« December 2005 | Main | February 2006 »

House Republicans will meet Thursday to elect a new majority leader. Beltway Blogroll requested e-mail interviews with all three candidates in advance of the vote, and Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri, the current majority whip and frontrunner in the race, was the first to submit his answers.

The interview with Blunt is below. The interviews with the other two candidates, John Boehner of Ohio and John Shadegg of Arizona, will be posted as they are received:

Beltway Blogroll: Washington is embroiled in a lobbying scandal right now. What impact do you expect that to have within Congress and on Republicans in the House in particular? What electoral impact will the scandal have? In other words, would your reign as majority leader be a short one?

Roy Blunt: In 1995 House Republicans took the majority by focusing on reforming the way government does business, and 2005 was no different. We had a banner year legislatively, ranging from securing our borders to extending tax relief. I'm proud of House Republicans' accomplishments. We've led with bold initiatives -- not by reacting to the news of the day. Our successful agenda is built around our core philosophy of limited government that promotes entrepreneurs, encourages job growth, defends the family and secures our country. While I acknowledge that we will have to take steps to regain Americans' trust, this scandal does not define us. The best thing we can do to regain that trust is to finish the work we've begun by staying focused on our agenda.

There is no question that the issue of a few bad actors who did not abide by the laws or any prevailing ethical standard have drawn attention to a situation that requires another look.

BB: Are there too many lobbyists in Washington? Do they have too much influence on Capitol Hill? What lobbying reforms would you advocate as majority leader?

RB: There are some very specific problems that require a tough, but common-sense, approach to reforming the current system. My proposal includes:

-- Applicability of the rules to lobbyists. Apply the congressional gift ban to lobbyists and impose penalties for lobbyists who violate the rules. Right now there are no penalties for lobbyists for breaking the gift rules.

-- Disclosure and transparency. Require more timely disclosure of lobbying expenditures, including all expenditures covered under the gift rules.

-- Expand disclosure requirements. Unlike corporations, tribal employees who lobby Congress are not required to file a lobbying disclosure form. They should be subject to the same rules as corporate lobbyists.

-- Restrict tribal donations. Since most tribes are not incorporated, they may make contributions in federal elections directly from their tribal funds, without establishing a PAC. This facilitates the ability of tribes to make contributions and enables them to make contributions from the income they receive from tribal businesses. Tribes should not be treated differently than corporations.

-- Shadow political organizations. Subject 527s to the same limits as PACs.

-- Private travel. Prohibit privately funded travel for members [of Congress] and staff, or at a minimum require that such travel be pre-approved.

BB: What involvement have you had with the GOP's K Street Project, and what would become of it under a Blunt majority leadership?

RB: I have not been involved with the K Street Project.

BB: On a personal level, were you aware at the time (March 2004) that your former chief of staff and close friend Gregg Hartley secured a position for Jack Abramoff at Hartley's lobbying firm after the initial story came out about Abramoff's bilking of Indian tribes? And now what do you think of Hartley's securing a soft landing for Abramoff?

RB: Gregg Hartley is a close friend, but he does not discuss management of his firm with me, and I don't weigh in on his personnel decisions.

BB: What are your thoughts on some of the "institutional reforms" that have been proposed? Specifically what about the use of conference reports to include/exclude language, late-night votes, and bills going to the floor that have not been viewed by members?

RB: My agenda for institutional reform includes:

-- No new government programs. Adopt a policy prohibiting consideration of legislation creating any new government program with a net cost unless the cost of the program is offset by the elimination or reduction of an existing program.

-- Annual spending reconciliations. Adopt a policy that the House will pursue a spending-reduction reconciliation bill as part of each year's annual budget.

-- Emergency reserve fund. Begin budgeting for emergency spending, such as natural disasters, by including an emergency reserve fund in the annual budget.

-- Sunset review. I am a long-time supporter of Rep. [Kevin] Brady's proposal to eliminate wasteful and duplicative programs through a sunset review commission. It would be my intent to bring that plan to the floor this year.

BB: Given the political importance of spending earmarks to members, how much can you really curb them? And will you deny them (take them out of bills) to the appropriators who put them in?

RB: While we all acknowledge that there have been wasteful and inappropriate earmarks, I continue to believe that directing funds to carry out projects that serve a legitimate public purpose is an important function of representatives in Congress. If funds were not earmarked for a specific project but instead simply allocated to a big government program (under which they are earmarked), they would still be spent -- at the discretion of administration bureaucrats who don't have the same insight into the needs of an area that a member of Congress has.

This practice often results in the same wasteful and inappropriate spending, such as the $700,000 EPA grant that was made without any knowledge of the work the recipient would perform, or the $1 million that was spent by the National Institutes of Mental Health to attempt to discover "what makes a meaningful day."

We must seek to eliminate wasteful spending wherever it occurs. That is why I am proposing that the House consider reforming both the earmark process and the grant-making process. Specifically, on the issue of earmark reform, I propose requiring that for each earmark included in a bill, the following be disclosed:
-- The member requesting the earmark;
-- The name and address of the recipient;
-- And a brief statement explaining how the earmarked funds will be used to carry out the purpose of the program under which the earmark is made.

On government grant reform, the administration should be required to develop and maintain a publicly accessible central database providing the following information:
-- The name and address of the recipient of each government grant;
-- The total amount of grants received by an entity from all government agencies;
-- And a brief statement explaining how the government funds will be used to carry out the purpose of the program under which the grant is made.

BB: What is your view of the recent practice of annual, automatic cost-of-living adjustments for members of Congress? Have you accepted those raises, and if so, why? Would you push legislation to end that practice and to require up-or-down votes on pay raises?

RB: I have supported cost-of-living adjustments for all federal employees, and that does include members of Congress.

BB: What would your legislative priorities be as majority leader in 2006?

RB: We must extend tax relief that has already been enacted and ensure that there are no automatic tax increases on families or entrepreneurs in the future. We must also address rising health and energy costs that threaten our economic progress. Health savings accounts should be expanded through additional incentives; medical malpractice laws must be reformed and health insurance made more portable.

We must also reform the earmark and federal grant-making processes. Specifically, members must be accountable for the requests they make for funding in their districts. Earmarks must be identified with the member who is requesting them, and they must be accompanied by a justification for how the expenditure serves a public purpose. This scrutiny should also be applied to grants made by federal agencies by creating a public database of all those receiving grants along with a thorough explanation of how the grant fulfills the public interest.

I look forward to implementing our aggressive agenda to limit the size of government and grow our economy by putting more control back in the hands of families and entrepreneurs, and by enacting new lobbying reforms, which I've already outlined, and enhancing penalties for those who break the public trust.

BB: What is your view of the controversy over eavesdropping on Americans? As majority leader, would you seek changes in the law to limit such activities?

RB: I agree with the president. This practice should be re-termed a "terrorist surveillance program." I support any actions that are designed to keep Americans safe from terrorists.

BB: Cellular privacy is in the news, with reports that people's calling records can be purchased easily online. What would you advocate as majority leader to address privacy concerns involving that practice?

RB: I hope to take up legislation early in 2006 that protects the privacy of cell-phone users, and ensures that the necessary legal authority and resources are in place to punish those who attempt to sell or otherwise distribute an individual's calling records.

BB: What are your political priorities as a leader of the Republican Party headed into a mid-term election? If elected as majority leader, what three to four specific ideas for increasing the GOP majority would you offer to National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Reynolds?

RB: Chairman Reynolds does a great job and certainly doesn't need my advice, but we all do need to work together to help him retain and grow our Republican majority in the House. Because there are significant and legitimate differences between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to issues like national security, tax and spending policies, and protecting the family, it would be my goal as leader to ensure that we had votes on the floor that highlighted those differences.

BB: What role should moderates play in the Republican Conference? In your service as chief deputy whip and majority whip, describe your work with the moderate and conservative wings of the party on hot-button issues like tax cuts.

RB: Every member is an important part of our Republican Conference, and I'm committed to talking and working with each one. Moderates and conservatives have much more in common than they disagree on when it comes to our agenda.

As whip, I have made it my job to know our members better than anyone else, and have listened and worked with moderates and conservatives alike to identify how we move forward on our agenda and resolve any differences within our conference. The success of our conference in working together was best demonstrated at the end of last year, as we passed both spending and tax reconciliation bills on the strength of Republican votes.

BB: In National Journal magazine this month, I had a piece on the growing influence of blogs within Washington. What is your assessment of their influence?

RB: This leadership race is the first in the age of the blogs, which are one of the best ways for people who are interested in the race on the outside to follow developments. It's exciting to see what pundits and political observers are saying, but it's important to keep in mind that at the end of the day this is a unique election in which only members get to cast a vote for leader. That's why I've focused my time and energy on listening to my fellow members' ideas and sharing my ideas with them about where to lead us.

BB: What blogs do you read regularly? How would you reach out to bloggers as majority leader? Would you start a blog as majority leader? If so, how would you use it? If not, why not?

RB: The blogs are having quite an impact on this leadership race. It has been really interesting to read the rapid coverage and feedback on the race and politics in general.

I already began an open dialogue with the bloggers with my first bloggers' conference call a few days ago. If I'm elected majority leader, I'll continue that regular interaction, as I already do with reporters who cover the Capitol in a weekly pen-and-pad session.

I am working on redesigning my Web site now, so any new site will have a blog component so I can update readers constantly on what is happening on the Hill.

Posted by at 08:34 PM | Comments (0)

By the time President Bush gives his State of the Union address a few hours from now, much of it will be old news thanks to the Internet.

Today has been marked by an abundance of pre-speech blogging, and it will be followed tonight by live-blogging and post-speech blogging. Beltway Blogroll is the place to get your nonpartisan SOTU primer, so here goes:

-- RedState was the first to post excerpts of Bush's speech sent via e-mail by the Republican National Committee. The excerpts touch on terrorism, U.S. competitiveness, energy and health care.

-- The Huffington Post dedicated much of its content today to Bush's forthcoming speech. Arianna Huffington told America what to expect in two posts, one of which she dubbed the "Big Lie Alert." Democratic Reps. Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Bernie Sanders of Vermont were among the other contributors who posted pre-speech commentary at Huffington's group blog.

-- Pollsters Mark Blumenthal and John Zogby shared their insights.

-- Open Source encouraged its audience to participate in a "Blogs of the Union" event, and Matt Stoller of MyDD was among those who did.

-- Some bloggers, including Pat Cleary of the Manufacturers' Blog, are on Capitol Hill as I write to talk to lawmakers both before and after the event as part of the latest "blog row" hosted by House Republicans. Cleary and his "blogger's apprentice" already have filed feeds based on comments from several lawmakers.

-- Not to be outdone, The Stakeholder, the blog of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, will live-blog the speech and post responses from a few House lawmakers afterward. Some of the lawmakers also have agreed to take questions online. Rep. John Conyers of Michigan announced at ConyersBlog that he will participate.

-- Andrew Sullivan and Ed Morrissey of Captain's Quarters also will live-blog the event. Sullivan will do his duty at CNN during the Anderson Cooper show -- though I'm not sure why considering the show has its own blog. On the left, the meaty editorial offerings planned by Think Progress also include live-blogging.

-- On the other hand, the thought of live-blogging certainly doesn't sound like it would appeal to Joshua Micah Marshall of Talking Points Memo. He admitted that he can't bear the thought of watching the speech live. "Now, I read the transcript later. I'll often go back and watch key sections so I can get the flavor of a particular passage in the speech or of a debate it has spawned. But the thing itself (watching the actual production in real time) and then the imbecile chatter afterwards -- I just can't deal. I just find it unbearable. Are there others out there like me?"

Posted by at 05:56 PM | Comments (0)

My piece last week on "A Luxurious Junket For Bloggers" has sparked a debate about blogger ethics, and that's a good thing. Even as they rightly hound journalists, public officials, businessmen and others about ethical breaches, bloggers are loathe to discuss the ethics of their own behavior. They should look inwardly as well.

Yesterday's edition of The Hotline's Blogometer had a good pro-and-con roundup of the commentary in response to my piece, including more thoughts from me. Much of the reaction has been critical, particularly from the bloggers who are taking a government-funded trip to Amsterdam, Netherlands, in exchange for advertising space and post-trip interviews with officials from the nation's tourism board.

On the other hand, even some readers of those blogs see at least the appearance of a conflict of interest. Here are some snippets pulled from posts or comments at Americablog, Pandagon and TalkLeft:

Twenty years ago, if you were a journalist in an urban area, you got constant offers of these kinds of junkets. Most newspapers eventually made accepting them taboo. The argument that you call them like you see them doesn't mean a lot unless you actually do report something negative. And your readers have no idea what you may be withholding.

It doesn't matter whether it's worth more or less than an ad buy. John [Aravosis of Americablog] would be the first one to get all high and moral if a journalist accepted such a free trip. He'd go on and on about it is bound to affect the journalist's objectivity. This is no different -- everyone here knows exactly what the Dutch want, and the bloggers who go on this trip are going to give it to them.

[L]et's not pretend that any of us do not have a price. That our integrity is not for sale at some point? While I do not believe in bogeymen, nor do I believe in saints. Everyone is corruptible. ... [M]aybe we could do with a bit more self-awareness and a tad less self-righteousness.

You[r] advertiser is paying for a free trip to Europe. Perhaps it doesn't look good.

Plenty of other blogs are talking about the trip, too. Here is a sampling of opinions for Beltway Blogroll readers to peruse:
-- Ace of Spades HQ
-- Centerfield
-- Gridskipper
-- Hammer of Truth
-- Kerfuffles
-- Suburban Guerilla
-- Tapscott's Copy Desk
-- This Space For Rent
-- Thoughts from an Empty Head
-- The Three C's of Convergence
-- Tim Worstall

Posted by at 07:22 AM | Comments (2)

The netroots of the left are testing the waters of political polling.

MyDD already is raising money for a polling project, and now Daily Kos is looking to hire a programmer who can replicate the 2008 presidential straw poll that the right side of the blogosphere has been running for months.

The MyDD project, inspired by a similar effort at Impeach PAC a few months ago, calls for semi-annual telephone polls, according to blogger Chris Bowers. MyDD is raising money to "commission a comprehensive, nationwide poll that will ask 20 questions that most polling firms, especially those attached to commercial news organizations, seem unable to ask themselves."

The first round of funding, which had netted almost the entire goal of $17,000 as of today, will ask "well-worded questions" on the impeachment of President Bush, the withdrawal of troups from Iraq and the domestic spying program of the Bush administration that has been in the news for several weeks.

The online-based straw poll at Daily Kos, by contrast, will not be scientific. Its goal will be to gauge the changing candidate preferences of blog readers.

"I don't want exactly what the other guys did," said Markos Moulitsas Zuniga. "We'll customize for our own needs. But what they've done is a great model. I especially love the ability to have various sites participate in each poll and then track results by site.

UPDATE: MyDD has released the numbers from its polling project in seven installments. A wrap-up post is available at the site, or you can get the details in parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.

CLARIFICATION: Bob Fertik of ImpeachPAC e-mailed me to say that AfterDowningStreet, rather than his group, sponsored the polls mentioned as the inspiration for the MyDD project.

Posted by at 07:15 AM | Comments (0)

The directors of RedState last week sent a simple, straightforward message about their support for Arizona Republican John Shadegg as House majority leader: "This matters."

Unfortunately for RedState's leaders (and Shadegg), few House Republicans seem to be listening -- and they are the only ones with votes in Thursday's three-way election. Majority Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri is the clear frontrunner in the fight to succeed Tom DeLay of Texas, and John Boehner of Ohio has been running a solid second.

The numbers make perfectly clear that the philosophical rift between grassroots bloggers and the Beltway establishment, evident on the left as well as the right, is as wide as ever. The question now is whether GOP bloggers and the next majority leader can bridge the gap between them after the election.

If Shadegg manages an upset, the task should be relatively easy. He will have won the support of his Republican colleagues, and he entered the contest as the darling of right-leaning bloggers.

RedState endorsed Shadegg even before he was a candidate, and a tally at The Truth Laid Bear shows that he has 100 percent of the few blog endorsements in the contest. Shadegg also won plenty of praise after a Jan. 19 conference call with bloggers.

"He hit all the right notes," Right Wing News proclaimed in giving Shadegg an overall grade of A. And Ed Morrissey of Captain's Quarters added that electing Shadegg would "send a clear message" that House Republicans are serious about ethics and reform in the wake of party ties to corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

"Shadegg is the most conservative of the candidates for majority leader and the least connected to the K Street Project and the Washington establishment more generally," said Thomas Mann, a scholar at the Brookings Institution. "This gives him natural appeal with conservative bloggers."

Those bloggers are less enamored with Boehner but appear open to working with him, too. The anonymous RedState blogger Blanton penned "A Kind Word About John Boehner" the day Shadegg joined the race, and James Joyner of Outside the Beltway said after Boehner's conference call with bloggers that the lawmaker "would hardly be a disaster."

When it comes to Blunt, however, a blogosphere-Beltway divide that seems manageable under a Shadegg or Boehner majority leadership suddenly looks more like an impassable chasm that grows more treacherous by the day. Many top GOP bloggers are downright hostile toward Blunt, and some comments by Blunt and his staff have fed their antipathy for him.

The complaints about Blunt were principled at first. Bloggers raised legitimate questions about whether Blunt, with his ties to DeLay and the lobbying community, is the right man to lead a party plagued by scandal. They also noted his role in securing legislative compromises that are anathema to conservatives.

"Electing Blunt GOP majority leader would be a vote for the status quo: big-government conservatism, expanded entitlement spending, runaway deficits and K Street-linked corruption," law professor Stephen Bainbridge wrote.

But the attacks became personal after Blunt held his conference call with bloggers. Blunt's first mistake was imposing tight controls on the call. He took fewer questions than either Boehner or Shadegg, required advance submission of the questions and had the call moderated. In other words, Blunt applied old media thinking to a new, more personal medium.

Perhaps worse, he made an allusion to what might happen after the election. Some participants interpreted Blunt's comments as a warning that he would not work with bloggers if they either opposed his candidacy or criticized him in writing. "After spending a half-hour listening to him... I would rather lick fire ants off a stick than see Roy Blunt as majority leader," Dale Franks said at The QandO Blog.

The "fire ants" quote prompted a retort from one of Blunt's staffers, and that in turn triggered a new round of pointed attacks against Blunt. "It's pretty clear that Roy Blunt's staff and surrogates have a very different manner of engaging the blogosphere than his opponents," Mike Krempasky of RedState complained in an interview.

Blunt spokesman Burson Taylor tried to downplay the controversy. "Congressman Blunt recognizes that bloggers are an opinionated, colorful and spirited group who are an essential part of the democratic process," Taylor said via e-mail. "He is looking forward to working with conservative bloggers in the future to direct their firepower on the Democrats."

The intra-party squabble, however, has sparked some backlash even at RedState.

One House GOP aide bemoaned the willingness of Republicans to undercut the party by focusing on scandal. "It was a debate that the Democrats wanted us to have," the aide said.

Despite the negativity of the campaign, the aide praised the outreach of all three candidates in the majority leader's race. "Good, bad or indifferent," the staffer said, "we're doing exactly what Republicans need to do, and that's open up to the blogging community."

Posted by admin at 11:18 AM | Comments (0)

Bloggers of all stripes love to bloviate these days about public officials who accepted money or luxurious treatment from corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramoff in his attempt to curry government favor for his clients. But that doesn't mean bloggers are above accepting pampering by people with an agenda.

For the latest evidence, check the list of 25 bloggers who are headed to Amsterdam next month courtesy of Holland.com, the Internet presence of the Netherlands Board of Tourism and Conventions, and the advertising firm BlogAds. Americablog, Ezra Klein, Outside the Beltway, Pandagon and TalkLeft are among the public-affairs-oriented blogs that will be represented on the weeklong junket.

A disclosure statement at Bloggers in Amsterdam provides the details: free air travel, five nights in a choice of two five-star hotels, and a card that will get them free transportation, free entrance into Amsterdam museums and restaurant discounts. In return, the government of Netherlands gets premium advertising space on the participating blogs for one month, as well as the right to interview the bloggers after the trip and potentially use their comments in online or offline promotions.

Bloggers no doubt will justify the trip by highlighting the transparency of the junket. For one year, they must link to the Bloggers in Amsterdam disclosure statement, which itself notes the transparency "mantra."

But curiously, the bloggers just started talking about the trip yesterday -- and not all of them are doing so yet. If they really wanted to be transparent, why didn't the bloggers tell their readers about the trip when the invitation was extended?

What's more, transparency is not sufficient justification for media outlets -- and that's what blogs want the U.S. government to call them -- to accept favors from an agency with an agenda. Bloggers rightly maligned columnists Armstrong Williams and Doug Bandow for taking money from the Bush administration and Abramoff. Now some of the them are guilty of similar arrangements with the government of Netherlands, and they deserve the same scorn.

No one who makes the trip is compelled to write one word, good or bad, about Amsterdam, and maybe some bloggers will return home and say nasty things about the place. But somehow I doubt they will.

Posted by at 12:45 PM | Comments (17)

Some lefty bloggers of the "netroots" have their differences with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. But when it comes to funding the work of the DCCC, they have no tolerance for House lawmakers who fail to pay their dues to the group.

A Roll Call article that identifies House Democrats who owe money to the DCCC sparked pointed criticism from the top netroots blog, Daily Kos, and sites like ArchPundit and Swing State Project.

Markos Moulitsas Zuniga of Daily Kos derided the "deadbeat Dems," especially lawmakers like Sherrod Brown and Ted Strickland of Ohio, Ben Cardin of Maryland, and Harold Ford of Tennessee who are seeking higher office in 2006. Moulitsas wondered aloud whether those lawmakers in particular "should be stripped of their committee seats" for shirking their DCCC monetary obligations.

"We need the DCCC to be flush if we want to compete -- and yet House Dems have only contributed one-third of the total they are obligated to pay in," DavidNYC wrote at Swing State Project. "It's rarely my style to go after fellow Dems, but come on, people! We need to be team players on this one." He then listed the delinquents by name.

ArchPundit Larry Handlin focused his ire on one lawmaker in particular: Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois. "Jackson Jr., sitting on a warchest of over $1 million, doesn't seem to think his rather low dues of $150,000 are worth paying," Handlin said. "Now, if Jesse wants to be the guy who is a good Democrat and wants support from the party, shouldn't he support the party? Pay the bill, congressman."

Posted by at 04:47 PM | Comments (0)

Ezra Klein has a new gig to add to his blogging portfolio: He will spearhead a blog focused on Medicare for TPMCafe.

Joshua Micha Marshall made the announcement at Talking Points Memo. In Marshall's to-the-point style, the blog apparently will be called Medicare Drug Bill Fiasco. Klein mentioned the news in a "Blog Happenings" post that also mentioned that Klein's personal blog has been purchased by L.A. Weekly.

In the near future, the blog will be published at EzraKlein.com and linked as one of the blogs at the newspaper site.

UPDATE: The new Medicare blog is up at TPMCafe. In addition to Klein, the other lead blogger is Kate Steadman, according to a post by Marshall at Talking Points Memo. Three other writers also are set to join the conversation.

"Soon we'll be adding a special comments e-mail address where you can send in your stories, experiences with the program, etc.," Marshall said.

Posted by at 10:42 AM | Comments (0)

The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association is all Amped Up on the Internet. That's right, Amped Up is the aptly named blog for NRECA.

I've known the blog was coming for a few months, but I only recently heard that it was online. A link to Amped Up is curiously absent from NRECA's home page. I had been checking the site periodically since mid-November, when I did a profile of NRECA "blog master" Erick Woods-Erickson. A search on the group's site also failed to yield any results for "Amped Up," nor does NRECA appear to have issued a press release about the blog. Is the group ashamed of the product?

In addition to regular posts, the blog points readers to a Take Action Network for contacting lawmakers about issues important to NRECA. It also includes a very un-blog-like "About" page that is chock-full of legalese about copyright law and other matters.

Amped Up has opted for a pre-approval comment policy. "The gist of it is that we are not afraid to have a debate, and we are not afraid to post a comment that disagrees with something on here," Erickson wrote. "Just don't use profanity, and be polite."

Posted by at 10:03 AM | Comments (0)

Mainstream media outlets have been under heavy fire from the left wing of the blogosphere the past couple of weeks, and those bloggers apparently have no intention of calling a cease-fire.

Instead, they have expanded their rhetorical arsenal by creating blogs aimed specifically at attacking The Washington Post, MSNBC's Chris Matthews and NBC's Tim Russert. All three blogs are framed as "open letters" to their subjects.

The Matthews blog is a reaction to the talk-show host's comparison of film director and author Michael Moore with terrorist leader Osama bin Laden. The comparison even moved Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., to post his first entry in the blogosphere.

The Post and Russert blogs are designed as forums for people to critique the work of "media outlets that don't allow their readers to effectively congregate," Matt Stoller wrote at MyDD. "The Internet opens up remarkable avenues for discourse. Tim Russert doesn't have an 'ombudsman' or a space for discussion, so we built one. The Washington Post does have an ombudsman, but it has been discredited by their actions."

For a recap on the gripes against Matthews and the Post, read yesterday's issue of The Hotline's Blogometer.

Posted by at 09:42 AM | Comments (0)

While only a handful of lawmakers have their own blogs, many more are finding ways to make their presence felt online. One of those ways is to grant interviews to bloggers.

Rep. J.D. Hayworth, R-Ariz., is the latest to take that path. The author of a new book titled Whatever It Takes: Illegal Immigration, Border Security and the War on Terror, Hayworth talked with Ed Morrissey of Captain's Quarters for an hour about immigration and security issues.

"We also talked at length about reform, lobbying, and the upcoming election for the majority leader's office," Morrissey wrote. "[Hayworth] did not endorse any candidate, although he did say that John Shadegg, as his colleague from Arizona, has his attention. He wants to wait to see if the three contenders will agree to a debate, preferably public. Hayworth talked about the public nature of a process that normally would have taken place in quiet caucuses."

Morrissey has posted the interview online as a series of podcasts.

Posted by at 09:36 AM | Comments (0)

Much has happened in the nearly 450 days since Democrat John Kerry lost his electoral battle against President Bush.

Iraq held elections as insurgents continued killing civilians and U.S. soldiers; terrorists attacked London; one of the worst hurricanes in history slammed into the United States; Bush picked two nominees for the Supreme Court; the Bush administration grudgingly acknowledged a domestic spying program; and the makings of a major congressional scandal emerged.

Through it all, Kerry, a man who wanted to be president and who still holds a seat in the Senate, stayed well clear of the blogosphere. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., started a blog, and several other lawmakers from both parties tested the blogging waters. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., engaged bloggers over campaign finance and did a guest stint at TPMCafe while leading a revolt against the USA PATRIOT Act. But nothing moved Kerry to speak his mind online.

Nothing, that is, until a television talk-show host compared a film director with a terrorist on the run. When MSNBC's Chris Matthews played hardball with Michael Moore by comparing Moore with Osama bin Laden, only then did Kerry feel compelled to join the conversation at Daily Kos.

"There's something that doesn't sit right with me when, on the day Osama bin Laden resurfaced in a disturbing audio tape, cable television ends up in a game of name-calling as a war protester is compared to Osama bin Laden," Kerry began in a post that segued into a disjointed Bush- and media-bashing session.

"Here's a subject suited for true hard ball, on [Matthews'] "Hardball": four years of failure [by the Bush administration] -- enough is enough. Why hasn't Osama bin Laden been captured or killed, and how will he be destroyed before he next appears on tape to spread his disgusting message? That discussion -- rather than criticizing American citizens who exercise their right to free speech and express dissenting opinions -- is the discussion that America needs."

The Daily Kos community celebrated Kerry's presence in their world. The entry generated nearly 1,200 comments, and a follow-up "thank you" post from Kerry had generated nearly 700 more by this evening. "A man who received more votes than any other man in the history of the U.S. (if you actually counted votes accurately in 2004) just posted a diary on our little progressive group blog," one reader commented. "A-Mazing!"

But other bloggers didn't share that view. The conservatives at RedState gleefully linked to and ridiculed the post. "DKos officially jumps the shark," one RedStater chortled. "DKos: bringing together the world's biggest losers," another snickered.

"John Kerry goes to the Daily Kos to defend Michael Moore and claim we let Osama escape," John Cole added at Balloon Juice. "Apparently this was done to give [White House adviser] Karl Rove an easy way to tar and feather Democrats with Moore again this election. Brilliant!"

Kerry's post left more than a few people skeptical that he was indeed the author. So many questioned the authenticity of Kerry's diary, in fact, that Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas Zuniga had to confirm it -- and even then readers remained suspicious.

The logic of Kerry's post left me doubtful as well. Matthews' comparison of Moore to bin Laden was bizarre in its own right, but for Kerry to try to draw a line from the Matthews/Moore/bin Laden flap to Bush and the media was all the more ludicrous. Kerry's first foray into the blogosphere certainly will be memorable -- but probably not in a flattering way.

Posted by at 07:49 PM | Comments (14)

The time has come for the U.N. Security Council to brand Iran as a "nuclear pariah." So said Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., in his initial appearance at The Huffington Post on Friday.

"Unless the international community acts quickly and decisively," Lantos warned, "the world's chief terrorist state will soon possess the greatest weapon of terror ever created." And he urged the nations that are on the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency to take that quick and decisive action at a Feb. 2 emergency meeting.

Lantos dubbed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the nation's "terrorist-in-chief." He said Iran "has flouted every nuclear safeguards agreement and reneged on every commitment it has made" -- even after the IAEA last September found the country in "non-compliance" with its commitment to use nuclear energy solely for peaceful purposes.

To Lantos, the upcoming IAEA board meeting will be a defining moment for the global community in regard to Iran's nuclear capabilities and intentions. Anything less than a vote to send Iran to the U.N. Security Council, he wrote, "will give fresh hope to the Ayatollahs of Terror that the world will remain tremulous and divided in the face of their threats. We in the Congress will watch carefully who among our friends will stand up and be counted."

Posted by at 07:28 PM | Comments (0)

Reprinted with permission of National Journal magazine, as published in the Jan. 21, 2006, edition.

By K. Daniel Glover

When President Bush campaigned for re-election in 2004, he vowed to "save Social Security." Bush touted the notion of voluntary personal retirement accounts in his 2005 State of the Union address, promoted the idea just after the speech, and then, along with top administration officials, barnstormed the nation in a "60 Stops in 60 Days" Social Security tour.

This strategy might have worked brilliantly in another era, when presidents dominated the news from their bully pulpits, and critics -- especially those outside officialdom -- fought for a few paragraphs or minutes of airtime for rebuttal. But in the Information Age, Bush's foes had a powerful new tool known as the Web log at their disposal, and they seized it to great effect.

One blog, There Is No Crisis, focused solely on challenging the president's argument that the Social Security system must be overhauled soon or face dire circumstances. Bob Brigham, a central contributor to the now-defunct site, said that the slogan helped reframe the discussion and embolden congressional Democrats to oppose Bush. Many of them adopted the blog's theme, he said. "By removing the urgency," Brigham continued, "it allowed Democrats to win the debate."

Joshua Micah Marshall of Talking Points Memo also made opposition to Bush's plans for Social Security a staple of his blog. He berated the Bush administration at every stage of its "Bamboozlepalooza Tour"; he chastised the "Fainthearted Faction" of congressional Democrats who sided with Bush on Social Security; and he lauded the "Conscience Caucus" of Republicans who dared to disagree with Bush.

"We probably heard from most of [the Democrats] that they didn't belong in the Fainthearted Faction," Marshall said. And by the end of April, Marshall had removed more than half of the original 13 from the list because they had come around to his way of thinking.

These days, there is little serious talk in Washington about immediately reforming Social Security, but there is plenty of chatter about blogs -- and with good reason. The technology has taken firm root in the capital. Since summer, bloggers have testified before Congress and the Federal Election Commission; have been invited to Capitol Hill for exclusive interviews with lawmakers and to participate in conference calls with administration officials; and have spurred heated debates on everything from Supreme Court nominees to pork-barrel spending.

Earlier this month, the Republican National Committee and the Senate Republican Conference co-hosted a handful of like-minded bloggers in Washington during the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Judge Samuel Alito. A stream of senators and top officials, including White House adviser Karl Rove, spoke to the group.

Today, far more blogs are focused on Washington than was the case a year ago, when the Social Security debate was at its height. Think tanks and their wonks have them. So do trade associations, watchdog groups, and other special interests. The Family Research Council started a blog this month and will co-host the first annual Blogs4Life event on January 23, the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. So far, 30 blogs are set to participate.

Some blogs target specific topics such as counter-terrorism, immigration, education, health care, and the death penalty. Others, such as Dump Mike (www.dumpmike.com), aim to unseat lawmakers (in this case, Rep. Michael Ferguson, R-N.J.).

Only one congressional blog existed before January 2005, but in the year since then, 17 lawmakers, the Republican Study Committee, and Democrats on the House Agriculture Committee have started blogs. Several more members of Congress regularly or occasionally make guest appearances at group blogs such as Marshall's TPMCafe and The Huffington Post on the left, and RedState on the right.

"Blogs are becoming more respectable," said Henry Farrell, a professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University and a blogger at Crooked Timber. Citing the debate over Social Security as an example, he added, "People are beginning to figure out that blogs do have real impact."

Becoming a Force

Blogs have had a noticeable impact on American society since at least 2001. The September 11 attacks that year motivated many people to start online diaries and many more to start reading them. The attacks and the subsequent U.S. invasion of Afghanistan also sparked the first "warblogs," a trend later fueled by the war in Iraq.

But only recently have blogs become a force within policy-making circles. First, the blogs rose to prominence in the media and then in the political arena.

Bloggers pride themselves on being a check against the mainstream media, or "MSM" in blog shorthand. Their greatest impact came three years ago, when they publicized comments by then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott of Mississippi that some interpreted as pro-segregationist. Top media outlets buried Lott's remarks or ignored them altogether. But bloggers criticized Lott's comments so vigorously that public officials and the mainstream media eventually took notice. Lott resigned as majority leader, and last year he told The Christian Science Monitor that he was the "first pelt" of bloggers.

Almost two years later, at the height of the 2004 presidential campaign, bloggers targeted a CBS News report on Bush's National Guard record and provided evidence that the network based the story on phony military memorandums. Although CBS was reluctant to acknowledge the controversy, Dan Rather ultimately resigned as the evening news anchor.

"For a long time," said George Washington University law professor Daniel J. Solove, a blogger at Concurring Opinions, "it seemed that if the mainstream media didn't cover [a story], that was it. ... What we're seeing now is, it's possible for the blogs to put an issue out before the public, and the mainstream media are not the only gatekeeper."

Blogs also soared in popularity as a political tool during the 2004 campaign. The "netroots" of the Left -- bloggers and other grassroots activists who rely on the Internet to advance their causes -- rallied around Howard Dean and unexpectedly pushed him to early front-runner status in the Democratic presidential race. Then, last year, they helped Dean win the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee.

The netroots have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for Democrats in some congressional districts, and although none of their favored candidates have won, some of the contests have been far more competitive than expected. In Ohio, Paul Hackett just barely lost an August special election to Republican Jean Schmidt in a heavily GOP congressional district. Hackett is now a Senate candidate and is actively soliciting bloggers' help.

Republican bloggers also proved their political value in 2004. At South Dakota Politics, Jon Lauck and Jason Van Beek were credited with aiding John Thune's victory over Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D. Thune's campaign reportedly paid both bloggers, and Thune later hired Van Beek as a Senate aide.

By gaining footholds in both the media and politics, the blogosphere quickly built a loyal and important following. One journalist -- now-CNN/U.S. President Jonathan Klein -- infamously dismissed bloggers as pajama-clad hacks typing away at home, unchecked by any editors. But people who matter read the bloggers' musings.

In a February 2004 study, George Washington University's Institute for Politics, Democracy, and the Internet found that 69 percent of blog readers are "influentials, or opinion leaders and trendsetters with their friends and neighbors." Institute Director Carol Darr said in a recent interview that the news and political junkies who frequent blogs are like "honeybees, kind of feeding the culture" with the information they gather and with their comments and diaries at the sites.

BlogAds, the company that pioneered low-cost, targeted advertising on blogs, confirmed the institute's findings in a 2005 report. Its survey of 30,000-plus blog readers found that many of them write to government officials, attend political rallies, sign petitions, and work actively with groups that try to influence policy. "Clearly, the blogosphere is crawling with certified, grade-A opinion makers," BlogAds founder Henry Copeland wrote in introducing the results.

The commentary on blogs is not always productive, however. Darr said that the technological architecture of blogs allows anonymity and the culture encourages inflammatory speech. Blogs, she added, tend to attract like-minded people -- and ones who are "slightly more ideologically extreme than the general population." The end result: "The Internet is exacerbating political polarization."

Staking a Claim in Washington

With such active readers, it made sense for bloggers to turn their attention to Washington -- and for more people inside the Beltway to awaken both to the influence of bloggers and the potential of blogging technology. That is exactly what happened after the 2004 election.Issues such as Social Security reform drove the interest in blogging and demonstrated the technology's power. George Washington University's Farrell said that blogs were very effective at "creating outrage and creating a groundswell" against Bush's plans for Social Security. Experts -- such as economics professor Brad DeLong of the University of California (Berkeley) and Max Sawicky, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute -- used their blogs to create a "testing bed for interesting arguments," Farrell said.

"We began to see those arguments being taken up by op-ed people ... and change the conventional wisdom in the media" about the Bush plan, Farrell said. Although the blogosphere alone did not push Social Security off the short-term agenda, it was a factor, he contended.

Andrew Roth, the government-affairs director at the conservative Club for Growth and the group's blogger, agreed -- to an extent. He said that Social Security reform is dead in Bush's second term not because of opposition from liberal bloggers but because Republican leaders lack the will to "force moderates to vote on it." Yet he also said that liberal bloggers "were far better organized and ready to fight than conservatives were."

The Club for Growth launched a group blog called Social Security Choice, and Roth expected more like it. "In fact, I was worried that somebody else was going to beat us to the punch. But that never happened, and the other blogs never materialized. I don't know why it didn't happen, but it was frustrating."

The recent vacancies on the Supreme Court have sparked another burst of blogging. The Goldstein and Howe law firm, which specializes in litigation before the high court, launched The Supreme Court Nomination Blog, a sister site to the firm's SCOTUS Blog. Interest groups such as the American Progress Action Fund, the Committee for Justice, and the National Women's Law Center also created court-focused blogs. And the established law blogs, or "blawgs," offered expert analysis of the nominees' legal backgrounds.

One milestone came during the confirmation hearings of Chief Justice John Roberts. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, acknowledged having read blogs the night before and then asked Roberts a question based on a post at The Volokh Conspiracy.

A bigger breakthrough for the blogosphere came with the nomination of Harriet Miers to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. The nomination sparked a "blog swarm" against Miers for her purported lack of credentials. The Bush administration hosted its first-ever conference calls with conservative bloggers to try to gain support for Miers, but she eventually withdrew her name from consideration.

At about the same time, Hurricane Katrina battered the Gulf Coast region and, in the process, the federal budget. The government's spend, spend, spend response to the storm agitated many bloggers, so they started pushing another idea: Cut the pork-barrel spending from the transportation bill enacted over the summer and redirect the money to hurricane recovery.

Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit and N.Z. Bear of The Truth Laid Bear spearheaded the effort, named it PorkBusters, and produced a logo that participating bloggers could put on their Web sites. The bloggers hounded members of Congress for funneling money to projects back home, and they found an ally in Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who forced floor votes on pork-barrel spending last fall. Coburn now has a PorkBusters page, and the logo, on his congressional Web site.

"I don't want to engage in blog triumphalism," Reynolds said in an e-mail interview, "but [the PorkBusters campaign] seems to have done some good. They seem embarrassed about pork rather than proud of it, which is progress." Reynolds said that blogs could change Washington attitudes about pork. "Most people in a congressional district don't benefit from pork in that district. The whole approach depends on the beneficiaries being grateful while everyone else is oblivious. Blogs, and the transparency they create, call that approach into question, at least so long as some people care. At the moment, a lot of people do."

Those people include House Republicans, according to Kevin Madden, a spokesman for Rep. Tom DeLay of Texas. Conservative bloggers chastised DeLay for arguing in September that the budget had no more wasteful spending to cut. Madden, a regular reader of Instapundit, Power Line, RedState, and other right-leaning blogs, said the entire GOP Conference got the message. Bloggers did "a very good job at focusing the conference on spending and taxes," Madden said.

Bloggers across the political spectrum did an equally good job of focusing both Congress and the Federal Election Commission on an issue of self-interest to them: the application of campaign finance law to blogs. When former Commissioner Brad Smith warned of that possibility last March, bloggers quickly formed the Online Coalition to lobby against blog regulation and flooded the FEC with comments. Leading bloggers later testified before both the agency and a House committee as they sought exemptions from campaign finance law.

Amid the months-long debate, Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., posted commentary on the issue at a couple of blogs and engaged readers of those blogs in debate. The FEC chairman and a member of the commission wrote blog entries at RedState. In November, the FEC granted certain political blogs a media exemption from campaign finance law.

"Never before have we seen so many people engaged" about campaign finance, said RedState co-founder Mike Krempasky, who testified before the FEC and Congress. "All of a sudden, once bloggers started covering this, it became an issue people cared about."

If You Can't Beat 'Em, Blog With 'Em

Bloggers have not had that kind of success on every issue. Their outcry against creditor-friendly bankruptcy legislation, for instance, fell flat twice last year -- once before Congress cleared the legislation in the spring and then again before Congress implemented it in the fall. Michael Cornfield, a senior research consultant for the Pew Inter