media -- that's an October surprise the White House would likely hope to avoid.

9/28: The Importance Of Pre-season

With the Washington Redskins finishing their pre-season schedule 0-4, many local Redskins reporters tried to stress that pre-season games were meaningless and that the Redskins were going to be just fine. Despite recently beating the sad sack Houston Texans, the Redskins are still only 1-2 and it is now clear that the offensive woes visible in preseason games are plaguing the Redskins in games that matter as well.

The voting that matters for WH '08 is still over a year away, but the blogosphere is playing host to virtual pre-season games today. After an interview with MA Gov. Mitt Romney (R) was posted on RedState a debate erupted over Romney's pro-life credentials. The debate is ongoing and the issue far from settled for Romney, but the give and take between pro- and anti-Romney forces at RedState ought to be just as valuable to political handicappers as the Redskins preseason was to football fans.

Following the 9/27 posting of MA Gov. Mitt Romney's (R) interview with RedState's Erick Erickson (which has been promoted back to the top of the page as of 9 a.m. on 9/28), Ben Domenech (of Washington Post plagiarism flame-out fame) posted an entry titled "Mitt Romney lies about abortion" with quotes from past Romney speeches and his line from the RedState interview: "I've never called myself pro-choice." Ben writes: "Mitt Romney tries to justify his position in the interview by stating that he's always been personally opposed to abortion, but did not want to impose his personal views on the populace. Even if that's true, consider this: by Mitt Romney's definition, Ted Kennedy isn't pro-choice either." Ben concludes that Romney's change is due to political calculations, not personal beliefs. The post lit up RedState's comment boards. A completely unscientific reading shows them running pretty even at first but trending pro-Romney as time wore on. Samples include:

• liberty2208: "Thank you so much for posting this information. It really lets me see his true colors. I didn't know too much about Romney but always thought he was on the side of Life and in step with us values voters. I guess I was completely wrong. We really need to look past his articulate speech and likeable demeanor and focus on what he really believes, what his core principles are. If he is lying about protecting Life and our values I wonder what else he has conjured up to try to deceive the conservative base???"
• Sami: "He is still my guy. There isn't going to be any substantive moves on Roe v. Wade in either direction. Mitt is still the man to reign in the spenders and fix soc.sec. as well as give new energy to healthcare changes.
• TheSnakeGuy: "Mitt is pro-life. I suppose you would rather have a democrat as governor in MA. Don't penalize the guy for getting elected. He has made politics in MA more conservative and the policy there is much more pro-life than if a democrat was governor their. Go Mitt!"
• Leverkuhn: "the Pro-Romney forces here at Redstate and in the blogosphere in general like to play fast and loose with the facts. Truthfully, I am not opposed to what Romney stands for so much as I am simply uneasy with the sense I get that he and his supporters would gladly endorse the eating of Irish babies if that would further their ends."

National Review Online's biggest Romney supporter Kathryn Jean Lopez looked at the post and added: "Romney's a leader, as more and more folks being exposed to him are seeing and noting. He needs to clearly communicate his commitment to a culture of life over these next pre-primary months as he has been privately, especially, and will, I betcha, in some big ways publicly. But as far as then-vs.-now kinda stuff, I'll take his convincing evolution over any in the reverse direction anyday."

Commenting on the torture debate in the Senate MyDD's Matt Stoller worries: "I didn't use to be worried about a McCain candidacy, but what's becoming increasingly clear is that the Democratic candidates are simply unwilling to attack him. That's a serious problem. If Democratic Presidential candidates won't go after him now, after he faced a humiliating defeat by an unpopular President, just how are people going to go after him in 2008?"

TAPPED's Ben Adler looks at how "[m]assive disenfranchisement in the closest swing states have marred the last two presidential" and calls for "progressives to focus on putting control of election oversight in the hands of competent and honest officials." Adler asks readers to donate to ActBlue's Secretary of State Project (SOS) "which attempts to raise money for incorruptible secretary of state candidates."

With GOPers nailing down the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul for their '08 convention, DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas is rooting for Denver. His second choice: "anywhere but New York." Denver based Jeralyn Merritt at TalkLeft adds: "A lot is riding on the unionization factor -- Denver's hotel workers are not unionized. But, as we reported here two weeks ago, the unions have dropped their opposition to Denver hosting the Convention. ... My advice to the DNC: Choose Denver. We're an important swing state. We were red, but we've been turning blue. We're closer to the heartland. We're clean and friendly and beautiful."

Cong. Dems are coming under fire from lefty bloggers for their handling of the detainee treatment issue. Reed Hundt at TPM Cafe writes: "When the Supreme Court ruled against permanent incarceration without legal process, I crankily warned that the Democrats would miss the political point: namely, that the R's would create a pro-terrorism, anti-due process bill and force a vote on it in the fall. ... I urged that the D's introduce legislation that mandated immediate trials, and that they insist that in the absence of trials the Administration couldn't get to the truth and couldn't adequately mete out punishment where deserved, and so was losing the war on terror. ... So Congressional D's did nothing. ... Now the D's are caught flat-footed, and the Netroots weren't on the ball. In my cranky view. This awful legislation will pass without much attention being paid." Also critical of Dems:

• Jane Hamsher at firedoglake: "As Digby always says, it's time to stop the Biden-esque exhortations about what Democrats should and shouldn't be doing and actually do it."
• Cenk Uygur at The Huffington Post: "There is no excuse. Democrats who vote for this bill because of cowardly political expediency will forever be tainted. We will never forget. This is the most un-American bill I have ever seen. ... Any Democrat who votes for this is the worst kind of coward. I am tired of giving them one more chance. Stand up, you spineless weaklings. You have the right to filibuster to protect all of us against this very thing. Use it!!!
• Arianna Huffington at The Huffington Post: "Back in 2002, many Democrats, afraid of being branded as weak on security, voted to give the president the authority to decide if and when it was necessary to invade Iraq. A power he quickly abused. So now, still wracked with the fear of perception, they seem willing to give him the power to decide if and when it's okay to breach the Geneva Conventions. Haven't the Democrats learned anything over the last 4 years? The only thing they have to fear is the fear of being true to themselves.

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas still urges readers to pressure Dems "to do the right thing," but takes issue with diarists who threaten to quit the Dems if they roll on torture. Kos writes: "Stop whining. Stop [kvetch]ing. And keep working to build a Democratic Party with backbone. ... And remember, this is a long-term process. Just like conservatives didn't quit politics when Nixon was killing them with new government programs like the EPA or OSHA, we can't take our ball home every time we lose on an important issue."

Chris Bowers hits a similar note at MyDD listing every recent anti-progressive bill that passed with some Dem votes and concluding: "Progressives need to be fair to Democrats, the majority of whom have come to side with progressives on virtually everything. Don't blame Democrats in general for rolling over to Republicans--blame the minority who regularly do that, and name their names."

Not all hope on the left was lost. Hunter at DailyKos argues the torture bill is exactly the type of issue the filibuster was invented for: " think there'd be some merit in delaying the Torture Bill a day or two, just so we can get a more concrete idea of what sorts of torture are or are not allowed to be performed on prisoners of the United States. You know, just flesh it out a little. Is waterboarding covered? There's been quite a bit of disagreement over that. What about broken bones, does that count? Fractured, or broken, does it make a difference?" Matt Stoller at MyDD describes defeat of the bill as "not impossible, but it's not likely."

There are many lefty heroes in the debate however. Atrios has video of Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL). Christy Hardin Smith at firedoglake links to video of Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO), Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL), and Rep. Doris Matsui (D-CA)

National Review Online's Kathryn Jean Lopez notes: "Only 34 Democrats voted for the House bill on terror detainees, but two of them were liberal Senate candidates: Sherrod Brown and Harold Ford."

Iraq war supporter and vehement Bush critic Andrew Sullivan posts video on the story of Canadian rendition victim Maher Arar and writes: "The bill now being rushed through the Congress makes it more likely. Just don't say you haven't been warned."

Lefty bloggers have settled on their favorite quote from the released portions of April's National Intelligence Estimate: "We assess that the underlying factors fueling the spread of the movement outweigh its vulnerabilities and are likely to do so for the duration of the timeframe of this Estimate." "Recent former Defense Intelligence officer" AJ in DC writes at AMERICAblog: "Ladies and gentlemen, that's the ballgame right there. ... The assessment is saying that the main motivations for terrorism -- and the report puts Iraq at the top of that long list -- outweigh our ability to prevent it, meaning, essentially, that Iraq is more harmful than helpful in our counterterror strategy." Georgia10 at DailyKos ads: "Translation: We are losing the War on Terrorism. We are making terrorists faster than we can kill them, and a wave of violent extremism is spreading across the globe faster than we can put out the ideological fires. ... You cannot win the war against violent extremism with bombs or bullets. To quote the character V from V for Vendetta: "ideas are bulletproof."

Talking Points Memo Josh Marshall writes on the NIE: "The problem is that in Iraq we've managed to create a whole new rallying cry for a new generation of terrorists. And because they're more dispersed, both organizationally and geographically, we're really not prepared to handle the threat they pose. ... We've actually done fairly well in the actual War on Terror, in the sense of taking down the organization that attacked us on 9/11. Simultaneously we've both squandered hundreds of billions of dollars and a lot of valuable time and good will creating a new threat with the fiasco in Iraq."

At firedoglake, Sheldon Rampton takes the opportunity to promote his movie: "The Best War Ever."

TERROR POLITICS II: U.S. Policy On Iraq: The League Leader In Terrorist Creation Since 1996

For his response to the NIE , The Mudville Gazzette looks at Osama bin Laden's opinion on the topic in 1998: "The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post... Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... On that basis, and in compliance with Allah's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims: The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim." Mudville also includes similar bin Laden statements on Iraq from 1996.

Iraq war supporter and vehement Bush critic Andrew Sullivan added his opinion on the NIE's conclusions: "As a supporter of the war in Iraq, it's clear that over three years later, it has spawned more terrorism, and is now causing more innocent deaths on a daily basis than Saddam's vile regime. Whether this was inevitable or a function of the way it was conducted will be debated for decades. ... The only arguments the Bush administration has left is that in 2050, historians may regard it as a turning point, and that leaving now would be even worse."

TPM Muckraker's Paul Kiel reports that Swift Boat Veterans for Truth veteran Bob Perry's Economic Freedom Fund (EFF) is behind "political calls" bombarding West Virginians and Iowans. Worse, caller ID is identifying other innocent companies as the source of the calls, causing An Event to Remember's Paige Barnes many headaches. EFF did not respond to TPM Muckraker's calls for comment.

Rep. Major Owens (D-NY) takes to The Huffington Post to explain that while we all "celebrate Monday night football" the federal government ought to have directed more of its funds to "renters in the ninth ward" instead of to the Superdome renovation. Owens notes that "62 percent of the dome renovation cost of 185 million dollars was provided by FEMA. This same agency has declared that it has nothing for permanent rental housing." Owens concludes:

Ethnic cleansing across the oceans in Darfur has been rightly denounced by most of the civilized world. My prediction is that the White House October surprise before the general election will be a very aggressive initiative against the genocide in Darfur. Regardless of the wrong reason, let us applaud doing the right thing in Sudan. Meanwhile, this generation of Americans must seriously contemplate the fact that our grandchildren will be ashamed of us for the official ethnic cleansing we are permitting in New Orleans.

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas looks at close races across the country and notes: "And speaking of the "too liberal" line of attack, notice how it has zero traction in Senate races this cycle? The places where it's being employed -- Tennessee, Montana, Missouri, and Virginia -- are turning on entirely other things."

Oakland County sheriff Mike Bouchard (R) sat down with conservative Beltway bloggers 9/27. Right Angle Blog's Ivy Sellers writes: "All in all, I'd say Mike Bouchard is just about all conservatives could ask for in a representative -- he's a polite, well-spoken, pro-growth family man who understands the importance of being tough on security. He's also endorsed by the Club for Growth and Rightroots -- what more could you ask for?"

Knoxville, TN resident Instapundit recounts what he told Beltway denizens about the race between ex-Chattanooga Mayor Bob Corker (R) and Rep. Harold Ford Jr. (D-09) while in town 9/27: "I think that Ford's got an excellent, and probably better-than-even chance at winning. That's because he's a very strong candidate with an excellent campaign operation. ... There's nothing wrong with Corker, but he's not as impressive on TV, and his campaign seems to be much less of a well-oiled machine. ... The race could still go either way, but the momentum is very much in Ford's favor at the moment. ... If Corker wants to win, he's going to need better ads, and a better-organized staff. Right now, I'd give the edge to Ford, who's already got both."

Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo is also bullish on Ford: "All the stars are going to have to be in alignment for Harold Ford to pull this off. He's got to run a kick-ass campaign, which he seems to be doing. Corker's got to run a feeble campaign. And you can check that box off. And the national tide's got to run in Harold's direction. But it may just happen."

Someday the blogosphere's coverage of this race may escape the '70s. That day is not today. Ryan Lizza at The Plank tracked down "53 year-old technical manager in the nuclear industry" George Beam who was roommates with Billy Lanahan who "was the third member of a hunting party" which allegedly ended with Sen. George Allen (R) stuffing the head of a dead deer into the mailbox of an African-American family. Lizza reports that one night over "beer at U Heights," Lanahan told Beam that the incident was not racial, but just a prank.

Eric Kleefeld at TPM Cafe followed up with Louisa County Chief Deputy Donald Lowe who reported that records from the era were spotty but that "AACP officials and other prominent figures has not unearthed anything like the doe-head story. ... but nothing yet implicating Allen." Not Larry Sabato also contacted the Louisa County Sheriff's Office and reported: "This is an active investigation again- I have the cell phone number of deputy working on the case." For his part, DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas wasn't getting his hopes up: "I'm not banking on this story being corroborated. But if it is, you'd have to think it would be the nail in Allen's coffin."

On the right, National Review Online's John J. Miller shot back noting that ex-Navy sec. James Webb (D) used the n-word in his fiction and argues: "A lot more people have encountered racial epithets from having read Webb's novels than from having heard Allen speak them (and Allen, crucially, has denied speaking them)."

Over at Raising Kaine, Webb Netroots Coordinator Lowell Feld looks at Team Allen accusations that Webb used the n-word while he was in college and agrees with Webb campaign press secretary Kristian Denny Todd that Allen's staff is "pure slime." Feld adds: "I couldn't agree more. By the way, can this campaign degenerate any further? And did we expect anything different with people like Dick Wad(hams), Chris LaSwiftBoatVita, and Scott "Hitler Ads" Howell in charge at Allen for Senate HQ? Hmmmmm."

At the official AllenHQ Jon Henke laments: "It's an incredible shame that the Democrats have chosen to make the Virginia Senate Race a campaign about what African-American Bishop Gerald O. Glenn called "character assassination" rather than about the many issues facing Virginia." Conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt adds: "At this rate, the Allen-Webb race should easily surpass 1984's Jesse Helms - Jim Hunt Senate race as the most dispiriting political exercise of the modern era. I know Allen and Webb both really wanted to make history, each in his own way. But I bet this isn't what either one of them had in mind."

Still on the right, Virtuconindustries reports from a Webb campaign speech in Alexandria, VA: "What struck me the most was that I don't think he said anything that Pat Buchanan would disagree with. Most of the speech was platitudes, but he did talk about two issues. One was that we should leave Iraq. The other was economic populism such as "sending jobs overseas". Webb criticized immigration, without even differentiating between legal and illegal immigration."

The fetching Amanda Congdon at AmandaAcrossAmerica interviews the once pseudonymous Duncan Black. Also, Arianna Huffington has video from behind the scenes at The Colbert Report.

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum has issues with a William Arkin post at Early Warning: "The simplistic story line that the Democrats are pushing is all about and solely about Iraq: withdraw U.S. forces, defeat the Republicans, tidy up foreign policy by giving human rights to prisoners and being nicer in the world, and voila, terror subsides." Drum responds:

I write a blog. That means I make sharp points in very brief posts. But even at that, nothing I've written could even be unfairly caricatured the way Arkin does, let alone fairly. Ditto for other liberal bloggers who are even sharper and briefer than me.

Some of these liberals think we ought to withdraw from Iraq and some don't. I think it's safe to say that virtually all of them believe that a less militaristic and more internationalist foreign policy would be a net benefit. But it's also safe to say that none of them - not one - believes this is all it will take to put a stop to militant jihadism. And yet, after five years of speeches, articles, symposia, and books by Democrats on national security, that's what Arkin writes.

LEST WE FORGET: What, The Iron Sheik Wasn't Available?

Right Wing News was "watching TNA wrestling via TiVo" when he came across the pro-illegal immigration character Konnan ranting "about America and white people (Incidentally, if you're trying to make pro-wrestling fans hate you -- and they were -- that's a pretty good way to go about it)." RWN concludes:

Whether you're a fan of pro-wrestling or not, it's worth your time to watch the video above because the characters appear to be nothing more than a personification of what people didn't like about those illegal immigration rallies. Listen to the rhetoric that they use and keep in mind that when a politician supports comprehensive immigration reform AKA amnesty, a significant percentage of the American electorate will see it as nothing more than a thumbs up to the sort of thing they're hearing from those wrestlers.

Blogometer Extra

TERROR POLITICS: Boiled Bubba Or Cooked Rice?

 The Bill Clinton-Chris Wallace brouhaha on FOX continues to make news 9/27.

  Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice wasted little time in issuing a response that was just as defensive, "refuting his accusation," Kim Priestap at Wizbang! writes, "that the Bush Administration didn't do anything regarding terrorism prior to 9/11."  Priestap quotes Rice in the New York Post:

"The notion somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there and didn't do that is just flatly false - and I think the 9/11 commission understood that. ... What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years. ... We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda."

  Then progressive news site The Raw Story leapt on that, writer Larry Womack asserting that a 2001 memo to then-National Security Advisor Rice contradicted her statements to the Post.  Womack writes:

RAW STORY has found that just five days after President George W. Bush was sworn into office, a memo from counter-terrorism expert Richard A. Clarke to Rice included the 2000 document, "Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Jihadist Networks of al-Qida: Status and Prospects."  This document devotes over 2 of its 13 pages of material to specifically addressing strategies for securing Pakistan's cooperation in airstrikes against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

  Spencer Ackerman at The Plank adds to that, asking Rice to "stop lying about the plans your administration inherited."  He too refers to potentially damning documents, particularly a classified doc signed by Bush that, if made public, could settle once and for all who's telling the truth in all this.  Ackerman writes:

Rice insisted, "We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda."  This has been her strategy since Clarke first went public in early 2004: to quibble over the meaning of "comprehensive."  The problem with that strategy is that, whatever the Bush administration was contemplating doing before September 11 about Al Qaeda, Clarke--who worked for the National Security Council--was its primary author and driving bureaucratic force.  Attack Clarke and Rice attacks her own plan.  So the only option she sees is to suggest, again and again, that NSPD-9 is significantly different from Clarke's 2000 plan.

NSPD-9 has never been released.  Jamie Gorelick, the 9/11 Commission member, hinted during testimony that Rice's characterization of it is incorrect, and Richard Armitage agreed with her.  ... But because NSPD-9 is classified, she couldn't go into detail.  Last year, Clarke's 2000 plan, the genesis of NSPD-9, was declassified in full.  If Condi made one phone call, she could have Bush declassify NSPD-9 and then this whole dispute would be settled.  Clinton and Clarke would be exposed as liars, right, Condi?  So how about it?

  Byron York at Nation Review Online attempts to bolster Rice's side by obliquely questioning the validity, along with the existence, of the Clarke plan handed over to Bush et al.  To wit:

...National Review talked to Georgia Republican Saxby Chambliss, who was then a member of the House, chairing the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security.  Chambliss was perplexed.  “I’ve had Dick Clarke testify before our committee several times, and we’ve invited Samuel Berger several times,” Chambliss told NR, “and this is the first I’ve ever heard of that plan.”  If it was such a big deal, Chambliss wondered, why didn’t anyone mention it?

  Ackerman takes York for a stroll down The Plank, responding to the column's trumpeting of the Chambliss remark.  "Um, Saxby?  Did you read the 9/11 Commission report?  You know, the one that cites Clarke's plan again and again?  Start on page 196 and continue to page 214.  It's helpful!"

  Finally, Ackerman takes York to task over his other arguments to dispute Clinton.  He finishes, "[T]his story does not rely on Clarke's credibility: we have the documents.  Or one of them, at least.  Better luck next time, Byron."

BLOGGERS VS. MSM: Bunch To The Gut

  Elder press statesemen David Broder at the Washington Post has been on a tear lately, hailing what he perceives as a renegade centrist faction in the Republican Party standing up to the excesses of a president gone slightly off-balance, as well as a spirited, purposeful political body of moderate temperament emerging from the raging waters of the left and right.

  In a recent column, he praised GOP Sens. John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and John Warner for defiantly standing up against President Bush's detainee bill until changes were made to bring it more in harmony with constitutional, if not international, law.  A compromise was reached, which prompted Broder to describe the three "rebels" thusly:

These are not ordinary men. McCain, from Arizona, is probably the leading candidate for the 2008 presidential nomination. Graham, from South Carolina, is the star among the younger Republican senators. Warner, from Virginia, embodies the essence of traditional Reagan conservatism: patriotism, support for the military, civility.

That these Republicans -- and others -- were ready to join the Democrats in rejecting Bush's plan caused the White House to scramble for alternatives and House Republican leaders to postpone a scheduled vote.  The revolt goes well beyond three men.

What it really signals is a new movement in this country -- what you could rightly call the independence party.

  Broder expands on this concept of an "independence party" in a subsequent column, moved by "the independence being demonstrated all over the political spectrum these days."  He goes on to list former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA), Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Gov. Tom Vilsack (D-IA), former Gov. Mark Warner (D-VA), and--perhaps inevitably--McCain, Graham, and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) as "independent members of both parties--those who are prepared to defy the dictates of their interest groups and clamorous extremes" who would make fine candidates in the 2008 presidential election.

  Inspiring stuff, if you're of like mind as Broder and able to look beyond the outrages of the here and now.  But there was one remark Broder made in his first column above that particularly stirred the ire of Attytood's Will Bunch.  A press man like Broder, Bunch credits the Post icon for inspiring his career ("[T]here was a time in my life when I very much wanted to be you") but traces what he perceives as the gradual burning out of Broder's journalistic ethos and the hardening of his cynicism in the post-Watergate years through the present.  Bunch writes:

You, and your colleague Bob Woodward, and so many others, grew to admire the callous art of spincraft you'd been trained to expose -- so much so that when Hurricane Katrina devastated an American city and betrayed a stunning indifference to the fate of the nation's poorest, you could only write that Katrina "opens new opportunities for [Bush] to regain his standing with the public."

  What prompted Bunch's passionate response to his former mentor?  In his "Independence Days" column, Broder wrote, "[Y]ou can see the independence party forming -- on both sides of the aisle.  They are mobilizing to resist not only Bush but also the extremist elements in American society -- the vituperative, foul-mouthed bloggers on the left and..."  We'll stop there, because that's likely where Bunch stopped as well.  His reaction to that perceived dismissive slander was thus:

Like you, I am a newspaper reporter, and I share some of your core values, including a commitment to journalistic digging and hard work, and an unwillingness to accept the pat and partisan answers at face value.

And yet, I am also a blogger – professionally, and I guess by temperament.  And when I see what is coming out of your hometown in 2006 -- ugly politics driven by fear, the chucking of the constitution and our deep-seated judicial principles such as the writ of habeas corpus – it can indeed make me very angry, so angry that there are times when, yes, I must sound “vituperative” on occasion.

  Bunch's buildup continues:

The night I became angry came in March 2003, the night that your friends and colleagues in the White House press room took a dive at a nationally televised press conference, and refused to challenge the president’s specious grounds for war.  I was furious over what my profession -- the one where you had once inspired me a generation ago -- had now become.  And frankly, a lot of people on the left side became angry, too -- because, frankly, nobody was listening when they were nice.  Protest marches of half a million got inside-the-A-section type coverage; at least a little vitriol finally got your attention, Mr. Broder.

  "[Y]our cynicism is degenerative disease," Bunch writes, "and it leads to paralysis."  He concludes:

I would have been much happier, frankly, spending my 40s the way that you spent your 40s, fighting for a Pulitzer Prize instead of fighting to preserve the basics of a democracy and a free press, the things that you and I and America were able to take for granted for so long. ... [T]his journalist will use every weapon in his arsenal to preserve the values that allowed our craft to flourish in America -- including the weapon of anger. That may offend you from time to time; I guess on some level I hope that it doesn’t. ... Either way, don’t expect me to apologize for it.

Because I won’t.

Blogometer Extra

TERROR POLITICS: Habeas Or Hey, BS!

  It all started out innocently enough last week with the seemingly reconciled Senate GOP crowing about how they'd come together for Bush's sake on his detainee bill.

  Some righty bloggers like Ankle Biting Pundits were wondering just what the heck the fuss was all about.  Patrick Hynes at ABP had this to say:

"To read the likes of Andrew McCarthy, Joe McQuaid and, sadly, our own BDP was to wander through a bizarro-Kosland where every conservative speaks about every move a single guy makes as if it will end the world as we know it. ... [O]ur own, beloved BDP has, unfortunately, been relentless while spewing vitriol in Sen. McCain's direction, not unlike an irate alpaca.  Over what, exactly?  Well, if Byron York is to be believed, and I tend to trust York’s reporting, the answer is: Not much, really."

  He quotes Byron York: "The Republican 'dissenters' never wanted to cripple the CIA’s interrogation program... Rather, they wanted to work out a way to make most of the program legal using existing American law, not the Geneva Convention."  Hynes sums up, "[S]o John McCain never wanted to weaken our war effort so badly that we'll all be forced to pray five times daily facing East?  Oh."

  Things might have inevitably faded away had it not been for the, as the New York Times described it, "unusual" Monday hearing in which a handful of US senators aired out some serious concernts they have about the bill.  The Times reported:

Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee sought to slow down the effort by President Bush and Congressional leaders to speed the passage of legislation on the treatment of terror suspects. ... Senator Arlen Specter ... described as "inexplicable" a provision in the bill that would strip federal court of jurisdiction over detainees not formally charged with war crimes. ... Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont ... criticized the rush to pass the legislation, saying its restriction of court access would perpetuate "the indefinite detentions of hundreds of individuals against whom the government has brought no charges and presented no evidence, and without any recourse to justice whatsoever." ... Senator John Cornyn ... who was the only other member of the committee present for the unusual Monday morning hearing, defended the bill ... "It is important to remember — and sometimes I think some forget — these are enemies of the United States captured on the battlefield."

  Monday's hearing re-ignited a blog bonfire whose embers had just begun to cool over the weekend.

  Christy Harding Smith at Firedoglake was riled: "We are better than this as Americans.  The rule of law is more important than covering George Bush’s butt in the short term.  And I will be damned if I am just going to roll over.  There will be accountability for this mess — and it starts with the election in November.

  Kevin Drum at The Washington Monthly tempers his disgust with ennui.  Re: Specter's "crypto-moderation," he says, "Why would a senior committee chairman actually do something substantive to back up a belief that pending legislation is an unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus?  That's hardly worth fighting over, is it? ... And how about the Democrats?  Will they fight this?  We'll have to wait and see, but their performance has been pretty uninspiring so far."

  Justin Rood over at TPMmuckracker was inspired by a lawyer named Tom Sullivan, who appeared before the hearing and "sharply question" Sen. Cornyn, a supporter of stripping habeas corpus rights from the detainees.  Rood:

A partner in the white-shoe law firm of Jenner & Block, Sullivan has helped represent 10 Saudis held at Guantanamo Bay.  Three have been released; seven are still confined to the military prison.  He aimed his opening remarks squarely at Cornyn -- rarely does one see testimony so directly confront a lawmaker: "I've read the classified evidence.  I'm not free to disclose it, but I can tell you it's a sham.  There was no lawyer given to the defendants.  They didn't speak English, most of them. ... No cross-examination was allowed. ... Now, you call that due process, Your Honor?"

  Daily Kos's mcjoan even found among non-supporters of the habeas icing a curious figure: Kenneth W. Starr, he of the bazillion dollar Bill Clinton microinvestigation.  "'Kenneth W. Starr, a solicitor general under President George H.W. Bush, said in a letter to Specter that he [is] concerned the legislation "may go too far in limiting habeas corpus relief."'  It's even too much for Kenneth Starr, of all people."

  Finally, Orcinus pens a substantive piece intended overtly for the "values voter" mindset.  An excerpt from this must-read:

I've been hearing a lot of talk that the recent capitulation on American torture policy has demoralized many in the Democratic rank and file.  And understandably so; the Bush administration is plunging the nation into the moral abyss, and it seems that not only is there nothing we can do to stop them, but the people who are supposed to be fighting for us are self-evidently incompetent. ... I think they're mistaken. Republicans, in their hubris, have just handed progressives a valuable gift, an opportunity to win hearts and minds beyond anything they've done in the past decade.  Progressives just need to be smart enough to grab it. ... The baseline problem with torture, after all, is that it is prima facie immoral, a violation not just of the Golden Rule and basic Christian precepts, but of nearly any system of ethics.

  But it's hard not to feel the heat coming off Harding Smith's fiery call to action at the lake, as referenced earlier.  She declares, "From this day forward, getting out the Democratic vote is the single most important thing on my agenda between now and November — but I’m going to need everyone’s help.  I have damn well had enough."

9/27: The Last President First Elected In The Blogless Era

The WH invited bloggers involved in the passage of S. 2590 to the bill's signing 9/26 and even allowed Pres. Bush to be photographed shaking bloggers' hands. And yet nary a mention in Bush's remarks about the bloggers present, let alone words of praise for their efforts. As MA Gov. Mitt Romney (R) sits down with RedState on 9/26 and NM Gov. Bill Richardson (D) provides a major sponsorship for MyDD, it's clear that WH '08 candidates are courting the blogosphere in their own ways. Whoever is the next Pres., it's a safe bet that when he or she invites bloggers to the WH, the transcript will reflect that they were actually there.

Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham was one of many bloggers "at the bill-signing ceremony for S. 2590, the Coburn/Obama transparency bill" 9/26. Ham has photos of Pres. Bush from the event and comments: "I kinda wish I'd gotten a more handsome one of him -- I do love it when he smirks -- but I didn't want to spend the whole time taking pictures." The event wasn't all smile for Ham though: "The President didn't mention bloggers or Internets or even people power in his remarks, which I thought was silly. One sentence and he would have been talked about all day."

Ham later attended a panel on partisanship sponsored by Pajamas Media at the National Press Club. Power Line's Paul Mirengoff was a panelist and reports: "The panel reached no consensus on 'how partisan is too partisan,' but most panelists agreed that the mainstream media is too partisan for an institution that purports not to be. My remarks focused on partisanship in the blogosphere. I argued that bloggers are too partisan if they are dishonest as to factual matters or are intellectually dishonest. Beyond that, it's a matter of taste."

Not all in attendance were impressed, Hit and Run's David Weigel thought the event felt like "a fringe political meeting" and didn't appreciate the tangents on "how the partisan MainStream Media was losing readers to the blogs because it was so very partisan, and so very mainstream, and they'd better watch out because bloggers are going to leave them choking on their bloggy dust trails. And this set the tone for the rest of the discussion, which turned to how quickly the liberal media and liberal professoriat could be upset by the soaring power of blogs/citizen media." Weigel did like the food though.

DemFromCT at DailyKos tells readers 9/26's release of selected portions of the April National Intelligence Estimate: "doesn't stop the bleeding. The discussion remains squarely about Iraq, and how screwed up things are. This is not what the GOP and Bush wanted." AMERICAblog's John in DC adds: "there's even more in here that is bad news for Bush. He's nuts to release this and claim that it helps him. The only "good" news in the entire document is that it says Bush has caught a lot of Al Qaeda leaders. Yeah, we know that. But the document makes clear that the danger remains, and is increasing, and the war in Iraq isn't helping."

Still on the left, Matthew Yglesias is tired of righty misunderstanding of the left's plan for success in Iraq: "Does anyone -- anyone -- on the right genuinely believe that those of us who favor withdrawal from Iraq do so because we don't think it would be a good idea to turn the country into a shining success? Of course we don't think that. We favor withdrawal because we don't believe that indefinite continuation of an open-ended military presence in Iraq is likely to generate success."

Talking Points Memo Josh Marshall reminds readers of Bush's history with selective declassification of NIE's but Kevin Drum at The Washington Monthly hopes the NIE will spark a debate about the Iraq "dilemma in its starkest form."

Many on the right argued the Dems had fallen into a foreign policy trap. Conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt writes: "egged on by the brilliant lights at the New York Times and the paper's leaking pals who believe that their reporting on the contents of classified report by unnamed intelligence analysts will persuade American voters of something other than the paper's reckless disregard for anything but its fanatical Bush-hatred agenda" Dems "have charged off into a political box canyon." Others on the right approvingly citing the NIE include:

• National Review Online's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "The New York Times Gets One Thing Right on Iraq ... In spite of themselves...."The current situation will get worse if American forces leave."
• Hugh Hewitt: "Read all of the declassified sections of the report. Nothing in it supports the Pelosi-Dean-Reid-Murtha Democrats' demand to cut-and-run from Iraq. Just the opposite in fact: "If democratic reform efforts in Muslim majority nations progress over the next five years, political participation probably would drive a wedge between intransigent extremists and groups willing to use the political process to achieve their local objectives."
• National Review Online's Mario Loyola: "So, in essence the NIE judges that the Democrats' proposal to leave Iraq's democracy to its own devices would eliminate the major opportunities it sees for diminishing the jihadi movement. Nice.
• Captain's Quarters: "First, the Democrats allowed themselves to get outfoxed on national security yet again by allowing themselves to get hysterical and seriously misrepresent the conclusions of the NIE. ... As the NIE concludes, a victory in Iraq would seriously damage the radical Islamist movement, perhaps even mortally. We have no chance to strike a blow against them by retreating. Democrats have badly misrepresented this report and offer the one solution guaranteed to result in making the problem worse -- as the NIE also concludes.

TPM Muckraker's Justin Rood reports Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) suggested "a second damning Iraq report" was "floating around the intelligence community." Rood continues: "Sources at the event say the document is not officially an NIE, although it was prepared by the National Intelligence Council, an community-wide intelligence body whose primary function is to prepare NIEs." Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall calls for both reports to be released: "The April NIE and this NIE that dare not speak its name too." Marshall later explains why the second report is not an NIE: "it's not been given the 'NIE' label because that would trigger reporting requirements to congress that the administration has wanted to avoid."

Many lefty bloggers have been approvingly linking to the feisty foreign policy floor speeches of Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH).

At TPM Cafe, Steve Clemons reports the cancellation of 9/26's 2:25 pm Senate Foreign Relations Cmte "business meeting" signaled the end of even "dimmest chance" John Bolton would be confirmed as UN Amb. Clemons writes: "Some have said that another effort could be mounted during a lame duck session of Congress, but there are several Republicans who will not feel bound by the White House in that circumstance; Dems as well -- who will vote against cloture on the floor of the Senate were it to get out of Committee then. So, it's over. Wow."

On the right, Outside the Beltway's James Joyner comments: "This is one of the more bizarre exercises in which we engage. The chief reasons to oppose Bolton for the post have little to do with Bolton but rather the fact that he an aggressive spokesman for the administration's foreign policy. Given that this is essentially the post's job description, not confirming him on those grounds is silly. Not at least going on record with an up-or-down vote is cowardly."

MyDD's Chris Bowers looks at Dem leads in CO-07, IN-08, AZ-08, IN-09, VA-02, IN-02, PA-10, IA-01, CT-02, PA-06, KY-04, NC-11, WA-08, and IL-06 and declares: "we are already winning in enough districts to take the House." Bowers then runs down polling data from more races and concludes: "And that brings us to a grand total of 35 districts. Overall, Democrats lead in twenty congressional districts. One district is tied, and Democrats are within striking distance in at least thirteen more."

Over on the right, John McIntyre at RCP Blog sees Dems only gaining 10 House seats due to: "the economy humming at 3%+ growth, unemployment below 5%, the Dow near all-time highs and gas prices back below $2.50, these are not exactly economic conditions associated with a "throw the bums out" type of election." TAPPED's Ezra Klein responds: "Much of that strikes me as plausible, if not correct. The House races tend to be harder to predict, if only because there's less polling and data flowing out of individual districts than whole states. Moreover, the GOP's GOTV advantage will likely make the difference in a number of marginal races where Democrats lack sufficient funds to power major turnout operations."

Lefty CT Bob is having fun with his editing software again. This time splicing clips from Ferris Bueller's Day Off with a Senate roll call vote to poke fun at missed votes by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT). The video is an instant lefty fave.

At firedoglake Lindsay Beyerstein catalogues the GOP friendly fundraising sources Lieberman has been forced to hang out with while Atrios has a profanity laced response to Lieberman's Iraq position.

TAPPED's Sarah Posner argues Sen. Mike DeWine's (R) willingness to cozy up to the Christians United for Israel (CUFI) "shows not a toughness against the terrorists, but a spinelessness against religious fundamentalism." Posner is no fan of CUFI's support for Israel since the organization's motives "do not stem from a love of the nation of Israel, as Israel-supporting Jews in Ohio might expect. Rather, they seek a world-ending conflagration leading to the Second Coming of Christ."

Ex-Navy Sec. James Webb's (D) new ad on Iraq is receiving high praise throughout the lefty blogosphere. DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas writes: "On too many threads, someone says, "I don't see Democrats standing strong on Iraq". That's bull[excrement]. There are plenty of Democrats doing so. They just need to get elected to do anything about it." TPM Cafe's Eric Kleefeld adds: "It contrasts images of Bush and Allen separately insisting that we "stay the course" in Iraq with horrific images of violence from the war. It concludes with Webb speaking directly to the camera and hitting Allen very, very hard. He says: "The people who failed to prevent this disaster are not the ones you can count on to fix it." Webb concludes: "We need leaders in the Senate-not followers."

Not on the air, but still flying around the web, the "Young Virginians for Racial Equality" have a video out questioning Sen. George Allen (R) about his civil rights record.

Over at Raising Kaine Webb Netroots Coordinator Lowell Feld has pictures from John Edwards campaign stop with Webb at Mary Washington and includes these Edwards highlights:

• "This election is about transforming America."
• "We need a man of character, strength and honesty who "couldn't tell a lie if his life depended on it" - Jim Webb."
• "In these elections, the future of the world is at stake."

Raising Kaine also links to audio from the Gov. Tim Kaine, Stephen King, John Grisham, and Webb event at the Paramount Theater in Charlottesville, VA. Feld writes: "And yes, all those guys - except for Tim Kaine - are FICTION

WRITERS. Oh, the horror, the horror! :)"

VA SEN II: Target Sabato

National Review Online's Greg Pollowitz looks at UVA prof. Larry Sabato's recent Hardball performance and wants to know if "the "n" word is a character issue today," then why did Sabato not bring it up when he moderated a debate between Allen and then Sen. Chuck Robb (D) in 2000?

Scott Johnson at Power Line chips in with an email response from Team Sabato explaining: "I didn't know these things until the past few months. People I know and who are very credible contacted me and shared the stories. Then reporters checked them out: I am not a reporter. Based on everything they learned, they believe the stories and so do I. Other things will determine the election, though." Johnson concludes: "I was inclined to take Sabato's original comments at face value based on his Sabato's reputation. I was mistaken. Sabato's irresponsible conduct in this matter -- passing on the "hearsay" of unidentified third parties as of his own knowledge -- should disqualify him as an allegedly neutral commentator on contemporary politics."

Matt Lewis at Right Angle Blog also devalues his Sabato stock: "On another note, I think it is a career mistake for Larry Sabato to be personally inserting himself in this story. While it is true that he has a unique perspective (having known Allen at the University of Virginia), I can't help but feel that this further diminishes his credibility as an analyst. His critics have long said that Larry would never turn down any opportunity to get in front of a camera (or be quoted by the media). Maybe that explains it? It will be interesting to see if he will be able to continue being viewed as an unbiased analyst ..."

Chris Bowers at MyDD welcomed NM Gov. Bill Richardson (D) to the pages of MyDD as their new Governor Forecast 2006 sponsor. Richardson writes:

On Sunday, September 10th, I returned to New Mexico from Sudan after a successful mission to secure the release of imprisoned Chicago Tribune journalist and New Mexican Paul Salopek and his two Chadian colleagues. Our goal was accomplished through diplomacy, respectful face-to-face communication between me and President Al Bashir...

...That's why I'm committed to supporting and building the progressive online infrastructure we need to win now. It's why the Democratic Governors Association is stepping up our internet efforts to serve as a clearinghouse for information on races around the country and how people can get involved. It's why I've set up a page at ActBlue.com to highlight our candidates, and why it's so important to activate ActBlue fundraising for every state. And it's why I'm proud to partner with MyDD to sponsor the Governor Forecast 2006.

IA's Krusty Konservative announced state House Speaker Christopher Rants (R) signed on to MA Gov. Mitt Romney's Commonwealth PAC. Krusty writes: "Rants is the highest ranking Republican elected official in the state to sign on with a potential 08er."

Over at RedStateErick Erickson has audio from his interview with Romney and reports: "Governor Romney and I had a very engaging conversation about his transition from a guy who really did not put life issues on his front burner to a guy who now considers himself pro-life. We also talked about how his Mormon faith might affect people's votes in 2008. Governor Romney also explained his health care initiative in Massachusetts that uses free market approaches and individual responsibility to drive down government health care costs and we talked about governing as a conservative in a very liberal state."

Right Angle Blog's Matt Lewis surveys the scene and concludes: "Give Gov. Mitt Romney credit for a good week of assiduously courting conservatives. While many of his opponents are either ignoring traditional campaign methods (they are failing to raise money, build a team, etc.) -- or are offending conservative voters with their votes and/or comments -- Mitt Romney is going out of his way to do both. He is raising money, putting together a team, and wooing conservatives. This week, he gave a well-received speech at the Family Research Council, And his interview (posted today) with Red State is one more example of his willingness to court the conservative base."

Lefty bloggers are increasing the pressure on Senate Dems to filibuster the detainee treatment bill. TPM Cafe's Stirling Newberry calls on Senate min. leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to firm up his opposition and Newberry describes his fear of being personally kidnapped and tortured while traveling abroad in retaliation for U.S. prisoner treatment. AMERICAblog's John in DC debated Steve Malzberg on the issue for Paula Zahn Now.

Meanwhile, Atrios find the "Language of Religion" "utterly meaningless to me personally" but still links to torture debates at Faithful Democrats and Street Prophets.

On the right, Iraq war supporter and fierce Pres. Bush critic Andrew Sullivan sees the torture compromise as "one of the darkest hours for Western liberty in a very long time."

Chris Bowers at MyDD looks at polls from CO GOV, CO-04, CO-05, and CO-07 and notes:

• In 2002, Republicans held the trifecta in Colorado. They also held a 5-2 edge in the congressional delegation, and both of the US Senate seats. Colorado was not considered a swing state in Presidential elections.
• After 2006, Democrats will hold the trifecta in Colorado. We will also hold at least a 4-3 edge in the congressional delegation, and quite possibly pull off an even larger edge. The US Senate seats are currently split. Colorado is understood as one of the top swing states in the entire country. By now, it might even be lean Dem.

Bowers concludes: "Now that is a turnaround. In four short years, a decidedly red state has turned first to purple, and then to a light shade of blue. The key is that the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy sought by progressives around the country is already operational in Colorado. All advocacy groups work together--no more single-issue ghettos. There is a booming local blogosphere that is both internally organized and that receives healthy support from the establishment. Media Matters has set up in the state to counter local right-wing media. The silent revolution is not only under way, but actually completed, as grassroots progressives have taken over the state party."

Slate has posted "The George Allen Insult Generator" with insults for people who are "Arab," "Canadian," "A debater," "Fat," "Irish" and many more. Blogometer favorites include:

• Old people: "Hey there, Andy Rooney!"
• A gamer: "Hey there, thumb warrior!"
• A person with bad breath: "Pleased to meet you, Binaca!"
• A stamp collector: "How's it going, philateloser!"
• French: "Why, hello, Monsieur Caca!"

9/26: National Blogger Unity Estimate

Who knew one little New York Times story was all it took to bring bloggers from the right and left together on an issue as contentious as nat'l security? The consensus is limited admittedly (both sides pressured Pres. Bush to announce at a WH presser this a.m. that officials will declassify the April N.I.E.), but it's important to note that when bloggers do come together, it's usually part of larger efforts towards more transparency and openness in gov't. And they usually succeed. On 9/26, Bush is hosting "bloggers" at the signing of the pork database bill that both the right and left blogosphere pushed hard for.

Talking Points Memo Josh Marshallspent the better part of 9/25 updating readers on responses from congressional offices to requests for the declassification of the April N.I.E. partially leaked 9/23. By late evening, Marshall was welcoming Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) to "the party."

By early 9/26 the right's Michelle Malkin also thought declassification was "a good idea." Captain's Quarters, In From The Cold, and Power Line also all joined in.

AMERICAblog's Joe in DC notes 9/25: "The Republicans won't hold oversight hearings on Iraq. But, today, the Democrats will." Christy Hardin Smith at firedoglake writes of the hearings: "What is most notable about this criticism is that it is coming from newly retired high level officers who worked at the highest echelon of command structure at the Pentagon - planning for the war and, ultimately, then serving in Iraq or in a supervisory capacity over the conduct and problems that ensued once we landed there. And also overseeing the increasing chaos in areas in Afghanistan outside of Kabul."

AMERICAblog's John in DC chips in with links to testimony from: Major General John Batiste, Major General Paul Eaton, and Col. Thomas Hannes

RedState updates a story that has "been picking up steam" inside the blogosphere and out. Arizona's own EspressoPundit first posted on the 9/11 memorial on the Capitol grounds in Phoenix 9/20: "The memorial is an elevated flat ring with phrases cut through the metal. Throughout the day, the sun shines through the ring and phrases become visible on the side walk." Phrases include:

• 07 01 02 ERRONEOUS US AIR STRIKE KILLS 46 URUZGAN CIVILIANS
• 06 03 02 CONGRESS QUESTIONS WHY CIA & FBI DIDN'T PREVENT ATTACKS
• VIOLENT ACTS LEADING US TO WAR 05 07 1915, 12 07 1941 08 04 1964 & 09 11 2001

RedState's Leon Wolf comments on the second line: "The second, of course, is designed to create a permanent memorial to Fahrenheit 9/11. Regardless of your personal view of the value of special committees and hearings, I don't think that there should be legitimate dispute that this kind of crap also does not belong on a memorial to honor the 9/11 dead."

Chris Bowers at MyDD looks at 6 different LV polls taken in the last 2 weeks and notes that the results fall into 2 distinctly different camps: "These polls were all taken at about the exact same time. Differences of this sort cannot be chalked up simply to random error. I have never seen anything like this. One group shows a Democratic lead of 11-14%. The other group shows a Democratic lead of 0-3%. This is not simply a case of a few outlying polls. These groups of polling outfits are clearly polling two different countries altogether. Both countries exist. The issue is simply which country to we live in, and which country will show up when it comes time to vote."

Bowers concludes with a call to arms: "Here is the point I am trying to get across: It currently is equally probable that Democrats will sweep this election to a degree surpassing Republicans in 1994, and that Democrats will make only small gains in this election. The lesson of polling right now is that two possible nations have appeared before us, and we live in them both. The truth is not in between. Our work over the next six weeks will determine which nation we will live in for years to come: the nation with the huge Democratic sweep, or the nation with the extremely narrow Republican majority?"

The Right Angle Blog's Robert Bluey sat down with RNC Chair Ken Mehlman 9/25 and discussed "the GOP's prospects in November, what a Democratic-led Congress would do, the RNC's advanced get-out-the-vote drive and the role of conservatives in the blogosphere."

Blogometer alum William Beutler at Blog PI has a detailed color coded chart on '06 election blog scandals including: Rep. Charlie Bass (R-NH), Rep. Ben Cardin (D-MD), state Sen. Tom Kean Jr. (R-NJ), atty Amy Klobuchar (DFL-MN). Items on the chart include: Aggrieved Parties, Accusation, The Accused, Internet Sleuth(s), Troublesome Blog, Sock Puppets, MSM Coverage, Blog Coverage, Outcome, Remaining Questions, and Ongoing?

Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall posts video from UVA Prof. Larry Sabato's 9/25 Sen. George Allen (R)-used-the N-word Hardball appearance and notes: "Both men graduated from UVA in 1974." Also on the left, The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum surveys the wreckage and remembers an old story:

This story may or may not be true, but legend has it that during one of Lyndon Johnson's congressional campaigns he decided to spread a rumor that his opponent was a pig-[lover]. LBJ's campaign manager said, "Lyndon, you know he doesn't do that!" Johnson replied, "I know. I just want to make him deny it." I have a feeling that George Allen can relate.

Later Drum felt obliged to update: "I should probably revise and extend here. I don't actually think the charges against Allen are false."

On the right, Tom Bevan at RCP Blog takes issue with Sabato's claim: "tonight on Hardball he was just flat out wrong to declare in one breath that George Allen had in fact used the n-word and then in the next breath to tell Chris Matthews that he "wasn't going to get into" the specifics of how he knew the accusation to be true. You simply cannot make such a damning accusation on national television without backing it up. It's both irresponsible and unfair."

Back on the left, ex-Navy sec. James Webb's (D) Netroots Coordinator Lowell Feld at DailyKos reads The Weekly Standard's latest article on Allen sp Kossacks don't have to. Highlights include: "The article next turns to a lengthy, blow-by-blow, extremely unflattering description of the whole "macaca" incident. While the Weekly Standard does not believe Allen actually is a racist, it does call him an "oaf" and asserts, point blank, that Allen is "at odds with Virginia's future." A lengthy discussion follows about how Virginia is rapidly turning "blue."

Still on the left, TNR's Spencer Ackerman shares Allen's new GOP moniker: "Senator Macacawitz." And Raising Kaine links to a post from "Republican consultant" Doug Thompson at Capitol Hill Blue claiming Allen used the n-word when handicapping Rev. Jesse Jackson's chances in VA in 1984.

Finally, The Virginia Centrist has started a "George Allen Withdrawal Watch."

Conservative bloggers are still mostly behind Allen but criticism of the incumbent is not hard to find. John McIntyre at RCP Blog argues Webb was a strong "Jacksonian Democratic" "pre-Macaca." McIntyre still thinks Allen has a chance to win: "However, before one gets too caught up in the anti-George Allen fever of the day, Senator Allen has some powerful factors working in his favor. He has a lot of money, he is running in a red state, and Allen is a very attractive and likable candidate......usually. The Allen campaign would be smart to start unloading on Jim Webb today, because the longer this race stays tied or very close, the higher the odds climb that Webb pulls off the big upset."

National Review Online's Kathryn Jean Lopez also sense Allen will go negative and has a request: "Please, please, please when he goes negative again let there be no trace of the feminist stuff. There are plenty of 2006 issues where Allen and Webb have clear differences. There are 40-some days left. Perhaps we'll get to them?"

Townhall's Dean Barnett add to the fray: "In some faraway day, books will be written about the Allen-Webb campaign. None of them will consider it the zenith of American democracy." Outside the Beltway's James Joyner argues "Fair or not, however, Allen is now caught in a media meme."

Allen's New Media Coordinator Jon Henke hosted the official Team Allen Salon push back at AllenHQ including:

• Let's be clear: as with the previous rumors and lies pushed by the Webb campaign, this is categorically false. Rather than talking about the issues relevant to voters, the Webb campaign is pushing rumors and lies about Senator Allen and his family.
• Aside from Salon's own admission that 16 of the 19 people contacted did not remember any evidence of racism from George Allen - in fact, the seven people who knew Allen well during that time period specifically said they "did not believe he held racist views"
• It turns out that Salon has quite a history of pulling election-year dirty tricks. As NRSC spokesman Dan Ronayne says, Salon has "a history of attacking Republican candidates during election years with preposterous and outlandish charges".

At National Review Online Patrick Casey links to "a fascinating interview with Eve Kessler over at the Columbia Journalism Review" on her Forward article on Allen's Jewish heritage. Kessler "planned her article ... for well over a year, waiting for just the right time to spring it on him - which apparently was right after Allen's public use of the slang term "macaca". ... Note that after she finished her 'research' into this story well over a year ago (long before the "macaca" episode), she never attempted to verify the story with him first, which suggests that perhaps she had an inkling that he wasn't aware of his Jewish ancestry, and waited to drop it on him until it could inflict the most political damage."

The lefty blogger consensus on Sen. Joe Lieberman's (I) 9/25 address on Iraq: lies. Mcjoan at DailyKos writes: "So his great Iraq policy unveiling was more of the same. Lies, flip-flops, and wishful thinking (remember the "good plan" for victory in Iraq?). More enabling of the absolutely disastrous war."

Greg Sargent at TPM Cafe hits Lieberman for characterizing cable exec Ned Lamont's (D) position as "immediate withdrawal." Sargent sets the record straight: "He actually favors the Kerry-Feingold amendment, which calls for phased withdrawal to be substantially completed by July 1, 2007. Lamont's also said he'd support the plan for longer-term phased withdrawal favored by most Dems if that's what party consensus dictated."

Atrios and Jane Hamsher at firedoglake also had thoughts on Lieberman's speech and Atrios posts video of Lamont on the leaked National Intelligence Estimate.

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas warns readers that Sen. Daniel Akaka's (D) seat is still not yet safe: "There has been speculation that Case will switch parties and run as a Republican. And even though he denies it, it's telling that it's within the realm of possibilities. Case is a Democrat in the mold of Joe Lieberman. With Inouye getting up there in age, and his term up in 2010, I doubt we've seen the last of Case."

Patrick Casey at National Review Online looks at ex-AG Sheldon Whitehouse (D) ads currently on the air and notes the Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R) response: "The response from the Chafee camp - nothing. No ads, no interviews, no calls for debates, nada. And nothing from the 'notorious' National Republican Senatorial Committee, either."

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas has video and audio from recent entertainer Kinky Friedman (I) appearances and writes: "This is not a serious man, and certainly not a serious candidate. There are people who think voting for him would be cute, like Jesse Ventura, but Kinky is no Jesse Ventura. Not even close. In a four-way race, Chris Bell merely needs to bring home Democrats and he has a chance to pull it off. If Democratic defections went to a halfway decent alternative third party guy, it would be one thing (Texas Dems have been AWOL of late). But this racist gasbag?

Atrios looks at the lack of Dem leadership on detainee treatment and calls out Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) to put his faith into action: "So, how about a little torture talk, guys. Maybe get the ear of an outspoken religious senator or two, maybe someone like Obama. He's been saying Democrats need to be more respecting of people of faith. Okay, well, if that faith tells you that torture is bad I'll respect it. If that faith motivates you to use the power you've been given by the voters in your state to oppose something as abominable as torture, I'll respect you. Otherwise, what the hell is there to respect?

IA's Caucus Cooler reports NY Gov. George Pataki's (R) Freedom PAC has hired Victory 2000 IA Political Director Craig Schoenfeld as Executive Director. CC describes Schoenfeld as "very active in the Iowa Political scene. ... He has also been involved with campaigns for United States Senate, Governor, Attorney General, state legislature and assorted local offices."

M.J. Rosenberg at TPM Cafe feels "Sunday was one of those days on which everything went right for Democrats. First, the news of the leaked NIE report. And then President Clinton helped repair the hole in our collective hearts that has been there since George W. Bush started using 9/11 as a political opportunity to bash Democrats as cut-and-runners and worse."

Rosenberg goes on to describe a sense of deja vu: "All through the land we huddled in front of our computers feeling the kind of relief that only comes when you've been down so long, you don't know which direction up is. It was like the Sox sweep of the Yankees in 2004, except our suffering felt like it had lasted longer than 86 years. Clinton has given us the rallying cry and the weapons to win this election. History will record that the Democrats began the comeback to power on Sept. 24, 2006.

The left-leaning Faithful Democrats records the top "bizarro world moments" from 9/24's Value Voters Summit:

• Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) acknowledging the biblical call to treat illegal immigrants with respect -- ignoring the instruction to treat them as our own, but at least giving it a college try -- then going on to say we should kick them all out in order to "preserve our culture." That's one way to apply Scripture.
• The Rocky theme playing when James Dobson (Focus on the Family), Tony Perkins (Family Research Council), and Alan Sears (Alliance Defense Fund) went up to the stage for a panel. As our blogger Asthenia put it: "Three guys with massive war-chests and a media reach of more than 220 million listeners daily walking out to the ultimate underdog music. It doesn't get more ridiculous than that."
• The existence of Gary Bauer.

9/25: National Nothing New Estimate

All sides looking at 9/24 U.S. intelligence agency conclusions see little new to report. For the left, the news confirms what they've been arguing since '03: the Iraq war was a distraction from the GWOT, it has hurt U.S. standing abroad and, in fact, has resulted in an increase in the number of terrorist recruits. Those on the right take a longer view: U.S. policy towards Iraq, both before '03 and after, has been always been a jihadist recruiting tool.

Blogger commentary on leaked portions of the 4/06 N.I.E. on Iraq (including: "the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks") was heavy over the weekend. Lefty reactions include:

• Matthew Yglesias: "for months and months the administration has reacted to the report not by trying to improve its policies, but rather by covering up the NIE. Same sorry old story, but it's an absolute disaster for the country. ... The invasion of Iraq has been a gigantic, years-long rolling catastrophe for American security.
• Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo: "Do yourself and your country a favor this morning. Call up your representative and senators ... and tell them you want the April National Intelligence Estimate ("Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States") released to the public. Now. Before the election
• DemFromCT at DailyKos: "The idea that Bush is making the WoT worse by increasing terrorism should come as no surprise to anyone. We are not only less prosperous than we were five years ago, Bush's policies are making us less safe, less respected, and less successful on the world stage."
• Trey Ellis at The Huffington Post: "His own NIE says Bush is the Terrorists' Best Friend. When will the Democrats? ... Democrats still poll lower than Republicans in their ability to battle terrorism because the Democratic response, by and large, has been silence. Instead of running away from the issues of terrorism and torture the Dems need to wake up and press a coherent response to terrorism across every news cycle from now till November.

Michelle Malkin has a colorful and representative take from the right: "If our intelligence agencies are laboring under the moonbat illusion that Muslim hatred of the infidel West didn't really start bubbling until the year 2003, we are really in deep, deep doo-doo. Have they not been paying attention over the last year? All it takes is a few cartoons or a dropped Koran or a defiant apostate or a Muslim woman in a bikini or a papal speech quotation to set off The Religion of Perpetual Outrage."

Conservative talk-show host Hugh Hewitt also doubts "the world would be at peace" had the U.S. "simply not invaded Iraq." Outside the Beltway's James Joyner wants to know why he should listen to "the same intelligence agencies who failed to predict" a whole laundry list of major recent world events. Finally, Power Line's Paul Mirengoff and Captain's Quarters have similar thoughts on the logical fallacies of the NIE conclusions.

Under a header, "The Need for New Democratic Leadership," Matt Stoller at MyDD calls the torture "compromise" insane and shames Senate Min. Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) "for being too afraid to pick a fight with John McCain." DailyKos' georgia10 is "heartbroken" over the deal and is pained "to watch our nation legalize torture with Democrats (so far) offering nothing more than a shrug."

TChris at TalkLeft argue for a filibuster of the bill, and Matthew Yglesias links to an op-ed from Soviet labor camp survivor Vladimir Bukovsky and writes: "While you can obviously imagine or gerrymander or stipulate a situation in which torture might yield useful information, in practice the systematic authorization of torture creates an army of butchers, not a crack investigative team."

Iraq war supporter and fierce Pres. Bush critic Andrew Sullivan asks: "Ask yourself this question: In the days after Abu Ghraib was exposed, did you believe that within a few years, the Congress of the United States would be formally decriminalizing exactly the techniques depicted in many of those photographs - and allowing the president to use his discretion to order them?"

On the right, National Review Online's Cliff May defends torture: "Between chopping off limbs (something Saddam Hussein did routinely but which we are now told we were wrong to do interfere with) and subjecting terrorists to sleep deprivation (something every new parent and resident physician experiences) there is a wide gulf. But the MSM apparently can't see it. It's all torture and it's all immoral and of course entirely useless. ... I suppose some on the left believe that war is like sports: It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game. But others may believe it does matter whether we win or lose."

Ex-Pres. Bill Clinton's 9/24 interview for FOX News Sunday was mostly received warmly on the left. Crooks and Liars has the most complete clip here. Positive lefty reacts include:

• Talking Points Memo Reader DK: "Clinton is simply the most gifted politician of our times. I have my issues with Clinton, but I sometimes forget not just what a tremendously effective communicator he is but how much he just plain gets it.
• Christy Hardin Smith at firedoglake: "And in case Democratic members of Congress or their staffers happen to be reading this morning - this is called effective and immediate pushback. More of this, please."
• Todd Gitlin at TPM Cafe: "We would have a different politics in this country if more Democrats followed Clinton's lead. When the sycophants ask you a question, dare to ask them why they're asking that question of you and not of Republicans."

Not every one on the left was ready to praise Clinton. Arianna Huffington at The Huffington Post hopes Clinton watches the interview "over and over again" so he can learn that his "tireless "bipartisanship" has been of no benefit to him, of no benefit to the country, and has only benefited George Bush and the right-wing." MyDD's Matt Stoller seconds Huffington's sentiments, he argues that Clinton's "bipartisan above-the-fray attitude, which excuses his wife's fundraising events with the likes of Rupert Murdoch, is going to slam head-on into the reality of the right-wing extremism that people like Murdoch put forward. Clinton stopped fighting the right when he left office, but they didn't stop fighting him. I'm glad he's back in it, but I hope he's really back in it."

Righty bloggers linked to video of Clinton's FOX interview just as eagerly as those on the left. Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham called the episode "The Clinton Freak-Out" while National Review Online's Kathryn Jean Lopez labeled it "Bill Clinton's Tom Cruise moment."

Many on the right felt Fox's Chris Wallace managed to lead Clinton into some un-truths. Patterico's Pontifications tracked down Fox News questioning of Def. Sec. Donald Rumsfeld to dispute Clinton's assertion that Fox never asked the Bush administration similar questions. National Review Online's Jim Geraghty notes a Clinton contradiction with his own Justice Department over bin Laden's connection to Somalia. And Power Line's John Hinderaker disputes Clinton's assertion that conservatives criticized his obsession with bin Laden (not on the right, ABC's Political Punch also disputes Clinton's assertions that conservatives leveled "wag the dog" criticisms of his cruise missile actions.

Captain's Quarters, however, argued it was time to cut Clinton some slack: "We can argue for years about how much he tried, and for what reasons. In fact, we have -- for five years -- and it's time to give it a rest. The rise of Islamofascism didn't occur just on Clinton's watch, and his presidency was not the only one that demonstrated weakness and fecklessness to the jihadists.

Ankle Biting Pundit's Bull Dog Pundit bemoans Rev. Jerry Falwell's remarks that a Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) "presidential run would energize his constituency more would one by Satan." BDP writes: " Our side complains about the "Bush=Hitler" references, and rightfully so. But we shouldn't compare our political opponents to Satan. For being so called "religious" leaders, Falwell and his buddy Pat Robertson don't always act like it. And on a strictly political level, it further advances the untrue stereotype that all religious conservatives are intolerant."

IA's Caucus Cooler reports Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) "picked up" Bush/Cheney '04 Iowa Chair Dave Roederer to chair his IA efforts in '08. CC comments: "Big Pick up for Straight Talk. Roederer is very well liked and respected throughout Republican circles It's tough to be liked by everyone in politics and Dave's done it."

Chris Bowers at MyDD looks at the registration numbers and final vote totals from CA-50's 6/6 special election and concludes: "It is true that Democrats did turn out in very solid numbers in CA-50, so one is tempted to think that the Democratic base is fired up. That even seems to be the difference in the highly contrasting likely voter models currently floating around, as likely voter screens that measure voter intention instead of voter history favor Democrats. If Democrats turn out at the same relative level to Republicans around the country as they turned out in CA-50, and as intention-based likely voter model screens are measuring, then we are pretty much a lock to take the House."

Chris Bowers at MyDD proudly unveiled MyDD's DCCC and NRCC Independent Expenditures Page which has all DCCC and NRCC independent expenditures since 7/1 "in an easy to read, web-accessible format. If you need to see the history of committee spending in a district-by-district basis, this is the place to look."

In anticipation of Sen. Joe Lieberman's (I-CT) 9/25 address on nat'l security, cable exec Ned Lamont (D-CT) posts an open letter to Lieberman on the official site. Highlights include: "At a time of war, our state and our country needs people in Congress who are willing to speak frankly with the public and who are willing to fulfill their constitutional obligations to hold the executive branch accountable. Our troops serving in combat and the millions of citizens concerned about this war deserve no less."

Mcjoan at DailyKos has audio of Lamont's new radio ad, titled "Calling in Sick" and writes: "As funny as it is, it makes a very good point. Beyond the Iraq Debacle, one of the primary reasons why the Connecticut voters were so ready to defeat Joe in the primary was because he's abandoned his constituency. This ad asks, very effectively and humorously, what is Joe doing in the Senate if he doesn't care enough to show up to vote?"

Summing up lefty blogger sentiment, Swing State Projectcommenter "progressivemuslimnj" writes on Sen. Daniel Akaka's (D-HI) primary victory over Rep. Ed Case (D-HI): "I'm sure this is too good to be true, but are we lucky enough that if Case loses this primary, it will be too late for him to also run for re-election in his House seat, and we can be rid of him all together?"

Johncombestblog draws attention to 9/24's San Francisco Chronicle article on Dem efforts in rural Houston, MO, where Aud. Claire McCaskill (D) held a campaign spot under a bright red "McCaskill & Son" mill in '05. The problem is Johncombestblog has recent photos of the mill covered in Sen. James Talent (R) signs.

Reader DK at Talking Points Memo calls attention to the "fine legal distinctions" that make "campaign finance laws such a mess." DK looks at the 527 Softer Voices, which raised $650K from just two sources and spent more than $750K supporting Sen. Rick Santorum (R). DK explains: "Until this past week, the contact person and custodian of records for Softer Voices--the person who signed their IRS filings--was Cleta Mitchell, a partner at the DC firm of Foley & Lardner LLP and ... wait for it ... legal counsel to the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

The progressive Agonist wants to assure his readers that ex-Navy sec. James Webb (D) is not the "Conservative Democrat" everyone thinks he is. The Agonist has looked at Webb's positions and finds him to be "someone that progressives can be comfortable with." The Agonist reasons: "People in the military are used to living in a socialized economy. Subsidized housing, health care for everyone, a generous pension plan and so on. ... It seems to me that when people like.... Webb wind up in the civilian world, and especially as over the last few decades it has become a meaner, poorer civilian world riven with class differences, that they wonder if what they had in the military, the values they learned, can't be applied outside the military as well."

Steve Benen takes to The Huffington Post to highlight Media Matters defense of The VoteVets.org commercial running in VA that FactCheck.org described as "just plain wrong." Benen notes that while the Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) amendment in question never did mention body armour like the ad claims, Landrieu cited "helmets" and "force protection" as recipients of funds from the legislation.

Over at Raising Kaine, Eric has put together a thorough collection of video from the race and the Richmond Democrat has a round up from ABC's This Week roundtable including: "The first item of discussion was George Allen's performance in last Monday's debate, moderated by [George] Stephanopoulos himself, and Allen was savaged by each of the pundits in turn. All agreed with the conventional wisdom that the question was a bit offsides, but that Allen's answer was a colossal blunder. [Frank] Rich, who is Jewish, noted that Allen's remark about ham sandwiches and pork chops was tone deaf, showing Allen's ignorance--not all Jews keep kosher--and reliance on offensive stereotypes.

On the right, The A-Team has a video titled: "Jim Webb - Wrong Then, Wrong Now" featuring "ll of Jim Webb's greatest spectacularly wrong assessments of the major issues of the last 20 years ranging from the end of the Cold War to Operation Desert Storm." The A-Team also has a lengthy post not linking to many statements from unnamed DailyKos commenters and asks: "One wonders if Jim Webb will have the courage of conviction to disavow these despicable statements or if he will whistle past the graveyard and hope the independent voters in Virginia do not discover what sort of unsavory characters with whom Webb's campaign has climbed into bed."

Kausfiles looks at Senate maj leader Bill Frist (R-TN) 9/24 This Week performance and argues First was signaling a GOP cave on the proposed 700-mile fence. Kaus writes: "It's easy to let the fence bill drop and blame Democrats. Wink, wink. But a forceful majority leader who actually wanted either a) a vote or b) a sharpened issue against the Dems wouldn't give up just like that. He'd call a press conference to demand that the Democrats allow a vote."

Power Line's Scott Johnson adds: "There is a cynicism in Kaus's instincts that I hope is not warranted, especially given the high regard in which we hold Senator Frist, but it is a cynicism that has been amply warranted in Kaus's past analysis of the politics of immigration reform." Red State has audio from an interview with "free market" immigration plan proponent Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN).

Atrios is sick and tired of the Washington Post/Economist elite policy consensus and yearns for something new:

If there is an opening for a candidate to pull together a new coalition of voters it would involve social conservatism combined with economic populism, the mirror image of the center right elite consensus. Imagine a Pat Buchanan who could convince people he could feel their pain [adding: It isn't that this type of populism I imagine would be liberal per se, but it would be anti-immigration and anti-trade in contrast to the center right consensus, and though I don't think Pat Buchanan himself would advocate anything to genuinely help the poor and middle class my hypothetical candidate would - at least for "the right kind of people."] I don't think that would have a supermajority consensus - or even majority - support either but it would at least have a constituency greater than a few thousand people who live in Washington, D.C.

LEST WE FORGET: This Would Hurt A Lot More, If Not For '04

Yankee fan Kathryn Jean Lopez at National Review Online surveys the current scene and quips: "Why does the Dems' current euphoria remind me so much of Red Sox fans in August?"

Blogometer Update: House Edition

In Tha House

AZ 08: This Graf Zeppelin's Made Of Lead

  James L. at Swing State Project says the GOP has given up all hope of capturing the House seat that Jim Kolbe (R) is relinquishing after 22 years.  The Republicans' preferred candidate, Steve Huffman, lost a bitter race to "anti-immigration zealot" Randy Graf, and by their reckoning Mr. Graf is too far to the right; James: "I'm sure it pains them to cede this seat to the Democrats, but they're being backed into a corner here: the consensus surrounding this purplish district is that candidates who appear politically moderate attract the strongest support."  As a result, the NRCC is pulling up its stakes and going elsewhere.  James quotes Jesse Lee over at the DCCC blog:

The NRCC, having gone out on a limb to get a more moderate candidate through the primary and failed, has just given up on the Medicare-abolishing, Department of Education-hating, David Duke-endorsed nominee Randy Graf. ... We have just gotten word that they have cancelled everything on the air from October 3rd forward.

  "Graf is not even worth a token effort," James wraps up.  "Stick a fork in him; AZ-08 is going to be [Democratic candidate Gabby] Giffords country now."

CT 02: Rotten Per Simmons

  So is Democratic challenger Joe Courtney a stud or a dud to incumbent Rep. Rob Simmons (R)?  Apparently the latter, as Simmons has just released what Jeff Hughes at TPM Cafe calls a "blistering new ad which touts his own record in helping 'save' a local submarine base and slams Dem challenger Joe Courtney for having accomplished 'nothing.'"  See the ad here.

  One little problem though, says Hughes:  "It appears that Simmons himself actually thanked Courtney for -- you guessed it -- having played a role in helping save the base Simmons is patting himself on the back for rescuing."  The Norwich Bulletin has the goods:

The Courtney camp released an audio tape of a telephone message Simmons left for Courtney Aug. 28, the day the BRAC Commission voted to remove the base from the closure list. ... On the tape, Simmons says, "I just wanted to say to you how much I respect your decision back on May 13 not to take political advantage of the process.  I think that was the high road."

  "Rob Simmons' hypocrisy is astounding," said a Courtney spokesman.  The Simmons campaign's response?  "It's silly."

CT 05: Mostest Worstest Evil Ad Ever?

  The hyperboles are flying in the wake of another controversial ad, this time from the camp of incumbent Rep. Nancy Johnson (R), being challenged this year by Democrat Chris Murphy.  Andrew Golis at TPM Cafe posits the titular question before offering justification.  To wit: "[I]t is awfully vile.  For one thing, the central claim -- that you need to get warrants before doing the wiretapping -- is flat out false.  What's more, the ominous-looking paperwork that flashes across the screen is actually a set of student aid spreadsheets."  You can view the ad yourself here.

  The electionblog No More Nancy has a nitpicky deconstruction of the ad's "sheer stupidity," but it does shed more jocular light on Johnson's use of financial aid paperwork in her terror pitch.

GA 08: Quien Es Mas MacCo?

  Eric Kleefeld at TPMCafe has another entry in today's intriguing collection of ads, this one (see vid here) by GOP challenger Mac Collins, blasting incumbent Dem Rep. Jim Marshall for kowtowing to illegals by voting for bilingual ballots."  Eric writes:

The ad by Collins ... warns viewers: "Jim Marshall voted with his liberal leader Nancy Pelosi and voted to waste our tax dollars printing election ballots in Spanish."  Then a sneering voice ads in Spanish: "Muchas Gracias, Señor Jim Marshall."  Why doesn't Mac Collins want new American citizens to be able to vote?

  The ad promises that Collins will "fight to make English our official language" and to protect what he vaguely refers to as "American values."

GA 12: EFFing Barrow

  The Economic Freedom Fund, which appears to be the successor to 2004's Swift Boats gang, has incumbent Rep. John Barrow (D) in its sights.  Paul Kiel at TPMmuckracker reports on a new EFF ad that knocks Barrow "for '[helping] trial lawyers' and '[hurting] small businesses.'  The ad is viewable here.

Kiel notes that the group has sunk "about $1.07 million nationwide" on ads, but in Barrow's case, the ad "isn't the only weapon the group is wielding."  He mentions "negative fliers and misleading robo calls" in addition to the commercial.  Barrow's spokesman described the automated calls as "short and nasty."  It remains to be seen what effect the ad will have on the race, which according to a recent poll "showed Barrow narrowly leading his challenger, former Rep. Max Burns.

OH 02: Schmidt Hits The Fan

  Controversial incumbent Rep. Jean Schmidt (R) is under scrutiny again, this time by the DCCC's Stakeholder blog, for apparently plagiarizing a press release by a congressional colleague.

  Stakeholder quotes a bulletin from Dem challenger Victoria Wulson's campaign which details several clear-cut examples of Schmidt copying almost verbatim a press release regarding a Medicare issue by Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-OH).  How bad is the alleged thievery?  Stakeholder remarks, "I wish that there were excerpts I could pull out to make the case.  But I can't.  The entire thing is stolen..."

Stakeholder passages include:

Schmidt: Prior to enactment of this measure, Medicare had changed little since its creation in the 1960s.  The program brought a 20th-century attitude to 21st-century medicine, funding expensive operations but failing to fund prescription drugs.  Medicare would pay for your operation to install a pacemaker after a heart attack, but it wouldn't pay for the heart medicine that might have prevented the heart attack in the first place.

Pryce: Prior to enactment of this measure, Medicare had changed little since its creation in the 1960s.  The program brought a 20th-century attitude to 21st-century medicine, funding expensive operations but failing to fund prescription drugs.  Medicare would pay for your operation to install a pacemaker after a heart attack, but it wouldn’t pay for the heart medicine that might have prevented the heart attack in the first place.

[Mike Sheehan]

9/22: The Issue No One's Talking About

Underneath the furor over detainee treatment, the House has moved swiftly on a number of pro-enforcement immigration policies wildly popular in the righty blogosphere. While there has been some lefty push back on the voter ID requirements passed 9/20, there's also a complete lack of a blogosphere presence for a pro-comprehensive immigration bill. Will the House's progress mute conservative efforts to use immigration as a voting motivator, or will eventual failure to move all of the bills through the Senate discourage conservatives from supporting Senate GOPers? Will righty bloggers/GOPers find a way to use the issue positively this fall?

The blogometer was wrong to use the word "terrorist" 9/20 when making the otherwise legitimate point that that bloggers can say things about candidates and campaigns that the candidates or campaigns can't. We're sorry for making the comparison and that folks focused on our poor choice of a word and not on the larger point we were attempting to make.

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum thinks it's "all well and good" that 9/21's WH/Senate deal on detainee treatment forbids "among other things like murder and rape," but notes that "the legislation also allows the president to unilaterally decide what's permissible below this threshold. And this threshold doesn't seem to prohibit, for example, stress positions, sleep deprivation, waterboarding, or hypothermia. Presumably, then, all of this stuff will continue."

Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo had this take: "The Senate, in this dance, becomes the United States 'rendering' prisoners to the executive for illicit torture much as the US renders folks to Syria and Egypt we when really want them to get the treatment." And also had unkind words for The Washington Post's David Broder: "I am simply dying to hear what Dean David Broder has to say about this torture compromise. In yesterday's paper he was positively rhapsodic about his prized Republican moderates channeling Thomas Jefferson and standing up to President Bush's lawless presidency. So where does he come out now that his 'independence party' has conceded most of the points of contention, folded abjectly and basically given up?

Righty bloggers offering opinions on the deal were mostly positive. Byron York at National Review Online "just got off the phone with a Senate source who sides with the McCain/Graham/Warner camp. "I think there is every reason for both sides to be happy," he said. The key part of the deal seems to be that Congress has defined "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions."

York also updated readers on a conference call with National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley where Hadley assured listeners "the program will go forward, and that the men and women who are asked to carry out that program will have clarity as to a legal standard, will have clear Congressional support, and will have legal protection."

National Review Online's Larry Kudlow offered a "Bravo Mr. Rangel" for the Dem stalwart's vociferous criticism of Venezuela Pres. Hugo Chavez. Kudlow adds: "This bipartisan show of support is a very good thing. It reminds me of that old, often forgotten American tradition of leaving politics at the water's edge." After Kathryn Jean Lopez noted Rangel's political motivations for denouncing Chavez, an NRO emailer responded: "Come on! Give him a break. If he's denouncing him for political reasons, who cares??? At least he's doing it."

Not all Dem polls shared in righty blogger admiration 9/21. Power Line's John Hinderaker linked to a Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) statement: "Let me put it this way, I can understand the frustration, ah, and the anger of certain people around the world because of George Bush's policies." Hinderaker comments: "One might have hoped that Hugo Chavez would be too visibly nuts to be embraced by even the most liberal of Democrats. Apparently not."

Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) took to The Huffington Post to denounce GOPers for not focusing on the "whereabouts of Bin Laden and Zawahiri" and instead working on "something that isn't broken - the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)." Harman argues: "There is no evidence that FISA must be gutted to permit broad warrantless surveillance of Americans. Yet HR 5825, the White House/Heather Wilson bill that was reported out of committee yesterday, would do just that."

Chris Bowers at MyDD revisits Charlie Cook's observation that older political forecasters are generally predicting a Dem landslide this year while the younger set are more cautious. Boers looks at Pres. Bush approval numbers from 2002 and 2004 and notes there was no correlation between Bush's popularity and the success of GOP candidates. Bowers concludes: "As frustrating as it may be for our side this year, this isn't exactly the sort of evidence that makes one think macro factors play a large role in congressional elections."

Matt Lewis at Right Angle Blog looks at Bowers' post as well as the New Donkey's following thought:

This generation gap has been especially notable if you read progressive prognosticators, such as Chris Bowers or Kos. These are people who by and large are completely obsessed with the hope that Democrats will retake Congress. This is largely what they live for. Yet they are very reluctant to predict that their Ahab will indeed slay their Great White Whale.

Lewis comments: "Liberal bloggers are sort of journalists, but they are also activists. For this reason, even if they believe that the Dems will take the House, they also realize the negative political ramifications of "hyping" the Democrats chances. It is axiomatic in politics that you should "over-promise and under-achieve."

Still at MyDD, Chris Bowers looks at PoliticalMoneyLine numbers on NRCC and DCCC independent expenditures and concludes: "The DCCC dropped more than $1M yesterday, mostly on very top-tier districts where Democrats are already ahead according to available polling. The NRCC continues to focus on seemingly less top-tier districts. Is this another "fire-wall" strategy we are seeing from the NRCC, where they de-emphasize the top tier, concede several seats, aim to stop the bleeding in the second tier, and focus on preventing a national landslide?"

Under the header, "Meet the New Boss ..." TPM Muckraker looks at possible "Majority Leader in a Democratically controlled House" Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) record on pork spending and is not impressed: "Murtha ... presides over a tightly connected network of favored lobbyists, former staffers and major campaign contributors that bears a striking resemblance to those maintained by some of the tarnished Republicans he would likely replace."

Since "sending Dan Gerstein out to do spin control for your campaign is a lot like trying to change a diaper with a molotov cocktail. It doesn't do anything about the [excrement], and now everything's on fire!" TRex at firedoglake was ecstatic to learn that Gerstein had authored a press release on Kenneth Cain's article in GQ titled: "Harry Potter Reports from the Campaign Trail: FANTASY vs. REALITY" TRex then spends the rest of his post responding to Gerstein's release line by line.

Also at firedoglake, Jane Hamsher doesn't understand the strategy behind Sen. Joe Lieberman's (I-CT) new television ad touting his experience: "One of the most powerful and enduring myths of American politics is the honest, uncorruptable newcomer vs. the political hack, the Mr. Smith Goes to Washington tale. Ned Lamont's rather squeaky clean good-guy persona becomes even easier to tie to the Jimmy Stewart image as a direct result of Lieberman's efforts, and nobody screams "tired old hack" right now louder than Joe Lieberman."

Eric Kleefeld at TPM Cafe reports on new radio ads by the National Black Republican Association (NBRA) featuring: "a dialogue between two women who are apparently African American. Among other things, they tell each other that Democrats founded the Ku Klux Klan and that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican - a curious assertion immediately dismissed by King experts."

RedState has a podcast with Oakland Co. Sheriff Mike Bouchard (R) who "is taking on Senator Debbie Stabenow, a legislator with practically zero accomplishments under her belt. Senator Stabenow would be the Calvin Coolidge of Congress she's done so little, except she's voted consistently to expand government and protect illegal aliens.

Greg Sargent at TPM Cafe reports that at least 1 local MT TV station is refusing to air a DSCC ad featuring Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT) "now-notorious remark that firefighters did a "piss poor job" battling a Montana blaze" because the ad contains language from Burns that is "offensive" and may result in FEC fines.

Matt Stoller at MyDD has video from a NJ ABC 7 newscast from last night on Blue Jersey's accusation that state Sen. Tom Kean's (R) spokeswoman, Jill Hazelbaker, was behind "several troll comments" on their website's comment boards. In the segment, Kean denies any campaign involvement. Stoller comments: "I dislike the Kean family, because they are deeply unethical people. It's not a surprise to me that Kean Jr is a liar - his Dad was pushing the 9/11 documentary with known falsehoods."

Ex-Navy Sec. James Webb (D) Netroots Coordinator and Raising Kaine founder Lowell Feld reports from Alexandria, VA's "Torpedo Factory event with Mark Warner, Jim Webb and Don Beyer" that Webb primary opponent Harris Miller "gave an excellent, short speech" including the following joke: "I expected there would be a Jewish candidate for US Senate this year, I just didn't think it would be George Allen!"

Feld also runs down Warner's remarks including: "Warner related how, in late 2005, people were telling him, "no way you're going to have a credible candidate against George Allen." Well, now we've got one in Jim Webb. ... Jim Webb has the "energy," "ideas," and the "real sense of vision about where the country should head." That's a big part of why "people are energized about this campaign."

Over at Talking Points Memo, Justin Rood did the "dirty business but somebody's got to do" and tracked down the Council of Conservative Citizens' Gordon Baum for TPM Muckraker. Rood's interview post includes: "In general, however, Baum said the issue of Allen's Jewishness "confused" him. "Are they saying he's losing votes because he's part-Jewish?" I averred that I didn't know. He was disdainful. "All these white Southern Baptists in Virginia are going to vote for a liberal Democrat because [Allen] says he's Jewish? I don't think so."

On the right The A-Team's recent Webb attacks include:

• On Webb's Gulf War position: "On November 29, 1990 -- a mere 38 days before the start of the First Gulf War-that Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee paraded Webb before the cameras of their media allies in an effort to derail George H.W. Bush's plan to liberate Kuwait from Saddam Hussein's brutal occupation. Webb did not disappoint his left wing handlers."
• On controversial Webb supporters: "[Webb] certainly ought not pretend that the media would ask him to comment if he were attending a conference together with people who have said offensive things. He's campaigned with one. He shared the stage with Rep. Jim 'if it weren't for the jews' Moran. The media asked Jim Webb nothing."
• On Webb's tenure as Navy sec: "It is interesting to see how many newspapers across the country used terms like "angry" and "upset" to describe Jim Webb back then. That does seem to be a persistent nature of his character."

Meanwhile, Greg Pollowitz at National Review Online linked Webb to Venezuela Pres. Hugo Chavez: "If Chavez had called the President the anti-Christ, would that have been less offensive than devil? I only ask because Jim Webb referred to his primary opponent, Harris Miller, as the anti-Christ of outsourcing."

Matt Stoller at MyDD passes along an email from atty Donna Edwards (D) that includes a transcript from a House Energy and Commerce Cmte meeting exchange between Rep. Al Wynn (D) and Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) suggesting "Texas know-how" was behind Wynn's narrow primary victory. Stoller comments: "Come on, it's time to speak up on this."

Jane Hamsher at firedoglake looks at 9/21'a New York Timesarticle reporting ex-VA Gov Mark Warner "has largely avoided Mr. Lamont, instead lending his name and fund-raising capabilities to races that are genuinely in play and have longer-term strategic value for the Democratic Party, like Representative Harold Ford Jr.'s bid for the Senate in Tennessee." Hamsher comments: "For someone who clearly wants to woo the blogosphere, it seems awfully short-sighted. In case anyone hasn't noticed, we care quite a bit about this race, pretty much across the board. All I can say is - if you don't want to show up now, that's fine. Don't come begging with your hat in your hand come 2008."

Conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt sat down with retiring Washington Post political correspondent Thomas Edsall. The audio is here and the transcript is here, which includes this Edsall quote: "And I agree that whatever you want to call it, mainstream media, presents itself as unbiased, when in fact, there are built into it, many biases, and they are overwhelmingly to the left."

Tom Bevan at RCP Blog notes that despite "the conventional wisdom that immigration was dead until at least after the November election" the Republicans have come to the conclusion that security-first immigration measures are critical to their reelection prospects this year." Bevan looks at the success of targeted non-comprehensive immigration bills and concludes: "The fact is, amnesty is a dirty word, and House Republicans have done a good job of framing "comprehensive reform" as amnesty, and also of linking illegal immigration to concerns about national security."

Kausfiles asks how "immigration soft-liners" can simultaneously claim a wall won't work while complaining about labor shortages due to current increased enforcement. Right Wing News reports on a immigration conference call with Reps. Roy Blunt (R-MO), Dan Lungren (R-CA) and Ed Royce (R-CA) in order to talk about illegal immigration.

Andrew Sullivan's surveys Iranian Pres. Mahmoud Ahamedinejad recent p.r. success and concludes: "And there is a chilling slickness to him that is as disturbing as it is obviously formidable. The way he deflected questions always back toward the U.S., the way he skillfully used every awkward moment to pivot to the themes his domestic and international audience want to hear, the very image of the informal, mild-mannered, quiet-spoken, constantly smiling serenity: all these represent a very, very capable politician. There is a complete self-assurance to him that suggests he can neither be trusted as a diplomatic partner nor under-estimated as a global foe."

Extreme Mortman noticed some similarities between Hugo Chavez's Pres. Bush as devil rhetoric and Albert Brooks line as Aaron Altman in "Broadcast News:"

I've never seen you like this about anyone, so please don't take it wrong when I tell you that I believe that Tom, while a very nice guy, is the Devil. What do you think the Devil is going to look like if he's around? Nobody is going to be taken in if he has a long, red, pointy tail. No, I'm semi-serious here. He will look attractive and he will be nice and helpful and he will get a job where he influences a great God-fearing nation and he will never do an evil thing ... he will just bit by little bit lower standards where they are important. Just coax along flash over substance ... Just a tiny bit. And he will talk about all of us really being salesmen. And he'll get all the great women.

Blogometer Update

Politics of Terror: Iran So Far Away?

Setting The Stage

   Based on recent events, the keen eyes and ears of the blogosphere are perceiving glaringly subtle signs pointing to imminent war.

   Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo sees the inevitable strike on Iran.  "The one piece of data that makes me think they're really going to try it ... is the news that Don Rumsfeld has apparently put Abram Shulsky in charge of a new DOD outfit ... to stovepipe bogus Iran intel."

   Matthew Yglesias adds to Marshall, claiming an anonymous source in the Defense Department tipped him to a sinister game plan afoot in VP Dick Cheney's office:

According to this person, the DOD has (naturally) been doing some analysis on airstrikes against Iran.  The upshot of the analysis was that conventional bombardment would degrade the Iranian nuclear program by about 50 percent.  By contrast, if the arsenal included small nuclear weapons, we could get up to about 80 percent destroying.  In response to this, persons inside the Office of the Vice President took the view that we could use the nukes -- in other words, launch an unprovoked nuclear first strike against Iran -- and then simply deny that we'd done so.  Detectable radiation in the area of the bombed sites would be attributed to the fact that they were, after all, nuclear facilities we'd just hit.

   Think Progress has more, having caught the CNN appearance on Monday of USAF Col. Sam Gardiner (Ret.) in which he starkly detailed "military operations inside Iran right now.  The evidence is overwhelming."  Ominously, Gardiner stated that "the plan has gone to the White House.  That's not normal planning.  When the plan goes to the White House, that means we've gone to a different state."

   And Fred Kaplan at Slate recalls Time's recent cover story: "A 'prepare to deploy' order has been sent out to U.S. Navy submarines, an Aegis-class cruiser, two minesweepers, and two mine-hunting ships.  The chief of naval operations, the nation's top admiral, has ordered a fresh look at contingency plans for blockading Iran's oil ports."

Future Echoes

   If it all sounds uncomfortably reminiscent of the buildup to Iraq, Ari Berman at The Nation feels your pain:

Intelligence experts and counter-terrorism officials say hawkish Republicans are exaggerating the state of Iran's nuclear program and support for terrorism.  The International Atomic Energy Agency, in particular, said a report by House Republicans contained "erroneous, misleading and unsubstantiated information." ... And once again, President Bush is addressing the UN General Assembly, calling for sanctions.  "Iran must abandon its nuclear weapon ambitions," Bush said today.

   He additionally quotes Warren P. Strobel and John Walcott in a McClatchy Washington Bureau article: "'The [IAEA] dispute was a virtual rerun of the months before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq,'" and, "Once again, the offices of Cheney and Rumsfeld are 'receiving a stream of questionable information that originates with Iranian exiles.'"

   Kevin Drum at The Washington Monthly bluntly surmises, "The administration's actions seem to have been carefully calculated at every step to leave no alternative to a military strike."

Payoff?

   Inevitably, thoughts turn to the political implications of these shadowy developments.  Reed Hundt at TPMCafe feels that "it's fairly clear that air strikes on Iran would stun most Democratic candidates into speechlessness."  Ben Adler at The American Prospect's Tapped observes, "This catches Democrats in quite a bind.  They want to keep the focus on Iraq for the midterms.  At the same time, as focus on Iran grows, they will be caught in a 2002 redux: to acquiesce to aggressive action or risk being painted as dovish."  Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) at Huffington Post urges a fierce focus on diplomacy to avoid Iraq II: Iranian Boogaloo: "The options are clear: We can use all of the economic and diplomatic power of the U.S. - including linkage - to stop Ahmadinejad's nuclear weapons program.  Or we can 'bow down and surrender.'"

   Whatever the denouement of this latest act in the theater of the Middle East, hopelessness is setting in.  Marshall at TPM: "[Events] tells me that fundamentally Condi Rice is just window-dressing, like her predecessor Colin Powell, that the Cheney-Rumsfeld Axis remains in place and in charge and that we'll probably be at war with Iran before too long unless someone can stop them."

   And Yglesias--with the horrifying thought of "an unprovoked nuclear first strike against Iran" in mind--rues, "It's a sobering reminder that we have genuine lunatics operating in the highest councils of government at the moment."

Blogometer Update

TORTURE POLITICS: Torture In & Of Itself

   A startling event happened yesterday on Capitol Hill as the House Judiciary Committee first rejected, then approved, the White House "torture" bill.

   Upon hearing the news of the initial rejection, Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo intoned, "Defeat breeds more defeat."  Justin Rood at TPMmuckracker reported on it as well, noting presciently that negotations were continuing between the White House and Congress.

   Then all of a sudden House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) announced that the Committee had "changed its mind."  Raw Story had an account of the "flip-flop" excerpted from the subscription-only Congressional Quarterly:

[The] article explains that "arm-twisting by top GOP leaders" apparently led to a change of heart by Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), who had earlier voted against the bill. Additional votes in favor of the bill were cast by two GOP representatives who were absent from the first tally.

TORTURE POLITICS II: For It Before He Was Against Its Opposite

   Michael Crowley at The Plank looks at a revealing bumble by Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA).  Westmoreland appeared at a local luncheon and somehow the issue of torture was wrangled up.  Per the Ledger-Enquirer:

On Tuesday, the Grantville Republican told a Douglas County Chamber of Commerce luncheon that he "voted for torture" and that "we need to get information out of these people the best way we can," the Douglas County Sentinel reported.

   The next day, Westmoreland rued to the Associated Press, "Maybe I shouldn't have said I voted for torture.  I should have said I voted against the anti-torture bill."  Fair enough.  But when the AP got him to talk further about his vote last year--which was on an amendment reaffirming US commitment to a UN anti-torture convention in which he was one of 8 to oppose versus 415 for--he said he felt the definition of torture was "too vague" and that he was unsure if the Geneva Convention applied.  Westmoreland kept sharing his peculiar take:

Pressed on whether that means he supports torture, he said, "What's torture?   Torture is many things to many people ... people have different breaking points." ... Asked whether he would support using electric shocks, he said, "Electric shocks are given to people during initiations to different clubs ... Is that torture?  I don't know."

   Crowley sums up it all up, saying, "So he's not pro-torture, evidently--just anti-anti-torture."  Reader CS helps Crowley out with some Westmoreland gems, like his "10 Commandments" Colbert moment (vid here) and a brazen act of unoriginality as detailed earlier at The Plank.

9/21: More Trouble Than It's Worth?

A trio of SEN stories (MN, MI, and NJ) beg the question, how often do online efforts end up hurting a candidate more than helping them? In MN, Hennepin Co. Atty. Amy Klobuchar (D) faces at least 1 day of bad press after a sympathetic blogger forwarded the Klobuchar campaign a possibly illegally obtained copy of Rep. Mark Kennedy's (R-06) yet unreleased TV ad. In MI, righty bloggers are asking whether Oakland Co. Sheriff Mike Bouchard (R) really needs to post every little thing that happens to him online. And in NJ, state Sen. Tom Kean's (R) spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker was caught posting pseudonymous comments on a lefty blog. Perhaps it's due to the novelty of the medium. But considering how unproven the benefits of online activism are, the question is at least worth asking the question: Are possible online troubles, really worth the real world payoffs?

The Club for Growth notes Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D) received a big goose egg score in the Club's 2005 rating of Congress" and celebrates Charlie Cook's assertion that the race "could be the upset of the year."

Meanwhile National Review Online's Kathryn Jean Lopez looks at Oakland Co. Sheriff Mike Bouchard's (R) posting of video showing Bouchard at the site of a crashed burning truck and writes: "What the heck is the point of putting up a video of a burning truck, and a sheriff candidate standing on the sideline? This is exactly what is up on Mike Bouchard's website. I assume he wasn't equipped to put out the fire. But...just, what's the point? Just because the Internet exists, doesn't mean you need to post things to it all the time."

Finally, RedState has video of Bouchard's latest television ad and hopes: "An Anti-Incumbent Mood Will Help Mike Bouchard."

Kevin Aylward at Wizbang is happy Hennepin Co. Atty. Amy Klobuchar (D) was forced to fire spokeswoman Tara McGuinness for viewing a possibly illegally obtained ad from Rep. Mark Kennedy's (R-06) campaign. But Aylwad wants to know why Klobuchar waited five days to go public with the information. Kennedy v. The Machine guesses: "In the 5 days that have passed since Klobuchar first learned of her senior staffer's stealing of information, any web caches and traces on Klobuchar computers could have been scrubbed. Wizbang also has doubts about lefty blogger Blanked Out's explanation of his possible federal crime.

Blue Jersey has caught state Sen. Tom Kean's (R) spokeswoman, Jill Hazelbaker, posting "several troll comments" on their website's comment boards. BJ matched up Hazelbaker's IP address to BJ commenters "usedtobeblue" and "cleanupnj." BJ concludes: "Jill - your campaign has been exposed. You're nothing but a bunch of liars, and sadly, you can't even do that well."

Andrew Sullivan excerpts Brendan Nyhan's 9/20 contribution to Time's Political Bite

Last Wednesday, controversy broke out when I slammed two liberal blogs for using an airline employee's suicide after 9/11 to take a cheap shot at President Bush. My post, which initially contained a minor factual error, prompted one of the bloggers, Atrios (aka Duncan Black), to label me the "wanker of the day" and to call on TAP editors to "rethink things a bit." Hundreds of Atrios readers filled the Prospect's comment boards with vitriol. In an email Friday morning, Sam Rosenfeld, the magazine's online editor, asked that I focus my blogging on conservative targets. ... I refused and terminated the relationship.

Why was I asked to slant my work to the liberal party line? In an email statement, TAP editor Michael Tomasky said that "[t]he Prospect is hardly averse to criticizing liberal verities" and that the magazine had no problem with my initial posts criticizing liberals, but "there were a few posts in succession that struck us as either inaccurate or an effort to draw equivalencies where none existed. The Prospect has always opposed a 'pox on both houses' posture, and that's what we came to believe you were doing."

Sullivan comments: "Sorry, Michael, but that's pathetic. The blog partisanship on the right is often depressing - and boy would I have been fired long ago if I had ever been blogging on a "conservative" site. But the politburo on the left is no better. And to think we once believed the blogosphere could liberate independent thought. Yeah, right."

Over at his own blog, Nyhan has a thorough rundown of other blogger reaction to the episode, including a link to Hit and Run's Matt Welch's very similar experience with TAP.

Lefty bloggers seized on the latest New York Times poll showing Pres. Bush's approval rating at 37% and Dems leading GOPers 50%-35% in a generic matchup. Greg Sargent at TPM Cafe notes: "The rub in this poll is that it was completed later than other recent ones showing a slight rise in Bush's numbers, suggesting that whatever rise he garnered from Sept. 11 may have worn off."

Jonathan Singer at MyDD highlights: "When asked if they can remember a significant action taken by Congress in the last year, more than two-thirds of Americans responded "nothing." Unsurprisingly, then, 64 percent of Americans say that the current Congress has achieved less over the last two years than previous Congresses -- the highest that number has been since CBS/NYT began asking the question in 1994."

Finally, Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly looks at the mood of those polled: "Apparently, 14% of voters approve of their own congressman's job but nonetheless don't think he or she deserves reelection. Now that's a crowd in a nasty mood."

Chris Bowers at MyDD looks at how OH-02 was a longshot in '05 but is considered competitive now and writes: "I have to believe that one of the main reasons that OH-02 is honestly close in 2006 is because the netroots threw so much into it in 2005. We helped bring an anti-Bush message into OH-02, and it is sticking. We helped bring new activist excitement into OH-02, and it is sticking." Bowers then looks at how similar longshot candidacies are panning out and concludes: "There is something else about these longshot challenges that I miss in 2006 now that we are really getting down to brass tacks: the Hackett challenge in the summer of 2005 was really, really fun.

Right Wing News reports that the Rightroots 15-day challenge got off to a slow start until Lorie Byrd had a brilliant idea: "We'd do a blog burst and invite people all across the blogosphere to link to Righroots on Friday of last week." RWN is happy to report the idea worked and all of their candidates hit their donation goals. The total raised during the drive: $50,250.12.

Robert Bluey at Right Angle Blog ads: "Coming out on top with 205 donations was Diana Irey, running against Rep. John Murtha in Pennsylvania's 12th District. Since August 1, when Rightroots debuted, Irey has raised more than $14,000, a significant accomplishment."

Lefty bloggers supporting cable exec Ned Lamont (D) are all linking to a new GQprofile of Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT). Progressive activist Jane Hamsher at firedoglake describes it as "absolutely devastating for Lieberman." TPM Cafe's Andrew Golis' favorite snippet includes:

Joe grabs his [driver's] hand and embraces him in a full-on man-clench for the cameras, as though Derosier were a faithful supporter who drove out to the mouth of the Norwalk River just because he's eager to hear more about Joe's support for bike trails. I turn to the young staffer next to me and say, "Wait, that's his driver he just embraced!" She shrugs like, No [excrement], you idiot, that's how this works. And she's right. This event might as well be taking place on a soundstage. All that matters is that the manufactured support looks real on the evening news tonight and in the paper tomorrow.

The unofficial Lamont Blog has many more highlights and audio from author Ken Cain's appearance on Colin McEnroe's radio show.

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas links to Commercial Appeal reports of emails "to and from the office of Chattanooga's city stormwater director showing" ex-Chattanooga Mayor Bob Corker (R) issued a letter of intent, without prior approval from the Chattanooga City Council as required by law, destroying a conservation easement so that he could personally benefit from a real estate transaction involving Wal-Mart. Markos writes: "Talk about the "perfect" toxic GOP stew. We have 1) destruction of nature reserve, 2) to benefit Wal-Mart, and 3) line his own pockets to the tune of $4.7 million. And new emails have been revealed proving the Corker administration knew about the wrongdoing."

From Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) campaign rally for ex-Navy sec. James Webb (D) Raising Kaine blogger and Webb Netroots Coordinator Lowell Feld reported the event was "awesome" and was "attended by hundreds of people" including "Alexandria Mayor Bill Euille, Congressman Jim Moran, former Congresswoman Leslie Byrne, Del. Donald McEachin, Del. David Englin, and many others."

Highlights from "the best, most powerful speech" Feld has ever herd Webb give include:

• On the subject of language, Jim noted that "words can be misused" to "tear us apart" rather than to enlighten or bring us together. Unfortunately, the current crop of Bush/Allen Republicans give us "high sounding rhetoric that doesn't deliver results."
• Jim asked, pointedly, "what is this fiction in my life" that George Allen keeps referring to? Webb admitted that, yes, he is a writer, and yes, he loves the power of words. He also noted that his life had been anything but fictional, having started working at 12 (?) years old, having fought in Vietnam, etc. So what is George Allen talking about?
• What do we need to do at this point? First, we need to end the war in Iraq. All Bush, Allen et al. talk about is how we should "stay the course." But every course has a finish line. "Where's the finish line" in this, Webb asked?
• Second, we need to "reinstitute fairness in our economic system." Jim talked about how, today, corporate profits are at their highest point ever as a percent of the economy, while wages and salaries are at their lowest. And, he declared, "there's something wrong with that!"
• Third, we need to rein in this Administration, which "has run roughshod over the Congress since 9/11." We need to "stand up and protect our constitution."

Obama declared he was "here for one primary reason; I need some help in the U.S. Senate!" Obama went on: "With Jim Webb ... we've got "someone we call can be proud of." With Jim Webb, we've got a man whose "heroism is unquestioned." With Jim Webb, we've got a man who has "served in government at every level," who has been a "teacher," a "civic leader," and a father. And with Jim Webb, we've got a man who fits the statement, "we like our warriors to be scholars and intellectuals as well."

Later Webb appeared on Hardball where TurnVirginiaBlue at Raising Kaine reports Webb "aid all of the press on Allen's ethnicity is *not relevant*, refused to answer questions on it and got Matthews to ask an intelligent question on national security and foreign policy and the mistakes on Iraq."

Still focusing on Allen anti-Semitism, DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas asks: "Okay. You are playing to the racist crowd. You, yourself, are racist. Someone points out you have a Jewish ancestor. You are outraged! What an insult! Except it's true. And your bizarre reaction has raised eyebrows. So your campaign issues a statement acknowledging that you have Jewish blood and that it's actually not a bad thing. So you fear losing the respect of your racist base pals. How do you react? ... Apparently, if you're George Allen, you insult the Jews." Kos then quotes Allen referring to his heritage: "I still had a ham sandwich for lunch. And my mother made great pork chops."

National Review Online's Mona Charen (who was critical of Allen's Jewish question handling before) was moved by 9/21's Washington Post article featuring an interview with Allen's mother Etty: "It seems that Etty Allen disclosed her Jewish ancestry to her son George only last month. Further, and this sheds light on Allen's flustered response to the reporter's question the other day, she swore him to secrecy. No fair person could possibly judge George Allen harshly in light of this fuller picture."

Meanwhile pro-Allen blogs are in full attack mode. Lines of attack include:

• The A-Team: "Jim Webb was, by all accounts, an excellent platoon leader. ... However ... a review of Webb's inability to grasp broad geopolitical trends and understand and articulate global strategy goals begins with his ill-fated tenure as Secretary of the Navy during the Reagan Administration. ... The first example of Webb's grand strategic myopia involves Webb's unstinting advocacy for a 600 ship navy."
• After noting that Webb criticized Wal-Mart but disclosed owning Wal-Mart stock in 2005, AllenHQ remarks: "Capitalism works for Jim Webb, but he doesn't work for capitalism. Jim Webb and the Democratic Party would try to pull up the ladder on the consumers of Virginia for whom Wal-mart saves millions of dollars."
• The A-Team: "You absolutely must watch the video of Jim Webb's appearance on "Hardball" on Wednesday night. Chris Matthews actually asked him about his paid bloggers, but characteristically, Webb refused to answer the question. In fact, he has a great whiny response for Matthews."
• AllenHQ: "Jewish Congressional Leaders Blast Pattern of Anti-Jewish Ploys by the Webb Campaign."
• The A-Team: "Any doubt that the Nutroots Webbsters weren't the ones peddling for someone to ask the question about George Allen's religious ancestry can be cast aside by this admission."

Not all on the right had kind things to say about the incumbent Sen. Bull Dog Pundit at Ankle Biting Pundits writes: "Every day it's looking more and more like ... George Allen is simply not ready for prime time."

National Review Online's Greg Pollowitz writes that Sen. email sources report ex-NY mayor Rudy Giuliani "will visit Seattle in October to campaign and fundraise for" ex-Safeco CEO Mike McGavick (R).

Chris Bowers at MyDD sees two ways solve the "diversity problem of the Clinton blogger lunch." Bowers first articulates a "type of blogger affirmative action in order to make sure that a more diverse range of people had the privilege of having lunch with President Clinton." The second view Chris forwards "is not who was invited, but the problem is that the leadership of the progressive blogosphere is itself not very diverse." Bowers then writes: "As someone who has spent a long time studying the demographics of the netroots and as someone who rather immodestly considers himself a leader in the blogosphere, I side quite strongly with the second view. ... The solution has to be ... to increase diversity within the leadership of the progressive blogosphere"

Bowers then offers six things progressive bloggers can do to increase diversity:

• 1. Diversified linking patterns. Linking is indeed a type of institution within the blogosphere, and as such it is an area where positive steps can be directly taken, and quantified, toward achieving more diversity.
• 2. Multi-issue and multi-writer blogs can individually take steps toward diversifying their guest posters and subject content.
• 3. What few formal institutions we have, such as Yearly Kos, can indeed take many of the positive steps used in other fields, such as affirmative action. Working toward achieving greater diversity on panels at Yearly Kos next year, both in terms of subject matter and who is on the panels, would certainly be a good idea.
• 4. Increased trust online. ... A lot of us have smartest kid in the class syndrome, where we are more eager to demonstrate why another blogger is wrong than we are toward giving the benefit of the doubt to our fellow progressive bloggers. ... The blogosphere, for all its earnestness and meritocracy, is not a very good place for socializing, and can easily lead to a lack of trust and to a complete breakdown in productive discussion and / or action.
• 5. People who are blogosphere leaders need to recognize themselves as such, and act accordingly.
• 6. Other bloggers should not throw all of their problems online at the feet of a so-called "A-list." It isn't the fault of a so-called "A-list" that your traffic isn't high. ... It isn't the fault of the "A-list" that you are not a full-time blogger. It isn't the fault of the "A-list" that you are not a leader in your chosen blogging niche. In a few cases, it isn't the fault of the "A-list" that you are just a [procreating donkey butt], an incompetent, or a complete lunatic that most people don't want to associate with.

Matthew Yglesias loves Iranian Pres. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's "sweet hipster style." Yglesias writes: "It all starts with a beard not unlike the one I and many of my twentysomething male friends sport. But it goes deeper. The man went without a tie to address the UN General Assembly. And I was in a bar where the TV was showing his interview with Anderson Cooper (it's DC, these things happen) and while there was no sound, he certainly looked witty and charming. There was also this clip of him walking down some hallway shooting the shit with Kofi Annan. It's like diplomacy! Bush should try it."

9/20: Asymmetric Warfare?

As a fan of blogs, the Blogometer is loathe to compare them to terrorists. But both seem to share at least one strategic similarity: asymmetric attacks. Bloggers can strike campaigns and candidates with bitter and churlish attacks that the candidates they support could never dream of getting away with. When the attacked candidates strike back at the bloggers, the bloggers favored candidates can then feign ignorance or claim no control over what their blogger supporters do. The best example of this is cable exec Ned Lamont's (D) "I don't know anything about the blogs. I'm not responsible for those. I have no comment on them," response after firedoglake blogger Jane Hamsher posted pictures of Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) in blackface. As VA SEN sinks further and further down into the gutter, will either candidate call on their blogger allies to clean up their acts, or will they take the "blogger who?" Lamont route?

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas weighed into the race between Sen. George Allen (R) and ex-Navy sec James Webb (D) with 5 front-page stories relating to Allen's Jewish ancestry exchange with WUSA television personality Peggy Fox. Highlights include:

• Post I: So we've established that Allen is a racist. But apparently, he's got something against Jews as well.
• Post II: "Allen accused the moderator of insulting him by suggesting he had Jewish blood. That can only mean one of two things: 1) he's an anti-Jewish bigot, or 2) he's afraid he'll lose the bubba vote if people think he's a Jew. And neither of those two speak well of the man.
• Post III: "Again, the issue isn't whether Allen has Jewish blood or not. It's the fact that Allen seems to have a problem with it."
• Post IV: "[the Allen campaign] seriously want us to believe that Allen never knew why his grandfather was thrown in a concentration camp? Weird. Still, this might've worked had he said this in the debate, rather than claiming that a question about his Jewish ancestry was an insult. And by the way, this statement is clear proof that this issue was starting to hurt.
• Post V: "Allen sought [the Council of Concerned Conservatives] out, posed for that picture to be included in their filthy, racist newsletter. Throw in the noose, the Confederate flags, the vicious reaction at the suggestion that he might be part Jewish, and a pattern emerges. Is this what his parents warned him about? If so, they did their job. It's their son who refused to heed their lessons.

Markos wasn't the only left blogger hitting Allen with anti-Semitism charges:

• M.J. Rosenberg at TPM Cafe: "Is George Allen an Anti-Semite or Just a Moron?"
• Isaac Chotiner at TNR: "It seemed to me that Allen had a visceral revulsion to being associated with Judaism. The reason for this may be unclear, but given everything we know about Allen, the whole episode just feels unseemly."
• Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo: "it really does strain credulity to believe that the idea that he might be Jewish never crossed his mind."

Marshall rebuts Allen campaign claims that Webb sent out anti-Semitic fliers against ex-telecom lobbyist Harris Miller (D), noting that Miller does not have an obviously jewish name, and nothing on the fliers would suggest he was.

Trying to stay on the lighter side, Instapundit jokes: "So if George Allen's mother is from Tunisia, doesn't that make him the African-American candidate in the Virginia Senate race?" From there, righty reaction to Allen's debate performance was mixed:

• Rich Lowry at National Review Online: "Having now watched the video, I think his reaction to that question yesterday was almost pitch perfect...
• Mona Charen at National Review Online: "Actually Rich, I didn't think so at all. He gave the impression that there was something to hide. ... his huffing and puffing about the question; his veiled suggestion that there was something unseemly about asking it; and his reluctance to discuss his own background did not become him."
• Kathryn Jean Lopez at National Review Online: " It just comes off as ... well, off. Do I think that means he's anti-Semitic? No. I think he's off his game - Macaca hangover continued."
• James Joyner at Outside the Beltway: "Allen's handling of this and the Macaca flap have been inept for someone so experienced in high office ... That [Dick] Wadhams has repeatedly flubbed his job of spin control, though, is inexcusable. He's supposed to be a dispassionate manager who coolly assesses the situation and diffuses it. Instead, he repeatedly rubs salt in the wound. It's probably too late for firing him to do any good but it couldn't hurt.

Some on the right took lefty fascination with the issue as an opportunity to call on Webb to show some leadership:

• Dean Barnett at Townhall.com: "It is, however, worth noting the netroots' unseemly comfort with anti-Semitism has been a matter of much conversation in the past. I do believe the time has come for the Webb campaign to officially weigh in on this matter."
• Greg Pollowitz at National Review Online: "If Webb's campaign team believes these things, does Jim Webb? The easy way to end this it to have Jim Webb come out and answer two questions, 1. is George Allen a racist? and 2., Do you think George Allen is anti-Semitic?"
• Paul Mirengoff at Power Line: "Which brings us back to Webb himself. He tries to keep his prints off the hit job of his netroots guy ... But what are Webb's "ideas" about the nauseating question Allen was asked and about Allen's response? The James Webb who earned the broad respect I mentioned at the beginning of this post would denounce questions about the religion of a candidates forbears and make it clear that the views of his netroots guy decidedly are not his views.

National Review Online's Rich Lowry forwarded the thoughts of "an Allen guy" on the current state of the race:

"After the macaca controversy, the campaign was in a defensive mode, probably for too long." After the incident, Allen's support cratered among African-Americans, to 70-something% for Webb to 5% for Allen. This hurt because Allen had gotten 20% of the African-American vote in the past. ... Also, there are members of the military who are suffering from Iraq-fatigue, and Bush's numbers have been down. Webb has been climbing based on "the president's unfavorables and people opposed to the war and people who don't know him." ... There are numbers that indicate Webb's favorables are down and his numbers in Northern Virginia have dipped. His strongest support comes from "women and suburban women," so the Naval Academy attack was obviously aimed at that constituency. "Webb was getting a free ride...Instead of us being on defense, it's time for him to be held accountable, and there'll be more."

The A-Team tries to put Webb on the defensive claiming "Webb himself approved and rubber-stamped the anti-Semitic comic against" against his Dem primary opponent. The A-Team finishes: "This is a problem deep within the "progressive" wing of the Democratic Party, and the longer liberals ignore it the more they risk a nuance from becoming a serious cancer."

Bearing Drift has post-debate audio from interviews with: Allen, Webb, Rep. Tom Davis (R), moderator George Stephanopoulos and many more!

From IA, Caucus Cooler surveys the scene and quips: "If Marv Albert were announcing, he'd screech "Allen can't BUY a bucket."

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas celebrates ex-Dep AG Deval Patrick (D) Dem primary victory with a "Woo hoo!" Matt Stoller at MyDD adds: "Patrick is a real progressive, but he also has the base to enact progressive policies, because his campaign is predicated upon organizing and not big media and top-down policy."

Redstate has as a most read post that could either redefine the race between ex-Denver DA Bill Ritter (D) and Rep. Bob Beauprez (R-07) or could turn into nothing. If this story does get past the righty blogger echo chamber, we'll be sure to follow along.

Chris Bowers at MyDD looks at the results of five recent generic ballot poll results and notices that a 10.4% Dem lead among registered voters shrinks to 6.0% among likely voters. Bowers notes likely voter modeling is often flawed but still concludes:

Democrats must turn out in higher rates than Republicans in order for us to win this election. This requires a media strategy that targets African-Americans, since African-Americans are the ultimate Democratic-base demographic. This requires a Latino GOTV program that is not vaporware. This is going to require a field strategy that targets Democrats, not just trying to increase the vote. This requires candidates to actually say they are Democrats in their commercials. Above all else, this is going to require not ducking Iraq, since nothing is on the mind of voters, especially Democratic voters, more than Iraq.

Tom Bevan at RCP Blog looks at Rep. Nancy Johnson's (R-CT) new ad hitting state Sen. Chris Murphy (D) on national security and agrees with Michael Barone's claim that "the GOP has, once again, effectively framed the issue of national security to its advantage in the coming election."

James L. at Swing State Project looks at x-AZ Dem chair Jim Pederson (D) recent bump up in the polls and wonders: "So how, exactly, does a race...with an incumbent Senator whose approval rating has been trending upward in the last few months ... and a challenger who's been swamping the airwaves with TV ads for over five months to little noticeable effect in the polls, suddenly tighten to a five-point margin?"

James offers an explanation form The Phoenix Business Journal: "That spread is tighter than most previous polls and comes after a barrage of advertisements by Pederson faulting Kyl for failure to support a minimum wage hike and for being too cozy with oil and pharmaceutical companies."

Greg Sargent at TPM Cafe wants help identifying a man "dressed up in a costume that presumably is supposed to depict a terrorist" who travels to campaign events carrying a sign which says: "Support Ned Lamont. We do."

Over at firedoglake, Natural Born Killers producer and progressive activist Jane Hamsher takes aim at both NARAL and the AFL-CIO for their continued support of cable exec Ned Lamont (D).

Jonathan Singer at MyDD sat down with Sen. Daniel Akaka (D) ahead of 9/23's primary battle with Rep. Ed Case (D). Here is Akaka on Iraq:

• Singer: One of the issues upon which you and Rep. Case disagree most profoundly is Iraq, with your opponent more generally supporting the current administration's policies than you. What do you believe America should do in regard to Iraq?
• Akaka: I think America needs to put pressure on the Iraq government for them to try to structure themselves to govern themselves. ... I feel it's about time we begin to set limits, such as July 2007, when we will be considering withdrawing our troops, and hopefully that would put pressure on them to try to work out their government sooner than later. ... The other suggestion that I have been making was that instead of having the Defense Department there that we should also have the Commerce people as well so that we can help to develop that country commercially.

Robert B. Bluey at Right Angle Blog pumps Oakland Co. Sheriff Mike Bouchard (R) as "the GOP's most net-savvy candidate this cycle" and links to Bouchard's new YouTube appeal to help from the blogosphere.

Erick Erickson has a podcast interview with Sen. Jim Talent (R) at RedState discussing aud. Claire McCaskill (D)'s opposition to "the Terrorist Surveillance Program" and "military trials of terrorists" as well as her concern "that terrorists be treated sweetly than concerned that Americans be secure."

Although "there really is no political value in this," Erick Erickson at RedState can't help but post contrasting images of the same treas. Bob Casey (D) picture; one from a commercial where Casey has two eyebrows, and the original where Casey has one.

On the left, Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo notes that the same Vote Vets ad that ran against Sen. George Allen (R-VA) will also be used against Sen. Rick Santorum (R). TPM Muckraker's Justin Rood notes that those ads have a low truthiness value.

Conservative talk-show host Hugh Hewitt has a transcript of his interview with Sen. maj leader Bill Frist (R-TN), including Frist's thoughts on judicial confirmations, possible passage of detainee treatment legislation, and Dem efforts to block NSA surveillance of al Qaeda.

John McIntyre at RCP Blog, looks at how Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) position on detainee treatment is playing with the GOP base and argues: "If John McCain still wants to be President - and if he wants to win the Presidency running as a Republican - then he pretty quickly needs to start picking fights with Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer and not President Bush. If McCain is running for President as an Independent, then he's following a perfect strategy." Late McIntyre posts a reader email speculating that McCain may be seeking to harm the GOP this fall, thus making the base more desperate and willing to accept him as a nominee come '08.

The Caucus Cooler has similar thoughts: "Amongst I[ndependent]s, we'd imagine McCain is continuing to build on his already high popularity- but he's going to have to get over his biggest hurdle- the Republican Primary schedule - before he can visit with them. You can see the animosity building in the blogosphere from the "freepers" and Red State folks who have been merciless in attacking McCain."

Over at TAPPED, Michael Tomasky looks at leftyblogger worries over liberal defections to McCain and counsels patience: "Just remember. Every time McCain does something that Richard Cohen likes, his chances of winning the GOP nomination decrease. So, rather than get upset when center-libs throw themselves at McCain, you folks ought to rejoice, because every instance of such makes it that much less likely that the R's most formidable man will gain his party's support."

TAPPED's Ezra Klein isn't buying ex-VA Gov. Mark Warner's pro-tax cut aspiration dodge. Klein argues that support for Pres. Bush's tax cuts has always been low, and have gotten less popular as time has gone on. Klein concludes: "So while Warner's genial rejection of class warfare may play well on The Washington Post op-ed page, there's no reason to believe it's a good strategy, and lord knows it's terrible policy, particularly in an era when the federal treasury is starved for revenue and Democrats actually want to enact some social programs."

Townhall.com's Mary Katherine Ham pokes fun at Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) "parading around the Northeast" and ex-Sec/State Colin Powell's "moral" "preening" over detainee treatment and links to a collection of YouTube videos she believes are similar to the interrogation methods the administration is currently using. Ham concludes: "All right, all right, I jest, but there's a "larger truth" here. If the majority of interrogation techniques McCain and Co. are threatening will put us on the same moral plane as our enemies can be found in You Tube videos of drunk college students, that argument becomes rather ridiculous."

Meanwhile, Andrew Sullivan links to a decidedly unfunny YouTube dramatization of "waterboarding" form USA networks "The 4400." Later Sullivan forwards a reader's thoughts on Christians and the question of torture:

I haven't dug around in my Bible in a long time, but I thought I remembered that a few of the apostles (Peter, Andrew, maybe others?) died from torture. And of course, Jesus was placed in a "stress position" for most of a Friday afternoon. It's hard to believe that so-called Christians will follow an administration that seems hell-bent on legalizing torture.

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas looks at Sen. Hillary Clinton's (D-NY) $1 million gift to the DSCC and writes: "Sounds impressive, but compared to her colleagues, it comes up woefully short. ... Clinton currently has over $22 million in the bank without a serious opponent this November. ... But of the Senate's presidential aspirants, none is as cheap and miserly as Evan Bayh. Amount given to the DSCC: $0. Cash on Hand: $10,363,520. His next election is not until 2010." Kos goes on to print a table of Sen. Dem. giving to the DSCC and current CoH:

          $$ to DSCC   $$ CoH  Next election
Carper:        100     2,500      2006
Dodd:          100     1,880      2010
Dorgan:        100       700      2010
Harkin:         10       872      2008
Inouye:        300       710      2010
Jeffords:      225       830      Retiring
Lautenberg:     20       510      2008
Leahy:          75       922      2010
Levin:         200       353      2008
Lieberman:      15     3,500      No longer Dem
Murray:         50     1,000      2010
Obama:         150       746      2010
Jack Reed:      12     1,000      2008
Harry Reid:    500       600      2010
Rockfeller:    150       920      2008
Sarbanes        25        80      Retiring
Wyden:         769     1,100      2010

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Not So Concise After All

After speaking with "a local group of Democratic activists" The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum revisits his earlier conclusion that the "Democratic Party has actually achieved a fairly substantial consensus about what our foreign policy should look like in the age of terror." Drum found that there was general agreement on almost everything but one issue:

That issue, of course, is Iraq. As I said in my earlier post, "Nearly everyone in Democratic circles agrees that the war in Iraq was a mistake, though there's still a fair amount of disagreement about what to do about this now." However, if the people I talked to last night are right, that's a wild understatement. These are the folks who walk precincts, participate in party conventions, and help write position statements, and what they told me is that party activists in California are practically at war with each other over the question of whether we should withdraw from Iraq "immediately" or merely "as soon as we can." It blots out nearly everything else.

This is only one data point, and it's from a single state. I don't know how widely true it is. But it's discouraging anyway, if for no other reason than that it's so pointless. If we really do have a rough consensus on what our foreign policy should look like, it's nuts to tear ourselves apart over an issue that we have no control over in any case.

LEST WE FORGET: Capitalism Strikes Again

Andrew Sullivan links to comedian Greg Gutfeld's new online store selling effigies of Pope Benedict XVI "made from a high-tech blend of natural and synthetic fibers guaranteed to be as slow and steady burning as our customers' outrage." Sullivan writes: "What are you waiting for? Burn the Pope! In my land of birth, it's a very old tradition. Why not in the Middle East?"

Blogometer Update II

NY 20: The Fog Of War Ads

   TPM Cafe's Greg Sargent tries to get his head around "one of the strangest political ads" he's seen, issued by incumbent Rep. John Sweeney's camp.  (Vid's here.)  He writes:

It stars a mother whose son died serving in Iraq who's nonetheless endorsing the pro-war Sweeney.  She says she told Sweeney that her dead 21-year-old son had been traveling in Iraq in a vehicle without proper protection.  Sweeney said he would "help."  The mom concludes: "I don't believe in the war.  But I do believe in our soldiers.  And John Sweeney.  For the sake of every mother who's child still serves."  It's an intriguing gamble.  The Sweeney campaign seems to be willing to remind voters about the war he voted for and supports -- in hopes of persuading voters not to hold him accountable for it.

The Gold Star mom featured in the ad, Kathy Brown, says she met Sweeney on the day she buried her son, Pfc. Nathan Brown.  According to WNYT, Kathy Brown had this to say of her endorsement of Sweeney:

Sweeney was the only politician who answered her calls and offered to help after her son's body came home.  "He told me, 'I voted for this war.  I'm sorry.  I'm one of them men that sent your son off to war and that killed him,'" Brown recalled. ... She says her son was riding in an unarmored truck when he was killed and that Sweeney hit the ground running with the issue to try to make sure it didn't happen to another soldier. ... Brown acknowledges her support for Sweeney may seem awkward to some but thinks her son would approve.

Sweeney's provocative ad will surely garner attention in what's turning out to be a tough re-election battle against Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand.

CA 11: Unmandering The Gerry

   James Joyner at Outside the Beltway discusses an ambitious project jump-started by the Sunlight Foundation that promises a new "citizen journalist" approach to campaign coverage,starting with Cali's contentious 11th District.  Joyner quotes The Examiner's Dan Gillmor:

First: Working with citizens in the district, we hope to create an online repository of every scrap of information about the candidates, issues and campaign. ... Second: We will pick an element of this data collection - the advertising - and add value through further reporting and analysis. ... Third, and most important: We will use what we learn to create a template for the 2008 election and beyond.

   Joyner likes the idea, but is resigned to the reality of Frankendistricting: "I'm less optimistic about it becoming an exemplar for other races, though, given that so few seats are actually competitive because of extreme gerrymandering and the ability of incumbents to buy their re-election through constituent service and pork barrel projects on our dime."  Commenter Triumph, then later Dan Gillmor himself, tip Joyner that Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall is already a pioneer in the endeavor.  Gillmor: "[T]he work Josh Marshall has been doing to involve citizen journalists in the reporting process is one of the inspirations for this and several other projects now in the works.  The basic notion is that the community collectively knows - and can learn - much more than any news organization."

MI 08: Now That's What I Call A "Congressional Probe"

   Rep. Mike Rogers (R) is the latest GOP politico to have his own goofiness splayed out across the Net.  This time, fortunately, Rogers was in on the gag, performing a skit at a charity fundraiser for a senior center.  Chris Bowers at MyDD has the photo (check the chili pepper boxer shorts) and--along with Michigan Liberal's matt --an amusing pool of reader-submitted captions.  Some of the better ones:

• Some say Representative Mike Rogers has his head up his ass.  Where will he put it next?  (Reece)


• Those WMDs must be somewhere!  (HoosierJosh )


• "Thank you sir, may I have another?"  (Hy Dudgeon)


• Republicans: Your Body is Our Body.  (devoshead)

   Might the photo chili... er, chill Rogers' hopes for re-election?  Dem nomine Jim Marcinkoswski sure hopes so.  Bowers says he's "facing a huge cash deficit."  Could it be any worse than publicly facing a pair of novelty underwear? 

Blogometer Update

Iraq: Green Zone Blues?

   Rajiv Chandrasekaran wrote an article in Sunday'sWashington Post with some rather meaty claims about GOP favoritism in Iraqi reconstruction gigs, specifically as directed by Coalition Provisional Authority official Jim O'Beirne.  A taste:

O'Beirne's staff posed blunt questions to some candidates about domestic politics: Did you vote for George W. Bush in 2000?  Do you support the way the president is fighting the war on terror?  Two people who sought jobs with the U.S. occupation authority said they were even asked their views on Roe v. Wade.

   Come Monday, O'Beirne defenders came out firing.  At National Review's The Corner, Ramesh Ponnuru took a broad swipe,knocking bloggers who "are happy to accept the veracity of an account that gibes so well with all of their prejudices."  Oh, by the way, Ponnuru beneath his byline: "Full disclosure note: Jim O'Beirne is a friend, as is his wife, my colleague Kate O'Beirne."

   Ponnuru in particular rued the WaPo reporter's inclusion of a photo (available here, reg-restricted) that allegedly shows US soldiers relaxing in a pool within the Baghdad Green Zone, insinuating cleverly that "O'Beirne was sending ... political appointees to cushy jobs in Iraq."  Ponnuru also vehemently defended the unnamed "'daughter of a prominent neoconservative commentator'" with no accouting background who was put in charge of Iraq's $13 billion reconstruction budget; Ponnuru disputes both claims.  He then concludes with a point-by-point rip on each of WaPo's assertions:

O'Beirne wasn't in charge of staffing the Coalition Provisional Authority; he didn't have a "staff" of his own, let alone one that could ask crudely political questions of applicants; he didn't ask anyone he interviewed about his views on Roe v. Wade (a claim that, careful readers will see, Chandrasekaran doesn't quite tie to O'Beirne); he was eager to find Arabic speakers; and he has never been deluged with job applicants who opposed the Iraq war and the Bush administration but wanted to serve in a war zone (surprise, surprise).  Much of the article recapitulates the well-known rivalry between the State Department and the Pentagon (where O'Beirne works), with some extra bitterness added by Fred Smith, a CPA official who was forced out.  Great story otherwise!

   Kathryn Jean Lopez at The Corner also chimed in with props for the again unnamed neocon's daughter: "[She] and those like her deserve better than the treatment they got in the Washington Post yesterday."

   Matthew Yglesias wasn't buying the defenses:

[M]y understanding is that life inside the Green Zone was actually fairly pleasant during the relevant period.  It also completely misses the point, however, which is simply that the CPA was being treated as something more like an extension of the Republican National Committee than a serious institution of government.  Not only did this compromise the quality and qualifications of the personnel, but it had an insidious impact on the operations of the CPA.  "They don't call it the Republican Palace for nothing" was the joke at the time.  The upshot being that the civilian side of the operation was being run with a mindset in which there was perfect overlap between the political interests of the Republican Party and with the national interests of the United States in its policy toward post-war Iraq.

   Mark Raven at TPMCafe goes Yglesias one further by identifying the unnamed woman and her neocon father: Simone Ledeen, daughter of none other than Michael Ledeen, New Republic correspondent of yellowcake infamy.

9/19: Elevation Or Degradation

On the plus side, it wasn't a blogger who injected a question from the "Twilight Zone" into 9/18's Chamber of Commerce debate between Sen. George Allen (R-VA) and ex-Navy sec James Webb (D). Nevertheless, bloggers from both sides took the bait and spun the "how Jewish is Allen" question into their over-arching storylines of the debate. For the left, the encounter was just another episode exposing Allen as a temperamental racist. For the right, it was just another example of the MSM out to get GOPers. Actual issues facing Virginians took a back seat. Blog supporters claim they offer a great opportunity for nuanced, reasoned debate, but when we look at the races they've actually affected, have blogs elevated or degraded the level of discourse in the race?

In a debate many thought would center around Iraq and terrorism, WUSA's Peggy Fox stole the show from Sen. George Allen (R) and ex-Navy sec. James Webb (D) by asking Allen about his Jewish ancestry. Lefty bloggers seized on Allen's testy response as more evidence of his temper and racism:

• Webb Netroots Coordinator Lowell Feld at Raising Kaine: "Why is George Felix Allen so ANGRY about this subject (and so many other subjects)? Because that's the real issue here; not the reporter's question, which was, at worst, a bit out of place, but George Allen's angry, almost violent reaction TO the question. ... Over and over again, George Allen has shown himself to be a bully towards women, towards minorities, towards men who wear bicycle helmets, and now towards a female reporter who dares ask him about HIS OWN HERITAGE!"
• teacherken at Raising Kaine: "Please, someone tell me asking when and how his forebears decided to cease being Jewish is "making aspersions because of their religious beliefs"? ... I think Allen's response does him more damage that "macaca."
• Not Larry Sabato: "The best debate I have ever seen. ... The debate can almost totally be summed up with one question: Is George Allen a racist? ... Allen has got to be one of the only Republicans in America who want to talk about issues right now."

Feld also live blogged the event at Raising Kaine including this exchange:

• Stephanopolous: One key difference between you and Sen. Allen.
• Webb: There are a broad number of them. Key difference is that he is comfortable with the idea that we can stay in Iraq for 20-30 years. I believe we need to get combat forces out of Iraq.
• Allen: As usual, there is no clear plan from Mr. Webb. For the most part, there is agreement.

Also on the left, reaction was still pouring in from the candidates 9/17 Meet the Press dust up. Rob at Raising Kaine looked at Allen's refusal to commit to a full six year term and asked: "A more relevant question for this year - will George Allen resign his position as U.S. Senator to campaign for another job outside of Virginia? ... Will George Allen pledge to serve even HALF of his term?" And DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas reports the MTP debate was a fundraising boon for Team Webb: "In the 24 hours since the debate, the campaign scored over $100,000 online, unsolicited. That's not including offline fundraising. The more people hear Webb, the more they see him, the more they learn about him, the more excited and engaged they become."

Righty bloggers had no love for WUSA's Peggy Fox or her Jewish heritage question. Extreme Mortman asserts she "probably wouldn't have been booed at Nuremberg." At the same time, Allen still came in for criticism for his handling of the question. Kathryn Jean Lopez at National Review Online writes: "As ridiculous as the question was, I hate to say it but Allen had a bit of a Macaca problem. But that I mean: It wasn't racism, stupid ... It was the anger. It was that Allen looked to so naturally take refuge in demeaning some kid. In this case, a local reporter. Jonathan Martin[ (go team!!)] has it right - the senator has a demeanor problem."

Allen's New Media Coordinator Jon Henke liveblogged the debate including these observations:

• 1:06p - Webb has launched into his "three America's" class warfare argument. John Edwards pegged it at "two America's" in 2004. Webb one-upped him! (Soon, Howard Dean will have an epiphany for the next Democratic campaign message: "FOUR America's!") Webb doesn't actually offer a solution, of course, except to suggest more socialism and protectionism.
• 1:22p - Asked about Wal-Mart, Jim Webb launches into a tirade against free trade and Virginia's right to work law. Protectionism. George Allen supports consumer sovereignty - the right of individuals to vote with their feet, rather than having government control the market. He also supports litigation reform.
• 1:37p - Question to Webb: what is the one key difference between you and Senator Allen? Webb claims the key difference is that Allen is comfortable with the US staying in Iraq for decades, whereas Webb wants to bail soon. And then, if we want to, he says, we can just ride back in to deal with any problems. Really? Is he advocating a second invasion of Iraq?

The A-Team also was live blogging and summed up Webb's performance this way: "Ask yourself, if "Macaca" is really the horrible slur that the Webbsters have convinced the gullible media that it is, the equivalent of the "N" word as many have claimed, would Jim Webb have used it so easily today during the debate? ... So, to boil down Jim Webb's campaign strategy: I was in Vietnam. I oppose the War in Iraq. My opponent said, "Macaca."

Following up from 9/17's MTP debate, AmSpec Blog argues Webb lied about his prescience on WMDs in Iraq. AmSpec tracked down the Washington Post article cited by Webb in the debate and notes that while Webb does make a number of good arguments against the war, he never mentions WMDs once. The A-Team also jumps in the way back machine, this time heading to 1990 noting that Webb called troop build ups in the region "a mistake" and that attacking Iraq would only compound the problem.

Back in the present day, at National Review Online Kathryn Jean Lopez notices Allen's calendar includes a conference call with reporter's on detainee treatment and instructs Allen to "Get Mad at the Torture Trio" (meaning Sens. John Warner (R), John McCain (R-AZ), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC)).

Chris Bowers at MyDD wanted to sit back and enjoy GOP infighting over detainee treatment but found himself increasingly irritated over the lack of coverage Dems were getting on the issue: "The vast majority of the opposition to Bush's policies in this, and other areas of national security, are Democrats. ... Even though Democrats form over 90% of the opposition to Bush on this, [the AP] makes it seem as though all of the opposition to Bush is coming from three Republicans. ... That just is not fair. We form the vast majority of the opposition to a piece of legislation, and the AP never quotes a single Democrat, instead portraying Republicans as the opposition to Bush."

Digby at Hullabaloo is also wary of the lack of Dem players in the detainee treatment negotiations:

I hear Joe Lieberman is running on his bipartisan credentials these days too and it's not surprising either. His definition of bipartisanship is also to take sides with John McCain in a Rovian kabuki with George Bush, follow the script, get rolled and then call it a compromise. ... George W. Bush doesn't actually compromise with Democrats and Republicans in congress have consciously governed without Democratic input for six years. ... This new definition of bipartisanship means Republicans like Joe Lieberman, John McCain and Lindsay Graham are considered the loyal opposition to a Republican president.

On the right, Bull Dog Pundit at Ankle Biting Pundits looks at the known "methods" at issue: "Long Time Standing; Temperature Extremes; and Waterboarding, and writes: "Call me a Neanderthal, a torturer, whatever. But I find absolutely nothing wrong with any of this, especially if it leads to information preventing another attack. I don't favor it just to make the person suffer, but to get information to save lives. If it affronts the dignity of someone like KSM, or anyone like him, I won't lose any sleep over it."

Bull Dog isn't ready to say if these methods violate the Geneva Conventions Article III prohibition of "Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment." Instead Bull Dog reasons: "Sorry, but I think blowing up innocent people "outrages human dignity" and is a bit more serious that "humiliating". But not to the people like John McCain, his Kato Kaelin Lindsey Graham and the rest. If some of these "techniques" constitute "torture", but it's what's required to save innocent lives, then so be it."

Chris Bowers at MyDD looks at NRCC television ad buy strategy after looking at their FEC independent expenditure filings:

In total, Republicans are adding another $1.88M of independent expenditures through these ads, bringing their total independent expenditures on TV ads / production up to around $3.6M since July 1st. The NRCC is spending 87% of their money in districts held by Republicans ... Since, by way of contrast, they have made independent, non-polling expenditures in 21 Republican held districts, the NRCC is clearly playing defense this year.

Natural Born Killers producer and progressive activist Jane Hamsher at firedoglake visits the "newly un-hacked Joe2006 blog" and isn't amused by Sen. Joe Lieberman's (I-CT) claim to have a "Bipartisan Record On Fighting Global Warming." Joe2006 cites Lieberman's efforts to pass The Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) which "would reduce U.S. global warming pollution to year 2000 levels by 2010." Hamsher wasn't buying: "But the "Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act" stands about as much chance of passing as National Kobe Day. What did pass was Dick Cheney's energy bill, which Joe obediently voted for at the behest of his GOP overlords. It should also be noted that while Joe is trying to ride Al Gore's coattails, Gore refuses to endorse Joe."

Over at DailyKos, Markos Moulitsas celebrates Lieberman's "last on the line" placement on the ballot and includes video of Lamont's new "turncoat" ad, which features cable exec. Ned Lamont (D) supporters turning the coats inside out to protest Lieberman's run as an independent after losing the Dem primary.

Alex Charyna at National Review Online loves LG Michael Steele's (R) new anti-lobbyist, but pro-puppy, ad and looks forward to "his future ad endorsing rainbows."

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas is also impressed by the Steele/puppy ad but thinks the MD Dem ad tying Steel to Pres. Bush is slick enough to work since it doesn't use the "scary music or grainy pictures" the Steele ad warned MD voters about.

Oakland Co. Sheriff Mike Bouchard (R) quizzes RedState readers: "Who's the US Senate's biggest spender? Ted Kennedy? Robert Byrd? The answer may surprise you. ... According to Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn, who keeps a running list of the cost of spending earmarks and who votes for them in his desk on the Senate floor, the Senate's biggest spender is Michigan's Debbie Stabenow." Bouchard finishes his pitch: "In the end, I won't out raise or outspend Senator Stabenow in the campaign, but I will work harder and smarter than she does. ... If you agree with me that we need a change in the US Senate, I hope you'll join me in my quest to restore fiscal sanity to Washington, DC."

Over at National Review Online Greg Pollowitz reports on Bouchard's efforts to get Stabenow to commit to the same number of debates that Stabenow asked for when she challenged Sen. Abraham in 2000.

John Hinderaker at Power Line links to a 2002 Scott W. Johnson Real Clear Politics history of partisan ineptitude by the Minneapolis Star Tribune's Minnesota Poll: "The Minnesota Poll has a long and inglorious history in Minnesota. Most famously, in 1978 the Minneapolis Tribune (as it then was) called all three major statewide races wrong by a wide margin on the basis of its Minnesota Poll."

Hinderaker notes that the poll's long history of errors always favors Dems and concludes that the most recent poll showing Hennepin Co. DA Amy Klobuchar (D) up by 24% over Rep. Mark Kennedy (R): "can only be viewed as a tactical effort by the Minneapolis Star Tribune, a staunchly Democratic newspaper, to dry up Kennedy's fundraising among people who don't know their poll's history, thereby helping to push Klobuchar's nose over the finish."

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas loves 9/18's Washington Post story on Sen. Conrad Burns (R) trip with Vonage lobbyist Frank Cavaliere to a golf tournament in Bigfork, MT. Kos writes: "Burns knows he's in a tight race. He knows this will look terrible. He knows it'll feed into the Dem narrative against him -- that's he's a corrupt SOB. And yet he still can't help himself. He's drawn to lobbyists like a moth to flame. And if a tight reelection battle can't get him to change his behavior, it'll only get worse if he's reelected."

Think Progress reports ex-VP Al Gore is now calling for "an immediate freeze on CO2 emissions" and a "complete elimination of the payroll tax" in favor of a tax on CO2 (which for editorial purposes the Blogometer has named the Federal Elimination of Carbon Act). At The Huffington Post, Donnie Fowler comments: "Lots of detractors and naysayers have turned from questioning Al Gore's powerful case that global warming is upon us to saying that he has no solutions. Well, no one can make that argument anymore."

Jason Zengerle at TNR picks up on a Political Wire report from the Tom Harkin Steak Fry in Indianola, IA that describes Sen. Barack Obama's efforts their as a "B+" that still "sure beats anything else they have to listen to on a beautiful fall day." Zengerle observes: "Even when Obama doesn't bring his A game, he's still performing at a level most presidential wannabes can only dream of."

AMERICAblog has video of Obama from a rally in Louisville, KY and leaves it at: "Wow."

Conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt has problems with 9/18's Washington Post headline "McCain's Stand On Detainees May Pose Risk For 2008 Bid: Opposition to Bush Could Alienate Republican Base." Hewitt argues: "The "base," meaning the party primary voters, separated from Senator McCain long ago. On crucial issue after crucial issue he has disappointed them: McCain-Feingold, The Gang of 14, McCain-Kennedy, and now the tribunals bill and the elections of 2006. ... The decision by the Bush Administration to "negotiate" with Senator McCain is an attempt to save the senator unnecessary embarrassment. But if Senator McCain continues to elevate himself above his party, don't expect the party to applaud."

In a later post on the same subject Hewitt finishes: "John McCain: Great American. Lousy senator. Terrible Republican."

Watching the VA SEN debate Kathryn Jean Lopez at National Review Online noticed ex-Navy sec James Webb's (D) support for MA GOV Mitt Romney's health-care plan and wonders: "That has advantages and disadvantages for Mr. Mittster down the road..."

Krempasky at Red State notes, "There aren't too many issues on which the liberal and conservative work well together. Transparency in government is one," and goes on to introduce a joint blogger effort through The Sunlight Foundation to pass S. 1508 which as DailyKos' Adam B explains would: "bring the United States Senate into the 21st century when it comes to campaign finance reporting." The Huffington Post, Captain's Quarters, Think Progress, and Wonkette are also all in on the effort to get the bill out of the Rules and Administration Committee where Adam B guesses Sens. Trent Lott (R-MS) and Mitch McConnell (R-KY) are holding it up.

Chris Bowers at MyDD celebrates the efforts of the Western Carolina New Network and Colorado bloggers as "local blogging of the highest order." Bowers continues:

I point this out because I think that local blogging is the way of the future for the progressive movement. Partially, I write think because I think that the national scene is close to tapped out: we currently reach nearly every progressive political junkie who is also a heavy user of the Internet. While there are some demographic areas where we could make more gains, in general I do not feel that there is much room for national political blogging to grow. We already reach 17% of the Democratic electorate on a fairly regular basis, and how many more progressives are there who follow news closely enough, and who use the Internet frequently enough, to increase on that number? I can't imagine it is very many.

However, I do dare to imagine a progressive movement where what is happening in Colorado and Western North Carolina happens in every region of the country. Imagine the incredible benefit to the progressive movement. We are dealing with a near total market failure for local news in the country, which gives local action such as this the potential to weld far, far more influence on a local level than blogs can ever hope to do on a national level. Local progressive blogospheres can become local news, practically. They can give proper attention to all local races, whereas on national blogs we tend to offer simple glosses. If what was happening in Colorado and North Carolina right now was happening all over, it would be a lever of power to which the right-wing would have absolutely no answer. Talk a bout being able to attack on all fronts at once.

Extreme Mortman laments the bloodying of C-SPAN's "pure, gentle, tranquil" studio by the presence of Bob Novak and David Corn. Mortman includes this exchange:

• Novak: Mr. Corn is a nasty piece of work, let me tell you that. And he was the one who really built this story up. He is in a deliciously ironic situation. He was one of the people, much more than Chris Matthews, for building this story at the outset and advising Joe Wilson which he never puts in his column. ...
• Corn: He called me a left-wing ideologue, and I have to say, with all due respect to Bob who I used to like going on Crossfire with, to be called an ideologue by Bob Novak is sort of like being called a cheat by Jack Abramoff...

Mortman quips: "By the way, David Corn's book is entitled "Hubris." I say that so I can work in this old Extreme Mortman joke: I'm proud of my circumcision. You might say I have hu-bris."

Blogometer Extra

BLOGGERS VS. MSM: Defeat Switched From Jaws Of Victory

Tom Bevan at The RCP Blog, with the help of a keen-eyed reader, uncovered a doozy of a swap at the Associated Press on Friday.

Bevan quotes a reader's email:

I ... have a criticism regarding the way you posted yesterday's AP piece 'Polls Show GOP Not Making Its Case.'  That's the way the AP titled it, at least.  You guys decided to title it on your site 'GOP Gains Ground In Battle For Congress.'

After some Googling around, Bevan--who posted the AP item at RCP under its original title--realized that "sometime between roughly 6:30 am and 10:26 am the Associated Press switched the header on the story about its own poll results from being pro-GOP to something decidedly more negative."

Upon reading the full article, a case for either headline could be made, but why the switch?  Noel Sheppard at NewsBusters did some investigating: "[T]he AP write in question, Liz Sidoti, actually created six versions of this story with two published at AP, two at AP Online, and two at AP Worldstream."  Sheppard acknowledges that wire services often host differing versions of the same article, but asks, "Why is the AP writing articles about its own poll with differing views of the poll's results that include completely different titles?  This almost suggests that the wire service is offering differing content on the same issue for subscribers of differing political leaning."  The plot thickens... or maybe it doesn't.

9/18: Preaching To The Choir

Righty blogger attention is mostly focused 9/18 on Islamic reaction to Pope Benedict XVI's 9/12 speech. Normally not a subject of interest to Hotline readers, conservative blogger reaction can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, and here (this is by no means a definitive list). Is this a distraction for righty efforts to maintain GOP majorities in Congress? Certainly not. As DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas points out in PBS' NOW special "Blog the Vote," blogs political value is all about exciting the base, and nothing, it seems, fires GOPers up more than a clash of civilizations.

VA SEN: Your Daddy Wears Combat Boots

Few righty bloggers were impressed with Sen. George Allen's (R-VA) 9/17 Meet the Press debate against ex-Navy sec. James Webb (D). At National Review Online, Kathryn Jean Lopez hopes most Virginians were either "at church or enjoying the good weather." Dean Barnett at Townhall.com was even harsher on the GOPer heading his writeup of the debate: "If It Was a Prize Fight, It Would Have Been Stopped at the First Commercial Break." Barnett went on to say: "I squarely and unequivocally support Allen's re-election. Or at least I did until this morning's debate. Now I'm not so sure. Webb outclassed Allen in every aspect of the clash."

Die-hard GOPer Hugh Hewitt felt it was necessary to remind the faithful why they should still vote for Allen: "James Webb is one of the most charismatic and accomplished Americans I have ever met. But ... a vote for James Webb is a vote for Patrick Leahy as chair of the Judiciary Committee and a blockade of the next John Roberts or Samuel Alito. It is a vote for Joe Biden to be chair of Foreign Relations and for Hillary to be president. I don't see a majority of Virginia voters making that choice."

Allen's New Media Coordinator Jon Henke live blogged the debate including:

• Webb starts by defending his previous endorsement of Allen, claiming that he really, really dislikes the war in Iraq. And that's pretty much his entire campaign. Unfortunately, like the Democratic Party, he can't actually figure out much beyond that:
• Webb keeps suggesting that we need a multinational conference with the countries in the region offering to help Iraq. This is a remarkably odd suggestion straight from the Kerry/Pelosi handbook. Committee meetings? Because Iran and Syria will do more to help Iraqi democracy than we will?
• Jim Webb astoundingly argues that African-Americans are the only racial group that has suffered significant damage from US policies over generations. Among others, Chinese-Americans and Native Americans might disagree with Jim Webb about that.

Henke concludes:

Unfortunately, Russert didn't ask many questions about the issues important to Virginians. That's probably pretty helpful to Jim Webb, since he doesn't actually have much in the way of positions on the issues. As predicted, Webb pretty much spent the debate arguing that "Iraq bad, Bush bad, [repeat ad nauseum]", without actually advocating policies of his own. ... However, criticism is not a policy, and Webb is still stuck arguing that, as Eisenhower said, "anyone who would give you a date certain doesn't understand war, and anyone who says it can't be done doesn't understand America." Yet Jim Webb is running with the Party that demands a timeline and insists victory cannot be had.

Also on the right, Bearing Drift keeps it classy asking if Webb would be as proud of a daughter joining the Naval Academy, as he is of his Iraq bound Marine son.

Webb's Netroots Coordinator Lowell Feld began his debate live blogging at Raising Kaine before the candidates even made it into the studio with pictures of supporters outside the NBC studios including this tidbit: "Interestingly, the Allen supporters were all from one group of American University College Republicans (I asked them). Last time I checked, American University was not located in our fair Commonwealth. The Webb supporters were almost all from Virginia."

Feld has links to videoof thedebate and had these reactions:

• Webb made it clear that he endorsed George Allen in the past because he thought at the time we'd get some good leadership out of him. Unfortunately, we have not.
• The bottom line is that George Allen has been nothing more than a rubberstamp for George W. Bush and the Republican right wing, on Iraq and every other issue.
• Allen made some juvenile comment about "Monday morning quarterbacking" on Iraq. Well, excuse me, but Jim Webb opposed the invasion of Iraq BEFORE it happened, so how's it Monday morning quarterbacking?
• Webb pointed out, acidly, that this Administration has been led by a bunch of "theorists" who have never put on a uniform, while people like himself have been on a battlefield and understand the reality of the situation.
• Neither candidate thought we should shut down interrogations of suspected terrorists, but Jim Webb made a very strong statement that torture is wrong and that only "tainted evidence" comes from it.

Later Feld posts an AP photo of the candidates feet on the Meet the Press set. Feld describes the "instant" classic: "On the one hand (or, more accurately, foot), we've got a fake "cowboy" named George Allen. The guy's not a cowboy, he grew up in Southern California NOT Virginia, he's gung-ho about war but has never himself served, etc. etc. ... On the other hand (er, foot), we've got combat boots and a REAL soldier named Jim Webb. Why is Webb wearing these boots? To honor his son, Jimmy, a Marine currently stationed "in harm's way" over in Iraq. Jimmy's dad, of course, served with extraordinary valor in Vietnam, winning the Navy Cross, Silver Star, and numerous other medals for heroism."

LANDSCAPE: The Poll Gap

Chris Bowers at MyDD looks at a compilation of DCCC and NRCC independent expenditures since 7/1 and makes some observations, including:

• The NRCC spent $1,186,662.00 on 74 polls in 50 districts. By contrast, the DCCC did not spend any money on polls. This gap accounts for nearly the entire spending difference between the two committees in this time period.
• The DCCC made 100% of its expenditures in districts controlled by Republicans. By contrast, the NRCC made 85.2% of its expenditures in districts controlled by Republicans
• The DCCC only made expenditures in 15 districts: AZ-08, CO-07, IA-01, IL-06, IN-02, IN-08, KY-04, NC-11, NM-01, NY-24, OH-15, PA-06, WA-08, and WI-08. In WA-08, they only spent $150.They spent between $29K and $58K in PA-06, OH-15 and IL-06. Everywhere else, they spent more than $100K In some cases, they spent far more than $100K.
• The NRCC also polled the following Republican-held districts and never spent another dime: AZ-05, CA-50, CO-07, CT-02, CT-04, CT-05, KY-04, FL-09, FL-22, IA-01, IN-09, KY-03, KY-04, NH-01, NH-02, NV-02, NC-11, OH-01, OH-15, OH-18, PA-10, TX-22, VA-02, WA-08, and WV-02. Given the status of independent and internal polls in CT-02, IN-09, IA-01, NC-11, PA-10, and TX-22, one has to wonder the if the NRCC has given up on those six districts.
• The DCCC made expenditures in the following districts that the NRCC made no non-polling expenditures: CO-07, IA-01, IN-02, KY-04, NC-11, NM-01, and OH-15. Either the NRCC has given up in these districts, or they are relying on the cash of their candidates to pull out these districts.

Still on the left Talking Points Memo's DK looks at recent NRCC FEC filings and announces: "Here it comes. The NRCC on Friday dropped almost $2 million on TV attack ads in congressional districts from Washington State to New York."

On the right, Erick Erickson at RedState reports sources are telling him "that Karl Rove has expressed his strongly held belief that the base is returning because of the War on Terror and though things should be devastating for the GOP in this mid-term election year, it looks like the Democrats are headed toward snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Pollsters also seem to be noticing the shift."

Right Wing News tries to stoke that base listing policies a Dem congress would alter including:

• The Democrats cutting off funds to the troops, forcing them to come home, and thereby delivering victory into the hands of the terrorists in Iraq.
• The Dems could systematically block crucial intelligence programs, many of which the general public probably doesn't even know about yet, and leave us wide open for one -- or even a dozen new 9/11s.
• An illegal immigration amnesty plan being pushed through the House that would legalize 12 million plus illegals, their families, and their relatives without securing the border.

CT SEN: Lieberman's A Uniter, Not A Divider

Mcjoan at DailyKos has video of cable exec. Ned Lamont's new "Red Sox and Yankee Fans Agree" ad featuring a Sox and Yankee fan agreeing that: "Joe's Gotta Go"

Meanwhile the unofficial Lamont Blog has a photo of Sen. Joe Lieberman's car parked in a handicapped space at Fairfield University on 9/15. One commenter writes: "That really does just say everything you need to know about Lieberman, doesn't it?"

MI SEN: Debbie Stabenow Is A Good Guy

MyDD's maddogg likes Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D) new ad "because it tells a story. Facts are easier for most people to remember if they are given in story form. In less than thirty seconds the ad established a conflict with both good guys and bad guys and a favorable resolution thanks to the heroine of our story, Debbie Stabenow." The ad was not perfect though: "I don't like the way the ad ended with Peter saying that he's neither a Republican or Democrat. Again, Stabenow is acting like she can trick people into voting for a Democrat by not acknowledging that she is one."

MD SEN: What's The Matter With Hydrox?

Conservative blogger Wizbang broke news 9/15 exposing the secret blog of a female Rep. Ben Cardin (D) staffer "who has quite a bit to say about race, gender, and creepy old Jewish guys." The blog, Persuasionatrix, has since been removed but also "hints at the amusement Cardin staffers take in secretly eating Oreos." Wizbang later matched some Cardin FEC filings with Persuasionatrix blog entries and identified the blogger/staffer as Ursula Gruber.

Wizbang has a cached copy of the blog Persuasionatrix and disputes the Cardin camp's assertion that Gruber was a junior staffer noting "her journal indicates she was fully in charge of operation of one of the regions of the state with numerous direct reports and interns."

TN SEN: Boxed Corker

Matt Corley at TPM Cafe has video of Rep. Harold Ford Jr.'s (D-09) new ad counterattacking ex-Chattanooga Mayor Bob Corker (R) and describes the ad as interesting "because it responds to two traditional GOP charges at once: that Dems are weak on national security, and that they are irreligious."

Michael Crowley at TNR notes a reader's questioning if Dems would cry foul "if a Republican filmed an ad inside a church," but Crowley supposes that might be part of Ford's plan: " But what if Ford is cleverly goading Corker into a fight about the ad's propriety--thereby calling even more useful attention to his churchgoing?"

Indeed, conservative One Hand Clapping argues: "Ford's ad puts Corker in a box. Corker can hardly attack the ad itself, or even overtly question using Mt. Moriah Baptist Church as the filming site. That would alienate not only black voters (who will, let's be honest, vote 90-plus percent for the black Democrat candidate anyway), it would also make a lot of white religious voters unhappy." Alex Charyna at National Review Online does note, however, that "not everyone is saying hallelujah."

MD-04: GOP Previews November Crimes To Keep Al Wynn In Congress

Matt Stoller at MyDD tells readers to look for "legal challenges" because atty Donna Edwards (D) beat Rep. Al Wynn (D) in 9/12's primary. Stoller writes: "What's going on there is really bad, and it's a preview of what's coming in November considering that the Republicans have basically hired a criminal named Terry Nelson to head up the NRCC opposition 'research' department. So if you don't really know how to approach a situation like this, you should try to learn by watching it during the Edwards-Wynn dry run."

KERRY: The Fall Guy

TRex at firedoglake is not impressed with Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) promise to "vigorously defend himself against new attacks by the Swift Boat team" should he decide to run in '08. TRex writes: "It's all going to be alright, now, y'all! John Kerry has reached down into his shorts and discovered that he has a pair, and he's come to save the day only TWO GODDAMN YEARS TOO LATE!! Way to go, there, boy wonder! What took you so long? ... Sorry, John. I can't get with you on this '08 thing. Thanks anyway, though. But if it ends up we really need someone to take a dive at the worst possible time on something? You'll be the first guy I call."

OBAMA: Atrios To Hunt With Dick Cheney

SusanG at DailyKos looks at AP coverage of Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) 9/17 speech on national security and detailed what she did not like including:

• Right off the bat, saying Democrats have to show a "serious agenda for change" implies they don't have one. Thanks for putting our best foot forward as a party. Couldn't have done it without you. But that's the least of it.
• Consider the venue, please. You're at an event ripe for big ideas, big dreams and high hopes, with natural supporters of your cause. What's with telling (who exactly?) in vague, general terms what we "should" be doing. You're at Tom Harkin's gig, for pete's sake. Don't scold the party. Buck up the troops. I'm a devoted political junkie of the highest order, and my eyes just ... glazed.
• Quit telling Democrats - or the "American people" for that matter - that we've "got to show a serious agenda for change." Hello? You are a U.S. Senator, are you not? A Democratic one, if I recall correctly. If anyone is in a position to lay out a serious agenda, it's you, yes? And you're popular and you're not up for re-election and you can't be lambasted by ads in the next few months that will tear apart any agenda you suggest.

Obama's efforts made Atrios want to shoot people in the face.

MCCAIN: The "Anointed" One

The conservative Caucus Cooler watched Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) on Iowa Press 9/17 and reported that Grassley is a Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) man. Grassley on McCain: "He's coming into Iowa strong. I believe the thing that would appeal the most to Iowa Republicans is his fight for openness in the appropriation and budgeting process. ... McCain's got to prove that he can get a broad base of Republican support, particularly among conservatives. If he can show that, he may be anointed."

BLOGGERS VS. BELTWAY: Pope Singer

Jonathan Singer at MyDD looks at reports that the DLC's Al From attended a dinner held to float the idea of a NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg (R) independent WH run and writes: "for the DLC to help advance the candidacy of a presidential aspirant outside of the Democratic Party is political treason, grounds enough for excommunication. ... The Democratic Party, and even the centrists within it, must sever all ties with Al From and the DLC. They must not be allowed access to Democratic Congressional leaders. They must not be allowed a role in the nomination process in 2008. They must not be allowed a presence at the Democratic convention."

Also unhappy with current Dem insiders, Matt Stoller at MyDD looks at a Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) quote in Newsweek on Dem efforts to tap donors in the financial industry and writes: "Rahm Emanuel is a stupid corrupt man. He's blunt and persistent, with loads of energy. But he's still stupid, and he's still corrupt. Does anyone in Chicago know of a possible primary challenger?" David Sirota adds at The Huffington Post: "Maybe all of this is cultural - maybe the congressional Democratic Party has been so hollowed out over the years by the corporate-funded Democratic Leadership Council that all it really is anymore is just a bunch of cults of personality with no actual ideological underpinnings. ... The truth is, the problem is more likely just the selfish, self-serving behavior of a few prima donnas. Either way, it is a huge problem. Whether Democrats win in 2006 or not, the acceptance of behavior like Emanuel's by other Democrats in Congress foreshadows real trouble for a party seeking to define itself for the long-term."

BLOGGERS VS. MSM: The Rev. Markos

Natural Born Killers producer and progressive activist Jane Hamsher at firedoglake posts a clip of NOW's "Blog the Vote" special and seconds DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas' point that "preaching to the choir" service that blogs perform serve "a very important function" in politics.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Hands Off Our Reagan!

Right Angle Blog's Matt Lewis' was not happy with the Hotline's 9/14 "Spotlight" (go team!) asking the question "has R. Reagan, following a rightward shift in GWB's GOP, become a fair-game mantra for both parties?"

Lewis responds: "In seeking to lionize "The Great Communicator" as a moderate who was "above politics," the proponents of this theory are attempting to re-write history." Lewis then seeks to correct the record on two points:

First, Ronald Reagan was a partisan. ... Reagan was a tireless supporter of the Republican Party. He campaigned for Barry Goldwater, a man thought of as "ultra-conservative," in 1964. ... Four years after leaving office, Ronald Reagan was still playing hardball -- campaigning for the Republican team. Does this sound like a man who was above partisanship?

Second, Ronald Reagan was a conservative. He was conservative enough to challenge a moderate sitting Republican President named Gerald Ford, in 1976. It's hard to remember, but it was once thought that he was "too conservative" to be elected. Almost every conservative leader today considers him their hero.
Speaking to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in 1985, he said, "And I always see the Conservative Political Action Conference speech as my opportunity to "dance with the one that brung ya."
He was Pro-Life, Anti-Tax, and pro-military. Frankly, defending Reagan as a conservative is like defending Babe Ruth as a homerun hitter ...

Yes, Reagan might be upset at the state of the GOP, today. But it wouldn't be because we're too conservative -- it would be because we have moved away from fiscal conservatism. Ronald Reagan, for example, probably wouldn't like the GOP's prescription drug entitlement. Well, Ronald Reagan may belong to the ages, but he also belongs to the conservative movement. And we can't afford to lose him, just yet. Don't let them get away with re-writing the history of Ronald Reagan.

LEST WE FORGET: Jedi Squirrels

In another debate of earth-shattering importance, Over at National Review Online Jonah Goldberg's dog Cosmo links to a blog featuring lightsaber-fighting squirrels and asks: "Why Does this guy assume these squirrels are Jedis? Surely, they are Sith." An ever-astute corner reader responds: "Sith have red colored light sabers because they use synthetic focusing crystals; where as the Jedi use natural crystals giving them their cornucopia of possible colors ... Figured I'd correct him before the nerd patrol try's to roll him."

9/15: Where's The Beef?

Since VA SEN can't seem to escape the '80s this week, we thought we'd steal the punch line from Wendy's famous ad of the era to ask whether blogs will end up playing a significant role in this race. After the CT SEN primary, we know that, left unanswered, blogs can do serious damage to a candidate in the real world. But once that debate is joined, will the inevitable back and forth and name-calling ever escape the blogosphere and affect the real world? Both camps are currently running ads their blogging foes demand be taken down, due to claimed distortions. What role will bloggers play in the MSM's coverage of these ads?

Lefty bloggers are not happy with Sen. George Allen's (R-VA) new ad "falsely accus[ing] [James] Webb of only having served 10 months for the Reagan Administration, when Webb served 4 years in the Reagan Administration first as Assistant Secretary of Defense, then as Secretary of the Navy." DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas calls Allen "a racist and a liar" and claims that Webb's ad featuring Ronald Reagan "obviously ... has drawn blood and is driving the Allen folks crazy."

Under a graphic of Raphael Palmeiro photo-shopped into Jim Carey's "Liar Liar" movie poster, Webb Netroots Coordinator Lowell Feld has a response to every line from the new Allen ad at Raising Kaine including the ad's claim that "Webb campaign advisors call Reagan 'ignorant fool'." Feld responds: "George Allen's campaign advisors are hate-mongering hypocrites"

The A-Team responds to Feld's claim that Webb's ad did not imply a Reagan endorsement by citing the Washington Post's description of Webb's ad: "the Webb ad serves almost as a posthumous endorsement from Reagan." In another post The A-Team defends the "after 10 months he quit" line in Allen's ad by noting the difference in the voice over which says "20 years ago fiction writer James Webb served in the Reagan Administration" and the text of the ad which reads "20 years ago James Webb served as Navy Secretary." The A-Team concludes: "True, he was an undersecretary for 3 years before that, but the ad is specifically about him as Navy Sec., quitting on Reagan and then badmouthing Reagan afterwards. ... The free ride is over Webbies. Get used to it. These are going to be the longest two months of your lives."

Also on the right, over at QandO Bruce "McQ" McQuain claims the pro-Webb Vote Vets group "Lies About Body Armor." McQuain points out that the armor used in the ad is "80s era kevlar PASGT flak vest made by DuPont" not "left over from Vietnam" as the ad claims. McQuain concludes: "To pretend, as this ad does, that soldiers were being sent into combat in Iraq wearing vests "left over from Vietnam" is disingenuous at best ... the sponsors of the ad, supposedly a veteran's organization, should be ashamed of themselves."

Still on the right National Review Online's Kathryn Jean Lopez "can't imagine how it's a good idea" for Allen to keep up his "Webb-misogynist line of attack." Lopez writes of the Webb article in question: "It's a compelling piece whose "central ideas" stand the test of time - and are of the type we're still dealing with. ... Great way to keep a few Virginia vets home on Election Day."

Back on the left Feld, again, at Raising Kaine highlights a Richmond Free Press not-available-online-article on state Sen. Benjamin Lambert's (D) endorsement of Allen. Under a subhead "Lambert betrays Democrats, goes for GOP's Allen" the Free Press reports ex-VA Gov Douglas Wilder is "mystified" by Lambert's endorsement and "would keep searching for ... Lambert's justification for backing Sen. Allen, who has voted for the policies of Republican President George W. Bush 97 percent of the time."

TPM Muckraker's Paul Kiel reports "the man who bankrolled the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" Bob Perry "just put $5 million behind a new 527 this campaign, according to new FEC filings." The Economic Freedom Fund has already spent "half a million bucks on negative TV ads against Democratic incumbents Reps. Alan Mollohan (D-WV) and Jim Marshall (D-GA)." Kiel also reports Economic Freedom Fund "is behind robo calls in at least four states" and may be under investigation for such calls by IN's AG.

Jonathan Singer at MyDD looks at a Washington Post 9/13 article on the GOP's ground game in RI SEN and urges Dems not to be cowed: "Will the RNC and other Republican committees be able to replicate these numbers during the general election, which is made up of not one, but dozens and dozens of competitive contests? ... I am far from convinced that the Republicans will be able to spend as much on GOTV for individual races as they have in in Rhode Island or California's 50th district. They may have sent 40 staffers to oversee turnout in three large states, but that is nothing in comparison to the 160 they sent to a single congressional district in June."

Chris Bowers added in an update: "I have to emphasize how much Jonathan is right about this one. I'm seeing lots of knock-kneed websites trembling over the supposedly fantastic Republican turnout in Rhode Island. What people forget is that the NRSC sent every single staffer east of the Mississippi to work on this campaign, and yet Chafee still significantly underperformed the final internal NRSC poll on the race."

Matt Stoller at MyDD looks at Harold Ickes efforts to raise $25 million for a new 527 to focus on field and doesn't like the team he's put together:

• "Ickes is tied into the Hillary Clinton axis and the Glover Park Group, which was busted today lobbying for the Dubai Ports deal."
• "Laura Quinn, the person who screwed up Demzilla in 2004 under Terry McAuliffe and was somehow hired again to screw up another voterfile."
• "[Michael] Whouley has a massive telecom contract through his firm Dewey Square, which is tasked with passing the Stevens bill eviscerating net neutrality. He's been all over losing Presidential campaigns, most recently Kerry's in 2004."
• "Tony Coehlo really takes the cake. Coehlo more than any individual is responsible for the decline of the Democratic Party - he literally has his fingerprints all over every moral and political debacle of the last twenty five years."

Sirotablog can't believe Sen. Joe Lieberman's (I) Dan Gerstein is attacking cable exec. Ned Lamont (D) for misrepresenting his efforts helping inner-city school kids. Gerstein claims in The Connecticut Post that Lamont never taught high school like he claims in his ads, instead he only helped a teacher lead two business classes. Sirota writes: "I've worked on a number of political campaigns, and I must say - this is the first I've seen a career politician attack his opponent for actually volunteering time at an inner-city school as a way to give back to the community. I mean, really - I've never seen anything like it."

Over at MyDD Matt Stoller looks at a New York Times article reporting that the Chamber of Commerce will be a group helping Lieberman with GOTV. Stoller comments: "Wow. I suppose this is the same group that wants to gut the Family Medical Leave Act and overtime pay, opposes a minimum wage increase, lobbied for the Bankruptcy Bill, supports Health Savings Accounts (otherwise known as the end of health insurance), and my personal favorite, denies global warming." Stoller also has audio of two new Lamont radio ads here and here.

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas loves this Belleville News-Democrat item on Aud. Claire McCaskill's (D) purchase of the last 100 remaining tickets necessary to sellout the St. Louis Rams' season opener so it could be seen locally in St. Louis. Kos writes: "That ticket purchase earned her a full day of earned media, and lots of gratitude. Great way for the campaign to stray from the same-ol' and try something different. A new Rasmussen poll still in the members-only section will show McCaskill with a slight lead (after being slightly behind last month). This one will go down to the wire."

Will Menaker at TPM Cafe has video of Sen. Rick Santorum's (R) latest television ad depicting "a scene reminiscent of Goodfellas" and claiming Treas. Bob Casey Jr.'s (D) "are under investigation or have been indicted." Menaker followed up explaining: "The figures apparently referred to gave to previous Casey campaigns before being investigated; two others have given to Santorum, too; and a fifth is dead. Amazingly, a Santorum rep has even admitted that none of the men apparently being referred to has given to Casey's Senate campaign."

On the right, Kathryn Jean Lopez at National Review Online argues "Catholic University Owes Rick Santorum an Apology" for granting Casey an opportunity to make a political speech to his alma mater. Lopez writes: "it's a damn rotten thing to do to one of the greatest voices who defend innocent human life in Washington."

Chris Bowers at MyDD had "been wondering off and on why Democrats are doing so well in Montana lately" but began to understand why after viewing a video put out by the state Senate Pres. Jon Tester (D) campaign showing a collection of unflattering Sen. Conrad Burns (R) moments.

Matt Stoller at MyDD holds out hope atty Donna Edwards (D) will pull ahead of Rep. Al Wynn (D) in the 10,000 provisional ballots yet to be counted in Montgomery County. Stoller quotes Edwards "Voters need to have confidence that their vote counted. I will fight for answers and make sure every ballot is counted. Our democracy demands it" and goes on to add "Gore didn't say this. Kerry didn't say this. Democrats are castigated for not fighting and making sure that all the votes count, and this gives license to conspiracy theorists and crazy people to irresponsibly argue that democracy is pointless because it's all stolen anyway."

Senate Min. Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) held a conference call with bloggers 9/14 and Glenn Greenwald immediately pressed him on Dem resolve to quash Sen. Arlen Specter's (R-PA) NSA surveillance legislation: "Sen. Reid stated flatly and unequivocally - and I'm paraphrasing - that the Specter bill was not going anywhere, that it would not be enacted. ... Sen. Reid explained that our system does not allow every bill to be enacted simply because a majority supports it, that Senate rules allow minority rights to be protected, clearly alluding to a filibuster."

Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo was fascinated by WH press sec Tony Snow's 9/14 performance on detainee treatment, particularly Snow's claim that new legislation was needed since "the issue 'hadn't come up' before." Marshall comments: "In other words, we hadn't really been in the torture business until now. So there wasn't as pressing a need to lawyer the Geneva Convention."

Matthew Yglesias likes the lack of progress that the WH bill is seeing but worries the Dem "strategy of trying to essentially hide behind the skirts of the handful of Republican torture opponents" will leave Dems unable to reap "whatever rewards may exist for standing up for basic decency and morality against Bush's depredations."

On the right, James Joyner at Outside the Beltway still thinks GOPers will be able to use the issue this fall: "The irony is that, even though it is McCain and a handful of Republicans leading the charge against the president on this, it will likely be a campaign issue used against Democrats. It'll be rather easy to portray them as soft on the likes of Mohammed Atta, fair or no. On the merits, I agree with McCain and company, although not necessarily for the reasons they give. It is patently absurd to argue that our terrorist enemies are going to abide by the Geneva Conventions if we do so." B.T. at Ankle Biting Pundits and Captain's Quarters also doubt Geneva's influence on the behavior of those capturing US soldiers in this war.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) consultant Patrick Hynes at Ankle Biting Pundits was pleased to announce McCain's support of the "conservative, blog-driven" Rightroots campaign. McCain will "place a Blogad sponsored by Straight Talk America on several blogs urging folks to contribute to Rightroots endorsed candidates and help the cause. The ad will urge folks to help Rightroots meet the group's 100-contributions-for-every-candidate challenge."

PBS' Perspectives has a must read item featuring Arianna Huffington and Andrew Sullivan on blog and politics. Perspectives asks each blogger the same eight questions including: "How much political power is really wielded by "the bloggers"?"

Huffington writes: "It's growing. Politicians are paying more and more attention to what is happening in the blogosphere. We saw this just recently with the John Bolton confirmation. I heard from a friend of mine who works on the Hill that a lot of Senate Democrats were paying close attention to whether the blogs were going to focus on the Bolton nomination -- and that when they did a number of fence-sitting Democrats decided to back the idea of a filibuster... which then led to Chairman Lugar indefinitely postponing the vote on Bolton. Bloggers also wield power by holding the mainstream media's feet to the fire, which affects coverage, which in turn affects politicians."

Sullivan writes: " I believe our influence should be primarily within the world of ideas - generating new policies, exposing corruption and stupidity, clarifying where mistakes are being made, pursuing issues with tenacity - like the detainee treatment issue - and revealing dirty tricks by either side. That can make a difference. I've been told my blog has made a real difference in the torture debate right now, for example. The White House and the Hill reads it. But I cannot prove it has been indispensable in any way. Just a prod.

Deadspin does not mean "to make light of the need to have your prostate checked" but still has a chuckle at George Washington basketball coach Karl Hobbs ad where Hobbs innocently watches "a basketball game with his assistant coaches when his wife breaks in and informs him -- in a fine example of Method acting -- that it's time to get his prostate checks. And then it's high fives all around."

Blogometer Extra

PA 07: Weldon, Why So Curt?

Taylor Marsh at Firedoglake makes a determined effort to get to the bottom of a burning question: Did Rep. Curt Weldon--he of Able Danger infamy--avoid the draft, and why won't he settle the issue publicly once and for all?  Marsh writes:

I got interested in the Weldon-Sestak race when Curt Weldon decided to swiftboat Joe Sestak, starting with a smear against his daughter, who just so happened to be fighting a malignant brain tumor at the time. ... Weldon didn't stop there, next swiftboating Sestak for wearing his uniform, which was quickly smacked down. Evidently Curt was a little jealous he didn't have one.

Marsh posits the aforementioned question regarding Weldon's draft status and, after crafty fact-finding and sleuthery, finds more unknowns than answers.  "To my knowledge no one has ever pressed [him] on the specifics of his draft story," Marsh writes.  "Did Curt Weldon seek a medical exemption after drawing number 153 in the Vietnam draft of December 1969?"

After considering two vague explanations previously given by the Weldon camp for his lack of service, Marsh attempts to get a hold of him directly.  "I left a message with Weldon's Director of Communications, who was with the congressman when I called.  He has not gotten back to me as of this posting."

The issue may not even be settled if and when Weldon publicly addresses it, but in the meantime, take a gander at his Democratic opponent Joe Sestak's first TV ad (Will Menaker at TPM Cafe has the goods), in which he never even mentions Weldon.  The question might really be, will Sestak bring up, even obliquely, Weldon's participation in the curious crowning ceremony of Rev. Sun Myung Moon?

NY 19: Hall's No One-Hit Wonder

Howie Klein at Firedoglake sings the praises of former rocker, latter-day progressive John Hall.  Hall's come a long way from his days in the band Orleans; he's since been a "long time, serious-minded Democratic activist, serving as a school board president and a county legislator."  Klein credits Hall's dogged determination and serious knowledge of the issues as the driving force behind his success in the recent primary over "the Rahm Emanuel candidate, [Judy] Aydelott + 3 other Democrats."

Klein expects Hall to have a tough battle against defending Rep. Sue Kelly in a "safe and sassy" Republican district, but he's confident Hall is ready to rock against a compromised incumbent:

"A dyed-in-the-wool thoughtful progressive, John is as different from Sue Kelly as night is from day, not only in the ethics arena – she has consistently taken huge legalized bribes from Big Business and voted, blindly, for their interests to the detriment of her constituents – but on most policy matters. She has been a dependable rubber stamp for Bush and the far right GOP leadership. John is a vehement supporter of diplomacy as a way to solve problems, rather than unprovoked war."

As if that weren't enough, Klein continues the harsh compare/contrast, calling Hall a "formidable candidate against a robotic hack politician who never heard a proposal from Big Business she didn’t think was dandy."  That may all be true, but Kelly can at least say that she's never appeared on notoriously cheesy album cover.

9/14: Game On!

Part of the reason progressive bloggers beat Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) in the 8/8 Dem primary was Lieberman's complete lack of presence in the blogosphere. Sure, Marty Peretz et al chipped in occasionally at TNR, but they were never nearly as focused, or partisan, as Ned Lamont's camp to mount any significant push-back. Sen. George Allen (R-VA) has learned that lesson. In the past week a new blog The A-Team has popped up, and it's completely devoted to pushing Allen's case online. The Blogometer has no inside information on the extent of Allen's New Media Coordinator Jon Henke involvement in the new blog, but as todays VA SEN items demonstrate, the blog will be a force in the days to come.

Lefty bloggers are in love with a new independent group, "Vote Vets," and their first ad targeting Sen. George Allen (R) on protecting troops in Iraq. The group describes itself as committed to electing candidates "critical of the execution of the war in Iraq." DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas calls the ad "more relevant and hard hitting than anything else I've seen this cycle" and "brings home the 'body armor' problem like nothing else." TPM Cafe also has video of the ad and reports that Vote Vets plans to run the ad "in major markets through Sunday." Atrios, firedoglake, MyDD, and Raising Kaine also all have video of the ad.

Playing off of the lefty bloggers "swiftboating" meme, righty bloggers have dubbed the ad the "Rusty Tugboat attack" and are playing up UVA center for Politics Dir. Larry Sabatocomments to the AP that the ad goes "way to far" and could boomerang on ex-Navy sec. James Webb (D). Allen's A-Team commenter John adds: "What the most comical thing about this is that Allen did vote to appropriate funds for body armor and better equipment in an emergency supplemental appropriations later that year (vote #400). That vote #400 is the same vote that got Kerry into so much trouble. He voted "no" on #400, and later told a crowd that "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

Righty bloggers also moved on the offensive 9/13 playing up an APreport on five female U.S. Naval Academy grads hitting Webb for "creating a pervasive air of sexual discrimination at Annapolis in the early 1980s." Allen's A-Team argues the story is not surprising since: "Webb did write that admitting women to Annapolis would turn the dorm into "a horny woman's dream" and he referred to the Tailhook sexual harassment scandal as a "witch hunt."

Chad Dotson at RedState looks at a 1992 TNR article on "Webbites" that shamelessly practiced bigotry at the Naval Academy and adds: "I'll say it again: if Webb were running as a Republican, the lefties in the blogosphere would be screaming at the top of their lungs that he's not fit to serve in the United States Senate. Watch and listen, though ... all you will hear from the left about Webb's shameful conduct will be silence."

Webb's Netroots Coordinator Lowell Feld quickly fired back at Raising Kaine pointing to this Allen quote from his fight to keep VMI all male: "But if VMI admitted women, it wouldn't be the VMI that we've known for 154 years. You just don't treat women the way you treat fellow cadets. If you did, it would be ungentlemanly, it'd be improper." Feld asks: "Question: Does George Allen still believe we shouldn't treat women the same as men at the military academies?"

Feld also hit back under a header "Allen's Pathetic Record on Womens' Issues" and includes short graphs on: Choice, Discrimination Against Women, Sexual Assault in the Workplace, Family and Medical Leave Act, Human Rights for Women, and Protecting Children. Feld finishes: "Great stuff, huh? And George Allen's campaign has the gall to talk about something Jim Webb wrote almost 30 years ago? Amazing."

Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo isn't buying Allen's latest Macaca story from the Norfolk Virginian-Pilot: "...let's review. We know that not only is "macaca" a widely used racial epithet in American crypto-racist and white supremacist circles. Its apparent origin is among the colonial population of francophone North Africa -- where Allen's mother was raised. Now, call me ungenerous, but given those facts, the idea that "macaca" was simply three syllables Allen randomly strung together when digging at a dark-skinned young man who was getting on his nerves just doesn't strike me as credible. ... he's practically begging for renewed attention to this transparent lie by weaving it, again and again, into his strained apologies."

James Joyner at Outside the Beltway looks at the same story and sees progress: "He'll have to do more of this if he's going to win back swing voters in time for re-election, let alone become a viable contender for the White House." Joyner then looks at a quote from an African-American in the story calling Allen a "good guy" and concludes: "If Allen can convince people that he's "a good guy" and not a closet racist-both of which I believe to be true-then he's back in the game."

Greg Sargent at TPM Cafe notes that Rep. Al Wynn (D) is "up four points, 50%-46.12%" on attorney Donna Edwards with 92.40% reporting. Matt Stoller at MyDD, however, is not ready to give up: "This primary isn't over. And if Al Wynn hadn't cheated, he would be giving a concession speech right now. ... First of all, there's a lot to be counted, and there are possible legal challenges depending on what happens. ... Second of all, don't trust the numbers that are out. They aren't real."

Stoller has emails from voters claiming their vote was suppressed and he doesn't believe incompetence is to blame: "I want to first address the 'oh this wasn't stolen it was incompetence' line. If you steal an election, you first figure out how to make it look like incompetence so that you don't go to jail. If possible, you design incompetence into the operation so that there's no way to tell who would have won had the voting operation gone off smoothly."

TradeSports lover and National Review Online contributor Larry Kudlow is excited about pro-GOP movement on the "House GOP 2006 contract" up to a "flat even 49.9." Kudlow claims "the afterglow of President Bush's strong national-security speeches-especially his evening speech on 9/11-along with falling gas prices and a strong stock market" all help explain the GOP resurgence. Michael Crowley at TNR is unconvinced: "But so far that's a short-term blip (partly fueled by 9/11 remembrance mania). And if I'm reading the long-term graph correctly, the GOP's odds are still down a mammoth 45 percent or so from last October. ... My best guess right now is that an enormous amount will ride on how grim the Iraq headlines are in the campaign's closing weeks; if the violence there is relatively contained and we're talking about terror plots and Osama bin Laden videos, Kudlow's hopes might be realized after all."

Atrios has excerpts ex-Pres. Jimmy Carter from CNN's Larry King Live on Sen. Joe Lieberman (I) including: "He's joined in with the Republican spokespersons by saying that Democrats who disagree are really supporting terrorism. ... So for all these reasons I've lost my confidence in Joe Lieberman and don't want to see him re-elected." Crooks and Liars has the video. When Lieberman spokeswoman Tammy Sun issued a statement including: "[I]t is entirely false to suggest that Joe Lieberman in any way equated dissent about the war with supporting terrorists," Atrios shot back under the header "Tammy Sun Calls Carter a Liar" quoting Lieberman: "If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England. It will strengthen them and they will strike again."

TRex at firedoglake looks at the go between and finds an unflattering comparison: "Is it me or are there some marked similarities between the campaigns of Joe Lieberman and Katherine Harris? Both candidates are certified White House enablers. Both campaigns hemorrhage staff members every two months or so. And both the Lieberman and Harris campaigns seem to have some serious problems distinguishing between fact and fantasy."

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas looks at Butte Montana Standard and Helena Independent debunking od Sen. Conrad Burns (R) claims that state Senate Pres. Jon Tester (D) miss used a "constituent fund" and writes: "Montana may have the best press in the nation. They don't suffer [Michael Jordan excrement] kindly."

Chris Bowers at MyDD looks at Sen. Bob Menendez (D) new ad attacking Pres. Bush on the Dubai ports deal and likes what he sees:

This is a pretty good ad. Not only does it pick a fight with the Bush administration, it actually details a fight that Senator Menendez picked and won. This is a good tactic for a Democratic incumbent. Instead of trying to claim that things are going great, ala Stabenow, it points to a very specific moment when one of Bush's many bad policies were stopped. It also does a good job of connecting homeland security to jobs, something which should play well in New Jersey.

Greg Sargent at TPM Cafe notes ex-AG Sheldon Whitehouse (D) first television ad doesn't mention Sen. Lincoln Chafee's (R) name even once and the ad finishes: "A Republican Senate continues the Bush policies and its failures. A Democratic Senate changes the direction of America. Think about it." TPM reader KF from Rhode Island, however, thinks Whitehouse is a lost cause: "Whitehouse, has the whiff of a loser, he's lost every race he's run and will not beat Chafee. So don't get excited about his ads going after Bush. Or his possibilities. Remember you heard it here first. He's a good man and would be granted the RI lifetime appointment but he's stuck."

Meanwhile Michael Crowley at TNR looks at a Chafee Providence Journalquote on the definition of GOPness (fiscal discipline, environmental protection, individual liberty, aversion to foreign entanglements and "a willingness to use the tools of government to help the poor and the vulnerable") and writes: "Does Chafee realize how funny this definition sounds in 2006? And I still haven't heard him explain how voting for Bill Frist (or, next January, Mitch McConnell) as Senate majority leader can possibly advance these ideals."

On the right John Hinderaker at Power Line tries to see the glass half full: "But there are two possible silver linings to yesterday's Chafee victory. First, given the major effort that the national party made on his behalf, it seems reasonable to suspect that they extracted a commitment that he would not pull a Jeffords. Second ... Chafee's victory shows the power of the Republicans' turnout machine!"

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas quotes a Hotline On Call (go team!) on Denver's trouble landing the Dem '08 convention: "Others confirmed that the general impression among site selection members of Denver was not positive. The city also lacks a union hotel, and even though the city's labor leaders voted to table its outrage, it remains an obstacle."

Kos reacts: "Get the frackin' convention out of the coasts. I know many Democrats forget that there's a whole lot of country in between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, but that's no reason for the site selection committee to make that same mistake. ... Colorado is a purple state moving our direction. Minneapolis is a blue state threatening to go purple. We get nothing out of having it in indigo-Blue New York."

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) takes to The Huffington Post to praise VoteVets.org head Jon Soltz and his efforts "to hold our nation's leaders accountable for the decisions they make that impact our soldiers, their families and our veterans."

Machiavel at RedState collects the latest results of the GOP Bloggers straw (numbers in parenthesis are from August straw poll)

Giuliani 23.3% (23.6%)
Gingrich 23.2% (21.2%)
Romney 15.9% (13.0%)
Allen 11.1% (11.2%)
Tancredo 8.0% (7.0%)
McCain 4.4% (6.7%)
Brownback 2.5% (2.6%)
Huckabee 1.2% (1.6%)
Hagel 1.2% (2.7%)
Frist 1.1% (1.1%)
Pataki 0.2% (0.3%)

Machiavel then analyzed the results:

• Romney's Post-Khatami Bump: His numbers are up across the board, and he's now tops in net acceptability (percentage who see him as acceptable, minus unacceptable). Conservatives like him, his base is improbably pro-life, and he does well amongst pro-immigration conservatives, but he has generally had trouble "closing the sale" (first in acceptability, third in poll position).
• Giuliani and Abortion: Now, this is interesting. They ask the abortion question, and though Giuliani clearly has a base with the 19% or so who think of themselves as pro-choice, he runs a strong second with pro-lifers (trailing Newt 19% to 25%)
• Conservative Ground Shifting to Newt. No big developments or strides in the Newt camp this month after his big jumps in July and August, but he is consolidating slightly more first place votes, likely at the expense of Allen.

Brendan Nyhan at TAPPED was offended by the willingness of some lefty blogger brethren to politicize the suicide of the American Airlines ticket agent who checked in Mohammed Atta on 9/11 to attack Pres. Bush and called Atrios' Avedon Carol approving link to the post "vile." (note: Nyhan first indicated Atrios himself posted the item). Fresh from his sit down with ex-Pres. Bill Clinton Atrios took to TAPPED's message board and wrote: "Leaving aside your other usual reading comprehension issues, I didn't write the post. God you're an idiot Brendan." Atrios later made Nyhan his Wanker of the Day.

Nyhan shot back in an update to his original post: "it was a guest post by Avedon Carol; I apologize for the error, which is corrected above. Regardless of who wrote the post, however, my point about its content stands. Note that Atrios offers no substantive response to my criticism, but instead named me wanker of the day. It's classic." Carol then jumped in to TAPPED's comment board to explain her pro-suicide politicization: " You know, I've been feeling guilty because I did not defend Gore or critique Bush forcefully enough during 1999-2000, and if more of us had been on the job then, we might not be here now. ... It breaks my heart to know that poor kid committed suicide for something that was Bush's responsibility. You really are a jerk if you don't get that, Brendan."

Nyhan again responded sans name calling: "In short, neither addressed my central claim about the politicization of a suicide. I do "get" that Carol is upset because she thinks the agent "committed suicide for something that was Bush's responsibility" (a claim for which we have no direct evidence). But that doesn't make it appropriate to use the suicide to attack the President. " Atrios responded by asking TAPPED hire ups to silence Nyhan: "Uh, TAP? Maybe you should rethink things a bit. This is getting sillier. I believe Brendan's older than 14. I'm not sure why he's not capable of acting like it."

Chris Weigant at The Huffington Post notes that if Dems pick up only five seats in Nov., the battle for the Sen. would be far from over. Weigant targets four possible GOP converts including "long shot" Sens. Arlen Specter (R-PA), Susan Collins (R-ME) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME). Weigant notes Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) has a 12 ranking from the American Conservative Union this year and a 75 ranking from Americans for Democratic Action and adds:

You may be wondering why he's even a Republican in the first place. The answer is he was appointed to the seat his father (John Chafee) held, and took the seat for the Republicans in his father's honor. ... He has even publicly flirted with the idea of switching parties before, right after the 2004 election. He decided not to, because "he will be able to serve the state better as a member of the political party that controls Congress and the White House." Interesting. This could mean that if the Democrats control the House -- and if he was the key to Democrats controlling the Senate -- he might well be persuadable."

Lisa De Pasquale at Right Angle Blog notes MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews suffered a minor mix-up 9/13 running a picture of Sen. Eugene McCarthy (D-MN) while talking about Sen. Joe McCarthy (R-WI). Matthews quickly noticed the error but De Pasquale laments that "a photo of Jenny McCarthy was not readily available."

Blogometer PM Extra III

BLOGGERS VS. BELTWAY: On Earmark, Get Set...Blog!

Bradford Plumer makes “The Liberal Case for Pork” at The New Republic:

…Is pork really that bad? Since the age of Jefferson, members of Congress have been earmarking money in spending bills for local projects that might not otherwise receive attention from federal agencies--and doing it to win votes back home. ... [T]here's a liberal case for supporting pork. It's not because pork projects are defensible on the merits, although they sometimes can be. It's not because they create jobs, although they can do that, too. Rather, it's because, without pork, activist government would wither and die.”

Reaction to Plumer’s perspective ranged widely. Some, like Captain Ed at the Quarters, were flummoxed by Plumer’s “incongruous” assertion: “His reasoning… will make your jaw drop.” Ed adds, “Plumer's argument amounts to an admission that the kind of big-government, intrusive spending that will come from perennial policy stands of progressives has no chance of succeeding through democratic means.” (Emphasis his.)

Ezra Klein at Tapped was more receptive. “[Plumer] explains that pork are bargaining chits that allow tough, controversial pieces of legislation to squeeze through the legislative process,” Klein writes. “I’ll buy that.” He adds, “I don't really have a problem with less than one percent of the federal budget going to infrastructure, cultural, and commemorative projects around the country. All of them create jobs, many of them are worthy on their own merits, and a fair fraction make the country a culturally richer and more distinctive place.”

Sunlight Foundation’s Ellen Miller rued that neither Blumer nor Klein “seem to really ‘get’ the problem with earmarks.” She continued, “It's not that earmarks are bad - it's that they are never subjected to scrutiny, that they are part of the underbelly of the Congressional process that never sees the light of day, that there's no opportunity for the public - much less Members of Congress - to evaluate them. It's fundamentally undemocratic for a single member of Congress to allocate money without scrutiny of his colleagues and the public. The process stinks.” Miller’s take attracted a most interesting reply, from Plumer himself: I do support more transparency, to a point … but whatever differences might exist, the article certainly wasn't intended as an attack on the Sunlight Foundation, and if it gave that impression, I apologize.”

Blogometer PM Extra II

BLOGGERS VS. MSM: Everything’s Coming Up Rosie

Didn’t take long for Rosie O’Donnell to make her presence on The View known, but it wasn’t unexpected. You could almost say it was heavily anticipated. Even North Korea is keeping score.

Bloggers were quick to respond, and sardonically so. Rob at Say Anything: “That's weird, because I can't even remember the last time some reporters were forced to convert to radical Mormonism at gun point, nor do I remember the last time some crazed Presbyterian threatened to saw a hostage's head off if his demand weren't met. Perhaps Rosie can clue me in to a side of American religion I'm naive to.” Van Helsing at Moonbattery: “One advantage liberals have is their knack for saying things that are so fundamentally false and gut-twistingly vile that you don't know where to begin rebutting them.” Bryan at Hot Air quipped, “Is she armed with facts or just her own ignorant opinion?”

Some, like Lorie Byrd at Wizbang!, feel for The View’s “token conservative” Elisabeth Hasselbeck: “[S]he has been vastly outnumbered and overpowered.” Mary Katharine Ham at Townhall: “You should see the look on Hasselbeck's face. Bless her heart, I can't believe she has to deal with them every day.” And amid a lengthy deconstruction of Rosie’s rants, Scott Whitlock at NewsBusters rued, “Hasselbeck… meekly submitted to the liberal onslaught.”>

Evan Derkacz at AlterNet was one of seemingly few O’Donnell defenders, reacting in particular to the aforementioned NewsBusters item: “Whitlock responds in the way the bankrupt always do: with a snide comment…”

Blogometer PM Extra

BUSH: Third Time's A Charm?

President Bush waxed theological with conservative luminaries 9/12, on what he called a “Third Awakening” of religious fervor, the Washington Post reports. The Awakenings refer to waves of religious sentiment in American history, the first in the 18th century, the second in the 19th. How does the President reckon this is the third? “I think there’s change happening here,” he said.

Lefty bloggers picked up on the "awakening" with amusement and apprehension, mostly. Michael Van Der Galien at Liberty and Justice is somewhat perturbed: “I believe a democratically elected leader of a nation in which state and Church are separated would best refrain from using words like this…” Shakespeare’s Sister catches the obvious tie to the Terror War, saying “It’s bloody dangerous to identify terrorism as evil, which is an irrational concept, when it is, irrespective of our president’s opinion, a rational act with identifiable motivations.” The Smirking Chimp’s xxdr_zombiexx smirks back with: “It's quite apparent that, as religion is the last resort of a scoundrel, Team Bush, with its back to the wall, is playing the religious fervor card.” Shakespeare’s Sister adds: “Bush illustrates that he is patently incapable of engaging this complex problem with the rigorous intricacy it requires.”

9/13: Guess Who's Coming To Lunch?

Bloggers! At least if you're ex-Pres. Clinton, they did 9/12. A virtual 'who's who' of the progressive blogging community subwayed, trained, and flew to Harlem for a two-hour lunch with Bill and Peter Daou, Sen. Hillary Clinton's (D-NY) blog outreach director. Could there possibly be a more telling sign that bloggers are a true force in the Dem Party?

Lefty bloggers were ecstatic over Sen. Lincoln Chafee's (R) victory over Cranston mayor Steve Laffey (R). Under the header "Lincoln Chafee's Criticism of Bush Foreign Policy -- Including John Bolton -- Gets Boost" Steve Clemons at The Huffington Post writes: "This Chafee victory is also a potential sign that Republicans who "look like Bush" are in trouble -- and that Republicans who are pragmatists and not ideologues may be on the comeback."

M.J. Rosenberg at TPM Cafe is "smiling tonight" since "the most outspoken advocate of Israeli-Palestinian peace in the Senate and the only Republican to vote against authorizing the Iraq war (only 22 Senators TOTAL opposed it)" won. Rosenberg sees a pattern: "Connecticut Democrats choose the anti-Iraq war challenger, Ned Lamont, and Rhode Island Republicans choose the anti Iraq war incumbent, Lincoln Chafee. I like the pattern. The two most strenuously fought Senate primaries are won by anti-Iraq war candidates."

Righties were incensed:

• Conservative talk-show host Hugh Hewitt: "This is a very unfortunate development, and rewards an almost cosmic incoherence on the part of Chafee. I remain firmly of the opinion that the defeat of Chafee is in the best interests of the GOP, and understand the false comparisons with the Lamont-Lieberman race that will follow. Simply put: Lincoln Chafee did not vote for the invasion of Iraq, for the re-election of President Bush, or for the confirmation of Justice Alito."
• Robert Bluey at Right Angle Blog: "Republican incumbents are struggling in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri, Montana and other states. However, Sen. Liddy Dole (R-NC) chose to devote the NRSC's resources to Rhode Island -- a race that Chafee might not even win. In the meantime, Dole managed to alienate conservatives across the country by supporting a liberal Republican -- leaving the NRSC well behind the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in fundraising."
• EZOnTheEyez at RedState: "Lincoln Chafee is an idiot and an absolute embarrassment to the party. He is everything that Democrats accuse Republicans of being but most are not - stupid, silver spoon fed trust fund babies who only got where they are in life because of daddy's money."

Under the header "Republicans On the March to Stop Bush!" Kausfiles notes that the candidate who ran strongest against Pres. Bush's "amnesty" immigration bill won 9/12: "It looks as if immigration hard-liner Randy Graf has defeated National Republican Congressional Committee favorite Steve Huffman in the Republican primary for Arizona's Eighth District."

Matt Stoller at MyDD passes along the latest Rep. Al Wynn (D) and atty Donna Edwards (D) (tied at 48% with 75% reporting) and comments: "Ok, here's what I understand is going on right now. Basically the provisional ballots, all of which are from Montgomery County, will not be counted until next week. Montgomery County is where Donna Edwards has her base, so that's a very good thing. Voting problems, mostly due to the poor quality of the Diebold systems, were extensive. I'm trying to get information from the legal team of the Edwards campaign to lock this down."

Power Line's John Hinderaker announces: "Keith Ellison (also known by aliases that include Keith Hakim, Keith X Ellison and Keith Ellison-Muhammad) won the Minnesota 5th District Democratic primary today." Hugh Hewitt adds: "I didn't think it was possible, but now the Democratic Party has nominated the extremist cut-and-run, anti-war lefty Ned Lamont in Connecticut, and the even more radical Ellison in Minnesota. ... "Any story tomorrow that fails to note basic facts about Ellison is an indictment of the MSM. ... The MSM has thrown in with the Democrats in this cycle, and there is zero chance of old media producing anything remotely like a thorough review of Ellison's past and his written and spoken words."

Pres. Bill Clinton sat down with leaders of the lefty blogging community in his Harlem offices 9/12 and TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt noted those in attendance: Jane Hamsher and Christy Hardin Smith from Firedoglake, Atrios, McJoan from Daily Kos, John Aravosis and Joe from AmericaBlog, Matt Stoller and Chris Bowers from MyDD, Bill Scherer from Liberal Oasis, Dave from SeeingtheForest, Steve from The Carpetbagger Report, Jessica from Feministing, Barbara from Mahablog, Attending by phone: John Amato from Crooks and Liars

Merritt's first posted photo from the event features Clinton and Daou, seated directly to his left. Merritt ran down the menu (southern chicken, fresh salad, baked sweet potato fries, sauteed spinach, corn, cornbread, and a cherry cake-like dessert) and adds: "Criminal defense lawyers take note: He's far better on our issues than we thought while he was president, from mandatory minimums, to drug courts to restoring the right to vote to former offenders. I'm totally impressed."

John in DC (aka John Aravosis) at AMERICAblog has many more photos and comments: "My impressions? He looks a little older than I expected, though befitting someone who was president for eight years (and he was first elected 14 years ago). He's got beautiful blue eyes (this isn't something I normally notice, but in his case I did, and he does, and I suspect he uses it to good effect). The man is smart as hell. He knows a lot about everything, and he gets it, he gets politics, he gets people, he understands what's going on and knows how to get things done. ... But on a more practical side, as I said at the beginning, these kind of meet-and-greets are what make politics work when it works - the importance of the personal cannot be overstated. We get more done working together than working separately, and that's one of the main messages we delivered."

Chris Bowers at MyDD also has a post up: "This was an amazing day for me. I felt a tremendous swelling of patriotic pride and love for America when I attended this meeting. Here I was, with a group of my friends and colleagues, meeting with one of our nation's Presidents because our small, do-it-yourself political operation had drawn his attention. I mean, this is largely work I have completed and a movement to which I have contributed from the bedroom of my apartment in West Philly. Somehow, in only a few years, this resulted in meeting with a former President of the United States."

The Corner's Rich Lowry and Kate O'Beirne shared excerpts of "an on-the-record session with a handful of journalists in the Oval Office this morning" with Pres. Bush:

• On Bin Laden: "Bush emphasized the importance of intelligence. Perhaps with those critics on his mind who argue that we took our eye off the ball by not committing the troops necessary to find the terror leader, Bush said,"100,000 troops there in Pakistan is not the answer, it's someone saying 'Guess what?' [i.e. `I know here he is'] and then the kinetic action begins."
• On Troop Levels: "Asked if generals might be inhibited in asking for more troops because it might be such a politically unwelcome request, Bush used a dismissive expletive for the notion. He expressed his conviction that his generals know he has what it takes-briefly showing his fluidity in Spanish-to get them the troops they need even if the politics isn't favorable."
• On Iran: "Asked whether it is the policy of the U.S. government to seek a regime change in Iran and Syria, he answered mostly on Iran. He said of Iran, "in order to solve this problem, it's very important for the U.S. to try all diplomatic means." He said people ask him what's the difference between Iran and Iraq. The answer he said is that "we tried all diplomatic means in Iraq."
• On Interrogation Policy: "Asked about the interrogation controversy, he said legislation should outline "clearly what is acceptable and provide liability protection so interrogators will feel protected going forward." He was emphatic that people should understand that "as long as the War Crimes Act hangs over their heads, they [interrogators] will not take the steps necessary to protect" Americans."
• On Elections: "He explained, "I'm not going to convince Democrats to vote for Republicans, there might be some Independents I can convince, but the key will be whether Republicans understand the stakes." He said, "I've got the message and we can see if I can make [it through another] election cycle articulating the difference" between the two parties. He believes that the candidates themselves have to be "steadfast regarding what they thought was right in the beginning."
• On Government Spending: "President Bush touts his Administration's "very aggressive approach on non-security discretionary spending." He pointed out that the deficit as a percent of GDP is down and explained that it's "the job of the President to negotiate the size of the pie," but if the President is to affect how its slices are divvied up he has to have the line item veto. He said that Washington has to tackle the unfunded liabilities in major entitlement programs because they "affect people's lives."

The blogosphere (minus the netroots portion that doesn't acknowledge Dem infighting stories) took notice of Hotline On Call's (go team!) post detailing a truce between the DNC's Howard Dean and the DCCC's Rahm Emanuel. Most highlighted this portion of the story: "Sources outside the party said that some Dean advisers wanted to include a "good behavior" clause that would increase the amount of money given to House races if Emanuel refrained from publicly or privately denigrating the DNC."

TNR's Michael Crowley commented: "The idea "never made it past the drawing board," apparently. But it's sort of hilarious that anyone even suggested it." Greg Pollowitz at National Review Online joked: "A good behavior clause? Is this the Democratic Party or an episode of SuperNanny?"

Andrew Sullivan notes growing conservative willingness to take it on chin this fall pointing to a Washington Monthlyforum featuring "Jeffrey Hart, Christopher Buckley, Bruce Bartlett, William Niskanen, Bruce Fein and Richard Viguerie" all hoping for "the Republicans lose this November. For the sake of conservatism and the country." At National Review Online Kathryn Jean Lopez notes that National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru has an op-ed in the New York Times making a similar argument. Outside the Beltway's James Joyner has a lengthy post reviewing each of the Washington Monthly essayists including this response to Buckley's piece: "All fair criticisms and, indeed, all things I've criticized along with a substantial chunk of the conservative commentariat. Corruption and abuse of power for personal or political ends is shameful. Does Buckley really believe, though, that these would end were the Democrats in charge?"

Kim Priestap at Wizbang links to Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard's (R) columns at Townhall "about the virtues of tax cuts for a strong economy." The post also has video of Bouchard's latest television ad featuring his daughter complaining about what a killjoy her "common sense conservative" father is on her dating life.

Instapundit has a lengthy audio up of an interview with ex-Chattanooga mayor Bob Corker (R). Topics include: "Iraq, the war on terror, the Second Amendment, immigration, and more. Plus, questions about earmarks and pork!"

GregP at DailyKos has video and a written account of Sen. George Allen's (R) "Ethnic Community Rally" at Thomas Edison High School 9/9: "From watching people arriving, it was clear than at least half were white. Of the rest a couple bus loads of people from Asian-American church groups made up the largest contingent. The number of African Americans probably did break into the two digits, but just barely. ... The George Washington University College Republicans didn't let good 'ol George Allen down though -- a large contingent of 'ringers' from GWU showed up, almost all white, and provided the cheering crowd which gave Allen such a roaring send off."

Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo links to Allen's photo gallery from the event and writes: "I guess 'ethnic rally' was better than 'brown people outreach' and that probably would have been better than 'macaca day'." DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas adds: "I see ... white people cheering Allen. Maybe they're Italian or Polish? That would still be 'ethnic,' right?"

New Allen supporting blog The A-Team announces "Senior African-American Democratic State Senator" Benjamin Lambert endorsed Allen 9/12 due to Allen's support of Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Ex-Navy sec. James Webb (D) Netroots Coordinator Lowell Feld at Raising Kaine responds with a release from Virginia State University: "George Allen's budget plan in 1995 cut nearly 10% of the budget of Norfolk State University and Virginia State University, Virginia's two historically black colleges, according to an article in the Virginian Pilot entitled "Budget hits 2 black colleges hard."

Finally, Extreme Mortman points out that the Washington Post and the Roanoke Times can't agree on the definition of macaca. The Posteditorializes that the meaning of macaca "was never really defined" while the Roanoke Timesclaims macaca "is considered a racial slur in some language." EM reader Riley, Not O'Reilly adds: "Not to mention Wikipedia and the Urban Dictionary which never had it defined as a slur until at least three days AFTER the comments were made. Can you say ex post facto boys and girls?"

Atrios looks at this Think Progress story on Rep. Jane Harman's (D-CA) criticism of VP Cheney's appearance on Meet the Press and comments: "One reason to mount primary challenges is to get incumbents to get more serious about their jobs. Since Jane Harman faced a serious primary challenger she has been much improved."

House Maj. Leader John Boehner (R-OH) took to RedState 9/12 to announce: "This week, the House of Representatives will vote on earmark reforms ... First we'll vote on bipartisan legislation championed in the House by Reps. Roy Blunt (R-MO) and Tom Davis (R-VA) that would increase transparency by establishing a public database to track federal grants and contracts. Then we'll vote on a proposal authored by Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) that would change House rules to reform the earmarking process itself."

Robert Bluey at Right Angle Blog writes: "As I noted earlier tonight, Boehner's actions represent an important moment for reforming the process of earmarks. But he can't do it alone, especially with entrenched appropriators wanting to maintain the status quo. That's why, no matter if you're on the left or right, this is a cause we should all rally around. With a vote scheduled for Thursday, time is short."

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas notes that typical Dem oppo research starts off with a charge like "Candidate X voted against children!" and "then lists seemingly random roll call votes (really, an alphabet soup of numbers and letters) that supposedly support the charge. Markos then uses (as Rich Lowry would put it ) "a dismissive expletive" to describe his impression of the tactic. Markos goes on:

But, in lots of ways, this is symbolic of the way Democrats have run elections -- with a untiring effort to appeal to voter's brains rather than with emotional appeals. ... Republicans are masters of building the "narrative". They don't throw these kinds of numbers at voters and expect to move them their direction. They build a narrative based on their (positive) values and their opponent's (negative) ones.

So in 2004, Bush's entire campaign was essentially 1) Bush will defend America, and 2) Kerry is a flip flopper. In 2000, it was 1) Bush is a compassionate bipartisan conservative, and 2) Gore exaggerates. That's it. Everything else is slotted into that narrative. ... The key is to find that negative value, and base the entire campaign to define the opponent around it. Then, every single issue that arises can be neatly slotted into that value, reinforcing it in the media and the voters' mind.

This year, we have well-defined narratives in the Virginia, Connecticut, and Montana races. In Virginia, Sen. Felix Macaca Allen has a history of racism, and much of it has come out. The images and words showing that pattern are far more powerful than a long list of Senate votes, and hits voters viscerally, effectively.

NewsBusters has video of Tucker Carlson's 9/12 Dancing With the Stars performance. At the Corner Kathryn Jean Lopez guesses: "He may win Miss Congeniality."

9/12: A Story For Some, But Not For Others

Two big SEN primary battles will be decided 9/12 (for Dems MD SEN, for GOPers RI SEN). And yet only one, RI SEN, has garnered much attention in the blogosphere. Even then conservative bloggers' almost uniform support for Cranston Mayor Stephen Laffey (R) over Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R) has been largely muted. Unlike CT SEN, which had daily updates from DailyKos, MyDD, Eschaton, firedoglake, TPM Cafe, and a slew of well-read local CT blogs, none of the big conservative bloggers is on hand reporting for Laffey 9/12. It's no mystery where RedState, Power Line et al stand, but RI SEN was never a priority for them. Whatever the reasons for the difference in focus, the contrast demonstrates that the insurgent Dem faction is much more blogger-based than GOP dissenters. We'll see how long this stays the case.

"The biggest race," 9/12 according to Robert Bluey at Right Angle Blog "pits populist Steve Laffey against liberal Lincoln Chafee." Bluey points to Hotline TV analysis (go team!) of the race and notes: "Hotline, editors Chuck Todd and John Mercurio both think Laffey has a chance to knock off the incumbent. However, only Mercurio picked Laffey to take the big prize. Bluey also points out that Right Angle Blog readers prefer Laffey to Chafee 83%-15%.

Bull Dog at Ankle Biting Pundits acknowledges that "no one is under the illusion that a Laffey win makes it more likely that a Democrat will take the seat. ... Still, it is extremely galling to have the NRSC and the establishment ride to the rescue of Lincoln Chafee, someone without the (dare I say) gravitas to count to 10, let alone serve in the Senate. Especially given the fact that he couldn't even bring himself to vote for President Bush in 2004. ... Conservatives are as realistic as anyone, but there comes a point where you have to stand for something, lest you stand for nothing."

Mark Blumenthal at Pollster.com tries to make sense out of conflicting polls. "One poll had Laffey ahead by seventeen percentage points, another conducted at exactly the same time Chafee ahead by fourteen." Blumenthal concludes the Chafee leader poll is probably more accurate:

If the NRSC or Public Opinion Strategies has released information about their sampling methodology, I have been unable to find it. However, the WSJ Washington Wire item included an "intriguing nugget" that provides a pretty good clue about the discrepancy between the surveys: "Of the 53% of respondents who could actually name the primary election date, 58% support Mr. Chafee compared to 37% who back Mr. Laffey."

So Chafee's lead was wider on the POS poll among those who knew the primary date than among those who did not. True likely voters tend to be more knowledgeable about elections (one reason the Gallup likely voter model includes similar measures of knowledge). This result suggests that Chafee does better among the most likely of likely voters, a difference that may help explain the gap between the two polls.

Lefty bloggers are taking a pass on the Rep. Ben Cardin (D-03)/ex-NAACP pres./ex-Rep. Kweisi Mfume (D) contest. Matt Stoller at MyDD writes: "I'd probably vote for Mfume over Cardin on the Senate side. Mfume's just more dynamic, and Cardin's part of the Hoyer machine. Both candidates are good people." Chris Bowersadds : "The winner of the primary should get a very nice bump in the polls afterward, and will be favored against Republican Michael Steele in this open seat. ... I am neutral in this campaign, as I have my doubts about both Democratic candidates."

Both MyDDers do have strong opinions on MD-04's contest between Rep. Al Wynn (D) and atty Donna Edwards (D). Bowers writes: "Even if Edwards does not win, I hope she is willing to give it another go in 2008. Al Wynn needs to be replaced, and in a different cycle the progressive movement can get behind Edwards much earlier and with far more effectiveness." Stoller adds: "In Maryland's 4th, obviously I'm a big Donna Edwards fan. She's gotten a bunch of good press today, including this piece by CQ and this one at BlackAmericaWeb. Edwards has a shot, which is a huge deal. And if she doesn't win, she'll be able to force Wynn to left for the next few years. Go 50 state strategy, and go Donna."

Chris Bowers at MyDD looks at "a tough three-way battle between Jamie Wall, Nancy Nasbaum and Steve Kagen" and concludes: "While the Democrat leads in the generic ballot 48-44, I worry that our nominee will not have the time to recover following a brutal primary. Then again, our nominee will emerge with a superior infrastructure and name ID to Republican nominee Gard, so maybe it won't be all that bad. Again, I am neutral in this primary."

Kausfiles looks at an Los Angeles Timesstory on a ex-Rep. Mac Collins (R-GA) recent television ad playing on fears that House min leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) could become speaker and give "amnesty" to illegal aliens. Kaus comments: "In other words, Pelosi might pass Bush's immigration plan! ... P.S.: Is anyone still suggesting that nasty Sensenbrenner immigration bill is going to cost Republicans the House? I haven't heard that one lately."

TPM Muckraker reports that a judge ordered ex-Chattanooga Mayor Bob Corker (R) to provide documents relating to a lawsuit filed by environmental activists on 10/20. The suit concerns Corker's involvement "in two sides of a three-way deal to develop a Wal-Mart "supercenter" in the town of Chattanooga. His company sold land to the developers of the site -- and as mayor, his city administration allowed environmental concerns to be pushed aside in favor of the development."

Over at RedState, Erick Erickson has audio from a recent interview with Corker including talk "about September 11th, first responders and criticisms that the Bush Administration has not helped first responders, Harold Ford, Jr.'s attempts to run as a Republican, and the issues Mayor Corker sees in this 2006 election season."

Chris Bowers at MyDD looks inside Mason-Dixon's fav/unfav ratings for Sen. George Allen (R) and ex-Navy sec. James Webb (D) and likes what he sees: "Webb has a 3-1 positive ratio in this category, at 28% favorable and 7% unfavorable. Allen, by contrast, has only a 3-4 positive ratio, at 41% favorable, 31% unfavorable. Numbers like these strongly suggest that Webb will not only pull ahead of Allen, but comfortably pull ahead of Allen once they have comparable name ID's."

Bowers is less impressed with Webb's first television ad which attempts to raise Webb's name ID: "Not only does the ad never mention that Webb is a Democrat, it prominently features Ronald Reagan in both words and images. This may appeal to some voters, but I have serious doubts about its' effectiveness when it comes to actually getting people to vote for Webb. What happens when people go into the voting booth ready to dump Allen, but then discover that the nice-seeming alternative that is Jim Webb is actually a Democrat? Without any branding of the Democratic Party image in Virginia, how many people will Webb end up losing in the voting booth itself?"

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas wants to see potential Dem WH hopefulls ability to help fellow Dems down ballot before he starts picking sides. To that end he lets each candidate know what they can do to catch his eye this fall.

• Bayh: "Indiana has become one of the hottest battlegrounds in the battle for Congress, with competitive races in the IN-02, IN-08, and IN-09 districts. Furthermore, Democrats have a real shot at taking control of the Indiana House, which is currently 48-52, Democratic/Republican. Bayh has an opportunity to prove his detractors wrong and demonstrate that he can be a powerful force toward rebuilding his state's tattered Democratic Party and helping us win back control of Congress."
• Clinton: "Clinton has her work cut out for her. ... But Democrats are legitimately competitive in a stunning six House seats in the state ... That's nothing to sneeze at. ... Clinton may not be able to give cash to these Democratic challengers ... but she ... can fund the most lavish GOTV operation in the history of the state ... And with no serious top-of-the-ticket Republicans to fund GOP turnout or drive Republicans to the polls, Hillary can help completely transform the state and Congress.
• Edwards: "North Carolina has great pickup opportunities in NC-08 and NC-11. Edwards is one of those guys (like Clark) that campaign for Dems all over the country. But North Carolina is a state that is trending Blue, and Edwards can help speed up that transformation."
• Richardson: "I lost a bit of respect for Richardson when he failed to help deliver New Mexico to Kerry in 2004. He can start making up for it by helping deliver NM-01 to the Democratic column this November."
• Vilsack: "Like Richardson, Vilsack gets a strike for failing to deliver Iowa in 2004. Like Warner in 2005, Vilsack can help protect his legacy by helping keep the governor's office in Democratic hands, as well as pick up IA-01."
• Warner: "Warner already proved himself in 2005 by helping hold the governor's seat in a tough state, and making Democratic gains in the state legislature for the second election cycle in a row. ... But, we all have short memories in politics ... what better way to do that than to help Jim Webb take out Felix Macaca Allen?"

Due to grapevine rumors and the realization that "Hillary's weaknesses has made the field look more open than it previously did," Ezra KleinTAPPED looks at the success of Al Gore's movie and his recent WH'08 non-denial in Australia and concludes: "Given that there are already a wide range of sites, organizations, and individuals trying to attract Al to the race, it's looking less and less likely to me that he'll resist the temptation."

GOP '08 FIELD: Immigration And Pro-Life Crosstabs To Come!

GOP Bloggers is conducting their third 2008 Straw Poll with another wrinkle: "New in this poll, you tell us your views on abortion and the guest worker program. How does ones views on these issues influence your vote? We shall soon see!" Many righty blogs carry the poll and results by each participating blog are available (eg Right Wing News).

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) political consultant Patrick Hynes at Ankle Biting Pundits and Liz Mair at GOP Progress both are unhappy with David Frum's latest American Enterprise Institute piece on McCain's WH hopes.

• Hynes: "McCain, Frum argues, is destined to lose the presidency (should he decide to run) because, like William Jennings Bryan (a three-time presidential loser) and Adlai Stevenson (a two-time loser), he serves in the Senate. ... Um, no. You see, William Jennings Bryan never served in the United States Senate. Neither did Stevenson, for that matter. Stevenson was Governor of Illinois for one term, which, by Frum's calculation, would have made it far more likely that he would have become president. But he wasn't. So what's Frum's point? Oh, yeah. He doesn't like John McCain. And he's scrounging for a good reason.
• Mair: "Frum points to Lieberman and then says "Like McCain, Lieberman never really strayed that far from the Democratic line." Huh? McCain never strays far from the Democratic line? Maybe I've missed something, but last time I checked, privatizing Social Security, getting rid of pork barrel spending, stopping abortion on demand, suggesting more troops in Iraq would be a good idea, and voting for Sam Alito were not exactly indicative of the "Democratic line."

If you were blogging on 9/11/2006, you had thoughts on 9/11. For the most thorough roundup of blogger thoughts memeorandum is the best place to go. Some Blogometer quick hits include:

• DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas
: "Thanks to everyone who has wished me a happy birthday today (like this diary. If any of you want to get me something for my birthday, what I really, really want today is $5-10 (or whatever) to your favorite ActBlue Netroots candidate."
• the right's littlegreen footballs: "Allahpundit tells me that he captured the video from 8:30 am to 3:00 pm, but did not see this infamous footage, pulled from the airwaves almost immediately on 9/11 after threats from Palestinians against Western news agencies. Did CNN also purge this from their video archives?"
• the left's Charles P. Pierce at TAPPED: "However, one little bit of video did catch my attention this morning. Matt Lauer of The Today Show got an interview in the Oval Office with George W. Bush. ... To Lauer's enormous credit, and given the strange circumstances, he pushed as hard as was possible on the subject of the president's right to torture people. The way you knew he'd pushed hard was that the president began talking in smaller and smaller circles. ... The president refused to talk about "techniques that we use on people." .... "It's my job to protect YOU," he told Lauer at one point.
• the left's Atrios: "It's firmly etched in the bedrock of our political discourse that war in Afghanistan was necessary and desirable and that All Serious People agree with that. But, frankly, there really isn't much reason to be so sure about that anymore. ... There's no way to answer the question of whether the Afghanistan war was the right thing to do - it was inevitable and there's no way to tease out a credible "what if" alternative history timeline - but it's reasonable to ask if it's been a net good. ... We certainly didn't achieve what we should have, and those "far-left types" who worried that we were going to kill a bunch of people then screw the pooch certainly had a point.

Outside the Beltway's James Joyner touched a nerve with The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum when he wrote: "Earlier, I collected a series of 9/11 anniversary reflections from the press and the blogosphere. ... everyone pretty much agreed that the day was horrible, changed a lot of things about the world, and reflected on people who were murdered that day. There's a different view out there, though, and it's not just held by Muslim fanatics and our enemies across the globe but by some prominent lefties with large soapboxes.

Drum responded: "Speaking only for myself, I'm not sure this should come as a surprise to anyone. My biggest disappointment of the past five years - the biggest by a very long way - has been the way that George Bush transformed 9/11 from an opportunity to bring the country together into a cynical and partisan cudgel useful primarily for winning a few more votes in national elections. ... Compare and contrast: FDR was surely one of the most partisan presidents of the 20th century, but after Pearl Harbor he announced that "Dr. New Deal has been replaced by Dr. Win the War." And he made good on that.

Joyner shot back: "Just as FDR didn't roll back the New Deal when his war got going, Bush didn't suddenly stop believing in tax cuts, the non-utility of the UN, and so forth. Further, it's not as if Democrats stopped trying to stonewall the majority's policy initiatives in a spirit of bipartisan cooperation."

Josh Marshall at Talking Point Memo has a message for Dems concerning WH Dep. CoS Karl Rove: "Get off your butt, forget the cult of Rove, and start contesting the election. ... the bigger victory Rove has managed over Democrats ... his ability to get deep inside the heads of many Democrats and make them think that no matter what the situation or what the available facts suggest, Karl Rove must be on top of the situation and it must be playing to his advantage." TPM reader RP adds: "Every basketball coach will tell you the way to win games is to 'get the other team out of its game, and make them play your game." To a certain extent, even listening to Rove and the Republican Screech Monkeys is a waste of time. What to do? Stay focused on one and only message."

At TPM Cafe Will Menaker has video of a new ad from The Center For Security Policy which will run in NY, OH, MO, VA, and VT. "The ad shows images of the burning Twin Towers and Americans held hostage and concludes by flashing on the screen: "Vote as if your life depends on it. Because it does."

Tom Schaller at TAPPED looks at lefty blogger efforts to thwart ABC's "The Path to 9/11" docudrama and likes what he sees:

For years now, the standard attack on liberals or liberal Democrats has been two-pronged. The first prong proceeds from the idea that the vast majority of liberals are weak, slow-to-learn political bunglers who repeat the same mistakes, chose the same dumb candidates, take lumps without fighting back, etc. The second prong of the attack is to assert that the small sliver of politically competent liberals are ruthless, shameless, rabid radicals bent on destroying the country and its values -- not to mention liberalism itself and the Democratic Party along the way.

Well, guess what? In the wake of the nationwide campaign to de-legitimize ABC's 9-11 "documentary," it will be increasingly hard for the mainstream talking heads, who normally opt for the feckless half of the critique, or the Limbaugh/Hannity/York types, who by reflex lean toward the reckless option, to be successful unless they adapt a new way of perpetrating their systematic demeaning and diminishing of the left. For what we saw in the past two weeks, led yet again by key actors on the left, from MoveOn to powerhouse blogs to Media Matters for America to key politicians, was a smart, measured, coordinated, savvy, sometimes cheeky but ultimately successful -- no less pre-emptive -- criticism of a national network, its key decision makers, and its corporate owners.

This feat would not have been possible even three or four years ago. But, regardless of when the clout threshold was crossed, a smart, coordinated, energized left is now here, and no more wait-and-see analyses or other postponed judgments will suffice because a decidedly non-feckless, non-reckless campaign was put together on the fly. And it succeeded.

Ryan Sager at RCP Blog highlights the efforts of www.stopshuler.com www.stopshuler.com whose mission statement reads:

No, we are not residents of North Carolina's 11th District, nor could we pick it out on a map (it's up in the mountains, right?). No, we aren't working for any of Shuler's rivals. We simply are Redskins fans and we love the city of Washington. And quite frankly, both are better off since Heath left town, and we don't want him back.

Sager includes video of the groups's "latest attack ad on Shuler" which blames Shuler for Marion Barry, the city's record homicide rate, the city's lack of a baseball team, the awfulness of the Wizards, and, of course, the awfulness of the Redskins. The ad concludes: "Don't let Heath Shuler anywhere near Washington or the Redskins. Stop Shuler."

9/11: You've Come Along Way Baby

The contrast between the unity and compassion of 9/11/2001 and the bitter recriminations 9/11/2006 is perhaps starkest in the blogosphere, especially in light of ABC's "The Path to 9/11" docudrama. As noted below, blogs were just in their infancy five years ago today, and one wonders how such an attack would have played in a more mature (read partisan) blogosphere. Opinions vary widely as to who is to blame for the deterioration of comity since 9/11, but whoever is at fault, 9/11 promises to be a highly politicized issue for years to come.

The left side of the blogosphere was dominated by discussion of ABC's "The Path to 9/11" docudrama which aired opposite NBC's premier of "Sunday Night Football" 9/10. AMERICAblog led the charge throughout the weekend and liveblogged the broadcast including:

• Disney/ABC defames Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger: "Disney/ABC just broadcast a scene that never happened. Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger refuses to give the order to capture or kill bin Laden, even though our guys had him in their sights. Only problem, it never happened."
• Disney/ABC defames American Airlines in worldwide broadcast: "Well, so much for edits. Disney/ABC just blamed American Airlines, falsely, for ignoring a warning on their computers about Mohammad Atta boarding their flight. It's a lie."
• Disney/ABC burns American flag: "I just think it's kind of interesting that they did."

AMERICAblog also obtained an early copy of the film and previewed scenes for readers:

• Nice. Now I'm watching a scene where a movie of President Clinton is being projected on a screen, it's footage from some Clinton speech, and a Taliban guy walks up and shoots several times at Clinton's head, you see a good 5 or 6 or more bullets make holes in the screen in the middle of Clinton's head, just like he's assassinating Clinton.
• Okay, so right after the falsified and defamatory scene where they blame everything on Sandy Berger, the lead Afghan guerilla fighter, Masoud, says "Are there any men left in Washington, or are they all cowards?" (Note to Sandy: They just called you a coward, and this video already went out to 1,000 opinion leaders in the press - you've already been defamed.) But it gets better. Immediately the show switches to video of President Clinton testifying on tape about the Monica Lewinsky matter.

Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo looks at a Providence Journal review of the film that includes, "The two-part, five-hour ABC special airing Sunday and Monday at 8 p.m. on Channels 5 and 6 is compelling and confounding, gripping and disturbing. And it's all completely true," and comments: "Why all of ABC/Disney's bogus disclaimers don't mean jack." And DK at TPM notes that overseas disclaimers ran once, not through out the broadcast.

MyDD has video of a Courage Campaign demonstration outside Disney HQ and AMERICAblog has a ten point action plan to punish Disney for the "defamatory show."

Righty blogger reaction to "The Path to 9/11" was mixed but definitely trended positive as they weekend drew on. RedState "is proud to present" video of six segments of the film under dispute. Outside the Beltway offers synopsis of all six segments and Hot Air has edited and unedited versions of the infamous Berger/bin Laden assasination clip.

Instapundit liveblogged the file and "thanks to the miracle of the international dateline" has one reader's review of the miniseries conclusion: "I actually felt less inclined to indulge in recriminations having just watched plane number 2 smash through the tower again. On the politics though - Condi does not look good, but as a consequence of cluelessness rather than being a jerk. On the other hand, there are some scenes with Albright and Ambassador Bodine (in Yemen where the Cole was attacked) which I hope are true because if they are not, would be really unfair. ...

News Busters has a rundown of 9/11 Commission co-chair Thomas Kean's and Commissioner John Lehman's appearance on "This Week" including from Kean: "

Oh, of course, it should be aired. I mean, I'm not for censorship or not allowing people to see things. In my experience with these people who've been working in the film they've been responsive to criticism, mine and other people's, and have made changes that were necessary. I haven't seen the final cut. It's a miniseries. It's not a documentary. It's not done by ABC news. It's done by ABC news entertainment, but as I've seen it, I think it'll make a contribution.

Ms Underestimated watched Nightline's post-docudrama show and was not happy: "What a load of crap! Is this another way ABC bowed to the Clinton's legal team? Richard Clarke, shoving everything off onto George Tenet, for all the screwups that happened. Can you say "scattered, smothered and covered" alibis? Richard Clarke had the POWER to order Tenet to strike and he did not. He apparently has/had no balls, but that is a surprise to whom?"

Meanwhile Betsy's Page was just happy to have Berger back in the news again: "One benefit of the controversy surrounding Path to 9/11 is that people are beginning to remember that there was once a National Security Adviser named Sandy Berger who later stole Top Secret documents from the National Archives. Director Blue reminds us what documents Sandy Berger stole from the National Archives.

Finally Kausfiles looks at Max Blumenthal's worries in The Huffington Post over "The Path to 9/11" director David Cunningham ties to "the right-wing evangelical group Youth With A Mission" and isn't impressed. Kaus writes:

Maybe I'm complacent about the threat, but isn't that a little like worrying about the growing anti-Zionist foothold at The New Republic? If you put Hollywoods's entire network of right wing people in David Horowitz's living room, you wouldn't have much trouble getting to the hors d'oeuvre tray. If you tried to put Hollywood's network of left wing people in the Los Angeles Convention Center, the fire marshal would close it down.

Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo looks at the Washington Post's 9/10 article on GOP plans to get personal and local this fall and focuses on the man "chosen to head up the effort" Terry Nelson. "Nelson has the unique distinction of being tied to two of the biggest cases of Republican campaign corruption in the Bush era. Nelson was implicated in the infamous New Hampshire phone-jamming scandal and he was an unindicted co conspirator in the political money-laundering case which ended Tom DeLay's career." Matt Stoller at MyDD also digs dirt on Nelson under the header "Scared Straight."

Over at TPM CafeReed Hundt looks at GOP plans to go negative and advises:

The White House campaign is nationally only about the war on terror and locally is about going negative in very specific ways, person by person. The goal is to boost their own turn-out and drive down ours. ... Democrats need to stop worrying about being middle-of-the-road so as to be pleasing to independents, and focus on their own allegations, charges, and offensive measures, both nationally and in each local race. ... Finally, the so-called netroots need to pay attention race by race to scandalous and corrupt behavior by the Republicans. The netroots can create newspaper coverage and even television news about this behavior, but without the instigation at the Net level such news is not likely to be reported in the mainstream media.

Conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt looks at the same WaPo article and sees "simple agenda-journalism of the sort we should expect in great waves between now and November." he points out that the first ad in the campaign hits Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) on border security and asks: "Are there any editors left at the Post? If the story is supposed to be about using "personal issues and local controversies," how exactly does an ad about illegal immigration fit the premise?"

Finally Kausfiles passes along a thought from a reader: "Have you already mentioned that if Schwarzenegger's redistricting had passed, the cake would be baked because the Dems would pick up at least five seats in California instead of zero?"

Under the header "No to Bipartisanship, Yes to Investigations and Accountability" Matt Stoller at MyDD argues Democracy Corps conclusions on this falls elections have a narrow view of what a positive agenda can mean:

"For current hacks in DC, it means to implement programs or 'get something done', which if I were cynical I would point out is another way for them to funnel patronage to their friends. For voters, a positive agenda could very well simply mean investigations, because investigations to find out what's been going on in government are the first step to fixing government."

Also at MyDD, BooMan breaks down likely committee chairs should the Dems take the Sen.

At Power Line John Hinderaker looks at the Sen. Intelligence Committee report on pre-war Iraq intelligence and Sen Dem threats to ABC and writes: "I think it's really important to work hard to get a Republican majority in the Senate, so the Dems won't be able to pull stunts like these!" DK at Talking Points Memo responds: "I've been going back and forth on whether this is the sarcastic post of a conservative irritated with Republicans on the Senate Intel Committee--or some bizarre new GOP meme that the Dems really control the Senate. If it's the former, it's lame humor. If it's the latter, well, where to even begin."

Meanwhile Captain's Quarters points to Sen. maj leader Bill Frist (R-TN) efforts on pushing border security in the Sen and adds: "If Frist can push through an overhaul of border defenses in the south, then the GOP rank and file will have a long-sought victory and will turn out in greater numbers. If the effort gets blocked by Democrats and moderate Republicans despite the efforts of GOP leadership ... then angry conservatives will turn out in greater numbers to defeat the obstructionists."

Mcjoan at DailyKos makes the case that the New York Times set up cable exec. Ned Lamont (D) on his recent trip to DC. Mcjoan looks at a 9/8 NYT article on a Lamont dinner with reporters that focussed almost entirely on Lamont's reaction to the Lewinsky Scandal and then notes the NYT 9/9 article headed: "Lieberman Points Out a Turnabout by Lamont" which includes edited portions of an email Lamont sent to Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) sent during the scandal. Mcjoan decries NYT's "sloppy" reporting of the content of the email and concludes: "So the whole idea that Joe just happened to remember corresponding with Lamont about this issue eight years ago, and that his staff just happened to stumble across this e-mail sent eight years ago, and the subject of the Lewinsky scandal just happened to have come up at the Lamont dinner just happens to stretch the limits of credibility."

Greg Sargent at TPM Cafe takes the AP to task for their write up of the Lamont email. Sargent argues that the AP failed to note that "Lamont repeatedly wrote that he was "reluctantly" praising Lieberman." Sargent concludes: "What this whole episode (fed for a full three days now by the Lieberman campaign) does prove is that Joe Lieberman is still an enabler for the GOP, and is proud of it." DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas added his thoughts on the mental capacity of those who question Lamont: "What this incident proves is that while Dan Gerstein might be the stupidest man in politics, the reporters covering this race are even more stupid. I mean, they lack even basic reading comprehension skills." Atrios thinks there ought to be more to the story: "A rather important - and perhaps legal - question is why a campaign aide has access to constituent letters to Joe's Senate office."

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas looks at Sen. Conrad Burns (R) new television ad attacking State Senate Pres. Jon Tester (D) on national security and snarks: "This is what an incumbent Senator with nothing else to run on puts on the air. Did you know Tester is pro-Al Qaida?"

Intelligent Discontent has audio of 9/10's Tester/Burns debate.

John McIntyre at RCP Blog congratulates those that recognized Sen. Bob Menendez (D) was going to have real trouble with State Sen. Tom Kean Jr. (R): "Charlie Cook moved it to a toss up yesterday, and with the news of the federal probe into Menendez's finances along with continued polling showing Menendez stuck in the high 30's and low 40's, expect the full consensus to move towards the reality that this race is indeed a toss up."

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas celebrates the new Mason-Dixon poll showing ex-Navy Sec. James Webb (D) closing to a 46%-42% gap with Sen. George Allen (R) and has video of Webb's first television ad set to air 9/11. Kos is not happy that the ad heavily features Ronald Reagan while not mentioning that Webb is a Dem, but his "confusion gave way to a bit of delight given the reaction by the Republicans. In short, they flipped. They even enlisted Nancy to try and hit back." Kos concludes: "That Allen has done nothing to negatively define Webb is a stroke of great luck for us. Allen could've done it early given his huge cash advantages, but that strategic blunder is now letting Webb define himself as he sees fits."

Not Larry Sabato takes a closer at Nancy Reagan's letter to the Webb campaign and argues: "It's very clear from that sentence that the people writing Nancy's letter never saw the ad. Someone took advantage of Ms. Reagan and clearly did not tell her the truth of what was actually in this ad."

Too busy watching the Hawkeyes narrowly defeat the Orange, Caucus Cooler sent their intern to Iowa Christian Alliance's "Friends of the Family" dinner. The intern reports:

As far as the real contenders go, Mike Huckabee was the only one that came in person. He didn't speak and he mostly stood around talking to those who approached him. I talked with him briefly about what he was doing in town this week and he mentioned a couple of State House and Senate candidates he was campaigning for and said that he was really concerned about helping them right now and not worrying about 2008. (yeah right). I didn't see any of his staff with him.

As far as Presidential staff goes, Romney had a table and I saw Jeff Fuller and Chad Airhart sitting with some other Romney people. Frist also bought a table. Marcus Branstad was there, but I didn't see Brian Kennedy. McCain's Iowa staff members, Chuck Larson and Matt Gronewald were at a table with Jim Kurtenbach. No sign of Pataki's staff or any ITR people, which I thought was strange.

The Blogometer is putting the finishing touches on a blog directory of the top 50 trafficked blogs which includes an item in each entry indicating when each blogger entered the medium. It's noteworthy how many of them began in the wake of 9/11. On that note Instapundit links to a Wiredarticle arguing that 9/11 had give birth to the blog phenomenon:

When the world changed on Sept. 11, 2001, the web changed with it. ... While phone networks and big news sites struggled to cope with heavy traffic, many survivors and spectators turned to online journals to share feelings, get information or detail their whereabouts. It was raw, emotional and new -- and many commentators now remember it as a key moment in the birth of the blog. ... "Back in 2001, blogs were still very much the geek toy of the Slashdot set," he [Matthew Yeomans] said. "(But) this collective tragedy demanded a forum to be shared by people all around the world who wanted to talk about what happened with anyone because it was the only way of making any sense of it. Were it to happen again, blogs and social networks would play an enormously cathartic role."

Wonkette keeps the mood up beat this 9/11 with a list of other anniversaries from the day including:

• In 1918, the Boston Red Sox won the Series...and they wouldn't do it again for 86 years.
• In 1962, the Beatles recorded their first single - "Love Me Do" backed with "P.S., I Love You." Ringo was only allowed to play tambourine and maracas. Later, Lennon & McCartney would be noted for their lyrics.
• In 1985, Pete Rose hit #4,192 and took Ty Cobb's record. Later, Rose would be shamed in a gambling scandal. But he's still Pete Rose.
• Brian De Palma turns 66! And Moby is 41!
• And on September 11, 1941, ground was broken on a gargantuan new War Department building called The Pentagon.

9/8: Just Like They Drew It Up?

Glenn Greenwald is right, the current kerfuffle over ABC's "The Path To 9/11" docudrama is much more like the righty blogger take-down of CBS' "The Reagans" than it is like Rathergate. That said, the lefties still have not yet crossed the finish line on this one. Is an all-out pulling of the miniseries the only outcome that could be called a victory? What if the ex-NSA Sandy Berger non-assassination of bin Laden scene is pulled, but the movie airs a mostly intact? And what if this is all just an elaborate scheme to promote the film while still managing to get the most egregious scenes into the public domain? After all the only scenes the Blogometer has seen so far are the objectionable ones.

Senate Dems scored big with their letter to Walt Disney CEO Robert Iger, demanding ABC pull their planned "The Path to 9/11" docudrama. AMERICAblog has video of Sen. min leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and writes:

The Senate Democratic leadership just threatened Disney's broadcast license. Not the use of the word "trustee" at the beginning of the letter and "trust" at the end. This is nothing less than an implicit threat that if Disney tries to meddle in the US elections on behalf of the Republicans, they will pay a very serious price when the Democrats get back in power, or even before.

Ex-NE Sen. Bob Kerrey (D), ex-Pres. Bill Clinton attorney Bruce Lindsey, and ex-Defense Sec. William Cohen all questioned ABC's judgement for fictionalizing portions of the 9/11 story. Meanwhile Greg Sargent at TPM Cafe reports Team Clinton will only be satisfied with a complete yanking of the series.

Over at DailyKos, Hollywood producer Robert Green speculates on Disney's motives:

[ABC] marketing took one look at this movie and said -- hey, Rush Limbaugh will love this. So will Hugh Hewitt. Remember, ABC owns lots of radio as well, and in particular right-wing talk radio. Synergy! And their audience will watch our movie if they tell them to (they don't call them dittoheads for nothing.) So marketing took the ball and ran with it (probably with cyrus's "friend of limbaugh" help). That's all about generating ratings and buzz.

Finally, Glenn Greenwald argues we've seen this script before:

When CBS announced in November, 2003 that it would broadcast a mini-series it produced about Ronald and Nancy Reagan called "The Reagans," Matt Drudge obtained excerpts from the script and published them. That led to right-wing bloggers, organizations and pundits, along with the RNC itself, demanding that CBS cancel the broadcast, which it did (moving it instead to Showtime, with a panel discussion afterwards filled with critics of the film). Those who wanted the mini-series cancelled back then were making arguments which are highly relevant -- for reasons that are self-evident -- to ABC's plans to broadcast an indisputably fictionalized mini-series about 9/11, a film which includes exactly the fabricated dialogues and historical events which served as the ostensible basis for outrage over The Reagans.

If ABC was hoping righty bloggers would defend the film wholeheartedly they were wrong. Still, those on the right think the docudrama should air after some minor editing...but they aren't expecting that will mollify the lefties. Allahpundit at Hot Air writes:

You can't play nice with them. I conceded they had a point about the scene with Sandy Berger. Ace conceded it. Dean conceded it. Geraghty conceded it. Others have conceded it. Facts is facts, and "composite" scenes play a little too loose for a film about 9/11. But the fightin' nutroots wanted to see some fight, and Reid - who suddenly seems willing to crap in whatever color the fringe left tells him to - wanted to show he was a tough guy by throwing his weight around with ABC.

Mary Katherine Ham at Townhall has a thorough righty round up of reactions and ads this thought on the Dem letter to Disney: " Take note-- this is the new Democratic Party. They pick Senate candidates and they tell the Majority Leader what to say."

Over at National Review OnlineJohn J. Miller notes that Variety is reporting: "Sources close to the project say the network, which has been in a media maelstrom over the pic, is mulling the idea of yanking the mini altogether."

Michael Crowley and Josh Marshall shared the same brain 9/7:

• Crowley at TNR: "Given the White House's current strategy to divert attention away from Iraq and back to Osama bin Laden and 9/11, this new al Qaeda video is bizarrely in sync with Karl Rove's election- season game plan. It's especially weird when you recall that bin Laden's 11th-hour video in October 2004 may have cost John Kerry the election (something I know certain of his staffers believe). I'm not suggesting any actual coordination here, something that seems almost too obvious to say. But in a weird way, you can argue that bin Laden has become a kind of political ally for George W. Bush.
• Marshall at Talking Points Memo: "So al Qaida, or what's left of it, releases a five-plus year old tape of bin Laden with two of the 9/11 hijackers as well as Ramzi Binalshibh, one of the baddies just transfered to Gitmo. Right in time for the president's big kangaroo court role out. If you didn't know that bin Laden and Bush were the two polar opposites in the global battle between good and evil, you'd think the two were coordinating their media blitzes."

On the larger foreign policy front, lefty bloggers are undecided on whether or not Dems ought to offer policy specific of their own to voters this fall. Reed Hundt at TPM Cafe wants specifics: "We need at least ten different demands, each cast in form of bill or resolution, that Democrats say Congress should pass and will if they take charge. The topics should include negotiation with Iran, catching Osama, sealing the Lebanese border with Syria, replacing the head of Homeland Security, having the Attorney General explain in a public report why his prosecution record against terrorists is so abysmal, and so forth. Think of this as a Contract with America to have the war on terrorism run right."

Chris Bowers at MyDD looks at DemocracyCorps' latest memo, which advises Dem candidates to compose "15-page policy proposals to the voters in their districts on Iraq" and writes: "What, what, what? Is this a homework assignment that we need to have double-spaced and on the desks of voters in MLA format in two weeks? ... Democracy Corps is asking for Democratic candidates to present an incredible amount of wonky details on a variety of topics to the voters in their districts. No one is going to read those plans. More importantly, no one is going to believe that a freshman member of the House of Representatives could possibly implement them."

Andrew Sullivan is incensed over Pres. Bush's 9/6 claim: "The United States does not torture. It's against our laws, and it's against our values. I have not authorized it - and I will not authorize it." Sullivan argues Bush "is knowingly stating an untruth" since detainnee treatment has been "listed and documented and debated." Sullivan concludes:

If the president wants to argue that all this is necessary, that we need to breach the Geneva Conventions in order to protect the public, then he should say so. He should make the argument, and persuade Americans that torture should now be official policy, and seek explicit legislation amounting to a breach of the Geneva Conventions. That would be an honest position. He would gain the support of much of the Republican base, a large swathe of the conservative intelligentsia, and the contempt of the civilized world. We could then debate this honestly, including the torture techniques he has authorized and supports. Instead he lies.

Spencer Ackerman at TNR also debunks Bush claims this time on the intelligence value of Abu Zubaydah. Meanwhile at The Huffington Post Rep. Jane Harman admits she's "become angrier and angrier" over Bush's selective declassification of sensitive intelligence for political purposes and reprints her official statement including: "As a person who comes to work every day trying to understand the complexities of the threats against us, I resent being told that either I suspend the laws for heinous murderers like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, or I am coddling terrorists."

Finally Kevin Drum at The Washington Monthly sees Bush's detainee legislation as a reply of the union-busting trick put into the DHS legislation and hopes Dems stand firm this time saying: "In America you have the right to decent treatment and a fair trial, no matter who you are. We'll be working closely with Republicans to craft a bill that shows the world we really mean it when we say this. ... Why should Dems say this? Because it's what they actually believe. Right? Please tell me I'm right."

Jonathan Singer at MyDD passes along a WCBS-TV report that then NY mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) reopened Lower Manhattan few weeks following the attack even though the air was not safe. Singer writes: "If it is true that Rudy Giuliani knowingly sent not only countless aid workers but also thousands, nay millions of New Yorkers into a "toxic soup" without warning them of the clear danger to their health -- and these documents appear to indicate that it is true -- then his record on 9/11, which form the basis of his candidacy for the White House, will be seriously undermined."

David Frum admits at National Review Online he'd be happy with MA Gov. Mitt Romney (R) or Giuliani in the WH, but argues a Giuliani nomination would ruin the GOP's chances: "The Republican Party is a pro-life party. That's just an empirical fact about the party. Giuliani is not merely not pro-life (I think he (but nobody else!) could get away with that, if he had chosen to address), but adamantly unwilling to reach any compromises with those who are. ... At this point, with not a single concession to the prolife camp, a Giuliani nomination would split the Republican party in very damaging ways. It would very possible trigger an independent candidacy by a prolife Perot. 2008 will be a tough enough year without that."

Gur Tsabar at The Huffington Post notes: "On the one hand, officials from major metropolitan areas are talking the talk, lambasting the Bush Administration's non-threat-based funding formulas that direct precious homeland security monies to far-flung locales in Wyoming (for example). But, on the other hand, it appears the same officials are not exactly walking the walk." Tsabar goes on to criticize Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) for fighting for DHS money for Buffalo, NY. he concludes: "Question is, when there's $125 million less to go around, and when presumably every dollar Buffalo receives New York City does not - and vice versa - who does this strategy benefit most?"

LiberIL View looks at Chicago Sun Timescriticism of Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) for not having "expansive offices" and replies: "This is exactly what I want to see in a politician, no emphasis on the grand, no special attention given to how wealthy a candidate is. Simple and practical is better. Maybe Hillary's lush digs, and many, many, many big corporate donors are precisely why she is not a favorite or trusted by the base of the democratic party. Not to mention her stand on the war."

Larry Kudlow at National Review Online reports on www.tradesports.com latest Sen and House odds: "The Senate still looks secure with the Senate GOP 2006 contract at 78 bid (think 78 percent), but that is down about 5 percentage points in the past week or so. Meanwhile the House GOP 2006 contract has fallen four points to 38 bid. This suggests only a 38 percent chance of a Republican hold in the House."

TAPPED has audio up from their "Prospect breakfast" with cable exec Ned Lamont (D) although TAPPED admits "this one actually took place over lunch, but never mind."

Right bloggers want to know why the MSM isn't more out of Aud. Claire McCaskill's (D) comment reported by Pub Def that: "George Bush let people die on rooftops in New Orleans because they were poor and because they were black."

Wizbang writes: "Such despicable lies about the President aren't exactly new on the Democratic left, whose grasp upon reality has always been tenuous at best. It is odd for a statewide candidate in a "battleground state" to parrot them, though. Perhaps McCaskill wasn't aware a blogger was in the room?" Outside the Beltway laments GOP weakness with African-Americans: "More than forty years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965-and more than half a century after Brown v. Board of Education-there are some very deep wounds that have not healed. The GOP needs to do more. But it's very hard to make much progress when black leaders, self-appointed and otherwise, continue to hurl such outrageous charges for cyncial purposes."

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas watches Sen. Rick Santorum (R) new ad featuring Santorum's children and comments: "I guess when all else fails, getting his kids to defend him is all Santorum has left."

Further down dumbledoresarmy asks: "Does anyone else find the boy hugging the dog a little bit odd considering Rick's Man-on-Dog comments a couple years back? I know I'm a bit weirded out by it."

The Washington Note reports from UN Amb John Bolton confirmation hearings: "Senator Lincoln Chafee impressed just about everyone during the recent testimony of John Bolton before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He pushed Bolton for hard answers to important questions, and did not yield when Bolton tried to duck and swerve Chafee's queries. ... But the vote was delayed -- and it is now certain to be delayed beyond the September 12th primaries in Rhode Island. After Senator Chafee wins, which TWN hopes he does, the Senator's hand is even freer to vote his views and conscience on Bolton.

New Media Coordinator for the George Allen Senate campaign Jon Henke at QandO looks at Raising Kaine plans to hold a "Monkey Fest" in response to a GOP Ethnic Rally in Alexandria 9/9 and copies a letter from the rally's minority organizers to the web campaign:

In addition, Lowell Feld of your campaign suggests on Raising Kaine that those in attendance at the event Saturday will be White, Caucasian, Anglo, Saxon, Celtic, French, English, German, Irish, Scots-Irish. We resent this statement and its implication that only Caucasians would attend a Republican rally. While all these groups will be present and welcome Saturday, our rally will also include Afghan Americans, African Americans, Bolivian Americans, Chinese Americans, Colombian Americans, Cuban Americans, Filipino Americans, Indian Americans, Iranian Americans, Korean Americans, Pakistani Americans, Peruvian Americans, Puerto Rican Americans, Salvadoran Americans, Taiwanese Americans, Vietnamese Americans and more.

Captain's Quarters comments on the monkey lovein': "This sounds like a cute joke gone very bad. Small wonder that the first comment on the Raising Kaine site is from Josh Chernilla, Webb's grassroots coordinator. His message? "Please get in touch with me. I need to talk with you." I'll bet he does."

Instapundit links to Sen. maj leader Bill Frist's (R-TN) announcement of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006's passage and writes: "Onward and upward. Or, in the case of pork spending, hopefully downward."

M.J. Rosenberg at TPM Cafe has a lengthy post on Rep. Chris Van Hollen's (D-MD) move rightward on the Middle East due to influence from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

During the Lebanon war, Van Hollen urged the Bush administration to support an immediate cease-fire, a position at variance with the Israeli government and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. ... Van Hollen was called in for a little chat with officials from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Van Hollen's first Mideast-related action upon returning to Washington was to join two dozen other representatives in sending a letter to Kofi Annan urging that peacekeepers sent to monitor the Israel-Lebanon border not be from states that do not recognize Israel. The letter itself is not particularly objectionable. It is simply unnecessary and represents nothing more than an election year effort to get on the "right" side of a particular issue.

What's the moral? Here is the case of Chris Van Hollen, a bright, progressive effective Member of Congress who has, according to the media, been brow-beaten into, most likely, avoiding the Mideast issue like the plague or simply becoming an AIPAC dittohead.I am a constituent of Van Hollen's and it troubles me that he is ignoring the views of the majority of his constituents (pro-Israel and pro-peace) to win the favor of a tiny minority and a powerful lobby.

Finally, Michael Wilbon has a place to go vent the next time Tony Kornheiser refuses to shut up about Secretariat.

9/8: Just Like They Drew It Up?

Glenn Greenwald is right, the current kerfuffle over ABC's "The Path To 9/11" docudrama is much more like the righty blogger take-down of CBS' "The Reagans" than it is like Rathergate. That said, the lefties still have not yet crossed the finish line on this one. Is an all-out pulling of the miniseries the only outcome that could be called a victory? What if the ex-NSA Sandy Berger non-assassination of bin Laden scene is pulled, but the movie airs a mostly intact? And what if this is all just an elaborate scheme to promote the film while still managing to get the most egregious scenes into the public domain? After all the only scenes the Blogometer has seen so far are the objectionable ones.

Senate Dems scored big with their letter to Walt Disney CEO Robert Iger, demanding ABC pull their planned "The Path to 9/11" docudrama. AMERICAblog has video of Sen. min leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and writes:

The Senate Democratic leadership just threatened Disney's broadcast license. Not the use of the word "trustee" at the beginning of the letter and "trust" at the end. This is nothing less than an implicit threat that if Disney tries to meddle in the US elections on behalf of the Republicans, they will pay a very serious price when the Democrats get back in power, or even before.

Ex-NE Sen. Bob Kerrey (D), ex-Pres. Bill Clinton attorney Bruce Lindsey, and ex-Defense Sec. William Cohen all questioned ABC's judgement for fictionalizing portions of the 9/11 story. Meanwhile Greg Sargent at TPM Cafe reports Team Clinton will only be satisfied with a complete yanking of the series.

Over at DailyKos, Hollywood producer Robert Green speculates on Disney's motives:

[ABC] marketing took one look at this movie and said -- hey, Rush Limbaugh will love this. So will Hugh Hewitt. Remember, ABC owns lots of radio as well, and in particular right-wing talk radio. Synergy! And their audience will watch our movie if they tell them to (they don't call them dittoheads for nothing.) So marketing took the ball and ran with it (probably with cyrus's "friend of limbaugh" help). That's all about generating ratings and buzz.

Finally, Glenn Greenwald argues we've seen this script before:

When CBS announced in November, 2003 that it would broadcast a mini-series it produced about Ronald and Nancy Reagan called "The Reagans," Matt Drudge obtained excerpts from the script and published them. That led to right-wing bloggers, organizations and pundits, along with the RNC itself, demanding that CBS cancel the broadcast, which it did (moving it instead to Showtime, with a panel discussion afterwards filled with critics of the film). Those who wanted the mini-series cancelled back then were making arguments which are highly relevant -- for reasons that are self-evident -- to ABC's plans to broadcast an indisputably fictionalized mini-series about 9/11, a film which includes exactly the fabricated dialogues and historical events which served as the ostensible basis for outrage over The Reagans.

If ABC was hoping righty bloggers would defend the film wholeheartedly they were wrong. Still, those on the right think the docudrama should air after some minor editing...but they aren't expecting that will mollify the lefties. Allahpundit at Hot Air writes:

You can't play nice with them. I conceded they had a point about the scene with Sandy Berger. Ace conceded it. Dean conceded it. Geraghty conceded it. Others have conceded it. Facts is facts, and "composite" scenes play a little too loose for a film about 9/11. But the fightin' nutroots wanted to see some fight, and Reid - who suddenly seems willing to crap in whatever color the fringe left tells him to - wanted to show he was a tough guy by throwing his weight around with ABC.

Mary Katherine Ham at Townhall has a thorough righty round up of reactions and ads this thought on the Dem letter to Disney: " Take note-- this is the new Democratic Party. They pick Senate candidates and they tell the Majority Leader what to say."

Over at National Review OnlineJohn J. Miller notes that Variety is reporting: "Sources close to the project say the network, which has been in a media maelstrom over the pic, is mulling the idea of yanking the mini altogether."

Michael Crowley and Josh Marshall shared the same brain 9/7:

• Crowley at TNR: "Given the White House's current strategy to divert attention away from Iraq and back to Osama bin Laden and 9/11, this new al Qaeda video is bizarrely in sync with Karl Rove's election- season game plan. It's especially weird when you recall that bin Laden's 11th-hour video in October 2004 may have cost John Kerry the election (something I know certain of his staffers believe). I'm not suggesting any actual coordination here, something that seems almost too obvious to say. But in a weird way, you can argue that bin Laden has become a kind of political ally for George W. Bush.
• Marshall at Talking Points Memo: "So al Qaida, or what's left of it, releases a five-plus year old tape of bin Laden with two of the 9/11 hijackers as well as Ramzi Binalshibh, one of the baddies just transfered to Gitmo. Right in time for the president's big kangaroo court role out. If you didn't know that bin Laden and Bush were the two polar opposites in the global battle between good and evil, you'd think the two were coordinating their media blitzes."

On the larger foreign policy front, lefty bloggers are undecided on whether or not Dems ought to offer policy specific of their own to voters this fall. Reed Hundt at TPM Cafe wants specifics: "We need at least ten different demands, each cast in form of bill or resolution, that Democrats say Congress should pass and will if they take charge. The topics should include negotiation with Iran, catching Osama, sealing the Lebanese border with Syria, replacing the head of Homeland Security, having the Attorney General explain in a public report why his prosecution record against terrorists is so abysmal, and so forth. Think of this as a Contract with America to have the war on terrorism run right."

Chris Bowers at MyDD looks at DemocracyCorps' latest memo, which advises Dem candidates to compose "15-page policy proposals to the voters in their districts on Iraq" and writes: "What, what, what? Is this a homework assignment that we need to have double-spaced and on the desks of voters in MLA format in two weeks? ... Democracy Corps is asking for Democratic candidates to present an incredible amount of wonky details on a variety of topics to the voters in their districts. No one is going to read those plans. More importantly, no one is going to believe that a freshman member of the House of Representatives could possibly implement them."

Andrew Sullivan is incensed over Pres. Bush's 9/6 claim: "The United States does not torture. It's against our laws, and it's against our values. I have not authorized it - and I will not authorize it." Sullivan argues Bush "is knowingly stating an untruth" since detainnee treatment has been "listed and documented and debated." Sullivan concludes:

If the president wants to argue that all this is necessary, that we need to breach the Geneva Conventions in order to protect the public, then he should say so. He should make the argument, and persuade Americans that torture should now be official policy, and seek explicit legislation amounting to a breach of the Geneva Conventions. That would be an honest position. He would gain the support of much of the Republican base, a large swathe of the conservative intelligentsia, and the contempt of the civilized world. We could then debate this honestly, including the torture techniques he has authorized and supports. Instead he lies.

Spencer Ackerman at TNR also debunks Bush claims this time on the intelligence value of Abu Zubaydah. Meanwhile at The Huffington Post Rep. Jane Harman admits she's "become angrier and angrier" over Bush's selective declassification of sensitive intelligence for political purposes and reprints her official statement including: "As a person who comes to work every day trying to understand the complexities of the threats against us, I resent being told that either I suspend the laws for heinous murderers like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, or I am coddling terrorists."

Finally Kevin Drum at The Washington Monthly sees Bush's detainee legislation as a reply of the union-busting trick put into the DHS legislation and hopes Dems stand firm this time saying: "In America you have the right to decent treatment and a fair trial, no matter who you are. We'll be working closely with Republicans to craft a bill that shows the world we really mean it when we say this. ... Why should Dems say this? Because it's what they actually believe. Right? Please tell me I'm right."

Jonathan Singer at MyDD passes along a WCBS-TV report that then NY mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) reopened Lower Manhattan few weeks following the attack even though the air was not safe. Singer writes: "If it is true that Rudy Giuliani knowingly sent not only countless aid workers but also thousands, nay millions of New Yorkers into a "toxic soup" without warning them of the clear danger to their health -- and these documents appear to indicate that it is true -- then his record on 9/11, which form the basis of his candidacy for the White House, will be seriously undermined."

David Frum admits at National Review Online he'd be happy with MA Gov. Mitt Romney (R) or Giuliani in the WH, but argues a Giuliani nomination would ruin the GOP's chances: "The Republican Party is a pro-life party. That's just an empirical fact about the party. Giuliani is not merely not pro-life (I think he (but nobody else!) could get away with that, if he had chosen to address), but adamantly unwilling to reach any compromises with those who are. ... At this point, with not a single concession to the prolife camp, a Giuliani nomination would split the Republican party in very damaging ways. It would very possible trigger an independent candidacy by a prolife Perot. 2008 will be a tough enough year without that."

Gur Tsabar at The Huffington Post notes: "On the one hand, officials from major metropolitan areas are talking the talk, lambasting the Bush Administration's non-threat-based funding formulas that direct precious homeland security monies to far-flung locales in Wyoming (for example). But, on the other hand, it appears the same officials are not exactly walking the walk." Tsabar goes on to criticize Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) for fighting for DHS money for Buffalo, NY. he concludes: "Question is, when there's $125 million less to go around, and when presumably every dollar Buffalo receives New York City does not - and vice versa - who does this strategy benefit most?"

LiberIL View looks at Chicago Sun Timescriticism of Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) for not having "expansive offices" and replies: "This is exactly what I want to see in a politician, no emphasis on the grand, no special attention given to how wealthy a candidate is. Simple and practical is better. Maybe Hillary's lush digs, and many, many, many big corporate donors are precisely why she is not a favorite or trusted by the base of the democratic party. Not to mention her stand on the war."

Larry Kudlow at National Review Online reports on www.tradesports.com latest Sen and House odds: "The Senate still looks secure with the Senate GOP 2006 contract at 78 bid (think 78 percent), but that is down about 5 percentage points in the past week or so. Meanwhile the House GOP 2006 contract has fallen four points to 38 bid. This suggests only a 38 percent chance of a Republican hold in the House."

TAPPED has audio up from their "Prospect breakfast" with cable exec Ned Lamont (D) although TAPPED admits "this one actually took place over lunch, but never mind."

Right bloggers want to know why the MSM isn't more out of Aud. Claire McCaskill's (D) comment reported by Pub Def that: "George Bush let people die on rooftops in New Orleans because they were poor and because they were black."

Wizbang writes: "Such despicable lies about the President aren't exactly new on the Democratic left, whose grasp upon reality has always been tenuous at best. It is odd for a statewide candidate in a "battleground state" to parrot them, though. Perhaps McCaskill wasn't aware a blogger was in the room?" Outside the Beltway laments GOP weakness with African-Americans: "More than forty years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965-and more than half a century after Brown v. Board of Education-there are some very deep wounds that have not healed. The GOP needs to do more. But it's very hard to make much progress when black leaders, self-appointed and otherwise, continue to hurl such outrageous charges for cyncial purposes."

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas watches Sen. Rick Santorum (R) new ad featuring Santorum's children and comments: "I guess when all else fails, getting his kids to defend him is all Santorum has left."

Further down dumbledoresarmy asks: "Does anyone else find the boy hugging the dog a little bit odd considering Rick's Man-on-Dog comments a couple years back? I know I'm a bit weirded out by it."

The Washington Note reports from UN Amb John Bolton confirmation hearings: "Senator Lincoln Chafee impressed just about everyone during the recent testimony of John Bolton before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He pushed Bolton for hard answers to important questions, and did not yield when Bolton tried to duck and swerve Chafee's queries. ... But the vote was delayed -- and it is now certain to be delayed beyond the September 12th primaries in Rhode Island. After Senator Chafee wins, which TWN hopes he does, the Senator's hand is even freer to vote his views and conscience on Bolton.

New Media Coordinator for the George Allen Senate campaign Jon Henke at QandO looks at Raising Kaine plans to hold a "Monkey Fest" in response to a GOP Ethnic Rally in Alexandria 9/9 and copies a letter from the rally's minority organizers to the web campaign:

In addition, Lowell Feld of your campaign suggests on Raising Kaine that those in attendance at the event Saturday will be White, Caucasian, Anglo, Saxon, Celtic, French, English, German, Irish, Scots-Irish. We resent this statement and its implication that only Caucasians would attend a Republican rally. While all these groups will be present and welcome Saturday, our rally will also include Afghan Americans, African Americans, Bolivian Americans, Chinese Americans, Colombian Americans, Cuban Americans, Filipino Americans, Indian Americans, Iranian Americans, Korean Americans, Pakistani Americans, Peruvian Americans, Puerto Rican Americans, Salvadoran Americans, Taiwanese Americans, Vietnamese Americans and more.

Captain's Quarters comments on the monkey lovein': "This sounds like a cute joke gone very bad. Small wonder that the first comment on the Raising Kaine site is from Josh Chernilla, Webb's grassroots coordinator. His message? "Please get in touch with me. I need to talk with you." I'll bet he does."

Instapundit links to Sen. maj leader Bill Frist's (R-TN) announcement of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006's passage and writes: "Onward and upward. Or, in the case of pork spending, hopefully downward."

M.J. Rosenberg at TPM Cafe has a lengthy post on Rep. Chris Van Hollen's (D-MD) move rightward on the Middle East due to influence from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

During the Lebanon war, Van Hollen urged the Bush administration to support an immediate cease-fire, a position at variance with the Israeli government and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. ... Van Hollen was called in for a little chat with officials from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Van Hollen's first Mideast-related action upon returning to Washington was to join two dozen other representatives in sending a letter to Kofi Annan urging that peacekeepers sent to monitor the Israel-Lebanon border not be from states that do not recognize Israel. The letter itself is not particularly objectionable. It is simply unnecessary and represents nothing more than an election year effort to get on the "right" side of a particular issue.

What's the moral? Here is the case of Chris Van Hollen, a bright, progressive effective Member of Congress who has, according to the media, been brow-beaten into, most likely, avoiding the Mideast issue like the plague or simply becoming an AIPAC dittohead.I am a constituent of Van Hollen's and it troubles me that he is ignoring the views of the majority of his constituents (pro-Israel and pro-peace) to win the favor of a tiny minority and a powerful lobby.

Finally, Michael Wilbon has a place to go vent the next time Tony Kornheiser refuses to shut up about Secretariat.

9/7: Mickey Under Fire

Lefty push-back against ABC's upcoming "The Path to 9/11" docudrama only intensified 9/6. Ex-Pres. Bill Clinton, ex-Sec/State Madeline Albright, ex-NSA Sandy Berger, DNC Exec. Dir. Tom McMahon, and 9/11 commission member Richard Ben-Veniste all, to varying degrees, lent their efforts to the blogger campaign to get ABC to change and/or offer rebuttal time for the docudrama. Righty blogs have tersely taken note of their brethren's effort, but so far have not matched their intensity. Will this controversy be the first Rathergate style victory for lefty blogs?

All righty eyes were fixed on Pres. Bush for his 9/6 address. Michelle Malkin and Wizbang both liveblogged the speech. Righty reviews were mostly glowing, especially at National Review Online's The Corner:

• Mario Loyola: "The President just pulled one of the best maneuvers of his entire presidency. By transferring most major Al Qaeda terrorists to Guantanamo, and simultaneously sending Congress a bill to rescue the Military Commissions from the Supreme Court's ruling Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the President spectacularly ambushed the Democrats on terrain they fondly thought their own. Now Democrats who oppose (and who have vociferously opposed) the Military Commissions will in effect be opposing the prosecution of the terrorists who planned and launched the attacks of September 11 for war crimes."
• John Derbyshire:"GWB at his best. Plain facts, narrative, & proposals for Congress to act on. No grand metaphysical assertions-no gassy stuff about God planting a desire for liberty in every heart etc. etc. Just the facts, in interesting detail."
• Kate O'Beirne: "I think the White House has been reluctant to tout the fact that there hasn't been a terrorist attack here since 9/11 owing to the 'knock on wood' imperative. In today's excellent speech, the President finally explained in detail that it is no accident."
• Jonah Goldberg: "What I liked the most about it was that the White House finally started offering details, specifics and examples. So much of Bush's rhetoric has been high-flying and abstract."
• not at The Corner, Right Wing News: "All in all, it was a good speech on an important topic and Bush was wise to bring it up, not just because it's good policy, but because it's good politics. If the Democrats want to cry tears for how tough the terrorists will have it when they go on trial, let them, but it'll just emphasize what a bunch of weaklings they are right before the elections."

Some on the right were concerned that the Pres. had caved to liberal pressure on detainee treatment. Riehl World View writes: "I read recently that Rove wasn't the force he had once been. That seems more and more clear as Republicans continue to annoy their base right before an election. I'm scratching my head and wondering if the fight hasn't simply worn Bush 43 down, or was the administration as confused about what it was doing, as the Left would allege, from the start?" Michelle Malkin was also underwhelmed: "Lots of readers and fellow bloggers are asking: That's it?!"

Tom Bevan at RCP Blog noted that some "old media," as well as Drudge, were misplaying the speech as Bush caving on "Geneva Rights." Bevan argues that they're wrong and forwards a WH email titled "Setting the Record Straight" and including this talking point: "Neither The President's Proposed Legislation Nor The Detainees' Transfer To Guantanamo Gives The Detainees POW Status."

Hugh Hewitt also loved the speech and looked forward to the "Lamont wing of the Democratic Party" opposing the admin's detainee legislation. Power Line's Paul Mirengoff saw problems coming from some GOPers as well: "The Republican Party has a terrorist rights wing too -- the McCain, Graham, Warner faction. To be sure, it's much smaller than its Democratic counterpart. But considering McCain's stature, the reverential treatment he and his cohorts receive from the MSM, and the slim nature of the Republican Senate majority, this group is the more important of the two." Captain's Quarters also saw a tough cong. fight, but saw electoral opportunity:

Congress has a tough task facing them, and the more they forget that these terrorists should not be placed on the same plane as the civilians they target for their war, the more political risk they will face. No one wants to go into an election having argued for Miranda rights for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. ... If Congress doesn't deliver something soon, those who obstructed the process will pay dearly at the ballot box this November.

Back at The CornerKathryn Jean Lopez passes along snarky GOP Sen staff email: "The president gave a speech? Was it important? Sorry. I missed it. I've been forced to focus on the Democrats nonbinding Rumsfeld "temper tantrum."

Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo reminds readers of the true purpose behind Bush's address:

President Bush wants to gin up a hail mary pre-election political fight over the constitution (no pun intended) of military tribunals for accused terrorists. This election-timed stunt is intended to put fourteen faces on the president's fight over the rules for his kangaroo courts. So now, you're either with Bush or you're with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. ... Remember: It's all about the politics.

TalkLeft explains the timing of Pres. Bush speech: "Why the sudden reveal of the gang of fourteen? Hauling the evildoers to Guantanamo -- sort of a terrorist perp walk, without the cameras -- shows us that all the human rights violations, all the law-breaking, was worth it." And Spencer Ackerman at TNR reports the CIA is happy to be out of this spotlight: "Last thing. I'll have more on this in a forthcoming piece, but the CIA wants very, very badly to get out of the detention business. It's afraid that whatever administration follows Bush will prosecute operatives and officials for complying with illegal Bush administration policy. It may be that Bush and his aides see an opportunity to neutralize a whole bunch of threats at once. That would be kind of admirable if it weren't, you know, evil."

The lefty 'sphere continued its campaign against ABC's docudrama "The Path to 9/11" set to air 9/10-11. Despite a lack of access to early release DVDs of the show, the following inaccuracies have been documented:

• Ex-Sec/State Madeline Albrightletter : "One scene apparently portrays me as refusing to support a missile strike against bin Laden without first alerting the Pakistanis; it further asserts that I notified the Pakistanis of the strike over the objections of our military. Neither of these assertions is true.
• Ex-NSA Sandy Bergerletter : I am especially troubled by a scene described to me in which CIA operatives in Afghanistan have al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in their sights and seek authorization to attack, This is followed by a scene in which an actor portraying "Sandy Berger" refuse on behalf of the President to authorize a strike despite urgent pleadings of CIA officials. ... No such episode ever occurred.
• AMERICAblog: "[Howard Kurtz] also reveals that the tv show's major premise, that Monica Lewinsky somehow played a role in thwarting US efforts to catch bin Laden, is not even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report."
• DNC Exec. Dir. Tom McMahonemail : "Another scene revives the old right-wing myth that press reporting made it impossible to track Osama bin Laden, accusing the Washington Post of blowing the secret that American intelligence tracked his satellite phone calls. In reality, responsibility for that blunder -- contrary to "The Path to 9/11" -- rests with none other than the arch-conservative Washington Times."

Crooks and Liars has video of 9/11 commission member Richard Ben-VenisteThe Countdown ripping "ABC over their many false representation of the 9/11 commission report."

Some lefties noticed ex-Pres. Clinton's belated entry into the fracas. Greg Sargent at TPM Cafe had to track down a response out of Clinton spokesman Jay Carson who finally released a statement: "The record shows that President Clinton was committed to and focused on stopping terrorism every day," Carson emailed us, "and that his administration had many significant successes on this front, and he expects that any serious treatment of history would reflect that." Sargent adds: "Many will no doubt find Clinton's statement less than satisfactory. It's certainly less forceful than seems warranted.

Charles P. Pierce at TAPPED had similar thoughts: "I do have one question, though: Where the hell's Bill Clinton? ... If this is about his wife's presidential campaign -- "Shh, honey, don't make the networks angry." -- then there really isn't anything he can't, or won't, triangulate. This reminds me of all those times he patted progressives on the head while he ran toward the rapidly sliding middle, only to find that, when the Monica hit the fan, those progressives were the only friends he had left."

Meanwhile, Hullabaloo was building the lefty case against ABC owner Disney which includes: 1) cancelling a reality show featuring a gay couple; 2) refusing to distribute Fahrenheit 9/11; and 3) signing a deal with Mel Gibson after The Passion made it clear ho anti-semitic he was. Hullabaloo concludes: "The reason this matters so much, and why Democrats are so apoplectic at the way ABC has handled this material, is that popular culture has a way of inculcating certain concepts into people's minds, especially young minds, far more effectively than talking head programs or earnest debates among political bloggers and columnists. This is the kind of thing that could taint the debate for generations if it takes hold."

Think Progress adds to the liberal case against Disney by linking to a conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt posting of an email from an "ABC insider" that promised Hewitt: "The message of the Clinton Admin failures remains fully intact."

Over at Talking Points Memo, Josh Marshall updates his readers on ABC's reaction to blogger complaints. ABC will run this disclaimer "throughout" the broadcast:

The following movie is a dramatization that is drawn from a variety of sources including the 9/11 Commission Report and other published materials, and from personal interviews. The movie is not a documentary. For dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, as well as time compression.

TPM also compiles a list of Sinclair Broadcasting and Hearst owned ABC affiliates and announces that "at least some program managers at local ABC affiliates around the country are planning to run rebuttal segments and/or panel with a mix of terrorism experts to add 'balance' or least deflect some criticism." But TPM is not hopeful about the response from stations in the larger markets: "Anyway, after that, a few readers helpfully pointed out that the ABC stations in the biggest markets are pretty much all O and O's. That is, Disney/ABC owns the stations themselves. So they're not really affiliates and they have no independent choice whether to air the movie. Apparently, at least New York, LA, Chicago, San Francisco, Philly and Houston are all covered by Disney."

Finally, All Spin Zone reports that bloggers have broken through with their efforts to pressure Scholastic Books to disassociate with the docudrama: "Two days ago, I wrote about Scholastic Books catapulting the "Path to 9/11" propaganda. More than 400 comments were made at a crossposting that I did on Daily Kos. ... Scholastic was flooded with calls and emails of protest and righteous indignation. Tonight, the material is no longer on Scholastic's website. Poof. Disappeared. There are apparently no more "Path to 9/11" resources or information on Scholastic's website. Wow. If this is truly the case, fantastic. We might have won one round. Either way, the fight isn't over."

MA Gov. Mitt Romney (R) missed no opportunity to soak up righty-love over his decision to order state agencies not not to provide any support for ex-Iranian Pres. Mohammed Khatami 9/10 visit to Harvard, including sitting down with conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt. An excerpt:

HH: Last question, Governor. ... You've been out on the road a lot for Republican candidates across the United States. Does this issue matter, not just to Republicans, but to independent Democrats as well, preparedness against the Islamic threat, five years after 9/11?

MR: I think there's a great deal of concern about Iraq as one front in the war, but I don't think people recognize that it is just one front, that they look at Iraq and say gee, it hasn't gone as well as we would have liked to have seen it go, so let's just come home and not worry about. But in fact, it's only one front. We have a long battle that's going to go forward. I think Americans are concerned about the safety of our homeland, and rightfully so. We made progress, we have further to go. It's an important issue, but it's not something where Democrat Murtha's perspective that we should just cut and run is selling with the American people. We recognize how severe the threat is, and we as a people are going to have to confront it.

Bloggers are noticing that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and the GOP base are on opposite sides of the two biggest issues before the Sen this fall.

Josh Marshall at TPM on detainee prosecution: "We know the president's final strategy to keep the subpoenas at bay in 2007 and 2008. Put the worst al Qaida bad guys at Gitmo and force a rushed debate over legislation over how they will be tried. An up or down vote, either the president's kangaroo courts or nothing. ... So it comes down to McCain. Not your ordinary Republican, I grant you. But really, really wants to be the next Republican President. My gut tells me he flakes and goes along with Bush. He's basically already sold himself to the party's establishment for the GOP nod in 2008."

Captain's Quarters on reports that GOPers will push through border security measures without guest worker or amnesty provisions:

The entire Democratic caucus in the Senate will oppose this effort, and they will not be alone. John McCain will provide the key. He championed the linkage between the two in the Senate, and he may well stick with that tactic. However, if he continues to block border security, he will make his relationship with the conservatives in the GOP even worse than they are now, and he knows it. If McCain pursues a legislative agenda at odds with conservatives on national security, they will flock to Rudy Giuliani's side in 2008 if a conservative candidate does not effectively compete for the nomination. They know that even with his more liberal views on social issues, Giuliani would not leave the borders unsecured for political advantage.

TAPPED's Ben Alder upset fellow lefties with his resource allocation question: "Wouldn't the fundraising energy the bloggers lavished on Ned Lamont been better spent funding challengers seeking to defeat actual Republicans? Come November 8th, would they rather see Joe Lieberman looking hangdog or George Allen staring shellshocked?

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas calls this "the stupidest question ever" and argues that fundraising is not a zero-sum game. Kos says any such arguments should not be pointed at bloggers, but at the donors to non-competitive races like Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and Ted Kennedy (D-MA). Kos concludes: "Personally, I can't think of a better investment than the money we contributed to Lamont. ... That investment in Lamont bought us hope of a people-powered future, one in which change can happen if we all work hard enough to make it happen. And I wouldn't trade that for the world."

Ezra Klein at TAPPED agrees that political donations are not a zero sum game but argues that blogger attention is: "the blogosphere's capability to focus attention and emphasis on a certain campaign or issue is limited, and that they'd made a strategic mistake in devoting so much of it to Lamont. I do recall far more "Nedrenaline" posts than I do Webb appeals, so it seems to me that Adler's got a point there."

In other CT news, Emboldened reports on Lieberman's Blogroll: "Lieberman's blogroll is made up entirely of blogs outside the state of Connecticut (if any are Connecticut based, they don't advertise it). The top three have a grand total of ten posts between them and were created in the last three weeks. One is forced to wonder if the delay in launching Joe2006 v2.0 was to allow their "ringers" a chance to get up to steam (snicker)."

Adam C at RedState links to video of LG Michael Steele's new television ad "Building Bridges" featuring Def Jam Records Founder Russell Simmons. Adam writes: "This ad continues the theme of Mr. Steele as a Senator for all of Maryland, not just the partisan Democrats. Maryland is not a Republican-friendly territory and Mr. Steele will have to win a chunk of cross-over votes in addition to winning the independent vote to be successful."

Macandanna at Raising Kaine warns Sen. George Allen (R-VA) to be on the look out for macaca-themed costumed ex-Navy sec. James Webb (D-VA) supporters at the Fairfax County GOP's Ethnic Rally 9/9.: "We, Mac (the Monkey) and Anna (Banana) will be there, but much more exciting will be the opportunity to hang out with Patch Adams (clown doctor activist) who will be "Gorilla"! We will have 9 monkey face masks to share - first come, first serve and plenty of our favorite yellow snacks, balloons, and stickers. We encourage you to bring your own monkey outfits, masks, and signs."

Matthew Yglesias does not like the Dem strategy of focussing on Def. Sec. Donald Rumsfeld since it allows the GOP an opportunity to divorce itself from the worst portions of the administration's foreign policy. Yglesias writes:

This Rumsfeld-obsession plays a genuinely pernicious role in our national discourse. The basic reality of the matter is that between September 2001 and Spring 2003 the bulk of the American political and media establishments endorsed the key elements of the Bush foreign policy. Over the subsequent 18 months or so, it became obvious to the bulk of this establishment that the Bush foreign policy was a moral and practical disaster. Rather than conclude that they were operating from mistaken premises and that they should come up with some new, authentically different ideas, the predominant impulse has simply been to say "we could have gotten away with it to if it wasn't for that meddling Rumsfeld!" Well, no. Rumsfeld's ideas were bad ones. But the bad ideas -- the policies, Bush's policies, The Washington Post's policies, Andrew Sullivan's policies, etc. -- are the issue here, not Rumsfeld personally.

As part of their effort to retain the House, the RNC has started a humorous publication called "America Weakly" that " is a satirical publication containing fictional news stories of a fictitious future. Unless otherwise specified, the content of this publication should not be viewed as a depiction of actual events." The print/online paper has stories and features from a near future where Dems control the House. One headline reads: "Promise Kept! Tax Cut Repeal Passes House." The "paper" also has a horoscope section including:

• Libra: Your favorite television show will be routinely interrupted this month by updates on the Democrats' impeachment hearings of President Bush.
• Aquarius: Feeling Ill? No worries, the government bureaucrats will make all of your difficult medical decisions for you!
• Cancer: Luck is in the air: you will find yourself slightly richer. On the down side, it will be because you were part of a major class-action that put your employer out of business. Better make that $38.42 last!

Blogometer PM Extra

FL 13: You Won't Have Katharine To Kick Around Anymore

Buchanan's ability to self fund his campaign and his endorsement by US Senator Mel Martinez helped him win four out of the district's five counties. With almost all precincts in, Buchanan won 17,489 - 33% of the vote to State Representative Nancy Detert's 13,180 - 25%. Another Sarasota businessman and former county GOP chairman Tramm Hudson was third with 12,629 - 24%.

MD 04: 95% of MoveOners Can't Be Wrong

TPM Cafe's Art Brodsky reports that attorney Donna Edwards secured the endorsement of MoveOn.org after securing 95% of the vote from MoveOn's MD 04 members.

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas invites readers to get to know Edwards opponent, Rep. Al Wynn (D) by looking at his contributors: " You've got Wal-Mart and the National Restaurant Association -- the two strongest critics of an increase in the federal minimum wage. You've got telecom interests protecting their investment in one of the strongest opponents of net neutrality in the House."

MN 05: Who Doesn't Read Power Line

John Hinderaker at Power Line looks the at Minneapolis Star Tribune endorsement of Mike Erlandson over the DFL's endorsed candidate Keith Ellison and notices some missing info:

No reference to Ellison's membership in the Nation of Islam, his use of aliases like Keith Hakim, Keith X Ellison and Keith Ellison-Muhammad; no reference to his anti-Semitic comments; no reference to his association with, and endorsement of, leaders of gangs who murdered policemen; no reference to his consistent support for criminals like Assata Shakur and Kathleen Soliah. ... And yet...one gets the impression that the Strib's editorial board is somehow aware of these things... that it wasn't only Ellison's financial incompetence and scofflaw personality that caused the paper to turn against its party's endorsed candidate. It was almost as though the Strib's editorialists knew about these issues without ever having read about them in their own paper... almost as though the Strib's editorialists have been reading Power Line.

NC 13: Didn't Jesse Helms Win That Race

Crooks and Liars has video of 04 NC 05 candidate Vernon Robinson (R) latest ad including this quote:

"You needed that job," an announcer says. "And you were the best qualified. But they gave it to an illegal alien — so they could pay him under the table. … These illegals pay no taxes, but take our jobs and our government handouts. Then spit in our face. And burn our flag. Well, Vernon Robinson has had enough!"

Charles P. Pierce at TAPPED comments: "Please read the text as quoted carefully. It is almost word-for-word the text of the famous "black hands" ad that Jesse Helms threw up at the last minute against Harvey Gantt in their bloody 1990 senatorial campaign. Apparently, there's a template for bigots in which you just fill in the name of the Other du jour. A hundred years ago, they'd have been talking about my grandmother."

PA 08: Dems Love Catholic Bush Bashers

Chris Bowers at MyDD looks at Iraq War Ve. Patrick Murphy's new ad and likes what he sees: "I really like this ad. PA-08 is heavily Catholic, and starting with an image of President Kennedy works well. It moves to Murphy talking directly into the camera, a quick bio, and then directly challenges Bush on Iraq. The ad also does something we rarely see from Democrats these days--it actually says that Patrick Murphy is a Democrat."

TX 22: Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda

Richard Morrison at MyDD announces: "We have produced an ad on behalf of the Fort Bend County Democrats here in the great state of Texas - and we're using the "D word" - Democrat. For those of you who don't know, Fort Bend County is the home (or former home) of Tom Delay. ... I've thought about this ad for a while and also thought about how important it is to attack the republicans for what they have done and to tell the voters to vote democrat. I will admit that when I ran against Tom DeLay, I didn't do as good of a job on this as I should have.

FL GOV: Harris Voters Love Gallagher

Right Angle Blog breaks down CFO Tom Gallagher's (R) loss to AG Charlie Crist (R)

Gallagher was behind in all but two of the 15 counties which reported to the FL Elections Division. He was ahead slightly in only two conservative rural counties near the state prison at Raiford (Bradford and Union). In fact, the born again conservative, once moderate Gallagher seemed to be running best in those counties where Katherine Harris was winning the most votes in smaller, more conservative N and Central Florida counties like Marion (Ocala). ... This may indicate that Gallagher's attacks against Crist for supporting gay civil unions and being too moderate on key social conservative issues like abortion may have won him some support but definitely not enough in key suburban and urban counties where most Republicans live.

9/6: Security, Security, Security

Perhaps it has more to do with the impending 9/11 anniversary, but the blogosphere is all about "nat'l security" this week. Whether it's Iran, Iraq, al Qaeda, or "border security," few other issues are getting any type of attention. A liberal Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)? Never heard of her. Immigration reform? Wait 'til next year. Party of corruption? That's so "three months ago." We'll see if this foreign policy focus keeps up. And, if it does, what kind of mandate does it leave the Dems to pursue if they do take back both chambers?

The lefty blogger war on ABC escalated throughout 9/5, including an official response from Richard Clarke, via Think Progress, concerning one scene where an on-the-ground CIA agent fails to get Clinton WH approval for an Osama Bin Laden assasination attempt. Think Progress concludes: "In short, this scene - which makes the incendiary claim that the Clinton administration passed on a sure-fire chance to kill or catch bin Laden - never happened. " Think Progress also offers a tool so readers can easily tell Walt Disney Company President and CEO Robert A. Iger: "Our review of the film shows it to be full of such inaccuracies. Its distorted version of history is inconsistent with the 9/11 Commission Report, upon which it claims to be based. The events leading up to September 11, 2001 are too important and too tragic to play politics with the facts."

Meanwhile, Matt Stoller at MyDD notes that ex-Gov. Tom Kean Sr. (R) is "not a particularly good man, having been elected through race-baiting and voter-suppression." Stoller goes on to argue "it's far past time that the Keans be called on their dishonest reputation. ... Kean is now a critical piece of the partisan disinformation offensive around 9/11, sacrificing the reputation of the 9/11 Commission to further his son's electoral chances in New Jersey."

Meanwhile Jennifer Nix at firedoglake crashed a "credentialed press members" only conference call with Kean and reports that Kean "seemed baffled to hear that there was any controversy."

Kathryn Jean Lopez at The Corner posts the full text of WH CoS Josh Bolton's response to Sen. Min. Leader Harry Reid's (D-NV) letter on Iraq. On the issue of Def. Sec. Donald Rumsfeld, Bolton writes:

Finally, your letter calls for replacing Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. We strongly disagree. Secretary Rumsfeld is an honorable and able public servant. Under his leadership, the United States Armed Forces and our allies have overthrown two brutal tyrannies and liberated more than 50 million people. Al Qaeda has suffered tremendous blows. Secretary Rumsfeld has pursued vigorously the President's vision for a transformed U.S. military. And he has played a lead role in forging and implementing many of the policies you now recommend in Iraq. Secretary Rumsfeld retains the full confidence of the President.

Also at The Corner, Rich Lowry sums up the Dem letter this way: "Notably, the Democrats say nothing one way or another about securing Baghdad. In sum, their policy is to tacitly concede defeat and begin to withdraw, although they try to pretty it up with a little wishful thinking thrown on top."

Still on the right, under the header "Democrats Pull Out 1864 Party Platform - Dust It Off For 2006" Gateway Pundit links to a Sons of the South description of the 1864 Dem platform:

By 1864, the Country had grown weary of the long and bloody Civil War. Hundreds of thousands of the countries' best and bravest young men had fallen on the fields of Bull Run, Antietam, Shiloh, and countless more. Many began to think that the war was not worth it, and the price of freedom too great. The Republican Presidential Candidate Abraham Lincoln thought no price was too great for the abolition of slavery and the creation of a society in which a man was not judged by the color of his skin. Unfortunately, after four long years of war, Lincoln's support was dropping fast, and people were looking for a way out of the war.

Jonathan Singer at MyDD looks at Quinnipiac University polling showing 53% of Americans aren't familiar enough with House Min. Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to form an opinion about her, and announces GOP efforts to keep the House by demonizing her "will not be a successful tactic." On the right, Outside the Beltway agrees: "While the prospect of Majority Leader Pelosi may be frightening to hard core Republicans, it's meaningless to most Americans. And even more so to people who are simultaneously voters and not already strongly predisposed toward one party. The GOP would be better served emphasizing known, scary Democrats (Teddy Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Barney Frank, and the like) who would assume important committee chairs."

Adam C at RedState announces the Club For Growth's general election endorsements: "Now that the primary season is drawing to a close, the Club For Growth has identified three general elections where they will focus their anti-pork and small government efforts: Michael Bouchard of MI, Mike McGavick of WA, and Michael Steele of MD."

And Right Angle Blog add three more candidates to their blogger approved Rightroots slate: "Today the Rightroots coalition is proud to announce the addition of three Republican candidates: Mike Bouchard (MI SEN), Ralph Norman (SC 05) and Andrea Lane Zinga (IL 17). All three are locked in races they can win, but they need your help."

Captain's Quarters casts doubt on an Insight Magazinereport that the WH funneled millions of dollars into Sen. Joe Lieberman's (I-CT) Dem primary campaign. CQ writes:

In fact, this story makes almost no sense whatsoever. It comes to Insight, which is hardly a liberal publication, through a single source, which they claim as "senior" within the GOP. It offers no on-the-record sources or any data whatsoever to substantiate the allegation. The only source that does go on the record is Alan Schlesinger, the hapless and hopeless Republican candidate in the race against Lieberman and Lamont, who complains about his abandonment by the White House and national GOP.

Back in CT, DailyKos diarist dwahzon claims to have received a push poll from Team Lieberman testing anti-DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas messages: "I got a call from a market research firm on Sunday evening that at first seemed to be a reasonably balanced political survey but after about 15 minutes descended into the worst kind of push-polling saying all kinds of untrue (bad) things about Ned Lamont including bringing up kos's comment about the 4 contractors and dissing (though not by name) dailykos and bloggers in general."

Finally, CT Bob has vide on from the Newton, CT labor day parade including the first siting of Lieberman's new press secretary Tammy Sun.

Adam C at RedState looks at Rep. Katherine Harris (R) GOP primary victory and writes:

I was one of the first to object to Rep. Harris' entrance into the campaign. I continue to believe that there were better candidates who would be closer in the polls than Harris is. However, the choice is now between Sen. Nelson's liberal record and Rep. Harris' conservative one. No matter what past grudges may exist, Republicans in Florida should support Ms. Harris as much as they can. For surely, she would have a better record than Sen. Nelson on judges, abortion, and gun rights as well as many other issues.

Maddogg at MyDD is no fan of Debbie Stabenow's newest TV ad:

I think this ad is a virtual case study in why so many of us in the progressive movement keep uttering the phrase "Fire all of the consultants." ... People in Michigan are in a larger funk about our state than almost any other nation. Our Car industry is dieing right before our eyes, our college educated children are leaving the state en masse, and our brave soldiers and National Guardsmen are dying in a pointless occupation of a hostile nation in the middle of a civil war. Don't try to tell us (I'm a Michigander) how great things are going. Tell us what you've done or are going to do to fix it. Don't tell me it's "Changing" when it's suffering.

John Hinderaker at Power Line sat down with Rep. Mark Kennedy (R) at the MN State Fair and has audio of Kennedy's two reasons to support his campaign: 1. low taxes; 2. national security. Says Kennedy: "Amy Klobuchar is to the left of Nancy Pelosi on security."

Greg Sargent at TPM Cafe links to a MO Dem video of Sen. Jim Talent (R) saying: "That's the lesson we learned several years ago. Not that amnesty doesn't work, but that you don't call it amnesty." Sargent comments:

The Dems point out that it's likely that Talent is referring to President Reagan's 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, which gave amnesty to 2.5 million illegal immigrants, in saying that it works. So obviously it would look as if Talent is vulnerable to "hypocrisy" charges. He seems to be saying that the problem isn't amnesty itself as a policy, but that calling it "amnesty" makes it politically untenable. The problem with evaluating what Talent said on the tape is that it's a mere three seconds long, making it hard to know the remark's larger context, if there was one.

Right Angle Blog's Amanda B. Carpenter reports the "U.S. Immigration Reform Political Action Committee (USIRP) endorsed Republican candidate Steve Laffey in Rhode Island's September 12 Republican primary race against incumbent Senator Lincoln Chafee." And Erick Erickson at RedState makes his first "documentary" hammering on Chafee's refusal to enforce the death penalty on Osama Bin Laden.

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas looks at Raisin Kaine reports that Sen. George Allen (R-VA) "stole" an amendment from Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and comments:

Allen is morally bankrupt, and now we have further evidence that he is intellectually bankrupt. He is clearly bored with the Senate and wishes desperately he could be in Iowa and New Hampshire campaigning for president. Webb will oblige. And once he kicks Allen's ass to the curb, the former junior senator from Virginia will have all the time in the world for Iowa and New Hampshire.

Meanwhile, the Virginia Virtucon claims that "given Lowell Feld's dual role as both a paid staffer of the Webb campaign and a leader of Raising Kaine, it impossible for an agent of the Webb campaign NOT to be materially involved in" decisions that would close the independent expenditure loophole under FEC regulations. VV concludes: "he gang at Raising Kaine PAC better start looking around for a good Democrat federal election law attorney. Something tells me that they'll be needing one ...."

Tom Bevan at RCP Blog looks at the blowback from Ex-Safeco CEO Mike McGavick (R) DUI confession: "Instead of the confession having the intended effect of building goodwill and pre-emptively defusing a potential landmine, the episode now has people scratching their heads and wondering whether McGavick is perhaps a little too slick. (And others asking if he's the new Gary Hart!)"

Atrios has video of ret. Gen. Wesley Clark giving his ideal Dem foreign policy message for 9/11:

The attack on 9/11 occurred on the president's watch. He took us into a war with Iraq we didn't have to fight. It's been used to incentivize recruiting in Al Qaeda. The number of people who are affiliated with Al Qaeda worldwide has more than doubled since 2001. Our armed forces are bogged down in Iraq. We haven't been able to effectively engage with North Korea. We're hearing the tom toms beating for war with Iran. I think the American people can judge. This administration's policy has been a mistake and he's not made us safer. He's left us more vulnerable.

Right Wing News forwards Newt Gingrich's 11 point plank for GOPers to keep the House:

Robert B. Bluey at Right Angle Blog argues Sen. John McCain's Straight Talk America PAC is making a mistake with their new Michigan state finance chairman Jim Nicholson: "The only problem is that McCain's embrace of Nicholson risks further alienating the conservative base in Michigan. After recently campaigning on behalf of liberal Rep. Joe Schwarz, who was defeated by conservative Tim Walberg last month, McCain cannot afford another mistake -- especially with Gov. Mitt Romney (R.-Mass.) courting Michigan Republicans."

MA Gov. Mitt Romney (R) scored big in conservative blogger circles with his 9/6 order to all MA agencies to decline extra security support for ex-Iranian President Mohammed Khatami's 9/10 visit to Harvard University. Kathryn Jean Lopez at The Corner, Hugh Hewitt, Instapundit, Paul Mirengoff and John Hinderaker at Power Line, and Wizbang all had kind words for Romney.

Back in IA, however, Caucus Cooler reports on an email from The Pro-Life Federation of MI Chairman Dr. Jerry Zandstra targeting Romney. From the email:

I recently read the press release from Mitt Romney's Commonwealth PAC indicating that you have signed on to his Political Action Committee as a member of his Steering Committee. ... The Pro-Life Federation of Michigan does not view Mitt Romney as a suitable Republican nominee for President of the United States because of his pro-choice position on abortion. ... Governor Mitt Romney is clearly not a suitable nominee for pro-life elected officials to support for President of the United States."

Caucus Cooler also has additions to its list of IA legislators lining up for 08 hopefuls.

The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez happily passed along a Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) email claiming Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) had officially lifted his hold on S. 2590, the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006. Unfortunately, Coburn also reported that Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) also had a hold on the bill.

Senate Maj Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) then promised bloggers that despite any current holds on the legislation "I will bring this legislation to the floor for a vote in September."

Tapscott's Copy Desk was not as sure: "Looks to me like opponents of Coburn-Obama have decided to see how long the measure's supporters in the Blogosphere can keep up the campaign of unmasking anonymous holders. There are more than 75 senators who are not co-sponsors of the bill. ... If even a dozen or 15 of them agree to place successive anonymous holds after each new holder is unmasked, assuming they are, they could easily exhaust the legislative calendar and perhaps also the Blogosphere, thus effectively blocking consideration of the bill.

Kausfiles wonders why the GOP is not rallying around an enforcement first immigration message this fall:

a) Why isn't the obvious base-mobilizing national GOP midterm message something like this: If you give the Democrats a majority in the House, then Congress will pass an expensive, wage-destroying semi-amnesty for illegal immigrants. Such a bill already passed in the Senate. The only thing stopping it was the Republican House. Take away that resistance, and it's Katie-bar-the-door. This pitch would have the virtue of being highly plausible. It wouldn't mobilize just the base, but also a good chunk of the middle.** (That's more than you can probably say for the administration's Global War on Terror hyperbolizing). ... ... P.S.: Obviously President Bush couldn't articulate such a message, since he supports the Senate's expensive, wage-destroying semi-amnesty. But Speaker Hastert could. Or the NRCC. ...

b) But if a Democratic House really would pass a McCain-Kennedy style immigration bill, maybe President Bush isn't as horrified at the prospect of Speaker Pelosi as he seems. He'd achieve at least one major part of his second-term domestic agenda. Legacy time! That might be worth a few Conyers-led hearings...

c) It would obviously help House Republicans get across the anti-semi-amnesty message if before November they passed a sort of lowest-common-denominator enforcement-only immigration bill--including a few hundred miles of fence. Make the Democrats vote against it. If Dems did vote against it, they'd probably pay a price. In any case, it would have a clarifying effect--isn't one point of pre-election legislation to heighten contrasts? ... If enough Dems supported it for the bill to actually pass, the GOPs would have a mini-accomplishment to boast about.

Under the header "The Curse of South Park" Andrew Sullivan has video of a 1999 South Park clip featuring an Australian crocodile hunter trying to jam his thumb up a king crocs butthole. Sullivan comments: "It's getting just a little weird. They ridiculed Saddam, and he was deposed. They depicted Mel Gibson as a deranged sado-masochistic anti-Semite, and ... well, now we know. They took on Tom Cruise, and he went down the Paramount plughole. So this script from 1999 was always a little unnerving."

Blogometer PM Extra II: House Edition

CO 05: Hefley's Revenge?

Jonathan Singer at MyDD looks at AP reports that retiring Rep. Joel Hefley (R) may endorse ex-USAF officer Jay Fawcett (D) over state Sen. Doug Lamborn (R) and comments:

While Hefley's clear opposition to Lamborn will no doubt do at least some harm to Lamborn's candidacy, a Hefley endorsement of Fawcett could turn this race upside-down and give the Democrats yet another potential pick-up opportunity. Make no mistake, even with an endorsement from Hefley, Fawcett would have a difficult time; that said, the race in Colorado's fifth district would be more clearly competitive in November and make the Democratic establishment at least take some notice -- something the Netroots are already doing.

CT 04: There Is No Other Issue In CT

Matt Stoller at MyDD has video of '04 nominee/Westport Selectwoman Diane Farrell's (D) latest ad and likes what he sees:

This is a good ad. It hits Shays squarely where he's vulnerable, on Iraq and on his ties to Bush. Shays has recently moved to the left on Iraq, but voters do not trust Republicans when they move left on this issue. Farrell can simply point to Shays and his record, and demand that he denounce Bush, which Shays will not be able to do. ... If Farrell keeps this up, Chris Shays could be in trouble. I especially like the use of 'open-ended war'. Thank you Senator Lieberman, for running a horrible primary campaign. Now Farrell can run on the war without you hanging like a chain around her neck. Instead you get to weight down Chris Shays.

CT 05: Johnson = Lieberman = Iraq = Bad

Greg Sargent at TPM Cafe passes along a fundraising email for State Sen. Chris Murphy (D) from cable exec Ned Lamont (D):

Republican Nancy Johnson and Lieberman Party candidate Joe Lieberman have a lot in common these days. They share a "stay the course" message on the war in Iraq... I'm sure Chris never thought he'd have to run against Joe Lieberman's GOP-GOTV operation. But just like we'll defeat Senator Lieberman again in November, with your support, we'll help elect Chris Murphy as well.

Sargent comments: "It's a pretty interesting dynamic, isn't it? Lamont slams GOPer Johnson by tying her to a longtime Dem (Lieberman) -- which in turn enhances Lamont's own credibility with the Dem base. What a mess."

IL 06: Maybe Pols Should Just Stay Out of Uniforms

Matt Stoller at MyDD has photos of Iraq war veteran Tammy Duckworth's (D) latest mail piece which he describes as "xenophobic and unpersuasive" and asks his readers: "Didn't we learn in 2002 and 2004 that uniforms don't convince people that Democrats make good Republicans?" Stoller takes some heat in the comment section for his attack on the piece, but argues in response that there are better ways for Dems to talk about immigration than the way Duckworth did in her mailing:

If the goal of this mail piece is to turn off Republican voters who are worried about Duckworth's moderate stance on immigration, the right message is to attack Roskam and the Republican Party's credibility on the issue. The conservative base is quite upset that the GOP hasn't been able to get anything done on immigration, and if you are able to convince them that both parties are the same, you can drive down GOP turnout. Which is a more persuasive argument to a right-winger? Bush and the Republicans aren't conservative enough and can't get anything done, or Tammy Duckworth is a hardliner on immigration even though she backs McCain-Kennedy and will vote for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker.

Blogometer PM Extra

DEBATE OF THE DAY: Populists and Pragmatists

Left of center Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal got lefty brethren talking after taking on every lefties favorite New York Times pundit, Paul Krugman for his 9/1 op-ed calling for "a smart, bold populism" to address the root causes of the disconnect between good economic news and the unhappiness most Americans feel about the economy.

DeLong writes:

But when I read Paul's call for "smart, bold populism," I am reminded of earlier calls a couple of decades ago by Milton Friedman, Marty Feldstein, and their ilk for smart, bold conservatism or smart, bold libertarianism. But they did not get what they ordered: on the economic policy front the policies of Reagan and of Bush II have been a horrible botch. What populist policies that we can think of would be smart? And how can we make our high politicians allergic to populist policies that are stupid? Lyndon Johnson, yes. William Jennings Bryan, no.

Eric Rauchway at The New Republic was moved to defend Bryan's honor:

In Bryan's defense, some Populist policies that were not so bad were substituting the income tax for the tariff, establishing a managed currency, and generally opposing corruption in the press corps and the government. ... But of course, I'm pretty sure that's not really what either Krugman or DeLong means. What they seem to mean by populism is, a movement championing the downtrodden, wielding the symbols of oppression against the oppressor. And DeLong seems to demur, noting the dangers of symbolic politics and (tacitly) disputing Krugman's argument for more "workers' bargaining power"--an idea that, let's note, Matthew Yglesias recently proposed as better than most LBJ-like solutions.

Temperamentally, personally, I think I'm with DeLong on this: but temperamentally, personally, I'm not the representative voter. Making a judgment as to whether the Democrats should adopt a more populist approach to politics depends on how you judge that representative voter. Is DeLong right to think she'd be more moved by tax policy proposals than populism?

DeLong then attempted to answer Rauchway's query:

I am, as I said above, a reality-based center-left technocrat. I am pragmatically interested in government policies that work: that are good for America and for the world. My natural home is in the bipartisan center, arguing with center-right reality-based technocrats about whether it is center-left or center-right policies that have the best odds of moving us toward goals that we all share--world peace, world prosperity, equality of opportunity, safety nets, long and happy lifespans, rapid scientific and technological progress, and personal safety. The aim of governance, I think, is to achieve a rough consensus among the reality-based technocrats and then to frame the issues in a way that attracts the ideologues on one (or, ideally, both) wings in order to create an effective governing coalition.

while I am profoundly, profoundly disappointed and disgusted by the surrender of the reality-based wing of the Republican policy community to the gang of Republican political spivs who currently hold the levers of power, I do think that there is hope that they will come to their senses and that building pragmatic technocratic policy coalitions from the center outward will be possible and is our best chance. Paul, I think, believes otherwise: The events of the past decade and a half have convinced him, I think, that people like me are hopelessly naive, and that the Democratic coalition is the only place where reality-based discourse is possible. Thus, in his view, the best road forward to (a) make the Democratic coalition politically dominant through aggressive populism, and then (b) to argue for pragmatic reality-based technocratic rather than idealistic fantasy-based ideological policies within the Democratic coalition. He may well be right.

DeLong's paean to technocratism sent Atrios fuming:

This statement by Brad DeLong disturbed me on so many levels and I've had difficulty sorting them all out.This, in a nutshell, is the worldview of the Sensible Liberal. It's the belief that there are Sensible Policies concocted by Wise Men (and women), preferably ones with advanced degrees, which are Right and True and Good. Wise Men may disagree a bit about the means, and we should throw a few conferences to hash these differences out. Politics and ideologues who do not share the ideology of the Wise Men, who of course are not really tainted by ideology, get in the way of enacting policies which are Sensible. It's a dangerously wrong view of the world. ... How's that "free trade" working out for Mexico? How'd that currency peg work out for Argentina? How'd that energy deregulation thing work out for California? How'd that shock therapy work out for Russia? How's the privatization of federal government functions coming along? Oh, and how's that Iraq war coming along?

Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly was more open to technocratic rule but didn't see the GOP trending toward moderation anytime soon:

I'd like to believe that too, but there's just no evidence of it. Over the past 30 years the Republican Party has gone from Gerald Ford to Ronald Reagan to Newt Gingrich to Dick Cheney — i.e., from conservative to reactionary to crazy to bat[excrement] insane — and Rove's "two T's" are further evidence that they have no intention of rowing this back.

For all the talk of Joe Lieberman being "purged" from the Democratic Party last month, that was a one-off deal. It's the Republican Party that's been steadily (but relentlessly) purging moderates for the past couple of decades, swearing electoral death on anyone who refuses to accept Grover Norquist's screwball economic ideas. The result is that there's virtually no one left in the party who can be described as a moderate, and the party's continued existence depends wholly on nurturing the most radical elements of its base and then radicalizing them even further.

That's not a strategy Democrats should emulate, but at the same time it certainly doesn't bode well for the prospect of the Republican leadership coming to its senses and building pragmatic technocratic policy coalitions from the center outward.

Like Atrios, TalkLeft was in no mood for centrism, instead arguing for stark contrasts with GOP policy:

I think populism is critical to Democratic politics. ... It is not clear to me that the idea that the Republican Party may return to its senses is incompatible with the political prescription Krugman advances. ... With this insight, like Digby, I argue for a politics of contrast that not only highlights what Dems are about, but also highlights what Republicans are about. This view has placed me in conflict with the Lakoffian view of outreach to conservatives, as I advocate an agressive negative branding of conservatism and Republicanism - to wit, to an attempt to redefine the political middle. ... As always, the important thing is to be proud of who you are and what you stand for - Democratic values on both domestic and foreign policy are the right ones for our country. We should not be shy about saying that, and saying what Republican policies have been - a disaster.

9/5: Selling Out Or Growing Up?

Progressive blog stalwart firedoglake is taking criticism from some quarters for hiring a press sec. to handle the blogs' main stable of writers. These critics argue that a movement describing itself as "people powered" ought not have press secs since "real people" don't have them either. The Blogometer is much less distressed by this development. In fact, our feelings are quite the opposite. Looking at the top 10 most trafficked blogs, only DailyKos, Crooks and Liars, Michelle Malkin, and Instapundit started out as lone blogger-hobbyists. The other 6 (including The Huffington Post, The Corner, and Think Progress) are either planned business enterprises, outgrowths of existing MSM pubs, or online presences of otherwise established orgs. Many may have a romantic ideal of bloggers as loners mashing away at a keypad in their pajamas, but the biggest and best blogs all feature intelligent professionals, often with advanced degrees, commenting on issues at least tangentially related to their field of expertise. As these enterprises gain in influence and profitability, should we really be that surprised as they become more professional as well?

Natural Born Killers producer and progressive activist Jane Hamsher at firedoglake announced 9/2 that FDL hired Christina Siun O'Connell as Team FDL's new press sec. Hamsher writes: "Many will know her as a valued member of the FDL community and also for her work handling press for Yearly Kos. She's also a good friend and I'm really looking forward to having her on board."

Some observers didn't care for the personnel move. Danny Glover at Beltway Blogroll (go team!): "The netroots pride themselves on being just plain folks -- you know, 'people power' and all that. ... So could someone please explain why in the world Firedoglake, one of the top liberal blogs, has hired a press secretary? That's about as establishment as you can get. I hate to break it to Jane Hamsher, who certainly didn't explain the logic of the move well, but real people don't have press secretaries. And blogs shouldn't need them."

On the right Instapundit quipped: "Seems a bit, um, self-infatuated to me, even by the rather relaxed standards of the blogosphere."

The New Republic editor Franklin Foer replaced Lee Siegel's TNR blog with this brief "An Apology to Our Readers" sometime 9/1:

After an investigation, The New Republic has determined that the comments in our Talkback section defending Lee Siegel's articles and blog under the username "sprezzatura" were produced with Siegel's participation. We deeply regret misleading our readers. Lee Siegel's blog will no longer be published by TNR, and he has been suspended from writing for the magazine.

Shakespeare's Sister writes an unforgiving recap of Seigel's less than friendly relationship with the blogosphere, the less civilized portions of which he described as "blogofascism." SS links to a Lawyers, Guns, and Money collection of "sprezzatura" defenses of Seigel.

Chris Bowers at MyDD helps Mark Blumenthal and Charles Franklin promote their new joint project Pollster.com, which, among "other goodies," includes 5- and 10-poll averages for 11 top tier Sen races including:

Washington: Cantwell 51, McGavick 40
Pennsylvania: Casey 49, Santorum 40
Minnesota: Klobuchar 49, Kennedy 40
Ohio: Brown 46, DeWine 40
Montana: Tester 47, Burns 44
New Jersey: Menendez 43, Kean 40
Rhode Island: Whitehouse 42, Chafee 40
Missouri: Talent 47, McCaskill 45
Tennessee: Corker 46, Ford 42
Virginia: Allen 48, Webb 42
Arizona: Kyl 48, Pederson 37

Bowers concludes: "If small websites operated by two or three people can provide far better information on American elections than organizations with hundreds of employees such as CNN, what on earth are those large outlets spending their money on? Man, I love the blogosphere."

Natural Born Killers producer and progressive activist Jane Hamsher at firedoglake has video from CNN of blogger CT Keith breaking up a scuffle between Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and cable exec Ned Lamont (D-CT) supporters at a New Town, CT Labor Day parade. Not in the video, Hamsher repeats this exchange from later in the day:

Keith also got a chance to talk to Joe briefly, and tried to hand him a "kiss" button. "That's a bunch of nonsense," said Lieberman. Later, Joe approached Keith once again and said, "it's very important that we stay civil." "I agree with that, Senator, but it's more important that we stop this war," said Keith.

At TPM CafeGreg Sargent notes the relaunch of www.joe2006.com includes a blog. Atrios warns his fellow lefty travelers: "A reminder that the Lieberman blog is apparently going live tomorrow. It's basically going to be a trap to entice people to say mean things about the Last Honest Man so they can go whine to the press about how mean everyone is unlike Stay the Course Joe. I give it about 36 hours until they send out a press release along those lines."

Not many surprises in blogger reax to 9/3's Meet The Press debate between Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and state Treas. Bob Casey Jr. (D). The SantorumBlogliveblogged the debate and felt Santorum came out on top: "I don't know what it was, if it was something said by Casey or Russert, but Santorum woke up and tapped into his passion. You could hear it in his answer, see it in his body language in his ability to not let Casey or Russert take control of the debate. That's what will carry him through to victory on election day."

On the left, John in DC at AMERICAblog posted video clips and summed up the debate this way: "Santorum called George Bush a 'terrific president,' admitted to sleeping in Pennsylvania just one month a year, reiterated his support for privatizing Social Security, praised Bush's handling of Iraq and insisted there were WMD in Iraq even though the White House has acknowledged there weren't. Casey laid out a new direction, calling for the Iraqis to take the lead on their own security and detailing specific ways for enhancing the U.S. military. He outlined a plan to balance the budget and spoke about the need for Pennsylvania to have a Senator who will hold George Bush accountable for advancing an ineffective agenda."

At National Review OnlineKathryn Jean Lopez posts the entire text of Team Santorum's post-deabte spin including: "During their first debate encounter on NBC's 'Meet the Press,' U.S. Senator Rick Santorum was clear and straightforward on his positions on the issues, while Bobby Casey Jr. spent the hour ducking and dodging the issues."

Patrick Casey at National Review Online follows up on Providence Journalreporting of Sen. Lincoln Chafee's (R-RI) efforts to distance himself from an NRSC ad attacking Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey (R) on immigration: "It doesn't let Chafee off easy, pointing out that the only reason that the ad is off the air now is that it had run its paid course - neither the NRSC nor Chafee took the ad off in response to complaints from the Latino groups. The ad really is a nasty piece of work, rating a big one star after 34,600 viewings on YouTube where it is now posted."

QandO's Jon Henke announced 8/31 that he had "accepted a job as Netroots Coordinator with the George Allen Senate Campaign." Henke offered two reasons for joining the campaign: "1. George Allen has gotten a raw deal from the press and Democrats on some issues and innuendos and that... 2. I find his "libertarian, trusting, free-people approach", his "Common Sense Jeffersonian Conservative Principles" and his Reaganesque belief in libertarian ideals very attractive."

Beltway Blogroll (go team!) claimed credit for the hire: "When Sen. George Allen opened his mouth and inserted 'macaca' a couple of weeks ago, I offered the Virginia Republican some unsolicited advice: Get a blog, and hire a blog expert. ... Coincidence? You decide, but I think I'll take credit for this one. Ed Morrissey of Captain's Quarters also should take a bow. He recommended Henke to Allen in a post last week."

BB also had some sound advice for Henke's first order of business: "Now for some advice to Henke and the Allen campaign: Change the name of the job description. 'Netroots' is a term coined by and associated with bloggers on the left -- you know, the ones that folks on the right derisively call the 'nutroots.' That's not exactly the message you want to be sending fresh out of the blog gate."

Blogometer alum William Beutler at Blog PI passes along this Henke email explanation of Team Allen thinking: "The leftosphere is very good at getting their campaign message to bloggers, getting bloggers to talk about the campaigns and spreading the muck through back channels. The Allen campaign wants to establish some outreach to supportive bloggers and to make sure our side of heard when the Leftosphere is smearing us."

Brother of blogger Mickey Kaus, Stephen Kaus, takes to The Huffington Post to celebrate the Dems new found unity on Iraq: "Finally, the Democrats have settled on a strategy so functional, that even Rahm Emanuel sees its wisdom: call for Donald Rumsfeld to be fired. ... And what a great target Rumsfeld is." After reading Thomas Ricks' Fiasco Kaus compiles his top ten Rumsfled Iraq errors:

1. No "Phase IV" plan.
2. Ignoring the world so we were on our own.
3. Too few soldiers to fight.
4. Too few soldiers to prevent looting and damage.
5. Ignoring the Sunni triangle.
6. Too few troops to establish rapport.
7. Too few soldiers to handle prisoners plus a confused command
structure. Result: Abu Gharib.
8. Allowing most of the U.S. senior military leadership to resign
in the middle of the battle.
9. Appointing Paul Bremmer to replace General Jay Garner to head
the occupation.
10. Promoting General Ricardo Sanchez to command the entire U.S.
ground force in Iraq.

Captain's Quarters acknowledge's Rumsfeld's declinign popularity, but still isn't impressed with the new Dem strategy: "Rumsfeld can be blamed for some of the above, but making him personally responsible for the actions of a handful of soldiers in Abu Ghraib just reduces this to grandstanding. ... This letter gives the perfect reason why Democrats can't be trusted with national security, anyone's national security. They want the Middle East to dismember Iraq with our blessing instead of against our opposition. They want the peace of surrender ... or phased redeployment."

Back on the left, TalkLeft waxes nostalgic for the Saddam Hussein era while watching Bill Maher on Larry King: "I've always wondered why people think America is better off with Saddam Hussein out of power in Iraq. I can appreciate (although I don't accept at face value) the argument of those who think it's better for Iraqis that he is gone, but for Americans? I never have gotten the connection. I was channel surfing very late last night in Aspen and caught Bill Maher on Larry King Live from Friday night. Even though it was way past time for bed, I listened.

TalkLeft concludes: "That sounds about right to me. Your thoughts?"

ABC's "The Path to 9/11" is still five days away from airing, but it has already created its own blogswarm. Lefty bloggers, like Sheldon Rampton at firedoglake, argue that the 6-hour two-part docudrama set begin 9/10 is "written and produced by conservative filmmakers who place a lion's share of the blame for the 9/11 terrorist attacks on alleged failures of the Clinton administration." Rampton reports: "The show's political slant is evident from the fact that Rush Limbaugh is talking up the movie, noting that its screenwriter, Cyrus Nowrasteh, is a personal friend. ... I searched Technorati for mentions of the film and found 260 references, mostly from conservative websites, every single one of which had nothing but praise for the film. And although I found numerous examples of conservative pundits and bloggers who reported seeing pre-broadcast screenings, no leftist pundits or bloggers had been given a chance to see it."

Also at firedoglake, Jennifer Nix was unnerved by her inability to land an advanced screening. Using her old Variety contacts Nix was unable to get any ABC spokespeople on the phone. She asks: "So, let's review. This very high-profile movie is airing next weekend, and all five of the listed contacts were out all day yesterday, making it impossible to get advance copies? This, after ABC made the mini-series available to a plethora of wing-nut bloggers and media personalities like Mr. Limbaugh?"

On the right John J. Miller at National Review Online noticed "several left-wing blog sites are encouraging their readers to protest ABC's upcoming miniseries" and advises "watch for attempts this week to smear the miniseries. Don't believe the hype. Just plan to watch it for yourself. It's truly must-see TV."

Also at NRO, Andy McCarthy sees too much influence from "former White House counterterrorism coordinator Dick Clarke" but still concludes: "It is generally good history and accurately conveys the excruciating missed opportunities. It is not partisan. The Bush administration is portrayed as just as asleep-at-the-switch as the Clinton administration - particularly in the person of then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice (the Clarke influence really comes through here)."

Conservative Michelle Malkin welcomes news that amnesty appears dead for this session but argues that: "running away from the immigration chaos that remains five years after the 9/11 attacks isn't going to make anyone happy. If Washington doesn't understand that immigration control IS domestic national security issue number one by now, it never will."

Also on the right, Captain's Quarters believes Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) has not abandoned border-security, only de-coupled the issue from a more comprehensive immigration reform.

If Democrats are forced to vote against border security, or more likely to filibuster it, it will provide Republicans with a powerful talking point for the midterms. ... For that reason, although the Times may have it technically right, I suspect that Frist has a plan to force a vote on strengthening the border. ... I'd expect Frist to try to move the House bill to the Senate floor and let the chips fall where they may. With an overwhelming majority of voters wanting the southern border secured, the issue is a natural winner for the GOP.

TalkLeft will be on the look out for any such efforts: "I smell a rat. I wouldn't put it past Sensenbrenner to sneak the worst parts of H.R. 4437, which passed the House but not the Senate, into new legislation tagged as national security legislation. To get around what they call "amnesty" they'll just leave out the guest worker provisions."

Matt Stoller at MyDD forwards MoveOn's non-endorsement of Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) announcement: "In voting over the last day, neither Hillary Rodham Clinton nor Jonathan Tasini garnered the two-thirds support from MoveOn members necessary for an endorsement. The margin in our online vote was 56 percent for Clinton and 44 percent for Tasini."

Stoller adds: "In the netroots poll in June, Clinton had a 65-33 favorable/unfavorable rating, with those ratings dipping among people who read blogs. The 56-44 vote total represents either a dip of online support, or suggests that those who voted disproportionately read blogs. Regardless, this was just for her Senate reelection campaign, not the Presidency, which suggests that there is a large opening to the left of Clinton in 2008."

Kausfiles looks at the Dem field minus HRC and has his own suggestion for the nomination: "If Hillary takes herself out of the 2008 race, that will focus a lot of attention on the alleged shortage of other appealing Dem candidates. (You know the litany: Edwards is too light and too left, Biden's too impressed with his own motormouth, Warner and Bayh are too dull, Kerry is Kerry.) I've asked this before, but what's wrong with Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell? So far nobody's come up with a convincingly fatal flaw. ... Of course, it's not like Pennsylvania's a crucial swing state. ... Oh, wait. ...

Ex-NY mayor Rudy Giuliani received rave lefty reviews for his appearance with LG Michael Steele (R-MD) in Potomac, MD 8/31. According to Slate's John Dickerson Giuliani quieted a GOP crowd excited by an audience member's attack on Dem foreign policy. Giuliani reportedly said: "The other thing we have to learn is that we can't get into this partisan bickering. The fact is that Republicans and Democrats have the same objectives. Democrats are loyal Americans. Republicans are loyal Americans. I think we have better answers, but we have to respect each other."

TalkLeft reacted: "Say what? No more calling Democrats traitors? No more comparing them to terrorists? What will that leave Rove and Cheney and Rummy and Lieberman? Next thing you know Rudy will be defending gay marriage and the right to choose. I saw that season of the West Wing -- did Alan Alda win? I forget.

Toby Barlow at The Huffington Post bemoans MA GOV Mitt Romney's comparison of stem cell research with an "Orwellian future." Barlow writes:

You can almost see your High School English teachers wincing as they heard that. In fact, anyone familiar with even the Cliff Notes edition of "1984" could tell you that Orwell wasn't concerned with the abuse of science - that was Huxley in "Brave New World." Orwell's interest was the language of government, how it's used to manipulate, distort, and mislead - for instance, like Mitt Romney did with this announcement.

Libertarian Hit and Run reprints John Tierney's 8/29 New York Times op-ed "South Park Refugees" including the following passages:

According to Wikipedia, which would definitely be these voters' encyclopedia of choice, South Park Republicans are young Americans who "hold political beliefs that are, in general, aligned with those that seem to underpin gags and storylines in the popular television cartoon." The encyclopedia summarizes these beliefs with a quotation from one of the show's creators, Matt Stone, which includes a crucial expletive I must elide: "I hate conservatives, but I really ... hate liberals."

Stone and Parker were never thrilled to be G.O.P. poster boys and said they weren't sure what a South Park Republican was. They were generally reluctant to be pigeonholed ideologically, but last week they clarified it by headlining at a Reason magazine conference in Amsterdam, the libertarian version of Davos. Stone and Parker said that if you had to put a label on them, they were libertarian-and that didn't mean Republican to this crowd.

The religious right used to be a better alternative, Parker said. "The Republicans didn't want the government to run your life, because Jesus should. That was really part of their thing: less government, more Jesus. Now it's like, how about more government and Jesus?" ... That may sound like a winning ticket to the religious right, and to Republic strategists who've assumed that libertarians have nowhere else to go. But some are ready to switch parties. The rest can always stay home and find something better on TV.

LEST WE FORGET: Winglish-English Dictionary

The Reality-Based Community has a handy guide for lefty bloggers to help understand Winglish, "the language spoken by the wing-nuts now running the country and by their journalistic supporters." Entries include:

• alternative energy sources /n. phr./ 1. New locations to drill for gas and oil. 2. Coal mines.


• bipartisan /n./ Favorable to Republicans, but involving Democrats. (See also "partisan," "nonpartisan.")


• No Child Left Behind A Federal law enacting the statistical wisdom of Lake Wobegon, where all the children are above average.


• stuff happens /idiomatic phr./ I don't have to live in Baghdad.


• voter fraud /n. phr./ Significant minority turnout.