Friday, July 01, 2005
Friday Cat Blogging
Giving us their best imitation of the Washington press during their August vacations in Nantucket, resting up before they come back and tell us that the problem with Americans is that they don't work enough.
Inside Politics
There was always something eerily familiar about the bizarre pair of Novak and Valenti doing roundtable discussion on Inside Politics.
I finally figured out what it reminded me of.
reader and friend m provides some better pictures:
I finally figured out what it reminded me of.
reader and friend m provides some better pictures:
More Roe
CNN just flashed up poll results regarding Roe. 65% want a justice who would uphold Roe. 47% of Republicans want a justice who would uphold Roe (verus 46% who want one who would overturn it).
They Write Letters
John Martellaro writes to Romenesko (which I'll reproduce as there's no permanent way to link to it that I'm aware of):
From JOHN MARTELLARO: Where’s the outrage among journalists and other First Amendment partisans over the Miller-Cooper case?
Hunkered down in the same corner where it was the last time the sound and noble principle of the First Amendment had to be defended on behalf of a horrifically bad example of its use: the march of Illinois Nazis through the town of Skokie in the late 1970s.
You know in your head that the principle is right. In your heart, you have nothing but contempt for the individuals who are taking advantage of it for their own selfish ends.
There can be no debate that confidential sourcing is essential to good journalism and that journalists – and those who benefit from its proper execution – should stand fast for that principle. There also should be no debate that Cooper and Miller engaged in astoundingly bad judgment in granting anonymity to sources in this particular case.
The whole purpose of anonymous sourcing is to level the playing field between the powerful and the powerless. Anonymity is supposed to be granted to sources who fear some kind of retribution for speaking the truth -- being fired, being sued, being assaulted, etc.
It was never intended to be used the way it has been utterly abused in recent decades by the Washington press corps: to gain a competitive advantage against other reporters. Their passion is not for the public interest but for career-advancing scoops, and to get them, they are willing to give the powerful a shield that allows these Washington mandarins to engage in political gamesmanship with their peers, to float trial balloons, to spread disinformation without consequences or -- in the case of Valerie Plame -- to commit a felony offense in order to exact political punishment against opponents further down on the political food chain.
What should be a valuable tool for speaking truth to power has been put in serious jeopardy by vain fools who have completely lost sight of the reason why First Amendment protection exists in the first place. It's not there to make it easier for them to strut and preen on Sunday morning televised gabfests.
Reporters who do the real work of watchdog journalism in this country -- most of whom rarely if ever go to Washington, D.C. – are the ones who will suffer for this.
How it Used to Work
In the early 90s, when the Democrats were in control of the Senate, President Clinton consulted with the ranking minority member, Orrin Hatch, about SC appointments. Hatch himself bragged in his autobiography that he was the person who suggested Ginsburg and Breyer.
This rather important fact will, of course, be left entirely out of the media conversation on this topic.
This rather important fact will, of course, be left entirely out of the media conversation on this topic.
What We're Going to Get
Was just on a conference call with Senator Kennedy and a bunch of online magazine publishers. I think the key point to come out of it is that when it comes to the question of is Bush going to nominate a conservative extremist who would invite a confrontation or someone more like O'Connor who could be a consensus candidate, all signs point to extremist. He pointed out that conservative groups are poised to dump $18 million into this process, something which would be entirely unnecessary if a consensus candidate were in the pipeline.
History
Nathan Newman gives the most convincing explanation I've yet heard for why Rehnquist hasn't announced his retirement (though he likely will in a couple of months).
O'Connor's retirement announcement doesn't change this, as she is officially staying on until her successor is confirmed.
O'Connor's retirement announcement doesn't change this, as she is officially staying on until her successor is confirmed.
Not One Democrat
Unless I missed one, it took over 2 hours before a single person was on CNN to represent the Democratic view. There certainly wasn't one on before 11:45.
Back to the 19th Century
Yglesias is surely correct that the near term concerns are economic issues that will face the court. I don't know how these issues can be easily soundbited pre-emptively, though perhaps if a nominee has some horrible anti-worker or anti-consumer rulings in their past an issue can be made.
The Party of Abortion Rights
Planned Parenthood v. Casey was a 5-4 decision.* It's difficult to imagine that whatever wingnut Bush has to offer up to please the base wouldn't flip that, and effectively overturn Roe. I doubt Republicans will actually be happy with that, the ones who want to get elected anyway, because I think they understand what Democrats don't seem to - people in this country quite strongly favor abortion rights (it's important to remember that all the laws they enacted to use as test cases have bee written in such a way to guarantee that the Court in its current form would shoot them down in order to keep the issue alive for one more election cycle). Yes, the "ick" factor causes people to embrace the curtailing of abortion rights around the edges, but that's mostly because people who are made slightly uncomfortable by the issue want to have a little bit of an "out."
When Roe goes, there will be much confusion among Democrats I imagine. The anti-abortion machine is in place and it is far stronger than the abortion rights machine. Since the media gives deference to anything under the cover of religion, and equates religion with conservatism, the anti-abortion machine will have much more uncritical treatment by the media.
When this moves to legislatures - federal and state - odds are the temptation by Democrats will be, as it generally is, to compromise, to find the center as defined by Tim Russert. To stand, then, for nothing.
The removal of the constitutional right to have a say in what goes on in your uterus will certainly be a bad thing, but it will also certainly be a political opportunity for the Democrats to define themselves, if only they seize it.
As a secondary issue I've always been a bit puzzled by those who think that the Roe decision somehow made politics nasty. When legislatures have the power to legislate this issue, it will be, at least for a time, the central issue for every candidate in every state and federal election. It will be all abortion all the time.
And, it will be nasty.
*People in comments have reminded me that until O'Connor's retirement the "pro-Roe" crowd numbered 6. So, perhaps this issue will be punted for another couple of years. Someone make sure Stevens has a good doctor.
When Roe goes, there will be much confusion among Democrats I imagine. The anti-abortion machine is in place and it is far stronger than the abortion rights machine. Since the media gives deference to anything under the cover of religion, and equates religion with conservatism, the anti-abortion machine will have much more uncritical treatment by the media.
When this moves to legislatures - federal and state - odds are the temptation by Democrats will be, as it generally is, to compromise, to find the center as defined by Tim Russert. To stand, then, for nothing.
The removal of the constitutional right to have a say in what goes on in your uterus will certainly be a bad thing, but it will also certainly be a political opportunity for the Democrats to define themselves, if only they seize it.
As a secondary issue I've always been a bit puzzled by those who think that the Roe decision somehow made politics nasty. When legislatures have the power to legislate this issue, it will be, at least for a time, the central issue for every candidate in every state and federal election. It will be all abortion all the time.
And, it will be nasty.
*People in comments have reminded me that until O'Connor's retirement the "pro-Roe" crowd numbered 6. So, perhaps this issue will be punted for another couple of years. Someone make sure Stevens has a good doctor.
Neuharth
This is a quite a big deal. Via E&P I see that USA Today founder Al Neuharth has a rather harsh anti-Iraq war editorial.
President Bush went on the air this week to pretend again that things are OK in Iraq. Shades of President Lyndon Johnson and Vietnam nearly 40 years ago.
The most important similarity between Iraq and Vietnam is that both Democratic and Republican presidents lied to us in wartime. To refresh your memory, here's how we got out of the Vietnam quagmire:
• Walter Cronkite, CBS-TV news anchor known as "the most trusted man in America," after a combat tour of Vietnam in 1968 declared, "There is no way this war can be justified any longer."
• Johnson lamented to aides, "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost middle America." He announced he would not run for re-election.
The crucial difference between Vietnam and Iraq is that there is no Cronkite to call Bush's bluff. Without a strong, trusted, non-political voice, too many of us remain Bush-blinded. Bush tried keeping the wool over our eyes again Tuesday on national TV by repeatedly tying Iraq to 9/11. That charge is as phony as his discredited prewar claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
WSJ
I saw this earlier this morning and it kind of froze my brain up. Roger Ailes flags it. Just contemplate these two sentences being written by the WSJ editorial board:
It may be that he too has concluded that talking to the press is no crime, in which case he may by now only be pursuing a perjury rap against the leaker. If that's true, Mr. Fitzgerald will have earned a place in the Overzealous Hall of Fame."
Boom
Fox says O'Connor is about to announce retirement...
...CNN confirms.
Let's hope Bush nominates someone who be a judge for all Americans.
...CNN confirms.
Let's hope Bush nominates someone who be a judge for all Americans.
Live 8
Haven't been able to get too excited about it. Perhaps I should've tried to score some blogger online magazine journalist credentials for the event. I'll probably just open up my window and hear what I can hear...
Plame
Richard Cranium on why Plame matters.
I think there's one caveat here - if Time magazine "did the right thing" they did it in the wrong way and for the wrong reasons. If the right thing to do was hand over the papers they should've done it a long time ago.
I think there's one caveat here - if Time magazine "did the right thing" they did it in the wrong way and for the wrong reasons. If the right thing to do was hand over the papers they should've done it a long time ago.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)