October 04, 2006
Blogometer Extra
BLOGGER VS. BLOGGER: Kos Glib On Lib(ertarian)s?
A lengthy column by Markos Moulitsas (of DailyKos fame) at Cato Unbound is a not-so-subtle call to Libertarians seeking common ground with Democrats. Moulitsas writes:
For too long, Republicans promised smaller government and less intrusion in people’s lives. Yet with a government dominated top to bottom by Republicans, we’ve seen the exact opposite. No one will ever mistake a Democrat of just about any stripe for a doctrinaire libertarian. But we’ve seen that one party is now committed to subverting individual freedoms, while the other is growing increasingly comfortable with moving in a new direction, one in which restrained government, fiscal responsibility and—most important of all—individual freedoms are paramount.
John Hawkins at Right Wing News is, perhaps predictably, not buying Moulitsas' argument at all, and crystallizes his thoughts pretty bluntly. "The problem with the idea of a 'Libertarian Democrat' is that philosophically, Democrats and Libertarians could not be farther apart," Hawkins writes. "Libertarians believe in having a weak federal government and minimal government interference in people's lives. That's just the antithesis of what the Democrat Party has stood for over the last 70 years."
Hawkins proceeds to compare and contrast Dems, GOPers and Libertarians, focusing particularly on civil liberties issues, with caustic wit in tow:
The truth is that the Democrats have few qualms about curbing civil liberties, they're just on the same side as Libertarians on some issues because #1) Democrats aren't serious about protecting us from terrorists #2) There are Republicans in office and Democrats tend to disagree with them on everything for no other reason than because they're Republicans.
The Claremont Institute's Josh Treviño weighs in on the Kos column with a positively Buckleyan pallette of verbosity, quoting Raymond Arum dictums and slipping in phrases like "ersatz theorist of intellectual convergence" with relative ease. His case is harder to discern, but it appears he too perceives little of worth with Moulitsas' assertions. He does throw him a bone early on, tongue likely planted deep in cheek:
[Moulitsas] used to advance himself as a non-ideological man of the party, dedicated to Democratic victory in the absence of any demand for Democratic principle. In this, he was an apt representative of the party at large: a seeker of power for its own sake, yet prone, to paraphrase Trilling, to irritable mental gestures of vicious and cruel hard-left bluster. He was not sane in his public undertaking ... but neither did he have any pretense to being more than he was. There is some honor in that honesty, and it should be acknowledged.
Treviño ultimately warns a theoretical Libertarian that, should he somehow stray into Dem territory as Moulitsas et al. beckon to him, "he will experience the true regard that the Democratic party has for him soon enough." He continues, wielding a sword of loquacious rancor:
[The Libertarian] will find himself in the company of people who do not grasp the connection between capitalism and freedom; he will find himself attending party meetings with neighbors who wish nothing more than to seize his household income for their own civic purposes; he will realize that his new fellow-travelers have not the slightest intention of allowing him to raise his children as he sees fit; and he will see Markos Moulitsas, having concluded that beekeepers are the next swing demographic, earnestly explain how he learned to be a Democrat by watching bees.
"At that point," Treviño concludes, "he may well reflect on just what is preferable -- and what is detestable."
OH 01: Chazbot!
Dem challenger John Cranley's team conjures up a remarkably original and amusing ad, available for viewing here, that gleefully mocks incumbent Rep. Steve Chabot (R) by using a celebrity George W. Bush impersonator (as the ad kindly notes at bottom). The faux Bush is heard leaving a message on the answering machine of Chabot, running off a quick list of "accomplishments" and "kudos" that reinforce Cranley's depiction of Chabot as a tool of the White House.
Chris Bowers at MyDD remarks that "this election has featured more ads trying to make use of humor than I can ever remember," and gives Cranley's ad props for being "genuinely different."
"This ad is having a strange ability to stick in my mind," Bowers writes. "It isn't that funny, but it has kept me quietly giggling and smiling for about fifteen minutes now." Bowers in particular likes "a nice dig on Chabot by having Bush nickname him 'Chabby,' which is a thinly veiled homonym for 'shabby.'"
[Mike Sheehan]
Posted by Conn Carroll at 07:45 PM
10/4: Staying The Course
Stragglers still remain, but for the most part conservative blogging wagons have circled in defense of Speaker Denny Hastert (R-IL) ... for now. The most common defense has little to do with Hastert's handling of the scandal, and everything to do with timing. Whatever harm keeping Hastert as Speaker may cause, the GOPers' argument goes, can't be worse than the harm his resignation would cause for their candidates this fall. This is a major distinction from the Strom Thurman scandal that felled Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS). Lott's troubles surfaced in the wake of a heartening GOP mid-term victory, leaving the party free to wipe the slate clean prior to the start of a new session. Now the GOP is facing leadership troubles in the waning minutes of the 4th quarter, and they're choosing to stick with the lineup that got them here.
HASTERT: Only A Question Of When
National Review Online's Rich Lowry passes along a GOP leadership explanation for keeping Hastert: "If we decapitate our leadership right now going into the November elections, we lose the whole shooting match. Our base will completely deflate. There is a time and place to talk about vision and leadership [at the top], but now is not the time." Lowry later explains: ""All of this decapitation talk is only about timing. Hastert is finished. The only question is whether it is now or later. Regardless of the election outcome, Hastert won't be Speaker next year." RedState's Directors write: "But now is not the time for a leadership contest. Anyone who suggests otherwise is a fool or a foe."
Not everyone on the right has given up on Hastert entirely. Conservative talk-show host Hugh Hewitt is in full attack mode: "Mark Levin just joined me in an interview in which we both blast the allegedly conservative pundits who are working overtime to toss Republicans under the bus on the basis of zero truthed evidence of GOP leadership complicity other than e-mails which major newspapers, ABC's Brian Ross and evidently the FBI all deemed as insufficiently interesting to publish with dispatch or investigate further." Hewitt also has audio and a transcript of Hastert's appearance on his show. Finally, Hewitt also has "Some Tech Questions Before Speaker Pelosi Is Seated" focusing on whether there was a conspiracy to set Foley up.
Not directly responding to Hewitt, Michelle Malkin offers a "Instant messaging 101" to debunk "radio talk show host" doubts about the veracity of the Foley IMs: "Please don't spread this meme. You can save [IMs] on Google Chat. You can save them on AOL. You save them on Yahoo! And guess what? They are formatted exactly like the Foley IMs published by ABC News.
Talking Points MemoJosh Marshall wonders what Hastert and co. hope to accomplish by arguing that "Foleygate is all the product of a grand nefarious dirty trick." Marshall writes: "But what strikes me is what the charge would even mean. Is this really a winning argument or is it, as it seems to me, a sign that the House GOP leadership is currently exploring the outer reaches of the galaxy of desperation?"
Marshall also notes that Hastert promised to campaign for thirty House GOPers before election day. Marshall snarks: "Is that a threat? ... Who are the lucky thirty?" back on the rightHot Air has Hastert's entire Limbaugh interview. Also, Michael Illions, hosted Lorie Byrd,John Hawkins , Betsy Newmark and Ed Morrisey for a GOP USA Northeast Conservatives With Attitudepodcast on the Hastert question.
REYNOLDS: How Many Small Children Does It Take For Tom Reynolds To Hide Behind?
Buffalo Geek has video of Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-NY) taking questions at a day care center 10/3 on the Foley scandal. Under the header "NRCC Uses Small Children As Human Shields" firedoglake's Jane Hamsher provides a transcript of the proceedings:
Reporter: Congressman, do you mind asking the children to leave the room so we can have a frank discussion of this, because it's an adult topic. It just doesn't seem appropriate to me.Reynolds: I'll take your questions, but I'm not going to ask any of my supporters to leave.Reporter: Who are the children, Congressman? Who are these children?Reynolds: Well, a number of them are from the community. There are several of the "thirtysomething" set that are here and uh I've known them and I've known their children as they were born. Reporter: Do you think it's appropriate for them to be listening to the subject matter though?Reynolds: Sir, I'll be happy to answer your questions, I'm still, uh...BOEHNER: "At Least As Dishonest As Hastert"
No movement at all from righty bloggers on including Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) on the list of those that must go, but lefty bloggers are still making the case. Glenn Greeenwald writes: "
If Hastert has to resign, how can Boehner stay? Not only does Boehner admit to having known about what the Washington Times calls the "red flags" raised by Foley's "suggestive and wholly inappropriate e-mail messages," Boehner, ever since this scandal emerged, has been at least as dishonest as Hastert has been (which is saying a lot, since Hastert, as the Washington Times notes, "dissembled, to put it charitably"). And it was Boehner who actively and inexcusably blocked the efforts by House Democrats on Friday to instruct the House Ethics Committee to investigate this matter.
FOLEY: Mann Act Controls Minor Issue
The entire blogosphere was completely underwhelmed by Foley's lawyer's bombshell that Foley had been molested as a child. Talking Points Memo confirms that Foley was raised Roman Catholic and AMERICAblog parses the lawyer's statement that Foley "never had any inappropriate sexual contact with any minor." AMERICAblog notes: "in many states, including apparently DC, 16 is the age of consent. Below 16, you're a minor. 16 and up, you're not a minor. So Foley's lawyer just said he never had sex with any 15 year olds. And yes, all pages are 16 and up, from what we've heard. So the question is whether Foley had sex with anyone under 18, and with anyone he met in the page program?"
The Volokh Conspiracy's Orin Kerr breaks down the probable prosecution of Foley:
The case actually brings up a bunch of very interesting legal questions, and I wanted to explain the issues for readers who are following the story in the news. ... The basic law at issue here is 18 U.S.C. 2422(b), sometimes known as the federal enticement statute, which is part of the Victorian-era legislation known as the Mann Act. ... I would guess that prosecutors are looking for IMs and e-mails sent to minors when they were back home, far from Washington DC, perhaps in socially conservative states or districts where jurors would be particularly likely to see Foley's e-mails as the dangerous products of a sexual predator. If they decide to prosecute, the feds probably would bring the case in that state or district.
FOLEY II: Reporting For Mom Duty
National Review Online's Rich Lowry passes along "an anti-Hastert e-mail" including: "minority leader Pelosi is usually considered a weak sister. But look at her now: a strikingly attractive woman in her sixties with five children, numerous grandchildren, and a warm smile. She practically screams: MOM ON DUTY. THIS WON"T HAPPEN AGAIN."
Talking Points Memo Josh Marshall draws attention to dueling headlines on CNN's main page:
- Report: Foley had cybersex before vote
- Bush: Dems shouldn't be trust to run Congress
Marshall comments: "Just not a good day for GOP message meisters." And finally, MN-06 hopeful Patty Wetterling (D) has an ad up using the Foley scandal.
BLOGGER VS. MSM: Wow
Conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt highlights key portions of his 10/3 interview with former Washington Post journalist Thomas Edsell: "
HH: Okay. Do you believe everything Bob Woodward writes? TE: No.BLOGGER VS. BELTWAY: Chris Bowers Does Not Sleep With The Fishes
Responding to "the ire of many people" from his 10/2 post on DCCC targeting, MyDD's Chris Bowers sticks to his argument that "the more blue districts we take, the more solid our majority and voting patterns will be. Thus, not only will we win a majority, but we will actually have control, which is very different." Bowers then turns his guns back on the DCCC: "I also know from sources and from DCCC targeting lists I have acquired in the past that sometimes the DCCC doesn't target a seat simply because DCCC leaders don't like the Democratic candidate for that seat, even though the district is very winnable. So, don't tell me that the DCCC is some bastion of objective, sophisticated district targeting immune to the vagaries of subjective personal feuds, especially when it is being run by a guy who once sent a pollster a dead fish wrapped in a newspaper.
BLOGGERS VS. BELTWAY: Carrying The Load
Captain's Quarters looks at OMB efforts to recruit bloggers to help support its clean-government initiatives and writes: "Can the blogosphere reform government? Not by itself, of course, but it can amplify the demands of the electorate, especially when it speaks in broad consensus. ... If OMB can make the case for reform that steers clear of ideology -- which really is the purview of our elected representatives -- they can rely on bloggers to help them carry the load."
YEARLYKOS: Kos' Kind Of Town
YearlyKos organizers proudly announced 10/3 that "the 2nd Annual YearlyKos Convention will take place August 2 - 5, 2007 at the McCormick Place Convention Center in Chicago, IL." The organizers explained: "It's got everything that we liberals pine for: great museums, efficient public transportation, diversity, a strong union presence, delicious food and, of course, a huge convention center. YearlyKos 2007 is going to be bigger and better than 2006, and maybe even a little more fun."
LANDSCAPE: No, We Can't See Rhode Island Either
MyDD's Chris Bowers posts a map showing which party holds which Governor mansions and explains: "Any state that is "lean Democratic" or better is in blue. Any state that is "lean Republican" or worse is in red. The six toss-up states are in purple (Rhode Island is purple, in case you can't see that)." Bowers later writes: "Whatever worries we may have about Congress, when it comes to governorships, Democrats are on the brink of taking a national majority, in terms of states, population, and congressional districts. In fact, we are practically assured of pulling off all three of those majorities in 2006."
LANDSCAPE II: 70% Excellent
RedState's Pat Cleary links to The National Association of Manufacturers official vote ratings for the 109th Congress. Cleary writes: "Unlike some groups -- like the AFL-CIO, for example -- these determinations are not made by staff. They are done by manufacturers who are part of a Key Vote Committee -- large and small manufacturers in equal numbers. ... And so you'll not see any social issues on here, only roll-up-the-sleeves issues of importance to manufacturers: Taxes, trade, legal reform, energy and the like. It's all transparent." Everyone who scores over 70% wins the Award for Manufacturing Legislative Excellence. 0f the 276 award winner, 269 are GOPers.
CT SEN: Lamont Or Bust
MyDD's Chris Bowers looks at Dem promises to retain Sen. Joe Lieberman's (I-CT) seniority should the Dems take the Senate and predicts "full-scale revolt from the netroots" is that happens. Bowers reminds Beltway Dems: "Please believe me when I say that is neither an empty threat, nor a small threat." Bowers concludes: "So, the situation in the Senate is much simpler than in the House. Even if Democrats win a majority in the Senate, we do not win control of the Senate unless Ned Lamont defeats Joe Lieberman. Period."
The official Ned Lamont Blog notes that the "Dems for Joe" unveiled last week is made up of "major corporate lobbyists with a vested financial interest in keeping Lieberman in Washington." DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas adds: "Look at Business Week's look at Democratic lobbyists that would dominate Washington if Dems take over. ... Then compare those names to the list of Democrats supporting Joe Lieberman. They are many of the same guys -- John Breaux, Tony Podesta, and Steve Elmendorf. ... If the Democrats take over one or both chambers of Congress (and that's a big "if"), we'll have to be vigilant that these sleazy lobbyists don't corrupt our caucus the way they have corrupted the current Republican Party."
Kos also has video of Lamont's new day care at and firedoglake's Pachacutec blames the Foley scandal on Lieberman.
TN SEN: The Reverse PC Red-State Solidarity Error Theory
After noting a new poll showing Rep. Harold Ford (D) and ex-Chattanooga Mayor Bob Corker (R) in a dead heat, Instapundit posts an email from Michael Barone explaining that Ford does best on the robopolls while Corker does better with live dials. Instapundit then notes that Ford's better performance on robo polls casts doubt on theories that white voters are telling pollsters they support Ford "in order not to sound racist, but that they'll vote for Corker in the privacy of the ballot box."
Kausfiles links to the exchange and adds his own theory: "Maybe a new and different kind of PC error is at work--call it Red State Solidarity Error. Voters in Tennessee don't want to admit in front of their conservative, patriotic fellow citizens that they've lost confidence in Bush and the GOPs in the middle of a war on terror and that they're going to vote for the black Democrat. They're embarrassed to tell it to a human pollster. But talking to a robot--or voting by secret ballot--is a different story."
VA SEN: Allen And Webb Both Love Women
Ex-Navy sec. James Webb (D) Netroots Coordinator and Raising Kaine founder Lowell Feld posts Webb's latest ad that "totally slams George Allen's slanderous nonsense." The A-Team notes a Potomac Newsarticle describing the ad as including "two retired military women rebutting claims in an Allen ad aired last week" and responds: "The funny thing is, neither of these women in the ad attended the Naval Academy. One of these women is a Democrat and a contributor to the DNC, while the other is already a Webb campaign volunteer who blogs on Raising Kaine. What is the message to take from this ad?"
Raising Kaine also has photos from Sen. Hillary Clinton's (D-NY) 10/3 campaign appearance for Webb and Greg at Raising Kaine details "George Allen's Voter Suppression Strategy."
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: And You Thought High Gas Prices Were Bad
Outside the Beltway's Richard Gardner at Yakima-Herald reports of the S.S. Steiner hops warehouse burning in Yakima, WA and writes: "If this were oil, we could expect a massive price increase of hop-using products (um, mostly beer, rejected stuff goes into soaps and such). Even worse, hops aren't exactly fungible as the alpha and beta-acids (tech-type hop talk) vary by type and location."
LEST WE FORGET: The Foley Scandal Touches Us All
Daily Kos diarist KiTA reports that after the Foley scandal broke her office "SmartFilter Internet censorship software" began blocking access to Daily Kos since it had been classified as having "Mature" content. KiTA writes: "Sorry boys and girls, you're not old enough to talk about corrupt Republicans today." Later Kita reports: "So far we've heard from high school students (think about that one the next time you want to curse Bush's name with actual anglo-saxon curse words), people who use the Internet at public libraries (the primary logon point for millions in the US), insurance salesmen, bankers, IT staff ... This block seems to be either spreading ... or more widespread than most people, myself included, thought."
Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:07 PM
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
