Instapundit's Katrina/Rita Relief donation list.
NYT editor Bill Keller fires defensively at all targets (bloggers, Fox, Yahoo!, the WSJ) and finally offers some numbers on TimesSelect that, on second glance, turn out to maybe be not-so-impressive:
Keller hailed early returns on TimesSelect, which grants online access to the paper's columnists only to Times subscribers and those who pay $49.95 a year, saying a "couple hundred thousand people" have signed on for the service. However, a Times spokeswoman later clarified this figure, explaining that it includes current Times subscribers, who get TimesSelect for free, saying that the paper was not disclosing how many people were paying for TimesSelect. [Emphasis added]
Plame Update--Thank you, new Hamsher: The most intriguing theory I've heard to explain the latest developments in the Plame story--i.e. Judith Miller's producing** notes of an early conversation with "Scooter" Libby, Karl Rove's fourth grand jury appearance--has been developed by Jane Hamsher of firedoglake and emptywheel of The Next Hurrah. It is, however, difficult to extract this theory from their paragraphs of knowingly informal, bloggish copy. Fortunately, Mark Kleiman condenses and summarizes the Hamsher/Hurrah "Mousetrap" Scenario--which features special prosecutor Fitzgerald letting Miller open herself up to a perjury threat. ... Greg Mitchell, who may read a few blogs himself, outlines similar possibilities in Editor & Publisher. ...
P.S.: I'm not familiar enough with the details to responsibly offer a comment. So here's a comment: A key question raised by the "Mousetrap" speculation is whether N.Y. Times reporter Judith Miller accurately testified about a June, 2003 meeting with Libby that predated the July op-ed by former ambassador Joseph Wilson that was previously thought to have kicked off the whole Bushie attempt to discredit Wilson by--possibly illegally--revealing the CIA role of his wife, Valerie Plame. In this context, Miller's production of the new notes might not be as ominous as it seems. She might want to show the prosecutor the notes in order to prove that she and Libby discussed Wilson but not Wilson's wife. In other words, the notes might exculpate Libby from a charge of maliciously leaking the Wilson-wife-CIA connection. They might also, in some possible, equally speculative scenarios, exculpate Miller from a charge that she hasn't been fully forthcoming with the prosecutor (e.g., if he had asked her only about conversations related to Mrs. Wilson (Plame), rather than Mr. Wilson, and she can prove that this was not a conversation about the former.) ... TalkLeft is also skeptical. ...
**--I'd previously referred to Miller's "discovery" of the notes, following the NYT which called them "newly discovered" on Oct. 8. But as TalkLeft points out, it's not clear that the notes have been "discovered" in any relevant sense. They just might not have been included in Fitzgerald's original subpoena to Miller. ... It's easy to mock Miller for "newly discovered" evidence, but kausfiles is determined to be fair, even if Miller's enemies at the New York Times are not! .... 9:03 P.M. link
Headline Still Available: "Miers Remorse." Use it or lose it. ... 10/9 update: Sold! To the Wall Street Journal and John Fund. ... P.S.: Alert reader B.S. reports that "Sunshine Jim," a commenter on the Majority Report Radio Web site, used the phrase back on 10/4, though not in a headline. [He was still first, right?--ed He beat me. I don't know if anyone else beat him.] ... 2:33 P.M.
Too interesting! One major metropolitan newspaper story on the administration's alleged success in foiling Al Qaeda tells us, in its second paragraph, that
The reported plots aimed to strike a wide variety of targets, including the Library Tower in Los Angeles, ships in international waters and a tourist site overseas, the White House said last night. [Emph. added]
Another major metropolitan newspaper doesn't mention the possible targeting of L.A.'s tallest building. The paper that doesn't bother to mention the gripping Los Angeles angle would be the major newspaper of:
a) Los Angeles
b) Washington, D.C.
Time's up! Brendan Loy has the answer. .... P.S.: New L.A. Times editor Dean Baquet is quoted in Ken Auletta's New Yorker piece saying "we haven't mastered making the paper feel like it is edited in Los Angeles." Uh ... yeah! But how hard is that? Here's another pop quiz:
The L.A. Times doesn't report an allegedly foiled Al Qaeda plot against a Los Angeles landmark because of:
a) mid-level editors imbued with a numbing, pompous, fake-newspaper sensibility that instinctively sneers at any story that might rouse local animal spirits; or
b) budget cuts
Bonus question: Which of those two choices--(a) or (b)--do Times editors spend most of Auletta's piece whining about? ... 3:24 A.M. link
CBS has a new poll that finally lets Miers' ratings be measured against those of other Supreme Court candidates. The numbers aren't precisely comparable, Mystery Pollster notes--but they show that Miers is no Roberts. Not even a Thomas. Instead her numbers are the same as Bork's. Yikes. .... 1:59 A.M. link
Bill Kristol thinks Miers should maybe withdraw. But fellow Miers opponent Mark Levin says it's all Bill Kristol's fault! ... 4:37 P.M.
Are the aspens turning?** Lawrence O'Donnell is back, parsing a refusal-to-deny from Karl Rove's weaselly lawyer that the lawyer contradicts here. ("I can say categorically that Karl has not received a target letter from the special counsel.") But something seems to be up, and O'Donnell provides one useful template, in addition to doubling down with a prediction of "three high-level Bush Administration" indictments. ... He's been non-wrong before. ... [**-stolen from JustOneMinute commenter "freaknik"] 1:35 P.M. link
Control of the Internet would be one area where my impulses are entirely nationalistic and imperialist. (Why? We're freer than they are. At least until Hillary Clinton and Floyd Abrams ** take over!) That's why I didn't understand this passage, in the Guardian, about the international community's effort to award itself control over global speech:
It will be officially raised at a UN summit of world leaders next month and, faced with international consensus, there is little the US government can do but acquiesce. [Emph. added]
Why does the U.S. have little choice but to acquiesce? They're our servers, aren't they? We can thumb our nose at the U.N. on Iraq but not on free speech? [via Drudge ]
**--A bit of a cheap shot. Abrams once told me, disarmingly, that he'd been wrong to say, in the WSJ, that
If one were rewriting libel law today, one would try to write it to assure that the false statements of Matt Drudge were treated as libel.
But do you trust him? Abrams seems most comfortable granting speech privileges to professional journalists--the corporate model, in which reporters are the eyes and ears for the rest of us. (Hence his flat-footed promotion of a special privilege for Judith Miller.) That's not the model of the Internet. 12:52 P.M. link
First Shoot the Fish in the Barrel: Achenbach mocks TimesSelect.
Another huge drawback to Times Select is that the columnists are under extreme pressure to produce writing that can justify a surcharge. You can sense they're straining. No doubt they will pound out a perfectly fine column and then think: Is it good enough for Times Select?
Achenbach's got more where that came from. You want two yards of harmless irony or three yards? He can fill your order. ... 12:04 P.M.
Here's a graf from the New Yorker'sKen Auletta on the tussle between John Carroll, now-resigned LAT editor, and his overseers at the Chicago-based Tribune Company:
The Tribune Company commissioned a study of staffing patterns at various papers and, according to senior editors, discovered that the Times had many more copy editors than the [Chicago] Tribune. Carroll told Smith that copy editors were an important part of making a good paper great, but Smith replied that the Tribune was sufficiently great with a much smaller staff. Carroll did not tell him what he believed--that the Tribune was inferior to the Times. [Emph. added]
Various Times-people assure me the Tribune execs are bad news, but you have to sympathize with them in this passage. They've bought a paper with a history of bloat, gold-plating, and soul-deadening complacency--the "velvet coffin," as it was known. According to Auletta, it has a thousand editorial employees! With a third of that, you could easily put out a paper that wouldn't be as good--it would be much, much better. Yet Carroll defends every last copy editor. ... P.S.: I admit, I have a natural enmity with copy editors. My position: A good copy editor will make your copy better--but only on rare occasions will it be enough better to justify the delay and hassle, let alone the copy editor's salary. And good copy editors are hard to find--the best quickly move on to other jobs these days. Those that stay, especially in big organizations like the LAT, are too often repositories of self-justifying pedantry! Usually they just make copy duller. ... Does Carroll really think the Times would be discernibly worse if Ron Brownstein were allowed to type his articles right from his Blackberry onto the front page? Even if you could take the copy editors' salaries and hire more Brownsteins? ...You could make them all use spellcheck! ... 1:16 A.M. link
The Schumacher Strategy: Conservatives, a D.C. Republican friend tells me, wanted a fight over the O'Connor seat for its own sake--and not just for tacky fundraising and self-promotional reasons. They think they represent the majority position on judging; they needed a confrontation to draw the line and prove it. Plus a confirmation battle would be "consciousness-raising," as we used to say on the left, serving (in theory) to actually increase their ranks.
One reason the Miers nomination is in trouble on the right, then, is that it denies conservatives this instructive battle. It follows that a perverse-yet-promising strategy for Bush might be to give the 'wingers what they want. Have Miers make some unnecessarily provocative right-wing noises during her testimony that gratuitously outrage liberals. A noisy confrontation would ensue. Then the liberals would be happy (they'd have something to say) and conservatives would be happy (they'd achieve their educational purposes).
Arguably Miers gets more votes this way than by pursuing a "stealth" course. Certainly she gets more enthusiastic support from Republicans, and Bush may get more political benefit. ... Plus the ideological donnybrook would overshadow the cronyism issue, where Miers is most vulnerable. ... Automotive Analogy! In Formula One racing, I'm told, when the top drivers sense their cars slipping in a turn, they step on the gas to go faster. Why? Because the extra speed means that the airfoils on their cars generate more downforce, giving the tires more traction and helping them around the curve. That's why they make the big bucks! Call this the Schumacher Strategy, then. ...
Update: A strategy that stresses Miers "record of accomplishment," on the other hand, is going in more or less the opposite direction--trying to steer her through without a fight ...
More: Here's GOP Sen. John Thune making it explicit--
Emerging from the Republican senators' weekly policy meeting Wednesday afternoon, Sen. John Thune, R-S.D. told reporters that grassroots conservatives were asking why Bush would "show the white flag when having a fight would really energize and motivate our supporters? And especially if you look at the politics of 2006, I think our folks were really ready for a fight. I think a Left v. Right fight is something that helps us.
See also Sen. Brownback's comments earlier in the same article. ("What was lost was the chance to educate the country ....")
Dissent: Reader A.R. says I have it wrong--
Conservatives were hoping that Bush would nominate one of the many great intellectual judicial conservatives who would then do battle with the likes of Schumer, Feinstein, Kennedy, etc. during the confimation hearings. It's the belief of conservatives that such a nominee would blow these insipid clowns out of the water thus publicly revealing the shallowness of their positions. Conservatives desperately want a very public debate on judicial philosophy. Unfortunately, we don't see Harriet Miers as the person for this job. Forcing her into that role via a provocative statement would probably be an unmitigated disaster for our side. [Emph. added]
I don't know--you don't have to be an intellectual titan to make a case against liberal judicial imperialism that holds up under Chuck Schumer's questioning. Surely Miers can do that--when, unlike the already-published Bork, she can always duck back behind the need to avoid prejudging, etc. 3:25 P.M. link
I subscribed to TimesSelect and all I got was this old MoDo video clip! Dowd on strike. ... P.S.: Here's an eye-opening graph comparing the recent performance of WaPo and the NYT. Will they feed Pinch to the mooses? [If enough people think that, the stock will start to rise-ed. The man's a genius!] ... 1:41 P.M.
First poll: 49% of self-described conservatives rated Roberts "excellent." Only 20% rate Miers "excellent." This apparently accounts for most of the difference between the initial popularity of Roberts and Miers. MP has the key Gallup cross-tab. But maybe Roberts did extraordinarily well. Is Miers doing well enough? We need historical yardsticks. ... How did Carswell rate? 1:14 P.M. link
But maybe they'll get a cut of Judy's book deal: If TimesSelect's annoying pay-for-punditry approach is a huge success, the stock market doesn't seem to have heard about it. N.Y. Times shares are trading at what appears to be a six-year low. ... 3:45 P.M.
The fatal, non-snobby objection to Miers: Randy Barnett points out that the "cronyism" worry isn't just a worry about an unqualified nominee, or a theoretical worry about the "separation of powers." There's a concrete concern about her ability to rule against the interests of the man and family to whom she's been so loyal (and to whom she will owe her spectacular elevation)**:
Cronyism is bad not only because it leads to less qualified judges, but also because we want a judiciary with independence from the executive branch. A longtime friend of the president who has served as his close personal and political adviser and confidante, no matter how fine a lawyer, can hardly be expected to be sufficiently independent--especially during the remaining term of her former boss.
Also, he might have added, in the possible future terms of other Bush dynasty members (i.e. Jeb). The Bushes do their business by calling on personal loyalties. It's a legitimate question to ask whether they are (if only subconsciously!) trying to extend this modus operandi into the judicial branch. It all seems a bit Latin American, no? Harriet Miers could be the most qualified judge in the nation--and a breath of fresh air to boot--and cronyism would still be a potentially disqualifying factor. There are some moves Presidents who gain office on 5-4 Supreme Court votes can't make. ...
Update: President Bush, and some media reports, may have gone a long way toward dispelling worries about Souterism on the right. But not worries about cronyism! And they span the spectrum. ... Indeed, Bush's defense against the Souterism charge--"I know her well enough to be able to say that she's not going to change"--only reinforces the cronyism charge. He's putting his personal legal consigliere on the Supreme Court. If she's going to show any independence, she's going to have to change, no? ... P.S.: As Maguire notes, Miers might still prove highly popular in opinion polls. She's an appealing figure. I'm talking about what should disqualify her--not necessarily what will. ...
**: And whom she apparently admires disproportionately. Here's David Frum:
In the White House that hero worshipped the president, Miers was distinguished by the intensity of her zeal: She once told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met.
It's a bigger conflict of interest than Howie Kurtz and CNN! ... 12:41 P.M. link
"discussing the substance of what [Judith Miller's] testimony might be"
days before Libby sent Miller a letter with some not-so-subtle hints about ... well, the substance of what Miller's testimony might be. Close to the line! Unless Libby was actually worried about her testimony, why would he take the risk of angering Fitzgerald? ... P.S.: I previously speculated that Libby must not have been worried about Miller, because his attorney picked a fight with her camp in the press. Now it turns out (assuming he saw his client's letter) he also had risked riling Fitzgerald. Two possibilities: 1) Libbby's lawyer picked the fight with Miller to placate Fitzgerald after his client had potentially annoyed Fitzgerald by coaching Miller; 2) It's a classic conspiracist mistake to assume that everyone is acting rationally in their or their client's self-interest, and also a mistake to assume lawyers are communicating clearly with their clients. Maybe Libby thought he was being clever. And Libby's lawyer might have argued with the Miller camp just because he got his back up. ... 11:19 A.M. link
Follow-up on the spin: Back in May, when the Senate's "Gang of 14" announced their compromise on filibustering judicial nominations, some Republicans declared victory. Commentator David Brooks agreed that it was "a good win for those conservatives" because
It creates what I think of as the Brown standard. The Democrats said they would only filibuster under extraordinary circumstances. They said the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown is not an extraordinary circumstance.
Kf, on the other hand, said the Gang of 14 deal was "favorable to the Dems" because
If the "nuclear option" is on the line when President Bush nominates a Supreme Court justice, that in itself will circumscribe his choice. He won't want to name someone too controversial, lest the public side with the pro-filibuster Dems.
Now Bush has named Harriet Miers--a nominee pre-approved by the Senate's Democratic leader and seemingly controversial only on the right.
Brooks: Bought bogus GOP spin!
kf: Eerily prescient!
At least they're not trying to charge money for Brooks. ... Oh, wait. ... 3:10 A.M. link
Why does President Bush's nomination of White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court remind me of Patty Hearst marrying her bodyguard? ... I can see how Miers might turn out to be a brilliant pick. But her proximity and loyalty to Bush are burdens, not virtues. They raise extra doubts that need to be overcome--i.e., doubts that wouldn't be raised in an equally under-resumed and unknown candidate who wasn't Bush's in-house lawyer: 1) This is the Supreme Court, which is supposed to be an independent branch. That means loyalty should count for less and prickly integrity for more. The disgraceful Abe Fortas is of course Exhibit A of what you don't want; 2) Even in the executive branch, where cronyism has a long, honorable and effective tradition, it hasn't been working conspicuously well of late for President Bush; 3) This sends a message to all sorts of ambitious, competent GOPers that the only real way to get the big promotions in a Bush administration is to actually work with Bush personally.** That's a good way to encourage talent to stay in the private sector; 4) Does Bush understand that there's a great big world out there beyond his own bubble? Maybe he scoured the countryside and decided he just liked Miers better than anyone else. But he needs to reassure Americans that this was was the case, explaining in some detail why he liked Miers better--a reassurance that wouldn't be necessary if the nominee weren't someone who worked down the hall. Unfortunately, honest detailed defenses of this sort are neither a Bush strong point nor a presidential tradition when it comes to judicial nominations. ...
**--Yes, there's an old and good joke about an accomplished lawyer and macher who was spotted walking Bobby Kennedy's dog. (Punch line: "That may look like a dog to you, but to me it's an ambassadorship.") But the joke doesn't reflect all that well on the Kennedys, even though they tell it on themselves. And it wouldn't reflect well at all if the dog was a Supreme Court seat. 4:10 P.M. link
Crossing Miller: Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake wonders who leaked the Libby/Miller correspondence to the New York Times (and maybe to Powerline too). 1) Judith Miller presumably wasn't behind the leak, since the documents tend to make her look bad for suddenly discovering the sincerity of Cheney aide "Scooter" Libby's waiver. (And if the NYT got them from their mutual attorneys against Miller's wishes, that might be unethical, as Hamsher notes.) 2) OK, so they got them from Libby, right? But why would Libby want to gratuitously anger Miller on the very day she was giving testimony that might or might not cause his criminal indictment?* You'd think that would be the moment he'd want to suck up to her.** That leaves 3) one party who may have had access to the letters--at least one of which was addressed to him--and who seems to despise Miller. He also had an interest in riling her up against Libby right before she testified: Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. ... Just thinking out loud here! ...
**: Still inexplicable--even if Libby's camp didn't leak the letter--would be his lawyer, Joseph Tate's contradiction of Miller's story in WaPo the day of her testimony. Wasn't that kind of against the interests of his client,at least if Miller knows anything that might potentially incriminate Libby? Or was it was more important for Libby to please prosecutor Fitzgerald--by a) making Miller look bad and b) arguing that Libby had expeditiously provided waivers to Miller? Tate's public debate with Miller's lawyers is certainly the clearest evidence I can see at the moment that Libby really isn't worried about Miller's testimony. ... [If pleasing Fitzgerald was Tate's motivation, why couldn't he also have leaked the letters to please Fitzgerald?--ed. It's possible. But the letter leak seems piling on in a way designed to maximize the annoy-Judy factor. ... Tate might also have blurted out his "surprise" to WaPo simply because it was, you know, the truth. Leaking a letter, however, is a calculated act.] 1:29 A.M. link
kf's Early Paranoia Detection System: Hmm. Rabbit Fever--a bacteria that "can be used as a weapon if made into an aerosol that could be inhaled"--is found on the Mall during last weekend's antiwar protest. Meanwhile, a mysterious, only semi-explained stench crops up in Los Angeles and then in Washington, D.C.. Does it sometimes feel as if someone (perhaps our own government) is testing something in our big cities? Just asking! 10:44 P.M. link
The Aspens Sleep With the Fishes: Is it just me or is this sentence in Cheney aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby's letter to reporter Judith Miller regarding the Plame-leak case just a little too suggestive of how she might want to testify:
Because, as I am sure will not be news to you, the public report of every other reporter's testimony makes clear that they did not discuss Ms. Plame's name or identity with me, or knew about her before our call.
(The suggestion, of course, would be that this is how Miller might also testify--e.g. no discussion of "Plame's name or identity"--unless she wants to stand out from the pack as someone who contradicts Libby's defense.) ... P.S.: Libby's letter ends, somewhat mysteriously, with this sentence:
Out West, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning. They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them.
And you know what happens to the aspens that sever their deep connections and fail to turn with all the others, don't you, my little pretty? ... P.P.S.: Again, am I crazy or does Libby's letter leave open the possibility that Libby did name Plame to a reporter--only to a reporter who "knew about her before [the] call"? ... Q: If Libby tries to blow someone's cover but the cover's already been blown, does that get him off the hook legally? Just askin'. Hypothetically. ... 2:03 A.M. link
Q: Is Howie Kurtz this dumb? Criticizing a characterization of the press as "Republican-hating," WaPo/CNN's media critic argues:
Third, isn't McCain a Republican, and doesn't he get terrific press?
A: No he's not that dumb. He knows McCain gets terrific press in large part because he's a Republican who snipes at Republicans. Kurtz is 1) positioning disingenuously; and 2) a hack with a column to finish! ... Also 3) he had two reasons, and you always need three. ...[Thanks to C.R.] 4:22 P.M.
Busted: The L.A. Times is caught telling would-be subscribers that it will become "less liberal." ... Plus--Smell the Fear! The LAT seems to be placing huge house ads to suck up to Harvey Weinstein! ("The Los Angeles Times Motion Picture Advertising Team Congratulates the Weinstein Company on their new endeavor.") ... Luckily, the paper's not desperate or anything. ... 3:55 P.M.
Other people involved in the case have said Ms. Miller did not understand that the waiver had been freely given ...
That has to be disingenuous. You mean she was sitting in jail all because she never bothered to inquire and find out that the waiver that would free her was genuine? ... P.S.: See also Arianna's broader skepticism and Maguire's speculation. ... Umansky wonders why Miller waited "until late August" to try to clarify the waiver. ... Update: In the last sentence of this post, Maguire may have stumbled onto the key factor--a change in the lawyers the NYT was listening to, away from Floyd Abrams and his flamboyant interventions! That's a big part of the story the NYT isn't telling. Maybe, as Maguire suggests, Bill Keller is saving it for "TimesSelect." ... 1:39 A.M. link
Should we start collecting donations for a Tribune Co. Relief Fund? ... [From reader J.K.] 1:11 A.M.
Hurricane Parties: It's getting a bit confusing, what with the press revisionism and all. Let me make sure I've got the competing party lines down correctly--
Liberal position: Racist neglect caused poor New Orleans residents to suffer from the unspeakable things that only a racist would assume actually happened!
Conservative position: A fatherless underclass culture caused poor New Orleans residents to do the unspeakable things the anti-Bush MSM falsely reported they did!
Army Times reports [$] the Army now plans to recruit high school dropouts for the first time in years. (See also this shorter free article.) A GED will still be required, but the Army will now help you earn it. Recruits will still need to pass the Army's basic "vocational aptitude" test. This could be a way to incrementally tap previously untapped pools of kids who didn't finish high school but now have the motivation to get their degree. Or it could be a sign of measured desperation, seeking to shore up lagging recruitment by enrolling people who may be talented but aren't organized enough to complete high school. ... GED recipients (as opposed to actual high school graduates) will still be limited to 10% of new soldiers--but they're apparently only 6.5% now. ... Update:Armchair Generalist says "What a slippery slope." ... 2:59 P.M. link
Bob Odom, Louisiana Agriculture and Forestry Commissioner. (Make sure sound is on.) The Beatles influence seems obvious, given the unconventional chord changes, while the lyric's repetition takes on an incantatory, drone-like quality evocative of the Velvet Underground and Roky Erickson, among others. Fans of "I Walked With A Zombie" will not want to miss. Big finish! 2:25 P.M.
Blink Justice: Here is Harriet Miers' bio ... and here's Michael McConnell's. Assume they're both fine people. If you had to make a snap decision, which one should be on the United States Supreme Court? ... Analogy: Cheryl Mills did an excellent job loyally defending Bill Clinton. But if Clinton had nominated her to the Court, don't you think there would have been an outcry? ... [You just like McConnell because he wrote a piece in 2000 trashing Bush v. Gore--ed. Shhh. That article showed guts. Clearly-written too. We were hoping the Bushies had forgotten it.] 1:27 A.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. Keller's 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's Huffosphere--Now a whole fleet of hybrid vehicles. 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. John Leo--If you've got political correctness, he's got a column ... [More tk]