September 20, 2006

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?"

Posted by Conn Carroll at September 20, 2006 12:24 PM