Mickey's Tour d' Droit: Tim Blair's stupid Rove-as-Evil-Genius fantasy is actually ... funny! ... Meanwhile, David Ignatius and Jim Geraghty do the White House's work for it, coming up with a Walid Jumblatt quote that Rove wouldn't dare to ghostwrite because it's too perfect. ... Someone check if Jeff Gannon has been in Lebanon recently. ... P.S.: Ignatius' WaPo column is actually even more powerful than Geraghty makes it out to be. Ignatius a) is normally a worldly realist, not a wild idealist and b) covered Lebanon as Middle East correspondent of the WSJ (and wrote a novel from the experience). ... 12:40 P.M.
Autoblog scoop: New Mazda Miata. Cribbed from German site Auto Bild.* Too bad about those wheel arches. They're not even trying to be ironic. They're trying to be iconic! ... I hate it when the world's best carmakers try to carve out an original, uniquely Japanese aesthetic. ... Instant CW: Excessive Ibukitude. ...[Thanks to reader J.H.] ...*Favorite headline: "Saab, ich drück Dich!" You can say that again. ... 1:31 A.M.
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
"Dear John--We're Just Not That Into You" Watch: Loyal Dem Josh Marshall is selling "Support Kerry '08" wrist bracelets on his site--a cunning attempt to enfeeble the non-stopping Kerry campaign by inducing "armband fatigue." [Thanks to reader S.K.] 12:55 P.M.
"Gannon attended White House Christmas parties -- but who invited him?" It's come to this on the left. ... P.S.: Don't hundreds of people get invited to White House Christmas parties? ... I mean, Wonkette was there! Who invited her? ... P.P.S.: The MinuteMan calmly and methodically adduces the reasons why Gannongate doesn't have the "the makings of an old-fashioned, months-long, television-friendly Washington scandal," as Rick Hertzberg would have it. ... Meanwhile, David Corn has answered the best point raised by Hertzberg--the claim that Gannon helped press secretary Scott McClellan avoid answering tough questions:
At the White House daily briefings, most of the journalists present tend to be called upon by McClellan. This is different from what happens at press conferences with Bush. During the briefings, reporters are able to ask multiple questions and return to issues after McClellan has not answered their queries and moved on to other journalists. It's not a one-shot deal. So Gannon/Guckert was not much help to the McClellan at these briefings. If he asked McClellan an easy question, that would not change the course of the entire briefing and save McClellan from other reporters. [Emph. added]
If Gannon hadn't been there, what do the Gannonballers imagine would have happened? That McClellan would have broken down under the uninterrupted barrage of gotcha questions like the final witness on Perry Mason? ("I can't take it any more! You're right. We lied about the weapons of mass destruction! OK? We lied about the Medicare costs! We just did it to please Halliburton and the drug companies! It's all their fault! Their fault! [Falls to his knees, shoulders convulsed with sobs.] It seemed like such a good plan.") Does anything like that, even on a small scale, ever happen? ... Aside from that slim possibility, why would the Bushies need Gannon when they've got Fox? ... [But you've got to admit, it's a good story--ed. Sure. Ann Coulter and Ron Silver is a good story too! But I wouldn't expect Congressional hearings.] ... Bonus trivia point: Corn wrote a thriller in which the President gets shot at a briefing by a ringer with a press pass. He's presumably sensitive to the dangers of loose credentialing. ... 11:59 A.M.
Monday, February 21, 2005
Beyond Pajamas: NYT's Bill Keller comes down with the Columbia anti-blogging disease:
"A blog is still a view of the world through a pinhole," he said, noting that it can sometimes fall as low as being a "one man circle jerk."
That's too much gay bathhouse imagery for me to deal with right now. ... Take it away, Wonkette. ... 2:20 P.M.
Sunday, February 20, 2005
The treachery is that Doug Wead waited until after the election:
"I don't want some little kid doing what I tried ...."
"The Bible is pretty good about keeping your ego in check. ... "
"I think it is bad for Republicans to be kicking gays. ... "
[When told that a supporter was saying he'd promised to not hire gays] "No what I said was I wouldn't fire gays. ... "
"I am going to tell the truth and do the right thing, dammit, without fear or favor, with malice toward none and charity toward all--and if my political advisers tell me that will cost me power and fame, so be it!"
OK, that last one was made up. But another round of explosive front-page revelations from secretly recorded phone conversations like today's and Bush's approval will hit 70 percent. ...
Update: Wait, he's got a bomb! But note Wead's self-defense in Monday's WaPo:
Asked whether Bush would view the actions as an act of treachery from a trusted friend, Wead said, "It depends on what else is on the tapes. . . . Ninety percent of the tapes have not been heard. He can see that my motive was not to try to hurt him.
"If I released all the tapes, it would be an act of betrayal," Wead said. "Most of them have never seen the light of day and never will." [Emph. added]
Translation: 'Don't mess with me. I have the goods.' ... This intimation of a trove of more damaging tapes is a threefer for Wead: 1) He lays the groundwork for a second book--maybe a series of books, a whole publishing career (an imprint!) as he decides, now that he's thought about it, that you know more and more of the tapes really are of immediate historical interest and deserve to be on the record; 2) He deters the Bushies who might want to go all out to destroy him; and 3) In the meantime he gets points for his deep, high-minded Christian loyalty to the President! .... Even if Wead is bluffing and has nothing it's a twofer--he still gets advantages #2 and #3. ... Wasn't that Saddam's strategy? ... P.S.: Wead is exploiting the obvious weakness in the traditional Bush clan "screw us once and you're through" discipline-enforcement plan. That plan only makes sense if it doesn't encourage those guilty of minor disloyalty to commit major disloyalty (on "might as well be hung for a sheep" grounds). ... Bill Clinton's alternative "screw me once and you're my new best friend" approach had its game-theoretic advantages. ... 11:42 P.M.
Where's my $820,000? 10:15 P.M.
You think they're going to tip off Dana Milbank? Atrusted kf Bushie source says: "[G]et ready for privacy issues to jump higher on the administration's list of concerns. " ... Even if the Bush initiative succeeds, we'll always have Paris. ... 8:43 P.M.
Friday, February 18, 2005
The 180 Solution: Has John Kerry signed his Form 180--allowing journalists full access to his military records--yet? He told Tim Russert he would! ..."Yes, I will." ... Not much wiggle room there (though Kerry then seemed to ineptly try to craft an 'only-if-everyone-else-signs-theirs' loophole). ... Maybe Form 180 is the magic answer to the how-to-get-him-to-go-away dilemma. Something Democrats could unite around! ... Update: Don Burton suggests sending Kerry pens to sign it with. ... 5:01 P.M.
Thursday, February 17, 2005
Cathy Seipp gets in a good shot at Susan Estrich in the onging Estrich v. Kinsley war over what Estrich calls "blatant sex discrimination" against women writers in the LAT opinion pages. (It's in the form of a fisking.)
3. A lot of [IWF-ers] turn out to be the wives of the guys you see on right wing talk shows... As opposed to the wives on Susan Estrich's email list -- like Mrs. Jerry Bruckheimer, Mrs. Larry David, Mrs. Jonathan Dolgen, Mrs. Peter Norton, Mrs. Richard Riordan, Mrs. Haim Saban, and the ex-Mrs. Bud Yorkin -- every one of whom is of course fiercely independent of any income or name recognition provided by men.
Hysterical anti-hysteric Steve ("salivating morons") Lovelady vs. the self-styled swingers at Vodkapundit. Advantage:Vodkapundit. ... [via Insta ]... Note: I didn't think Corey Pein's Jan-Feb. CJR piece attacking anti-Rather bloggers was a defense of Rather so much as it was simply a lousy piece that didn't deliver the goods. It did contain the following reasoning, though:
Dan Rather trusted his producer; his producer trusted her source. And her source? Who knows.
Which sure sounds like a defense of Rather to me. Lovelady's subsequent establishment-gone-wild attacks on bloggers offer a retrospective explanation of why CJR would publish such a weak piece. ... 1:23 P.M. link
In an all-too-typical dereliction of duty, the elitist credentialed dead-tree press refuses to follow up on the obvious story of the week:
A Newark Airport security screener is being reassigned after officials said she failed to spot a 5-inch butcher knife in a passenger's pocketbook.
Katrina Bell, 27, of Greensboro, N.C., had cleared security and was waiting to board a flight with her sister on Saturday morning when she discovered she had forgotten to remove the knife from her bag. She had put it there — in preparation for a blind date Thursday night, her sister, Tikisha Bell Gowens, 30, told the Star-Ledger.
So how'd it go? America wants to know. The MSM is failing it again. ... Update--Advantage: MSM! The Newark Star-Ledger reports "the date went well." Sometimes there is no substitute for professionalism. ... 12:03 P.M.
Safe Seat Polarization--Don't Blame the Computers: Good Stuart Taylor column criticizing the WaPo ed board's stately, goo-goo go-slow attitude toward Arnold Schwarzenegger's anti-gerrymandering juggernaut. There are worse things than a mid-cycle redrawing of lines, as long as it's not an incumbent-protecting or partisan redrawing. And if reformers don't move fast while the moment presents itself, reform may never happen. ...As Taylor notes, redistricting reform is way more important than McCain-Feingold. ... P.S.: Better still is Taylor's October column explaining that the increase in safe legislative seats--and the polarization that results--can't be blamed solely on the advent of computer technology that enables more precise line-drawing. (That's an insult to the old-style political pros--in California, Michael Berman--who were capable of drawing pretty complex and vicious boundaries with pencils and protractors.) The safe seat trend is equally due to Supreme Court decisions that encouraged racial gerrymandering under the Voting Rights Act:
[W]hile blundering around in the political thicket, the justices have both mandated more-frequent redistricting and smashed the traditional criteria that used to act as built-in restraints on gerrymandering. Compactness, contiguity, political subdivision lines, natural boundaries -- all have been cast aside in headlong pursuit of equipopulous exactitude and racial correctness.
P.P.S.: I sort of like equipopulous exactitude, though, and don't understand why Taylor thinks it a problem. It shouldn't be incompatible with "compactness" and "contiguity." If a compact and contiguous district has too few people, move the line out a bit! Computers help here, no? You shouldn't need to make the lines crooked or design "strange shapes." ... 1:34 A.M.
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Kf Covers the Left II: I've been trying to avoid thinking about John Kerry. But a Democratic friend from Northern California recently sent this email, which succinctly makes a--maybe "the"--key point about his current approach for those who haven't written him off:
I went to a John and Teresa Kerry reception last night. he gave a good speech about how we are going to fight on to some applause and some muttering. I think the problem is that he is obviously running for President, not leading the Democrats. he does not even attempt to say that it is not about him. He is a visible US Senator who was almost elected President. If he led or contributed strongly the opposition from that perch, he would be valuable and filling a role that exists in most democracies, I think. It is the obvious personal agenda that makes the whole exercise (MTP, Imus, appearances all over, I assume) seem so ghoulish and misguided. [Emph. added]
Update: Alert kf reader Q, who is not a Democrat from Northern California but is plugged in, explains ...
The plan is to simply keep running, as if the election was simply a speed bump that rattled the axles but didn't break the machine. The various rings of Kerry-stan are aghast, chagrined, nonplussed and (delusionally) enthusiastic.
But when does Kerry get the message that it's a delusion? When Meet the Press doesn't call for 6 months? As far as I can see, if he's this far gone, he won't bump up against reality until after the next New Hampshire primary. Spring, 2008. ... Maybe the big money guys used to be able to deliver the required Dear-John message. (Isn't that how Republicans got Quayle to give it up in the fall of 1999?) But Kerry doesn't need the big money guys so much anymore, thanks to the infernal Internet and its fundraising ability. And if he's doing badly in the polls--well, he was doing badly in the polls a month before the Iowa caucuses last year and look what happened, right? ... Interactivity Bonus: Anyone with a good idea for how to tell Kerry "We're just not that into you" would be doing the Democratic Party and the press a service by publicizing it. You can send it here. ... Suggestions: "You accept his invitation to dinner and a movie and then show up with another candidate!"--V.B. ... "You endorse someone else for his Senate seat."--S.K. ... "[Start] a campaign figuring out what he should say when he drops out."-- J.W. [ Doesn't work.] ... "[E]lect Howard Dean party chairman ... oh wait."--P.M. ...12:15 A.M.
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Lackobama Blues: Kf, its finger on the pulse of the left as always, hears that the talk of progressives these days is incoming senator Barack Obama's vote in favor of the bill limiting class action lawsuits. The worry is that by siding with President Bush on the issue, Obama has signalled his intent to pursue a Hillaryesque centrist strategy instead of providing the left with the the full-throated anti-Bush champion it craves. ... Fingers are pointed at Pete Rouse, the veteran Daschle aide Obama has chosen as his chief of staff. ... But don't you think this is something Obama would make up his own mind about? 11:31 P.M.
Fast Times at WSJ High: On February 10 the Wall Street Journal ed page prints an opinion piece by one of its writers, Bret Stephens, that concludes:
Mr. Jordan made a defamatory innuendo. Defamatory innuendo -- rather than outright allegation -- is the vehicle of mainstream media bias. Had Mr. Jordan's innuendo gone unchallenged, it would have served as further proof to the Davos elite of the depths of American perfidy. Mr. Jordan deserves some credit for retracting the substance of his remark, and some forgiveness for trying to weasel his way out of a bad situation of his own making. Whether CNN wants its news division led by a man who can't be trusted to sit on a panel and field softball questions is another matter. [Emph. added]
But when CNN seemingly decides it doesn't want its news dvision led by a man who can't be trusted to sit on a panel, the WSJ ed page denounces the network for allowing itself to be "stampeded" by an "Internet and talk show crew." Why wasn't it stampeded by the WSJ? ... P.S.: At the end of its high-schoolishly self-centered and defensive editorial, the Journal actually boasts that it's the "grown-up" and doesn't engage in the "enthusiasms and vendettas of amateurs." ... P.P.S.: Don't you think that when the editor of a site devoted to lecturing professional journalists about proper journalism denounces the "salivating morons" who brought down Eason Jordan and the "gleeful gloating of the moon howlers at all too many politically-inclined blogs"--and when he shrewdly goes out of his way to make it clear he isn't talking about powerful Jordan critics lke bloggers Buzzmachine or Captain's Quarters--that he should at least come up with one (1) example of who he is talking about? ...
Update: FisbhowlDC asks:
Why can't both sides just understand that one wouldn't be nearly as effective without the other, and that blogging--despite how much fun it is--would be nowhere without the "mainstream" reporters who, actually, manage to get most of their stories correct (albeit without necessarily agreeing with your particular viewpoint)?
That's the usual symbiotic template--reporters report, bloggers opine. But on the Eason Jordan story, bloggers like Abovitz, Sisyphean Musings and Michelle Malkin did actual reporting, while the New York Times kind of just sat there for two weeks, no? ... Of course, when it was all over the Times did deploy three reporters who managed to a) mislead readers as to Jeff Jarvis' stance and b) raise fears about the "growing power of rampant, unedited dialogue." [You think there's no "lynch mob" danger in rampant, unedited dialogue?-ed. No, it's an interesting worry. The First Amendment itself was never a lock. We shouldn't expect all democratic changes to be all good all the time. But this is not the worrisome case. See Shafer and Kurtz.] 2:42 P.M.
Means-testing: The most popular Social Security solution, and by far the most popular solution that involves a benefit cut rather than a tax increase. ... USA Today cynically suggests that it's the selfish non-wealthy who support the idea of "limiting the benefits of wealthy retirees":
The willingness to support sacrifices by somebody else isn't surprising. ...[snip]
Three-quarters of middle-income workers — those with annual household incomes of $30,000 to $50,000 — say it makes sense to limit retirement benefits for the wealthy. That's 10 points higher than among those who make $75,000 or more.
Hmmm. "Three-quarters" minus "10 points" isstill a clear majority among even the more affluent group, no? In other words, there is substantial support among the affluent for limiting their own benefits. I'd say that's the lede. ... P.S.: USAT is assuming that higher "income" workers turn into the "wealthy" retirees who'd get means-tested. Is this rough assumption accurate? Incomes go up and down, and some high-income workers could spend their way to low-wealth retirements. Like USAT, I've always used income as a proxy for wealth. But if we're going to have a big means-testing debate maybe that equation should be examined more closely--and not just to enable an accurate reading of polls like USAT's. It's a lot easier to administer a means-test by income--something already disclosed annually to the IRS--than it is to means test by wealth, which requires an estate-like calculation of total assets. But it seems fairer to means-test by wealth. (That's presumably why USAT phrased its poll question in terms of wealth.). ... 1:41 P.M.
Kurtz didn't even get the newest Eason Jordan sex angle!12:38 P.M.
Monday, February 14, 2005
Did Jeff "Gannon" really have "access to classified documents that named Valerie Plame as a C.I.A. operative," as reported in Friday's New York Times--or does he just read the newspapers?MinuteMan raises some questions. ... P.S.: I'm trying to get up to speed on Gannongate, but I keep getting confused. If "Gannon" did get a leak of classified documents, would that make him more of a fake reporter or more of a real reporter? Wouldn't it make him Robert Novak? ... 1:26 A.M.
Sunday, February 13, 2005
First, kill all the telling details! WaPo and CNN's Howard Kurtz emails to explain why he revised his Saturday Eason Jordan piece to cut out the juiciest, most suggestive detail of the "gossip about Jordan's personal life." (See before and after.)
For the Record
I compressed that paragraph about Eason Jordan's social life, without a word o advice from anyone, for one reason. I was trying to squeeze in several interviews I had done after the first edition into my story for later editions, and given dead-tree space limitations, was literally going line by line to save room. The first-edition story was published, but I thought it important to include more voices from the blogosphere for later editions.
a) He didn't bury the lede. He removed the lede entirely due to "space limitations"! b) I take Kurtz at his word. But nobody can speak for their subconscious (otherwise it wouldn't be subconscious). That's why there are normally prophylactic rules against massive conflicts of interest. Maybe kausfiles could launch a lucrative spinoff, kurtzfiles, devoted entirely to WaPo's media critic explaining to his readers the non-corrupt reasoning behind his seemingly pro-CNN reporting decisions. [You're already there--ed Soft launch! Next issue, "A Salute to Jonathan Klein!" Tribute ads accepted.] c) You don't have to get actual 'words of advice' from someone to be influenced by them--to worry about how they will react. d) "Going line by line to save room." I used to do that! As Kurtz notes, it's a print thing. You don't have to do it in cyberspace. There's plenty of room. Which raises an issue: If Kurtz is cutting highly relevant information in order to squeeze his piece into the printed, hand-delivered version of the Post, why not at least publish the complete version on the Web? Doesn't the failure to take advantage of the Web's extra space put dead tree papers in the normally-futile position of actually suppressing a superior competitor (the full Web versions of what reporters produce)?
Update: I disagree with Instapundit, who decorously argues:
targeting parts of people's lives that don't have to do with the story -- like, say, Eason Jordan's love life -- seems inappropriate to me, and likely to lend support to the bloggers-as-lynch-mob caricature.
The problem is a) Eason Jordan's love life did have to do with the story. According to even the self-bowdlerized Kurtz it's why he lost his job--i.e. why he wasn't allowed to apologize profusely for his Davos remarks and carry on, which as Instapundit notes is otherwise a mystery;b)Jordan got into trouble, according to David Gergen, because he was "deeply distraught" over the deaths of journalists in Iraq. Why would his emotions get the better of his rationality? Mightn't it help answer the question if he's been involved with the widow of a journalist who's been killed covering the Middle East? ... I defend gossiping about people's love lives even when it's not obviously relevant to a particular story. That's a tougher case to make--Instapundit's right about the human cost of losing a private "backstage." But it's not this case. ... 12:26 P.M.
Saturday, February 12, 2005
Friday, February 11 2005
It's Friday: A good day to quit if even the damage control efforts of CNN's Howie Kurtz haven't been enough to save you. ... Update: Reynolds and Jarvis note that if Eason Jordan had a) gotten the tape of his controversial Davos remarks released and b) honestly apologized this wouldn't have been a big deal. (The tape must be damning, but it's hard to believe it's so damning that a decent apology wouldn't have defused it.) I too find Jordan's failure to pursue this open, honest strategy inexplicable. ... More here and here. ... P.S.: It should also be noted that the controversy was kept alive not just by blogs, but by the refusal of a relatively liberal Democrat, Barney Frank, to sweep it under the rug in gentlemanly fashion. ... P.P.S.: At least the Washington Post's editors had the good sense not to assign CNN on-air personality Kurtz to write up this CNN story. ... Oh wait. ... But Kurtz has the sex angle (now he tells us!) which removes some of the inexplicability from Jordan's exit. I mean, no wonder Jordan had to go--all the controversy and gossip around him was stealing attention from ... the train wreck of CNN under new chief Jonathan "If It Doesn't Have A Compelling Central Character It Didn't Happen" Klein! ...
Update: I'm pretty sure the sex paragraph of Kurtz's story has now been sanitized. Pressure from Kurtz's superiors at WaPo? Or from his superiors at CNN? ... Maybe someone out there has a google-cached version of the original. ... Found: The Seattle Times has the original Kurtz wording in its version. ... [Thanks to reader T.F.]
More--The Agony of Gergen!The Anchoress has some sharp criticisms of Kurtz's latest effort and of the David Gergen's strange blame-the-blogs remarks, which I interpret as an attempt to assuage his own guilt that he rallied around "Eason" too late--after he rashly gave Michelle Malkin an honest interview. The Anchoress:
And as to that "people beat him up in the blogosphere..." line. I'm sorry, is it just me, or did David Gergen not talk to Michelle Malkin and did he not confirm everything the blogs were reporting, did he not say he had no problem with the tape coming out and...ummm...did he also not "let slip" that he'd been contacted by four (4) msm outlets, and that the Washington Post had planned to run the story, but spiked it?
Why yes...yes, he did.
I'm kind of tired of Gergen playing both sides of an issue - having no problem hanging Jordan out to dry with one lip, and then using the other lip to badmouth the blogs who (as evidenced by Michelle Malkin's work) were (mostly) trying to work responsibly to bring the whole story out into the open. [Emph. added]
George McGovern proposed essentially the same thing in 1972 and was hooted off the stage. Let's at least give him some of the credit.
Hart's certainly right to complain that Republicans now want credit for their big-spending redistributionist ideas while continuing to vilify Democrats as big-spending redistributionists. But the idea pushed by David Brooks isn't the idea pushed by McGovern. Hart knows this, or should. Brooks wants to give kids $1,000 one time at birth, followed by five $500 installments. They couldn't withdraw the money until retirement. McGovern's idea was for a guaranteed income of $1,000 every year, which you could live on even though you were not retired and perfectly capable of working. ... In short, McGovern's idea was "welfare," by my non-idiosyncratic definition--it failed the "work test," meaning it was government aid given to the able-bodied that they could live on instead of working. Brooks' idea is big-government but not welfare (you can't live on it during your working life) in the same way Democratic programs like Social Security and Supplemental Security Income are not welfare (you basically have to be disabled or old to get them). ... P.S.: I'm not blaming McGovern. Virtually all right thinking sophisticates were for a guaranteed annual income when McGovern proposed it. I was too. But the voters hated it. Only later did it become clear to many in the center and left that the voters were right--welfare-for-the-abled bodied was sustaining an underclass. That wouldn't seem to be a danger with Brooks' savings-account idea (which he borrows from ex-Sen. Bob Kerrey). ...[Link via Gawker] 3:36 P.M.
Did Pulitzer-Prize winning LAT auto columnist Dan Neil embarrassingly lose control and spin a $450,000 Mercedes supercar during a recent press test drive? Looks like it, according to new L.A. gossip page. ... Meanwhile, ex-NYT film critic Elvis Mitchell is failing to impress students in Cambridge, Mass., according to a new N.Y. gossip page which links to a Harvard gossip page. ... That's three--so it's a trend: Gossip pages. Many, many gossip pages, often written by uncredentialed, Gannonesque semi-professionals who aren't even working for Nick Denton. Current libel law may not be able to cope. ... 12:48 P.M.
Drudge Report--80 % true. Close enough! Instapundit--All-powerful hit king. Joshua Marshall--He reports! And decides! Wonkette--Makes Jack Shafer feel guilty. Salon--Survives! kf gloating on hold. Andrew Sullivan--He asks, he tells. He sells! David Corn--Trustworthy reporting from the left. Washington Monthly--Includes Charlie Peters' proto-blog. Lucianne.com--Stirs the drink. Virginia Postrel--Friend of the future! Peggy Noonan--Gold in every column. Matt Miller--Savvy rad-centrism. WaPo--Waking from post-Bradlee snooze. Calmer Times--Registration required. NY Observer--Read it before the good writers are all hired away. New Republic--Left on welfare, right on warfare! Jim Pinkerton--Quality ideas come from quantity ideas. Tom Tomorrow--Everyone's favorite leftish cartoonists' blog. Ann "Too Far" Coulter--Sometimes it's just far enough. Bull Moose--National Greatness Central. John Ellis--Forget that Florida business! The cuz knows politics, and he has, ah, sources. "The Note"--How the pros start their day. Romenesko--O.K. they actually start it here. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities--Money Liberal Central.. Steve Chapman--Ornery-but-lovable libertarian. Rich Galen--Sophisticated GOP insider. Man Without Qualities--Seems to know a lot about white collar crime. Hmmm. Overlawyered.com--Daily horror stories. Eugene Volokh--Smart, packin' prof, and not Instapundit! Eve Tushnet--Queer, Catholic, conservative and not Andrew Sullivan! WSJ's Best of the Web--James Taranto's excellent obsessions. Walter Shapiro--Politics and (don't laugh) neoliberal humor! Eric Alterman--Born to blog. Joe Conason--Bush-bashing, free most days. Lloyd Grove--Don't let him write about you. Arianna--A hybrid vehicle. TomPaine.com--Web-lib populists. Take on the News--TomPaine's blog. B-Log--Blog of spirituality! Hit & Run--Reason gone wild! Daniel Weintraub--Beeblogger and Davis Recall Central. Eduwonk--You'll never have to read another mind-numbing education story again. Nonzero--Bob Wright explains it all. [More tk