The right use of wrong tactics?

Capitol Hill outmonger Mike Rogers has announced his latest conquest - this time, a Republican Congressman and supporter of the Federal Marriage Amendment. The Raw Story
posts coverage of the solicitous phone message allegedly left by Congressman Ed Schrock (R-VA) on a local DC sex line.

Until now, Rogers' accusations have been targeted toward closeted Hill staffers and vague references to the sexuality of already-supportive Members of Congress. This latest outing may give brief - but hopefully fleeting - legitimacy to his questionable efforts.

When we look back on this struggle toward a world where sexuality doesn't matter and all are treated equal, these tactics should not be the legacy of our future accomplishments. Rather, they are the very definition of the wrong thing done for the right reasons.

Will Schrock's absence in the 108th Congress help the gay rights movement? Probably so, even if only incrementally; perhaps if Congressmen like Schrock had been the target of Rogers' campaign from the outset, the self-made patriot might have been more universally accepted as the hero he strives to be. Because Shrock's dethroning comes on the heels of a campaign marked by witch hunts and scare tactics against unelected 20-somethings, the legacy of his campaign should be neither celebrated nor endorsed.

Related Posts:
Dude, how gay is the environment? Am I right?
Out, damn staffer, out!

You're only a Republican if...

Right-wing groups bent on keeping the Republican party all to themselves are applauding the GOP platform committee's passage of a plank that would endorse not only the Federal Marriage Amendment, but also oppose any government recognition of same-sex couples.

The party that billed itself a "big tent" party during the 2000 election has taken on a decidedly divisive edge as the election comes closer. Traditional Values Coalition matron Andrea Lafferty dismissed anyone who opposed the plank as "RINOs" - Republicans in Name Only, according to the Associated Press. Lafferty went on to admonish her faithful not to be "distracted by Schwarzenegger or Giuliani or even the vice president," for it's only what Bush says that matters, and ostensibly what Bush says will be in line with the TVC's values.

Both the right-wing and party moderates believe that the President can't win without them. There's an opportunity cost to be considered here, however. If the Bush campaign panders too much to the right, he could lose moderates to Kerry; the right-wing, on the other hand, doesn't have many other options but to vote for the President - even if Bush gives a nod (gasp!) to party moderates.

Related Posts:
Division, unconquered
Divide and Conquer?

Division, unconquered

The Advocate reports that the platform folks up in New York have soundly rejected the "Unity Platform" proposed by a coalition of Republican groups consisting of the Log Cabin Republicans, Republicans for Choice, and the Republican Youth Majority. The platform would have stated recognition and respect for the fact that "Republicans of good faith may not agree with all the planks in the party's platform," especially those related to abortion or gay rights.

Still on the table for consideration, however, is a platform plank widely believed to have strong chances of passing - one that would support the President's call to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage. Cheney's lack of support for the FMA did nothing to help the Unity Platform, apparently; although the Log Cabin Republicans are now gearing up for a fight on the floor of the convention. If that fight comes to pass, it might just make this otherwise predictable event just a smidge interesting.

As the party platform continues to move to the right, however, the prime time lineup isn't following. Of the ten prime time speakers: Six are anti-FMA moderates, three are pro-FMA conservatives - and I don't even know where Rod Paige fits in.

Related Posts:
Divide and Conquer?
The GOP finds that old tyme religion
Uh oh, they might have figured it out

Divide and Conquer?

Vice President Cheney commented yesterday on the divisive issue of same-sex marriage, reiterating his 2000 campaign statement that marriage should be defined by the states, not the federal government. This statement runs counter to the President's push for the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would amend the U.S. Constitution to define marriage at the federal level. While Cheney has always stated his support for the President with regard to the FMA, he has stopped short of supporting the amendment directly.

Cheney tempered his remarks by speculating on the President's motives vis-à-vis the FMA: "I think his perception was that the courts, in effect, were beginning to change, without allowing the people to be involved." His comments walk a fine line, neither defending nor endorsing Bush's reasoning behind the FMA, but seemed to be aimed at softening the Bush Administration's image on gay issues.

As the Republican Convention nears - an event that is clearly devised to put a moderate face on the party - the Bush camp seems to be acknowledging that their staunch anti-gay marriage stance isn't exactly bringing in the moderate voters. With relatively pro-gay speakers like Mayors Bloomberg and Giuliani and Governor Schwarzenegger headlining the convention, Cheney's comments seem to be a nod toward mainstream voters who may not support gay marriage, but also feel a Constitutional amendment is one step too far.

Cheney's outreach, however, has already drawn fire from party conservatives who will accept nothing but full opposition to any recognition to committed gay couples. The overconfident Family Research Council released a statement criticizing the Vice President's position, noting that "for many pro-family voters, protecting traditional marriage ranks ahead of the economy and job creation as a campaign issue."

In an attempt to please both sides of the party, the Bush campaign seems to be pleasing neither; whether Cheney's outreach will sway moderates to Bush is an unknown - but it will most certainly inflame an already slighted right-wing that knows no compromise.

Related Posts:
The GOP finds that old tyme religion
Uh oh, they might have figured it out

Swift Research by the Post

The Washington Post reports this morning that Kerry critic and best-selling book author Larry Thurlow's own Bronze Star "praises him for providing assistance to a damaged Swift boat "despite enemy bullets flying about him," according to military records. Thurlow has been critical of Kerry, saying the Democratic nominee's Bronze Star was earned falsely, because he says none of the swift boats were ever under fire.

Thurlow is hesitant to call his own Bronze Star fraudulent, however, because he says he always thought that it was awarded "for coming to the rescue of the boat that was mined," further adding that "this casts doubt on anybody's awards. It is sickening and disgusting."

If the claims of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth didn't sound spintastic before, they have accomplished that now. While Thurlow has certainly dedicated his life this year to debunking what he feels are Kerry's false qualifications for the award, he can't, unfortunately, return the Bronze Star he received for the very same reasons as Kerry.

He admits he lost the sacred article 20 years ago.

Quit faster, please!

The political dust is still unsettled in New Jersey, but some developments are worth noting. I'll be back with further commentary as this mess gets sorted out.

Over the weekend, however - and not surprisingly - New Jersey Republicans (and now some Democrats) called for McGreevy's immediate resignation. The New Jersey GOP has said that by staying in office until November 15, he's denying the good folks of the Garden State the right to pick their Governor. While the entire saga is bigger than this one argument, his detractors are being a little disingenuous. Voters in New Jersey did have the opportunity to pick their Governor, and they picked McGreevy. For four years.

While the cloud of corruption and scandal will likely get in the way of his "orderly transition" over the next ninety days, it's presumably his choice to leave on his terms. If political pressure interjects, so be it. But while events of the coming days may prove otherwise, what McGreevy has publicly said thus far isn't grounds for his resignation - they're just grounds for divorce.

Related Posts:
Yes, but when will his other shoe drop?

Unemployment Office, Pelosi Annex

Former Capitol Hill staffers for Democrat-turned-Republican Congressman Rodney Alexander are not yet panhandling, thanks to the generosity of their former boss' former leader. More specifically, however - thanks to the generosity of the federal taxpayer, under the stewardship of Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

According to Roll Call's Heard on the Hill, the Democratic leader was so "touched by the Democratic aides’ courage" to quit en masse, has rewarded their party loyalty by giving them government cash to help their job search. No, she didn't give them a ride to the Department of Employment Services to start their weekly unemployment benefits; she put them on her payroll until such time as they find a job.

While it's Pelosi's prerogative to use her allotted federal budget as she sees fit, it's also the taxpayer's prerogative - perhaps their duty - to wonder what these folks will be doing to earn their federal payday.

Yes, but when will his other shoe drop?

In what was the most amazing press conference I've ever seen, New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevy announced he was gay and was stepping down from office. Regardless of the fact that the historically boring press conference genre has set the "amazing" bar pretty low, it was certainly something that even had normally cynical newsies pulling their jaws from the floor - and admitting it in their newscasts.

McGreevy's announcement was certainly a bold one, but it left most people feeling like they'd only heard half the story; a feeling that will almost certainly be validated over the coming days. The thrust of the press conference was the Governor's long struggle with his own identity, his love for his wife and children, and the admission of his extramarital affair. Oh, and he's resigning.

There's the disconnect. Let's face it, this is not 1954, '64, '74, '84 or even '94. Does being gay really mean you have to resign as Governor in 2004? No. And McGreevy, I think, knows it. This is certainly a milestone in McGreevy's life, and one that will lift an enormous burden he's been carrying for many years. But it's not why he's resigning - so why didn't he just say so?

Maybe it was a little selfish desire for sympathy for a couple news cycles. Perhaps because he doesn't want to endanger his legal standing in the reportedly-pending lawsuit against him. For whatever reason, however, he chose to make his announcement in a way that essentially draws a line between being gay and not being fit for public office - a correlation that some bloggers have already crucified him for.

Thankfully, some pundits were acknowledging this disconnect in their commentary. The mistress of political gossip, Wonkette, hoped that someday, "this kind of announcement comes at the beginning of someone's political career, not the end." But that doesn't stop the headlines from proclaiming: "I'm gay and I quit."

Diversity/Diversité/Diversidad

The Republicans are jumping on the "look at our diversity" bandwagon and attacking the Democrats' diversity system at the same time; they even have helpful graphs. They're fairly brazen in their comparison to the Democrats, showing a graph indicating the "Percentage Increase Of Ethnically Diverse Delegates between the 2000-2004 National Conventions" between the two parties: not surprisingly, the Republicans lead the Democrats 70% to 20%.

What's wrong with this comparison? Essentially, it means the 2000 Democratic Convention was already pretty damn diverse - leaving them with little room to go up. For the Republicans, however, that's not the case - one would hope to see this type of increase.

There's another major difference between the two parties on this issue - while Republicans tout the President's "Accomplishments for America's Minorities," their definition of minority isn't exactly the same as the Dems. One minority group - gay Republicans - hasn't exactly felt proud of the President's recent accomplishments on their behalf.

The Democrats' quota system leaves a lot to be desired. (See related post.) The Republicans' relative lack of a system requiring diversity is more inline with the beliefs of the party, but it also doesn't give them much of a foundation for launching diversity attacks across the aisle.

Related Posts:
Success, failure and the FMA
Look at our (mandated) rainbow!

Show them the money!

As they should, House Democrats are asking for their money back from the campaign of Democrat-turned-Republican Rodney Alexander, the Hill reports. Alexander isn't sure of how, exactly his campaign can accomplish that and indicated they are "going to have to do some scratching around on this.”

The dollar figures are significant. House colleagues alone gave him close to $70,000, according to CongressDaily, and a fundraiser hosted by Democratic Leadership netted $18,500. That doesn't count the labor donations this cycle, totaling $175,500. Labor officials are still deciding whether they'll request their donations back. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, however, is also looking at asking for the $193,000 they spent on his 2002 race. The DCCC also directed over $736,000 to the Louisiana Democratic Party on Alexander's behalf during the 2002 election, according to The Hill.

Alexander isn't under any obligation to return the money given him by Democrats; for such an obligation to exist would constitute a quid pro quo. Democrats who have contributed to Alexander's current campaign, however, have every right to ask for and expect their money back.

Any such request from the DCCC for back-contributions would be a little over the line, though; they're better off to cut their past losses and focus on their competitive races and make Alexander's sneaky move a move to the minority in the 109th Congress.

Related Posts:
It's like I don't even know you...
It's a perfidy! (What's a perfidy?)

It's like I don't even know you...

Following Rep. Rodney Alexander's move from Democrat to Republican last Friday, the repercussions are emanating from the Hill. First and foremost, the newly-minted Republican doesn't have a D.C. staff anymore. The Congressman's D.C.-based Chief of Staff Brian Smoot told CongressDaily that he no longer works for Congressman Alexander, "and neither does his entire D.C. office."

On the Senate side not too long ago, Senator Jeffords' switch from Republican to Independent caused even more ripples in the partisan pond; his staff, however, did not desert him en masse - ostensibly because they were there to serve him, not the party. With an increasing focus on Congressional control, however, the Congressman's staff decided to choose unemployment (or perhaps promised placement by the Democratic leadership?) over working for the man they've staffed for the past two years, now that he's got that R behind his name.

Related Posts:
It's a perfidy! (What's a perfidy?)

Keyes changes his mind, just in time

Slate columnist Alexander Barnes Dryer addresses the carpetbagger issue with relation to newly-minted Illinois Republican contender Alan Keyes. Forgetting their outcry over Hillary Clinton's carpetbagging in New York in 2000, Republicans put up the two-time presidential candidate against the Democrat's new hope for the future, Barack Obama.

That's not the only forgetting going on, though. In 2000, Keyes himself criticized Clinton's run for the Senate from New York, saying he "certainly wouldn't imitate her" by running to represent a state he didn't live in, according to CNN.

After the major media splash Obama made in Boston as the Democrat's keynote speaker and the very public demise of his former opponent, Jack Ryan, Keyes has a steep uphill battle ahead. Whether Republicans will give the Illinois race the same attention in New York is yet to be seen, but I'm betting they'll fight fire with fire.

Related Posts:
Good point. But, uhm, next time, could we work on the phrasing?
At least it was his wife, I guess.

It's a perfidy! (What's a perfidy?)

House Democratic Leadership is boiling over the last-minute party switch by Louisiana Rep. Rodney Alexander. Alexander, who had filed for re-election as a Democrat last Wednesday, changed his party affiliation 48 hours later - on the last day for filing for Louisiana's 5th District.

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) called the move an act of perfidy, then thankfully provided the definition in the second paragraph of his press release. Apparently:

"Perfidy is defined as 'a deliberate breach of faith; a calculated violation of trust; treachery."

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has already started a fundraising campaign titled "Punish the Turncoat," urging people to "contribute now!" to help make Alexander's move a move to the minority.

I doubt anyone would argue that Alexander's move wasn't a sneaky one designed to operate right up to - but not cross - the legal lines of the electoral system. Will his opinions change, however? Not likely - he was already a little too conservative for some Democrats.

The main difference, obviously, is who he will cast his vote for in the majority leader election; that is, he'll now be casting his vote for DeLay. In that respect, and perhaps that respect alone, he has certainly betrayed his party. Hoyer continues:

"Congressman Alexander has solicited and has received thousands of votes and thousands of dollars based upon his representation that he was a Democrat; that he intended to serve as a Democrat; and, that he would stay a Democrat."

Has he betrayed the people, however? Depends on who you are.

Republicans and Democrats alike are focusing heavily on the importance of swing voters in the Presidential campaign - those that vote for individuals, not parties. It's interesting, then, that the folks who put Alexander over the top - the swing voters of the 5th district - are the people least likely to be upset about his switch - they've still got the individual they chose.

Representative Democracy: 1; Cafferty: 0

American Morning's curmudgeonly co-host Jack Cafferty continues his tirade against Congress this week, even in their mutual absence. (Cafferty is taking time off from criticizing Congress for taking time off.) Since July 23, CNN has kept a week-daily tally of the number of days since the release of the 9/11 Commission's Report recommendations (18), contrasted with a tally of the number of the Commission's recommendations that have been adopted by Congress (zero).

Even if we forget that Congress' August recess is not just tradition, it's mandated by law, and we further forget that the break gives Congressional staffers a break from 12-15 hour days before they start the sprint to November, the thrust of the Cafferty's call is still rife with problems.

The implied suggestion is that Congress should have dropped everything and cancelled their recess in order to immediately rubber stamp the recommendations of the Commission. Cafferty clearly isn't looking for just any legislative action - his tally doesn't include the number of hearings scheduled on the Commission's recommendations (16).

The men and women who have served on the 9/11 Commission have dedicated themselves to a worthy endeavor in defense of their nation, but nonetheless are not elected representatives of the people; 6 of the 10 once were, four have never been elected. For Congress to blindly pass the Commission's recommendations would be an abdication (albeit temporary) of their powers granted by the people.

Cafferty - and other detractors - are well within their right to criticize the intense politicization of the process and the very partisan race to claim the "war on terror" issue for their side of the campaign. What they should not do, however, is demand immediate and blind acceptance of the Commission's findings - rather, let Congress do its job.

Rome wasn't built in a day. The blueprint for our nation's safety shouldn't be built in 18 or less.

Related Posts:
Kerry has a need for speed
Any job worth doing is worth doing fast

McCain, McCain everywhere.

Back to doing what he seems to do best, Senator John McCain has popped his head in the Presidential election again, this time in defense of the guy he's ostensibly not voting for. Coming to the aid of the Democratic nominee, the Washington Post reports the Arizona Senator has condemned a recent television ad paid for by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that questions Kerry's heroism in Vietnam.

McCain has urged the White House to publicly condemn the ads, adding that while he hopes the President's campaign isn't behind the ads, he doesn't know that for a fact. He certainly isn't on the Bush payroll with quotes like that; from a campaign perspective, there's no room for open-ended statements in this contest.

McCain has become a ubiquitous feature of the 2004 contest, starting with excessive punditry about his place on the Democratic ticket and his subsequent public endorsement of the President. If there was any question about his independent nature, he's certainly now put it to rest. McCain may be willing to do what's right for the party, but it's clear that Bush supporters don't have a blank check from the wily Senator.

Related Posts:
Blah, blah, unity. Now, can we get back to Edwards?
Oh wait, now we love that story...
They hope, oh how they hope...

Discrimination vs. discriminatory anti-discrimination

The perennial Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would add sexual orientation, gender and disability to existing U.S. non-discrimination law, has yet to clear Congressional hurdles, despite ever-increasing support. While the bill adds three new categories, it's clear that the stumbling block for conservatives isn't exactly tied to the gender or disability provisions.

During the federal fight for ENDA, 25 states and 258 local entities have enacted their own non-discrimination statutes - a list that includes some traditionally conservative locales - showing that support for this type of legislation is certainly growing. This week, however, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force raised the bar. Lyrically invoking R.E.M., they declared that "ENDA as we've known it must die," and are recommending that the next iteration of ENDA include protections for the transgendered community as well.

Discrimination in any form goes against American ideals of equal protection under the law. Activists and legislators alike, however, are acutely aware of the gap between ideals and political realities. If Congress isn't yet ready to embrace the idea that gays and lesbians shouldn't be fired simply for being gay or lesbian, it's unlikely that they'll accept the addition of a transgendered category without some reflexive reaction. That reaction will further delay protections for anyone discriminated against based on their gender, disability or sexual orientation; the Human Rights Campaign agrees.

The NGLTF is certainly acting in good faith to address the concerns of their transgendered members. Considering the increasing inevitability of ENDA passing in its current form, however, it would come at the continued expense of individuals facing discrimination for their orientation, disability or gender.

Bush, Kerry unite to dilute homeland security

Both Presidential candidates converged in Davenport, Iowa, today for their own campaign events, stretching security in the quad-cities to its limit. The Quad-City times reports exactly how stretched that was.

During the two events, which both required intense police resources, unscrupulous (but apparently politically aware) individuals robbed three banks, all within the space of an hour. Davenport Police took one person into custody in connection with one robbery, while the other two remained under investigation.

Both candidates are vying for the same undecided votes. One of them, however, has the power to make a real difference the next time they're in town together: the President can declare a bank holiday.

The non-politics of safety

As questions continue to surface about the driving force behind the intelligence that led to the raising of the terror level in Washington and New York this week, the Associated Press quotes Secretary Ridge: "We don't do politics in the Department of Homeland Security."

For a self-described non-politico, however, his comments at the press briefing Sunday just may indicate who he might be voting for this November. Ridge apolitically noted that "the kind of information available to us today is the result of the President's leadership in the war against terror."

At a time when the two presidential camps are clamoring for homeland supremacy, Ridge's comments sound far from benign and only serve to feed skeptics who wonder whether politics, or actual threats, are driving the alert system.

Reagan vs. Reagan?

Searching for a wedge issue that isn't fuzzy and impossible to articulate, Democrats seem to be giving stem-cell research a try. What's so politically appealing about stem-cells? The issue isn't developed enough to be much more than a simple black and white, yes or no, up or down vote.

Slate writer Timothy Noah writes that the Republicans may respond to the Democrats' trotting-out of Ron Reagan, Jr. to the stage of their convention with a Reagan volley of their own; namely Ron's half-brother Michael, who opposes stem-cell research. What could be clearer than liberal Reagan vs. conservative Reagan? Well, actually, lots.

The Bush ban grandfathered in "about 60 viable cell lines then in existence," according to Slate, but further prohibited federal funding for any additional lines. There's certainly some fuzziness to be exploited here - Republicans can say they're not throwing out the baby with the bathwater; Democrats can say the 60 lines aren't enough to really explore the possibilities.

Neither party is taking that tack, however - at least not yet. Perhaps it's out of a mutual yearning for a black-and-white issue that voters can actually grab on to. But it won't last for long, voters better grab while the grabbin's good.

Fiscal conservative is the new liberal

In a strategy sure to annoy both Bush campaign and "average joe" voters who thought they had finally figured out the difference between the parties, John Kerry pledged Tuesday to cut the deficit by 50% and "get back to being fiscally responsible."

Now, Democrats have never run on a platform of fiscal irresponsibility per se, but fiscal restraint and deficit-mongering are usually boilerplate speech material for the Republicans. It's part of a very normal shift-toward-center that occurs once the primary battles have concluded. But with Bush's convention acceptance speech less than a month away, he's finding some of his key issues co-opted.

Kerry also pushed for a return to pay-as-you-go budgeting rules for Congress, a move that would require any tax cut be offset by spending cuts or other revenue increases. Currently, half of the rules are in place, requiring offsets only for spending increases. Reinstatement of full budget rules have been pushed by a handful of conservatives in the Senate over the objections of GOP leadership; the Bush-backed tax cuts and the so-called "paygo" rules don't mix well.

If you haven't seen it, it's new to you

The Washington Post, and plenty of others now, are reporting that Administration officials are conceding the data that prompted the terror alerts in Washington and NYC was three-years old. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge indicated that while the intelligence was updated earlier this year, there was no evidence of recent surveillance of the targets.

Kerry campaign spinsters were already on-air today, asserting the Administration's motives were more about politics and less about security. That might be a hard sell, though - apparently federal officials briefed Kerry on the new threat, and CNN reports that "he takes the reported terror threats seriously."

Kerry has a need for speed

Democratic nominee John Kerry once again blasted the Bush Administration's response to the 9/11 Commission's report and recommendations yesterday, saying the President was not acting fast enough to protect Americans.

This criticism comes, however, on a day when security is incredibly heightened in D.C. and around New York's financial center as well, not to mention the President's declaration that he would create a sub-cabinet level national intelligence czar. Considering the report was released twelve days ago, it's unclear exactly how fast he wanted the President to react.

The sparring is part of an ongoing back-and-forth political fight for supremacy in the terrorism issue - which in the long run, can't be good for security from terrorism.

Related Posts:
Any job worth doing is worth doing fast

The media bemoans, but Kerry cashes in

The Burnt Orange Report posts some interesting Kerry numbers which underscore the validity of Jon Stewart's "product launch" characterization of the Boston convention. According to the BOR, Kerry's speech had about a half-million bucks worth of polling and focus grouping in it, and Kerry's press release seems to indicate it was worth it: they topped $5.6 million in online donations on the day of Kerry's acceptance speech alone. His two-day total for Wednesday and Thursday? $8.9 million.

In the battle for the final verdict on last week's conventioneering, the major media's pessimism about the scripted nature of the convention can't outshine the cash. The truth is, the Democrats got the coverage, the money, and 5,000 web hits per second during Kerry's speech. The media got to opine at length about the pageantry and yearn for yesteryear, when conventions meant something more. Maybe it's a tie.

Convention bloggers get panned

CNET News editor Charles Cooper writes a not-so-glowing review of the credentialed bloggers' performance at the Democratic Convention last week. Cooper opines that perhaps "the ego-lifting moment of their 15 minutes of prime-time fame got in the way of clear thinking," causing the blogosphere to be filled not with smart commentary but with lines like, "Bill Clinton looks really small from the upper tiers of the Fleet Center."

He has a point that certainly resonates with some of the bloggers' performances, but thankfully not all. A review of convention bloggers' sites during last week's convention, however, reveals little insight beyond self-commentary on the wonders of credentialed blogging, hanging out (and hitting on) fellow bloggers, star gazing and lots and lots of partying.

Now, for most delegates, that's what the week was about - after the pomp and circumstance of the speeches and official coronation, that is. But for bloggers, this was a chance to prove their coverage would contrast with the sometimes vapid coverage from the cable nets, not supplement it.

In the defense of credentialed bloggers, the highly scripted event left all reporters - blog and non-blog - with little excitement to report on. Bloggers are known, however, for the busting the traditional media down a few rungs. But in that regard, Jon Stewart blew away the residents of Blogger Alley.

Related Posts:
Dems score big on blogs