Redstate

Until he has them all, either.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington uses high-impact legal actions to target government officials who sacrifice the common good to special interests.

They sure have been effective at bringing the blogosphere out of the shadows and into the realm of high-profile inside-the-beltway "impact" legal actions. They've set the standard -- these people are *winners* when it comes to using blogs and email to shipwreck Republicans. They've single-handedly created the genre.

Blogroll
AMERICAblog
Atrios
Buzzflash
DailyKos
FireDog Lake
Glenn Greenwald
Huffington Post
MyDD
Raw Story
Talk Left
Talking Points Memo
Tapped
Scrutiny Hooligans
Think Progress
TPM Muckraker
Washington Monthly

In a flash of candor, CREW has dropped the word "nonpartisan" from their "About CREW" mission statement:

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to promoting ethics and accountability in government and public life by targeting government officials -- regardless of party affiliation -- who sacrifice the common good to special interests. CREW advances its mission using a combination of research, litigation and media outreach. CREW employs the law as a tool to force officials to act ethically and lawfully and to bring unethical conduct to the public’s attention through: ...

The same observation you've just made about politically-focused blogs was being made just a few years ago about TV and radio, except that the dominance was (and is) the other way around. Could it be that the left has ended up using blogs in this way precisely because they feel excluded from broadcast and print media? Before you get on any bandwagon about media bias, please note that I am talking about the left's perception of its place there, not your perception of its place there. The left feels that is has close to zero representation on network TV, cable TV and syndicated radio. Its not any suprise that they would rush to embrace a new medium a bit faster and with more zeal than those who can more easily hear viewpoints closer to their own enunciated from the radio or TV shows.

well, perception is reality, I guess. So the RIGHTWING dominence of the MSM is what has driven the left to the internet.

I guess I better go see what my rightwing masters at CBS have to say about that!

It's been a consistent feature of the propaganda that the Left has told themselves and which it has believed over the past 8+ years that the media is not liberally biased. This has happened in spite of the fact that many members of the media, including old hands like Andy Rooney and many, many others have frankly admitted that it is.

The only reason they say that the media isn't liberally-biased is that it's "corporate" and therefore that must mean "conservative" but a glance at the coverage in the Washington Post and the New York Times especially, which construes itself as the self conscious newsmaker of the Day in America, reveals that it most certainly is.

People like Howard Dean have responded to Conservatives making even tiny inroads into this overwhelmingly liberal media market by threatening to do things like legislate FOX News out of existence.

There is not a single major publication or broadcast outlet in this country of note that is not composed primarily of liberal Democrats and staffed by liberal Democrats.

I challenge you to find me a *single one*. Rush Limbaugh doesn't count -- he's ONE guy. I'm talking the big organizations -- they're all liberal, and the more honest ones will admit that they are.

Is not one. The WSJ is in fact a balanced newspaper and most of its editorial writing and news reporting is either moderate or liberal. There's very little real conservatism at the WSJ any longer, which is why people like Pat Buchanan have their own publications now.

The NEWS section of the WSJ is straight up factual reporting and has one of the best front pages of any paper. I have no idea where you get the idea that the editorial board is moderate or liberal. Are we reading the same paper?

And it would have been a whole lot less damaging to the Administration--and the country--if it had happened a long time ago.

Other than, oh I don't know, Ramsey Clark maybe?

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

How about Kenneth Star? That would be a good show.

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report

Agreed, President Bush had better select a squeaky clean paragon of virtue to replace Gonzales. The confirmation process will be the political equivalent of sharks reacting to blood in the water.

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

NRO Corner also reports that Solocitor General Paul Clement will be acting interim AG. Odd not to make him AG, then. And he is untouched by the firing kerfuffle. He's also bright enough to make the executive privlege case if the Dems try to turn the confirmation hearings into a showtrial on White House communications and the attorneys' firings.

How do you like the sound of "Attorney General Robert Bork?"

It shouldn't be too much of a problem as long as Bush agrees to open up all computers and all records for 3-4 weeks to a crack team put together by Chuck Schumer and for everyone including Bush to agree to testify in public under oath with no time limits and no area off the table.

In return for those small concessions, the Dems would agree not to filibuster the nominee and would instead just vote him down ont he floor so they all get a chance to make a speech about how horrible the Bush administration is.

Or maybe Bush should just recess-appoint someone and tell the Dems to pound sand.

At the very least, the Republican party had better start coming together and wise up. They're almost totally outgunned when it comes to bringing together a team of people to apply pressure, make the news, attack and counterattack.

Watching CREW and Charles Schumer, et. al. work over these past two years, I've felt like an observer on the battlefield between the hillbillies and the Martians. Not unexpectedly, the Martians have done a thorough job of vaporizing the hillbillies where they stand, without letting them get off a shot. Their use of the blogosphere and email, especially for internal communication and strategy, has been breathtaking. To put it simply, their people focused and have leveraged the power of the internet, and have refined these tactics to a high art form.

I've said before that I'm very much afraid of the people in the modern Democratic Party, and for good reason: they don't bring knives to a gunfight, they bring laser-guided bombs, and they use them very well. Anyone who looks at the past two years and doesn't recognize how flatfooted the Republicans have been are kidding themselves.

Our kung-fu skills are WEAK! Someone in the GOP had better start taking heed, because with very few exceptions, the Democrats have gotten everyone they've gone after in one form or another. They own this battlespace.

AGAG never impressed me, so I never could get worked up about him being the big target. I'd defend Ashcroft though, because he seemed like a great guy to have in the job.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

But that doesn't make it any less of a rout for the Democrats since 2004. Almost everyone they've targeted is gone. All the Administration can do now is capitulate and try to nominate people who won't become the next high-profile target. That means they've won.

If the Democrats want to call it a win when they force out a guy I never really cared for, it doesn't bother me. Wasn't it pretty much consensus that he was only put in the job because President Bush wanted to pack him onto the Supreme Court, rather than his being any good for that actual job, anyway?

I know some here (though I don't think you've been one of them) like to talk about the Democrats as the 'enemy' and think of politics as 'war,' I don't. So I don't react to a Democratic win the way I'd react to, say, an Al Qaeda win.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

Neil in the past few days I've been thinking about this a lot and the problem is that right now politics *is* war in this country. The Democrats certainly believe it's war. They act as though it's war. They talk as though it's war.

And truthfully I have no problem with war as long as our side isn't appointing B-list people who tend to prove that Bush is a victim of the Peter Principle. We needed A-list people and Bush has proven himself to be as bad a judge of quality in his inner circle as he is at public speaking.

I'm coming awfully close to saying that I'll never forgive his family for letting him run for President. The longer this administration goes on, unfortunately, the more I feel that way.

No wonder GHWB burst into tears recalling Jeb's defeat for FL governor in 1994. I think a John Ellis Bush presidency might have been a different story.

That would explain the progressive blogs' happiness with the recent vote over non-FISA intercepts. Not to mention the congressional democrats complete lack of ability to handle Bush's threat of appropriation bill vetoes. The current position of the blogs over the congressional democrats is only slightly than lukewarm. I think you are seeing much more "coordination" between these two "worlds" than there really is.

I'm not seeing any more or less coordination than CREW reports itself on its website. You can read the list; anyone can see which blogs they reference, and someone presumably had to ask which blogs should be included there and why -- it didn't happen by accident and it wasn't a random sample. It seems to me from the list that CREW is pretty well established as the Washington Hit Squad of the sinistrosphere, by their own admission.

Now whether or not you think that's appropriate, I don't want to hear any complaints when the Republicans start doing the same thing. After all, CREW has been very successful! Why wouldn't the Democrats want the other party to emulate their success? It's the greatest form of flattery, after all.

kowalski,

The Democrats are Liberals and to a great extent, Leftists and Socialists. Their mission in Government, in Washington politics is not to write new legislation, it's not to protect the Country or better the life of the People. Being Socialists, it is all about dragging down the "System"...it's not about elevating the quality of life of the masses, but in leveling the playing field by bringing down the successful and the leadership of the opposition.

Chuck Schumer is a perfect example. He sees his role as an elected official as that of an Inquisition Director. He could care less about paltry bills regarding social security, minimum wage, or abortion. His role, in his mind, is to reform our democracy to a socialist state and to tear apart a system of capitalism.

This is why the Democrats will simply move on to the next target on their agenda. Their agenda does NOT contain the names of Republican individuals to unseat, it is broken down simply by position.

but bloodlust in never sated.

___________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes

Congress comes back on Tuesday, Sept. 4. If Mr. Bush appointed someone tomorrow as an interim AG, the person would be in the job by the time Congress gets back. If he's competent (Clement?), the public might think, "What's fuss? This guy can do the job. The attorny firings were done by Gonzales, and he's gone."

Congress also has the Petraeus report and Iraq funding coming up. Plus some spending bills, too, I think. The Senate has to vote on the Southwick nomination or McConnell will slow the Senate to a crawl. How many battles can the Dems fight at once?

Why do you act like the burden is on them? For starters they just keep stalling on the five CCA nominees and on AG's replacement. They don't really have to spend any time on that - they'll say the AG post is more important and just as soon as Bush turns over every document ever created under AGAG they'll start taking a look. They'll try to blame all delays on Bush stonewalling.

but since he's leaving because of partisan bickering...

It's never good for Republicans to chum the water for Dem sharks.

Our priority needs to be the War on Terror at home, rather than ensuring Disney's perpetual copyright of Steamboat Willie.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

Let's just get someone in there who can do the job and maybe even bring some stature to it. Let's see the Dems try to block John Danforth.

then leak than Ann is your second choice and Judge Moore is your third. :)

cynicism, Bone. And this benefits the country how?

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
I voted Harry Browne in 2000, but will never vote Ron Paul.