More on Mike.

Below (via Atrios) I flagged this Huffington Post Mike McCurry post about the Net Neutrality debate. But I wanted to focus in on this one paragraph where Mike is discussing not so much the NN debate as the culture of the blogosphere and the relationship between blogs and the mainstream media …

Oh yeah, how many of you lifted a finger to protect the First Amendment when the Washington Post and other “MSM” cited it to ferret out the truth about WMD and the wars inside the U.S. intelligence community over the pre-Iraq war (and now pre-Iran war)? (And don’t lecture me about how they failed to do their job — I have had Pultizer Prize winning reporters tell me that they feel intimindated and they lack public support. Of course they — and their editors– feel that way. Most of the blogosphere spends hours making them feel that way).

Does anyone understand what this means? I’m not saying this for effect. I really have no idea what he’s talking about. At first I thought McCurry was arguing that Democrats were hypocritical in pressing for an aggressive investigation of the Plame case because it compromised journalists’ ability to protect their sources. That’s certainly a debatable point — and one I’m ambivalent about myself. But I don’t think that’s what he’s talking about.

McCurry seems to be arguing, first, that no one stood up for working reporters trying to get to the bottom of the WMD question in the lead up to the Iraq War. This claim seems so baseless that I’m uncertain how to analyze it. I’m not sure what online media or bloggers or anyone else outside of the big papers and networks could have done in 2002 and 2003 to “protect the First Amendment” and make more aggressive coverage possible, but there was no shortage of online commentary encouraging them on. You could probably make a decent case that the explosion of the center-left blogosphere in 2002 and 2003 was based on pressing journalists to do so.

In any case, I have no idea what that’s supposed to mean. But I do want to delve a bit deeper into the second claim — not McCurry’s alone — that mainstream journalists are beleaguered, intimidated and friendless and that the main culprits are a few high traffic bloggers.

It’s really astonishing the amount of self-pity and silliness one hears along these lines today. Not long ago, for instance, I sat down for an interview with a particularly disagreeable interviewer who seemed to want to catch me out and pin me down on every conceivably problematic point about blogs. At one point he suggested that the blogs were pulling away or threatening to pull away the ad revenue streams necessary to support the reportings staffs required for a quality news outlet.

Agreed — I didn’t know quite what to make of that one either. I’m happy with my life. And my company is able to pay three salaries and benefits in addition to mine. But to say that we’re more than a financial fleck in the eye of even the smallest mainstream news organization is a really a grand understatement.

When I have these conversations on a more serious level, I freely concede that it’s no fun being constantly criticized. And let’s be honest. There’s a lot on the web that it is crude, cruel, coarse, even hateful. And that’s without even taking Hugh Hewitt into account.

It’s certainly not for the faint of heart.

But when I hear this argument from journalists (or more often folks speaking on behalf of journalists) it’s freely conceded that little has changed in terms of criticism from the right. There was talk radio before the Internet, the various right-wing media watchdog outfits, Fox News, etc. What’s changed is that journalists now often feel besieged from the left as well. They’re getting from both sides. There’s nowhere to turn. (Believe me, I’ve had this conversation many times.)

Now, I think there’s a decent argument to be made that a lot of press criticism on the left is criticism of journalists for not doing their jobs whereas a lot of criticism on the right is against the concept of journalism itself. But that’s a complicated argument. So let’s set that point aside for another post and another day.

I know it’s not fun. And I’ve spent enough of my career in conventional journalism to have some sense of what that’s like. But even if it’s no fun, I think it should be obvious that a journalistic eco-system in which reporters and editors are only systematically peppered and criticized from one side (the right, in this case) is one that cannot ever be properly balanced. So having sustained scrutiny from both sides — even if it sometimes makes journalists’ work less pleasant — must inevitably produce better journalism than being mau-maued by one side only.

But back to this point of feeling intimidated and lacking in public support.

Who is intimidated exactly and why? I’m really not sure if this is, at heart, more than standing up for the human but not commendable principle of not wanting to be criticized. I generally don’t take much to the various streams of blog triumphalism and new media’s empty vanity. But one thing to recognize is that for many years and certainly in an era of media consolidation, most media outlets are simply not used to getting any sustained feedback or criticism from their consumers. The crushing meaninglessness of old style letters to the editor? Please. It’s a spigot that can be turned off by non-acknowledgement. Reporters should do their jobs. If the work has quality and integrity, the carping and complaining should just be ignored. And editors should back their reporters in doing so. We’re living in a rapidly changing news eco-system, with plenty of bruising and unlovliness mixed in with the dynamism. But a lot of what I hear along these lines just sounds like whining.

Ah, the price of freedom. So far for Tom DeLay, it’s $1.3 million – and climbing. That and other news of the day in today’s Daily Muck.

And CIA Executive Director and Brent Wilkes pal Kyle “Dusty” Foggo has admitted attending Wilkes’ parties – but says he didn’t see any prostitutes while playing cards with Wilkes and others.

In this morning’s press gaggle, Scott McClellan sowed confusion over what those White House visitor logs will tell us about Jack Abramoff’s visits.

From a TPM Reader who covers the White House …

You’ve puzzled out some of the reasons for which reporters feel besieged: Instant and often nasty feedback, the upsurge in criticism from the Left (and in “lynch them all” rhetoric on the Left, which is quite different from, say, the “On Bended Knee” or Daily Howler criticism). I’ve never felt intimidated (though I have been threatened with violence, spat on, and had a battery thrown at me). More like tired, or frustrated, or angry.

But you’ve missed the biggest reason: The instant “feedback” doesn’t just go to our editors and publishers. Because our email addresses are out there and because of search engines that make it easy to get our home addresses and telephone numbers, the “feedback” is more and more hitting us personally.

I don’t pretend to understand McCurry’s rant, but when a colleague is the target of a blog-inspired swarm (“here is his email. Go tell him what you think!”), they can count on about 10-1000 emails, many of them including threats of violence. Or when a prominent talk show host pretends to puzzle over the Jewish last name of another colleague, repeatedly asking “hmmm, what kind of name is that” the result is the sudden arrival of copies of the New Testament at her home address.

Josh, that’s at least a bit intimidating. “I know where you live” is just not the same as “Howell really screwed up the Abramoff thing.”

I have had people (three men) show up at my front door at 9 am on a Saturday morning to complain about my coverage of their cause and demand to be invited in. I had another two guys stalk me, waiting until I left my office at 10 pm to accost me and take issue with my coverage of their pet issue.

That’s f—ing creepy enough when you’re a single guy. It must be downright horrifying if you’re a single woman. And, yes, intimidating.

I’ll have more to say on this.

Our man Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH) has his primary today. Here’s our backgrounder on what to expect.

More on Net Neutrality. It’s important.

On the other hand, if the Telcos win, maybe send us some money so we can pay AT&T the protection money so we don’t get shoved off the net.

Ken Mehlman spoke at the American Jewish Committee’s 100th anniversary event this morning. And I hear that when he told the crowd that Iraq is less of a threat or a challenge today than it was under Saddam he got roundly booed.

More here on Mehlman’s reception.

Here at TPM and TPMmuckraker we’re trying to keep close tabs on the still bubbling congressional bribery and prostitution scandal involving Duke Cunningham, his briber Brent Wilkes and assorted others. But while we’re looking at that, as Justin Rood notes today, Shirlington Limousine company, the outfit that allegedly ferried sundry hookers for liaisons with various political bigwigs, looks to be a bigger and bigger part of the story.

Let’s review some of what we know.

Shirlington limo is owned by Chris Baker who has a lengthy criminal record — a 62 page rap sheet, which we’re going to try to post tomorrow. The company has also had something of a spotty record.

According to an October 3rd, 2002 article in the Washington Post, the Bowie State Bulldogs were unfortunate enough to have their team buses provided by Shirlington. And for their trouble, while the team was eating dinner in Atlanta on a trip to play Morehouse, the team’s buses were repossessed by ABC Financial Services as they sat in the parking lot.

As the Post put it, ABC called Bowie State Coach Henry Frazier III “on his cell phone while the team was eating to tell him the buses had been repossessed. Frazier said he thought it was a crank call, possibly by one of his players. But, when everyone went outside, the buses were nowhere to be found.”

That must have been a fun moment. Would have been fun to hang with Coach Frazier that evening.

Anyway, ABC and Morehouse officials helped the stranded footballers find alternative transportation home.

But apparently Howard University didn’t have a great experience either.

They hired Shirlington to provide shuttle services back in 1999. But they canned Shirlington a few months before the incident with the Bowie players down in Atlanta. The problems cited by Howard included “failure to provide copies of maintenance records, failure to provide evidence of workman’s compensation insurance, cited on numerous occasions for poor bus cleanliness, poor implementation of two-way communication system, and subcontracted to Thomas Tours without written authorization from the University.”

Suffice it to say that Shirlington was doing was our president would call a heckuva job.

And if things weren’t looking up for the Shirlington limousine family, they only got worse.

As the Washington Post reported a couple days ago, in 2003 and 2004 Shirlington got eviction notices for an office it mantained in a fancy DC apartment building. Then, as the Post reports, “in September 2004, the company was sued in D.C. Superior Court for $1.8 million, for failing to make payments on buses it bought for the Howard contract. The case was settled last month, with Shirlington Limousine agreeing to pay $300,000.”

You might have thought that at this point Shirlington limo was about to give up the ghost. But no. Someone at the Department of Homeland Security could see potential in Shirlington that the folks at Howard and the company’s creditors apparently didn’t. Because in April 2004, Shirlington bagged a $3.8 million contract with DHS.

Not that everything was perfect yet, mind you. In June 2005, according to Department of Transportation records consulted today by TPM, Shirlington had its Motor Passenger Common Carrier authority ‘involuntarily revoked.’ They didn’t get it reinstated until October 31st of 2005. And just in time. Because according to the Post it was in October 2005 when DHS awarded Shirlington another contract worth $21.2 million for “shuttle services and executive transportation support.”

So let’s put this all together. Shirlington limo’s owner Chris Baker has a long criminal record. He’s tight with Cunningham briber Brent Wilkes and reportedly provided the transportation services for the parties Wilkes used to sauce up members of Congress and various intel folks as well as get them set up with hookers. Only, aside from squiring Duke Cunningham around with his daily prostitutes, Shirlington seemed like a really screwed up company. They’re getting their buses repossessed, their DOT authority to take people across state lines yanked, and pretty much sued right and left. If Shirlington had taxis and you flagged one down to drive you a few blocks, you might tell them you weren’t willing to take the risk. But the Department of Homeland Security, which has various law enforcement and intelligence responsibilities (and if you remember some general thing with protecting the homeland) decides Shirlington is the company it wants providing transportation for its senior-most appointees, the folks who run the place.

Anything sound fishy to you?

Not a good day for Abramoff investigation whipping boy, Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH). He’s winning his primary handily tonight. But as Justin Rood reported this afternoon at TPMmuckraker, his challenger apparently raised less than $5,000, isn’t known in the district and hasn’t even campaigned.

Justin talked to Greg Giroux of CQ who said he’d “be surprised if [Ney’s penny-ante opponent] got more than 20 or 25 percent.”

With 61% of the precincts now reporting, Ney’s opponent, James Broadbelt Harris, has 33% of the vote.

It’s really such a small world over at Shirlington Limousine. That’s the always-in-trouble DC limo outfit which, reportedly, specialized in carting congressmen and their Agency pals over to Brent Wilkes’ good-time parties where they played poker, got ripped and got down with the hookers Wilkes and Shirlington head honcho Chris Baker, allegedly, also made available.

In case you’ve forgotten your scorecard at home, Brent Wilkes is the arch-briber in the Randy “Duke” Cunningham scandal. As the Wall Street Journal first reported back on April 27th, federal investigators are looking into evidence that, in addition to cash prizes, Wilkes may have also set Duke up with hookers at the parties he threw in DC. The Feds also looking into what other members of Congress and intelligence officials spent quality time at Wilkes’ hoedowns. (Wilkes’ was apparently throwing these parties for something like 15 years.)

This Justin Rood post from TPMmuckraker has quotes from Reps. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) and Jerry Lewis (R-CA) denying that they partied with Wilkes. And here’s the follow-up piece from the Journal in which the CIA concedes that Agency #3 man Dusty Foggo did party with Wilkes but didn’t stick around for the hookers to show up.

Anyway, Chris Baker was clearly Wilkes’ go-to guy for the ‘hospitality suites’ notwithstanding the fact that Baker’s lawyer told the San Diego Union-Tribune that Baker was “never in attendance in any party where any women were being used for prostitution purposes.” And, as we discussed late Tuesday, there’s something pretty fishy about the mega-contracts Baker’s company managed to land from the Department of Homeland Security.

But just how is that Wilkes got hooked up with Chris Baker? And how’d Baker get so wired?

Well, this evening we got a hold of Shirlington’s annual reports filed with the Commonwealth of Virginia State Corporation Commission. And, surprisingly enough, for the first several years Baker’s company was in operation — specifically from 1995 through 1999 — one of the company’s directors was a guy with a San Diego address.

He was Jerome Foster.

What was also weird is that, like Wilkes, Foster was a defense contractor. Foster’s Pentech had some sort of energy management technology and they had contracts with the navy, various governmental jurisdictions and even private sector companies.

Now, here’s where it gets sort of odd. If you’ve followed the Wilkes story, you know that the guy who taught Wilkes how Washington works and has been in the mix with him every since is former Rep. Bill Lowery (R-CA). Wilkes first spent quality time with Lowery back in the 1980s when one of Wilkes’ jobs was to take Lowery on trips down to Central America to hang with Kyle “Dusty” Foggo and the Contras.

Good fun like that can’t last forever, of course. And in 1992 Lowery lost his seat to freshman Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham after the two San Diego reps were pushed into the same district and had to run against each other.

Out of work, Lowery decided to become a lobbyist. Here’s a piece from the Union-Tribune about Wilkes and Lowery and here’s another about Lowery’s sweet arrangement with nearby Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA). As Donald Trump might say, they’ve made a lot of money together.

Not surprisingly, after Lowery set up his lobbying firm Copeland Lowery & Jacquez, Wilkes hired him to lobby for his company ACDS. Between 1998 and 2002, Wilkes paid Lowery’s outfit some $200,000.

Anyway, strange as it may seem, another one of Lowery’s clients was none other than Jerome Foster’s Pentech.

All told, I’d say that means that Chris Baker’s limousine company was really popular with businessmen from San Diego looking to haul down federal defense contracts. Baker was Brent Wilkes’, shall we say, procurement officer, when it came to saucing up and getting women for members of Congress Wilkes wanted earmarks from. Another San Diego contractor, Foster, was a director of Baker’s limo company. And both contractors, in turn, were clients of Bill Lowery.

Enough coincidences like that and you start to think it’s not all a coincidence.