The Hill: Liberal blogs are "better developed than their Republican counterparts"

Sad but true :-)

The stakes with blogs are a bit higher for Democrats than they are for Republicans. The liberal blogosphere is better developed than its conservative counterpart. Liberal blogs often provide volunteers or campaign contributions to campaigns. And liberal blogs offer an outlet for Democrats when the traditional media have until recently paid them little heed.

For the party out of power, the blogs are akin to conservatives’ dominance of talk radio and direct mail in the late ’70s, Cornfield said.

Conservative direct-mail whiz Richard Viguerie “was the Daily Kos of his day,” Cornfield said.

Actually, this is a pretty good article. The only small quibble I have is with the reporter's discussion of the DailyKos poll showing Nancy Pelosi at 19% approval among Kos readers.

The reporter seems, to me at least, to intimate that the DailyKos readership is even more liberal than Nancy Pelosi. Whether or not that's what the writer meant, I could understand how someone could make that mistake. At first blush, you might say "yeah, I mean wow, even the San Francisco lady isn't liberal enough for the Kossacks."

But then you need only look at how Harry Reid, the pro-life white guy did. You'd think if the woman from San Francisco did bad, the pro-life male would do a lot worse.

But not true. Harry Reid got a 50% approval rating from the DailyKos readers. And it's obviously not because Harry Reid is some flaming lefty.

My point is to educate folks out there about who the blogs and our readers really are. We are from many walks of life and have a wide variety of political views, but we are united in our frustration, anger, and contempt for George Bush's failed presidency. We have quite simply had enough.

And that doesn't make us more liberal than Nancy Pelosi. It makes us 60% of the American people. Read the rest of this post...

Joe Lieberman is sounding more like George Bush every day

Here's how Lieberman is justifying his support for President Bush back home:

But he acknowledged some Democrats are troubled by his support of the Iraq war. "I foresaw this" primary challenge, Lieberman said. "I did not take the positions I've taken because they're popular. I have got to do what I feel is right."

No, Senator, you don't take positions because they're popular, you take them, like George Bush, because you seem to have become shockingly incompetent.

What did you mean a few months ago when you wrote, in the Wall Street Journal of all places:

Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes we do.

Really? And what plan would that be? And by the way, what a coincidence that George Bush then quoted you in his speech defending his abysmal conduct in the Iraq war.

I notice that the good Senator had this to say as well:

I cannot say enough about the U.S. Army and Marines who are carrying most of the fight for us in Iraq. They are courageous, smart, effective, innovative, very honorable and very proud. After a Thanksgiving meal with a great group of Marines at Camp Fallujah in western Iraq, I asked their commander whether the morale of his troops had been hurt by the growing public dissent in America over the war in Iraq. His answer was insightful, instructive and inspirational: "I would guess that if the opposition and division at home go on a lot longer and get a lot deeper it might have some effect, but, Senator, my Marines are motivated by their devotion to each other and the cause, not by political debates."

Thank you, General. That is a powerful, needed message for the rest of America and its political leadership at this critical moment in our nation's history.

Political debates? This isn't about political debates? It's about people dying. It's about 2500 American dead. It's about $300 billion. It's about America's prestige and reputation hitting rock bottom. It's about putting America smack dab in the middle of another Vietnam. And finally, it's about utter incompetence and outright lies.

The only person talking "political" here, Senator Lieberman, is you. You have consistently attacked those who have concerns about the Iraq war, while defending George Bush and praising his great "success" in Iraq. Either you're a Republican sycophant or you're one of the dumbest men in America.

I have no idea which you are, but neither makes you qualified to be a Democrat, let alone a United States Senator. Read the rest of this post...

5 US soldiers dead in Iraq

Are we winning yet? Read the rest of this post...

PoliticsTV video report from yesterday's massive immigration protest in DC

Excellent coverage from PoliticsTV. My favorite part, they asked attendees what it means to them to be American.

PS One small note. At the end of the broadcast, Jason says there were 100,000 people on the mall. I've been to lots of these protests before. That was easily several hundred thousand, if not half a million. Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

What stories are we missing? Read the rest of this post...

Washington Post whitewashes story critical of Cheney

Is it any surprise?

The Washington Post is reporting that Cheney was booed today at a baseball game for throwing out a bad first pitch.

The first pitch of the Washington Nationals' second season at Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium was low and away, bouncing in the dirt before being scooped up by catcher Brian Schneider. For that, Vice President Cheney received a round of boos from the home crowd this afternoon.

Uh, no.

According to the pool report from the game, Cheney wasn't booed for throwig a bad pitch, Cheney was booed from the moment he stepped out onto the field. He was booed because the fans don't like him, not because they simply didn't like his pitch:

Gorgeous day, 70 degrees with happy, red-capped turnout est at 25k. VPOTUS stepped out onto field dressed in khakis and a Nats bomber jacket to the sound of thunderous boos and catcalls, making Kerry’ welcome at the Dem convention seem downright warm (spotted in the crowd: a t-shirt upon which someone had scrawled, ‘don’t shoot me dick.’) Jeering may or may not have disrupted the veep’s concentraton, but the pitch — from about a yard in front of the mound — was short, bouncing once before being reined in.

The jeering was BEFORE the pitch, that's why it may have disrupted Cheney's concentration DURING the pitch.

I'm sure it was yet another innocent mistake by the Washington Post, like all their innocent mistakes that continually rewrite history in the Bush administration's favor. Read the rest of this post...

Froomkin deciphers Bush

In two short paragraphs, Dan Froomkin today accurately and succinctly captures George Bush in a way most reporters and columnists who write about the President never will:

President Bush dismissed reports that he is planning to attack Iran as "wild speculation" yesterday. But that's a far cry from saying it flatly ain't so.

And Bush -- who, it is now abundantly clear, secretly decided to go to war in Iraq long before he admitted as much in public -- lacks credibility on such issues.

The President has no cred. Period. Read the rest of this post...

A question for Bush

And a very good question it is:

It isn't the old and famous: What did the president know and when did he know it? (We now know a good bit about what this president knew and when he knew it. And what he did after he knew it.)

It is: Did the president tell the special prosecutor's team all the truth that he knew, or did he tell them the same thing he was telling us back then?

We need to know that because what Bush was telling us in 2003 _ that he knew nothing about the leaks and wanted to find and fire all leakers _ ran the narrow gamut from misleading half-truth to bald-faced untruth.

Of course, it is not a federal crime for a president to lie to the American people when he is not under oath. (No, the usual punishment we inflict upon incumbent presidents who lie to us is to re-elect them.)

But it is a crime for anyone to mislead, impede or lie to federal investigators _ whether they are not under oath to tell the truth or not. For a president or a vice president, it can be an impeachable crime. (This point was argued most persuasively by congressional Republicans a few years ago as they made a federal case out of an incident that was not about national security, but consensual oral sex.)

As we've seen with both the GOP and the traditional media, lying about sex is easier to grasp. They went bonkers when that happened. But, they seem to have a very hard time comprehending the idea that the President lied to them about a war. Bush and his crew lie all the time. The GOPers and the traditional media just accept it because, you know, we are a "nation at war" and "terrorists are evil."

For federal investigators, lying is a much more serious offense. To them, it's not spin. To them, it's a crime -- even for a President. We'll find out from Patrick Fitzgerald whether Bush lied -- and he has more veracity then what spews from Karl Rove or Scott McClellan. Read the rest of this post...

Open Thread

Cheney got booed when he threw out the first pitch at the Nationals game. The Republican Governor of Missouri, Matt Blunt (son of Congressman Roy Blunt), was conveniently "out of town" when Bush arrived in his state today.

What else? Read the rest of this post...

TIME magazine thinks liberals "hate America"

No, but we are starting to hate TIME.

Alterman (via Atrios) provides the context and an action step. And he's right. Do it, please.

PS Just me, or would Via Atrios make a great street name in Rome. Just asking... Read the rest of this post...

Gingrich calls for US to withdraw from Iraq

Why does Newt hate America?

Why does he want to give aid and comfort to Osama?

Doesn't Newt think we're number one?

Is he a John-Kerry-liberal?

Newt Gingrich is for cutting and running.

Newt Gingrich wants to see our soldiers killed.

I hear that's not the American way.

Oh, and by the way: Democrats, please get an audio copy of Newt's remarks and play them EVERY SINGLE TIME a Republican criticizes you for your Iraq position.

I'd even go one step further - make a short sound clip of Newt saying this and give a copy to every Democratic member of Congress. They can put the sound file on those little voice recorders they use for dictating memos and stuff. And every single time they're on a TV show or talking to the public or interviewing with a reporter, PLAY THE SOUND CLIP of Newt calling for America to withdraw from Iraq.

If Dems jump on this comment from Newt, they can innoculate themselves about ANY "you're soft on terror" attack from Republicans in the fall. Make the Republicans explain Newt, make HIM the issue, make their intransigence the issue. Just don't wait until Mehlman and Rove attack your patriotism this summer before coming up with a strategy to respond to the charges you already know are coming. Read the rest of this post...

Why was a criminal repeatedly calling Ken Mehlman's office?

Tobin was involved in criminal activity at the same time he was repeatedly talking to now-Republican Party Chair (and closet heterosexual) Ken Mehlman's office in the White House.

Why is that?

From the Associated Press:

Key figures in a phone-jamming scheme designed to keep New Hampshire Democrats from voting in 2002 had regular contact with the White House and Republican Party as the plan was unfolding, phone records introduced in criminal court show.

The records show that Bush campaign operative James Tobin, who recently was convicted in the case, made two dozen calls to the White House within a three-day period around Election Day 2002 -- as the phone jamming operation was finalized, carried out and then abruptly shut down....

Virtually all the calls to the White House went to the same number, which currently rings inside the political affairs office. In 2002, White House political affairs was led by now-RNC chairman Ken Mehlman. The White House declined to say which staffer was assigned that phone number in 2002.

Read the rest of this post...

Latest Italian election results, Prodi wins lower and upper house, Bush's buddy Berlusconi is toast

(click to see larger picture)

Though, Berlusconi is calling for a recount. It's rather fascinating that Italy, like the US, is having these razor-thin margins. I've always felt that political trends tend to sweep the world - well, you can go all the way back to the French revolution of 1789 (that date sound familiar?) to the student riots of the 60s, to the conservative Thatcher-Reagan era of governments in the 80s, and perhaps - perhaps - to razor-thing margins of divided government and divided people of the 00s.

And best of all, perhaps this is the beginning of the fall of Bush's friends around the world. Tony Blair, be your days numbered. Read the rest of this post...

Call Diogenes, we found an honest reporter

And his name is David Shuster with NBC.

Shuster actually dissected the entire Scooter Libby leak story and nailed Bush to the wall for "selectively leaking intelligence" - i.e., Bush knew the info he was leaking wasn't credible.

Yes, Virginia, there IS a journalist.

Video from C&L;. Read the rest of this post...

Accept it: He's an amazingly unpopular president

John has a post on the latest poll showing another low for Bush. It shows one more time just how unpopular the President is. Still, it seems like there is some inability in the media and among some politicos to accept this reality.

While there are a lot of polls these days with new lows for Bush, having it verifed again with the Post-ABC poll is particularly gratifying. You may remember that last December, the Washington Post-ABC News poll found Bush's approval rating had risen to 47 percent:

President Bush's approval rating has surged in recent weeks, reversing what had been an extended period of decline, with Americans now expressing renewed optimism about the future of democracy in Iraq, the campaign against terrorism and the U.S. economy, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News Poll.

That poll sent the DC chattering class into a frenzy. They were very self-satisfied with that development. They fully believed Bush was going to build up his approval ratings -- as if the low numbers from Iraq and Katrina were some kind of aberration. Those were the same people who believed Bush when he claimed a mandate after the 2004 elections. You can imagine how Rove was spinning them after that December poll. But that poll was an outlier then and it really looks like an anomaly now.

Bush is still tanking -- he keeps reaching new lows -- and he probably still hasn't hit the bottom yet. He is an extremely unpopular president and even the traditional media should be able to grasp that. Likewise, no Democrat should ever fear Bush or Rove again. And they shouldn't hesitate to kick him while he's down. The same crowd that grasped on to that one December poll that looked a little better for Bush need to accept the reality of all the polls since then. Atrios put it best:

Everybody hates the president except a few whackjobs.

Read the rest of this post...

On immigration, public hates Bush and GOP, trusts Dems

This is what a sinking ship looks like.

But in the new Post-ABC News poll, completed Sunday, 50 percent of respondents said they trusted the Democrats to better handle the immigration issue, while 38 percent trusted Republicans. A third of Americans approved of the president's handling of the immigration issue, while 61 percent disapproved. Only his handling of gas prices showed lower approval ratings.

Three-quarters of those responding said the United States is not doing enough to secure its borders, but they appeared to have rejected the argument that immigrants are an economic threat. About 68 percent said illegal immigrants are filling jobs Americans do not want, compared with 29 percent who believe they are taking jobs from Americans.

Read the rest of this post...

Tuesday Morning Open Thread

What's the buzz? Read the rest of this post...

Votes still being counted in Italy - may have a re-count

And I thought that the German elections were close. The results are showing Prodi with a miniscule lead in the lower house and Berlusconi with a one seat lead in the upper house though overseas votes are still being counted. (Isn't it interesting that Italy, France and other countries actually have representatives for overseas voters instead of the US model where we are lumped in with politicians who really don't give a damn about us despite our requirement to report and pay taxes while living overseas? The millions of Americans residing overseas are so poorly represented in Washington compared with other countries.)

Berlusconi is asking for a re-count and the general mood is that Italy will be a rudderless ship for a while until new elections are held. This new mixed government will be unable to make any changes but then again, most analysts had little faith in either coalition to make significant changes or be able to follow through with reforms. Read the rest of this post...

State Farm Insurance accused of destroying Katrina-related documents

The insurance company covers wind damage but water-related damage, such as from rising flood waters, is not covered. The insurance company is being sued by a number of Gulf Coast inhabitants who claim that State Farm destroyed documents which showed that the initial damage to houses was caused by the hurricane winds. If true, the big insurance company has picked the wrong place to attempt such a scheme since one of the policy holders who is claiming fraud is Senator Trent Lott. Can you imagine how little exposure (and success) this story might receive if the senator was not also involved? Read the rest of this post...

Bush's approval rating is at a new low

Who knew the American people had a problem with incompetence?

The survey found that 38 percent of the public approve of the job Bush is doing, down three percentage points in the past month and his worst showing in Post-ABC polling since he became president. Sixty percent disapprove of his performance....

A majority of registered voters, 55 percent, say they plan to vote for the Democratic candidate in their House district, while 40 percent support the Republican candidate. That is the largest share of the electorate favoring Democrats in Post-ABC polls since the mid-1980s.

And the Dems are beating the Repubs on pretty much every issue, and we're tied on terrorism:

As Bush and the Republicans falter, Democrats have emerged as the party most Americans trust to deal with such issues as Iraq, the economy and health care. By 49 to 42 percent, Americans trust Democrats more than Republicans to do a better job of handling Iraq.

Democrats also hold a six-percentage-point advantage over the GOP (49 percent to 43 percent) as the party most trusted to handle the economy. Their lead swells to double digits on such as issues as immigration (12 points), prescription drug benefits for the elderly (28 points), health care (32 points) and dealing with corruption in Washington (25 points).

The public divides evenly on only one issue: terrorism, with 46 percent expressing more confidence in the Democrats and 45 percent trusting Republicans on a top voting concern that the GOP counts on dominating.

Read the rest of this post...

AP prints Bush's spin on Libby leak, that he was trying to "spread the truth," yet fails to mention that in fact Bush knew the info leaked was false

The Associated Press is running a story with Bush's latest comments on why he authorized certain intelligence information to be leaked in 2003:

President Bush said Monday that he declassified sensitive prewar intelligence on Iraq back in 2003 to counter critics who claimed the administration had exaggerated the nuclear threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

"I wanted people to see the truth and thought it made sense for people to see the truth," Bush said during an appearance at Johns Hopkins University's Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies.

Okay, and do you think it might be relevant to include in the AP story the fact that the information that Bush leaked in order to supposedly "spread the truth" was in fact information that had already been proven wrong months BEFORE Bush authorized it to be leaked?

In other words, Bush wasn't spreading the truth, he was intentionally spreading lies. Do you think you'd find that relevant?

From this weekend's Washington Post:

But according to Libby's grand jury testimony, described for the first time in legal papers filed this week, Cheney "specifically directed" Libby in late June or early July 2003 to pass information to reporters from two classified CIA documents: an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate and a March 2002 summary of Wilson's visit to Niger.

One striking feature of that decision -- unremarked until now, in part because Fitzgerald did not mention it -- is that the evidence Cheney and Libby selected to share with reporters had been disproved months before.

In other words, Bush didn't want people to see the truth, in fact he intentionally leaked false information, information he knew had been disproven months before, in order to trick the American people into supporting the war in Iraq under false circumstances.

If you were a normal human being, and you had a story in front of you about how the president is now claiming he was trying to spread the truth when in fact it's known that the president was knowingly spreading lies, you'd find that last little fact kind of relevant to your story. In fact, you'd find the fact that the president outright lied today a rather BIG story.

But if you're the Associated Press, well, it would seem that you, like Fred Hiatt, can't be bothered to actually follow the news you're writing about. I mean, what's accuracy when you can settle for truthiness.

Let's see if AP issues a correction. Everyone hold your breath, clap your hands, and click your heels three times. Read the rest of this post...