November 30, 2006

11/30: The Dream Opponent?

It is general Blogometer policy not to cover what one side says about the other side's primary candidates, but it is also useful to at least know which candidates each side would prefer to face during the general election. Since 11/7, lefty bloggers have been making it increasingly clear that they fear Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and ex-NYC Mayor. Rudy Giuliani (R) the most, and would most like to face MA Gov. Mitt Romney (R). There is no counter consensus on the right as to which Dems, GOPers would prefer to face, but if one develops, we'll let you know.

GOP FIELD: The Left's Choice

Looking at state by state breakdowns of partisan self-identification from '06 exit polling, MyDD's Chris Bowers concludes: "We are going to have a lot of trouble if McCain is nominated and, barring a right-wing third-party revolt, if Giuliani gets nominated. On the other hand, I feel reasonably confident that any Democrat will mop the floor with any other Republican nominee."

Fellow MyDDer Jonathan Singer later makes clear who lefty bloggers would prefer to face in '08: "The nomination of Mitt Romney to be the standard bearer of the Republican Party in 2008 would be an unmitigated failure for the party. Boy, would I love to see him try and go up against almost any Democrat considering a run at the White House."

ROMNEY: It's A Tough Job, But Somebody's Gotta Do It

National Review Online's Jonathan Martin reports from the Doral Golf Resort & Spa in Miami, FL on the RGA's Annual Conference that "[t]he star of the show here, of course, is the RGA's chairman [MA Gov.] Mitt Romney." Martin continues: "He is hosting (or being feted at) a variety of events, public and private, leading up to his valedictory speech tomorrow night to this group of governors, lobbyists, reporters and staffers."

Back in New York, The Corner's K-Lo alerts readers that Jerry Falwell is "in the news today making clear he has not endorsed Romney or anyone else. But could - endorse the Mormon."

In non-RGA Romney news, The Right Angle's Amanda Carpenter reports "RomneyisaLiberal.com is up and running now." Carpenter adds: "On the homepage is his quote, "I will protect a women's right to choose" from his 2002 letter to the National Abortion Rights Action League."

BROWNBACK: Brown Monday

In other RGA conference news, The Corner's Martin forwards a tidbit from two key supporters of a '08 hopeful: "Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas will launch an exploratory committee for the WH on Monday."

MCCAIN: What Are People Saying About Mitch Daniels?

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is not allowing Romney to soak up all the attention in South Florida. Martin tells Corner readers McCain "is hosting an invite-only reception "honoring our Republican governors" (most of them at least) tomorrow night at Don Shula's resort across town." Martin also identifies one governor suspected to be a McCainiac: "The press check-in here at the Doral features a stack of handouts titled, "What is being said about Governor Mitch Daniels." The five-page document features dozens of favorable quotes on the Indiana governor and ex-OMB chair from a variety of media sources. That there would be such an offering at the press area is notable not just because Mitch isn't the featured attraction, but also because he's widely believed to be sympathetic to the other big kahuna in the '08 race (the one throwing the counter-Prom tonight)."

GINGRICH: On Further Review...

After reading ex-Speaker Newt Gingrich's First Amendment/GWOT comments in context righty bloggers are rallying to his defense. Captain's Quarters initially described Gingrich's speech as a "stumble" in efforts "to position himself as the premiere conservative candidate" but after reading the full speech later concluded: "If that's all Newt said, it doesn't seem all that outrageous to me." Others on the right were with Gingrich form the get go:

• The Corner's Andy McCArthy: "The Speaker is right, and the fact that he is treading on this third rail is further indication that he will be formidable as a presidential candidate. Plainly, he understands that the modern threat environment requires going back to first constitutional principles rather than simply accepting the law as sculpted by the Warren Court."
• Professor Bainbridge: "As for the war on terror, one is reminded of Ben Franklin's dictum that "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." At the same time, however, as late Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson famously remarked, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact." There must be a balance. ... Accordingly, Gingrich is sensibly calling for a proactive discussion of the basic question: What is the appropriate balance between order and liberty?"

GIULIANI: The Mayornator

Giuliani Blog argues Boston Globereports on CA and FL efforts to move up their primary dates is good news for ex-NY mayor Rudy Giuliani (R): "Rudy has been leading in early Florida polls by as much as 2-to-1. The state also features a huge number of New York transplants who probably voted twice for Rudy as mayor. ... California in many ways has already provided a template for a Rudy victory. ... Arnold's resilience in the face of many of the same criticisms Rudy faces now shows that conservatives will accept a political moderate with star power."

OBAMA: At Least His Middle Name Isn't Felix

Lefty bloggers are up in arms over GOP strategist Ed Rogers use of Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) middle name "Hussein" when talking about his '08 chances on Hardball 11/29. Crooks and LiarsJohn Amato writes: "Ed Rogers, is one of these wingnuts (a Lee Atwater man) that MSNBC constantly puts on the air and allows him to relentlessly smear people. I think Dan Abrams needs to hear about this one." TPM Cafe's Eric Kleefeld wonders if this is the first cable news reference to Obama's middle name.

CLINTON: There Goes The Conservative Gay Catholic British Immigrant Vote

Andrew Sullivan links to Hotline editor-in-chief Chuck Todd's article on obstacles Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) would face in an '08 run and writes: "She really shouldn't run. It would divide and polarize the country; she's dreadful on the stump; she has very high negatives; most Democrats only like her; almost no-one loves her; and do we really want 20 years of two families in the White House? Besides: what do you do with Bill?"

WEBB: Born Slugging

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas celebrates Washington Postreports on Sen.-elect Jim Webb's terse exchange with Pres. Bush over the well being of Webb's son in Iraq. Markos writes: "The Washington Post doesn't include Webb's desire to slug the president. Which was endearing in its own right." Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher links to Not Larry Sabato suggestions that there was more to the story:

I've gotten a tip on the background to this confrontation, and it appears that Webb may have under reacted. As President Bush is well aware, a couple of weeks before this dinner the tank riding next to Jimmy's in Iraq was under fire and three marines died. My sources are telling me that the way President Bush approached Webb with his tone, it appeared he was asking the question of how Jimmy was doing in a mocking manner, while he was certainly aware of the tragedy that had hit his unit a few weeks earlier.

LA 02: Corruption's Embarrassing In Louisiana?

MyDD's Tim Tagaris posts video of state Rep. Karen Carter's new ad "Spelling Bee" and writes: "William Jefferson's corruption might not be the most important issue to folks recovering from "the storm" and "the flood" in post-k New Orleans, but it is an issue. What's more, it's an issue that moves numbers. ... Guilty or not, the "cash in the freezer congressman" is a local embarrassment, a natural enemy of those working tirelessly to rebuild both the city and its image."

TX 23: The Proof Is On The Air

James at Swing State Project posts video of a DCCC ad for ex-Rep. Ciro Rodriguez (D) and writes: "It ain't the prettiest commercial in the world, but it's a good sign that Democrat Ciro Rodriguez may have a shot in the upcoming (December 12) special election in Texas' 23rd. Why? Because from what I've heard, the DCCC commissioned an independent poll last week that would determine how heavily involved they would be on Ciro's behalf. The poll must have shown promising results, because otherwise the DCCC would have been a lot more low key about this race."

IRAQ: The Difference Between Pullback And Withdrawal Is?

Lefty bloggers are mostly welcoming early reports that the Iraq Study Group "will call for a gradual pullback of the 15 American combat brigades now in Iraq, but stop short of setting a firm timetable for their withdrawal" Reax include:

• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "In short, the Iraq Study Group appears to be calling for what the majority of Democrats have been calling for over at least the course of the last year: a phased redeployment of troops. If the Democrats had been heeded months ago, there is little doubt that the number of American troops who would have lost their lives would be less than it is today, though there is little indication if there would have been more or less bloodshed among Iraqis."
• Atrios: "Barring tremendous political leadership by, well, our political leaders we aren't leaving. Leaving is losing. Bush has made this clear."
• AMERICAblog: "So, in reading Joe's post below, I'm trying to fully comprehend if the Baker commission is adopting "cut & run" or "Vietnam"? Because it sounds a little of both."

Righty blogger reaction is light as of today's early deadline, but National Review Online's Mark Levin does comment on New York Sun reports that the commission will recommend the administration pressure Israel to make concessions to entice Syria and Iran into a regional conference on Iraq: "For James Baker and his ilk, it always comes down to Israel and, by implication, the Jews. I warned about this the other day. His thinking is skewed by his contempt. Baker is Pat Buchanan in a $3,000 suit."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Can't We All Just Get Along

Buzz Machine's Jeff Jarvis examines the MSMification of some blogging stalwarts:

The Huffington Post announces that it is hiring a political editor and will start reporting with all that brings: deadlines, expense accounts, and salaries. It's the next step for HuffPo and the blogosphere, to add more original reporting as it becomes worthwhile to do so. And it's the next step for more and more institutional journalists to venture into the future. The HuffPo editor, Melinda Henneberger, comes out of Newsweek and The New York Times. Note again Washington Post political editor John Harris and a colleague leaving for an online effort. All three quickly say that there's nothing wrong with print - nothing, clearly, except that they don't see a bright a future there. Note, too, that it will soon be more difficult to tell the difference between old and new, as blogs and reporting and reporters blog. It's all news.

LEST WE FORGET: 69 Psychiatric Outpatients Can't Be Wrong

Tom Tomorrow finds evidence that "anyone who's spent any time reading right wing blogs already understood" to be true: A direct link between mental illness and support for President Bush. The New Haven Advocate story describes Southern Connecticut State University social work master's student Christopher Lohse survey "of 69 psychiatric outpatients in three Connecticut locations during the 2004 presidential election." Lohse found: "Our study shows that psychotic patients prefer an authoritative leader ... If your world is very mixed up, there's something very comforting about someone telling you, 'This is how it's going to be.'"

Posted by Conn Carroll at 01:49 PM

November 29, 2006

11/29: Wither The Values Voter?

Following Dem success 11/7, considerable lefty blogger pixels have been spilt discussing how Dems should approach the only region not showing convincing gains this cycle: The South. Discussion often comes up under DNC Chair Howard Dean's 50-state strategy, but Tom Schaller's book Whistling Past Dixie: How Democrats Can Win Without the South has also generated discussion. Lefty blogger consensus is that Dems should allow each southern state party to pursue its own strategy while ensuring that nationally, Dems don't sacrifice their positions on "abortion and equal rights" while, at the same time, don't demonize southerners.

On the right, MI GOP Chair Saul Anuzis recommends a post-11/7 GOP strategy memo on RedState that includes calls for "fiscal conservatism," "lower taxes across the board," and "a vigorous strategy for a conclusion to the Iraq war." Notably absent from the list: Any mention of cultural or value issues.

OBAMA: A Purpose Driven Outreach

TPM Cafe's Eric Kleefeld cites an open letter from "Christian-Right figures" and na press release from the National Clergy Council as signs Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) "efforts to reach out to evangelical Christians in preparation for his possible Presidential campaign is running into very stiff resistance."

The push back is the result of Obama's upcoming attendance of "a huge evangelical gathering in California on Dec. 1, at the invitation of megachurch Pastor Rick Warren, the evangelical superstar who wrote The Purpose-Driven Life." NCC's Rob Schenck warns Warren "Senator Obama's policies represent the antithesis of biblical ethics and morality, not to mention supreme American values." Kleefeld comments: "Obama's attempted inroads with evangelical voters may end up being successful, but not without a significant struggle from leading figures in that movement."

CLARK: Timing Isn't Everything

The Washington Monthly's Paul Glastris claims it's good news indeed that [ex-Gen. Wesley Clark (D)] is sending pretty strong signals that he's running" since "[t]here's no reason to think national security won't still be the big issue two years from now, as it was this fall."

The Plank's Michael Crowley is less excited: "It's true Clark was late to join the 2004 race. But my memory isn't that his problem was timing. It was that he seemed unsure of his own position on the Iraq war, recited oddball canned answers about abortion which suggested unfamiliarity with the subject, and generally proved himself to be a terrible politician. Perhaps Clark has since honed his skills. But the calendar wasn't his real problem."

EDWARDS: A Goodyear For Edwards Labor Relations

Firedoglake's Jordan Barab links to a YouTube of Jon Edwards at a United Steelworkers rally in Akron, OH as a demonstration of old labor learning "some new tricks." Barab writes: "It's hard to tell how all this is going to turn out. There's no doubt that similar strikes in traditional manufacturing that can easily be transferred to China have not done well lately. Ultimately, however, Goodyear workers are fighting to maintain a society where a middle class still exists. Will public support and a consumer boycott of Goodyear tires force the company to cave before workers' money and patience run out?

KERRY: From China, With Derision

The Huffington Post's Stephen Kaus looks at polling data showing Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) "dead last in popularity among a group of active politicians" and writes: "They say that when you are in a hole you should first stop digging. If you keep running for President, please write me from China."

GIULIANI: George's Loss Is Rudy's Gain

Race 4 '08 argues NY Gov. George Pataki's (R) loss of IA advisors Loras Schulte and Ed Failor Jr. "could be either great news or horrible news" for ex-NY mayor Rudy Giuliani (R). R4'08 argues the Pataki losses could mean one of two things: "1) It's going to be severely difficult for pro-choice presidential Republican candidates to keep pro-life supporters; or 2) Because Rudy hasn't been having this same kind of fall-out as Pataki by this point, then it won't be an issue for him."

IA's Caucus Cooler does not see any downside for Giuliani in the Pataki losses but does see gain for Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) as well: "A big part of the Pataki collapse has been the shadow of Rudy that looms larger and larger as each week passes. The thought that Rudy wouldn't enter this race has almost completely faded. McCain gets a boost based on rumors that most of the Pataki organization is heading his way, led by the inimitable Ed Failor Junior."

GINGRICH: Censorship Always Sounds Better In Context

RCP Blog's Tom Bevan's inner libertarian recoiled at ex-Speaker Newt Gingrich's (R) suggestion that "freedom of speech may need to be curbed in certain circumstances to meet the threat of terrorism." Bevan writes: "The newspaper article didn't give much context to Gingrich's remarks, but I suppose you can conjure up scenarios where the public good would be served by abridging some free speech rights in certain instances."

ROMNEY: A Never Ending Story?

National Review Online's Jonathan Martin passes along a glaring omission in MA Gov. Mitt Romney's (R) official release announcing the addition of SC strategist Warren Tompkins: "[N]o mention of Warren Tompkins' work as the top Bush strategist in the now-legendary (and, for McCain's camp, not forgotten) '00 SC primary that put the Texas governor back on course for the White House after his loss in New Hampshire. We wonder if this was a mere oversight or if it twas part of an intentional effort to play down the "Bush-McCain II" storyline that they could do without."

GOP: Heck'uv A Job Liddy!

RedState's Clayton shares a laugh with his good friend DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas over outgoing NRSC chair Liddy Dole's (R-NC) email "reaching out to the NRSC's most loyal and generous supporters" for help retiring NRSC debt from spending "every last cent on last-minute advertising and other efforts." Clayton comments: "Redstate readers, do me a favor. If you feel the need to contribute to anyone at this point in time, kindly visit someone like our friends at the Club For Growth and support their fine work."

GOP II: Not Interested ... Right Now

National Review Online's Jonathan Martin draws attention to the talking points ex-RNC chair Ed Gillespie allies are circulating in support of a Gillespie of VA GOP chair campaign:

• He is firmly grounded in Republican principles that define us as a party
• His experiences and qualifications as former chairman of the RNC make him an obvious choice
• He is not interested in running for office
• He has chosen to live and work in Virginia for the past 13 years
• His appointment may avoid a bloodbath among the different factions in the party
• His ability to attract national money for our candidates

Martin writes: "Note the careful wording on the third bullet and don't be surprised to see a Gillespie on the ballot sometime down the road."

GOP III: Brandless

Under a RedState header "A Shattered Brand?!?" MI GOP chair Saul Anuzis links to a On Message memo and writes: "If you compare what Republicans "stood for" and how we were identified 5 years ago to what the general public believes is our "brand" now I think you will be shocked, but not necessarily surprised. This is an excellent analysis and I hope you take the time to read it."

The "Prescription: Strong Medicine and Clean Living" portion of the memo advises:

• Lose Weight - Reclaim our rightful title as the Party of fiscal conservatism.
• Cut Back on the Caffeine - Fight for lower taxes across the board.
• Quit Smoking and Cut Back on the Drinking: Time to get off the corporate gravy train and become the champions of the American entrepreneur.
• Get Some Exercise: Stand up for our principles and do not shy away from the fight.
• Take Our Medicine: Pursue a vigorous strategy for a conclusion to the Iraq war.

On a related note, Power Line's Paul Mirengoff responds to Sen. Chuck Schumer's (D-NY) suggestion that Reaganism is dead: "If the Dems do have an advantage over the Republicans other than the war, it's that they've been out of power for a while. The party in that predicament is usually willing to make concessions in order to appeal to moderates. By contrast, a party that is losing power often tends to think, at first, that the loss is due to an abandonment of first principles. But, again, it remains to be seen whether this incarnation of the Democratic party has the discipline to behave like a party in its position normally does."

DEMS: We Don't Do "Values" Voters

MyDD's Chris Bowers posts excerpts from an Ed KilgoreSalonarticle on Tom Schaller's non-Southern strategy including: "Democrats can put together a presidential or House majority without much of anything in the South. ... But the idea that Democrats will do well by attacking Southern culture is just plain dangerous. ... please don't prejudge the map based on unreasonable prejudices toward one region, even if it's the one populated by us crazy Crackers.

Bowers comments: "I agree. Consider, for example, how the conservative movement has consistently demonized the Northeast. The result has been a near-total wipeout for Republicans in the regions that will not be reversed anytime soon. ... Let conservatives continue to demonize every demographic they view as some sort of cultural threat, and let us have a pluralistic mindset and open arms to reap the reward."

Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat follows the debate and adds: "What Schaller is saying is what we are all saying: don't dig for fool's gold - the "values" voter - and undermine the negative branding of the GOP as extreme. Let Southern Dems find their regional voice and target the moderate voters Ed has identified. ... The truth is it is the [Barack] Obamas and [Jim] Wallises who are striking the discordant note, criticizing Democrats in false ways and undermining the very strategy that can make gains in the South. I submit that neither Kilgore nor Schaller are the problem - it is the Obamas and Wallises that are the problem."

On a related note, MyDD's Jonathan Singer looks at New York Timesreports on Christian Coalition of America president-elect Rev. Joel Hunter stepping down over resistance to his efforts to broaden the Coalition's agenda to include poverty and global warming and writes: "While some will no doubt continue to tell us that the Democrats that they need to give up on some of their issues (particularly ones relating to abortion and equal rights for all Americans, including homosexuals) and that can steal away "faith voters" from the Republicans by appealing on issues like the environment, it should be plain to any serious watcher of politics that not only do the Democrats not need to do this but that by doing so the Democrats threaten to lose whatever gains they made earlier this week."

DEMS II: Center Of What?

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum set off a debate over "centrisim" among lefty blogger before departing for a conference 11/28. Drum wrote: "I hope the liberal blogosphere doesn't get into the habit of automatically trashing centrist positions simply out of pique against some of centrism's more annoying practitioners. After all, trying to govern solely via populist intuition won't work any better than relying on a bunch of blue ribbon commissions. ... I'd argue, for example, that good analysis supports a fairly extreme view on Social Security (just leave it alone for now) but a centrist position on trade. The populist impulse on trade points us in the right direction, but a Lou Dobbsian solution (stop making trade deals, shut down the border) is nuts."

Reactions include:

• Digby: "I would actually posit that the real problem is the liberal punditocrisy which reflexively rejects anything that is tainted by its association with grassroots populist sentiment. Particularly now, when many experts were marginalized because they failed to support the war and many liberals of both the netroots and grassroots were proven right, it behooves the establishment to open its minds to thinking from outside the usual suspects in the beltway. That doesn't mean they should trust us liberal bloggers' "guts." We would not ask them to. It means they should stop trusting their own. Their guts, like Bush's, are defective."
• Atrios: "I have hostility to the concept of "centrism" for a variety of reasons. First, except on a few mostly social issues there really isn't all that much which can be neatly fit into a left-center-right-axis. Mostly centrism is used be elite opinionmakers to denote sensible, set off against real or (more often) imagined "extreme" positions which are of course wrong because anything "extreme" has to be wrong. Except, perhaps, invading countries for no good reason."
• Ezra Klein: "What's necessary here is, silly as it may sound, to separate ideas perceived as centrist (say, on the economy, policies seeking to achieve equity aims through market mechanisms) and what Atrios would call "wankery," the deployment of such ideas to undercut more useful solutions or marginalize progressive voices. ... When "centrist" ideas become a navigational device rather than a policy proposal, that's wankery. And it should be opposed."
• firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "In fact "centrism" is not antithetical to populism, and both are, in pure abstract terms, measurements. ... I don't think I've ever rejected a position simply because it was "centrist," it would be like having a problem with long division. Rather, I get a bit irked with the smug certainty of pundits and politicians who think the wisdom of their position should be respected because it is "centrist" when they have not in fact established that such a measurement is applicable, or why (if it is) this should lead to some knee-jerk assumption of validity."
• The Huffington Post's Dave Johnson: "There is this idea that a "centrist" position is a good thing, that we should take policy positions that are something in between the "extremes." This is "moderation." ... OK. So then doesn't it make sense for progressives to sponsor lots of far-far-far-out extremists? These extremists could call for things like actually eating the rich (maybe have recipe blogs), literally dividing up companies by having the police go in and take the desks and chairs and computers and hand them to the homeless, forcing Baptist ministers to have sex with their infant daughters, imposing the death penalty for driving, requiring LSD use in elementary schools -- all the things the conservatives already say liberals do. ... This way the "moderate center" becomes somewhere between eating the rich and whatever the right is advocating? Clearly that is why the Republicans sponsor Ann Coulter to write things about killing journalists, etc. Maybe we should try it."

LA 02: Looks Like Dollar Bill Could Use That Frozen $90K Again

AMERICAblog's Joe in DC forwards reports that state Rep. Karen Carter (D) "will face questions about her strong support of gay rights and abortion" in the final days of her campaign against Rep. William Jefferson (D) and writes: "Jefferson is an affront to the Democratic party. He's the symbol of corruption. Now, he's becoming a beacon of gay-bashing for political purposes. Both of those were almost exclusively the domain of the GOP."

MyDD's Tim Tagaris notes Jefferson maintains a $117k to $58k over Carter CoH advantage implores netroots contributors to close the gap "in the final days before the election."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: So Could He Just Boycott Star Wars Episodes I, II, and III?

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas takes FNC Bill O'Reilly to task for inventing the slur "San Francisco values" and suggests O'Reilly and "every conservative who bashes San Francisco and the Bay Area" should boycott all "Bay Area-origin products." Markos writes:

So no iPods or anything Apple. No HP computers. No Google. No Yahoo. No eBay. Those conservative bloggers using Blogspot, MovableType, or TypePad? Sorry. Those products are Bay Area-based. Don't wear Levis (or any kind of jeans), Gap, Banana Republic, Old Navy, or buy your kids Gymboree. Avoid LeapFrog learning toys. Boycott Pixar movies. Boycott any movie using George Lucas' ILM special effects shop. Stay away from Treos and other Palm devices. Don't let Charles Schwab manage your portfolio. Don't bank at Wells Fargo. Yeah, those "San Francisco values" sure are dragging the region down. Making it weak as it falls behind the rest of the country -- the parts that don't share "San Francisco values" -- economically and socially.

LEST WE FORGET: Joe Biden Did Not Participate In this Study

Ankle Biting Pundit's Bull Dog Pundit links to reports of a book claiming "women talk three times as much as men" and comments: "A real shock there. My own non-scientific study shows that we men use the remote three times more than normal while the women are talking, and that 2 seconds after they've (finally) stopped, we cannot recall a single word they said."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:21 PM

November 28, 2006

Blogometer Extra

BUSH: Twins Gone Wild

  Wonkette is positively giddy as it reports the ultimate in seediness... that the President's twin daughters, Barbara and Jenna, "are being tossed out of Argentina--not by the actual country, but by the pissed-off U.S. diplomats in Buenos Aires." 

  Joe Goldman and Rhonda Schwartz reported at ABC News' The Blotter that the U.S. embassy "strongly suggested" the young ladies end their vacay early due to security issues. This follows reports of stolen belongings, drunken revelry, and the twins "running nude in the hallway of their hotel."  The embassy is denying that it asked the twins to leave.

  AMERICAblog's John Aravosis went on a mini-rant about the Doublemints and President Bush's crappy parenting skills:

George Bush's daughters are in a developing country where American officials cannot guarantee their safety.  What does George Bush do?  Absolutely nothing.  And before anyone says this is his daughters and not Bush, bull.  He is the president of the United States.  These are his children.  They are traveling as representatives of the US whether they like it or not.  They are traveling with American Secret Service protection, whether they like it or not.  They are tying up the resources of the US Embassy whether they like it or not.  And if they get shot and killed, or kidnapped, or drugged while they are in Argentina, that will directly affect the national security of the United States because our president will be subject to blackmail or worse.

  Then again, this is the man who kept riding his bicycle while he wife was being rushed to a secure location in the face of a possible threat on her life.  So it's no surprise that George Bush couldn't give a damn about the safety of his daughters either.

  Despite the hubbub, the ladies weren't about to leave, they decided.  As Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo put it, "State Department asks Bush twins to withdraw from Argentina.  Twins opt to stay the course."  Chuckle!  But at last report from The Blotter, Babs did opt to return home.

  Which prompted Wonkette to ponder the whereabouts of the rest of the Bush administration:

So where did everybody go?  Here’s the scorecard:

George W. Bush: Estonia, even though the actual NATO summit is in neighboring Latvia.

Condoleeza Rice: Supposedly in Egypt, talking to “the Egyptians,” but there’s no news anywhere to confirm this.

Dick Cheney: Supposedly returning to United States after secret trips to Saudi Arabia and, for some reason, Ireland.

Karl Rove: Possibly murdered with rare radioactive elements; whereabouts unknown.

Bush Twins: Possibly being kicked out of Argentina.

Laura Bush: Left alone at the White House to deal with the goddamned giant Christmas tree.

  And speaking of cutting and running, Congressional Quarterly's Craig Crawford said on MSNBC that Veep Cheney "may be the next to leave the administration," Think Progress reports.  No word yet of officials asking him to go because of inebriated escapades or nude shenanigans in Argentinian hallways.

ROMNEY: Mitt And The Tecnicolor Underwear

  No, it's not the latest off-off-Broadway production taking the kids by storm, it's Andrew Sullivan at The Daily Dish discussing at length, across several postings, likely '08 presidential contender Mitt Romney's Mormon roots. 

  Sullivan claims to be "uninterested in Romney's personal religious practices," yet spends ample time mulling several issues related to the Mass. governor's faith, including his clothes.  Sullivan dug up a year-old interview in The Atlantic Monthly:

"Do you wear the temple garments?" I asked uncomfortably, referring to the special undergarments worn by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.  (The underwear has markings denoting the covenants of the Mormon faith, and is meant to serve as a reminder of the high standards Mormons are expected to uphold.  The rules governing its wear and disposal seem as complex as those pertaining to, say, the American flag.)

He answered, "I'll just say those sorts of things I'll keep private."

  Undies aside, Sullivan brings up food for church-state-separationist thought:

I am concerned that Romney believes that America had a "divine founding".  When?  Does he mean the Declaration of Independence?  Does he mean the period when Mormons believe Jesus arrived in America and hung out for a while shortly after the resurrection?  Or when exactly?  A person's private faith is irrelevant to me.  But if it means he holds that one country on earth has a special divine founding, then that has serious ramifications for foreign policy, at the very least.  Could someone fill me in on what Romney may mean by America's "divine founding"?  Obviously Washington and Jefferson weren't gods (although Mormons believe they now could be, right?)  So what role did the Mormon God play in founding America?  This is an important question for understanding a potential president's political philosophy.  And since the theocons believe in bringing religious doctrine into the public square as a basis for political decisions, and Romney is the theocon candidate, how can they object to the dialogue?

  Sullivan also ponders race relations within the Mormon church, and cites the case of Darron Smith, an African-American, Mormon professor at Brigham Young University who was fired after writing a book exploring Mormonism's troubled racial history.

  Capping off Sullivan's slew of posts ("It's Mormon Week on the Dish!") is "the story of [LDS founder] Joseph Smith, in song," courtesy of South Park.

  Meanwhile, John Cole at Balloon Juice asks, "Can a Mormon be president," echoing Mike Allen at TIME:

Even if the church succeeds in its public relations offensive, Romney still has some explaining of his own to do, particularly to the Republican evangelical base, which now makes up nearly a third of the party’s electorate and can wield huge power in primary states, most notably South Carolina.  That’s because some Evangelicals hold the view that Mormonism is not a Christian faith.  Because Mormons acknowledge works of Scripture that are not in the Bible, believe that their prophets have received revelations directly from God and teach that God has a physical body, Evangelicals consider them heretics.  The Southern Baptist Convention lists the LDS church under Cults and Sects, along with Scientology.

  Cole adds, "Notwithstanding Romney’s recent pandering to the right with his war on gay marriage..., the base is not going to vote for Romney in a primary.  Not when there are good Christians like Sam Brownback out there--and Brownback has never been fuzzy on the issues of teh gay, stem cells, and abortion."

  He continues: "But who really knows what will happen, or how the religious right will contort to support the GOP.  After all, we learned over the past few years that torture is a Christian family value, so maybe the evangelical base is ready for a Mormon president."

  All this focus on Romney's religion, by Sullivan et al. in the mass media and blogosphere, prompted David French at Evangelicals for Mitt to respond in frustration:

Literally every major story about the Governor--and there have been quite a few over the past year--has put the "faith issue" front and center.  It is almost as if the media is doing everything it can to not simply "explore" faith differences but to literally shove those differences in our faces.  It's almost as if any public supporter of the Governor must answer burning questions about "the garment" or the Book of Mormon or mandatory tithing or some other aspect of Mormon theology and practice.

  Does this make sense?  Why are we not seeing similar questions and demands directed at Democratic supporters of Harry Reid?  After all, as the single-most politically powerful Mormon in the history of the United States, shouldn't he be getting all the religious scrutiny right now?  Why doesn't the media obsess over his faith?

  The answer is quite simple.  Harry Reid is liberal.  To be clear, I don't mean this is the sense of some sinister conspiracy.  The reality, I believe, is much more mundane--much more human. ... Simply put, the MSM knows Harry Reid and likes Harry Reid.  He's a mainstream Democratic politician.  So how can there possibly be a story about the strangeness of his faith when he's not strange at all?

  But Governor Romney, on the other hand, is something else entirely.  He's a religious conservative--the type of person that the media has stubbornly refused (or failed) to understand for the last 25 years of "religious right" political activism.  Pro-life, pro-marriage conservative politicians who locate and base many of their political stands in their religious values seem to be particularly upsetting to members of the media elite.

  Sullivan acknowledges that Romney-mulling is sure to intensify as he wraps, "I've now had more emails about Mormon underwear than gay marriage."

BLOGGERS VS. MSM: Curt & Aces' Bogus Journos

  Curt at Flopping Aces is hot on the case of what appears to be propaganda posing as news in the mainstream media.  Posting at a backup site since flooding traffic sunk his own server, he follows up on widely-picked up AP report of six Sunni Iraqis being "burned alive" by Shiites:

[I]t appears that our MSM is getting the “anarchy” stories from the enemy themselves.  That cannot be trusted.  I mean the big story yesterday was these six burned alive and now no one can find any evidence that this happened except the word of the enemy.  How many more of these stories are embellished?

  Additionals from his many updates:

Doing a search via Google I began reading the stories printed about the burned six and each and every one had one thing in common.  The only person stating that this incident happened was one Capt. Jamil Hussein.  Every news report printed this man as the source of the information. ... Since this guy's name is in every single story printed about the burning six I have to dig way down to get to older stories involving this guy. ...

  So the Baghdad police had not received reports fo this burning either?  Who in the hell is this Capt. Jamil Hussein then?  Is he part of the Iraqi police or an insurgent stringer for the AP?

  After The New York Times and The Washington Post both ran with the "burning" story, Curt contacted the U.S. military's Central Command (CENTCOM) and received this reply:

We are checking with the Iraqi Government to verify that Capt. Jamil Hussein is a legitimate Iraqi Government spokesperson.  We haven’t heard back yet.  Unfortunately, people posing as government officials often do call the media to make statements.

  We have no confirmation that this event happened; so it is very likely that this is not a legitimate source.  In addition, of the four mosques that were suppose to have been burned/destroyed at that time; we only confirmed one mosque was damaged by a fire that lasted an hour and then was extinguished with no casualties.

  "[T]hese reporters," writes Curt, "seem to be relying on stringers and others to do their reporting for them instead of going to the scene and gathering real facts."  Junkyard Blog's SeeDubya, reflecting on Curt's findings, says "[T]he worst scenario is that the Western press is negligently or carelessly (I’m not ready to believe knowingly) passing along terrorist propaganda disguised as news.  But even the best case scenario in each one involves some notable journalistic malfeasance."

  In an additional update, Curt found that "Jamil Hussein" had likely exaggerated casualities in a June incident, per a CBS article.  "Wonder if this guy is regular at KOS?" quips Curt. "His attempts to spread disinformation would fit in quite well with that crowd."

  And then Curt got word from CENTCOM that "Jamil Hussein is NOT a Police Officer nor is he employed by the Ministry of the Interior."  Curt writes:

The insurgency knows what they are doing here.  They understand the ONLY way they are going to win against us is to borrow a page out of the North Vietnamese playbook.  Namely, forcing the morale of this country down to the point where funding is withdrawn and we leave. ...

  This has been my main point all along.  The average American picks up a paper or watches 10 minutes of the evening news and believes they are well informed.  The MSM prints stories that show all this chaos and mayhem and the average American swallows it all.

  Curt and other inspired bloggers then turn their sights on the Associated Press reporter, Qais al-Bashir, who has been using Hussein as a "source."  Lorie Byrd at Wizbang! eggs them on:

I just hold a small sliver of hope that the truth will win out.  It ain't gonna happen by accident though.  It will happen when the American public demand accountability from their media.  Unfortunately they have been too busy demanding entertainment value from it to pay much attention to the other stuff -- you know, like facts and such.  So, it is up to the bloggers at this point.  Okay bloggers, let's keep the heat on them.  It looks like it's going to be a full time job.

  The frenzy finally catches the attention and ire of Michelle Malkin:

While bloggers and a few mainstream journalists questioning sloppy war coverage (see Neil Munro's devastating piece in the National Journal) continue to try and hold the MSM accountable, what are media watchdogs whose job it is to police the industry doing?

  Churning out pabulum like this, defending the use of dubious Iraqi stringers with terrorist ties.

  Journalists in the legacy press are too busy trying to write the Bush administration's obituary to notice that they are writing their own.

  MSM credibility, R.I.P.

  Not to be outdone, The Anchoress rages:

I wonder how many of our troops are being further endangered by the fakery we’re discovering here?  I wonder how many of their deaths in the coming weeks will be due to this sort of stuff? ...

  I frankly don’t know how the president had endured this non-stop game, the incessant lying and leaking, distortion and hate-mongering in the press.  I don’t know how anyone can endure it and not lose heart.  Perhaps he has.  The press is literally trying to not simply destroy the man but take down his government and surrender a military action that is important to the survival of our identity, and the West’s.  And, sadly, they seem to be succeeding.

  This cannot end well.  The government needs to slap down the press and demand some accountability.  They’ve needed to do it for a couple of years now.

  Egad!  Yet she admits, "They won’t."

  Bob Owens, a.k.a. Confederate Yankee spies a "conspiracy," too, on a somewhat lesser, though no less serious, scale.  Are Reuters editors doctoring photos again?  Yank analyzes a picture of an Iraqi woman who bears a "rather uncanny resemblance" to President Bush.  Never mind that she's grieving before a coffin:

[T]his Reuters picture has all the earmarks of a crudely-edited PhotoShop, from the rather odd smudges and apparent artifacts around the heads of the two women on the left when the photo is enlarged, to the [similarity to Bush]."

  Yank's analysis of potential fakery somehow got promoted all the way up to The Drudge Report, where its host prominently displayed the photo in question... and posed questions of his own, which Will Bunch at Attytood felt was a bunch of bunk:

Conservative bloggers showed their respect for this tragedy by...claiming that the grieving woman at top left is actually a Photoshopped version of George W. Bush in a burqa.  If the one blogger who came up with this insane idea ... had been alone out there, it would have been fairly ignorable.

  Instead, this off-the-wall theory was picked up by one of the most popular sites on the Internet, the Drudge Report... In fact, the "Bush in a burqa" story (that was the headline on the top left of the Drudge Report an hour ago) is so ludicrous that even Drudge didn't promo it for very long.  However, it was up long enough for Raw Story to catch a screen grab, which we are showing here.

  We doubt this is the last time you'll see this type of ploy.  We just feel horrible for this woman in Sadr City, who already suffered once this week with the loss of a loved one, only to suffer a second time at the hands of the 101st Fighting Keyboard Commandos, firing willy-nilly to hit a political target and not caring who gets caught in their ridiculous crossfire.

  Jesus' General heaps it on, addressing an open letter to Yankee:

Your ability to sniff out Demoslamunistofascist conspiracies never ceases to amaze me.  ...[Y]ou've delivered up evidence that Reuters is pasting Our Leader's bold and resolute image over the faces of burqa-clad mourners.

  Of course there are those who will fail to see your genius and will refer to you using word combinations like "delusional douchebag," "f**king nut job," and "Michelle Malkin."  Pay them no mind.  They are simply trying to distract you from examining the photo more closely.  They're hoping you will miss the other areas of the photo where there is obvious tampering.

  Look at the woman below Our Leader for example.  Obviously, her face has been replaced with Mel Martinez's.  And the woman on the right looks suspiciously like Junior Leader Jeb.  And what about that suspicious bulge poking out from Leader woman's back?  Could it be that Reuters photoshopped a burqa fold to hide Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.  That deserves further inspection, but I'll leave it to you since it requires someone with your imagination.

[Mike Sheehan]

Posted by Conn Carroll at 07:27 PM

11/28: Better Focus Group Than Pollster

Not that online straw polls had a ton of credibility, but even cursory monitoring of MyDD '08 straw polling demonstrate how susceptible such devices are to "ballot stuffing." The stuffers say their efforts show legitimate online support for their candidate. While this may be true, the efforts also destroy any ability the polls have of gauging dedicated MyDD reader interest in candidates. That's not to say that blogs offer no insight into the potential strength and weaknesses of '08 candidates. RedState's continued posts on MA Gov. Mitt Romney's record on issues from immigration to abortion can serve as a testing ground for questions he is sure to face in GOP primary debates. Pro- and anti-Romney blogger arguments over these issues ought to serve as a good preview for actual '08 debates.

DEMS: Jane Lieberman?

Netroots opposition to outgoing ranking Intel Cmt. member Jane Harman's (D-CA) for Intel Cmt. chair is growing. Glenn Greenwald's 11/27 anti-Harman brief was approvingly linked to by DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas and Atrios. On NSA surveillance Greenwald says Harman "was repeatedly used by the administration -- with her consent -- as a potent instrument to shield itself from scrutiny, by creating the "Responsible Democrat" (Harman, Lieberman) v. "Irresponsible Democrat" dichotomy and then arguing that they enjoyed bipartisan support from the Good, Sensible Democrats like Harman. That's why, just like Joe Lieberman, Harman's most vociferous defenders are the most extreme Bush followers and neoconservatives."

Greenwald further argues that pro-MSM Harman coverage stems from "institutionalized Beltway" fear of "a repudiation of their brand of Serious Washington Centrism -- the disease which enabled the Bush administration and brought us this war." Atrios and Kos quote Greenwald:

There is nothing "credible" about Harman. Yes, she is smart and knowledgeable, but she has been wrong about everything that matters, particularly in the intelligence area. But she was wrong in exactly the same way that the Beltway geniuses and The New Republic and David Broder and Fred Hiatt were wrong. For that reason, they don't want her to be repudiated and rejected because that would constitute a repudiation and rejection of them. So they build up and glorify the "credible," responsible Harman because she represents them, and they hate Pelosi in advance for rejecting Harman for being wrong about everything because they feel rejected by that choice.

Less activist lefty bloggers thought less of Greenwald's thesis. Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall writes: "If this were only about Iraq, I might agree. But it's not. You cannot ignore the fact that the two people who opposed Hoyer and Harman were two people surrounded by ethical clouds just after the Democrats won an historic election in which congressional corruption was one of the two main issues." The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum adds: "There's also seems to be more than a whiff of retribution here against any Democrat who supported the war resolution, and that strikes me as pretty counterproductive. After all, nearly half the Democratic caucus supported the resolution, and we really don't want to declare every one of these folks persona non grata on all issues related to national security.

Marshall goes on to endorse Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) for Intel chair joining Matthew Yglesias, David Corn, and Joe Conason. Drum isn't sold though:

Holt is a good guy, and his reasons for opposing the war resolution showed good judgment. He'd probably do fine as chair of the Intelligence Committee. ... However, if Holt made any firm statements questioning the existence of Iraq's WMD programs back in 2002, I haven't been able to find them. He appears to have believed Iraq had an active WMD program as much as anyone, which shouldn't be a surprise since this belief was shared at the time by virtually every intelligence agency in the world, including the CIA. (Yes, the Bush administration exaggerated the CIA's finding, but the CIA did clearly report their belief that Iraqi WMD programs were active and dangerous.)

TPMmuckraker has collected a "Harman: In Her Own Words" page with quotes in Iraq and NSA issues. Meanwhile, Kos looks at Roll Call's 11/27 story on Dem reluctance to let Lieberman aide Marshall Wittman sit in on weekly press secretary meetings and writes: "But that's the bargain they made with Lieberman. Now Senate Dems will act surprised? We can't say we didn't warn them. Two more years. Once the Dems increase their Senate advantage, they can put Lieberman out to pasture in the backbench. In the meantime, it doesn't seem like it would be too hard to freeze Wittmann out."

'08 FIELD: "People Really Don't Like John Kerry"

Plenty of blogger reax to Quinnipiac's latest National Thermometer poll. '08er results include (the poll measures "warmth" of feeling to pols with percentage not knowing enough about the individual to rate him or her in parenthesis:

Rudolph Giuliani - 64.2. (9) Sen. Barack Obama 58.8 (41) Sen. John McCain 57.7 (12) Condoleezza Rice - 56.1 (7) John Edwards - 49.9 (20) Sen. Hillary Clinton - 49 (1) N.M. Gov. Bill Richardson - 47.7 (65) Sen. Joseph Biden 47 (52) Gov. Mitt Romney - 45.9 (64) Former VP Al Gore - 44.9 (3) Sen. Evan Bayh - 43.3 (75) Newt Gingrich - 42 (15) Sen. John Kerry - 39.6 (5)

MyDD's Chris Bowers remarks: "What this tells me is that we have a lot of work to do on Giuliani and McCain in the coming months. The Democratic Party may be flying high right now, but the successful work the Republican Noise Machine has done against our leaders continues to sting us." Bloggers noticed Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) weak numbers. The Plank's Michael Crowley: "Hard to see how John Kerry runs for president again. I honestly feel bad for the guy. Maybe he can hunker down and find a second act, like Ted Kennedy after his presidential ambitions died, as a productive and venerated senator. AMERICAblog: "People really don't like John Kerry"

DEM FIELD: Gotta Wake Up Pretty Early In The Morning To Beat Bayh

Attempting to avoid straw poll ballot stuffing, MyDD's Chris Bowers held a "instant runoff" straw poll from 2 AM to 9 AM. He should have ended the voting sooner. The instant runoff feature allows voters to redirect their votes after their favorite candidate has been eliminated. At 6 AM a four way Dem race looked like this:

Al Gore 138 (41.6%)
Barack Obama 73 (22.0%)
John Edwards 70 (21.1%)
Wes Clark 51 (15.4%)

By 9 AM those results had changed significantly:

Al Gore 457 (36.8%)
John Edwards 406 (32.7%)
Barack Obama 222 (17.9%)
Evan Bayh 156 (12.6%)

In the 6 AM sample, Clark voters split for Edwards, putting him above Obama in a three way:

Al Gore 364 (28.8%)
John Edwards 301 (23.8%)
Barack Obama 179 (14.2%)

In the 9 AM sample, Bayh voters split mostly for Obama, but not enough for him to close his gap on Edwards.

Al Gore 162 (49.2%)
Barack Obama 78 (23.7%)
John Edwards 89 (27.1%)

BIDEN: Maybe He Should Blame Canada

Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) failed to make inroads into lefty blogging communities with his 11/27 "get tough with Mexico" rhetoric. AMERICAblog writes: "Jumping on the "blame Mexico for everything" doesn't strike me as a winning approach but if that gets him out of the race faster, so be it. ... If Biden wants to talk about great disparities of wealth maybe he can take a drive around DC and tell us about the differences between the northwest and the northeast. What a goof. Who is actually supporting his presidential run?"

BROWNBACK: Uncommon Conversions

National Review Online's Larry Kudlow hopes Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) enters the '08 race: "Sam Brownback is an economic, fiscal and social conservative who has strongly backed human rights and democratization in the Middle East. He is an uncommonly moral person, who can make an uncommonly good contribution to the uncommonly sagging post-election Republican fortunes."

Fellow CorneriteKathryn Jean Lopez let a full three minutes go by before responding: "The Kansas senator says he wants to be the "full-scale conservative " in the presidential race. The newly Catholic senator might have a hard time hitting Governor Romney on public conversions."

ROMNEY: McCain Lite?

RedState's Leon Wolf tracked the Corner's Romney/Brownback exchange and takes up Lopez' "public conversion" defense of Romney: "Romney's problem, in this case, is not that he's had a public conversion on the life issue. ... The problem for Romney is that this is, in fact, at least his second public conversion on the abortion issue. You see, the problem with Romney is not merely that he claimed to be pro-choice during his 1994 campaign against Senator Kennedy, and during his 2002 gubernatorial campaign, it is that he at that time claimed to have had a public conversion to the pro-choice position because at that time he was speaking to (primarily) Democratic voters who were wary of his pro-choice creds."

RedState's Erick Erickson also takes a hand at tarnishing Romney's conservative credentials noting Romney coyness on immigration reform and comparing him to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ): "Several of us here have believed that the Republican nominee for President is going to be an outsider willing to criticize President Bush from the right. Romney has a better chance of doing that than John McCain. The problem is, at the substantive level, both Governor Romney and John McCain have thus far echoed similar positions on a host of issues from immigration to the war."

Meanwhile, Andrew Sullivan kicks off "Mormon Week on the Dish!" with two South Park videos on the Mormon faith. Later Sullivan adds: "It's Official. I've now had more emails about Mormon underwear than gay marriage."

MCCAIN: "The Fastest Flip-Flop in the West"

The Right Angle's Amanda Carpenter reports the following This Week exchange between George Stephanopoulus and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was sent to her with the title "The Fastest Flip-Flop in the West"

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:

You voted for an initiative in Arizona that went beyond that and actually denied any government benefits to civil unions or domestic partnerships. Are you against civil unions for gay couples?

SEN. MCCAIN:No, I am not.

I -- but the -- that initiative I think was misinterpreted. I think that initiative did allow for people to join in legal agreements such as power of attorney and others. I think there was a-- I think that there was a difference of opinion on the interpretation of
that constitutional amendment in Arizona.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: So you're for civil unions?

SEN. MCCAIN:No,

I am for ability of two people -- I do not believe gay marriage should be legal. I do not believe gay marriage should be legal. But I do believe that people ought to be able to enter into contracts, exchange powers of attorney, other ways that people have relationships can enter into.

'08 ROUNDUP: Don't Stop Campaigning Against Emmanuel

MyDD's Jonathan Singer notes 74 year old Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) only has "about" $264K COH and reports Albuquerque Mayor Martin Chavez is strongly considering a run. Also at MyDD, Chris Bowers urges netrooters not to forget deep blue districts when choosing primary targets in '08. Bowers reminds readers: "just remember that in 2002, Rahm Emmanuel narrowly defeated a grassroots candidate in his ultra-blue open seat."

On the right, The Right Angle's John Gizzi identifies three recruitment targets for GOPers looking to take bake seats in NY: state Ag Cmr Patrick Brennan in NY-24, ex-state Sen. John Faso in NY-20, and ex-Pres. Bush press sec. Ari Fleischer in NY-19.

Looking backwards Not Al Groh at Not Larry Sabato argues the Sen.-elect James Webb (D)/outgoing-Sen. George Allen (R) race is best understood by comparing it to the 2005 VA LG between Bill Bolling (R) and Leslie Byrneand (D) concludes: "Going forward; the Dems cannot count on a "Macaca" comment from every GOP statewide office seeker in the future, nor can they expect to consistently get candidates who have the same military credentials as Webb. To a lesser extent, it also proves NOVA isn't big enough yet to single-handedly control state politics. Only campaigning in NOVA will not deliver a victory unless you have other benefits going for you (a mistake by your opponent, ability to make inroads in a group of voters, bad GOP environment, etc). Even with all the other factors, had Allen been able to stay even with Bolling in the 3rd CD; he would still be a Senator."

IRAQ: Homecomings And Accountability

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D_CA) addressed Daily Kos readers 11/27:

Americans did not give my party a mandate simply to "work with the President," or to wait for cues from a blue-ribbon committee. ...The message is clear - the American public has directed the Democratic Party to be bold, to change course on Iraq, with the main goal of bringing our troops home. ... Congress has the power to end this occupation. We must stand up to our responsibility and bring every pressure to bear on this Administration. We must use every lever and pursue any avenue to hold them accountable for their immeasurable failures in Iraq. This isn't just another priority for the new Congress. According to the voters who have elected us, this is the 110th Congress' most solemn duty.

Eric Altermann wants to hold more than just the administration accountable for Iraq: "It's becoming clearer every day that the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq is the worst catastrophe ever voluntarily undertaken by this nation, including Vietnam ... How about every pundit who got on board with Bush and Co. to create this hell on Earth that is now engulfing Iraq explain to us why they were so wrong and what they've learned from their mistake? And if they're not willing to admit how wrong they were and explain how they have since amended their ways, why in the world should anyone listen to anything they say in the future? How many Iraqs can we -- and the rest of the world -- afford?

IRAQ II: It's Hell In A Landslide

Many bloggers leapt on findings by Flopping Aces'Curt that a story of six Sunni civilian's being burned alive was possibly made up. Power Line's John Hinderaker explains: "The only official source for the account, however, was "Police Capt. Jammil Hussein." CENTCOM initially said that it had not been able to confirm the account of the burned-alive Sunnis. Upon further investigation, it appears that the incident probably never occurred at all. In addition, "Police Capt. Jamil Hussein" appears to be non-existent." Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham adds: "Bush and conservative supporters of the war in Iraq are often accused of not facing up to the reality on the ground, attempting to paint a rosier picture than that which exists, maintaining blindspots for sectarian violence, and outright lying about conditions in-country. But is it any wonder that we wonder whether the all-bad, all-the-time story we're getting out of Iraq is completely trustworthy?

RedState currently has a poll up gauging readers preference for certain Iraq courses of action. Results include:

Cut and Run 11% (43 votes) S-U-M-M-I-T 3% (12 votes) Stay the Course 10% (38 votes) Can we unleash hell yet? 59% (219 votes) Redeploy to the country of Kurdistan (which we create by fiat) and wait six months. 17% (62 votes)

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: School's Out For Never

Matthew Yglesias argues The Hamilton Project may actually be on to something when with the creation of Summer Opportunity Scholarships to finance summer school or other summer enrichment programs for poorer children at risk of falling behind over the summer. Ygelsias writes: "On another level, of course, it would make sense to revisit our national commitment to very long summer vacations, a policy which as best I can tell is grounded in the belief that kids' labor is needed on the farm during those months. Budget constraints are obviously backing up blind adherence to tradition here, and I really loved my time at Camp Winnebago, but along with being dubious education policy this has to be a huge pain-in-the-ass to single parents and dual-income families, especially those of modest means."

LEST WE FORGET: World's Biggest Doctor's Note Not Included

National Review Online's Jonah Goldberg links to reports of pot activist plans "to build biggest doobie." The Physorg.com article explains that Los Angeles resident Brett Stone plans to build a three-foot joint using 112 grams of dope. The article continues: "Stone said he would be careful to ensure that his record attempt would remain legal, indicating that the joint would be smoked in a local medical marijuana collective. "We're probably going to do it as a fund raiser," he said. "And the mayor and police chief would be most welcome if they have a doctor's note to consume cannabis."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:16 PM

November 27, 2006

11/27: Forever Backing The Underdog?

While it's unclear what alternatives will eventually emerge (ex-Sen. John Edwards, Sen. Barack Obama for Dems; ex-NY mayor Rudy Giuliani and MA Gov. Mitt Romney for GOPers), it can safely be said that the respective sides of the 'sphere both will fight their parties' current '08 frontrunners (Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and John McCain (R-AZ)). Is blogger preference for underdogs an emerging pattern, or the fluke of a unique cycle absent an incumbent Pres. or VP from either party? In '04, the netroots staunchly supported "outsider" Howard Dean while righty bloggers uniformly backed Pres. Bush, who was unopposed in the '04 GOP primary. But had the blogosphere existed in '00, how would online support have broken down? Al Gore is lefty favorite now, but it seems a stretch to believe he would have been a huge favorite over then-Sen. Bill Bradley (D-NY Knicks). And on the GOP side, it's hard to imagine righty bloggers lining up for McCain.

DEM FIELD: Hillary Haters Or Alternative Lovers?

MyDD's Chris Bowers looks ahead to '08 and wonders what role the netroots will play in Dem primaries without a DNC chair Howard Dean-like standard bearer support. Bowers's acknowledges "[s]everal potential candidates, most notably Clark, Edwards, Gore and Obama, appear to have a substantial amount of online support" but still worries whether "a divided progressive movement in 2008 will result in a dilution of netroots influence over the primary season."

Bowers also "fear[s]" a divided netroots could lead to "a very, very ugly scene online" during the primary season and is not sure whether the netroots biggest '08 impact will be "how they drag Hillary Clinton down," or "how they build a different candidate up." Bowers argues HRC's netroot approval numbers "should be very worrying to any member of her 2008 campaign team" and worries about what an HRC victory would mean "to the influence of the netroots within the Democratic Party."

OBAMA: The Next Ford Model?

Talk Left's Jeralyn Merrit links to a Times Online piece on Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) efforts to connect with evangelicals and asks: "Bible-thumping didn't get Harold Ford elected. Can it help Obama?"

GOP FIELD: It's Nice To See Hugh Hewitt And Chris Bowers Have Something In Common

Apart from selecting their own nominee, MyDD's Chris Bowers announces the netroots second biggest '08 primary priority is "to take McCain and Giuliani down, and significantly tarnish their images among Democrats and Independents." Bowers writes: "If we can succeed in taking out McCain and Giuliani, it would virtually make the Democratic primary the general election. It is in this way that we can virtually win the 2008 election in 2007."

MCCAIN: And You Thought Christmas Came Early

The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez quotes Matt Welch's 11/26 Los Angeles Times Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) op-ed, "His father was a drunk, and his second wife battled addiction to pain pills," and comments: "Dear heavens the 2008 campaign has begun." Lopez does see some positive for McCain: "For primary purposes, the senator might be grateful for a bit of it, especially the gay-marriage dig at the end."

PoliPundit's W.C. Varones thinks the article should serve as an important warning to GOPers looking for a general-election winner: "If anyone supports McCain because he is popular among moderates, think again. He is only popular with moderates now because the media fawn all over him when he backstabs conservatives. If McCain becomes the nominee, that will end and the media will turn on him viciously. They'll expose him as the nutjob he is."

ROMNEY: The Hewitt/Sullivan Blood Feud Continues

Andrew Sullivan ended any remaining suspense about his feelings for MA Gov. Mitt Romney (R), linking to his 11/26 Times Online column and writing: "I'm impressed by Romney's fiscal conservatism and healthcare initiative. The rest? Not so much." Earlier Sullivan claimed he was "uninterested in Romney's personal religious practices" but told readers "[p]eople will want to know about secret handshakes, secret rituals, tithing, and so on. Would part of his presidential salary go to the LDS church, for example? Does he tithe already?" Sullivan also identifies questions surounding Romney's belief in a "divine founding" of America including: "So what role did the Mormon God play in founding America? This is an important question for understanding a potential president's political philosophy. And since the theocons believe in bringing religious doctrine into the public square as a basis for political decisions, and Romney is the theocon candidate, how can they object to the dialogue?"

Ann Althouse describes Sullivan's attack on Romney as "an ugly one" and adds: "He [Sullivan] doesn't like social conservatives and the way they use religion, and he sees an opportunity to drive a wedge into them by raising questions about religious doctrine and prodding people to feel hostility toward Mormons. He thinks this is justified because -- he asserts -- the Republicans have won power by styling themselves as a "religious organization." They've used religion to their advantage, so they deserve to have it used against them. But stirring up hostility toward one sect? That is a dangerous thing that goes far beyond the targets you think you're aiming at."

Race 4 2008's Republius claims Townhall's Hugh Hewitt's upcoming book about Romney "is reportedly going to be very favorable to the candidate" and notes the fellow Townhall blogger Dean Barnett "admits that he is an unabashed fan of Governor Romney because he knows him and has volunteered previously for him." R4'08 concludes: "I guess the Hugh Hewitt web site is no longer undecided when it comes to the presidential race of 2008."

And over at The Corner, Jonathan Martin reports Team Romney signed SC GOP consultant Warren Tompkins and writes: "This is inside baseball to some degree, but that Tompkins would sign on so early with Romney is another indicator - and the respected Bandy says as much - that the Massachusetts governor is firming up his role as the chief McCain alternative in the early GOP running. Tompkins and his firm had been seen as leaning in Sen. George Allen's direction earlier this year, before the, ahem, recent unpleasantness."

IRAQ: Who You Callin' Extreme?

Lefty bloggers are not liking much about what they here of the Iraq Study Group. Responses to Washington Post stories on the exclusion of "extreme" views from the committee include:

• Matthew Yglesias: "The more I read about this commission the less I like it. The news that the commission deliberate excluded "extreme" views even though the "extreme" left view has majority support is pretty maddening. The real problem, though, is that as best I can tell the Commission has the wrong mandate. Rather than a group charged with finding an optimal Iraq policy for the United States of America, it's charged with finding a formula that suits the interests of the American political establishment -- of Democrats who backed the war, and of Republicans who'd like to see their political party survive the disaster of George W. Bush. So while they'd like a policy that makes things better, what they need is a policy that can espoused while minimizing embarrassment to said establishment. Unfortunately, the latter goal makes the former substantially impossible.
• Glenn Greenwald: "I'd really like to know what the excluded anti-war "extreme view" is that is the equivalent of the neonconservative desire for endless warfare in Iraq and beyond. ... Is withdrawal -- whether incremental or total -- considered to be an "extreme view" that the Washington "centrists" have not only rejected but have excluded in advance even from consideration? ... There is nothing "centrist" about a Commission which decides in advance that it will not remove our troops from a war which is an unmitigated disaster and getting worse every day.
• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "[T]he two proposals getting the most flagpole time at the moment include talks with Syria and Iran (opposed strenuously by Dick Cheney) and the temporary addition of 20,000 soldiers in Baghdad (pretty much dismissed by the military brass as either impossible or useless). The only other alternative is withdrawal, but virtually no one is willing to sign up to that since it would mean expulsion from the Sober Sensible Analyst club. It's just too hard for most of these guys to break ranks and admit in public that the fate of Iraq is no longer something we can control.

Also in lefty Iraq news, Daily Kos' Georgia10 has a list of retired senior military personal favoring withdrawal to counter MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell's 11/26 assertion that: "There is not one military or foreign policy expert who thinks you could actually feasibly do that and second that it would be a good idea." The quote won O'Donnell "Wanker of the Day" honors from Atrios. Also at Daily Kos, Mcjoan celebrates the increased willingnes of MSM outlets to describe Iraq as a "civil war" and Atrios has collected the due dates for various pol/media "Friedmanesque predictions/deadlines" in Iraq, including ("The dates posted are the dates the predictions/deadlines are due"):

• 11/19/06 Lee Hamilton says next 3 months are critical.
• 12/31/06 Joe Lieberman says significant troop withdrawals begin.
• 1/06/07 Senator Warner sez "In two or three months if this thing hasn't come to fruition and this level of violence is not under control," Warner said, "I think it's a responsibility of our government to determine: Is there a change of course we should take?"
• 05/20/07 Obama says reduction should start in 4 to 6 months.
• 06/12/07 McCain sez we're going to win or lose this thing within the next several months.

IRAQ II: Righty Bloggers New Favorite Chairman

Incoming Ways and Means Chair Charlie Rangle (D-NY) rankled righty bloggers with his Fox News Sunday 11/26 line: "If a young fella has an option of having a decent career or joining the army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq." Reactions include:

• Hot Air: "Rangel's neither as prominent nor as unlikeable as Kerry, nor do vets bear him a grudge the way they do Waffles for his Winter Soldier testimony. But they're both talking out of the same ass. In the Kerry/Rangel worldview, American troops aren't the guy who crawls into a lion's cage to rescue the kid inside; they're the guy who's forced into the cage at gunpoint by the gangster who wants something valuable that's in there. Both are sympathetic, but only one's a hero."
• Captain's Quarters: "Charles Rangel has decided to take up where John Kerry left off, only this time he's not kidding about our military men and women being a collection of lazy dolts. The proposed chairman of the House Ways and Means committee and therefore one of the most powerful Democratic leaders in Congress told Fox News that only those with no options for a decent career would enlist in the military."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Better yet, Rangel promises hearings that will prove that American soldiers are dumb, ill-educated and otherwise unemployable! I can't wait. Rangel is a fool, but it's possible to get away with foolishness. It's foolishness plus arrogance that is a deadly combination.

Many on the right also took issue with MSM notation of the length of the current deployment in Iraq surpassing US involvement in WWII. RedState's Academic Elephant wants to know why time is the only relevant metric and points out that the Iraq war's 2,303 US deaths is 290K less than WWII US deaths. Mudville Gazette's Greyhawk notes that the Iraq War would have to last "another 10 or 12 years or so" before it passed the death toll of the Mexican War.

DEMS: Pelosi's Mini-Iraq?

Whether or not incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has unnecessarily divided Dems by not yet announcing an incoming House Intel Cmte chair, the debate has divided lefty bloggers. Talking Points Memo's David Kurtz criticizes Pelosi's "drag-it-out approach" and posts a reader'sassessment of "Pelosi's mini-Iraq":

Don't assume that there's a strategic logic, however inept, behind the delay in the selection of the Committee Chair. If she knew what to do, she would do it. The problem is: a) She hates Harman; 2)Hastings is blatantly inappropriate (and thus will not be selected, no matter how much the CBC squawks); 3) alternative selections to Harman seem strained. ... Therefore, she will likely select Harman anyway--appeasing at least two factions, the Blue Dogs, and the MSM, who will praise her for being centrist and pragmatic, rather than vindictive and "ideological." But she just can't stand the thought of it--thus the delay.

MyDD's Matt Stoller derides the above analysis as "the immediate reaction among white male liberal DC kewl kidz" and argues that Pelosi just "might want someone who ... can do a good job running the Intelligence Committee." Stoller continues: "[T]he single most important thing Pelosi can do is find a a good Intelligence Chair and make sure he or she has the political capital to fix the mess this country is in. Doing so could require time to find a compromise candidate, or to work with the CBC or Blue Dogs to assuage egos or horse-trade other committee assignments. That's what leaders do."

Few on the left are happy with either Harman or Hastings. Kausfiles brother and Stephen Kaus at The Huffington Post links to House and Senate records of Hastings 1988 impeachment for bribery and writes: "Whether the answer is Jane Harmon, Silvestre Reyes or Rush Holt, it is not disgraced former federal judge Alcee Hastings." The Plank's Michael Crowley hits Harman for 2003 statements acknowledging "a growing al Qaeda presence in Iraq" and writes: "I knew that Harman supported the war. I hadn't realized quite how much bad intel she swallowed whole." Matthew Yglesias endorses Holt for the post but also lets us know who he'd choose between Hastings and Harmon if he had to: "But let's assume it's true. Hastings shook some dudes down for $150,000 and ruined three FBI investigations. Jane Harman, by contrast, supported an invasion of Iraq based on bogus intelligence that's costs hundreds of billions of dollars and killed hundreds of thousands of people. Who do I have more doubts about?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Maybe It Was One Of Those 16-Inch Tsunami's

Kausfiles raises doubts about Charlie Cook's claim when '06's "6-point Democratic popular vote win is measured against the GOP's 5-point win in 2002 and its 3-point win in 2004, it clearly constituted a wave." Kaus comments: "Wow. So in 2002, a humdrum, non-wave election, the GOP won by 5 points. But this year, in a "wave election that rivaled the 1994 tsunami," the Dems won by 6 points. See? No wave: 5. Wave: 6! Cook has a powerful way of putting things."

LEST WE FORGET: No Word On Funding For Turkey Fencing

The Right Angle's Mac Johnson takes advantage of the annual WH Turkey pardoning to poke fun at Pres. Bush's immigration policy:

President George W. Bush shocked onlookers today when he misunderstood aides' description of the traditional pardoning of the Thanksgiving Turkeys and instead issued a blanket amnesty for the perplexed poultry. "Apparently he believed they were from Turkey," an anonymous White House source explained. "Hearing that they were there for the dinner ceremony, he assumed they were illegal alien waiters," the source continued. "And so he made them citizens."

"I hope the GOP can count on the votes of 'Flier' and 'Fryer' and all their amigos in the 2008 elections," Bush quipped during a 90-minute impromptu speech extolling the contributions of Turkish Americans to our nation's culture and economy. Further confusing supporters and opponents alike, Bush then made the older bird, Flier, Secretary of Transportation - believing that the bird had served in his father's administration. "Flier is good people," Bush told reporters.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:24 PM

November 21, 2006

11/21: A Pre-Thanksgiving '08 Buffet

A bevy of pre-Thanksgiving '08 buzz dominated the blogosphere 11/20. On the left, an otherwise positive John Edwards (D) reception at Daily Kos was marred by charges of inadequate support for cable exec Ned Lamont (D-CT), and Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) Iraq war stance draws fire from longtime anti-warriors. On the right, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) quietly moves toward joining the race, ex-Speaker Newt Gingrich (R) is welcomed less as a contender than a debate changer, and Cornerites come to grips with conservative GOP support for ex-NY mayor Rudy Giuliani (R).

EDWARDS: Heaven, Hell, And In Between On The Daily Kos Comment Boards

Edwards thanked Kossacks for everything they did "to make Election Day a historic victory for Democrats all across the country" and spent an hour answering reader questions on issues 11/20. Topics addressed by Edwards included:

• On his foreign policy experience: "As to foreign policy, what I've been doing for the last several years includes travels to Africa, Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and Russia; meeting with leaders; speaking and meeting with ordinary citizens and meeting with NGOs and humanitarian organizations. I've also done work with the Council on Foreign Relations and the Asia Society."
• On economic fairness: "A few specifics: raise the minimum wage; universal health care coverage; tax system reform so that income is treated with at least as much respect as wealth; making college available to everyone regardless of wealth (College for Everyone); a trade policy that includes both free trade and fair trade (enforceable environmental and labor protections).
• On energy: "As to energy, it's clear to me that we need serious, long term investment in wind, solar, biomass, biodiesel, biofuels, etc. It's also clear that we need serious conservation, including fuel efficient vehicles. My own view is that it's time to ask Americans to be patriotic about something more than war, and this is a place we should ask people to be willing to sacrifice on behalf of their country."
• On health care: "As to healthcare, it is clear to me that we have a dysfunctional health care system. We have the moral issue of approximately 47 million Americans who have no health care coverage, plus many millions who are terrified they will lost their coverage. The only answer is universal health care coverage.
• On earmarking: "The answer is public financing for political campaigns, and mechanisms for eliminating or controlling earmarks."

Edwards did not escape his Daily Kos experience with out taking criticism for a perceived lack of support for Lamont. Thirdparty from the unofficial LamontBlog and Matt Stoller from MyDD led the recriminations against Edwards anti-Lieberman record.

Not everyone in the Edwards comment thread appreciated the distraction. Sherrylynn summed up the exchange:

To any innocent soul who has happened upon this thread and hopes to learn what Senator and Mrs. Edwards have to say, I recommend that you skip way, way down to the first comment from Senator Edwards. If you do so, you will be spared an unedifying display of unpleasantness and rampant egomania. On the other hand, if you have a taste for endless vituperation, the top portion of this thread will be heaven or, as you may perhaps prefer, hell. If you are only mildly interested in vituperative comments, let me summarize. Apparently some people who worked for Ned Lamont are peeved because Senator Edwards showed up--uninvited--to give a speech too much devoted to poverty and with too few (or possibly no) references to Mr. Lamont. Obviously, Senator Edwards' appearance must have been a real dud ... But get this, these Lamont people are mad because Senator Edwards, whose speech they found so dreadful, didn't come back to campaign for Mr. Lamont a second time. Since Senator John Kerry is lauded as having been much more helpful, wouldn't the simple solution have been to invite Kerry back? I understand he had a bit of free time at the end of the campaign.

OBAMA: Not A Playa' Hata

Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) continues to disappointment segments of the netroots especially Atrios who was not happy with Obama's 11/20 call for a "gradual and substantial" reduction of U.S. forces from Iraq. Atrios writes: "The basic content of what Obama is saying, divorced from the larger debate, is fine, but as to how it plays in the current debate it's not fine. It allows us to wait around one more Friedman... and then something will happen. Except it won't happen. Troops will not start coming home 4-6 months from now. And, most likely, 4-6 months from now Obama won't be saying "bring them home now," though I've put him on my little calendar and will make sure to check back then and let you know."

The Huffington Post's Stan Goff also has problem's with Plan Obama: "Obama's so-called plan is to redeploy troops to Iraqi Kurdistan (demonstrating that he knows next to nothing about what is going on there, and how big a role Kurdish leaders are playing in the current occupation-catalyzed civil war). Obama wants to put more forces on the ground in another un-winnable war in Afghanistan. He refused, a la Bush, to give any timetable, and said that any withdrawal should be "gradual and substantial."

On a lighter note, The Plank's Noam Scheiber links to Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Meaudio of Obama apologizing by phone to Daily Herald's Nicklaus Lovelady for calling him a "baby face" in front of Lovelady's then-romantic interest. Says Obama: "Man, I'm calling to publicly apologize for messin up your game"

BROWNBACK: No Waffles Here

Brownback's 11/20 '08 announcement drew limited righty blogger reaction, but Captain's Quarters was paying attention: "An undercurrent of support has existed for Brownback since earlier this year, when it became plain that conservatives had grown disaffected with the GOP. He faces little competition on the right of the GOP field. ... However, Brownback has the same problem as any Senator or Congressman -- a lack of executive experience. Legislators reach compromises, and those come back to haunt candidates on the presidential trail. ... On the other hand, Brownback doesn't appear to have too many of these waffling points on the resume. On abortion, for instance, Brownback gets a perfect 100 from the National Right to Life Committee and a perfect 0 from NARAL. ... It may not make much difference. Most of the oxygen is already getting sucked up by McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and Newt Gingrich. Brownback may have some name recognition among the politicos and the blogs, but he barely registers among rank-and-file voters."

GINGRICH: A Movement In G

RedState's Dan McLaughlin looks at Fortune's profile of ex-Speaker Newt Gingrich and concludes: "Newt has adequately assessed his main strength as a candidate (his ideas, which are often spot-on and always provocative) and his main weakness (Newt's own unpopularity and personal failings), and is running a "movement" campaign. Will it work? ... Most "movement" candidates end up losing (even ones like Reagan in 1976 who later get the brass ring), and I'm sure that Newt knows that. The key question for an idea-driven "movement" candidate is whether he can gain sufficient traction to compel the ultimate nominee (or future nominees of the party) to adopt some of his ideas.

GIULIANI: Rudy's For Real?

After surveying National Review post-election cruisers, National Review Online's Rich Lowry recognizes that ex-NY mayor Rudy Giuliani's (R) GOP support tends to come from conservatives and not moderates: "it seems he has some real appeal to conservatives based on his rhetoric, persona, and 9/11 performance." Lowry goes on to speculate that Giuliani's candidacy will draw conservative support away from MA Gov. Mitt Romney (MA) and not Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). Lowry adds: "And if Giuliani doesn't make it (I think it's very, very unlikely he will), does anyone doubt that he endorses McCain? So he will help McCain in that more obvious way too."

Also at The Corner, John Derbyshire finds "the whole Rudy phenomenon is fascinating" and goes on to stress the importance of how Giuliani would do in the general election: "He'd take LOTS of votes from Democrats. Just how many would depend of course on the strength of their candidate-but in any case, lots more than any other GOP candidate in sight. A northeastern Republican might in fact be the mirror image of those Southern Democrats-the only Dems to have won the presidency in the last 42 years."

MCCAIN: Always More Troops, Always

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) consultant and Ankle Biting Pundits contributor Pat Hynes responded to ABP co-contributer Bull Dog Pundit's charges of McCain flip-flopping 11/20: "Let's be clear: John McCain is pro-life and supports the overturn of Roe v. Wade. This has been his position throughout his career in politics and he has a twenty-four year voting record to back it up. ... I was disheartened to see BDP link to a WaPo story from 1999 to blast Sen. McCain on an inartful comment he made at that time, without acknowledging the immediacy of his correction to the remark."

Back at The Corner, Rich Lowry argues McCain's calls for more troops inoculates him from future war failures: "There is lots of talk about how McCain might be hurting himself by his persistent call for more troops, even as support for the war declines. I kind of doubt it will-if the war really goes south, he will be able to say he had a better idea for waging it right from the beginning. Personally, I think his support for higher troop levels has been far-sighted and courageous-McCain at his best.

ROMNEY: Lowry Flips On Romney Flop

The Corner's Rich Lowry first reported MA Gov. Mitt Romney (R) was a "flop" at the American Spectator's 11/17 dinner but later retracted the view after an email from AS senior editor Quin Hillyer:

Rich - PLEASE quote me on this. I have no idea where you heard that Romney "flopped" at the Spectator dinner, but from where I sat, that was absolutely, positively NOT the general consensus. Indeed, just the opposite: Everybody at my table seemed absolutely enthralled and impressed by Romney, and so did the people I heard talking on the way out of the dinner. My wife, in particular, who is not very political, pronounced herself tremendously impressed. It should also be noted that I am NOT a Romney partisan; I have no favorite yet for 2008

John Derbyshirereports that Romney fan in chief Kathryn Jean Lopez managed to survive the flop scare...barely..

DEMS: Southern Dems Will Someday (But Not Anytime Soon) Rise Again

TAPPED's Tom Schaller reports that his "non-southern strategy" for electoral success "simply drives some people batty." TAPPED's Ezra Klein agrees wholeheartedly but also outlines some benefits of forcing the GOP to rely entirely on the region:

But as a more general strategic note, the southernization of the GOP will have pretty massive effects on the Republican Party -- effects Democrats will find fairly congenial. As a combination of Californian emigration, Hispanic immigration, and economic fluctuation continue diluting the Interior West's libertarianism, the region will cease exerting its current pull on the Republican Party's ideology. And as the Elephant becomes ever more reliant on the South, the concerns of the region's dominant constituence -- economically insecure whites -- will continue permeating the top levels of the Republican coalition, eventually forcing a leftward shift as their base continues to demand entitlement security and public spending.

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas again attacks suggestions the Dem victory 11/7 depended on conservative southern Dems, but also refuses to give up hope: "We don't want to abandon the South and we won't. But the short-term path for a Democratic progressive majority runs through our coastal strongholds, and then through the swing Midwest and purpling Mountain West. The South is a long-term reclamation project." Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat sees current DNC plans as the perfect way to become competitive in the south without betraying key Dem principles: "Howard Dean's 50 State Strategy is the path that allows Democrats to adapt to the realities Schaller describes while at the same time searching for the effective political prescriptions for the South. As I wrote, the devolution of power to the state parties is the essential component."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Bottom To Top, Not Top To Bottom

Responding to righty blogger Jon Henke's post-election call for increased GOP blog engagement, Shaun Kenny writes:

There's an additional problem to this. Democrats (and particularly the progressive wing) created their blogosphere mostly from grassroots and activist support. Republicans seem to look behind them to political parties and ask them to counteract the left. It can't happen that way. Sure there are things that grasstops can do to help encourage blogs. But when it comes to what Jon Henke consistently called "developing a narrative" for a campaign, the blogs achieve this. Add this narrative into a fundraising schematic, and you have classic copywriting tactics. Build the narrative, get people invested, make the ask. .... We gotta break out.

IRAQ: But What Does Dave's Mom Think?

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum links to Program on International Policy Attitudes poll results showing: "74% of Shiites and 91% of Sunnis want us to leave within a year (the number is 80% for Shiites in Baghdad). By wide margins, both groups believe U.S. forces are provoking more violence than they're preventing, and both groups believe that day-to-day security would improve if we left. Support for attacks on U.S. forces now commands majority support among both Shiites and Sunnis." Drum concludes: "Now, it may be that these views are misguided. But it hardly matters: it's simply not possible for us to occupy the country successfully if a majority of Iraqis actively support attacks on our troops and a vast majority think we're responsible for the rising violence. It's time for us to leave."

At Right Wing News, John Hawkins is reassuring his commenters that he has not given up on the war. Instead he forwards a four point plan:

• 1) Keep training Iraqi forces -- although faster please.
• 2) Take apart the militias.
• 3) Make it clear that no nation unless it is part of the coalition forces will be allowed to send men or materials into Iraq.
• 4) Keep a significant number of American troops on hand for air support, special forces, and logistics even after our troops are no longer policing the streets (Hopefully, we should be at that point by some time around the end of 2007).

RCP Blog's John McIntyre argues David Letterman's recent thoughts on Iraq sum "up the growing feelings of many Americans. Letterman said:

Well, you know in the beginning, here is my position in the beginning and I, I think I - I sort of felt the way everybody did, we felt like we wanted to do something, because something terrible had been done to us. ... So while it didn't necessarily make sense to go into Iraq as it did perhaps to go into Afghanistan, I like most everybody else felt like yes, we needed to do something. And as the weeks turned into months, years and one death became a dozen deaths and hundred deaths and a thousand deaths - then we began to realize you know what? Maybe we're causing more trouble over there than the whole effort has been worth....What I would like would be uh, for uh, uh Americans to stop dying. And for there to be stability in that part of the world. Now if that means an American victory, ok. But I'm not sure that you can have stability in that part of the world with or without an American presence now, uh, so I would do whatever it would take to stop Americans dying.

McIntyre replies: "The good-hearted, but utterly naive sentiment of "I would do whatever it would take to stop Americans dying" in Iraq, will continue to chip away at the public's resolve in the coming weeks and months. And absent a credible plan for victory in Iraq - which right now we do not have - the window for the U.S. to prevent a major loss in this battle of the much longer war is rapidly closing."

LEST WE FORGET: Scarlett Johansson Wants George Bush To Teach Her More About Sex

Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham looks at Scarlett Johansson's "We are supposed to be liberated in America but if our President had his way, we wouldn't be educated about sex at all. Every woman would have six children and we wouldn't be able to have abortions" statement and responds: "

Uhh, no, Scarlett. Six children or abortion? You do realize there's a third option, right? Who was your sex-ed teacher, girl? Laura Bush???

See, Scarlett, the thing is that's not what would happen at all. Note that the Bushes themselves managed, somehow, someway, to only have two children, despite being conservative and, hence, completely ignorant of safe-sex practices and contraceptives. Amazing!

Posted by Conn Carroll at 11:58 AM

November 20, 2006

Blogometer Extra

BLOGGERS VS. MSM: Condition Hypocritical

  On Thursday, the Associated Press reported that "Pentagon guidelines that classified homosexuality as a mental disorder now put it among a list of conditions..."  The "don't ask, don't tell" policy remains in place, unfortunately for the military's gay community.

  "Mental health professionals said ... they were not satisfied by the change," the article said, and neither was Pam at House Blend, who writes:

This "upgrade" is so asinine that I can hardly believe it.  The military is jumping through hoops to avoid releasing any guidelines that view homosexuality as normal.

  Among other conditions, [homosexuals] are compared to those suffering from stammering or stuttering, dyslexia, sleepwalking, motion sickness, obesity, and insect venom allergies.  It simply has to end.  Are any of the above-mentioned grounds to disqualify one from serving?  I hardly think that motion sickness precludes anyone from serving either.  This is BS.

  Remember, all branches of the military have resorted to lowering standards, including recruiting people with antisocial personality disorder, autism, as well as welcoming in folks convicted of aggravated assault, robbery, vehicular manslaughter, receiving stolen property and making terrorist threats.

  Meanwhile, able and ready gay and lesbian servicemembers are stigmatized and marginalized in a time of need.

  John Aravosis, openly gay founder of AMERICAblog, isn't impressed by the "upgrade" either, but wonders why at such a critical time in the terror war that the Pentagon seemingly "has nothing better to do these days."

The great minds of the military have decided gays aren't suffering from mental disorders anymore.  But, they still think homosexuality is a defective condition... You can't make this stuff up.  Note to the military: All the branches are chock full of gays and lesbians.  They do the job.  You need them. Our country needs them.

  "And," he continues, "here's an idea: Spend less time obsessing about gays and try to figure out how to prevail in Afghanistan and Iraq."

BLOGGERS VS. BELTWAY: Ig And Nancy

  David Ignatius at The Washington Post sets a slew of bloggers off again with yet another provocative post.  While a lot of media attention has been focused on the Carville-Rahm Dem clique hammering away at Howard Dean, Ignatius targets Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi in his latest column:

Some Democratic initiatives are obvious after the November election: The public wants changes in Iraq policy that reduce the costs and dangers for America; reform of an arrogant and corrupt congressional leadership; and an end to partisan political bickering.  The new House speaker, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, had a disastrous post-election week in which her first priority seemed to be settling scores rather than solving these big problems.  Shame on her!  But let's assume for the moment that the new Democratic majority won't commit instant suicide with a continuation of Pelosi's payback politics, and that it will get serious about governing.

  Markos Moulitsas at Daily Kos breathes fire first, in a post entitled "Why Hasn't Nancy Pelosi Fixed Ever