Feingold, Bennett put the ISG on notice

Each in their inimitable way, of course. First, Russ (from Countdown):

The fact is this commission was composed apparently entirely of people who did not have the judgment to oppose this Iraq war in the first place, and did not have the judgment to realize it was not a wise move in the fight against terrorism. So that's who is doing this report.

Then I looked at the list of who testified before them. There is virtually no one who opposed the war in the first place. Virtually no one who has been really calling for a different strategy that goes for a global approach to the war on terrorism. So this is really a Washington inside job and it shows not in the description of what's happened -- that's fairly accurate -- but it shows in the recommendations. It's been called a classic Washington compromise that does not do the job of extricating us from Iraq in a way that we can deal with the issues in Southeast Asia, in Afghanistan, and in Somalia which are every bit as important as what is happening in Iraq.

This report does not do the job and it's because it was not composed of a real representative group of Americans who believe what the American people showed in the election, which is that it's time for us to have a timetable to bring the troops out of Iraq.

And then Bill:

Who are these commissioners and what is their expertise in Iraq — or even foreign policy? ... The entire report is contemptuous of the military, spoken of as pawns on a chess table, barriers, observers, buffers, and trainers. Never as what they are trained to be: the greatest warriors in the world. Would it have been too much to ask that one general, or even one outspoken believer in the mission from the get-go, be on this commission?

Perhaps the most systemic problem with the report is it didn't tell us how to win; it answered how to get out. The commissioners answered the wrong question, but it was the one they wanted to answer.

In all my time in Washington I've never seen such smugness, arrogance, or such insufferable moral superiority. Self-congratulatory. Full of itself. Horrible.

I think Bennett is jealous because he wasn't picked for the commission. Or maybe he's just having severe slots withdrawal.

Pearl Harbor Day remembrances

Today is the 65th anniversary.

There's no personal connection to the day; my dad shipped out to Pearl (he boarded a train at the old Union Station railway downtown; it's now part of Minute Maid Park) but got there just as the war was ending, so he never saw any action. He spent his enlistment doing the beginning of peacetime maintenance.

The surviving veterans will gather at the USS Arizona memorial for the last time. Most of them don't expect they can attend a 70th, if there is one.

The Arizona had been loaded with millions of gallons of heavy fuel oil the day before it was sunk in the Japanese attack. That oil has leaked slowly out of it ever since. There has long been concern that the deteriorating condition of the rusting ship might suddenly release what remains of its trapped cargo, causing an environmental disaster. People have been studying ways of dealing with, or preventing, that occurrence.

And in Fredericksburg, the hometown of Admiral Nimitz, they will commemorate the anniversary with the usual speeches and 21-gun salutes, but also with a sale of Texas Historical Commission bonds to expand the facilities there.

Kossacks like Edwards, Obama, Clark

... but Gore a lot more, if he would only declare. Almost 16,000 respondents from the progressive netroots voted in the poll that did not include the former vice-president and the three named in the headline finished 28-28-26 respectively; 57% of almost 14,000 made Gore a runaway winner in the poll with his name on the ballot. The three leaders leaked away much of their support to him.

Summary:

... But keep in mind, winning the "blogosphere primary" gets these guys nothing. It's all about activating, energizing, and mobilizing hardcore political junkies to evangelize and work their campaigns.

Let's say, conservatively, that 5 million people read liberal blogs. You get 10 percent of those, you're looking at 500,000 activists working on your behalf. What campaign wouldn't kill for that sort of interest?

The corporate media meme remains, of course, Hillary and Obama. Frankly, I don't think the Democrats can win back the White House with either one of those two at the top of the ticket. My choices today would be Gore, Clark, Edwards -- and not necessarily in that order. Greggie-Poo the Blue Pooch will be shocked, shocked if the ticket in '08 isn't Clinton-Warner.

I think that premise is absolutely hilarious. OTOH, I'll have to vote Green if he's so much as half right.

Update: Kos calls the cattle.

Update II (12/7): And the cattle prod for the Republicans. My take, posted there, is ...

McCain is sucking all the oxygen out of the room. It's currently him alone in the first tier.

Second tier: Giuliani, Romney, Brownback.

Hizzoner has star power but is much too moderate to move up. The fundies need someone to rally 'round; my guess is it will be either Mitt or Sam.

Third tier: Hagel, Gingrich, Pataki, Huckabee, Tancredo, Hunter, Thompson.

Hagel is McCain Lite, with the exception of being out front in opposition to Iraq. This still doesn't seem to be the popular thing to do if you're a conservative, however. Gingrich will attract a southern conservative following and can't be discounted. Pataki gets lost among the other nor'easters (and is the blandest of this bunch; makes Frist seem like Elvis). Tancredo has one issue to run on. Hunter, Huckabee and Thompson don't even have that.

Could go nova by just announcing and move into the top tier: Jeb, Condi. Not sure how either can run a campaign of 'change' in 2008. Bush fatigue would ultimately doom either one in the general.

Blogs force Rep. Truitt to blink

The legislation filed by Rep. Vicki Truitt -- summarized here -- has been withdrawn by her.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram has the story:

Texas bloggers: Retract your claws. Vicki Truitt means you no harm.

The Keller state representative has been public enemy No. 1 for bloggers for the past three weeks because of a bill she pre-filed relating to defamatory comments on Web sites.

It turns out Truitt had meant to file a much narrower bill that was not directed at bloggers. She now plans to enter substitute language in January.

I don't really buy this premise of Ms. Truitt's, but let's continue:

Truitt filed House Bill 129 on Nov. 13, the first day lawmakers could file bills for the legislative session that begins in January. The bill specified that the author of defamatory statements expressed on the Internet would be subject to the same libel limitations as the author of any other statement "in any other written or graphic form."

Outrage on the blogosphere was quick.

Eileen Smith, editor of Austin-based InThePinkTexas.com, ripped into the bill two days later in a post titled "My Other Blog is Yo Mama." The post now appears on the first page of a Google search for "Vicki Truitt."

More than 30 readers commented on the post, many heckling Truitt. Noting that if the bill passed it wouldn't go into effect until September, reader Roaring Gnome suggested, "I think you should dedicate all posts after Sept. 1, 2007 to making fun of Vicki Truitt's absurdly big hair. It would NOT be a false statement, so I think you'd be covered."

More than 10 other blogs ultimately wrote about the bill in the ensuing weeks. Some latched onto the notion that they were free to say whatever they wanted about Truitt until the bill passed.

I didn't think there was nearly the blogswarm we needed on this in order to get the desired response. That Rep. Truitt backed off so quickly suggests she is an avid blog reader and was intimidated by our enormous power.

Or that she doesn't know a blog from Bergdorf Goodman (and is intimidated by our enormous power). Continuing:

Vince Leibowitz of Grand Saline analyzed the bill's wording on his blog CapitolAnnex.com. He suggested that even though Web sites are already subject to libel limitations, the legislation could ultimately strip bloggers of the basic protections against libel charges that traditional media enjoy.

That prediction worried other bloggers, some of whom suggested organizing opposition to the bill.

"This is just another way to silence the little guy/gal," wrote Michael Davis, who blogs at dallasprogress.blogspot.com.

"I blog. You decide. Truitt sues," added a blogger on bayareahouston.blogspot.com.

...

Truitt's legislative director, Dan Sutherland, said that legal advisers had suggested broadening the bill's language to include all defamatory comments, but that stifling bloggers or anyone else on the Internet was never their intention.

"In the conversations I had with legislative counsel, we never talked about blogs," Sutherland said. "Apparently the people who write blogs think it was targeted at them, so we're trying to clarify it."

Sutherland described the blogger reaction to the bill as "amazing" but noted that allowing public comments to help reshape proposed legislation is part of the democratic process.

"It's not unusual for any representative to file something, and once people start reading it, they bring things to our attention they hadn't thought of or got lost in the translation," Sutherland said.

Truitt said she didn't intend the bill to be viewed as a way of silencing free speech on the Web, especially for those writing about public figures.

Once again, I doubt it. Nevertheless:

Smith, of InThePinkTexas.com, expressed surprise that Truitt's broadly worded bill was intended to be about something so specific as identity theft. Regardless, she said the furor over the bill has helped spark a dialogue about how blogs should be treated compared to traditional media.

"It has brought up interesting questions about how legislators are going to view blogs as vehicles of information," Smith said. "It's actually a good discussion platform for everyone to have anyway ... even if it wasn't what she intended."

And there you have it. The blogosphere just gained a little street cred.

2006's Texan of the Year: Blogger Style

... not a Republican (like last year) but also not necessarily a Democrat, either (though they endorsed several of them in the November elections).


It's Carolyn Boyle of Texas Parent PAC.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

Texas Parent PAC was founded in 2005 by Boyle, a former public relations executive well-known in the Capitol as an advocate for Texas public schools.

"Carolyn Boyle and Texas Parent PAC proved that you don't have to be a prominent, wealthy donor to make positive changes in the Texas political landscape,” said San Antonio's Matt Glazer, senior writer for Austin-based Burnt Orange Report and founder of Just Another Blog. "Overnight, Parent PAC became the most sought-after endorsement in Texas politics," Glazer continued.

"This election cycle, Carolyn Boyle and Texas Parent PAC showed that soccer moms and PTA dads speak as loud as the James Leiningers and Bob Perrys, and that the folks those guys have been helping get elected all these years aren't doing the job when it comes top public education," said Vince Leibowitz of Grand Saline, publisher of Capitol Annex.

Congratulations to Ms. Boyle and Texas Parent PAC.