website statistics

Archive for the 'Midterms '06' Category

Remedial Math: Democrats, Bloggers and Political Reporters

Published by Not Paul Begala on October 26, 2006 in Blogs vs. MSM, Democrats, Elections, Guest Bloggers, Internecine Battles, Midterms '06, National Politics and Netroots. 2 Comments

I imagine this occurs naturally in any subject area, but the great aggravation we so-called insiders have with the blogosphere is how often stupid things are published. For so-called outsiders to relate, how often have you heard someone make an ignorantly flippant remark about something in your area of expertise? You might leave it alone because the fight isn’t worth it — but now imagine this person writes a blog in your field.

It’s really annoying.

Take this example.

Matt’s third point bugs me:

Elect Tester, Get a Seat on Approps, and Start Building Some Seniority: Start building seniority with a new Senator now, so that when Max leaves, we’re not left with no seniority and no seats on powerful committees, but rather have a man who is by all accounts an able and honest legislator well into his second-term on Approps.

He’s referring to this story:

Democratic leaders in the U.S. Senate say they will give Jon Tester a seat on the influential Senate Appropriations Committee as soon as they can if he beats Republican incumbent Conrad Burns in the November election. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said in a statement Thursday he will “work very hard” to secure a seat for Tester - even as a freshman senator - “as soon as possible.”

This is classic case of a DC outsider who thinks he knows something about the process (or actually does know something and is being disingenuous; another post topic).

Jon Tester is not getting an appropriations seat. Key phrases in that article being “as soon as they can” and “as soon as possible.”

First, there is the seniority issue in the Dem caucus in general — you think a freshman gets to jump over 2-term senators whose own states lack an appropriations seat? Second, there are “red states” up next cycle where a Dem would need a prime committee to defend his/her seat, e.g. Mark Pryor (AR). Third there is the potential retirement of Robert Byrd which would result in his fellow WVer John Rockefeller (also up in ‘08) making a play for the seat. Fourth, Chuck Schumer of NY will likely need persuasion to stay on as DSCC chair or take approps as a prize for winning back the Senate. And lastly, Tester’s own incoming class would knife-fight him for that seat — Claire McCaskill of MO and Bob Casey Jr. of PA are both Dems without senior senators in their own states while Bob Menendez already has seniority in the ‘06 class.

Bottom line, he ain’t getting that seat.

And people might say, “NPB, get off your lazy ass and join the conversation.” To which I reply, “There are just too many conversations to join, too much remedial math to teach.” If I wanted to teach, I would start a blog called “Politics for Third Graders.” But I do want the occasional polling number leaked to Left In The West about the Montana Senate race. When it comes to the blogosphere, I want the news which they provide, but I’m forced to put up with the crap that comes with it.

But maybe I’m being too hard on them.

Let’s see: Occasional tips, exaggerations about process, bullshit opinions, morons who think too highly of their opinions who wouldn’t last 15 minutes on the inside… sounds like some political reporters and columnists I’ve worked with. Maybe bloggers and the MSM have more in common than I thought!

·      ·      ·

On A Completely Unrelated Note: News story leaving out the important details, facts not quite up to par, not satisfield with the news as reported? Assignment: blogosphere!

In this week’s installment, can you finish where the NY Times left off and tell us who is the girl in the Harold Ford Jr. Playboy ad and how I can get her number? And the gun guy — was that Charlie Sheen? Did Adam Sandler play the porn producer? Holy trimmed-down Wilford Brimley-sighting batman, Canada will get those terrorists!

Now all of us political guys know that the occasional actor is needed for a commercial, but I want the story behind that. Popular commercials lead to bigger and better things — have ya’ll noticed that the Capitol One buffoon (”Noooooooo!”) is on “Studio 60″? Is that girl getting new offers? (That “call me” was so sassy at the end.) Will she show up on “Entourage”? And really, I’m not kidding, is that Charlie Sheen making a cameo in camo?

Hop to it, blogs! Get your Variety sources on Skype and get moving!

Holy Cojones of Steel, Batman!

Published by Not Paul Begala on October 9, 2006 in C-SPAN, Instant Messaging, Midterms '06, NRCC and National Politics. 1 Comment

[Note: Not Paul Begala rides again.]

Carl Forti, I’m so sorry for ever doubting your prowess, your skill, your utterly amazing intestinal fortitude at being able to convince yourself that what you utter is The Truth™. Ironic, since I just watched “Thank You for Smoking” this weekend — throw it in the queue, it’s worth it.

And onward to a display of balls so awesome that I think Stephen Colbert would choke had he been watching. Here’s Forti on the 10/8 edition of C-SPAN’s Washington Journal (go to 33:40):

Steve Scully: Carl Forti of the National Republican Congressional Committee. Is the Foley situation managable? Carl Forti: I think definitely. I think if you look at newspapers around the country and look at individual districts, it’s really not having that much of an effect.

Bam! Shake it Up! Shake it Up! and on to the next mothaf*&#! question. He didn’t say, “Well Steve, I think it’s really not having an effect” — he informs the viewer that they must read regional papers and look at individual districts before they can come to the conclusion that “it’s not having much of an effect.” A display of omniscience any mouthpiece would be proud of.

So awesome.

Hey (Hey) You (You) Get Off Of My Comment Board!

Published by William Beutler on October 4, 2006 in DCCC, Democrats, Midterms '06 and RNC. 3 Comments

In all likelihood, the Foley scandal will redound to the Democrats’ electoral benefit in a few short weeks — but it presents obstacles the Dems too must avoid, and not just a risky alliance with traditional homophobes, as John Dickerson suggests. There are also activists on the left who will promote the scandal with an intensity that would be unseemly for “responsible” Democrats to partake in. Take for instance, Mike Rogers, a DC-based activist notorious/celebrated for forcing gay Republicans out of the closet.

Some in the rightosphere see potential conspiracy in the fact that Rogers showed up early in the comment section (since removed) at the fake-but-accurate Stop Sex Predators blog. They shouldn’t; Rogers was only too glad to help get the word out, but by all appearances, he got scooped. Otherwise, it would have appeared first on his own blog, instead of an anonymous black ops blog. Here is a Rogers post at his own site, on Oct. 1:

Well the good news is that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is finally getting it. I called their Director of Communications, Bill Burton, before the Foley story broke to let him know about Foley (and another case) were coming down the pike. While Burton promised to have someone email or return my call and didn’t, I am glad he followed up on my call and was ready on Friday to come out of the gate running. The bad new is they are still not paying enough attention… There are others within reach… If the Democrats would only fight half as hard as the Republicans. I posted comments at the DCCC website on the Foley entry. Not only do their promises of returned calls and emails never come to fruition, but now they are deleting my comments from their blog, The Stakeholder.

Rogers seems genuinely puzzled that the DCCC would remove his comments — also referencing his contact with Burton — from their blog, which is amusing, really. Considering the hay Republicans made of user-generated Bush/Hitler comparisons on MoveOn’s website in 2004 and GOP campaign committees’ proven eagerness to publicize Democrats’ association with their over-enthusiastic and unpredictable supporters, it should come as no surprise that the DCCC would like to save themselves this press release attack.

Of course, the NRCC will probably let this one slide — it’s certainly not in their interest to keep the focus on ex-Rep. Foley’s behavior. Conservative bloggers, however, perhaps unmindful of who all they may cause headaches for, can be counted on to pursue the angle relentlessly.

P.S. Believe it or not, another post has appeared at Stop Sex Predators:

I’m thrilled that so many folks are looking at this simple blog. Please attempt to limit your comments to the purpose of this blog.

Pay no attention to the curtain (behind which there is surely some man)!

If you have any ideas that I should post, please let me know. I’m happy to pass along information about the current situation, but would much prefer to keep marching toward the large goal or stopping sex predators. I don’t think we’ll see it in the Congress anytime soon, so let’s focus our energy elsewhere.

Okay, now you’re just wasting your own time.

House of Flying Daggers

Published by William Beutler on October 3, 2006 in Blog Fights, Internecine Battles, Midterms '06, National Politics and Republicans. 1 Comment

Edwin Edwards, former Louisiana governor and connoisseur of corruption (now spending his golden years in the slammer), was once quoted saying the only way he could lose re-election was if “caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy.” Which is pretty much what’s happening to the House Republicans right now.

The rightosphere has always been less partisan than the leftosphere, or at any rate, more anti-Dem than pro-GOP. The liberal netroots count maybe a few Republicans that they like, while the conservative blogs include right-trending Democrats such as Ann Althouse, Roger L. Simon and more libertarians than you can point a :CueCat at. You don’t even have to call yourself a conservative to be in the club.

Because this coalition is built largely around foreign policy issues, they’re not very quick to defend the GOP on domestic issues or when the party is in trouble. And this very moment, you can see the right half of the blogosphere splitting into two camps over the question of Denny Hastert’s future as House Speaker (the matter of course being brought into sharp relief by today’s Washington Times editorial page).

For lack of better phraseology, let’s call these camps the parsers and the partisans. The former camp is concerned most with being on the right side of this particular issue, the latter is quicker to forgive leadership for errors and even not recognize errors as such (and yes, I realize that this description telegraphs my own view of the matter). Here’s the breakdown…

First, there is the side saying Hastert Must Go:

  • Ed Morrissey is one of several to scoff at Times editorialist Tony Blankley’s suggestion of Rep. Hyde to temporarily fill Hastert’s shoes, but he agrees it should be someone:
    Incredibly, no one apparently ever asked any of Foley’s former or current pages if they had noticed any inappropriate behavior from the Congressman. What kind of an investigation doesn’t address the reality of patterns in allegedly predatory behavior? Foley’s uncommon interest in young teenage boys had become parlor talk among the pages, but either Hastert didn’t want to find that out or deliberately avoided it. Hastert apparently made the decision not to follow procedures and refer the matter to the Page Board, the bipartisan committee that oversees pages, and that looks very clearly like a cover-up.
  • Rick Moran doesn’t quite call for Hastert’s dismissal, but is clearly sympathetic:
    What is needed is a reckoning — a settling of accounts by the voters for all the broken promises, the wasteful spending, the arrogant mismanagement, and the irresponsible lawmaking which have combined to bring the Republican party to its sorriest state I’ve seen in my 30 years of membership.
  • Gregory Djerejian, never much of a party guy to begin with, finds some validation in this turn of events:
    Gross negligence and deliberately looking the other way? Say it ain’t so! Why, this might well sum up a large amount of our contemporary history these past five years.
  • For Dr. Steven Taylor, Hastert’s ouster would be long overdue:
    In general, there ought to be built-in changes in leadership probably every six years or so–and not just musical chairs at the top (i.e., Majority Leader to Speaker, Whip to Majority Leader, etc.). Anyone who has ever worked in the same organization for any length of time knows that new blood is vital, and that frequently those who become entrenched in positions tend to become overly comfortable and problematic over time.
  • La Shawn Barber hears excuses, and would prefer not to:
    Whether or not the leadership saw “lurid” IMs is not quite the point. Members knew about Foley’s “overly friendly” e-mails to 16-year-old boys. From that they could have deduced he was up to no good, in my opinion. They should have investigated Foley’s conduct more thoroughly. That they didn’t know the extent of Foley’s “issues” is BS. I’m sorry, but this CYA stuff is not going to cut it.
  • That’s about how The Sundries Shack sees it:
    Hastert knew about at least some of the communications between Mark Foley and an underaged boy. Even if he didn’t know about the sexually explicit communications, it seems obvious that Hastert did little to rectify the situation.
  • James Joyner draws an appropriate — and blog-related! — parallel:
    When the Trent Lott-Strom Thurmond scandal broke a few years back, my instinct was that Lott was merely buttering up an old man upon his retirement rather than saying that segregation was a good thing. Regardless, I thought he should resign simply because he displayed such poor judgment as to be demonstrably unfit to hold such an important office. Ditto Mr. Hastert.

Second, there are those who say Don’t Scapegoat Hastert:

  • GOPBloggers contributor Mark Noonan is not yet ready to judge Hastert:
    My wife saw a friend leaving work the other day with a man who wasn’t her husband. Is this a red flag? What should we do with such information? … I’m never going to agree to punish people for things they didn’t do. Neither Speaker Hastert nor any other member of Congress is responsible for Foley’s reprehensible behaviour unless they were 100% informed of all that Foley had done and then they did nothing about it.
  • Considering Hugh Hewitt’s support for onetime SCOTUS nominee Harriet Miers, it should come as no surprise that he doesn’t want Hastert to resign, either:
    To do so would be to capitulate to Democratic-activist-induced and MSM-abetted hysteria. Not only should Hastert not resign, he should use every opportunity to swing back hard at a MSM deeply compromised by its ideological extremism and a Democratic Party committed to retreat and defeat in Iraq and fecklessness in the war generally.
  • Like Hewitt, Flopping Aces would like to turn this back on the Democrats:
    Stop the hysteria. Because ONE Republican turned out to be gay and had a thing for teenage men does not mean you can throw a blanket over the whole party. If that was the case then the blanket could have been thrown over the Democrats many times over since Studds and all the way up to Jefferson.
  • One Republican is getting some inadvertant bad publicity out of all this. At TownHall, Mary Katharine Ham writes:
    You know what this feels like to me? This is a classic McCain Move on the part of the Times. Get a jump on the moral high ground, condemn someone in the severest terms before the evidence necessarily justifies it. Result? You end up looking like an unassailable saint and you get a whole lotta press out of the deal. Sweet.
  • John Hawkins sounds the same note about McCain, adding:
    Although I’m not a big fan of Hastert either, falsely accusing him of covering up for a sexual predator so he can be kicked under the bus and replaced is a little too vulgar, even for the brass knuckled world of Washington Politics.
  • Perhaps most combative is Macsmind, hitting back at weak-kneed Republicans. And this is before he saw the Times editorial:
    Quite frankly for some of the conservatives crapping in their pants this isn’t about Foley, it’s about Harriet Miers, Dubai, and Fences. Get the hell over it already! The Bible says that he who makes a judgement without knowing all the facts is a fool, and we are seeing a lot of fools come out, especially on the Right. Thank God not all have the backbone of a rubberband. … Remember, vitue can be a vice in war, and ladies and gents we are at war.
  • A few are drawing not-unfounded equivalencies between the House GOP and the news outlets that had the e-mails. The Strata-Sphere is one:
    The excuses proffered by these media organizations about why they did not pursue the matter are identical to those offered up by Hastert. So if these news organizations (who had only the marginal emails - we have some suspicions about Ross and ABC who do not make that claim) then it is good enough for Hastert and company
  • Don Surber is another, cleverly if tenuously:
    The Times just lost its human resources manager because he tried to seduce a 13-year-old girl online. Using the logic of the Times, there is only one thing to do: Wesley Pruden, editor in chief, must resign.
  • Almost but not quite splitting the difference, Erick Erickson at Red State calls on Republicans to walk first and then chew gum:
    Let’s be clear — now is not the time to have a leadership struggle. We’re five weeks from an election that isn’t looking very good. But, should the GOP somehow be able to keep the House in Republican hands (and Lord I hope they can!), the Speaker must go when the House returns.

Hastert is in deep trouble now, and despite what he says today, is probably beyond rescue. I suspect the Hastert defenders will slowly start changing their minds. Sometimes the manager gets sacked, even if it’s not exactly his fault.

It really doesn’t matter whether he lied about knowing of the Foley e-mails late last week. If he did, that’s worse, but even if he didn’t, the House GOP should have still interviewed former pages, not to mention informed the Democrat on the page system committee, not to mention other Republicans on that committee.

Those were errors of moral judgment, and as often happens, they’re being followed by errors of political judgment. Starting with NRCC chair Tom Reynolds’ refusal to be “thrown under a bus,” as he put it, message discipline in the caucus has broken down, and it’s only a matter of time before the coup comes. The only real question is whether it’s before the Republicans lose the election or after.

Maps, Money and Morons: Chris Bowers Oversimplifies Things Again

Published by William Beutler on October 2, 2006 in 50 State Strategy, Blog Consultants, Campaigns, Democrats, Guest Bloggers, Internecine Battles, Midterms '06 and Netroots. 7 Comments

[Note: I present to you our latest guest post, this one coming anonymously from a regular Blog P.I. correspondent and Democratic strategist who describes himself as "exasperated by the stupidity of armchair analysts" -- with the the above-mentioned armchair analyst, particularly. With a nod to Not Larry Sabato, we'll just call him Not Paul Begala. The rest of this post is his.]

I would be willing to bet that bloggers are more “satisfied” folks than most people. They get to expunge the vitriol that inevitably builds up from day after day of reading the simplistic rantings of unqualified morons. We the frequent readers miss out on this catharsis and sit here, perpetually pent-up and ready to throw our computers, phones and cats at the wall in frustration at people who don’t know what they are writing about. Guess I need to blog more often — so thanks to Blog P.I. for allowing me this chance to vent.

My subject is the “influential blogger” (as Matt Bai points out) Chris Bowers and the utter stupidity he posted today on MyDD. Bowers is upset that the DCCC is spending too much money in red districts because if we were to win there, the majority might not last as long as if we focused on more blue districts. Set aside the fact that most Democratic bloggers have called for a 50-state strategy (see Bowers’ 2004 post, “Fifty State Strategy”) (and by extension, 435-district strategy) and consider this, from today:

“Over the past three months, by a count of 3-1 the DCCC has spent its resources in Republican-held red districts. We need to be spending much more money in blue districts that will be easier to defend, and produce Democrats more likely to stay with the majority of the caucus on difficult votes.”

What pisses me off to no end about this is the macro look this moron just took at winning the House — as if you can tell by the Partisan Voter Index (supplied by Cook Political Report) how easy it is to win a district. Or how he just forgets conveniently that Red districts have leanings where it’s much easier to define a Democrat as a liberal, pussy, God-hating yuppie. It takes money in mail, TV, research and polling to fend some of this stuff off.

So, allow me to comment on every race he lists and why the DCCC spends what it does:

    RED DISTRICTS


  • AZ-08: $445,210.71. PVI: Republican +1.4 Hey idiot, they dropped $350K in the primary trashing the Republican they would have a harder time beating and hit the jackpot — getting the conservative crackpot — so this is a safe pickup. Money well spent.

  • IL-06: $82,946.87. PVI: Republican +2.9 It’s about a half million a week to run TV here, and it shows. They’ve spent a $100K compared to the NRCC’s $500K? You call that overspending in Red districts?

  • IN-02: $319,879.08. PVI: Republican +4.3
  • IN-08: $833,899.63. PVI: Republican +8.5
  • IN-09: $83,428.98. PVI: Republican +7.1 All Indiana districts are a good investment — local dislike of Mitch “The Blade” Daniels plus prevailing national winds makes it the best time ever to get these seats. And the reason there’s $800K in 08? Hostettler has $70K on hand, and he doesn’t raise money because he knows the NRCC will save his butt. They hate him, we love him. And we’re lucky Sodrel hasn’t decided to millionaire the shit out of us in 09, cause he can do that you know. That $80K is cheap so far.

  • KY-04: $13,833.64. PVI: Republican +11.7 Spending is actually low here for a Cincy media market, but it will come.

  • NY-24: $390,447.98. PVI: Republican +0.6 It’s an open seat for fuck’s sake, if you don’t spend the money, the NRCC defines you. Do you want that?

  • NC-11: $118,496.90. PVI: Republican +7.1 They’ve actually laid off here, again, I think, waiting to buy broadcast.

  • OH-15: $52,832.64. PVI: Republican +1.1 See NC-11.

  • PA-10: $259,195.99. PVI: Republican +8.0 Every dollar spent here draws two dollars from the NRCC because they’re defending a guy who choked his girlfriend.

  • VA-02: $129,493.94. PVI: Republican +5.9 This is probably some polling and mail. They’re not sure they can do anything here until they think the Senate race is in play.

  • WI-08: $275,778.90. PVI: Republican +3.7 Again, they have to respond to the NRCC if they want to keep this race in play. The open-seat challenger had zero money to respond to TV.

    • Total: $3,005,445.26

_____

    BLUE DISTRICTS


  • CO-07: $118,907.65 PVI: Democratic +2.3 Why spend money when the Dem is going to win and has money?

  • FL-22: $135,800.60. PVI: Democratic +3.6 They’re waiting to buy broadcast TV in Miami. That shit ain’t cheap.

  • IA-01: $357,042.22– PVI: Democratic +4.8 This is a pickup, through and through. The Dem who won the primary was broke, so they had to fill in for him.

  • NM-01: $230,526.42 PVI: Democratic +2.4 That’s a pretty good investment, I don’t know what you’re complaining about. This is New Mexico, not New York.

  • PA-06: $102,239.29 PVI: Democratic +2.2 See FL-22. TV is expensive, especially Philly TV.

  • WA-08: $28,204.03. PVI: Democratic +2.3 You have to believe you can win before you spend money and they’re just not there yet. Plus, the NRCC hasn’t gone in and played, that signals how the D-Trip reacts to this race.

    • Total: $972,720.21

Another annoying thing is Bowers’ unexplained selectivity: He failed to include the other two PA contests, the three CT races, plus IA-03, GA-12 and IL-08. But what will all those show you? Not much else but that each race has multiple factors that determine spending. You know those challengers that started out a whole year in advance had plenty of time to raise resources for some of these fights. That determines spending, too. The point is, local shit matters. The story of each race matters. Macro analysis is not enough.

Now, my work done here, I can get back to the tedious job of trying to send Dems to Congress and building back up to the point of having to refute these fools again.

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.

George Allen Takes Some Good Advice

Published by William Beutler on September 2, 2006 in Blog Consultants, Campaigns, George Allen and Midterms '06. 1 Comment

In the days after Sen. George Allen’s YouTube-preserved “macaca” moment, my erstwhile colleague Danny Glover recommended on his own blog that Allen shore up his online campaign, post-haste:

Engage like-minded bloggers to get them behind your campaign. Let them bash the Post for you. Hold conference calls with them. Grant interviews to bloggers. Write entries for their sites and respond to readers when you do. Hire a blog expert to connect with online activists. Those are the kinds of things smart candidates already are doing.

Consider the advice taken. On Friday morning, Richmond-based blogger and former radio personality Jon Henke announced he would be joining Allen’s re-election campaign as a Netroots coordinator:

Obviously, this will change my focus quite a bit, but I will continue to blog at QandO whenever possible, generally on the issues and stories in this very important Virginia Senate race.

As a right-libertarian, Henke generally supports Republicans, but he can’t be pegged an apologist, and has on occasion sided with liberal bloggers over conservatives. I haven’t met Henke in person, but in correspondence going back more than a year, he’s struck me as serious and thoughtful. He’s a good get for them.

As often is the case with newly-created positions related to the blogosphere, even Henke isn’t completely sure how he’ll spend his working hours, but his mission includes “helping to close the strategic blogosphere gap.” Says Henke, via e-mail:

The leftosphere is very good at getting their campaign message to bloggers, getting bloggers to talk about the campaigns and spreading the muck through back channels. The Allen campaign wants to establish some outreach to supportive bloggers and to make sure our side of heard when the Leftosphere is smearing us.

The hire is too late to be damage control, but it should be insurance against future controversies. Allen isn’t the only candidate hurt this year because their media consultants are unsuited to the strange new landscape of user-generated media. (How many have even heard the term “Web 2.0″?) The Allen camp’s multiple revisions of what “macaca” meant is a good example. The breakthrough, if there was one, came from Chad Dotson, a conservative blogger unafilliated with but sympathetic to the campaign. Henke too had Allen’s back, although either one could have ignored the situation. Now the Allen camp has a go-to guy in Henke, and that’s important.

Henke’s widely-read blog is certainly an asset, but that too raises new questions: Henke says he is not proscribed from writing about anything in particular, but he’s also in the odd position of having two co-equal bloggers at QandO. While Dale Franks and Bruce McQuain are supportive of his decision, the possibility exists that they will disagree about some campaign-related issue yet to arise. Henke tells me: “I will not — can not — tell them what to write and what not to write.”

The flip side is that it recalls the issue of whether Democrats Mark Warner and Sherrod Brown hiring Jerome Armstrong meant getting positive coverage from Armstrong pal Markos Moulitsas as well. Of course, there were never any serious allegation of quid pro quo there, only suspicions. Because Henke is the lone QandO contributor who actually lives in Virginia, my guess is that the other two will follow his lead a bit but largely focus on other matters — and you can be sure the lefty blogs in Old Dominion will keep an eye on it.

Also worth noting: Compared to the disclosure issues surrounding John McCain’s web consultants, Henke and the Allen campaign have handled the announcement in an entirely appropriate manner. Henke suspended his own blogging after the 28th, while discussions were ongoing with Allen’s camp, then announced the change in his first post back, and has since added a disclaimer to the bottom of each post:

“Jon Henke is the Netroots Coordinator for the George Allen Senate campaign.”

Interesting, then, that Pat Hynes and Nicco Mele are PR and campaign veterans — yet they were outed by reporters, and ended up looking less professional because of it. Hynes and Mele had certain imperatives from their other jobs that conflicted with their blogging disclosure, but as a hobbyist turned pro, Henke didn’t have to contend with the same issues. He also benefited from having so recently seen what not to do. And though it’s more a case of avoiding a pitfall than doing something especially brilliant, it bodes well enough for Henke that he passed this test.

Secret Hold, Secret Senator

Published by William Beutler on August 30, 2006 in Campaigns, Earned Media, Instapundit, Leftosphere vs. Rightosphere, Midterms '06 and PorkBusters. 7 Comments

[Note: Updated below.]

Just shy of a year in existence, the blog-based PorkBusters campaign is making bigger waves than at any point intervening. The investigation into a secret hold on an earmark accountability bill by Sen. Tom Coburn (arguably the campaign’s best friend in Washington) and Sen. Barack Obama is reaching tidal/tsunamic proportions, and even made CNN this week. Danny Glover — who never gets too old for this — has the back story.

PorkBusters LogoAs of this morning, the coalition of mostly right-leaning bloggers have narrowed down the suspects to just a handful of candidates: at least as of now it depends on who you ask, but Ted Stevens is to this case as Richard Armitage was to Plamegate — no one will be shocked if/when the hold turns out to be his; in fact, a little-noticed Arkansas newspaper report from Aug. 18 quotes Coburn himself going all J’Accuse! on Stevens.

As of yesterday, PorkBusters’ Secret Hold page counted Stevens, Thomas Carper, Mel Martinez, Mike Crapo, Judd Gregg, Orrin Hatch, Robert Bennett and Jay Rockefeller, down from about 40 senators earlier in the week. If nothing else, this list may well comprise the senators with the most Internet-illiterate staffs.

Until now, the PorkBusters campaign has mostly sailed under the MSM radar screen, even during its previous high watermarks, killing the bridge to nowhere and helping derail Roy Blunt’s try for the majority leader position. Some of the attention is undoubtedly owed to the left-oriented TPM Muckraker for having just now joined the effort to unmask the holder, and for good or ill, the liberal blogs usually get more media play.

It’s a curious bipartisanship, and not just because TPMm’s Paul Kiel got PorkBusters co-founder NZ Bear’s name (handle, actually) wrong in one post [update: since corrected]. For one thing, this is the sort of thing TPM Muckraker and site overseer Josh Marshall do all the time — the right-blogosphere doesn’t pursue investigations quite so often (the most successful have been one-shots like the exposure of fraudulent Reuters photographer Adnan Hajj). Nor is it too closely coordinated, considering the differing opinions of who’s in and who’s out: As of just last night, Republican-leaning PorkBusters had given a pass to Robert Byrd, whereas Democratic-leaning TPMm had not.

While conservatives might bristle at the notion that they need liberals’ support to grow the PorkBusters effort, the theme of openness is a natural fit with the Democratic netroots’ disillusionment with the Beltway elite. Daily Kos front-pager SusanG wrote about this a couple weeks ago, but only linked PorkBusters in an update, apparently unaware of its existence until then.

TPMm has given the project a shot in the arm, but it remains to be seen if the partnership will persist after this pursuit has concluded. There’s really no reason why the PorkBusters effort shouldn’t be more bipartisan. It’s true that pork has historically been a libertarian/conservative concern (this largely explains the lopsided participation) but in an era where progressives have learned to stake out a fiscal position to the right of Republicans whenever possible, more should be climbing aboard.

Indeed, the campaign is not especially partisan in nature, but fundamentally anti-insider in nature. If the PorkBusters bloggers can keep its momentum going in the next several months, with conservative blogs challenging Republicans and liberal blogs going after Democrats, it will reinforce the presumed anti-incumbent tenor of the midterm elections.

P.S. Traffic-wise, porkbusters.org has been supported almost exclusively by co-founder Glenn Reynolds. To be fair, the real campaign lives not on its home site, but on those of its participatory bloggers, again primarily Instapundit, but also Hugh Hewitt, and now TPM Muckraker. The site’s main page is essentially an RSS aggregator reposting just about anything mentioning PorkBusters about the campaign (including those who are not so happy about having their articles republished).

Update: Well, that didn’t take very long: Sen. Stevens’ office has admitted the hold was theirs. On the other hand, wouldn’t it behoove the Palm Beach Post to mention that the “much speculation” occurred in the blogosphere? Especially considering the Post reported this on their blog? That duty is left to Stevens spokesperson, who also utters these famous last words:

Going to the blogs and the media with these concerns is not the way we have ever operated.

Update 2: TPMm confirms Robert Byrd in fact also placed a hold on the bill, has now released it, and his spokesperson has succeeded in not saying something the blogs would take badly.

So the left-right coalition can count this as win, like the Kos-Krempasky testimony before the FEC last year: a rare cross-ideology collaboration (and at least in these few cases, when they team up, they do win). And now, on to the questions about what happens next. TPMm again, asks an intriguing question: Are Even Porkbusting Projects Full of Pork?

Monday Medley: Joe Lieberman, JonBenet, Raw Story, Katherine Harris and The Apocalypse

Published by William Beutler on August 21, 2006 in Comment Sections, Internecine Battles, Lamont v. Lieberman, Midterms '06, Republicans and Seriously. 2 Comments

Nothing really stands out today, so here’s a brief, likely unrepresentative trip around the political mediasphere:

  • If it hasn’t been said before, allow me to be the first: Raw Story’s comment boards are basically the mirror image of LGF’s.

  • In the bizarre case of semi-prominent libertarian blogger Jackie Mackie Paisley Passey, who drew much attention and much, much derision for an exceedingly arrogant post declaring just how desirable everyone must agree she is, one of the more eye-rolling aspects was her boast that one of her public photos had rated an 8.6 on Hot or Not. Yes, you read that correctly. Without an ounce of irony, she uploaded a photograph of herself to Hot or Not — and evaluated her self-worth based on the results.

    So… here I may be overstepping the bounds of good sense, if not propriety, but I took another public photo from her page and uploaded it to that very same shallow website. If you’re curious to know how she’s doing, well, have a look and rate it yourself.

    It may well be cruel to pile on at this point, and I don’t wish her ill, but it is still relevant, and my best defense is that I’m just holding her to her own standards.


  • The New York Times’ Kurt Eichenwald, who must have drawn the short straw to end up on the pedo beat, had another icky story ready to go today, just as John Mark Karr was en route to Los Angeles in a business class seat on Thai Airlines. This bit jumped out at me:

    In recent months, new concerns have emerged about whether the ubiquitous nature of broadband technology, instant message communications and digital imagery is presenting new and poorly understood risks to children.

    Um, do the last 120 months count as “recent”? Meanwhile at Hullabaloo, Digby asks:

    Considering this new awareness of the use of overly sexualized visual images of children by pedophiles, why has nobody taken the networks to task for repeatedly showing those Jon Benet beauty pageant videos ten years after the fact?

    Good question. I asked a similar question following Jane Hamsher’s deployment of that inflammatory Lieberman-in-blackface picture. If it was wrong for her to post it, what about everyone else who used it afterward? Is context really everything?


  • Josh Marshall is taking flak from readers and more than one fellow blogger for not being anti-Lieberman enough. As are others of his readers.

    The WSJ’s James Taranto has an amusing take:

    They said they would be greeted as liberators for toppling the old regime. Instead, they find themselves caught in a quagmire — a vicious, unwinnable civil war with incalculable costs in both resources and prestige. We refer, of course, to the Democrats in Connecticut.

    His proposed solution keeps the analogy going, but doesn’t make any sense:

    It looks as though Lieberman is in the race to stay — but there is an answer to the Democrats’ quandary. For the good of the party, Lamont could throw his support to Lieberman. This would leave the incumbent running essentially unopposed … allowing the Democrats to concentrate on beating Republicans. Lamont could declare that he made his point by winning the primary, but his own ambitions are less important than the party. He could then redeploy, going on the road with Lieberman, campaigning for Democratic House challengers in Connecticut and for Democratic Senate candidates elsewhere. Rather than stay in a race he is likely to lose, Lamont could prove he understands his own dictum: ”Stay the course’ is not a winning strategy.’

    Taranto frequently turns to jokes when he doesn’t actually have anything to add, and though he is undoubtely behind Lieberman in this race, this is probably one of those all-too-frequent circumstances. With the primary decided, the only candidate who has any business thinking about abandoning the race is Joe Lieberman. That said, it probably would work.


  • More or less along the same lines: I’m not one to praise recent Firedoglake addition Pachacutec — he’s Jane Hamsher without the Hollywood background — but his call for Stephen Colbert to have Conn. Senate Republican nominee Alan Schlesinger on the show is inspired.

  • The connoisseur of schadenfreude in me really hopes Katherine Harris runs for office again soon. What else is left of me declines to comment.

  • If Blog P.I. isn’t updated tomorrow, here’s maybe one reason why.

On The Relevance of Caca (And Mohawks)

Published by William Beutler on August 17, 2006 in Blogs vs. MSM, Earned Media, George Allen, Midterms '06 and Washington Post. 0 Comments

Not to keep picking on AMERICAblog, but it is an influential site with 70K+ readers daily, and one of its chief contributors completely botched a development in the George Allen story yesterday. Here’s Joe in DC, commenting on the latest explanation for “macaca”:

The Allen campaign has come up with another very tortured explanation for the “Macaca” scandal. Apparently, in their world, calling Mr. Sidarth a “shithead” is somehow acceptable. Seriously, that’s their explanation. They’re claiming that Allen meant to call the guy “a shithead.” Makes this whole thing even more suspicious, considering shithead doesn’t sound a lot like macaca - yet a French slur for dark-skinned north Africans sounds exactly like macaca, and George Allen speaks French and his mom was a white French citizen from north Africa. Gee what a coincidence.

The post is based on a report at Hotline On Call by my former colleagues, Jonathan Martin and Marc Ambinder. Here’s what they wrote:

According to two Republicans who heard the word used, “macaca” was a mash-up of “Mohawk,” referring to Sidarth’s distinctive hair, and “caca,” Spanish slang for excrement, or “shit.” Said one Republican close to the campaign: “In other words, he was a shit-head, an annoyance.”

Did Joe in DC actually read what Hotline reported? It seems more like he skimmed it, and thought he saw what he wanted to see. And in the comments, you have to scroll past two dozen comments to find someone who grasps the relevance of “caca.” If this new explanation is true, and I don’t dismiss it out of hand as Joe does, it reinforces the argument that Allen is mean-spirited and a lousy extemporaneous speaker, and doesn’t really say anything about his alleged racist tendencies.

Meanwhile, AMERICAblog and Media Matters and doubtless others are pointing out that the MSM reports are leaving out the fact of Allen’s mother’s heritage. That’s certainly a valid cause to take up, and it should be reported as part of the story. Because the origin of “macaca” is rapidly turning into a Rohrschach test, it’s important that all the relevant details get in. But if that is worth including, then so is the fact that S.R. Sidarth has indeed sported a mohawk-like hairstyle, and they definitely do not call for greater reportage of that underreported fact. Perhaps Aravosis should tweak the site’s tagline to: “Because a great nation deserves the partial truth.”

That said, they do have a point. So far, the only MSM outlet that matters in this race, but by no means the only outlet that bloggers are watching, has reported on the latter argument in the Metro section — that “faux-hawk” photo helps — but left the former to the letters section. I’m almost tempted to judge it a make-up call for splashing the initial story on A1 in the first place. Almost.

P.S. Apparently “Colbert” is the new “First”/”Frist”/”Fitz”. Also, this guy? Wow.