January 11, 2007

1/11: Chowing Down

Pres. Bush's speech was full of admission. He took responsibility, accepted that some of his policies hadn't panned out, and he started over to address the next phase, his planned increase of troops in Baghdad. That let-down of the usual Bush confidence seemed to grant permission to normally supportive righty bloggers to air their own concerns. Those concerns, subdued and more curious than anything else, were couched in supportive language, but the message is unmistakable: Even GOPers fear the war isn't going as planned.

Lefties, meanwhile, seem to have no trouble with criticism. They can criticize the Bush admin -- and they're good at it, with 6 years of practice -- just as easily as they cannibalize their own. Just check out the nasty comments made by multiple high-profile liberal bloggers towards the DLC, members of the party they're openly rooting for. But what's this? Could the right be catching on? One righty blogger wants to know whether the GOP should evict Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) for his opposition to Bush's "surge" plan, or stick with him because of the general rough time GOPers will have in '08. Could the righties be learning to eat their own?

BUSH: Speechifying

Last night's speech, in which Pres. Bush outlined his plans for an increased commitment of troops to Iraq (full text here) produced most of what bloggers are arguing about today. In fact, as Outside the Beltway reports, the WH took a special interest in getting righty bloggers involved by holding a special teleconference before the speech with WH Press Sec. Tony Snow and NSA Iraq dir. Brett McGurk.

The news in the blogosphere comes from the right. Their reaction isn't as full-throated as it once was. Righty Don Surber offers translations of key phrases and this critique of the performance: "Bush's style was Jerry Fordish. He looked sincere but occasionally stumbled. His subliminal message: Being president is a tough gig." == Pejman Yousefzadeh thought the speech was good, but found a major point of contradiction even he felt the need to point out: "First, we are told (correctly) that we cannot afford to fail in Iraq. Now we are told that we will indeed pull up stakes and leave at some point? Don't these statements ... you know ... contradict one another?" Instapundit comments on Bush's proposed oil trust: "A bit late, but perhaps not quite too late." Jay Reding: "Bush has the most difficult challenge of his Presidency ahead. He's lost the American people on Iraq, even those who normally support him. We cannot afford failure in Iraq, but the President has to convince the American people that he has a plan that will restore some semblance of order to the ravaged nation. That will be a rather tall order." QandO: "Let's just say I want to believe it because, as mentioned, I want to see success in Iraq. I'm just not ready, even after his speech, to buy completely into this surge." At The Corner, John Derbyshire isn't buying it either: The speech "struck me as a snow job, from an administration that -- pretty much like the rest of us -- has no clue where to go from here."

Others on the right are more friendly to the admin. Blue Crab Boulevard thought it was a good speech that would hamper Dems: "Overall probably a B+." Right Wing News also gives it a B-plus in his post-speech analysis, but reading his line-by-line liveblog, it's hard to see how he arrived at that grade. Sister Toldjah: "It was the speech he needed to give." Flopping Aces called it "a wonderful speech." Oak Leaf is generally supportive ("The President's Address was well presented") but sees a difficult time ahead: "In two years, it will be time to rebuild the United States Army. It will take a lot of hard work to pick up all the pieces." Tammy Bruce: "[Bush] was more comfortable than I've seen him before, and void of a sort of insecurity I've seen him exhibit in the past. It is this sort of speech, and his general attitude, which reminds me why I care about the president and support him." AllahPundit rounds up Dem reaction, of which he's mostly not a fan, save the reaction of Sen. Joe Lieberman (I/D-CT).

Macsmind thinks the speech indicated broader military action to come: "I wouldn't be surprised to see [a pre-emptive strike on Iran] happen in the next few weeks as this appeared to be a signal. We are even now positioning ourself not only with carriers but other support to take Iran to the woodshed if need be. Iran's support of the insurgency in Iraq has not gone unnoticed or un-acted upon." Blogs for Bush is close to agreeing: "It is clear that President Bush is not going to allow concerns about the diplomatic niceties to interfere with victory in Iraq and the larger War on Terrorism - Iran and Syria are responsible for the lion's share of the trouble in Iraq, and we're not going to allow them safe haven anymore." Doug Ross highlights others who think Iran should watch its back. == Daimian blames the Iraqi gov't and Captain Ed thinks Shi'ites simply want the US out.

Instead of responding to the speech, some chose to reexamine other facets of the war. Lawhawk thinks the answer lies in changing some rules of engagement. == The American Mind praises the speech and criticizes several Dem responses: "Reading between the lines from President Bush's speech you have to gather this is Iraq's last chance." Dan Riehl also thinks the speech was a warning to Iraq.

Wizbang was also on the righty bloggers' conference call with the WH, and is apparently good friends with "Tony." The full call can be heard here.

Among the many who live-blogged the speech, Steven Taylor is critical: "I must confess, the rhetoric is tired at this point." Captain Ed live-blogged as well: "Bush and his team spent quite a bit of time on the address. They included several elements to bridge political differences. His assumption of responsibility for the failure to quell the violence in Baghdad is the one element that had been missing until now, and it may help take the edge off of some of the criticism."

From the left, Matthew Yglesias thinks Bush may be planning a few new wars, though he, like many, doesn't see any new developments coming from the speech. Sean Aqui: "So what's new? Not much. ... We are in trouble." Arianna Huffington calls the speech "shocking in its banality." To Bush's assertion that Sec/State Condoleezza Rice will soon appoint a reconstruction coordinator, The American Street asks: "Isn't Brownie available?" == Brilliant at Breakfast is apoplectic: "If you want to talk about instituting a military draft, rescinding the tax cuts, rationing gasoline and sending an additional 150,000 troops, then maybe we can talk about making a last push to salvage something about the biggest ****up in George W. Bush's lifetime of ****ups." Kos' BarbinMD highlights what she says is the only difference between this speech and a 10/06 statement from the WH: Bush didn't say "absolutely, we're winning" this time around. == Left I on the News and State of the Day agree with the righties who think Iran and Syria are next and posts links to demonstrations planned for today. And after Bush said "the year ahead" will demand sacrifices, Bill Quick finds something to be optimistic about: "I think you have just been given the departure date for US forces - January, 2008."

TalkLeft, Jane Hamsher, Donklephant ("No need to watch the speech tonight. We're already going through with the plan") point out that troop escalation has already started.

ROMNEY: Theory Of Evolution

Responding to a YouTube video of his '94 debate with Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) in which ex-MA Gov. Mitt Romney (R) expressed some pro-choice views, (see Hotline OnCall) Romney appeared on the Glenn Reynolds and Helen Smith show to explain himself. The Reynolds' Instapundit posts show highlights. The debate, says Romney, "shows what 13 years will do. I'm grayer. I'm a little heavier. And I hope I've grown a bit wiser as well."

Hugh Hewitt sees a preview of Romney's '08 strategy in the rapid response, which "means an entire news cycle on a somewhat significant story has played out before even one newspaper reported it, with the anti-Romney forces (clearly worried about the big $ Monday and the deMint Tuesday) trying to put a stick in the spokes, and Romney's team finding a way to knock it down in the same cycle. That's a preview of what it will be like all year." John Hinderaker is also impressed with the response: "Nothing about this is a deal-maker or deal-breaker for me. To the extent that I am interested in Romney as a candidate -- and I am -- I'm mostly happy to see him handling [social issues] skillfully." Dean Barnett: "This is not only rapid response, but intelligent response. You'll be saying it too by the end of the campaign -- Romney is Smarter Than The Average Bear." Suitably Flip: "If we dismissed every reasoned and deliberate rightward shift of Presidential candidates on the abortion issue, the Gipper never could've won. There's an uncanny symmetry to the fact that 13 years also separated Reagan signing into law California's liberal abortion rights bill and publishing the pro-life tome Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation." Ace of Spades defends Romney further: "We have a word for people who care about everything passionately. We call them 'maniacs.'"

AllahPundit, though, is not impressed by Romney's tap act: "Handsome, poised, eloquent: he's another George Clooney. If Clooney were slightly further to the left." Political Pit Bull is similarly unimpressed: "I don't know how Romney's going to explain the drastic shift that he's made from '94 to the present day on this issue, but it's going to have to be done carefully and with candor. Unless of course he just blames it on an infection from the Christianist plague."

To BuzzMachine, it's a sign of the YouTube times: "This is amazing on so many levels: YouTube allows an opponent to find a candidate's words and play them again. But Romney chose to use podcasts and YouTube to respond. And big media has to pick that up." Captain Ed agrees: "The upcoming presidential election will hinge on the use of technology and the rapid response to potentially damaging imagery." Blog consultant/ex-Hill aide David All provides running commentary on the back and forth YouTubing.

BROWNBACK: Baghdad Nights, The Ballad Of Sammy Whitehouse

At Town Hall, Hugh Hewitt takes a look at Sen. Sam Brownback's (R-KS) new position on Iraq and Pres. Bush's proposed troop increase. Hewitt: "This is, at best, confusing. And it is most definitely not the way to the Republican nomination. I hope the senator will reconsider."

DODD: Back Of The Pack?

MyDD's Jerome Armstrong, responding to Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) on Imus 1/10: "Dodd acknowledges himself as a 'darkhorse' candidate; but it's tough to see how he breaks from that mold." Even if Dodd believes his congressional experience matters, "it's gonna take something very surprising to take Dodd out of the back of the pack."

GIULIANI: Room Enough For Rudy

Krusty Konservative seems to believe ex-NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) has the best chance at winning the IA Caucus. As McCain attacks Romney, Romney "will likely attack back," creating room in IA for "an alternative kandidate to emerge." There is a "huge void for a kredible konservative kandidate," so now could be the time for Giuliani "to make a foray" into IA.

Even if Giuliani faces many of the same obstacles as McCain, what makes him different "is he does have a silver bullet, star power." At least "when it comes to leadership and toughness he is off the charts." What's more, if success for McCain and Giuliani rests "on their ability to motivate people who don't normally attend a caucus... Giuliani would be more successful at that than McCain."

EDWARDS: No Such Thing As A Smooth Sail

At Daily Kos, Mark 27 surmises that while the addition of NV to the early presidential primary caucus schedule "seems beneficial" to John Edwards' presidential candidacy, due to NV's "large bloc of service worker union members potentially giving Edwards back-to-back victories," immigration still remains "the one issue that could take the wind out of Edwards' sail in the next 12 months." So far, "I have yet to hear Edwards' position on recent immigration reform proposals, and expect him to lose credibility with factions of his base whichever side he chooses."

MCCAIN: Singled Out

American Spectator's Phillip Klein wonders why Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) "was singled out" in Bush's speech, while John McCain "was not mentioned. Although "Conservatives like to beat up on on McCain," Klein says "anyone who supports the surge has to give credit to McCain for the political courage he showed by speaking so forcefully over the years, and particularly over the pass few months, for adding more troops."

OBAMA: If Only He'd Elaborate

At Spin Cycle, Newsday.com's Glenn Thrush wonders what Barack Obama did not say on CNN 1/10 about his recent meeting with Sec/state Condoleeza Rice. Although Obama explained "he wants to put numerous 'conditions'" on Bush's call to send more troops to Iraq, he "didn't say" what the conditions would be and "also hasn't said if he'd support efforts to pass legislation de-funding the surge."

VILSACK: An Arithmetic Problem?

PBlakeney.com wonders whether Tom Vilsack "can't add - or is just plain lying." When Vilsack appeared on Fox News' Hannity and Colmes 1/10, he "kept saying that 'we've been in Iraq for 5 and a half years." Was "this a lie, or can't he add?" If the U.S. went into Iraq 3/03, "that's less than 4 years ago."

Radio Iowa notes that although Vilsack's schedule noted his "final weekly news conference" 1/10 at the IA statehouse, "reporters were giggling at the use of the word 'weekly.'" A recent "review of records show Vilsack did not hold a news conference" in December and for many Iowans, Vilsack, despite his presidential ambitions, "is a blank slate."

MN SEN: Out, Out Damned Spot!

Responding to Sen. Norm Coleman's (R) opposition to Pres. Bush's increase in troop strength in Iraq, PoliPundit wonders: "If things go too bad in 2008, Democrats will have 61 votes and a Republican filibuster will just be a dream. Support him because we are screwed royally if democrats have 61 seats? Shun him because we stand on 'principle?'" Some commenters favor Coleman's approach ("If we shun him on 'principle', can someone please articulate that principle?"), though a majority want him gone, and not just for his opposition to the surge ("He is pro abortion. anti ANWR, anti tax cuts, pro minimum wage.")

DLC: Fording The Potomac

Radar's Fresh Intelligence reports that ex-Rep. Harold Ford Jr. (D-TN) has been offered the position of chairman of the DLC. He would replace ex-IA Gov. Tom Vilsack (D) to lead the centrist Dem organization. Radar posts a memo Ford wrote to DLC leaders in which he "seemed to eagerly anticipate the prospect" of becoming chairman.

More, from the memo: "I assume there will be an effort to help" Sen. Hillary Clinton's (D-NY) "campaign and I would support such an effort." Kos, not a fan of the DLC, notes: "Poor Vilsack. Not even the organization he currently heads plans on giving him any respect or support. Makes him look weaker than he already looks. And yeah, the DLC will be a Hillary vehicle. Any of the other candidates would be insane to pay even lip service to that operation. Somehow, I suspect few will."

In more DLC-bashing news, Kos blogger Kagro X takes a look at a split among the group's heavy hitters on Bush's proposal to increase troops in Iraq, and Atrios thinks DLC-affiliated PPI head Will Marshall is calling Vilsack "out of step." Marshall, by the way, gets Atrios' coveted "Wanker of the Day" award.

DEMOCRATS: The Young And The Restless

At MyDD, Jonathan Singer thinks Gen NeXters' big support for Dems in '06 (an election in which they took 60% of that subgroup's votes) bodes well for the party in the long run. His conclusions: "Opinions can be fleeting, and the Democrats can quickly lose the support of these voters. Moreover, although people's voting patterns tend to solidify once they have supported one party or the other in a number of consecutive elections, new cleavages within the electorate can emerge rather quickly that reshape the partisan playing field. That all said, the Democrats do have a chance to tap this generation for support -- perhaps like none other in recent memory."

Meanwhile, Chris Bowers posts thoughts on Dems' '08 primary calendar. Noting early caucuses in IA, AR, DE, NM and NC -- all states from which major candidates hail -- Bowers believes it could be a drawn-out primary: "All of these early home states have the potential of keeping a number of candidates afloat after February 5th. After all, it takes only one victory to release federal matching funds (that is, if anyone uses them). ... maybe, just maybe, the cards will fall into place and 2008 will be the most rollicking, up and down Democratic primary season in decades. I certainly hope so."

REPUBLICANS: Throwing It

Jay Nordlinger at National Review writes this a.m.: "I have a friend who, in a phone conversation last weekend, said the unsayable. ... He said, 'The Democrats have to win in 2008 -- I mean, the whole enchilada: House, Senate, and presidency.' You ought to know that my friend is a staunch conservative Republican. ... 'Because that's the only way they will be fully onboard the War on Terror. They won't fully support it otherwise, because they will always be trying to trip up the Republicans. If you want the Democrats onboard the War on Terror, they have to be in charge. Period.'"

Powerline's Scott Johnson: "I think both John Hinderaker and I are almost entirely convinced of [the argument's] rightness."

BLOGGERS VS. THE MSM: Court's In Session

When the Scooter Libby trial begins later this month, 100 seats in the courtroom will be set aside for journalists. And the Washington Post reports today that 2 seats will be set aside for bloggers, thanks to an agreement between the Media Bloggers Assn and the US District Court in DC. The article cites UMD Prof. Thomas Kunkel talking about concerns that bloggers have lower standards than journalists. Romenesko offers his own coverage.

One of the 2 bloggers who will be present at the trial, Outside the Beltway responds to Kunkel: "What utter rubbish. These journalistic standards have mostly been honored in the breach by the press throughout the ages. From the days of Yellow Journalism through today's tabloid dailies, the business side of media has always trumped the theoretical professionalism. Innuendo and rumor from unattributed sources are front page news even at such august institutions as the Post and the New York Times. Since the advent of 24/7 cable news, editorial control and verification have gone by the wayside. And the Post even has blogs of its own these days. To say that people can't distinguish credible blogs from bad is to give too little credit. Can people not tell the New York Post or New York Daily News from the New York Times?"

Awe and joy show up in other blogs devoting space to the news. TalkLeft: "This is big progress for bloggers, and I hope we see more of it in the future." Blue Crab Boulevard: "This is quite a coup for bloggers and the media isn't particularly happy about it."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: An Inconvenient Whopper

Via the blog A Hamburger Today, we learn that someone has determined the carbon footprint of a cheeseburger and determined that the greenhouse emissions related to the delicious products "roughly equal the greenhouse output of 100,000 SUVs." AHT: "Well, that's depressing. Of course, there are well over 100,000 SUVs on the road, so if we could just convince 100k SUV-owners to use public transportation then we can eat with a clear conscience."

LEST WE FORGET: Beat The Devil

Yes, we all found it highly ironic that the Blogometer forgot yesterday's "Lest We Forget," but that's what you get when the regular Blogometer writer is on vacation in a far warmer and sunnier place that the current, freezing and very jealous temporary replacement.

Meanwhile, with the passing of Godfather of Soul James Brown, we were reminded of a great episode in the old BMW Films series, in which Brown and his driver, Clive Owen, face off with the devil, aptly played by Gary Oldman. "It ain't easy to be James Brown and scare the kids." Ow!

And over at Advertising Age, "Media Guy" Simon Dumenco provides "A guide to help you stop talking like such a Zune." Our favorite: "Wiki: Hawaiian for 'Why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free?' See also: user-generated content."

Posted by Conn Carroll at January 11, 2007 01:13 PM