The Duke Cunningham investigation has generated as many spinoffs as All in the Family.
Much of the focus lately has been on the links among U.S. Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA), the Copeland Lowery lobbying firm, and congressional earmarks. Remember that the Duke is connected to the unfolding Lewis investigation in a number of ways, most notably through alleged briber Brent Wilkes, who was a Copeland Lowery client.
On Friday came a reminder that the Duke investigation began as a defense contracting scandal and that investigators are still pursuing the Pentagon angle. Federal prosecutors in the District of Columbia filed a bill of information against Richard A. Berglund, a retired lieutenant colonel who worked for defense contractor MZM. Berglund stands accused of making illegal contributions in early 2005 to the re-election campaign of U.S. Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA).
As the Washington Post suggests, the filing of a bill of information signals that Berglund has probably worked out a plea deal with prosecutors that will include his agreement to cooperate with investigators.
Why should that worry some folks in the Pentagon? Well, remember that MZM founder Mitchell Wade has already pleaded guilty in connection with his bribing of Duke Cunningham. In fact, as alleged in Wade's plea agreement and Friday's bill of information, it was Wade who was orchestrating the illegal campaign contributions. (Katherine Harris (R-FL) was one of the recipients of those contributions; neither she nor Goode has been charged with any wrongdoing and both have denied having any knowledge of the illegal nature of the contributions.) Wade has been cooperating with investigators, apparently extensively.
So flipping Berglund doesn't get the feds any closer to Wade. They already have Wade. But Berglund, a former military officer, could help point the way into the Pentagon. He was the program manager for MZM's Martinsville, Va., facility (in Goode's district), which handled defense-related work. Stay tuned.
--David Kurtz
Oh the pace quickens.
Only weeks ago, 
scandal-plagued House Appropriations Chairman Jerry Lewis (R-CA) issued a categorical denial that he'd ever "recommended a lobbyist to any constituent, contractor or anyone seeking federal funds."
Now documentary evidence surfaces that Lewis lied.
And when I say 'documentary evidence' I would be referring to a letter from Lewis to a constituent recommending the lobbying services of Tom Skancke of The Skancke Company.
In Lewis's letter to the County of San Bernardino (the county I grew up in, by the way and which Lewis represents), he wrote "It is a pleasure to be writing this letter on Tom's behalf and strongly recommend San Bernardino County's retaining The Skancke Company's services."
I'm not sure which is more upsetting: Lewis's lies and corruption or that someone has to go through life with the name Skancke.
One way or another, it ain't pretty.
Late Update: My apologies! He didn't just lie once. He lied twice. I was thinking of when Lewis told NBC in early June that "I have never recommended a lobbyist to any constituent, contractor or anyone seeking federal funds." But I didn't know that Lewis also lied in early May when he said "I have never told a local representative or someone seeking to work on a federal project that they must have a lobbyist representing them. It is an ironclad rule in my office that we do not recommend lobbyists, even if a constituent asks for that recommendation." Again, my apologies.
--Josh Marshall
It came late in the day today, so we didn't get a chance to get into it at TPMmuckraker. But a Justice Department IG Report came out late this afternoon. And this one looked into the long-simmering question of whether Jack Abramoff used his juice with the Bush White House to get the acting US Attorney in Guam, Frederick A. Black, fired just as the guy was opening a criminal probe into Abramoff's activities on the island.
The report concludes, we think not altogether convincingly, that while Abramoff volubly took credit for getting Black canned, in fact he had nothing to do with it. It's stunning how many things Abramoff took credit for, and everybody else thought he was responsible for, which turn out to have had nothing to do with him at all. But let's leave that for another day.
But there's something else that caught our eye.
We'll let MSNBC's Joel Seidman explain ...
The report also contained evidence of Abramoff's strong ties to the Bush White House. One White House political official, Leonard Rodriguez, told Fine's investigators he kept Abramoff aware of information relevant to Guam "at the behest of Ken Mehlman, the White House Political Director," the report said. There was no explanation of why Mehlman would have wanted the information shared with Abramoff.
So Ken Mehlman, now head of the RNC, had a White 
House official keeping Jack Abramoff up to date on events in Guam, around the time Abramoff took credit for getting an investigation into his work on the island deep-sixed. We already know that at Abramoff's behest Mehlman killed an appointment at the State Department because the would-be appointee, Allen Stayman, wasn't good news for Abramoff's sweat-shop owner clients in the Marianas islands.
At a certain point you start to detect a pattern, no? Mehlman was a fixer for Abramoff while Mehlman was political director at the Bush White House. And now he says he barely knew Jack Abramoff.
Maybe this deserves some follow-up?
--Josh Marshall
Bush Advisor Norquist: If we get 60 Republican senators, Social Security is toast.
--Josh Marshall
Mike McGavick kinda sorta comes clean on supporting President Bush's plan to phase out Social Security and replace it with private accounts!
David Postman of 
the Seattle Times interviewed McGavick this morning and, according to Postman, McGavick "wants a phased-in system of individually controlled, privately managed retirement accounts that could provide a higher yield than the government-run system, but would come with a lower guaranteed payment."
Wipe away the poll-tested double talk and that sounds like, yes, McGavick does support the president's plan. (He insists on the 'it's not privatization' word game bamboozlement, for example.)
So does he?
Says McGavick: "I do not think the president's program was that well designed or that well promoted. But I think something like this with some hard bipartisan work could create a lasting solution for a problem that has cyclically dogged us for decades."
We'll come back to this issue because President Bush actually never committed to a specific plan. So I'm curious whether this is really a dodge or whether there's some specific issue on which McGavick disagrees with the president's plans.
For now, McGavick seems like he just wants the issue to go away. He told Postman that on Social Security he wants "to get this out of the political world and into a thoughtful space."
For the moment, let's put McGavick down as being for President Bush's plan to phase out Social Security and replace it with private accounts, along with some as yet unspecified revisions to the Bush plan, and also for getting "into a thoughtful space."
--Josh Marshall
Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) on the new WMD bamboozlement from Sen. Santorum and Rep. Hoekstra.
--Josh Marshall
The latest in the NSA calls database story - USA Today now says they're not sure about Bellsouth's and Verizon's involvement.
--Paul Kiel
So do we have a preview now of where the investigation into House Appropriations Chairman Jerry Lewis (R-CA) is going?
As we've discussed before, Lewis and at least two of his former staffers -- Jeffrey Shockey and Letitia White -- are now targets of the expanded Cunningham investigation. The investigation appears to center on Lewis and the two staffers' interconnected ties to the lobby shop of Copeland Lowery. Lewis has longstanding ties to Copeland Lowery honcho, Bill Lowery, as Copley's Jerry Kammer explained last December. Shockey and White left Lewis' employ to go to work for Copeland Lowery. White, you'll remember, among other things, bought the Capitol Hill house with one of the big earmark cronies and then rented the House to the PAC she set up, which is run by Lewis' step-daughter.
Anyway, it's a complicated world in Lewisland. But bear with me.
This isn't an investigation into Lewis' various staffers. This is an investigation of Lewis. The probes into the staffers are means to that end. And given the nature of these investigations, where alleged criminal acts are extremely difficult to prove without a cooperating witness, they need someone to flip on Lewis.
And here's where the significance of yesterday's story by Justin Rood comes in. As Justin and the TPMmuckraker staff showed by analyzing Copeland Lowery's flurry of lobby fee restatements earlier this year, the folks at Copeland appear to be in serious legal jeopardy.
In the Abramoff case, prosecutors have been rolling up cooperating witnesses by charging with statutes that are seldom enforced. But legal experts told us that given the systematic nature of the failure to report lobbying work that shows up in the Copeland papers, prosecution seems likely even setting aside the desire to get folks to flip on higher-ups. And Lowery, Shockey and White are each on the line for those failures to report.
So Copeland Lowery's problems are Jerry Lewis' problems. And Copeland Lowery has a lot of problems.
--Josh Marshall
Mike McGavick Social Security contest rules update coming later today. Remember, you can win by finding out where NJ's Tom Kean Jr. stands too.
Late Update: Oddly enough it seems this Maryland blogger can't find a position statement from senate candidate Michael Steele either. Anyone know whether Steele is for keeping Social Security or whether he supports President Bush's plan to phase it out and replace it with private accounts?
--Josh Marshall
Which former DeLay pal is goin' to California with an achin' in his heart? That and more of the day's news in today's Daily Muck.
--Justin Rood
So where do things stand now on Net Neutrality? Art Brodsky brings us up to date. The news is better than you think.
--Josh Marshall
Annals in the history of brave faces.
Bob Ney's announcement in response to reports that his entire senior staff is quitting ...
As with every office on Capitol Hill, where staffers work very long hours, there is inevitably turnover. In fact, according to a recent study by the Congressional Management Foundation, the average tenure for staff is a little over three years. What is notable however, is that all three of the staff members who will soon be leaving my office all worked for me for much longer than the average tenure and in fact my chief of staff, Will Heaton, has been with me for roughly five years. I wish them well as they pursue their individual career paths.That being, I am very proud to say that I have recently promoted another longtime staffer and Harrison County native to be my new Legislative Director in Washington and another longtime staffer to take-over media relations responsibilities. In addition, we also recently hired two new staff members to fully staff the legislative operations arm of my office. Again, this is exactly what every single office on Capitol Hill does and in fact, what many others often have to do with more regularity than myself.
Therefore any suggestion or implication that the office of Ohio's 18th Congressional District is operating at anything less than full speed ahead is baseless and without merit."
Inevitable turnover. I guess we can agree on that.
--Josh Marshall
Okay, I think we've really got a live one on the line with Mike McGavick, Republican senate candidate this year in Washington state.
As I noted yesterday, we hear that in private conversations, McGavick is a die-hard phase-out man, a big supporter of President Bush's plan to phase out Social Security and replace it with private accounts. That squares with the recent fundraiser held for him in DC by the Financial Services Roundtable, a key Social Security privatization pressure group.
Only he won't come clean about it in his election campaign. On the contrary, McGavick is opening new territory in the uncharted wilderness of Social Security bamboozlement. Here's his position on Social Security from his campaign website: "A voluntary system should be instituted allowing those who can afford to do so, to return their Social Security payments."
Apparently folks tried to find out earlier this year in Yakima, Washington. McGavick said "I think we'd be amazed at the response" after he appeals to seniors to voluntarily send back in their monthly Social Security checks.
The most we've been able to find McGavick saying is that "personal accounts are one solution that should be evaluated."
Anyway, it seems pretty clear he's a diehard supporter of phase-out but won't come clean about it with the public, which brings us to our contest.
President Bush says he's going to come back again try to phase out Social Security after the November election. So we're trying to find out where McGavick stands on Social Security. Is he for preserving it in its current form or does he support President Bush's plan to phase it out and replace it with private accounts? And we need your help to find out.
So here's the deal. We're holding a contest to see who can get a straight answer out of Mike McGavick on Social Security -- against phase out or in favor of it. To the winner goes a special TPM 'Privatize This' t-shirt, a TPM mug and ... and a special place in our new TPM Hall of Social Security Heroes. Anyway, it's really exciting stuff.
Also, even if you can't get a straight answer out of McGavick, if you get a chance to ask him, you can win a special TPM mug, even if he refuses to answer or gives you that lame voluntary give back ridiculousness. We'll follow up with details about rules.
More details on the contest to come soon.
Coming Soon: Contest expands to include New Jersey's Tom Kean, Jr.!
--Josh Marshall
Cmdr. Charles Swift, Navy lawyer who brought today's suit on behalf of Hamdan: Today's ruling is "a return to our fundamental values. That return marks a high-water point. It shows that we can't be scared out of who we are."
--Josh Marshall
Oh. Bad, bad days for Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH).
We seem 
to have arrived at the run-for-the-hills phase of the Ney probe. Roll Call's John Bresnahan is reporting (sub.req.) that three of Ney's key staffers are quitting their jobs with the ensnared congressman.
Will Heaton, his Chief of Staff and Brian Walsh, his long-suffering communications director are both leaving. And Chris Otillo, his legislative director, apparently bailed last Friday.
For those of you who aren't familiar with the nomenclature of the congressman's staff, that's pretty much it.
Not that there aren't more people. But that's the troika.
Another good sign is Matt Parker, Ney's District director, just got tagged with a subpoena.
Walsh told Bresnahan he thanked Ney "for the chance to work for him, which was great", thus showing that Walsh may have to have a period of post-Ney detox because he can work out of the habit of making comically ridiculous statements.
--Josh Marshall
If you're following the reactions to the Hamdan decision today, check out this follow up from Marty Lederman. If Lederman's right, outlawing the administration's tribunals isn't the biggest part of this decision. It also seems to knock the legal foundations -- if you can call them that -- out of under the president's legal arguments for using torture or quasi-torture as an instrument of state policy.
--Josh Marshall
And I thought I was bad at math!
It's already been 
reported that the lobby shop at the heart of the Chairman Lewis (R-CA) investigation, Copeland Lowery, submitted a bunch of revised filings after they came under investigation early this year.
But we dug into the documents. And it seems they somehow failed to report something like $2 million worth of lobbying fees. An expert we spoke to says he think it'll amount to felonies.
Justin Rood's got the whole story over at TPMmuckraker.com.
--Josh Marshall
The probe into Rep. Jerry Lewis's (R-CA) relationship with the Copeland, Lowery lobbying firm continues to expand.
--Paul Kiel
Just got in this morning. Obviously the big news today is the Hamdan (i.e., Gitmo) decision. For the moment, I'll refer everyone to Marty Lederman's summary and quick analysis.
--Josh Marshall
Tom DeLay works the room. This and more of the day's news in today's Daily Muck.
--Justin Rood
A powerful dispatch from Dexter Filkins about the death of one American soldier in Iraq.
--Josh Marshall
Nathan Newman on the very rapid blog response to Obama's religion speech.
--Josh Marshall
We hear Washington Senate candidate Mike McGavick (R) is a big supporter of President Bush's plan to phase out Social Security. If you know more, drop us a line.
Hmmm. Apparently New Jersey Senate candidate Tom Kean, Jr. (R) is a big phase-out supporter too.
On Kean's website he says: "Tom is committed to keeping the promise of Social Security for current recipients and those nearing retirement. At the same time, changes will be required to keep the program solvent for future generations. This problem can only be solved through bipartisan cooperation. In the U.S. Senate, Tom will work with Republicans and Democrats to find bipartisan solutions to the long-term challenges facing Social Security, so that this important program can continue to provide retirement security for Americans far into the future."
But last year in the New Jersey state senate he apparently twice voted against a bill calling on President Bush to abandon his plan to phase out Social Security and replace it with private accounts.
--Josh Marshall
The latest Abramoff casualty is Roger Stillwell, an Interior Official who'll be pleading guilty to a single misdemeanor. Details here and what it might mean...
--Paul Kiel
Another Abramoff guilty plea. This one at Interior. More shortly.
Update: This post originally said it was an indictment. That's been corrected.
--Josh Marshall
When the McCain Committee's Abramoff report came out, we learned that Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH) said he'd never even heard of the Tigua Indian tribe.
On the other hand, here's Ney posing for a picture with tribal leaders, Tigua Lt. Gov. Carlos Hisa (on right) and tribal official Raul Gutierrez (left).
Come to think of it, Ney does look he may be in some sort of trance. So maybe he really did forget?
Justin Rood's got the details at TPMmuckraker.com.
--Josh Marshall
Frist: Senate GOP polls sagging because CNN not living up to role as GOP mouthpiece.
--Josh Marshall
Rep. Curt Weldon wanted to make a secret trip to Iraq to oversee a dig to uncover hidden WMD. Eventually even the guy with the alleged WMD treasure map decided Weldon was too whacked.
--Josh Marshall
Who keeps ties to a firm that swindled you out of $25,000? You gotta be drunk or something. This and more of the day's news in today's Daily Muck.
--Justin Rood
Brown University Poll, 719 registered voters.
Sen. Linc Chafee (R) 37%, Sheldon Whitehouse (D) 38%, Unsure 25%.
Poll conducted, June 24-26, 2006.
--Josh Marshall
New GOP legislative initiative: pass resolution condemning New York Times.
--Josh Marshall
Senate Committee on the Environment and dingbat media watchdogs too.
Sen. James Inhofe's Senate Environment and Public Works Committee put out this press release slamming an AP article that reported there is a scientific consensus that the claims Al Gore makes in his movie are correct.
This is what they spend their time on.
Late Update: Good Catch! Until a couple months ago, the press release writer, Marc Marono, worked for CNSnews.com where he distinguished himself by using disgraced NASA crony George Deutsch to attack NASA scientist James Hansen. Deutsch, you'll remember, was the young Bush campaign flack who was sent over to NASA to censor scientific publications, made a splash when he instructed NASA scientists not to discuss the Big Bang without considering the topic from a religious perspective and then got bounced when it emerged that he'd lied about having a college degree. Earlier, Marono wrote this beaut questioning whether Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) may have faked the wounds for which he received two Purple Hearts.
--Josh Marshall
So on exporting democracy ...
1. President encourages supporters to accuse newspaper reporters of treason: check.
2. President mandates systematic use of torture: check.
3. President routinely asserts right to ignore laws passed by Congress: check.
What am I missing?
Actually, I think it's more one of those trick questions. Like, we're not exporting 'democracy' but our democracy. So, as we send it to them, we lose ours.
--Josh Marshall
Last week I linked to a post by Paul Begala about what Dems should be saying on Iraq. But it was on a day when we were having some server issues at TPMCafe. So a number of people wrote in to say they hadn't been able to read it. Here it is. If you missed it, definitely give it a read.
--Josh Marshall
Following up on the post immediately below, I think we're likely going to start tracking some positions here on Social Security, now that the president has announced he's going to take another stab at phasing out Social Security next year. So, for starters, if you live in Rep. Chocola's (R-IN) district, let us know the latest about what he's saying his position is on phasing out Social Security.
And if you're not in Indiana's second district, let us know the latest you've heard from your member of Congress.
Here's Rep. Chocola's current position on Social Security from his congressional website: "Social Security has long been, and continues to be, a critical resource for millions of Americans entering retirement. While the system can be maintained in the short-term, it is clear that reforms must be made without jeopardizing the payments that current and future retirees need and deserve. The President recognizes the undeniable challenges created by the pending retirement of the baby boom generation and is leading necessary debate. I look forward to participating in this debate while working towards a bi-partisan solution."
I think that means he's pro-phase-out. But he's trying to keep it fuzzy.
--Josh Marshall
President Bush pledges to try to phase out Social Security again after the November election.
From his speech this morning (emphasis added) ...
As you might recall, I addressed that issue last year, focusing on Social Security reform. I'm not through talking about the issue. I spent some time today in the Oval Office with the United States senators, and they're not through talking about the issue either. It's important for this country -- (applause) -- I know it's hard politically to address these issues. Sometimes it just seems easier for people to say, we'll deal with it later on. Now is the time for the Congress and the President to work together to reform Medicare and reform Social Security so we can leave behind a solvent balance sheet for our next generation of Americans. (Applause.)If we can't get it done this year, I'm going to try next year.
And if we can't get it done next year, I'm going to try the year after that, because it is the right thing to do. It's just so easy to say, let somebody else deal with it. Now is the time to solve the problems of Medicare and Social Security, and I want your help. I need the Manhattan Institute to continue to agitate for change and reform. You've got a big voice. You got creative thinkers, and if you don't mind, I'd like to put this on your agenda, and let you know the White House and members of the Senate and the House are anxious to deal with this issue and get it done once and for all.
At least he's being up front about it. Where does everyone else stand? Where do Rep. Chris Chocola (R-IN) and 
Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) stand? They never gave straight answers in 2005.
Remember Chocola was for completely phasing out Social Security in 2000. Then he was against phasing out Social Security in 2002. Then in 2005 he was either for it or against it, depending on which day people asked him.
Actually, it got still better. In 2005, while he was hiding from voters who were trying to get a straight answer out of him, South Bend's First Unitarian Church was planning to hold a community discussion about Social Security with Notre Dame Professor and pension policy expert Teresa Ghilarducci. Chocola got the head of the Indiana GOP to call the pastor of the church and threaten that her church's tax exempt status might be revoked if she held the meeting.
I can't wait to see what he comes up with this year.
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader PB on the Siegel Meltdown ...
Isn't the basic problem with Siegel that he is an elitist whose relevancy is being challenged by people he considers his "lessers"? Isn't the issue for Siegel's ilk that people who didn't go to the "right" schools and get the "proper" journalistic training are now being allowed a place at the table? There is more than a whiff of classism in his take down of Markos.I do find the hostility and the "I'm right, you're wrong" tone of Daily Kos tiring. But it is clearly a long way from being fascist. And there is too much intra-left squabbling that goes on there to consider the site even vaguely authoritarian. But given that anyone can participate in the dialogue on sites like Daily Kos, I see it as a kind of democratization of political discourse, which is exactly what Seigel has a problem with.
Yep.
--Josh Marshall
Justin Rood on the "non-partisan" vet group that's working to get the "good news" out about Iraq.
--Paul Kiel
Completely out of the blue, Capitol Hill TPM Reader RM wrote in a short while ago and asked what kind of coffee TPM prefers. 
In any case, I answered. So I thought I'd share the answer. No contest, TPM prefers French Market Coffee & Chickory. Nothing else like it. Though, beware, if you're used to standard coffee, it's strong stuff.
French Market, as the name sort of implies, is made down in New Orleans. So after Katrina, my wife and I went online and ordered several months' supply since we weren't sure when they be able to start making the stuff again. We got an email saying they wouldn't be able to ship for some time. So I went out to various markets in our New York neighborhood and bought as much as I could find. In any case, they're apparently back up and running now.
What coffee do you prefer?
--Josh Marshall
A few years ago I wrote this review ("The Orwell Temptation") of Paul Berman's book Terror and Liberalism. It's a critical review. But I bring it up because the central theme of the review was the intellectual's tendency or temptation to overthink or overstate the gravity of their moment. It's not quite grandiosity. But it's close.
I'm not here to knock Berman's book again. If you're not familiar with it, it is the most articulate and thought-out version of the argument that today's violent Islamic jihadism is the moral, political and existential equivalent of the 20th century's battle against totalitarianism in its Nazi and Communist forms.
To me, it's not a convincing argument or book. It's overdone, an example of that urge to find our own times a bit more world-historical than they really are. But it's certainly not a silly book.
And I say that because I think we've found another example that is so silly and ridiculous that it's almost like an over-the-top parody. But it's for real.
With all that build up, let me get down to particulars.
You may have heard that a few days ago, in TNR online Lee Siegel called the blogosphere "hard fascism with a Microsoft face."
When I heard about that I figured it was a throwaway line, albeit a bit overdone and self-serious. But no, Siegel's really serious about this. He is in earnest! And on Friday he followed up with a deeper analysis with the weighty title "The Origins of Blogofascism". There's even the beginnings of a sociological analysis and a historical one too. But let's jump right into the mix.
"Moron"; "Wanker" (a favorite blogofascist insult, maybe because of the similarity between the most strident blogging and masturbating); and "Asshole" have been the three most common polemical gambits.
Polemical gambits? Lee, dude, how many times did your butt get kicked in third grade, buddy?
[Full Disclosure: I know most of the reporter-writers (aka 'Editors') at TNR personally; but to the best of my knowledge I've never met Siegel.]
But I digress. Let me quote at more length ...
"Moron"; "Wanker" (a favorite blogofascist insult, maybe because of the similarity between the most strident blogging and masturbating); and "Asshole" have been the three most common polemical gambits ...All these abusive attempts to autocratically or dictatorially control criticism came about because I said that the blogosphere had the quality of fascism, which my dictionary defines as "any tendency toward or actual exercise of severe autocratic or dictatorial control." The proof, you might say, is in the puddingheads.
I am overwhelmed by the intolerance and rage in the blogosphere. Conscientiously criticize, in the form of a real argument, blogospheric favorites like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, and the response isn't similar criticism, done conscientiously and in the form of an argument, but insults, personal attacks, and even threats. This truly is the stuff of thuggery and fascism.
Yes, getting some hate mail and getting called a wanker, truly the stuff of fascism. I'm going to have to completely rethink the March on Rome and the Night of the Long Knives.
Let me say a bit more about this though, because I can understand someone from the world of small magazines being shocked by the responsiveness, rambuctiousness and even hair trigger hostility of the blogosphere. I haven't done much magazine writing in the last couple years. But I come out of that world of small political magazines. And it is, in many more than just the obvious ways, a different world.
Write a piece for the New Republic or the American Prospect or even the far wider circulation New Yorker and you may get a few letters in the mail from readers. Not that many or that often, but sometimes. Friends and colleagues will tell you what they thought or argue with you about it. The publication will probably get a few letters to the editor. But that's about it.
Your contact with the people who read what you're writing is quite limited. On the other hand, TPM gets anywhere from 2-500 emails every day. Needless to say, many fly in within minutes of your finishing whatever is being responded to. And, believe or not, not all of them are nice.
Not long ago I got on the wrong side of the ridiculousness of the proprietor of one left-wing website. And his antics were so dishonorable and shameless that I don't think I'd ever speak to the guy again. Still, I don't think he was a fascist. I think he is, mundane a category as it may be, a dick. Or perhaps I'm the dick. To him, certainly. Still though, I don't think fascism has anything to do with it.
More generally, I think the blogosphere, in contrast to more staid venues for writing, is something like the much more popular and participatory sort of theater culture you had in the 19th and well into the 20th century (you may remember seeing some hint of this funned up in old Bugs Bunny cartoons) where, if the audience didn't like what they were hearing or seeing, they started booing. Or hooting. Or heck, maybe tossing raw vegetables. You get a sense of Siegel's reaction when he grandly opines that the blogosphere, "radiates democracy's dream of full participation but practices democracy's nightmare of populist crudity..."
Siegel is like some would-be Alexander Woollcott who thinks he's taking a seat at the Algonquin Table. But he's shown up on the stage at some freewheeling vaudeville theater. And when the crowd starts booing his pompous malarkey and he gets hit in the head with a ripe tomato, he imagines it's some world-historical event.
In any case, hold that thought, because Siegel's goofball Hannah Arendt channeling continues.
"Two other traits of fascism are its hatred of the processes of politics, and the knockabout origins of its adherents. Communism was hatched by elites. Fascism was born along the drifting paths of rootless men, often ex-soldiers who had fought in the First World War and been demobilized. They turned European politics into a madhouse of deracinated ambition."
Siegel then does a quick character sketch of Markos Moulitsas as one of these "rootless men", ready, I guess, to congeal in to some sort of html freikorps ...
So he loves government, but hates politics. There's something chilling about that. I wonder, does Zuniga consider the Solidarity movement disgusting, compromising, venal politics, too? And was there really no one to root for during the Salvadoran civil war? It's hard to believe the usually inflexibly partisan Zuniga actually said that. The rebels may have been "Maoist"--whatever that meant to them in Central America at the time--but their goal of overthrowing a brutal, rapacious regime might well be something that a passionate political idealist and reformer like Zuniga, looking back at it in 2004, would sympathize with. Or so you would think.But, then, Zuniga--let's cut the puerile nicknames of "DailyKos, "Atrios," "Instapundit" et al., which are one part fantasy of nom de guerres, one part babytalk, and a third thuggish anonymity--believes so deafeningly and inflexibly that it's hard to tell what he believes at all, expecially if you try to make out his conviction over the noisy bleating of his followers.
He told Deborah Solomon in The New York Times that he joined the army out of high school to build up his self-confidence. Elsewhere, he has spoken of his love of 25-mile marches with a heavy knapsack. After the Army, college and then law school. But he never practiced law, it seems. He drifted to San Francisco and into the high-tech industry, where he designed Websites. Finally, he ended up in politics, again drifting into the Democratic party, supporting first John Edwards, and then Wesley Clark, and then, as a paid consultant, Howard Dean.
Anyway, there's just more and more of this and it just gets better and better.
I tried really hard to come up with something intelligent to say about this nonsense. But Siegel's foolishness defied me. And all I can do is keep giggling that this guy actually can write this stuff with a straight face.
I freely admit blogging is an ephemeral form of writing. It's written quickly, usually forgotten quickly. It doesn't lend itself to that sort of rigorous writing and rewriting which is often the way you discover your ideas in your own mind. It is a popular medium on many levels. But it also has an immediacy and when done well, under time pressure, produces an economic form of writing, a concision and getting right to the point.
I saw a quote a few days ago where someone said something like blogging is a boon for information but an enemy of thought. And there's an element of truth to that. In most hands, it's more a medium of exchange than reflection. The technology can leave us with too little time to mull and digest. But as Siegel's dingbat self-parodies show, having too much time on your hands can also lead to trouble.
--Josh Marshall
Who is Jack Abramoff calling a "monkey coloney"? That and more of the day's news in today's Daily Muck.
--Justin Rood
CBS West Palm Beach: "Sources have confirmed to CBS4 News that conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh has been detained at Palm Beach International Airport for the possible possession of illegal prescription drugs Monday evening. Limbaugh was returning on a flight from the Dominican Republic when officials found the drugs, among them Viagra."
--Josh Marshall
The Hill, May 3rd, 2006: "The withdrawal of 20,000-40,000 U.S. troops from Iraq this fall would greatly help Republican chances in the November election, Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.) said at a fundraiser Thursday at the National Rifle Association. Souder acknowledged in his remarks that the war in Iraq has dampened support for Republican candidates but added that withdrawing 30,000 troops could have a big impact, said Martin Green, Souder’s spokesman."
--Josh Marshall
Okay, we've been trying to figure out what the deal is with the "Seas of David" cult down in Miami that got busted last week for a plot to blow up the Sears Tower and a number of federal buildings. As I wrote a couple days ago, not only was their terror planning apparently more "aspirational" than "operational", as a federal law enforcement official put it. They apparently weren't even Muslims.
The best information, beside the indictment, we've been able to find is the interview with "Brother Corey", an alleged member of the group who walked up to CNN's John Zarrella while he was broadcasting from the scene of the raid and announced that he was "a representative [and] authorized to speak on behalf of our organization."
--Josh Marshall
Congressional GOP: Troops in Iraq Today, Troops in Iraq Tomorrah, Troops in Iraq Forevah.
--Josh Marshall
Swift-boating the swift boaters? Liberal blog readers ambush the latest right-wing attempt to smear a Dem. That and more of the day's news in the Daily Muck.
--Justin Rood
TPM Reader PT ...
In your blog today... "More evidence that the administration has no plan in Iraq."I disagree. I thought months ago, and wrote you, that they plan to begin a significant drawdown before the election this fall. Their strategy is to attempt to demonize any Democrat who calls for withdrawal so that Democrats will not end up with a unified, strong stance. If Republicans can say in Sept through Nov., "See, we've taken the lead on withdrawing the troops" this will help burnish their (false) image of strength, control etc., and will gather them credit. But, if it looks like Democrats forced the issue, it would be an admission that the whole Iraq enterprise was FUBAR and the administration has had to alter course, making them look weak.
The public has already decided the war was a mistake. The Republicans are trying prevent the public from giving credit for the planned withdrawal to Democrats, and unfortunately many Democrats appear too craven to position themselves squarely in the line of fire. Unless they do I predict the withdrawal of significant numbers of troops at summer's end will redound to Bush's credit. Democrats are playing this very unwisely.
--Josh Marshall
Novak, Sept. 20, 2004: "Inside the Bush administration policymaking apparatus, there is strong feeling that U.S. troops must leave Iraq next year. This determination is not predicated on success in implanting Iraqi democracy and internal stability. Rather, the officials are saying: ready or not, here we go ... Well-placed sources in the administration are confident Bush's decision will be to get out. They believe that is the recommendation of his present national security team and would be the recommendation of second-term officials. An informed guess might have Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state, Paul Wolfowitz as defense secretary and Stephen Hadley as national security adviser. According to my sources, all would opt for a withdrawal."
--Josh Marshall
BBC: "The "reconciliation" plan announced on Sunday by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki is part of a grand strategy by the Bush administration to stabilise Iraq - or to stabilise the perception of Iraq - in advance of the mid-term elections for Congress in November. Other parts of the plan are an insistence that democracy has arrived in Iraq and must be supported, a refusal to set any date or timetable for a total withdrawal of US troops (presented as a weakness), yet with a suggestion that a reduction might start soon as the effort to transfer responsibility to Iraqi forces gathers pace."
--Josh Marshall
