4/15: Somebody's Watching Me...

As we noted yesterday, the conservative blogosphere is in an uproar over the leaked DHS document warning law enforcement officials about a rise in "rightwing extremist activity." Many righty bloggers believe that the document's description of "right-wing extremism" is so broad that it could apply to any American with conservative views. One blogger complains: "I took the time to read this [document] and what it boils down to is trying to say anyone who opposes [Barack] Obama, like they did with [Bill] Clinton in the 1990's, is a domestic terrorist."

Liberal bloggers are pushing back by arguing that (a.) the DHS is right to keep on an eye on right-wing extremists, and (b.) conservative bloggers are hypocritical to complain about DHS policies when they supported George W. Bush's expanded use of domestic surveillance. Meanwhile, it's worth noting that many lefty bloggers have been arguing that the rhetoric of many conservatives is beginning to resemble that of right-wing extremists. As examples, these bloggers cite Glenn Beck's rhetoric about secession and TX Gov. Rick Perry's rhetoric about the "oppressive" federal government.

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers (Malkin, Reynolds, Hinderaker, Carroll, Hanlon) are excited about today's "tea party" protests, which many of them are attending. Liberal bloggers (Waldman, Hamsher, Smith) continue to argue that there is nothing "grassroots" about these protests.
• Liberal bloggers (Klein, Benen) were generally impressed by Obama's speech at Georgetown Univ., but some (Bowers, Dayen, Yglesias) were not persuaded by Obama's explanation of why his admin. has resisted temporarily nationalizing insolvent banks.
• Liberal bloggers (Yglesias, Greenwald, hilzoy, Dayen) are pleased that Spanish prosectors will reportedly seek criminal charges against ex-AG Alberto Gonzales and five other Bush officials for sanctioning torture at Guantánamo Bay. However, lefty bloggers believe that the Obama admin. should conduct its own torture investigations instead of "let[ting] Spain do our dirty work."
• Conservative bloggers (Erickson, Hillyer) are unhappy that the NRSC will support Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) in his upcoming primary contest against ex-Rep. Pat Toomey (R-PA).

DHS: Who You Callin' Extremist?

Righty bloggers view the leaked DHS document as evidence that Obama's DHS is targeting conservatives:

• Michelle Malkin: "In the eyes of Obama's DHS, we are all 'haters' now."
• Townhall's Dwayne Horner: "I took the time to read this [document] and what it boils down to is trying to say anyone who opposes Obama, like they did with Clinton in the 1990's, is a domestic terrorist. [...] So now if you want to oppose the President and work to get him out of office in four years, the Department of Homeland Security will have a file on you much like the KGB did in the Soviet Union. I can only imagine what mine says there in the O-GB Bureau?"
• RedState's hogan: "In a blatant propaganda effort designed to characterize conservatives as racist, anti-American, dangerous extremists, the Obama Administration is attacking many law abiding citizens -- from veterans and pro-lifers to anyone who dares question the wisdom of Washington. For the many Americans increasingly skeptical of an out-of-control federal government that is more interested in international popularity than preservation of liberty -- [this document] is an unfair characterization and is without question a naked, political effort to marginalize those who would question the wisdom of those in Washington."
• NRO's Mark Krikorian: "[T]his is an unmistakable step toward not just delegitimizing dissent but actually criminalizing it, and Americans of whatever party need to push back, hard. [...] I wasn't going to go to a Tea Party event tomorrow because I'm not the protesting type. But I sure am now [...]"
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Millions of Americans -- not just 'rightwing extremists' -- are concerned about the administration's positions on immigration and many other issues. [...] It's hard to avoid the conclusion that this Homeland Security report is politically motivated, and reflects the authors' political prejudices more than an objective evaluation of a significant terrorist threat."
• NRO's Jonah Goldberg: "[Some of my] readers insist the report is focused solely on violent groups, and they're probably right that this is the authors' intent. But that isn't how it reads necessarily. Indeed, it goes out of its way to note that many of these groups haven't done anything violent. The concern is that because they are right-wing they might be violent as if there is causation between being right-wing and being violent. Again, I have no doubt that there are plenty of groups that are right-wing that deserve scrutiny from law enforcement. But this document reads like it is written to lend credence to a political argument more than it should."

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt thinks the DHS should be spending its time and resources worrying about Islamic terrorists, not right-wing extremists: "There are indeed right wing extremists in the U.S., a few of whom are dangerous. They are nowhere near as numerous or as dangerous as the jihadists here and around the globe. When Islamist terrorists strike at Americans or American interests here or abroad, it will be a fair question why DHS was allowed to waste its time and resources on such dribble."

On the other hand, Little Green Footballs' Charles Johnson thinks conservatives are overreacting: "First, this DHS assessment was begun more than a year ago, before Barack Obama was even nominated. It has absolutely nothing to do with 'tea parties,' and it was not done at the behest of the Obama administration. Second, I'm seeing it brought up repeatedly that the report contains a reference to veterans, mentioning that some of these groups are seeking to recruit them. This is nothing more than a fact, and the report even says that only a tiny number of veterans would join such groups -- but that their talents could bring a great deal of capability to the extremists. Has everyone simply forgotten that Timothy McVeigh was a veteran? The DHS report is not intended to target anyone but the most extreme elements of the far right, and it's depressing to see so many bloggers jumping to totally unwarranted conclusions."

DHS II: Remember Timothy McVeigh?

Liberal bloggers are arguing that the DHS is right to keep an eye on right-wing extremists:

• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "[T]his seems like an eminently reasonable thing to be doing. If you don't believe that, you need to see Dave Weigel's reporting from the machine gun show this militia stuff and Dave Neiwert's stuff."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "Now, I'm sympathetic to concerns about 'big government' monitoring law-abiding Americans, and was offended when some law-enforcement agencies started monitoring peace groups who protested the Bush administration's policies in Iraq. There is, in other words, room for abuse here. But let's recognize this for what it is. If the available evidence is accurate, the law-enforcement efforts aren't about tapping Bill O'Reilly's phone; it's about monitoring the organizing efforts of right-wing militias who are bragging about stockpiling weapons and ammunition."
• TAPPED's Michelle Goldberg: "We've all read the stories about weapons stockpiling by various racists, survivalists and paranoids. So, it's heartening that the DHS is taking this stuff seriously. Despite conservatives' tough talk on terrorism, the truth is that the most violent domestic terrorism has in recent decades been a product of the right, from abortion clinic bombings to Oklahoma City."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "For the life of me, I can not imagine why any conservative would read that nothing burger of a DHS report that talks about pretty commonly known stuff (have these people whining about the report never been to the SPLC or ADL website, for goodness sakes?), look at it and say to themselves 'When they are talking about dangerous right-wing extremists, they are talking about me!' Too absurd for words. Unless, of course ... In other news, Glenn Beck rambled on about secession again today while the Texas legislature worked on a bill regarding their sovereignty. I'm sure you all remember that the right-wing extremist who just killed three cops in Pittsburgh was very concerned about those issues. Just a coincidence, of course."
• Firedoglake's Blue Texan: "Memo to wingnuts: if you don't want to look like a bunch of crazy right-wing extremists, it's probably best not to criticize the federal government for keeping an eye on crazy right-wing extremists."

DHS III: Now Republicans Are Worried About Government Surveillance?

Liberal bloggers are also arguing that conservative bloggers are hypocritical to complain about the DHS document when they supported the Bush admin.'s domestic surveillance policies:

• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "When you cheer on a Surveillance State, you have no grounds to complain when it turns its eyes on you. If you create a massive and wildly empowered domestic surveillance apparatus, it's going to monitor and investigate domestic political activity. That's its nature. [...] This is all as laughable as it is predictable. Just a couple months out of power and they have suddenly re-discovered their fear of the Federal Government and their belief in the need to limit its powers."
• Yglesias: "I think it'd be great if some non-insane conservatives were to be a bit bothered by this [document]. Legitimate concerns about security really can serve as a cover for abuses or misconduct. This was the problem with the surveillance organized by the Bush administration, and it's a very real problem even with Barack Obama in the White House. As long as Bush was president, folks on the right seemed curiously blasé about this whole thing."
• Benen: "What's especially interesting today is the response from conservative bloggers -- the ones who used to argue the government should have practically unlimited surveillance powers to prevent possible terrorism on U.S. soil -- who are outraged by DHS's efforts."
• TAPPED's Adam Serwer: "I don't think there's anything wrong with skepticism about what the government does with its authority, in fact I encourage it. But [Michelle] Malkin and her ideological comrades have been arguing for years that such skepticism is a form of treason. Now of course, dissent is patriotic, and the government keeping tabs on non-violent, if enthusiastic, dissenters is a form of persecution. If only they had felt that way eight years ago, instead of mocking those who fight to protect all of our civil liberties -- even theirs."

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan makes a similar point to conservative bloggers criticizing the DHS document: "Glad to have you back on the side of liberty. One small question, though: Where the fuck have you been these past seven years?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Americans And Taxes

Lately bloggers have been buzzing about the new Gallup poll indicating that 48% of Americans believe that the amount of federal income taxes they pay is "about right," while 46% say it's "too high." Mother Jones' Kevin Drum writes:

"Consider this: about 40-50% of Americans pay no federal income tax at all.* That's zero dollars. I think we can safely assume that these are the people who think their taxes are about right. What this means, then, is that virtually every American who pays any income tax at all thinks they're paying too much. There are various reasons why this might be so (a sense of unfairness regardless of amount paid, a fuzzy sense of how much they're paying in the first place, simple bloody-mindedness, etc.) but overall it's not exactly a testament to our collective willingness to fund the machinery of state.

*Of course, all of them pay other taxes. There's more to life than just the income tax. But this question was strictly about federal income tax, and it demonstrates that nearly everyone with a nonzero 1040 payment thinks they're paying too much."

LEST WE FORGET: Exactly.

From Overheard in the Office:

Director: How do you spell "dumb"? "D-u-m" or "d-u-m-e"?
Account executive: It's "d-u-m-b."
Director: What?
Account executive: "D-u-m-b." B, b, b...like "boy."
Director: What about boys?