website statistics

Archive for September, 2006

Now Watch This Drive

Published by William Beutler on September 29, 2006 in Asymmetrical Media, Blogs vs. MSM, John Kerry, National Politics and Republicans. 2 Comments

Time was, a politician could act in a manner unbecoming a public official in the presence of an average (non-journalist) citizen, and chances were it would never become a story. Even if it did, it could take years to become common knowledge. And I’m not even talking about the resignation of Rep. Mark Foley — I’m talking about road safety in Texas. Just a few hours ago, a contributor to the Forumopolis message boards shared this charming story:

I was at work today, riding my bike toward some building on Lavaca and 15th. I had just made a delivery at Austin city hall, so I just rode Lavaca up north. Now, the Governor’s mansion is on Lavaca, and as I rode past, this limo parked on the side of the road opened it’s door right in front of me. So, I doored the limo, flew off the bike and skidded for a small bit (that God I wore a helmet today). I then got up, grabbed the bike and went to tell the guy, that I’m fine, don’t worry about it, and just please be more careful. Then Rick Perry got out of the limo, “hey, watch where you’re going!”

This story may or may not be true, and it may or may not get wider attention, but it does illustrate how average individuals can leverage the Internet to get back at politicians who previously might’ve been untouchable.

Among many possible examples, one is John Kerry. As far as I know, nobody has ever nailed down an instance of him pulling a DYKWIA on the people of Massachusetts, though the rumors have circulated for years. He’s probably lucky the blogosphere has only been around for a fraction of his political career, although unfortunately for him, when it really counted, it was.

Blog P.I. Presents: Your 2006 Campaign Blog Scandal Guide

Published by William Beutler on September 25, 2006 in Blog Consultants, Blog Fights, Blogs vs. MSM, Campaigns, Democrats, Netroots, Republicans and Sock puppets. 7 Comments

Two Republicans, two Democrats. Two firings, two stonewallings. Two weeks.

Since Labor Day alone, the 2006 campaign season has witnessed a flurry of mini-scandals wherein a federal campaign has gotten in over its head with some online activity or another involving political blogs, usually with the intent of doing a little friendly harm their opponents’ image — but invariably the whole thing blows up in their face.

As we’ve seen here previously, the Internet has tempted campaigns (and journalists) to do things that might initially seem in their best interest, but really aren’t. Beltway-based brick and mortar campaign operatives often disdain the blogosphere, where they think think “anything goes.” and so when the time comes they decide they want to leverage the blogopshere, they think anything goes. They’re wrong, of course. It would behoove political operatives to respect the medium and try to understand it before they try to engage it (let alone try to exploit it).

Until they do, here’s a handy chart comparing the various players, circumstances and issues surrounding the latest campaign blog scandals:

OFFENDING CAMPAIGN Rep. Charlie Bass (R-NH) Rep. Ben Cardin (D-MD) State Sen. Tom Kean Jr. (R-NJ) Atty Amy Klobuchar (DFL-MN)
AGGRIEVED PARTIES NH blogs Blue Granite, NH-02 Progressive, The Yankee Doodler, Paul Hodes (D) campaign LG Michael Steele (R) campaign, Kweise Mfume, arguably Cardin, Jews Blue Jersey, Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) Rep. Mark Kennedy (R) campaign, GOP consultant Scott Howell
ACCUSATION Bass House office secretly concern-trolled NH liberal blogs Staffer wrote too-revealing secret campaign diary as blog Kean campaign secretly concern-trolled BlueJersey Klobuchar employees viewed illegally-obtained forthcoming Kennedy TV spot
THE ACCUSED Unknown Hill staffer(s) Now-former Cardin employee Ursula Gruber Kean flack Jill Hazelbaker, unknown staffer(s) MN blogger Noah Kunin, Klobuchar ex-flack Tara McGuinness
INTERNET SLEUTH(S) NH bloggers MissLaura, Keener, Republic Not Empire Wizbang’s Kevin Aylward Blue Jersey’s Juan Melli N/A
TROUBLESOME BLOG N/A Persuasionatrix N/A Blanked-Out
SOCK PUPPETS IndyNH, IndieNH @ 143.231.249.141 N/A usedtobeblue, cleanupnj, AmadeusNJ @ 70.90.20.85 N/A
MSM COVERAGE N/A Roll Call Sun, Post, BET, AP Times, Record, Ledger, AP Pioneer Press, AP
BLOG COVERAGE Daily Kos, ThinkProgress, Mia Culpa Mary Katharine Ham, Insider Politics, Washington Prowler, Red State, Rhymes With Right, Atlas Shrugs, Alabama Liberation Front, Soccer Dad, Jessica Cutler Daily Kos, Skippy, Steve Gilliard, Blanton’s And Ashton’s, MyDD, Pam’s House Blend, Kid Oakland, Beltway Blogroll, Blogometer Power Line, Kennedy vs. the Machine, MN Publius, Minnesota Democrats Exposed, Wizbang, Beltway Blogroll
OUTCOME N/A Unknown staffer “appropriately disciplined,” whatever that means Gruber fired Denials to NYT, AP, etc McGuinness fired, Kunin apologized, FBI may investigate
REMAINING QUESTIONS Will the Bass campaign be pressed to admit or deny? Will there be any fallout? Was Gruber a senior staffer or junior staffer? Will someone fess up? Maybe Hazelbaker? Why did Klobuchar camp wait to report it? Was it actually illegal?
ONGOING? Maybe Maybe Yes Yes

And after the jump, some additional thoughts:

Continue reading ‘Blog P.I. Presents: Your 2006 Campaign Blog Scandal Guide’

How Can There Be So Little Interest In Government? (Some Questions Answer Themselves)

Published by William Beutler on September 23, 2006 in District Politics, Elections and The New Republic. 0 Comments

In an online-only article Friday, TNR assistant editor Marisa Katz sought to explain the low turnout (35%) in the contested Democratic mayoral primary in DC. Although she almost puts forth a plausible enough argument (more than once), the piece gets tangled up in its own arguments and fails to make its point, whatever that’s supposed to be. The most glaring problem is a simple misrepresentation, and one that should be readily apparent to any District resident circa fall 2002:

Turnout in the primary — a “watershed” contest to replace outgoing two-term Mayor Anthony Williams — was a measly 35 percent among registered Democrats in this almost exclusively Democratic city. That pales in comparison with the most recent significant mayoral elections in Philadelphia and Baltimore, which both saw turnout well into the 40s. More embarrassing, it’s only a couple points higher than in 2002, when Williams’s reelection was so secure that he ran as a write-in candidate.

Katz’s telling creates an image of Williams as political Houdini: And for my next trick, I’ll seek re-election with one hand tied behind my back! The Post seems to have moved its 2002 primary coverage offline, but the DC Watch website accurately names the reason for Williams’ write-in candidacy as “insufficient signatures on petition,” and Wikipedia’s entry on Williams gives a fuller story:

In the 2002 primary, the mayor needed to collect signatures from voters to get his name on the ballot. The firm that he hired to do this had some irregularities with the names on petitions. Examples of faulty signatures on his petitions included Tony Blair, Billy Joel, and Robin Hood. As a result of the dodgy petitions, Williams was fined $277,700 by the District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics and was kicked off the ballot, forcing him to run as a write-in candidate.

That sentence would have never made it past the copy desk at the Washington City Paper. Maybe we could consider this another example of DC political types not paying attention to city politics. That being the thing she’s trying to diagnose here, as will become apparent:

I’m not so sure the turnout was all that low, at least going on her examples. She compares DC’s turnout unfavorably with Philly and Baltimore, but she doesn’t identify whether she means the primary or general election of each. The 2003 Philly mayor’s race was hotly contested up to November, but if that contest — featuring physical violence and wiretapping — only pulled in forty-something percent of the electorate, maybe 35% isn’t all that low.

Sure, the 2006 primary turnout was on the low end — but as Henny Youngman would say, “Compared to what?” [Note: Out of the District, Philly and Baltimore, the only primary turnout by registration figures I could find were from the District.]

The article has other problems besides:

Anthony Downs would say [a pollster friend who hadn’t been following the mayor’s race] was just being rational. In his 1957 essay, An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy, Downs argued that voters want to support candidates who, if elected, give them the greatest utility. But, because it can take a lot of time to divine the distinctions between candidates (and because, even if a voter picks “correctly,” the potential benefits are uncertain and probably small), it makes sense for a voter to remain fairly uniformed [sic]. Presumably the theory applies to political strategists just as well as it does to those who have never given any thought to how to engage an undecided voter.

Economists might say her friend was being rational, all right, but they would be more specific: She displayed what’s called “rational ignorance.” Ms. Katz is right to credit Mr. Downs with the theory, but I’m afraid her explanation — especially with the misplaced emphasis on the concept of utility — doesn’t do it justice. More economics-related language follows:

I’m also a believer in the division of political labor. There are a lot of legitimate political issues out there — some local and some national — and not even the most politically active person can worry about them all. Nor, in a healthy body politic, should they have to. Some people can work to bring attention to the threat of nuclear terrorism while others advocate on behalf of affordable health care. Some people may be hard-pressed to name their member of Congress, but they may have the date of every neighborhood meeting marked on the calendar.

What, do political consultants not care how their children’s schools are run? Or how their tax dollars are used to build the new baseball stadium? Actually, Katz had already dismissed the notion that the low turnout was attributable to political professionals:

Why does the most political city in the country seem to care so little about the right to vote? Of course, not everyone in this town is in politics. And the negative side of the city’s recent and ongoing gentrification has no doubt encouraged disaffection among some residents. Still, the federal government is the region’s largest employer. According to census data, one out of four workers in the city work for government at some level. And that figure doesn’t capture the lobbyists, analysts, and reporters who make a living out of government watching and influencing. How can there be so little interest in government?

There’s almost too many stupid ideas here to address them all: First of all, would gentrification (ooh! scary!) turn people off politics? If it’s the bogeyman Katz implies, shouldn’t that rile up the local activists? More importantly, if the transient professionals and privately-employed political strategists are leaving the nitty gritty of local politics to the civil servants who make up the vast majority of federal employees, who do the government employees leave it up to? Actually, based on the condition of the roads around here, the answer would seem to be no one.

So I’m not trying to claim DC is anybody’s idea of a participatory democracy, but when she asks “How can there be so little interest in government?” there are several answers she doesn’t consider:

  • The government isn’t very interesting (the differences between mayor-in-waiting Adrian Fenty and his closest rival, Linda Cropp, were more about style than substance).
  • Assuming they’re numerous enough to matter, perhaps the political professionals get enough politics at work.
  • Perhaps the locals are turned off because they don’t have full federal representation (a possibility she sets up, but never develops).
  • And we could answer with another question: Why doesn’t the same question apply to other cities — like, say, Philly and Balmer?

Editor, please! Ah, they’re probably too busy blogging.

You So Crazy

Published by William Beutler on September 21, 2006 in Lamont v. Lieberman, MSM vs. Blogs, Netroots and Washington Post. 3 Comments

At the risk of giving over this week’s blogging entirely to surveying opinions about bloggers by writers for the Washington Post Co., two more caught my attention today. First there’s David Broder in this morning’s Post (though of course available at Post.com last night), lamenting the polarization of politics in Washington and touting apparent countervailing forces:

Now … you can see the independence party forming — on both sides of the aisle. They are mobilizing to resist not only Bush but also the extremist elements in American society — the vituperative, foul-mouthed bloggers on the left and the doctrinaire religious extremists on the right who would convert their faith into a whipping post for their opponents.

And in a dispatch filed late this afternoon, Slate’s John Dickerson described Hugo Chávez’s United Nations speech thusly:

“It smells of sulfur still today, this table that I am now standing in front of,” he said, as he stood at the U.N. lecturn where Bush spoke the day before. It was hard to tell which was stranger, that the United Nations had let a blogger take control of the podium, or that the delegates who are famously comatose and unresponsive during General Assembly speeches stirred themselves to applaud the diatribe.

Broder is referring specifically to the Lamontsters, while Dickerson didn’t bother to make any ideological distinctions. What’s to be gleaned from this? Not much, really. It shouldn’t be news to anyone that bloggers are viewed skeptically by the mainstream reporters they so frequently criticize. Nor should conservative bloggers be surprised they’re easily lumped in with their more widely-covered counterparts. I do find these references somewhat annoying, but the stereotypes didn’t come out of thin air. And will the bloggers-are-crazy meme ever go away? I certainly have my doubts.

As for WaPoCo’s third major property, Newsweek, there’s nothing especially notable from them blog-wise today — although I am at least a little disappointed to see they appear to have discontinued their blog roundup.

Kos Who?

Published by William Beutler on September 20, 2006 in Blogs vs. MSM, Campaigns, Daily Kos, George Allen, Midterms '06 and Washington Post. 0 Comments

I have been regrettably AWOL in discussing the blog-related kerfuffles in the Senate races to my immediate left and right (Ben Cardin’s “Persuasionatrix” and Jim Webb’s “Lowell Feld”), so consider this at least some attempt to rectify things, and say something about something related to one of these two races.

For instance, this passage caught my eye from today’s Washington Post, on the Jewish question at Monday’s debate between Webb and George Allen:

Yesterday, [Allen manager Dick] Wadhams accused Webb’s campaign and liberal bloggers of anti-Semitism for raising the issue of the senator’s religious background. Bloggers, some of whom are on Webb’s staff, spent yesterday writing furiously about the debate question and Allen’s answer. “What does Allen have against Jews?” one headline read on a national liberal blog. “Introducing religion at all into the debate was inappropriate. It makes no difference what anybody’s religion is,” Wadhams said.

That “national liberal blog” happens to be Daily Kos, and the blogger quoted is Markos Moulitsas himself. If there is any blog or blogger whose opinion is liable to be cited by name in a political newspaper, it would be this blog and blogger.

That Kos and dKos is is reduced to a “national liberal blog” — months after the Post and virtually every political news outlet lavished attention on the related Yearly Kos conference — puts into perspective just how much (or how little) the blogosphere is part of the debate even three years after the Dean campaign.

Are the blogs worth consulting? From time to time, certainly. Is it worth differentiating among them? It appears not.

The Mariner’s Revenge Post

Published by William Beutler on September 19, 2006 in Blogs vs. MSM, Cable News, Journalist Bloggers and Seriously. 2 Comments

From the “unlinkably elitist” Hotline’s Last Call:

Now that “Talk Like A Pirate Day” is getting cable news coverage, it has officially jumped the plank.

I gave this pseudo-event some space in the Blogometer last year, and today Technorati counts 863 links to the main Talk Like A Pirate page in the last 6 hours alone (note: this factoid will be out of date as soon as this is posted, if not already). So, we can chalk this up as just the latest blogosphere phenomenon to be picked up by the mainstream media. Right?

Actually, chances are this “holiday” would rank somewhere below Festivus without significant pushes by nationally syndicated Miami Herald columnist Dave Barry, first in 2002 and again in 2003.

Popular as Barry is, he’s no match for 150 bloggers an hour (for today, at least). And with as broad a reach as those bloggers have, they’re no match for Barry’s celebrity (that is to say in our media culture, authority). Better, then, to call this an example of the self-reflexive mediasphere, where the amateurs and professionals are simultaneously the source and audience.

So it is fitting that in 2006, Dave Barry is on hiatus from his column, and now himself one of those bloggers celebrating International Talk Like A Pirate Day.

P.S. Arrrrrrrr.

The Blogosphere is What You Make of It

Published by William Beutler on September 19, 2006 in Blog Fights and Sock puppets. 2 Comments

Promoting what sounds like an insufferable new book in the New York Times Magazine this weekend, ex-blogger Lee Siegel submitted to Deborah Solomon’s insufferable questions:

Did you feel that you were doing something ethically questionable when you posted, for instance, a comment by Sprezzatura that carried the headline ‘Siegel Is My Hero’? Every man is a hero to his alias. No, it never occurred to me at the time that I was doing something wrong. There are other people who appear anonymously on Web sites; they do battle with their detractors. Anonymity is a universal convention of the blogosphere, and the wicked expedience is that you can speak without consequences. What was wrong about it is that I did it under the aegis of The New Republic, as a senior editor of the magazine.

As I have written before, what he did wrong was blending multiple online personalities — one identifiably Siegel and one claimedly not-Siegel, and had the latter defend the former as if they were distinct individuals. This would have been equally wrong had he done so under the aegis of a free Blogspot account.

Moreover, it’s not just the ethics of the ’sphere that confounds Mr. Siegel, but the wisdom one needs in order to make sense of it. Consider:

[Siegel:] Obscurity is the new poverty. People don’t seem able to bear being unknown. But obscurity and struggle are the artists’ Harvard and Yale. Anonymous bloggers are also saddled with obscurity, which I doubt you would similarly glorify. That’s right. In their case, anonymity is obscurity’s rash. At least for those who practice incessant character assassination, which represents a good portion of the blogosphere, they vent out of the pain of being unacknowledged.

Leaving aside the fact that it’s probably more correct to say obscurity is anonymity’s rash — if it even it makes sense to say such a thing — let’s ask whether or not “incessant character assassination” constitutes a “good portion of the blogosphere.” But what’s a good portion? Is it bigger than a breadbox?

If you spend your time wading through the comment section vitriol at Eschaton or LGF, you don’t really have the right to complain about it afterward — that’s what they’re like. But if you choose your bloggers wisely — the folks at Volokh Conspiracy, Obsidian Wings, The Corner and Tapped are just a few of many who fight fairly — the chances are much better you’ll decide the blogosphere has something to offer. Evidently, Siegel prefers denunciation to conversation.

Even if we grant him this assessment, it must be said, the blogosphere is what you make of it.

The Oprah Winfrey-9/11 Ticket Agent Suicide Myth?

Published by William Beutler on September 15, 2006 in 9/11 Attacks, Blog Fights and Urban Legends. 20 Comments

Update, Jan. 2007: Resolved. See: “Myth Busted: Oprah Winfrey and the 9/11 Ticket Agent ‘Suicide.’”

Note: The question mark in the above headline may be removed, depending on how this all plays out. I may also be grievously wrong — but I don’t think so.

Note 2: All updates have been moved to the end of this post. As of early Friday afternoon, the issue remains a mystery. All I can say for certain is that there is no actual proof that an American Airlines ticket agent committed suicide after a brush with 9/11 terrorists.

Earlier this week the political blogosphere witnessed an interesting and fairly infrequent occurrence — a minor blogfight pitting an academic left blogger against an activist left blogger: At the Prospect’s newest blog, Horse’s Mouth, former Spinsanity co-writer Brendan Nyhan slammed Eschaton for taking a callous shot at President Bush. Nyhan initially mistook guest poster Avedon Carol for Atrios himself, and chaos ensued. That’s interesting and all, but I’m distracted from whatever I was going to say about it because… the incident giving rise to the debate — the alleged suicide of a ticket agent who had checked in Mohamed Atta and Abdulaziz al-Omari on the way to crash Flight 11 into the North Tower of the World Trade Center — appears to be an urban legend, hoax or mistake.

You take your pick. Here’s why I think this…

Early on Wednesday morning, Nyhan wrote:

TWO LIBERAL BLOGGERS POLITICIZE A SUICIDE. In a guest post on Eschaton, the blog of Duncan Black (aka Atrios), the blogger Avedon Carol quotes approvingly from a Suburban Guerilla post that uses the tragic suicide of an American Airlines ticket agent to take a swipe at President Bush … Is nothing sacred? And do they want Bush to commit suicide out of remorse, as the post suggests? This is just vile.

As cited by both Carol and Nyhan, Susie Madrak at Suburban Guerilla had written on the morning prior:

The American Airlines ticket agent who checked in Mohammed Atta on 9/11 later committed suicide - unlike the man in charge who, being briefed on the potential threat, told his briefer, “Okay, you’ve covered your ass.”

Madrak’s source was a September 11, 2006 diary at Daily Kos by one teresahill, apparently a “Novelist, former newspaper reporter, soon to be massage therapist in Greenville, South Carolina.” She had written:

AA employee, checked in Atta on 911, later commits suicide, [sic] by teresahill One of Oprah’s guests today was Michael Tuohey, an employee of US AIR who checked in Mohammed Atta and one of the other hijackers on the morning of Sept. 11. A 37-year employee of US Air, Touhey said he’s recently started to see Atta’s face staring at him from cabs that pass by on the street or even at his local mall, that even though he knows it’s not him, Atta looks as real to him today as it did on Sept. 11. Two ticket agents checked in Atta that day, Touhey and a woman with American Airlines in Boston. Touhey said the woman has already committed suicide, and he didn’t seem far from it on the show. (No warning by Atta’s name at all, BTW, you idiots at ABC. Nothing. ID checked out. Ticket checked out. Nothing to tell this broken man he shouldn’t send Atta on his way.)

That diary made the Recommended list and picked up 262 comments. I haven’t seen the show (an Oprah.com preview is of no help) and I can’t get my hands on a transcript [Update: See updates], but the the dKos diarist apparently saw it herself. The show’s official write-up, available on the site, offers the first and only independent report about the alleged suicide:

Plagued by sleepless nights and visions of Atta, Tuohey felt another layer of guilt when he learned the ticket agent in Boston who checked in Atta and Alomari for the last leg of their flight committed suicide. Tuohey: I’m saying, my God, if I had just done the job the way I was supposed to she never would have seen these people. Oprah: But this is the thing … If you’re going to beat yourself up and be guilty about it and say, “What I could have done,” what could you have done? Tuohey: Basically nothing. Oprah: Well then… Tuohey: Yeah, I know. I know that. … But try to convince your mind.

But where’s the proof? I’ve searched Google up and down for any combination of “ticket agent” suicide, and the same terms plus atta and 9/11 and boston, to no avail. Nor is there anything at Google News. In short, there is no mention of it on the known Internets predating Oprah’s interview of Tuohey. I don’t have Nexis anymore, but if anybody out there can run the Nexis search on these terms, please let me know. [I now have a pretty good set of Nexis search results — hundreds of articles and transcripts. More on this soon.]

I’ve been thumbing through my copy of the 9/11 Commission Report, but it’s no help in identifying who the Boston ticket agent was:

Between 6:45 and 7:40, Atta and Omari, along with Satam al Suqami, Wail al Shehri, and Waleed al Shehri, checked in and boarded American Airlines Flight 11, bound for Los Angeles. The flight was scheduled to depart at 7:45.4

Following that footnote, it seems the answer may lie in the “AAL response to the Commission’s supplemental document requests,” but that doesn’t seem to be on the web.

Also inconclusive but pointing toward “myth” — or urban legend — is the skepticism of commenters on the message boards at Snopes. However, by late morning on the 13th the thread had died without resolution.

For what it’s worth, Michael Tuohey’s story has been well-documented — he’s been the subject of myriad web columns, blog posts and a few CNN appearances, and until this September 12 appearance 9/11/05 appearance on Oprah, had said nothing at all about a ticket agent committing suicide. If it happened, it was not reporteed in the press at all.

A minor mystery here, at least for the moment, is when the show first aired. Oprah’s season premiere is Sept. 19 — that’s the McGreevey interview. All it would mean is that the myth had been broadcast to millions, unchecked, at least months earlier, and nobody seems to have investigated the claim. [Update: Nexis seems to indicate the show was first broadcast on 9/11/05.]

So: In the absence of independent confirmation of this story, I am left to conclude that there probably was no suicide. And of course, this raises another question: Who was the ticket agent at Boston’s Logan airport who did check Atta and al-Omari through?

P.S. So far as I can tell, only one person — anonyblogger T.S. from Martini Pundit, apparently a “a corporate whore living in Brooklyn” and former “newspaper columnist” — questioned the veracity of the story:

Chilling, yes, but also utter nonsense. If it were not, something would’ve turned up on Nexis and/or Google, I think.

And I may just be picking on the numerous bloggers who passed the story along, but hey, let’s have a look, shall we?

For example, Andrew Sullivan made it a Begala Award Nominee:

“The American Airlines ticket agent who checked in Mohammed Atta on 9/11 later committed suicide - unlike the man in charge who, being briefed on the potential threat, told his briefer, ‘Okay, you’ve covered your ass,’” - blogger Susie “Suburban Guerrilla” Madrak, linked approvingly on Eschaton. (Hat tip: Brendan.)

He might also have given it to Avedon, who followed up in a comment at Horse’s Mouth:

It breaks my heart to know that poor kid committed suicide for something that was Bush’s responsibility. You really are a jerk if you don’t get that, Brendan.

Or Steve Gilliard:

Brendan, it’s really simple: George Bush has spent five years avoiding accountability for his actions. He wants Congress to make the illegal wiretapping and torture go away. He doesn’t even want these people to sue for their maltreatment in US custody. Yet, the burden of guilt on this person was so great, they couldn’t live with it. Have you ever seen a suicide? I’ve seen three. It is an amazing thing. I don’t think most people would trivialize it.

It also duped Oprah’s fans at Television Without Pity:

That is one of those untold stories from 9/11 and it was just fascinating. I felt so bad for the guy and especially the fact that he blamed himself for the other ticket agent in Boston committing suicide.

Aside from TS, Echidne of the Snakes also asked:

My question is: Is the woman portrayed in the [ABC “Path to 9/11″] docudrama as having just waved Atta on the same one who killed herself in reality? And had her memory smeared posthumously?

Unlike most of the others, she did ask questions. Just not the right ones. [Update: As the current update situation makes clear, I can’t say this for sure without further inquiry.]

Early morning update: I said I might be wrong, and indeed I might be. I’ve been forwarded a magazine article indicating that Oprah’s producer had received a message from the woman’s husband:

Oprah Winfrey, with Tuohey as her studio guest, told 20 million viewers that a woman who’d worked at American Airlines in Boston had later killed herself. Earlier, Oprah’s producer had told Tuohey she had a message from the woman’s husband: “It’s not your fault.” “When she said that,” Tuohey says, “it felt like a stone was lifted from my heart.”

But I can’t call it definitive, beause the source is still Tuohey, and there’s no indication that the producer was contacted for the magazine article. I’m certainly not going to accuse him of fabrication without knowing more, so stay tuned.

Late morning update: Alex Pareene at Wonkette has the Nexis access that I don’t, and the first report about this he finds is the UK Sunday Mirror on 9/11/05. Who’s the source? Michael Tuohey. Which settles nothing, but sure makes things more interesting.

Early afternoon update: I’ve just got my hands on the transcript of The Oprah Winfrey Show from 9/11/05. Here’s the relevant section, omitted from the Oprah.com summary:

WINFREY: Recently you learned that the woman who did the same job as you in Boston, who checked Mohamed Atta and Abdulaziz Alomari in at the ticket counter committed suicide a few months ago. Mr. TOUHEY: Yeah. That was another part of the guilt, and that’s another part of the problem. I didn’t realize that until a good friend of mine–he’s been working with American Airlines for 38 years. And he says, `That girl that checked in Atta committed suicide.’ I said `What?’ He said, `Yeah, she killed herself.’ I says, `You sure?’ He says, `Of course. They’re talking about it in the airport.’ Man, that just added another layer of guilt. I’m saying to myself, `My God, if I had just done the job the way I was supposed to, she never would have seen these people and maybe, you know, been around today, you know.’ It’s just…

So he heard it from a friend. That isn’t very solid sourcing, to say the least, and there’s no indication he followed up on it. On the other hand, it does not settle the issue of whether Oprah’s producer talked to the (supposed) ticket agent’s husband. There’s more to this story yet.

We’re Putting The Disband Back Together!

Published by William Beutler on September 14, 2006 in Campaigns, Online Fundraising, Primary fights and Republicans. 0 Comments
There may have been a time when the NRSC served a valuable function: accepting money from donors who believe generally in Republican principles, but don’t have the time or attention to determine which candidates are most worthy and/or needful of their support. This year’s debacle in Rhode Island, coupled with the ascendancy of the blogosphere, has convinced me that while the NRCC and RNC may yet have important roles to play, the time for the NRSC has come and gone.

The quote belongs to Leon H. Wolf of Red State, but the argument comes straight from the Matt Stoller school of “I don’t like it so it shouldn’t exist.” And with all due respect, it’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen on the front page of the (handsomely redesigned) site. It’s one thing to criticize the NRSC’s decision to go negative on Laffey, as Dan McLaughlin does in the comments, but it’s another thing entirely to focus on one thing the NRSC does and argue that it’s all their good for. What’s more, it’s the sort of thing conservative bloggers would label “crazy” if they found it on MyDD.

The headline alone — “Disband the NRSC” — sounds like hyperbole, but reading further, it’s clearly not. What’s less clear is what Wolf thinks should replace it, and in the end he concludes, “the question still remains of whether the whole structure is even necessary.” Maybe I’m going too far here, but I think even Stoller — who has loudly and repeatedly criticized DCCC chairman Rahm Emanuel — recognizes the need for a party committee to coordinate campaign efforts. Someone needs to coordinate the strategery — right? Wolf says no:

With the rise of organizations like ABC Pac, which have handy websites with a slate of candidates that you can evaluate on your own and make an individual contribution to, the justification for a “donate and let someone else decide where it goes” organization like the NRSC - especially given its activity over the last two years - is rather slim.

Heck, why even bother having a Republican party in the first place?

That is to say, I think Wolf is being more than a little too optimistic. The Army of Davids are great at short bursts of brilliance, but you still need a brain trust and someone to work the phones. For one thing, online efforts like Rightroots and ActBlue pull in a fraction of the dollars raised at traditional rubber chicken dinners and through the mail, and probably will for at least a generation. For another, does Wolf believe, say, Red State is prepared to recruit candidates to run for office? To pick up the slack on independent expenditures? To maintain voter rolls and carry out a GOTV effort Democrats would call “exquisite”?

Moreover, just because people can sit down and figure things out for themselves doesn’t mean they will. Nor necessarily should they. Parties require interests and factions to make common cause and fashion a governing majority. They also lower the cost of civic involvement, saving people the hassle of figuring it all out for themselves (or trying to). The wider choice enabled by new technologies and communities, from ABC PAC to Red State, is a positive development. But the aforementioned groups supplement, rather than replace the organizations preceding them.

I hesitate to accuse Wolf of “triumphalism” — but it’s down to that or “naivete.” And at this point even I’m feeling kind of ridiculous for carrying on, in part because one other thing is certain: If the NRSC was “disbanded,” an RNSC or RSCC would quickly replace it.

Internet TV Funhouse

Published by William Beutler on September 11, 2006 in Daily Kos, Netroots, Seriously and YouTube. 0 Comments

Picking up on the theme of double agents in online politics, last week a member of the Kososphere flagged a newly-created, putative open-membership left-wing YouTube channel (think of it like the video-sharing equivalent of a Yahoo! Group) as a fraud. Far from being a place “for Democrats to collect and share videos,” community member Edgery was pretty sure there were Freepers hiding behind the user account, ready to pounce on the so-called nutroots:

A friend alerted me this morning to a new smear campaign gearing up — The Repugs apparently didn’t like the fact that Olberman [sic] received such huge support over at YouTube so they’ve set up a fake group claiming it is a Democratic group for sharing favorite videos. “A place with all the videos now added this morning. The ones there include a montage of US troops being killed and a smear on the US Marine Corps using Nazi imagery and calling them morons. … THIS IS N-O-T A DEM GROUP; it’s a plant so the right can claim the left is crazy.

The name of the group? UtubeDemos. Demos? That should have been the first tip. The second should have been the clumsily imperative tagline: “Democrats assemble here and share videos.”

Indeed, the channel doesn’t seem to make any sense at all unless it’s a front. Aside from the crude anti-American propaganda, the channel comprises several weak attempts to mine the dated Stephen Hawking voice generator phenomenon, one Top 10 list of bad 80’s songs inexplicably foregrounded by stills from “The Colbert Report,” and some girl-on-girl action that’s relatively demure, even by YouTube’s hard PG-13 standards.

Then again, worn-out parodies, Colbert clips and videos of girls kissing are staples of YouTube, so maybe it’s not that crazy — that is, relatively speaking. The channel is certainly exceedingly dumb, but then again, assholes are like assholes: everybody’s got one (that is to say, they are fairly well-distributed across the ideological spectrum). And who are these assholes? The group’s owner appears ready for a new “technical virgin” spot — um, right — and apparent colleague “peterbbb,” who is proud of being equally anti-Jew and anti-Muslim, seems to have had his account suspended.

And wouldn’t it make just as much sense if the UtubeDemos were actual liberals posing as not-so-bright conservatives so left-wing blogs could post about how stupid and disingenuous those right-wingers really are? And how exactly did Sadly, No! find out about it within an hour of its launch, gimlet-eyed diligence notwithstanding? Even if S,N! are right, it bears asking: If an unsuspecting Bush-hater happened upon this YouTube channel and uploaded sincere leftist propaganda, would that constitute entrapment? And let’s not forget the people who posted all the comments along the lines of:

Remeber this dirtbag: we will hunt you down one by one or in masses and kill you without remorse. You’ve chosen the Marines as your slander target because we are one of your biggest threats.
If the original plan was to make Dems look bad, then presumably these commenters weren’t part of it. But what if the people posting the “get out of my country” (and worse) comments from ostensible Marines are actually dedicated Marine-haters, attempting to make the Corps look bad?

Now my head hurts.

« Older Entries