« June 2005 | Main | August 2005 »
July 31, 2005BillBlast: What Lame Duck?
After a string of recent legislative victories for the president, bloggers of all stripes are agreeing on one point: George W. Bush is no lame duck -- at least not yet.
Captain's Quarters provides a nice recap of Bush's successes: "[F]or the first time since Bush's election, Congress finally passed an energy bill. It passed a highway bill that took months of wrangling. The Senate extended key provisions of the PATRIOT Act. It also approved protections from class-action lawsuits against gun manufacturers, who looked to be the next target for trial attorneys after having picked the tobacco industry clean. Congress sent CAFTA, a key part of our Latin American strategy to boost economies and relieve economic pressure forcing migration, to the White House over one of the toughest coordinated efforts yet seen on legislation during the Bush term. And Bush won all of these legislative victories while having the lowest approval ratings of his presidency."
The analysis from the liberal AMERICAblog: "For a lame duck, Bush sure has been quacking a lot."
Libertyblog gives Bush credit for victories on CAFTA, the energy legislation and liability for gun manufacturers, but he said lawmakers alone deserve credit for the highway bill. "I can’t give Bush any credit for getting a highway bill passed. Highway bills are the crack cocaine of federal legislation. Stopping one would be an accomplishment."
And BushTracker.net criticized "the nasty liberal press" for not paying enough attention to Bush's legislative prowess and noted how the string of successes could benefit Bush. "[T]hey've pushed ugly issues like Rovegate (soon to be forgotten, apparently) and the spiraling violence in Iraq onto the backburner. The longer those issues stay there, the more President Bush will have to brag about."
Posted by at 02:00 PM | Comments (1)
 |
Judge Richard Posner, one of the authors of The Becker-Posner Blog on my blogroll, wrote a column for The New York Times that addresses the role of bloggers in our new media world. Here are my favorite snippets from the piece:
-- Thirty years ago there was no Internet, therefore no Web, hence no online newspapers and magazines, no blogs. The public's consumption of news and opinion used to be like sucking on a straw; now it's like being sprayed by a fire hose.
-- Journalists accuse bloggers of having lowered standards. But their real concern is less high-minded - it is the threat that bloggers, who are mostly amateurs, pose to professional journalists and their principal employers, the conventional news media.
-- [T]he blogosphere is a collective enterprise -- not 12 million separate enterprises but one enterprise with 12 million reporters, feature writers and editorialists, yet with almost no costs. It's as if the Associated Press or Reuters had millions of reporters, many of them experts, all working with no salary for free newspapers that carried no advertising.
-- Some critics worry that "unfiltered" media like blogs exacerbate social tensions by handing a powerful electronic platform to extremists at no charge. Bad people find one another in cyberspace and so gain confidence in their crazy ideas. ... But probably there is little harm and some good in unfiltered media. They enable unorthodox views to get a hearing. They get 12 million people to write rather than just stare passively at a screen. In an age of specialization and professionalism, they give amateurs a platform. They allow people to blow off steam who might otherwise adopt more dangerous forms of self-expression.
The Club for Growth dubs the essay a "must read." BuzzMachine, Instapundit, PrawfsBlawg and other bloggers are discussing Posner's insights.
I'll add this thought: People can and will be better informed, and more engaged online, as long as public officials like Judge Posner are blogging and setting the example for others to do the same.
Posted by at 01:30 PM | Comments (0)
|
Dirty Tricks In The Blogosphere?
The campaign blogging is getting nasty in the special election to fill Ohio's 2nd District House seat.
Joe Braun, the campaign manager for Republican Jean Schmidt, threatened a libel suit against the Democratic blog Swing State Project for spreading rumors about Braun. And Eric Minamyer, a challenger to Schmidt in the GOP special primary and an Iraqi war veteran, corrected on his blog "an earlier incorrect opinion" about the Iraqi combat service of Democratic candidate Paul Hackett.
Minamyer's comments about a fellow soldier stirred even more controversy than they might have otherwise because another blog, Ohio 2nd, has characterized Minamyer as a Schmidt adviser. Minamyer refuted the charge in a comment posted at Ohio 2nd and on his blog, and now he has quit blogging until the increasingly bitter, and close, contest ends Tuesday.
"The most recent onslaught of personal attacks against me was not something I enjoyed, but I was willing to take it," Minamyer wrote. "It occurs to me now, though, that some will unfairly use my opinions and statements against Jean Schmidt."
All that trouble might tend to sour a guy like Braun on the blogosphere. But he appears to appreciate the fact that when it comes to bloggers, you have to take the bad with the good. "When they present a fair discussion of the issues," he said in a telephone interview, "I think it's great. When they jump on rumor and innuendo ... I think it's a distraction" from important policy issues.
Braun also has seen the wisdom of political fundraising in the blogosphere -- by watching Hackett raise nearly $350,000 in the past several days, according to figures on the ActBlue fundraising site late this afternoon. "All the money that both candidates have raised makes a difference," Braun said, and Schmidt certainly will consider ways to tap potential contributors through the blogosphere in the future, if given the chance.
Posted by at 04:25 PM | Comments (1)
|
Former Vice President Al Gore lost the presidential race in 2000 and decided not to run again in 2004, but he still has a following, albeit a small one for now, in the blogosphere.
Ezra Klein floated the idea of a Gore political resurrection in May, and this week other bloggers began to think aloud about the prospect. Klein welcomed Duncan Black of Eschaton, Bull Moose Marshall Wittman and TAPPED's Matthew Yglesias to the pro-Gore fan club.
But Wittman lumped Gore into the same political category of a former president whose company Gore might rather not keep. "Nixon waited eight years for his comeback," Wittman wrote. "After two terms of Bush, might Gore think his time has come?"
Posted by at 12:44 PM | Comments (1)
|
Former U.S. Rep. Chris Bell is running for governor of Texas. He made the announcement on his campaign blog and his diary at MyDD.
WILLisms took a harshly critical look at the then-potential Democratic candidate back in May, reminding readers that while Bell led an ethics charge against fellow Texan Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, Bell himself was scolded (see here and here) by the House ethics committee for his behavior in filing the complaint.
Other blogs commenting on the race include The Blue State, Lone Star Times and Off the Kuff.
Posted by at 12:30 PM | Comments (0)
|
The Club for Growth is urging President Bush to stick to his threat to veto the highway bill, which the House passed today and the Senate is expected to clear before leaving town for its August recess.
The conservative advocacy group's blog reminds Bush of the many times the White House has threatened a veto if the long-stalled legislation exceeded the $284 billion spending cap Bush proposed. The measure also has been criticized for including money for thousands of "pork" projects directed to particular states or congressional districts.
But a brand-new blog called Politically Connect defended the measure: "Why can't more congressional bills be so productive? Sure, it's taken years and years, but with this new funding, Detroit and other Rust Belt cities may finally get the road refurbishments they so desperately require."
Posted by at 12:24 PM | Comments (0)
|
The Best Way To Get A Blogger Exemption
Bloggers have been fighting hard to make sure the FEC doesn't bring them under the umbrella of federal campaign-finance law. Now some of them, with tongues planted firmly in their cheeks, have devised a strategy that just might work: Get one of their own on the FEC.
Mike Krempasky at RedState.org, who testified before the election agency earlier this summer, tossed that trial balloon into the blogosphere yesterday after word spread that President Bush could make recess appointments to the FEC. His pick: Allison Hayward, an attorney who once worked for Federal Election Commissioner Brad Smith and who now blogs at Skeptic's Eye.
"She's qualified, she's sharp, and she wouldn't have the same learning curve that another short-term appointment would neccesitate," Krempasky wrote. "You heard it here first: DraftAllison!" An added bonus, to his mind: "That'd sure scare the bejeebus out of the reformers."
Instapundit snickered at the thought, and Mark Tapscott of Tapscott's Copy Desk offered this more serious plug:
"Here's why Krempasky's idea makes such good sense: Recess appointments are for one year. Hayward already knows the FEC's processes, people and issues and so could hit the ground running, thus enabling the panel to continue its work smoothly while the White House decides what to do about a permanent appointee. Being as sharp as she is, Hayward might well impress Bush so much that he makes her his permanent appointee."
Hayward addressed the prospects of such an appointment on her blog. "While quite flattering," she wrote, "it is more likely I might be recruited as the starting quarterback for the Pittsburgh Steelers or swim the English Channel."
UPDATE: In a follow-up e-mail, Hayward said she would "be happy to serve my president in any capacity he deems appropriate."
But what about those pending FEC rules? Would she, as a blogger and a member of the FEC, be covered? Here's her answer: "Sure, the Internet rules would apply to anything I'd do online. However, in truth I would probably not blog anymore if I took a position (any position) in government. I think I'd be too busy, and in some contexts it could raise issues about bias and recusal."
Maybe that's why not many people in government are blogging yet.
Posted by at 04:52 PM | Comments (0)
|
Former astronaut and Sen. John Glenn today endorsed the bid by fellow Ohio Democrat Paul Hackett to win an open congressional seat, and he did it in a novel way. He sent the endorsement to a blog.
Glenn sent a "Dear Editor" letter to Ohio 2nd, a self-proclaimed progressive blog that has been covering the 2nd District race between Hackett and Republican Jean Schmidt. The seat was left vacant when GOP Rep. Rob Portman became U.S. trade representative.
Glenn urged people who supported him in the past to volunteer for Hackett and help Ohio make history on Tuesday by electing him. Hackett would be the first Iraq war veteran sent to Congress.
"Paul didn't just volunteer to go to Iraq," Glenn wrote. "When he got there, he volunteered again. Only two months into his tour of duty in Iraq, Paul volunteered to go to Fallujah. Extremists and insurgents had seized the city and Paul knew they had to be stopped. Now Paul is volunteering for another tour of duty, serving Ohio in Congress."
Posted by at 04:48 PM | Comments (0)
|
The CAFTA chatter in the blogosphere soared after the House's narrow and procedurally rigged vote early this morning to endorse the Central America Free Trade Agreement. The 217-215 vote for passage came after Republican leaders held the 15-minute vote open for about 45 minutes to secure enough votes.
Capital veterans know that neither close tallies nor extended votes and last-minute deal-making are unprecedented on trade bills these days. The 215-214 House vote in December 2001 to grant President Bush trade-negotiating authority, for instance, was so nerve-wracking that it moved Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas to tears in a post-vote press conference.
But blogs were an unknown back then, so the CAFTA power play, condemned on her blog by Rep. Louise Slaughter, was especially fascinating to bloggers who watched it unfold on television.
Power Line called the vote "a C-Span cliffhanger," and MyDD agreed in this post just before the vote: "The debate has been going on for hours and has been one of the most intense things I've ever seen on C-SPAN. ... While the vote is only supposed to be held open for 15 minutes, Tom DeLay has vowed to keep the voting [open] all night if need be, until the bill passes."
The legislation aims to foster freer trade among the United States, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua. And in the hours since the vote, bloggers have been trying to decipher what it all means, both economically and politically.
Not surprisingly, the blogosphere is as divided as Congress on the merits of the pact.
The Political Forecast characterized the vote as "a pretty big slap in the face thanks to American corporatists and their significant Washington Republican supporters." But Elephant in Exile, who bills himself as a former chief of staff to a GOP congressman, said the deal is a plus for many reasons, the chief one being that it "unites the economic interests of the whole of North and Central America."
On the political front, Will Franklin of WILLisms compared this week's largely partisan vote with the less partisan roll call for the North American Free Trade agreement 12 years earlier. He concluded that Democrats, including those in the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, are "running from trade."
While the Republican National Committee agreed, the conservative blog RedState.org instead lauded the "few brave Democrats" who did vote for the pact.
Democratic blogger David Sirota thinks more Democrats should run from the kind of trade deals Republicans are crafting. He blasted the 15 House Democrats who voted for the deal as "sellouts" who "undermined their party and America's middle class."
When Democrats on Capitol Hill apparently responded with hostility to Sirota's charge, he fired yet another round of invective. "The whining and crying is the perfect image of pathetic thumb-sucking weakness that has hurt Democrats throughout the heartland," he wrote.
And Swing State Project cited the CAFTA vote as the latest evidence that the DLC is "worthless."
Ezra Klein, meanwhile, sees the vote as a political opportunity for the 2006 election. "We should hang this around their necks in '06," he wrote. "See which districts have been hit the worst by outsourcing and pound them with flyers, leaflets and ads about their representatives' gutless votes to undermine American workers with Central American sweatshops."
The blog of The Club for Growth also posted a statement from its president, Pat Toomey, a former House Republican from Pennsylvania.
Posted by at 01:25 PM | Comments (2)
|
After The AFL-CIO Split
You might think that the splintering of the AFL-CIO is cause for rejoicing in the business world, but the National Association of Manufacturers isn't gloating about labor's woes.
NAM Senior Vice President of Communications Pat Cleary addresses the topic at the Manufacturers' Blog, ultimately concluding that the split means "nothing" for relations between labor and manufacturing companies. "It will take a while for the dissidents to get their sea legs and get off and rolling, but we harbor no ill will toward them, welcome them to the fray, will work with them where we can ... and will disagree where we must."
In an earlier post, Cleary offered his take on why organized labor is in the doldrums. The short version: The labor movement is too political and too determined to fight a polarized war against management.
The Industrial Workers of the World, meanwhile, seized on the AFL-CIO news to urge rank-and-file workers to abandon "the shipwreck known as business unionism" and gravitate instead toward something better. Among other ideas, the group's suggestions include industrial unions built from the grassroots and "shop committees" that can act in workers' interests outside collective-bargaining agreements.
"We need a new international labor movement, one that is based on workers' self-organization and on the recognition of the inevitable conflict between labor and capital."
The contributors at TPMCafe's House of Labor also are discussing the ramifications of the AFL-CIO split at length. Nathan Newman falls into the "Not Such A Big Deal" camp; Bill Fletcher counters that Big Labor's divorce is a big deal; and Jo-Ann Mort said her view falls somewhere between those extremes.
Posted by at 12:22 PM | Comments (0)
|
The national energy bill moving through Congress is generating plenty of criticism from bloggers. Political strategist Dan Carol for one sees the inertia behind the current legislation as a bad thing for America.
While rising gas prices, an insatiable global appetite for oil and Chinese interest in buying oil companies point to the need for good energy legislation, he wrote at The Huffington Post, "this bill falls far, far short of the mark."
His proposition: "a crash program of investment and innovation rather than a congressional compromise bill which is essentially a recycled recipe of corporate giveaways to traditional energy producers, peppered in parts with lukewarm, ineffectual attempts to address some of our most pressing issues."
Carol argued that a program focused on overhauling the energy landscape, including a move toward cleaner fuels, would create millions of jobs and trillions of dollars in economic activity. And while he acknowledged that such a move is not going to happen now despite broad public support, he urged more action in 2006.
Common Sense and Comity dismissed the current legislation as "same ole, same ole. An energy policy that does nothing to reduce demand." The California Energy Blog was equally critical of the legislation.
And Ezra Klein issued took this sarcastic jab: "Save for substantive modernization of our electricity grid, an increase in [corporate average fuel economy] standards, an actual stance on global warming, a coherent framework for reducing our oil consumption, a serious investment in natural gas, an actual interest in new technologies for alternative sources, and really anything that'd have any sort of worthwhile impact on our energy situation at all, this bill has just what we need. Subsidies. Giveaways. Handouts. Protection. Guidelines. Bureaucracy. All sprinkled with liberal amounts of Corporate Love."
Warm Planet also noted recent action on the bill, and earlier this month the New Rules Project offered its analysis of key votes on the measure.
Posted by at 12:12 PM | Comments (1)
|
Brent Tantillo, a blogger at Democracy Project, praised the House for backing language designed "to promote freedom in non-democratic regimes."
He has blogged about the subject two other times since March (see here and here), when the ADVANCE Democracy Act was introduced in Congress, and last week the House included the language of that bill in a broader measure to fund foreign aid programs in fiscal 2006.
Among other things, the legislation would: establish a State Department office focused on helping fledgling democratic movements in countries run by dictators; require State to issue an annual democracy report that characterizes countries as "democratic," "partly democratic" or "non-democratic;" and translate into other languages and post online the reports on human rights and democracy in non-democratic countries.
"As we know anti-Americanism is rampant across the world, but it is misinformation and half-truths that drive these beliefs," Tantillo wrote. "Onward to the Senate!"
Posted by at 12:06 PM | Comments (0)
|
Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Specter riled right-leaning bloggers so much last year with his comments about judicial nominations that they rallied unsuccessfully against his bid to become Senate Judiciary Committee chairman. The outcry even led to the launch of the blogs NotSpecter.com and StopSpecterNow.com, neither of which is active now.
With that animosity as a backdrop, it was only a matter of time before the conservative blogosphere cast a critical eye toward the senator whose committee will grill Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. And Specter's characterization of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 high court ruling on abortion rights, as a "superprecedent" was just the ammunition those bloggers needed.
Specter introduced the concept into the confirmation process in a Sunday column published by The New York Times. By his definition, a superprecedent is a key legal ruling later affirmed in other cases.
Bloggers responded with a collective shoulder shrug, and the interjection "Huh?" ricocheted throughout the echo chamber that is the blogosphere. While Specter attributed the term to "some legal scholars," legal experts were the first to voice utter confusion at Specter's message.
Chicago-based lawyer Pejman Yousefzadeh, a contributor at RedState.org, said the senator "is a rather strange legal thinker. His modus operandi is to apply various legal concepts in totally inapposite and bizarre fashion and then to sit back and smile smugly, expecting the rest of the populace to gape in awe at his jurisprudential genius."
Yousefzadeh then added: "What in the name of heaven are 'superprecedents'? I've never come across the term once in my life. ... Dare we hope that there will be some further explanation of this mysterious 'superprecedents' concept? Dare we hope that we will find -- contrary to every instinct in our jurisprudential bones -- that Senator Specter's comment has some relevance and is blessed with some semblance of accuracy?
Texas lawyer William Dyer echoed that thinking at BeldarBlog and even went so far as to search the Internet for uses of "superprecedents" and its variations. The search was inconclusive. Walter Olson at PointofLaw titled his post on the topic, "It's absurd ... it's inane ... it's SuperPrecedent!"
Blogger Ann Althouse also offered this not-so-subtle reminder about bloggers to Specter: "So what's worse: Specter making up a term and claiming 'legal scholars' use it? Or Specter being dumb enough not to realize there's a such thing as computer research and that scores of lawyers and law profs are monitoring the nomination process and blogging about it?"
UPDATE: It looks like Specter's reference to superprecedents has some foundation in 2000 appeals-court ruling on abortion. The decision used the phrase "super-stare decisis," but the gist is the same.
But RedState's Yousefzadeh said the concept still is of little value. "Specter did not make the reference up out of whole cloth, but from his commentary, one would think that there is some kind of 'super-stare decisis' school of thought out there equivalent to strict constructionism, originalism, or even (stars help us) 'the living Constitution,'" he wrote in a follow-up post. "There is not. Not even close. At best, it is a fringe school of thought with paltry references in the legal literature."
Posted by at 11:55 AM | Comments (0)
|
Celebrating Free Speech On The Internet
The Electronic Frontier Foundation is celebrating its 15th anniversary by inviting online activists to participate in a blog-a-thon. The two-week event, extended because of the interest, began July 19 (also designated Blogosphere Day by some Democratic fundraisers), and it runs until Aug. 2.
EFF's Web site announced the blog-a-thon by saying, "We want to hear about your 'click moment' -- the very first step you to took to stand up for your digital rights -- whether it was blogging about an issue you care about, participating in a demonstration, writing your representatives, or getting involved with EFF."
The EFF blog Deep Links is tracking the activity, and at the end of the contest, judges will recognize the "most inspirational," "most humorous" and "best overall" posts. The judges are bloggers Susan Crawford, Mike Godwin, Xeni Jardin of Boing Boing, J.D. Lasica and Ernest Miller.
Posted by at 08:30 PM | Comments (0)
|
"Tancredo" recently soared to near the top of the search terms at Technorati.com, a search engine for blogs. At one point July 19, the name ranked third, just one notch below "Karl Rove" and one above "Harry Potter," for top searches in the hour.
The reason: Rep. Tom Tancredo suggested that a terrorist nuclear attack in the United States could prompt a retaliatory bombing on Mecca or other Islamic holy sites. Bloggers of all stripes have gone ballistic on Tancredo ever since, launching a rapid series of verbal missiles at the Colorado Republican, and conservatives are among his harshest critics.
Hugh Hewitt is among the bloggers on the front lines (see posts here and here), and he reminded readers of the recent outrage over comments by Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. "Every media voice that was raised against Dick Durbin's asinine comparison of Gitmo practices to those of Nazis and Pol Pot should speak with equal pointedness against Tancredo's speculation."
The conservative Captain's Quarters also roundly condemned Tancredo's suggestion. "The GOP needs to remind Tancredo of the wisdom of silence in some issues," Ed Morrissey wrote.
As with Durbin, Tancredo has defenders in the blogosphere. "We need tough talk and tough action on global terrorism, and what Tancredo said was actually mild in comparison to what Islamofascists have in mind for us," said La Shawn Barber. And Lump on a Blog wrote: "Any nuclear attack against this country by terrorists will lead to one of two conclusions: The destruction of our civilization or the destruction of theirs. Take your pick. There will be no in-between."
While Michelle Malkin said her "friend" Tancredo should retract his statement quickly (he declined to do so), she also challenged Hewitt's view that "Tancredo's words were 'the most irresponsible' opinions expressed by any American official." She linked to her own picks for that category.
Ironically, Tancredo last week blasted Chinese Major General Zhu Chenghu for threatening a nuclear attack against the United States if the United States took certain actions first. "For a senior government official to exhibit such tremendous stupidity by making such a brazen threat is hardly characteristic of a modern nation -- particularly one planning to host the Olympic Games," Tancredo said in a press release.
Tancredo is a blogger himself, but he has not yet addressed the issue at his blog. In fact, the blog has not been updated in more than three months. Now might be a good time.
UPDATE: Tancredo answered his critics over the weekend in a Denver Post column where he took credit for starting "a national dialogue" about the best way to deter terrorists. "Many critics of my statements have characterized them as 'offensive,'" he wrote, "and indeed they may have offended some. But in this battle against fundamentalist Islam, I am hardly preoccupied with political correctness, or who may or may not be offended."
The column generated even more barbs from the blogosphere. Hewitt led the charge with another broadside: "No serious politician in the country has come to Tancredo's defense, and indeed I have not seen any credible authority on war or religion endorse this foolishness. No serious Christian theologian can endorse what is obviously an immoral threat against another faith." And Instapundit Glenn Reynolds endorsed that view as a "righteous fisking."
A blogger at the Denver paper's "Bloghouse" feature also took Tancredo to task. "He lacks the ability to reflect, to moderate, to weigh the consequences of his words and his actions," wrote television commentator Dani Newsum, a former civil rights attorney in the Colorado attorney general's office. "And the admiration he's getting from other fanatics in the U.S. and elsewhere, is only fanning his delusion of mass popularity."
Tancredo still has not addressed the issue at his long-dormant blog, but visitors there have not been shy about posting their views to Tancredo's most recent entry from April. At the last check, that entry had 983 comments.
Posted by at 01:05 PM | Comments (0)
|
BillBlast: Castration For Sex Offenders?
A vote in Alabama's House has caught the attention of some bloggers. The bill, which the House passed Thursday, would mandate castration for people convicted of sex offenses against people younger the 12 and require the offenders to be monitored electronically for the rest of their lives. The state Senate earlier passed a less stringent measure.
Law professor Douglas Berman of Sentencing Law and Policy blasted the House bill and other recent legislative steps against sex offenses as overreactions. "Whether through residency restrictions or tougher sentences, many legislators are seeking to flex their 'get tough' muscles through new criminal laws targeting sex offenders. But ... the Alabama House has taken these developments to new heights."
The crackdown on sex offenders also is a hot topic at the federal level. The Justice Department on Wednesday launched its National Sex Offender Public Registry, and several blogs spread the word. Today the traffic was so heavy that the registry was unavailable on repeated attempts to access it.
Posted by at 11:27 AM | Comments (4)
|
Beltway Blogroll reported last week that RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman will be one of the participants in the new blog at GOP.com. He made his first post two days later, pointing readers to his apology on behalf of the Republican Party for a history of trying to benefit from racial polarization.
"Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization," he told the NAACP. "I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."
Well, the apology does not appear to have taken in some blogging circles, where critics are echoing the reaction of DNC Chairman Howard Dean. "When you insist on keeping the gains of your evil acts, you are not sorry," Bread and Circuses concluded. "Republican dominance in the South came as a result of racist appeals; as long as the successors to those segregationists do little or nothing to see blacks achieve social, political, and economic equality, the apology is a lie."
The Republic of T. said the apology rings hollow because several Senate Republicans recently did not endorse an apology for not doing enough to stop the lynchings of blacks in U.S. history. "Mehlman's apology is not just too little, too late. It's also an insult because they're not sorry. After all, it helped get them to where they are today -- by appealing to the very worst in human nature."
And Windy City Watch said if the GOP wants to prove its sincerity in apologizing for the "Southern strategy" to gain political power, the party should distance itself from conservative talkmeister Rush Limbaugh, who characterized Mehlman's NAACP apology as "absolutely absurd."
Not all bloggers were so critical, though. Cracker Squire praised Mehlman, and Georgia Politics Unfiltered said Democrats should consider the GOP's desire to court black voters as a warning not to take them for granted.
The Texas Whip challenged the mistrust of Mehlman. "Melhman's apology was sincere," contributor Tyler Norton wrote, "and Tyler hopes that the Republicans will hold fast to his word."
But Norton added that President Bush needs to end his five-year run of not speaking to the NAACP. "Is it any wonder that the black vote doesn't support Bush and his policies if the president won't take the time to even meet with the largest black group in the nation?"
UPDATE: Donnie Fowler, who ran unsuccessfully for Democratic Party chairman and who now is a principal at Change The Party, warns his party that Mehlman's apology could be the first hint of real competition for the votes of blacks.
"For the Democrats to dismiss these challenges as superficial is to stare defeat in the face and pretend it is not there," he wrote at The Huffington Post. "Importantly, the Republican Party does not need to win a majority of the African American vote anywhere to ruin the Democratic Party's future election chances. Drawing away only 10-20 percent more of the African American vote in key presidential battlegrounds like Pennsylvania and Michigan ... will lock out any hope of regaining the White House."
Posted by at 11:00 AM | Comments (2)
|
A Blogosphere Day Bonus For Ohio's Hackett
Beltway Blogroll reported last week that the special election in Ohio has begun to generate interest in the blogosphere.
The post reminded some online Democratic activists of their self-proclaimed holiday on July 19: Blogosphere Day, which marks a momentous blog fundraising drive in the 2004 campaign. So Democratic bloggers celebrated by urging their readers to contribute to Paul Hackett, the Democrat who is trying to nab control of Ohio's 2nd District from Republicans.
The results as of this afternoon, according to the ActBlue fundraising site: nearly $140,000 over four days.
Hackett campaign spokesman David Woodruff confirmed the number and said most of it is in contributions ranging from $5 to $50, from across the country. "And that brings a lot of pride," he said. "We'd much rather get those dollars" than money from Washington or Washington interests.
(Of course, that's not to say the campaign won't put to good use the $5,000 it received from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee on July 20 -- or another $5,000 installment from the DCCC on June 14.)
Woodruff said the Hackett campaign is now within $10,000 of what Republican candidate Jean Schmidt has raised so far. Her recent contributions include $5,000 from the Republican National Committee on June 28, as well as big-dollar donations from various PACs.
The Schmidt campaign did not return a phone call by "post time" for comment on the recent fundraising activity.
The Democratic blogs commenting on the race and the fundraising include MyDD and Swing State Project.
Posted by at 05:01 PM | Comments (1)
|
The Reaction To Judge Roberts
The selection of federal Judge John Roberts to fill a Supreme Court vacancy has generated a flurry of commentary in the blogosphere. Here are reactions from some of the folks on the blogroll to your left, starting with interesting tidbits that otherwise might escape notice:
Election Law: "[I]t does not appear to be a fair characterization to paint [Roberts] as opposed to all or part of the Voting Rights Act (or campaign finance laws for that matter). It is fair to say that he has no record in this area from which those who support campaign finance reform or a strong Voting Rights Act can take any comfort."
Government Bytes: "It is a cause for concern that Roberts might have implied he would uphold Roe v. Wade because it is the 'settled law of the land.' ... If a judge will uphold this bad decision because it is already 'settled law,' then it leaves serious question as to whether he would give too much deference to other prior cases which are clearly wrong and which erode the core freedoms of our republic."
Manufacturers' Blog: "We have impaneled a Judicial Review Committee, a 10-member committee made up of lawyers from manufacturing companies, our members. ... Beginning immediately, they will review John Roberts' record to see whether he is someone who, in our view, will interpret, not make law from the bench. If he passes muster, [he] will receive the NAM imprimatur."
Think Progress: "Though John Roberts' views on privacy and reproductive rights are still unknown ... Roberts' wife is a prominent anti-choice activist. Jane Sullivan Roberts has extensive ties to the conservative group Feminists for Life. As late as 1998, Mrs. Roberts was the group's executive vice president."
Common Cause: "[N]ow it is up to the Senate to review Judge Roberts' record to determine if he has a demonstrated commitment to the core American values of freedom, equality and fairness."
Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., at ConyersBlog: "[T]he important lesson is that we not let the Supreme Court announcement distract us from the ongoing struggle to root out corruption and deception in the White House, by continuing our examinations of Rovegate, Downing Street, and the ongoing deception in Iraq."
English First News & Notes: "Given that the moderately liberal New Republic thinks so well of Roberts, there seems to be a certain "we hate nominee (fill in the blank)" quality to the early opposition to his nomination."
Galley Slaves: "If, as smart people are saying, Roberts is a Rehnquist and not a Scalia, that puts a lot of pressure on moderate Dems who might want to pass Roberts, but who will be feeling the full weight of liberal interest groups on them."
Hit & Run: "The two main complaints about Roberts -- that he may think Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and that he may be sympathetic to those old-fashioned "judges and scholars who believe Congress is limited in the laws it may enact, leaving some issues to the states," as The New York Times puts it -- sound like good points to me."
Political Animal: "It's really very simple. If you're a Democratic senator, you don't vote for the John Roberts because he's not the kind of person you want on the Supreme Court. You use the confirmation project as it was meant to be used, as an opportunity to delve into the qualifications and values of the nominee."
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., at the DSCC blog: "Like any good judge, the nominee must approach the law with an open mind, not a narrow political agenda. And we must be confident that the nominee will meet the highest ethical standards and be free of conflicts of interest."
The Washington Note: "This was not a pugnacious move by Bush and company. And the fact that Edith Brown Clement and John Roberts were on the same roster says something about the White House's calculation of how little it can get away with right now."
Posted by at 04:30 PM | Comments (0)
|
Here are the blogs dedicated to covering and/or influencing the debate over judicial nominees, particularly the replacement for Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
-- Bush v. Choice (published by the National Abortion Rights Action League)
-- Confirm Them (published by RedState.org)
-- Confirmation Whoppers, a new blog whose aim is to "document each day's wildest, most irresponsible quotes in the Supreme Court confirmation process, whether it's from a senator or special-interest groups."
-- Daily Blog (published by The Committee for Justice)
-- The Daly Report (published by the Coalition for a Fair Judiciary)
-- LiveCurrent (published by the Los Angeles Times)
-- NominationWatch (published by the National Women's Law Center)
-- SCOTUS Wire (published by Patrick Ruffini)
-- Supreme Court Confirmation Watch (published by the Center for Individual Freedom)
-- The Supreme Court Nomination Blog (published by SCOTUSblog)
Here are other policy blogs that are following the nomination but that are not dedicated exclusively to that issue:
-- ACSBlog (published by the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy)
-- Bench Memos (published by National Review Online)
-- Judging the Future (published by Earthjustice)
-- Inside Opinions: Legal Blogs (published by Law.com)
I will be updating the lists as new blogs are created or as I hear of ones that I missed. So please send tips.
UPDATE: Rick Hasen of Election Law is covering the confirmation process with a particular focus on how a new justice could impact election law. In his article for The New Republic Online, summarized at his blog, Hasen argues that O'Connor's departure could "lead to both the deregulation of campaign financing and a serious challenge to major parts of the Voting Rights Act. Such changes would, in turn, mean radical shifts in the way elections are conducted in the United States."
UPDATE II: The Washington Post is blogging the Supreme Court battle, too. Its latest foray into the blogosphere, and arguably the newspaper's boldest blogging experiment on the policy front considering that comments are allowed, is dubbed Campaign for the Supreme Court.
UPDATE III: Just hours after President Bush announced that Judge John Roberts is his pick for the Supreme Court, TPMCafe launched its latest group blog, Supreme Court Watch. Yale University law professor Robert Gordon submitted the first post, which concludes that the very traits that make Roberts easier to confirm also "make him dangerous."
One of the other bloggers, Peter Rubin, is the founder of the American Constitution Society, whose blog also is following the Supreme Court nomination process. It is listed above.
Posted by at 11:35 AM | Comments (0)
|
BillBlast: Bloggers Share Their Legislative Views
Former meat-cutter and now-Sen. Bob Byrd, a West Virginia Democrat, has been known to take exception to this long-ago, unflattering quote from German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck: "There are two things you don't want to see being made: sausage and legislation."
But von Bismarck's take on the legislative process may explain why popular bloggers do not dedicate as much space to legislation as to sexier subjects like war and politics. Lawmaking can be an ugly business, and only those with the strongest stomachs dare watch it closely.
Some bloggers do watch it, though, and that's why I am adding another feature to the editorial mix at Beltway Blogroll. Whenever I see particular bills mentioned in the blogosphere, I will point you to those posts. Just look for the "BillBlast" kicker.
To get the coverage started, here are links to recent blog postings about bills that would:
-- Extend and broaden The USA PATRIOT Act (addressed by both Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., at ConyersBlog and by Daily Kos. Conyers' post generated more than 100 comments.
-- Renew expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act.
-- Address concerns about exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act.
-- Make it a federal crime to sell violent or sexually explicit videogames to minors.
-- Mandate a 10,000-year radiation standard for Yucca Mountain, a Nevada site intended as a national repository for spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste.
-- Make "some wonky changes" to the law on occupational safety. The National Association of Manufacturers will count lawmakers' votes on the bills as key votes.
-- And give Native Hawaiians the rights of self-government as indigenous people that American Indians now enjoy.
As always, tips about coverage that I may have missed are most welcome.
Posted by at 01:31 PM | Comments (0)
|
Death and taxes may be the only certainties in life for the average citizen, but ill-advised political references to Adolph Hitler and the Nazis also are looking more and more inevitable for members of Congress these days.
Rep. Frank LoBiondo, R-N.J., is the latest to get into trouble for making a Hitler comparison. After visiting the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, he said on a radio talk show that Muslim terrorists imprisoned at the base are worse than Hitler because Hitler "sort of had a political rationale about what he was doing."
A caller quickly challenged LoBiondo about the comment, and he apologized just as quickly on the air and again later. But bloggers could not let the slip pass without criticizing LoBiondo and his colleagues who insist on making such references.
Captain's Quarter's urged lawmakers to familiarize themselves with Godwin's Law, which holds that the longer online discussions last, the more likely they are to result in some type of Nazi or Hitler comparison. "We don't need to debate the relative merits of one form of fascism and oppression over another; they're all bad, grown-ups know it, and those who don't won't learn anything from sound bites like these," Ed Morrissey wrote.
Michelle Malkin simply posted a link to the analysis at Captain's Quarter's and put it under the heading "Dumb Republican of the Day." And Judgment Proof concluded: "Can our politicians please cut this whole Hitler comparison game out? It's really getting annoying, isn't it? Besides, the more you do it, the less effective it is. Let's use reason and logic over emotion and name-calling, please."
As those posts indicate, LoBiondo has had plenty of company, and Letters to Nowhere has a nice roundup of lawmakers who have been infected by "Hitler-itis" recently: Sens. Bob Byrd, D-W.Va.; Dick Durbin, D-Ill.; and Rick Santorum, R-Pa.; and Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y.
The History News Network also tracks such references.
Posted by at 01:06 PM | Comments (0)
|
Advocacy Ads' Newest Outlet
Advocacy is a staple of the blogosphere, and advocacy advertising on blogs is quickly becoming a popular tool for groups hoping to mobilize the online masses. That is exactly why readers of some popular blogs, most of them progressive or left-leaning, saw two ads on the Supreme Court vacancy almost as soon as Justice Sandra Day O'Connor announced her pending departure.
The National Abortion Rights Action League was behind one ad. It urged readers to "stand for freedom" and warned, "Don't let Bush's choice end yours."
Readers who clicked on the ad were redirected to a site where they could endorse a form letter or edit it to their liking before sending it to their senators. The canned text read: "We deserve to know where the nominees to the Supreme Court stand on such core mainstream values as privacy, personal freedom, and a woman's right to choose.... Please ask tough questions during the confirmation process."
The second ad was the work of Unite Our States, a political action committee launched by Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., as he explores a run for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008.
The ad pushed the idea of "a Supreme Court for all Americans" and sent readers to a site where they could sign a petition to President Bush. "Tell the president to pick a unanimous choice," the ad said, and the petition notes the 99-0 vote in 1981 to confirm O'Connor.
Unite Our States ran its ad on about a half-dozen sites, including Dem Bloggers and Taegan Goddard's Political Wire, for about a week. The NARAL ad was online for about 10 days, according to communications director David Seldin.
"We have used them before and found them to be a very efficient way to reach an audience" that cares about NARAL issues, Seldin said.
He noted that blog readers who saw the ad visited NARAL's site, donated money, became "rapid responders" to spearhead grassroots lobbying on Supreme Court vacancies, and contacted their senators. "People are definitely energized," Seldin said.
The group ran a series of blog ads during the 2004 presidential campaign, Seldin said, and it probably will make another ad buy after Bush nominates someone to replace O'Connor.
Unite Our States is newer to blog advertising but just as enthused by the prospects. "We're trying to find politically aware, politically active Democrats," said Eric Carbone, a one-time Internet entrepreneur and now the coordinator of Web development for the group. "I find the blog ads to be a great way to get people to be aware of what you're doing."
Noting that Biden is "intimately involved" in the confirmation process, Carbone also said the PAC's online activities, which include ads on major sites like the Yahoo and Google search engines, are designed "to amplify what he's doing."
Carbone served as the director of online communications for the failed 2004 presidential campaign of Democrat Wesley Clark and helped create a blogging community for the campaign. He said Unite our States also will be creating a community of bloggers, and blog ads are helping spread the word about the PAC.
"I've already had bloggers writing to me asking what they can do to help," he said.
The online ad rush after O'Connor announced her retirement highlights the role blog ads can play when news is breaking, but they are fast becoming a staple in the policy world even when issues are not at the top of the agenda.
A recent sweep of the most popular blogs revealed ads on prescription drug imports, healthcare policy, stem-cell research, the anti-terrorism law known as the USA PATRIOT Act, the Central America Free Trade Agreement, the Free Trade Area of the Americas and U.S. policy in Iraq.
The business has soared in the past year, said Blogads founder Henry Copeland, who was in Washington last week to help teach the K Street crowd new ways of lobbying. "It's far bigger now than it was even going through the election" in 2004, he said, adding that "the advocacy stuff is up tenfold even over last September."
The ad rates are posted at Blogads, and they range from $10 a week for a slot at lesser-known sites like LeftyBlogs to $5,000 for prime real estate at Daily Kos. Advertisers can pick their audiences based on issue or political philosophy, among other options.
The company, which will mark just its third anniversary next month, now arranges ads for self-organized networks of bloggers who sell blocs of space geared toward certain audiences. The current options include the Law Blog Ad Network and the Political Insider Ad Network, which includes blogs as diverse as D.C.'s Political Report, Political Wire, PoliPundit, Talking Points Memo and Wonkette.
Even small buys can be surprisingly successful, Copeland said. He noted one "home run" by a candidate who paid $20 for a blog ad that netted a $2,000 contribution. "There are some people who swear by the $10 blogs," he said.
Copeland would not disclose any overall revenue numbers for proprietary reasons, but he said that a year ago, the company was surprised to receive one $5,000 ad order a week. Now such orders are placed every couple of days and sometimes daily. A year ago, he said, groups that were trying to sell their messages were just experimenting with blog ads. "At this point, it seems to be an established part of everybody's media mix."
Copeland has a prediction for this fall, when the people who authorize ad buys are back from summer vacation: "I really get the sense that there's going to be an avalanche come September."
Posted by admin at 07:19 AM | Comments (0)
|
The Court Speaks On Campaign Finance
A federal appeals court's Friday ruling on campaign finance law triggered a ripple of reactions in the blogosphere.
The decision upheld an earlier opinion that the Federal Election Commission had imposed regulations that undermined a 2002 campaign finance law. The lower court had ordered the agency to adopt 15 new rules, and the FEC had asked the appeals court to drop five of those demands. "We affirm [the district court's ruling] in all respects," the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said.
Allison Hayward, a former lawyer at the FEC, offers ongoing analysis of the latest decision at Skeptic's Eye (see here, here and here. Rick Hasen of Election Law also shared his insights.
Mark Tapscott of the Heritage Foundation ranted against the ruling at Tapscott's Copy Desk. He lamented that the decision is evidence that under current legal precedent, "Congress can pass laws regulating First Amendment rights, and the federal courts will uphold those laws."
Captain's Quarters has posts here and here, and The Lonely Centrist commented, too.
Posted by at 08:53 PM | Comments (0)
|
California Democrat Hilda Solis made her blogging debut at The Huffington Post with an appeal for the Bush administration to end pesticide testing that threatens families.
Her complaints: Low-income families are being paid to expose their children to high levels of pesticides, and the Bush administration is considering rules changes by the Environmental Protection Agency that she said "would legitimize the actual dosing of children and pregnant women with pesticides as an ethical practice."
The Senate recently voted to block the latter action, but Solis said several members of that chamber are backing an effort by Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., to implement the draft regulations. "If we really want to protect public health, then Congress will send the president a bill to fund the EPA which retains the ... 'time-outs' on the testing of pesticides on humans, not one which allows pesticides to be tested on pregnant women and babies," Solis said.
Also at The Huffington Post, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., pressured President Bush to either force Karl Rove to explain his involvement in the outing of a CIA agent or demand that he resign as a presidential adviser.
Posted by at 08:13 PM | Comments (0)
|
In The Blog's-Eye: Lawmakers Under Fire
There may be no such thing as bad publicity if you're trying to peddle a product, but if you're a politician trying to win votes and outlast enemies, there is such a thing as bad "blogicity." A few choice posts in the blogosphere can trigger a wave of hostility, and the next thing you know, a powerful sweep of the "long tail" has temporarily knocked you off your political feet.
Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., is the most notable politician bruised by that long tail, but he is not the only one to have found himself squarely in the blog's-eye. Last month, the targets were Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and the handful of senators who refused to endorse an apology for lynchings of the past. And this week, the primary target has been Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.
Santorum's alleged sin is two-fold: In a 2002 Catholic Online article, he blamed child sexual abuse by priests on liberalism, and he blamed Boston for that liberalism. The outcry against Santorum first burst into the blogosphere in late June, after Philadelphia Daily News columnist John Baer resurrected Santorum's statement. Then Round II began this week, when The Boston Globe mentioned the issue and Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., took to the Senate floor to demand an apology.
Ed Morrissey of Captain's Quarters, "a Catholic and a conservative" like Santorum, castigated Santorum as being "unfair in the extreme. ... Santorum's remarks attempt to turn the blame away from the criminals and onto the victims. Those remarks were wrong three years ago, and he should have known better than to repeat them now."
Lorie Byrd at PoliPundit warned, "If Rick Santorum wants to run for president, he is going to have to learn to spend a little more time thinking before engaging his mouth." And Michelle Malkin added that to single out Boston "as more of a fertile breeding ground for sexual abuse than the rest of the country is just wrong. And dumb."
Durbin, whose rhetorical misfire about U.S. military abuses prompted one blogger to coin the word "Durbinize," also was back in the sights of Power Line this week. Other recent marks have included Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, and Sen. Bob Byrd, D-W.Va.
Such blog eruptions happen often enough that I'm going to start tracking them here. So if you want to know the bloggers' latest prey, just look for the "In The Blog's-Eye" kicker, and if I fail to mention someone, please send me an e-mail or post a comment.
Posted by at 04:59 PM | Comments (1)
|
An audience member at last week's Heritage Foundation event on the relationship between bloggers and journalists asked the panelists (including me) whether a moderate blog could survive in a medium dominated by conservatives and liberals.
I don't know the answer, but maybe the folks at Donklephant will have some good insights down the road. Weblog Empire just launched that group blog for people "who have an interest in politics but don't agree with either side on everything and are turned off by the unquestioning partisan nature of many leading blogs today." (Hat tip to Instapundit).
Donklephant hopes to appeal not just to political moderates but also advertisers who want to reach the middle. "Donklephant gives advertisers the chance to actually sell to a politically aware and interested audience, as opposed to preaching to the converted, as is the case with most political blog advertising," Weblog Empire CEO Duncan Riley said.
Point your browsers to Beltway Blogroll on Monday to read more about the role of advocacy ads in the blogosphere.
Posted by at 02:31 PM | Comments (0)
|
CapitolLink: Rep. Slaughter On Truth-Telling
New York Democrat Louise Slaughter tells readers of Daily Kos, The Huffington Post and MyDD that "the strength of the president's word is being tested" as President Bush ponders what to do about White House adviser Karl Rove.
"If Mr. Bush attempts to cover up what is a gross abuse of power and a vicious, destructive and near-sighted act of political vengeance," she wrote, "then he will have failed to live up to the promises he has made."
Slaughter is quickly becoming one of the harshest critics of both Bush and Rove over Rove's role in the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame. Yesterday she started a petition to Bush demanding Rove's firing. Now she is using ads in the blogosphere to direct people to that petition, and the Web address Rovespinkslip.com redirects people to the petition, too.
"Send a personalized pink slip to Karl Rove at the White House because Bush refuses to do it himself," says the ad, which is running at Daily Kos, Dem Bloggers, MyDD and other sites. "If they end up knee deep in pink paper, perhaps the president will finally fire Mr. Rove, giving him the real pink slip he so greatly deserves."
The ultimate goal: 100,000 personalized pink slips within a few days.
Bluegrass Report, Eschaton, ReidBlog and other blogs, meanwhile, took note of the suggestion from Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., that certain members of the mainstream media "be shot" for giving "a free ride" to Joe Wilson, Plame's husband. "Joe Wilson was a shameless self-promoter," King said on MSNBC's "Scarborough Country," which is hosted by former Rep. Joe Scarborough, R-Fla. "Everything about his story was either a lie or a hoax, or he was incompetent."
Finally, Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo ridiculed the trio of GOP lawmakers who he said the Republican National Committee picked to defend Rove: King and Sens. Norm Coleman of Minnesota and John Cornyn of Texas. "For all his occasional zaniness and bad positions on various issues, I've got a certain respect for King," Marshall wrote. "But these three are the water-carriers? This is the best they can do?"
Posted by at 10:06 PM | Comments (0)
|
Voters in Ohio's 2nd District will choose a replacement for Republican Rob Portman in an Aug. 2 special election, and The Stakeholder, the blog of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, is billing it as "a campaign that could cement the blogosphere's reputation as leaders in the Democratic Party."
Portman left the seat to become U.S. trade representative, and with Portman having won 72 percent of the vote in the district last fall and President Bush netting 63 percent, GOP candidate Jean Schmidt seemed to be a sure bet for victory. But that was before the Ohio Republican Party was rocked by a scandal involving state investments in rare coins.
Now the DCCC sees an opportunity to trim the Republican House majority, and it is calling on bloggers to help the cause by supporting Democratic candidate Paul Hackett. "Can we raise $25,000 in two weeks to get Paul Hackett elected?" Stephen Yellin wrote at The Stakeholder. "We did it in 2004 with Ginny Schrader in a week, and this race is no less important. And when I threw the first pebble into Ginny's wave of money, I knew that her race mattered. So does Paul Hackett's."
By way of reminder, Schrader was dubbed "the candidate of the netroots" by Daily Kos, which also created "Blogosphere Day" (July 19, in case you're wondering) to recognize how bloggers rallied around her campaign in Pennsylvania's 8th District. Schrader lost her 2004 race against Republican Michael Fitzpatrick, finishing with 43 percent of the vote to his 55 percent.
Democratic blogs that have been covering the Hackett-Schmidt race regularly include MyDD, Ohio 2nd, Ohio Watch and even Lorax Political, which is published by a blogger in Seattle.
The race also is getting attention at GrowOhio, a new blog from the campaign of Democratic Rep. Sherrod Brown, and at the blog of the Democratic National Committee. And today the contest generated a front-page post at Daily Kos (also cross-posted at GrowOhio).
Republican bloggers in the Buckeye State who have mentioned the race include Porkopolis, Right Angle Blog and VikingSpirit. But NixGuy apparently made its last post June 27, offering this bold proclamation: "I took the sidebar link for the 2nd District posts down. Unless Jean Schmidt is caught having tea with Patricia Schroeder, this race is over."
Posted by at 04:19 PM | Comments (5)
|
The Republican National Committee officially launched its revamped Web site today, and the new version of GOP.com includes a blog.
Not surprisingly, one of the first posts addresses the controversy swirling around White House adviser Karl Rove. The post criticizes Democratic leaders for "taking their political cues from the far-left, MoveOn wing of the party" and links to a Wall Street Journal editorial defending Rove, as well as an article in The Hill indicating GOP congressional support for him.
Word has it that RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman will participate in the blog.
Posted by at 01:10 PM | Comments (0)
|
CapitolLink: Rep. Watson On The Price Of War
California Democrat Diane Watson debuts at The Huffington Post with an entry on the costs of the Iraqi war. The price in cash: $200 billion so far and as much as $600 billion by 2010, according to the Congressional Research Service.
"I think $200 billion for peace and democracy is worth it if we had something to show for it," Watson wrote. "But we haven't gotten peace and democracy." She said the nation instead has bought animosity from extremist enemies, mistrust from allies, an erosion of U.S. leadership and credibility, and an "endless occupation" of a dysfunctional country plagued by a powerful insurgency. And on top of that, more than 1,700 Americans are dead and more than 13,000 wounded.
"The bottom line," Watson concluded, "is that our Iraq policy has become a festering wound that bleeds away more and more of America's wealth, America's security, America's leadership, and America's young men and women in uniform."
Posted by at 01:03 PM | Comments (0)
|
Garrett Graff, the author of the FishBowlDC blog at mediabistro, made headlines in March when he became the first blogger to seek and secure a one-day pass to the White House press room. Lots of bloggers no doubt wish they had been so lucky today, a day after White House adviser Karl Rove was officially named as a source in the controversy surrounding the outing of a CIA agent.
That was topic A, B, C, D, etc., at the regular White House press briefing -- and press secretary Scott McClellan toed the White House "no comment" line every time the mainstream media quizzed him about Rove's involvement or reminded McClellan of the promise by President Bush to fire anyone involved in the leak. Now McClellan's credibility is topic A among liberal bloggers, who for days have been ridiculing the White House press corps for its lack of inquisitiveness about Rove.
Daily Kos resurrected the press secretary's past denials that Rove was involved in the controversy. David Corn recounts the highlights of the press briefing and says: "Everybody in the room -- and out of it -- should review McClellan's exchange with the reporters to see how he and this White House do business. After what transpired, no reporter should take McClellan's word at face value (if they ever did)."
And TAPPED, a blog at The American Prospect magazine, concludes that McClellan's "credibility today sunk about as low as it can get. ... If there is one thing that reporters hate, it's being played for patsies. McClellan has publicly humiliated some of the most prominent reporters in the country by persistently feeding them information that has now been revealed to be false, and I'm pretty darn sure that they are not going to grant him any favors and extend him the benefit of the doubt in the future."
UPDATE: Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., is demanding on her campaign blog that Bush fire Rove immediately in order to "keep his word," and she urged her readers to do the same by signing a petition. "What Rove did is reprehensible," she wrote. "Putting the life of an undercover CIA agent in jeopardy cannot be tolerated. He clearly deserves his pink slip."
UPDATE II: Bloggers on the right had a different take on the press conference. Michelle Malkin defended the right of White House reporters to bark at McClellan during the briefings but then noted, "isn't it funny how Beltway reporters who get all prissy and whiny about one Fox News Channel reporter asking the DNC chairman one mildly aggressive question have no problem turning pack-rabid on McClellan?"
Malkin also links to Lorie Byrd at Polipundit, who said the MSM reporters "sounded a bit like playground bullies, but ones with too meticulously styled hair and a little too much whine in their voices and prissy shoulder and hand motions to come across as exactly tough guys."
At TPMCafe, meanwhile, blogger Matthew Yglesias said, "Count me out of the current round of blogospheric speculation that based on today's gaggle the White House press corps has 'had it' with the Bush administration and is about ready to start jabbing in the knife. ... The Bush team has gotten remarkable good press because they understand the mechanism by which newspaper political coverage is generated and have successfully devised means of systematically manipulating that mechanism. Editors and reporters have it in their power, of course, to change the way the mechanism works (and they should do it!), but they're not going to wake up one day and do it just because they're mad at Karl Rove."
Posted by at 09:00 AM | Comments (5)
|
CapitolLink: Rep. Conyers Wants You
Michigan Democrat John Conyers has saturated the blogosphere with posts about the infamous "Downing Street memo" on the run-up to the Iraq war. Now he is recruiting bloggers as foot soldiers in his own public-relations war over the memo.
The goal of Conyers' latest offensive, which he mentions at ConyersBlog and Daily Kos, is to create "a timeline of everything we know about the fixation with war in Iraq, the manipulation of intelligence, and the deliberate misrepresentations made both to the Congress and to the public."
He asked bloggers to let him know what key dates and events should be included in the timeline. As of early Monday afternoon, the request had generated nearly 500 comments on the two blogs combined. "I think it's brilliant of you to use Daily Kos as a think tank," one visitor to ConyersBlog wrote. "Good goin'!"
In another item at The Huffington Post yesterday, Conyers quickly responded to the news that White House adviser Karl Rove was a source for Time magazine's Matt Cooper in the controversy over the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame.
Conyers suggested that the news proves President Bush has abandoned his 2000 pledge to "restore honesty and dignity to the White House." And he joined the chorus of liberal bloggers who are chastising the White House press corps for not asking questions about Rove's role. "Not a word about the disgusting hypocrisy of an administration that came to office promising to 'change the tone' in Washington now attacking a critic through his spouse," Conyers wrote.
UPDATE: In a follow-up post, Conyers invited his readers to "compare and contrast" the statements of Vice President Richard Cheney in 2000 and White House press secretary Scott McClellan today.
Posted by at 08:45 PM | Comments (0)
|
Texas Republican Ted Poe cited his past as a judge a week ago in arguing that prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are being treated fairly. And today at The Huffington Post he mentions it again.
The message this time: Poe knows the Constitution, and he knows that too many justices on the U.S. Supreme Court are not adhering to it when they include the thinking of foreign courts in their rationale for U.S. legal decisions.
"I submit that looking to foreign court decisions is as relevant as using the writings of Reader's Digest, a Sears and Roebuck catalog, a horoscope, my grandmother's recipe for the common cold, tea leaves, star gazing, or the local gossip at the barbershop in Cut N' Shoot, Texas," Poe wrote.
Posted by at 08:35 PM | Comments (0)
|
Journalists vs. Bloggers
Ever since bloggers took their rightful spot in the limelight of the Information Age, media folk have vigorously debated whether bloggers are journalists.
Jay Rosen of PressThink proclaimed that debate "over" in a January essay he submitted for the Blogging, Journalism and Credibility conference at Harvard University, but I decided to add my voice to the debate today anyway. The venue: a Heritage Foundation roundtable that focused on the relationship between journalists and bloggers.
Mark Tapscott of Heritage's Center for Media and Public Policy hosted the event and already has begun blogging about it at Tapscott's Copy Desk. The other panelists were Ed Morrissey of the Captain's Quarters blog and Jim Hill, managing editor of The Washington Post Writers Group.
Here is the proverbial nut graph of my speech: "Instead of being part of the Fourth Estate, [bloggers] are part of something new. I call it Estate 4.5 -- a nod both to the profession whose excesses galvanized many bloggers and to the medium they use. Bloggers are like inspectors general, the independent watchdogs of government. Just as IGs are not part of the agencies they oversee, bloggers are neither part of government nor journalism, but they keep a wary and watchful eye on both. And in so doing they provide a valuable check against the arrogance, inadequacies and abuses of all four estates."
The full text of the speech:
We're here today to answer the question, "Are bloggers and journalists friends or enemies?" And the best way to answer that is by listening to what the two camps say about each other.
Because I'm a journalist, I'll start with the blogger bashing that unfortunately is all too common among my colleagues. I keep a running list of journalistic rants against bloggers, and it is a nasty list.
Journalists have called bloggers:
-- "Jumped-up dunces with PCs"
-- "Barroom loudmouths"
-- "Salivating morons"
-- And "the headless mob"
In February, columnist and editorial cartoonist Ted Rall wrote this: "Bloggers are ordinary people, many of them uneducated and with nothing interesting to say. They're sitting in their rec rooms, regurgitating and spinning what real journalists have dug up through hard work. They don't have sources, they don't report, and no one holds them accountable when they make mistakes or flat out lie."
Bloggers have just as much animosity toward the press. They refer contemptuously to the "mainstream media" and the "media establishment." They claim as trophies the careers of Howell Raines and Gerald Boyd of The New York Times, Dan Rather of CBS News, Eason Jordan of CNN and Jeff Gannon/James Guckert of something called Talon News. And if some of them had their way, Newspaper Guild National President Linda Foley would be looking for a new job now.
That evidence makes it abundantly clear that bloggers and journalists are enemies. They are intellectual adversaries engaged in battle on the front lines of a 21st-century information war.
Appreciating the depth of that conflict also helps answer another much-debated question: Are bloggers journalists? And the answer is a resounding "no." Bloggers are not journalists and clearly have no desire to be. They are grassroots activists who, if inclined at all to quit their day jobs and change careers, are more likely to end up in political or policy circles than journalistic ones.
But the truth is that most bloggers are just happy being bloggers. Instead of being part of the Fourth Estate, they are part of something new. I call it Estate 4.5 -- a nod both to the profession whose excesses galvanized many bloggers and to the medium they use.
Bloggers are like inspectors general, the independent watchdogs of government. Just as IGs are not part of the agencies they oversee, bloggers are neither part of government nor journalism, but they keep a wary and watchful eye on both. And in so doing they provide a valuable check against the arrogance, inadequacies and abuses of all four estates.
Bloggers like to say that journalism is something you do, not who you are, and they have done some great journalism. I admire their work and have even used it to better my own.
But just doing journalism doesn't make you a journalist any more than doing first aid makes you a doctor or emergency medical technician. Any more than representing yourself in court makes you a lawyer. Any more than loaning money to a friend makes you a banker. Journalism is a profession.
On the flip side, journalists are not bloggers, either. I have blogged about religion from Russia and adoption from Guatemala, and I just started Beltway Blogroll, a column in blog format that is focused on blogs. But I am a journalist, not a blogger.
Like it or not, we journalists are part of the "establishment," one of the four estates. No matter how hard we may try, we simply can't gain the perspective of bloggers who are not part of our club. Bloggers bring fresh insight, unyielding passion and a whole lot of sass to the public sphere, and they answer to no one but themselves.
Bloggers are not part of the journalistic-corporate complex that controls information from ivory towers; they are the militiamen of the information revolution. They are, as Jay Rosen of PressThink says, the Court of Appeal in the State of Supreme News Judgment.
Bloggers are not journalists because they "think outside the box," and we don't. I once had a supervisor who told me repeatedly to think outside the box. When I asked him to explain what he meant, he couldn't. I was so aggravated by the experience that when I left that job, I started a newspaper column called "Inside the Box."
Thanks to bloggers who have hurled cyber rocks upside my head over the past few years, I'm at least aware that life does exist outside the box now. But inside the box is where I remain -- and all of my journalistic brethren are right there with me.
I strongly advocate that we journalists adopt the technology of bloggers to enhance our editorial products. But I also appreciate that we are not and never will be bloggers. Try as we might to escape our past, we can't help but see the world through green-tinted eyeshades.
The bottom line: Journalists and bloggers are entirely different creatures occupying the same universe the Constitution calls "the press," and they are adversaries. But journalists, bloggers, the government and "we, the people," have benefited greatly from that adversarial relationship -- and hopefully we will continue to do so.
Jeff Jarvis of BuzzMachine said it best when he put it this way recently: "Journalism is institutional, impersonal, and dispassionate; blogs are human, personal, and passionate. ... At the end of the day, I don't want to see blogs turn into an institution, or try to, for then they wouldn't be blogs anymore."
Posted by at 03:40 PM | Comments (1)
|
Blogging The London Terrorist Attacks
The Counterterrorism Blog is all over the story about the terrorist attacks in London.
One of the group blog's contributors raises questions about the authenticity of an Internet posting that claims responsibility for the attacks. International terrorism consultant Evan Kohlmann said the claim, made by a group calling itself Al-Qaida's Secret Organization, is likely a hoax.
He noted that the posting was deleted and that "the language in this latest Internet statement is oddly reminiscent of a series of hoax threats received last summer from an alleged terrorist group calling itself the 'Tawheed Islamic Movement.'"
Another group called Organization of Al-Qaeda Jihad in Europe also claimed responsibility for the attack.
UPDATE: The rush to get news and commentary on the terrorist attacks generated an overwhelming amount of traffic for at least one policy blog today. "We're adding more server capacity," TPMCafe founder Joshua Micah Marshall told readers at the blog's sister site, Talking Points Memo.
Posted by at 01:12 PM | Comments (0)
|
If labor policy is your niche, you might want to click on over to House of Labor, a group blog launched at TPMCafe this week. The aim is to gauge the future of the labor movement.
The contributors include: Bill Fletcher of TransAfrica Forum; Jim Grossfield of the Center for American Progress; Roberta Lynch of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; Harold Myerson, a writer for The American Prospect; freelance writer Jo-Ann Mort; Nathan Newman, a lawyer, policy analyst and labor activist; and Hans Riemer of Rock the Vote.
Posted by at 12:09 PM | Comments (0)
|
Numerous names have surfaced as potential candidates to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court (see lists at The New York Times, The Washington Post, Slate and RealClearPolitics). Here is what bloggers are saying about some of those candidates:
Samuel Alito, judge on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
-- Alito is dubbed "Scalito" because of a conservative judicial philosophy that many observers see as resembling that of Justice Antonin Scalia, and Conservative Eyes concludes, "I think anyone who elicits comparisions to Antonin Scalia would make a fine justice."
Janice Rogers Brown, newly confirmed judge on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
-- China Ate My Blog: "Brown may not be as solid and consistent a conservative as some of the other candidates, but she is very smart, and is both very conservative and very outspoken on a number of issues -- including property rights, a current concern. And her character and personal history are inspiring."
-- The Supreme Tort: "In terms of qualifications, Judge Brown lacks none. In terms of political realities, Judge Brown still has momentum from her recent Senate confirmation. ... Judge Brown would also satisfy our society's hyper-sensitivities relating to gender and race. She is a black woman. ... She also offers a great deal for both judicial conservatives and political conservatives. All one needs to know is that she follows the jurisprudence of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas."
Emilio Garza, judge on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
-- Democracy Market: "Garza is compelling for three reasons: 1) He's reliably conservative; 2) he's Mexican-American; and 3) he has a military background. How perfect can it be?"
Alberto Gonzales, U.S. attorney general
-- Armando at Daily Kos: "[T]he condoning of torture marks Gonzales as morally reprehensible. But, even if one is only going to look at this cynically, Gonzales cannot be trusted. We THINK he is a moderate. We THINK he'll support the right to choose. We THINK he'll support affirmative action. But how do we know?"
-- Markos Moulitsas at Daily Kos: "[W]e could go ballistic if Gonzales is the nominee, especially given his love of torture, but he's about as close a shot to another [David] Souter that we'll get under this administration. Precisely the reason the Far Right hates him is the reason I'd be willing to give him a pass. He's not perfect. He's a Republican, after all. But given the alternatives, he may be the best of a bad lot. "
-- The Baltimore Group: "As a major supporter of the USA PATRIOT Act, Gonzales is an enemy of civil liberties and a supporter of a police state. Instead, what the court needs is a good federalist."
-- Southern Appeal: "The president needs to know that it is time for him to turn the loyalty switch off in this instance and publicly or privately reassure conservatives that a Gonzales nomination isn't going to happen. ... Either y'all deliver on Bush's promise to appoint justices like Scalia and Thomas, or I and others will make you pay for it dearly come election time."
Edith Jones, judge on the 5th circuit
-- Ideoblog: "Among other things, a Justice Jones would provide real business expertise on a court sadly lacking in that area. I recognize that this isn't Bush's easiest pick. But after seeing the damage mediocrities like Souter can do, the fight would be worth it."
Michael McConnell, judge on the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
-- Confirm Them: "Judge McConnell seems inclined toward an activist role for the courts in regulating social policy, such as marriage laws. It appears from the hearing report that he would strike down laws against polygamy, for example, as a violation of First Amendment religious freedom. This would overturn Supreme Court precedent going back to 1878."
-- ProfessorBainbridge.com: "McConnell's nomination to the 10th Circuit was supported by many social conservatives, such as the Traditional Values Coalition, while the leftist American Constitution Society's blog villified him as 'a leader of the anti-choice forces.' In sum, this is just one more reason to think McConnell would make an ideal compromise choice, precluding any risk of fissure within the movement."
Harvie Wilkinson, judge on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
-- Banned in America: "Wilkinson has supported denying people their civil and human rights, banning freedom of speech and freedom of the press, and destroying the protected role of minority businesses as they tried to function amid Virginia's racist environment. And these are just the less serious drawbacks."
Some other names not on the mainstream media's short lists of potential candidates have surfaced in the blogosphere, too. They include: Alice Batchelder, a judge on the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals; and Miguel Estrada, who withdrew from contention for a federal appeals post in 2003.
Posted by at 09:07 AM | Comments (0)
|
CapitolLink: Blog Rumblings In Congress
The July edition of Congress Online, an Internet newsletter of the Congressional Management Foundation, examines "the first stages of blogging on the Hill."
The newsletter breaks the activity into four categories: travel blogs to record lawmakers' journeys to other countries or within their districts; blogs that track legislative action and offer commentary; personal blogs to share lawmakers' views with constituents; and diaries on independent blogs like Daily Kos. The article also mentions the emergence of group blogs by state lawmakers and specifically mentions the one run by Oregon House Democrats.
The brevity of the piece mirrors the limited activity by lawmakers, yet the article offers some telling insights. It notes the benefits of third-party diaries, for instance.
"Besides eliminating the workload associated with producing a daily commentary," the newsletter says, "it gives members the ability to publish their thoughts without the responsibility of posting regularly. In addition, popular third-party forums allow them to reach an established, large audience of online readers."
Hat tip to Taegan Goddard's Political Wire for directing me to the article.
Posted by at 02:09 PM | Comments (0)
|
Nomination Prognostication
Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor announced her resignation only two days ago, but both professional and amateur court watchers in the blogosphere already are making their predictions about who will replace her.
Lawyer Tom Goldstein, a founding partner of Goldstein & Howe and a contributor to The Supreme Court Nomination Blog, is garnering the most attention from other bloggers for his treatise on Judge Priscilla Owen. He is laying odds on Owen for these reasons: 1) She is a woman; 2) she is a "solid conservative"; 3) she is only 50; 4) President Bush has personal confidence in and admiration for her; 5) the Senate recently confirmed her to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals; and 6) she does not have a detailed, written record on divisive issues like abortion.
Law professor Stephen Bainbridge, meanwhile, said he is "reasonably certain" of two things: that Bush is not "dumb enough" to divide his base by nominating Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, whom social conservatives dislike; and that "the nominee will be somebody both business and social conservatives can live with." He puts Judges Edith Jones and Michael McConnell in that category.
And the Curmudgeon Speaks offers two predictions, each based on perceived character traits in Bush. If Bush is driven by his penchant for loyalty, the curmudgeon said, he will pick Gonzales. If he is driven instead by his "unwavering belief in his own actions," he will nominate an "extreme conservative" -- specifically, either newly confirmed Circuit Court Judge Janice Rogers Brown or Circuit Court Judge Michael Luttig.
Make your predictions in the comments section.
Posted by at 10:49 PM | Comments (0)
|
Texas Republican Ted Poe uses The Huffington Post to recount his "weekend in the tropics", with 15 other lawmakers, to the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The goal: dispel what he calls myths about the mistreatment of prisoners held in the war against terrorism.
If Poe's account is true, the circumstances at Gitmo are nothing like you might expect after hearing, say, a speech from Sen. Dick Durbin. Poe paints a picture of "guests" who have a varied and abundant menu, the opportunity for plenty of extracurricular activities, superior and free medical care, and the freedom to practice their religion without interference.
"Having been a felony court judge in Houston, Texas, for over 22 years prior to entering Congress," Poe wrote, "I have seen many prisons and penitentiaries including some in lands far away like China and the former Soviet Union. This is no gulag or concentration camp. ... This weekend, I was pleased to see for myself the situation and we all know that the allegations of atrocity and abuse at Guantanamo are simply unfounded."
Posted by at 12:05 AM | Comments (0)
|
Let The Supreme Court Blog War Begin
Conservative commentator Hugh Hewitt predicted in his recent book about blogging that the next Supreme Court vacancy would trigger "the perfect interblog storm." The makings of that storm appeared on the political radar today, with the announcement that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is retiring.
Early rumblings in the blogosphere come from:
Ed Morrisey of Captain's Quarters, who will be in Washington next week for a Heritage Foundation roundtable on blogging: "O'Connor's retirement puts more pressure on the Senate than a Rehnquist retirement would have done. Rehnquist has consistenly provided a conservative voice on the court, and replacing him with another conservative would probably not have concerned moderate Democrats, who want to keep their powder dry for selected battles. O'Connor, however, has voted more from the center, and replacing her with a staunch conservative might get some of those moderate Democrats to the firing lines in the political battle to come."
Daily Kos: "Who will Bush appoint? I'm not one to speculate (I'm a chemist, not a lawyer), but I'd say it's a safe bet that it'll be someone conservative, to say the least. ... Alberto 'the Inquisitor' Gonzales is a possibility ... what could possibly be worse?" The site also urges readers to take action and offers tips.
Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo: "It now appears overwhelmingly likely that President Bush will get at least two Supreme Court nominations, possibly more. So game on. We're looking into setting up a limited duration Court battle group blog over at TPMCafe. More soon.
PoliPundit (via Michelle Malkin): "My choices to replace O'Connor are either Judge Janice Rogers Brown, or Judge Priscilla Owen. Both are sufficiently conservative, young, and female. And both were just confirmed by large margins by the US Senate. It would be very difficult for the 'Gang of 14' compromisers to filibuster either of them."
The Supreme Court Nomination Blog: Recaps cases where O'Connor served as the deciding fifth vote and provides links to potential replacements.
The National Abortion Rights Action League, meanwhile, will be posting news and insights at the Bush v. Choice blog. And RedState.org is running a collaborative blog called Confirm Them.
UPDATE: Ed Kilgore at TPMCafe thinks this is the moment of truth for the Republican Party and religious conservatives. "This appointment represents the giant balloon payment at the end of the mortgage the GOP signed with the Cultural Right at least 25 years ago," he wrote. "Social conservatives have agreed over and over again to missed payments, refinancings, and in their view, generous terms, but the balance is finally due, and if Bush doesn't pay up, they'll foreclose their entire alliance with the Republican Party."
Posted by at 11:02 AM | Comments (9)
|
The Federal Election Commission held public hearings this week on how to apply campaign-finance rules to the Internet, and bloggers had a prominent place at the witness table. But their role went beyond testifying; they also served as sources for other media, covered the story themselves on their blogs, and even fired a few verbal missiles at their enemies.
The bloggers who testified included: Michael Bassik of The Online Coalition; Duncan Black of Eschaton; Mike Krempasky of RedState; Markos Moulitsas Zuniga of Daily Kos; and Matt Stoller, a founder of The Blogging of the President and now a blogger for the New Jersey gubernatorial campaign of Democrat Jon Corzine.
Kristinn Taylor of FreeRepublic.com, a Web site with features similar to a blog but that bills itself as an electronic bulletin board, also spoke. And Jim Boulet and Karl Sandstrom represented two organizations that publish blogs: English First and OMB Watch.
You can read the written testimony of Krempasky and Moulitsas on their blogs. Those blogs also address some of the issues that arose at the hearing and beyond, such as a media exception for bloggers, blogging while at work (see here and here), and one company's proposal for a "blogger identity seal," which Krempasky called "the dumbest idea I've heard today."
In addition to testifying, The Online Coalition's Bassik covered parts of the hearings for Personal Democracy Forum (see here and here). Michael Cornfield, another PDF contributor, recapped the hearings in a concise, Q&A format, while PDF interim executive editor Chris Nolan warned that if government gets to define who qualifies as media, it also could take away those rights someday.
"The idea that the Federal Election Commission is going to set up exemptions for media, and that the body will decide who gets what, strikes me as uh, un-American," she wrote.
Eschaton's Black said he is "rather crazy" from the experience and frustrated that no one has yet answered these questions: "Why is somebody who prints up and mails out weekly vanity newsletter entitled to the media exemption but not me? Why is Michael Savage entitled to the media exemption but not me? Why is Salon.com entitled to the media exemption but not me?"
Following the example of The Talent Show, Black took a poke at the FEC by newly branding his site "an online magazine of news, commentary, and editorial" that would not be subject to campaign-finance regulation. Now he is no longer a blogger but a "publisher/editor/chief political correspondent/cat photographer/scifi critic/media critic/missing persons expert/blogger ethics expert/janitor for an exciting new online magazine."
Jerome Armstrong of MyDD, the "blogfather" of Daily Kos' Moulitsas, live-blogged the FEC hearings after a morning stint on C-Span with Patrick Hynes of Ankle Biting Pundits. Hynes had kind words for Armstrong after the appearance, saying that he "struck me as a pretty cool and knowledgeable guy." But Hynes was not nearly as impressed with Black or Moulitsas a week earlier.
"Having these two buffoons testify before the FEC," Hynes wrote, "is rather like hiring Howard Dean to serve as greeter at your local Wal-Mart Superstore -- not exactly putting your best foot forward. They represent most of what is wrong with political communication, whether it is online or elsewhere."
Scott Ferguson of The Classless Society added that Black and Moulitsas "have had hugely incestuous relationships with special interests. It would be like George Steinbrenner and Marge Schott defending the baseball antitrust exemption -- their lack of cred and/or style could mess things up royally."
Black directed a barb of his own at a fellow FEC panelist. "I skipped out on the middle session because I really don't need to hear what Kristinn of the Free Republic has to say about anything," he wrote. And Moulitsas reserved his ire for Carol Darr of the Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet at George Washington University.
The two have been at odds since early June, after Darr submitted written comments criticizing the idea of a media exemption from FEC rules for bloggers. Although Moulitsas said Darr softened her rhetoric somewhat in her prepared testimony to the FEC, he called her a "clueless embarrassment" to GWU.
"Carol Darr is supposed to be promoting democratic values in the online space," he wrote. "Instead she is attempting to muzzle bloggers. All in the name of protecting the special privileges and privileged status of traditional journalists."
With brutal talk like that, you'd think bloggers had spent a lifetime in Washington rather than just a couple of days.
Posted by at 09:04 AM | Comments (0)
|
