May 11, 2007

5/11: Say It Ain't So, Please Don't Go

Krusty Konservative is no more. NO MORE?!?!?! An enterprising IA blogger, clearly connected in GOP circles, anonymous, and interesting. He hints this a.m. to having been subject to "blackmail" and "other unsavory tactics." More: "Yesterday the ugly side of politics reared its ugly head. I don't know if its something I wrote recently that caused it or what the deal is, but there is some nasty stuff going on that center around this blog. I don't really care what people think of me or like what I write, I never have and never will. I write what is on my mind and what I observe here in Iowa, and I'll stand by anything that's ever been written on this blog." As much as he's enjoyed the blog, it's "just not worth dragging innocent people through the politics of personal destruction."

We really don't know what the problem was, but one hypothesis that comes to mind is that Krusty has a tangential connection to one IA GOP faction, and that someone from another faction found out and promised to out him. One of the pleasures of reading Krusty is that he's a true insider -- he clearly knows -- and participates in -- the inside game. His perspective, therefore, is ahead-of-the-curve, and his anonymity allows him to write without varnish. But there's an obvious trade-off between disclosure, honesty, and forthrightness, and Mr. K has been traded out of a hobby. Or ... we could be wrong and something else entirely is percolating.

GIULIANI: Gonna Walk On Walk, Walk On Back

So the political world spazzed out 5/10 with word from the New York Times that Giuliani would embrace his pro-choice vantage point on abortion and begin to offer a "forthright affirmation of his support for abortion rights in public forums." Does that mean he'll repudiate his stance on partial birth abortion, his support for the Hyde amendment, his support for parential notification? No. In fact, we'll told that he'll acknowledge that he has evolved from, say, 1997, when his campaign filled out a questionnaire in such a way that only a dyed-in-the-wool pro-choicer or a committed Planned Parenthood donor would approve. Typical lefty analysis from Firedoglake's Watertiger: "Oh, my aching neck! How does one say in one breath that "after months of conflicting signals on abortion," Rudy Giuliani is planning to offer a forthright affirmation of abortion rights, and then in the next, say he doesn't equivocate on tough issues? 404 Error, dude! Rudy doesn't waffle? Giuliani should be in a cage death match with Alberto Gonzales for the title of Best Non-Answer Answers."

Lefty bloggers are gleeful at the Giuliani team's, um, class warfare in Iowa. An aide apparently told a family that they weren't rich enough to host a Giuliani event on the death tax. But Horse's Mouth writer Greg Sergant's enthusisasm gets him into trouble with some of his own readers, as evidenced by his "update": "Update: Somerby comments below: "Is there any sign that Giuliani had ever heard one word about this? Aren't we most likely dealing with staff work here? Are you sure this account is fully accurate? Do we want the press to stop the bullshit attacks against Dem candidates? Or do we want them to start such attacks against Reps? Do you think Giuliani knew this woman had a handicap? Do you think his staffers did?" Absolutely fair questions; let me answer them. No, there's no sign that Rudy himself knows about this. I've changed headline to reflect this. Yes, we are working with staff work here. Is the account accurate? I left a message for the reporter, and called the woman, who said it was, and called Rudy's campaign, who confirmed their nondenial; if they want to say more, I'd be glad to print it. Yes, we want the press to stop the bullshit attacks against Dems; the main point of the item above was to point out the press' unbalanced obsession with such stories on Dems -- a point worth making that's not mutually exclusive with arguing that such attacks are superficial across the board.

BTW: we find very little righty blogosphere pick-up so far of ABC News's story about Giuliani Partners and Oxycontin. Lefty responses are predictable.

ROMNEY: Ravished By Redstate, Asked About SEX By Mike Wallace?

RedState's Erick Erickson receives our colleague Andrew Sullivan's Yglesias award for his "Camel, Meet Straw" post officially designating himself sick of Mitt Romney. Erickson wrote: "On October 7, 2001, President Bush told the nation, " We will not waver; we will not tire; we will not falter; and we will not fail. Peace and freedom will prevail." I can no longer trust that Mitt Romney has a spine strong enough not to go wobbly with it becomes convenient. Were the election held today, who'd get my vote? The man I said I would never vote for -- John McCain. Of course, I'd prefer this option." This option being Draft Fred T.

A plurality of Erickson's commentators were sympathetic, but predictably, Romneyacs were angry. Iowan Jeff Fuller accuses Erickson of "double dipping." Romney defender Dean Barrett wonders whether "there really is a story here?" "Is there really a scandal that the spouse of an avowed pro-choice candidate gave the whopping total of $150 to Planned Parenthood 13 years ago? If Romney were saying he had always been pro-life, then there might be some "there" here, but that's not the case. It's also rather noteworthy that the only people purportedly scandalized by this "revelation" have previously distinguished themselves as reliably hostile to Romney and his campaign. You know, people like Andrew Sullivan, Erick Erickson and our own Matt Lewis. Of course, they're all entitled to their opinions. It's just that in this instance, the outrage strikes me as more than a little forced."

CODA: On 60 Minutes this weekend, Mike Wallace apparently asks Mitt Romney if he broke the LDS church invocation against pre-marital sex. (The answer is no.) We presume 60 Minutes is aching to ask whether a teenaged John McCain did the nasty. Or Mike Huckabee. Or Sam Brownback. Did Mike Wallace? Does Mike Wallace?

Romney tells Wallace that, golly, he can't imagine anything worse than polygamy.Jonah Goldberg "can think of a long list of things worse than polygamy. Hundreds involving pointy sticks alone. Which is not to say I favor polygamy. But still..." To which Mark Steyn rejoinds: "his claim to hate polygamy is more plausible than Giuliani's claim to hate abortion. Oh, wait, that was last week. But maybe he should have pledged to hunt down every polygamist to the gates of hell, and then cracked a Dr Evil grin." Nice two-fer, Steynie.

Special bonus: Soren Dayton actually says Mitt Romney is right. Find out why, here.

MCCAIN: Redstate It And Weep

Meanwhile, RedState editor Erick Erickson officially ditched Mitt Romney 5/10 and admitted that if the election were held today, he'd vote for a guy he once said he would never vote for: McCain.

EDWARDS: Sub-Prime Story

The Washington Postreports this a.m. that "the hedge fund that employed John Edwards markedly expanded its subprime lending business while he worked there, becoming a major player in the high-risk mortgage sector Edwards has pilloried in his presidential campaign." To which Redstate's Streiff responds: "Do we really believe that a politician who was alive during the Clinton era when Johnnie Chung equated access to the White House with a subway turnstile (put money in it and it opens) would accept some $120K in bundled donations from a company and not do due diligence? Do we really believe a politician with presidential ambitions accepted employment from a firm without reading their SEC filings? Do we really believe that Edwards never received correspondence during his employment regarding the strategic direction his employer was taking in the subprime lending market? Do we really believe in leprechauns?"

PAUL: Dug Out

Alas, no more Ron Paul domination of Digg. But he's still the top search on Technorati.

TRADE: Deal Or Secret Cabal?

Reading David Sirota in high dungeon can produce a pleasure comparable to hearing the finest romantic ballade from Chopin. Yesterday and today, the Obeyian insider-turned-angry-gate-rattler has been writing about how " a handful of senior congressional Democrats" joined with the Bush White House to "to announce a "deal" on a package of trade agreements that potentially calls into question the entire election mandate of 2006." Yesterday, Speaker Pelosi and admin. officials announced a ""deal"" -- double quotes because Sirota already puts "deal" in quotes -- "whereby these senior Democrats agree to support a package of pending trade deals with Peru, Panama, South Korea and Colombia, supposedly in exchange for major reforms to these trade deals, including the addition of strong labor and environmental protections." More Sirota: "According to my Capitol Hill sources, most Democratic lawmakers still have not seen the language of the deal. These sources also tell me that while Rangel originally promised organized labor that he would not agree to a deal without a process for labor to review the language, at the moment of Pelosi's press release, labor leaders were in the midst of a conference call to discuss the deal and had not yet provided final input. Furthermore, sources tell me that a group of Democrats in vulnerable seats who had campaigned for office opposing further NAFTA-style free trade expansion informed Pelosi's office early in the day of their concerns and were assured that the Speaker did not have an official position on a deal."

Matt Stoller picks up on Chamber CEO Tom Donahue's comfort that trade standards "cannot be read to require compliance with" International Labor Organization conventions. In other words it's toothless. Stoller: "The whole point of this deal is that it includes ILO standards. Baucus and Rangel look like fools."

THE IRAQ VOTE: Benched

MyDD takes names of those Dems who voted against the House half-and-half authorization, including, notably, Steny Hoyer.

Is Bush suddenly open to benchmarks? DailyKos's BarbMD writes that "Bush has been talking about benchmarks since announcing his new way forward in January. Granted, he ignores the fact that the Iraqis have already missed a number of benchmarks, but they have always been a part of the discussion."

SCANNING THE SPHERE

Conservatives angry about an obscene Opie and Anthony sketch.....CBS News fires a retired general who appeared in a VoteVets ad...Jonah Goldberg is getting flack from anti-Semites for liking Ron Paul...NRO reprintsFred Thompson's latest commentary on the 2nd Amendment....Josh Marshallcalls Richard Perle's op-ed "Like a cage match between So No Evil and Evil.".... Senate2008Guru updates his/her (?) retirement watch.

LEST WE FORGET: The Mystery Of O. Kay Henderson is solved.

By Dennis Kucinich, no less.

"Earlier this afternoon my Radio Iowa colleague Dar Danielson answered the newsroom phone and then transferred the call to me. "Newsroom, this is Kay," I said after I picked up the line. "Is this O?" the caller asked. That is a complicated story. My first name is Onette, so I could be O. Henderson. My middle name is Kay, though, and that's what most of my family and friends call me. But my parents wanted me to have the initials "O. K." because my mother was 45 years old when I was born and, well, I was "O. K." I go by "O. Kay" on the air, by the way -- a decision my former boss Steve Mays made my first day at Radio Iowa. "Yes, my first name is Onette," I told the caller. Turns out the caller was a fundraiser for the Dennis Kucinich campaign. "O. Henderson" and my newsroom telephone number were on the campaign's fundraising list.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Our Advice To Prospective Parents

If you want to child to be a blogger, name her Barb.

Posted by Conn Carroll at May 11, 2007 01:48 PM