October 03, 2007

10/3: Much Ado About Everything

Fair minded people can read the transcript of Rush Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" exchange below and decide for themselves who exactly Limbaugh was or was not referring to, but we can all agree on at least one thing: this tempest was sparked by GOPers succeess in passing motions through both the House and Senate condemning MoveOn. The netroots worry that they succeeded in damaging the credibility of one of their core institutions and they want payback. QandO's Jon Henke blogs on the subject, but first quotes lefty blogger Glenn Greenwald: "the real success of blogs comes not from single, easily identifiable spectacular achievements, but rather, by the gradual re-shaping of the dominant political narratives, by changing how political and cultural issues are discussed, by influencing how the media conducts itself in covering our political process."

Henke comments: "I am not criticizing the people quoted above for their observations. They are correct. There is nothing inherently wrong with "battlespace preparation", "media bulldozing" or attempting to shape conventional wisdom. ... But make no mistake, "battlespace preparation" is exactly what it is. The Left is keenly aware of it, and they're preparing the battlespace with an eye on the long term."

BLOGGERS VS MSM: A Controversy On Loan From God

Netroots efforts to delegitimize Rush Limbaugh intensified 10/2 with a $60k ad buy by the group VoteVets.org and the launching of a campaign by ret.-Gen. Wesley Clark to remove Limbaugh from Armed Forces Radio. Clark pitches at The Huffington Post: "Last week, Rush Limbaugh labeled any American soldier who supports an end to the war in Iraq as "phony." ... It's time to put real pressure on Rush Limbaugh. His show is broadcast on Armed Forces Radio, and this time we are going to go straight to the lifeblood of Rush's show -- Congress. Congress has the power to remove Rush Limbaugh from Armed Forces Radio, and it won't be as easy for elected officials to ignore our call."

For the record, the transcript of what Limbaugh actually said on 9/28 can be found here. The offending exchange includes:

CALLER: And what's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.

RUSH: The phony soldiers.

CALLER: Phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier and they're proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they're willing to sacrifice for the country.

RUSH: They joined to be in Iraq.

One minutes and fifty seconds later in the show, Limbaugh explains: "

Here is a Morning Update that we did recently, talking about fake soldiers. This is a story of who the left props up as heroes. They have their celebrities and one of them was Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth. ... What made Jesse Macbeth, Army Ranger, a hero to the left was his courage, in their view, off the battlefield, without regard to consequences. He told the world the abuses he had witnessed in Iraq, American soldiers killing unarmed civilians, hundreds of men, women, even children. ... Now, recently, Jesse Macbeth, poster boy for the anti-war left, had his day in court. And you know what? He was sentenced to five months in jail and three years probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim and his Army discharge record. ... Jesse Macbeth isn't an Army Ranger, never was. He isn't a corporal, never was."

Media Matters, who originally flagged the 9/28 exchange for other bloggers to amplify, offers a 'FACT CHECK' on the controversy including:

Misinformation: On September 28, Limbaugh asserted that his "phony soldiers" comment was a reference to Jesse MacBeth, who pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for pretending to be an injured Iraq war veteran.

Fact: Limbaugh did not refer to MacBeth during his September 26 broadcast until 1 minute and 50 seconds after making his "phony soldiers" comment. Indeed, at no point during his September 26 radio show did Limbaugh refer to any soldiers he considered to be fake prior to making his "phony soldiers" comment. Moreover, as the blog Crooks and Liars and Media Matters noted, in the September 28 broadcast, Limbaugh expanded the group of "phony soldiers" to include Vietnam veteran Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) and Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp, who is currently serving in Iraq.

NRO's Byron York reports that Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" phrase was inspired by ABC's 9/24 story on "phony heroes" that also covered MacBeth's lies. York summarizes: "Where the controversy goes now is not clear. Democrats, and particularly their supporters in the left-wing blogosphere, are pressing for payback over the MoveOn.org affair. But Limbaugh's explanation will likely make it harder to make the clear-cut case against him ... The fact that Limbaugh, on the original September 26 program, brought up the ABC report, unbidden, to explain the "phony soldiers" remark suggests that that indeed was what he had in mind at the time he said it. That's also supported by the fact that he had recorded a commentary on the story the day before, and that he printed out and re-read that commentary on September 26 as he explained "phony soldiers." It was clearly on his mind."

If the netroots have their way, the controversy is heading straight to Congress. Those calling for Limbaugh's removal from Armed Forces Radio include:

• Fire Dog Lake's Jane Hamsher: "It's past the time for empty gestures. Senate Democrats should never have let the Cornyn bill [the MoveOn condemnation] onto the floor. Now it's done, you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. Take Rush off the air. Really, Senators, protecting the troops from this kind of abuse actually is your job.
• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "We need to start matching our moments of outrage to policy solutions that reinforce our ideological vision for the country. Part of that vision is for a government that no longer subsidizes right-wing hate speech but instead promotes a diversity of views over the media."
• Digby: "Limbaugh is a cancer on the body politic and we have to stop being afraid of him --- or being above these "petty squabbles." One of the main sources of Republican power is their ability to gin up controversies like this latest MoveOn thing and it behooves us to go after them with the same amount of fervor when the opportunity presents itself. They will keep doing it until the price becomes too high."

CLINTON: In Clinton They Trust

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum looks at Washington Postpolling showing "there isn't a single category in which [Hillary Clinton] doesn't lead. Dems trust her on Iraq, trust her on terrorism, trust her on healthcare, and trust her on the economy. They even - hold on to your hats for this one - think she's more likely to reduce partisan bickering in Washington than either Obama or Edwards. ... Actually, believe it or not, I think that last one might even be right. Yes, the loons are still out there, but everything I've read suggests that Hillary is a pretty effective senator and works well with her Republican counterparts, who appreciate the fact that she runs a tight ship, knows what she wants, and delivers what she says she'll deliver."

Also commenting on HRC coverage, Matthew Yglesias notes a Drudge Report banner trumpeting Clinton's 3Q fundraising advantage and blogs:

I'd like to see a nominee who's approach to the right's domination of American political discourse is to challenge it, rather than try to cozy up to it. You see much the same thing in Clinton's relationship with Rupert Murdoch. Sure, as long as she's seemingly ascendant and willing to court these people, they're happy to play nice. But when the chips are down -- when the right is, say, trying to get her removed from office on a flimsy pretext -- does she think Murdoch and Drudge are going to have her back? Where are they going to be when she has a tough legislative battle? When she's looking to elect friendly members of congress in the midterms? It all seems bafflingly self-centered and short-sighted to me.

Finally, Eli at Fire Dog Lake wants to see the exceptions taken out of Sen. James Webb (D-VA)'s new bill restricting Pres. Bush's authority to go to war with Iran: "If Webb and Clinton have any sense they'll take the exceptions out of the bill, in which case I can wholeheartedly support it, even though it's more symbolic than anything else. ... It would probably go down in flames, but at least the Republicans and Bush Dogs would be forced to declare their undying love for war."

CLINTON II: Sounds Like A Great Place To Meet Single Women

The Huffington Post's Mayhill Fowler reports from a Barack Obama rally held just before Hillary Clinton's 9/30 Oakland, CA, rally:

Comparing the two block parties isn't quite fair, since the Obama event is largely in-house and doesn't feature the man himself. But I can't help it. The differences are too tempting. For Hillary, white middle class womanhood is out in force. Club 44 women and WASP-looking blonde college students organize the growing throng. Women in sensible shoes, carrying good leather purses, with short topcoats folded over their arms, stream past me to the end of the line, two blocks down Broadway. ... The carnival atmosphere is more pronounced than at Party Obama. The prospect of Hillary has attracted a juggler, a man on a tricycle in pirate costume, a chubby guy in dirty jeans and a Dr. Seuss hat trying to sell his audience on the Church of Reality, illegal merchandise vendors, and a Whiffenpoof-like singing group for Lyndon LaRouche.

DODD: The Only Non-Obama Candidate Left In The Kos Primary

Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat links to a David Yepsenarticle titled '1st-Tier Dems Timidity On Iraq May Create Opening' and comments: "Chris Dodd's campaign is based on one major issue - that the leadership we will want in our next President is demonstrated by the leadership a candidate shows now on the major issues of the day. The biggest issue is, of course, Iraq, and Chris Dodd is fighting to insure a Democratic Congress does not fund the Iraq War without a date certain for ending the war. This fight is attracting notice in Iowa."

EDWARDS: Dangerous ... And Not In A Good Way

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas links dKos legal expert Adam B's analysis on the implications of John Edwards decision to accept public money and comments: "This is dramatic and worse than I ever imagined. When talking to the Edwards campaign, they stressed the state limits, and how so few things applied to it (mostly advertising, and not even the full cost, at that). They neglected to tell me the far more important overall spending cap -- the $50 million figure. And that's what makes his nomination so dangerous. ... No matter how much the Edwards campaign argues that this is a decision based on principle, it's not."

OBAMA: He Knows What You Did Five Summers Ago

Barack Obama's 10/2 speech attacking Senators for the '02 AUMF vote was widely appreciated among the netroots. Reactions include:

• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "I really, truly, and deeply despise the claim from some Democrats, including Kerry in 2004 and Clinton more recently, that the vote back in 2002 wasn't about going to war with Iraq. To argue that this vote was not about authorizing the war is to leave the reality-based community on Iraq. Period. Obama is absolutely right on this one.
• Atrios: "The Iraq war came about in large part because of a complete failure of our elite Village institutions. Bygones, they say."
• Jack and Jill Politics' rikyrah: "Whether or not you agree, he's finally bringing his 'A' game."
• Matthew Yglesias: "To try to use my decoder ring for a minute here ... He's saying that simply returning to the pre-Bush policies aren't going to resolve our problems with Iran, but that we need the sort of newer policies that he and his team of people -- people who had the courage and judgment to make the right call on Iraq, when the conventional wisdom and political pressure went the other way -- are prepared to implement."
• Andrew Sullivan: "This is more like it. The war is his issue; and it is his ace against Clinton."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "And finally, is the inherent conflict in calling these "Turn The Page On Iraq Rallies." In the same breath, the Obama campaign is asking us to "turn the page," to move on from the past and look to the future while at the same time urging us to look back five years to a moment that they believe should serve as the principle rationale for his candidacy."

SPITZER: Doing It For The Children

NY Gov. Elliot Spitzer blogs at Daily Kos and The Huffington Post: "Why I'm Suing the Bush Administration ... the Bush Administration is still refusing to let New York and other states across the country expand their State Children's Health Insurance Programs (SCHIP). The President is refusing to back down from destructive new rules his Administration has imposed - the sole purpose of which are to curb bi-partisan state efforts to insure more of our nation's children."

GOP FIELD: Well At Least They Can All Agree Bush Spent Like A Drunken Sailor

The Corner's Larry Kudlow links to two Wall Street Journal 10/2 items on the state of the GOP and blogs: "On page one we have "GOP Is Losing Grip on Core Business Vote." This all goes back to the lack of budget discipline in the last Republican Congress. ... Meanwhile, Rich Nadler's WSJ op-ed explains why a deportation, criminalization, and "enforcement first" policy is a huge electoral loser for the GOP. I mentioned this last week. Why can't the message on immigration be a balanced one? ... Republicans losing their grip on the business vote? This is very pessimistic stuff. Sure, these problems can be turned around - all of this is salvageable. But the GOP needs to make the case."

Right Wing News responds: "'Why can't the message on immigration be a balanced one?' ... Why? Because it has been proven without a shadow of a doubt that if you pass security measures and an amnesty at the same time, you get the amnesty, but you don't get the security. That's because the Chamber of Commerce crowd, which includes guys like Larry Kudlow, methodically work to kill any and all security measures that may cut into the supply of cheap labor for American business."

GIULIANI: Why The Left Is Only Googlebombing Rudy

Open Left's Chris Bowers looks at polling from NH, CT, and MA and blogs: "If you want to know why I don't buy the notion ... that Rudy Giuliani isn't a threat in the general election, polling in the northeast is one of the major reasons why. If we find ourselves in a serious fight over New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, and a much closer than expected fight in Massachusetts, then the electoral math becomes extremely complicated. And just imagine Giuliani bombarding those northeast states with ads in the spring and summer while our nominee does not have the ability to fight back and is getting smeared by the Republican Noise Machine. That is a total freaking disaster in a year that is supposed to be so favorable to Democrats."

Bowers was significantly less impressed with Team Giuliani's claims he could win up to 520 electoral votes. Conservatives weren'tterriblyimpressed either. NRO's Jim Geraghty blogs: "But beyond that, is the real news in the Giuliani campaign red-blue-and-purple state map that they think Ohio, Missouri, Iowa, Colorado, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and Louisiana would be "purple" and thus competitive in a head-to-head matchup with Hillary Clinton? That's 56 of Bush's 286 electoral votes that Team Rudy admits Hillary would have a shot at. One other thought - all of the states above are purple, but Arkansas stays red?"

GIULIANI II: How Rudy Finesses On Life And Immigration

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein links to Rep. Peter Sessions (R-TX) defense of Rudy Giuliani's pro-life record and comments: "There are many arguments that can be made in Giuliani's favor as a candidate, but I agree that if he's "predominately pro-life," then words have no meaning."

At The Corner, Ramesh Ponnuru blogs: "I would like to know where he stands on our policy of not giving family-planning funds to groups that promote or perform abortions overseas. It turns out Giuliani told Laura Ingraham, on her show in May, that he would "maintain" the policy. I don't know if he has ever said that he would veto attempts to weaken or abolish it, as President Bush has promised."

Fellow CorneriteYuval Levin responds: "Couldn't Giuliani help himself with social conservatives and make things simpler for everyone by committing to just upholding the status quo on social issues-abortion, embryo research, marriage, and the like? Why not say that while he's not inclined to move right he will veto efforts to move left on any of those areas, and so will keep things where they are now?"

At RCP Blog, Blake Dvorak posts video of "Joey Vento, owner of Philly's renowned "Geno's" -- the one which made all the headlines serving to only those who speak English -- talking about his guy, Rudy."

MCCAIN: Land Of A Thousand Comebacks

Captain's Quarters links to Minneapolis Star TribunepollingJohn McCain trailing Rudy Giuliani by only 5% and surmises: " The strong showing may have its roots in the endorsement of Tim Pawlenty, who signed onto the McCain campaign early and has remained adamant in his endorsement ... If he can start showing strength in Iowa, he may be back to where he was in January. His comeback does not appear to be vaporware now. If he can keep people like Pawlenty in the fold, he may still have some surprises left up his sleeve."

ROMNEY: While We Were Out Monday...

RCP Blog's John McIntyre flagged ARG results showing Mitt Romney leading Fred Thompson 26% - 10% in SC and emailed the firm to find out why their results were so out of whack with other SC polling. Dick Bennett responded: "There is always the possibility that it is the sample, but the interviewers alerted me on Wednesday night that Romney was way up in SC so I added some follow-up questions and it is tied almost exclusively to recall of Romney's TV advertising. We saw the same thing in IA and NH. ... We also know that Romney's newest ad (Change Begins With Us) is not working in IA and NH and has caused Romney to slip in those states."

THOMPSON: We Forget Where We Were, But We Were Definitely Not Watching A World Series

The Corner's Ramesh Ponnuru links to Fred Thompson's new 'Where Were You in 1994?' line of attack on his GOP rivals and comments: "Thompson can, I think, legitimately claim to have the most consistently conservative record of any of the top four candidates. But this back-to-the-revolution tactic illustrates how trying to win a primary makes candidates do things that aren't helpful in winning the general election. I know that a lot of conservatives believe that Republicans will come back if they recapture the ardor of 1994, but there is plenty of evidence that the country is not where it was back then."

AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin blogs on the theme: "First, Thompson's strength is not biography or resume. It is being the "comfort food" for conservatives hungry for a soothing figure. Sending them down memory lane is not playing to his strength and raises the "but what did he do?" comeback."

AmSpec Blog's James Antle responds: "Fred Thompson is running not just as conservative comfort food, though that is certainly part of his appeal -- he is taking advantage of conservative nostalgia for times, real and imagined, when Republicans were seen as more principled."

RedState's California Yankee is unconvinced: "Fred should be cautious here. He was part of the 1994 Republican Revolution, but his most significant Senate achievement involved the passage of the so-called campaign finance reform."

Finally, Townhall's Matt Lewis links to a Law and Order clip of Thompson and comments: "As you'll see, unlike Thompson on the stump, [New York District Attorney Arthur Branch] is neither folksy nor affable. Instead, he is confident and in command. I think the American public was expecting Arthur Branch, but got Fred Thompson, instead ... But he's an actor. He can become Branch.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Americans Still Love Cars

Responding to thoughts at TAPPED on personal vs mass transit, Atrios blogs:

Let me play a bit of a contrarian for a moment and point out that while it is true that various policies lower the price of automobile travel and make people consume more of it, ultimately the issue of roads-vs.-transit is really more of a preference issue rather than price tweaking issue. While certainly individuals respond to the choices and costs they're faced with, overall these policies exist to a great degree because that's the world people want to live in.

Or, to put it another way, lots of people like automobile-centric suburban development. Not everyone does, but lots of people do. To sell more mass transit oriented policies, one has to convince people that a world with more mass transit-suitable development is a world people want to live in. It isn't simply about building more trains and fewer roads. My guess is that people are increasingly open to moving away from the post-war American dream aesthetic, but I'm not sure of that.

LEST WE FORGET: The Hobbit Butler Revolution Is Coming

Dilbert Blog links to reports of "Australian scientists who found a new species of Hobbit-sized humans who lived about 13,000 years ago" and blogs:

I'm crossing my fingers that someday scientists will discover one of these hobbit carcasses encased in amber or whatever-the-hell would allow us to snatch some DNA and clone them. Since they aren't human, I think cloning would be legal. And although they have heads the size of grapefruits, scientists believe they were smart enough to use tools and hunt tiny elephants. That spells one thing: Hobbit butlers.

I want to be able to order a hobbit butler from a magazine and have it delivered in a box with air holes. My hobbit butler would always wear a tiny tuxedo, mostly for the cuteness. I'd call him Max, because of the irony factor, since he would be so tiny.

Posted by Conn Carroll at October 3, 2007 12:33 PM