Minnesota Independent » Powerline

Powerline’s Che Sotomayor joke underscores GOP dilemma: Opposing nominee without alienating Latinos

Paul Schmelzer — Thu, 28 May 2009 22:08:50 +0000

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s ethnicity and politics get a jab from rightwing blogger Paul Mirengoff, who at Powerline relates a comment by a “friend” that Sotomayor is “Che Guevara in robes.” (The friend’s “joking, I think,” writes Mirengoff, who gets attention — although a misspelled last name — from the New York Times’ Opinionator blog for it today.) But jokes aside, GOPers like those at Powerline are facing a dilemma with opposing Sotomayor’s nomination: When their party’s down and out, do they risk alienating Latinos, one of the fastest growing groups of American voters?

The Times’ Adam Nagourney writes:

President Obama’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court has put the Republican Party in a bind, as it weighs the cost of aggressively opposing Mr. Obama’s attempt to put the first Hispanic on the high court at a time when the party has struggled with sharp setbacks in its effort to appeal to Hispanic voters.

The Republican Party has been embroiled in a public argument over whether to tend to the ideological interests of its conservative base or to expand its appeal to a wider variety of voters in order to regain its strength following the defeats of 2008. Many conservatives came out fiercely against Ms. Sotomayor as soon her name was announced, denouncing her as liberal and promising Mr. Obama a tough nomination fight.

The only question for the GOP, writes John Cole at Balloon Juice, is whether to filibuster the nomination:

If they decide not to filibuster, all that remains is a balancing act for them – how to not do a bunch of damage to themselves by way of hyperbolic statements that will be played on infinite loop in heavy Hispanic areas in the 2010 midterms, but at the same time still making it look like they are throwing some red meat to the base to keep the fundraising money coming in to the coffers.

Hyperbolic… you mean like Mirengoff’s Che “joke”?

More free advice for Coleman from media, punditry

Chris Steller — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 17:12:28 +0000

More newspapers, online media outlets and political pundits are offering former U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman free advice — mainly that he look in the mirror and see that he’s toast.

The Grand Forks Herald editorializes today that if Coleman is “pursuing his appeal only (or even mainly) to keep the Senate seat vacant, then he should withdraw.”

It was only Tuesday morning that The Politico’s Ben Pershing offered this prediction:

My guess is that most of the media — editorial boards, etc. — will hold off on calling for Coleman to concede at least until after the Minnesota Supreme Court looks at the case.

But that was before (or during, actually) the election-contest court’s counting of 351 more ballots, extending Democrat Al Franken’s lead from 225 to 312 votes.

As noted here Tuesday, an editorial in the Albert Lea Tribune – which like the Grand Forks Herald, endorsed Coleman last fall – quickly advised Coleman to “throw in the towel,” and the National Review Online said it’s time he “give up this fight.”

With a new editorial headlined “Norm Coleman – Go Away!,” City Pages maintains its stance (from January) that Coleman should concede.

MSNBC’s First Read blog says, “The question for many is no longer whether Coleman is going to lose; rather, it’s when he’s going to lose.”

Brian Lambert writes in his “Lambert to the Slaughter” blog that Coleman and GOP leaders ”have effectively won their case in that they have successfully deprived the people of Minnesota and the Democratic Senate a vote for four critical months.” He concludes:

So, having achieved “mission (pretty much) accomplished,” someone claiming to practice journalism for the greater public good should then summon the courage to tell Coleman that having won, the time is now right to concede.

Indeed, the outlier appears to be the Star Tribune editorial page. The writers there come close but don’t actually call for Coleman to appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court. They do, however, go out on a limb and urge the justices to take his case:

Coleman appears intent on giving the high court that opportunity (to review election issues); if he does, we hope they seize it.

And while it’s not explicitly advice, National Review Online readers got another dose of discouraging news about Coleman today. This time it’s from Power Line’s Scott Johnson, who gives his exceptional criticism of Coleman’s post-election performance this twist:

The erosion of Senator Coleman’s approximately 215-vote lead over Franken after the election canvass, and the emergence of Al Franken with a 225-vote lead over Coleman on January 5 after the recount, have given rise to the implication that Franken stole the election. …

For a while, I thought so, too. If I had observed the events through the media outside Minnesota, I would still think so. As a Minnesotan with a closer view, with friends lodged in every corner of the post-election proceedings, I have a different perspective on the chain of events that has brought Coleman to his imminent loss to Franken. …

I can’t find a single good thing to say about (Franken) except that he didn’t steal the election.

Media begins countering claim that Coleman site was hacked

Paul Schmelzer — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 16:20:39 +0000

There’s a divide opening in how the media is covering the story of Norm Coleman’s vulnerable donor database: Some outlets blame shoddy security practices by the campaign, others blame “hackers.” The latter group — which includes Politico, MinnPost and right-wing blog Power Line, among others — echoes the campaign’s assertion that the exposure of donors’ credit card numbers and personal details is a politically motivated act. But as we reported yesterday, it wasn’t hacking at all, according to IT professionals, and news outlets like the Pioneer Press and Minnesota Public Radio (MPR) are countering the “hacker” meme.

This morning in the Pioneer Press, Dave Orrick contrasts Coleman’s statement that the Jan. 28 breach was an “attack on this campaign” with quotes from Web and banking experts who blame the campaign. Banking security professional Kelly McShane, who sent $100 Coleman’s way, called the breach “so irresponsible that I can’t believe it.” (Contacted by MnIndy’s Chris Steller yesterday, McShane said she felt “extreme anger” at having her personal data revealed by the campaign.) Eric Schultze, chief technology officer for Roseville’s Shavlik Technologies, faulted the campaign for not encrypting the credit card numbers, adding that credit industry standards dictate that credit card information never be on the same server as a Web site. He called the failure to encrypt card info “a big ‘oops’ on the part of the Web site administrator … I’d be surprised if that person still had a job.”

MPR’s Mark Zdechlik interviewed Adria Richards, an IT professional who weighed in at MnIndy on the security flaws she found back in January, who said she didn’t hack into the site. She echoed Schultze’s sentiments about the error of storing sensitive data on the web server: “It’s like putting your filing cabinet outside of your house.“

NYT’s Krugman chortles over Powerline’s past lunacy about housing bubble

Andy Birkey — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 18:00:39 +0000

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman went after Minnesota conservative blog Powerline for criticizing Krugman’s 2005 column warning of a housing bubble that was about to burst.

Powerline’s John Hinderaker wrote at the time: “[T]here is little reason to fear a catastrophic collapse in home prices. Krugman will have to come up with something much better, I think, to cause many others to share his pessimism.” They rip apart Krugman for a column that was right on the mark.

That bubble has, of course, burst. Inside, read Krugman’s conclusion.

Meanwhile, the U.S. economy has become deeply dependent on the housing bubble. The economic recovery since 2001 has been disappointing in many ways, but it wouldn’t have happened at all without soaring spending on residential construction, plus a surge in consumer spending largely based on mortgage refinancing. …. Now we’re starting to hear a hissing sound, as the air begins to leak out of the bubble. And everyone – not just those who own Zoned Zone real estate – should be worried.

Someone got it right and someone got it wrong. It looks like TIME magazine’s 2004 Blog of the Year missed the mark.

Palin VP blog fallout: Pick puts Powerline boys in a pout

Steve Perry — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 15:32:54 +0000

Quoting the once and future Hindrocket:

The AP says the McCain camp “hopes the announcement of his running mate will stunt any momentum that Democratic rival Barack Obama might get from the just concluded Democratic National Convention.” If it really is Palin, I’m afraid the opposite will happen. Press reaction will be 100% negative; the emphasis will all be on Palin’s inexperience–she’s been Governor of Alaska for less than two years–and the fallout will augment, not limit, Obama’s convention bounce. The most important thing McCain has going for him in this race is the perception that he is the serious candidate. Choosing a running mate who will be widely perceived as unqualified would go a long way toward squandering that advantage.

Post-Par(tum) Ethics and More

Paul Schmelzer — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 14:40:55 +0000

Strib to adopt conflict of interest policy? Word on the street, says Charlie Quimby, is that the Star Tribune is working on an ethics policy governing conflicts of interest, but it has nothing to do with Par Ridder. It would bar ex-Stribbers from penning opinion pieces for the paper for a year after their exits. If true, is such a policy a post-Par attempt at an earnest ethics overhaul? Or, in Quimby’s words, is it “a way for conservative-leaning management to diminish the impression that Strib reporters are disproportionately progressive”?

Wonkette on The UpTake: Wonkette, linking to The UpTake’s video of U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman discussing the war with activists in his St. Paul yard, describes the clip as Coleman “inadvertently saying something about Iraq informed by reality.”

News is as news does: As a commenter chides Minnesota Public Radio for being “reduced to reporting what bloggers say” — that is, covering Eric Black’s story on U.S. Attorney Rachel Paulose — the station’s Bill Wareham defends Black as one who “slog[s] away in the honest pursuit of journalism” while Taylor Carik wonders which is crazier: “citing a commenter who can’t tell Eric Black’s Old Media blog from Perez Hilton or actually wondering whether or not to run with the Paulose story just because it was a blogger who found out that she was under federal investigation.”

Rather shortsighted: Power Line’s response to Dan Rather’s $70 million lawsuit against CBS for breach of contract and a “biased” investigation into its flawed 60 Minutes report on George W. Bush’s National Guard service? “This suit, for as long as it survives, should serve to reinforce Rather’s status as a laughingstock.” Maybe, but wouldn’t PL’s “liberal media” meme work better if they tagged it on the network instead of just one guy?

Got a tip for Media Monitor? E-mail us your media news.

Media Monitor: May 25

Paul Schmelzer — Fri, 25 May 2007 13:07:01 +0000

The impertinence of tenacious journalism: When U.S. Attorney for Minnesota Rachel Paulose stepped up to the podium on Monday for a press conference about the recent prostitution busts in the Twin Cities and Austin, Minn., she laid out her ground rules: she’d only accept questions on that topic. Most reporters toed the line, writes Powerline’s John Hinderaker. But “[t]here were two notable exceptions to the professional demeanor of most of the reporters in attendance. One of the two was KARE 11′s Scott Goldberg, whose story evidences his other interests, if not his rudeness. I forget the other, but he too was a piece of work almost up to the Goldberg standard. Let’s call him the Goldberg variation.”

Goldberg’s infraction? Asking Paulose about, in his words, “the questions surrounding her appointment as U.S. attorney and her management style.”

Brian Lambert reports that Goldberg shot back at his KARE 11 blog, saying Paulose’s request was not a “ground rule [but] a joke”:

In our industry, ground rules are conditions agreed upon by both parties before an interview takes place. The Paulose press conference didn’t begin with an agreement. It began with a decree…
A public official, in a public building, at a public meeting, can not tell reporters they are not allowed to ask questions about unpopular topics. That would be like Tony Snow announcing President Bush won’t be taking any questions on Iraq. Come on.
Let’s remember the backdrop:
1. This was the very first press conference Paulose held after three of the top lawyers in her office resigned their management positions and called her management style into question.
2. This was the very first press conference Paulose held after the news broke that the name of her predecessor, Tom Heffelfinger, had surfaced on a Justice Department “hit list.