I got this earlier from Brad Friedman of Bradblog:
Received this moments ago from our friend Tony Trupiano of The Tony Show who received it himself via Email just moments after going off the air and thus was not able to run it. He tells The BRAD BLOG that he considers his source for this to be "golden"...
Just spoke to a Senate press secretary who said Republicans on the Judiciary Committee let them know that they should be prepared for Rehnquist to make a statement sometime between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. tomorrow morning and not to schedule anything during that time. Please be advised.
This report seems to synch up with a report just out at RAW STORY, and with Bob Novak's column this morning which reported that "Rehnquist also will announce his retirement before the week is over."
Geez.
I thought I'd get a break this summer. There's just no time to rest --but I'd like to take a moment and go over some words of wisdom via Jay Rosen of PressThink:
In
PressThink: The Production of Innocence and News of a Vacancy on the Court, Rosen has this to say :
On the front page of Saturday's New York Times, "advocates on the left and the right" were agreeing that because the ideological balance of the court was up for grabs, the coming struggle would be immense. "Advocacy groups bought advertising on television and the Internet, and issued millions of e-mail alerts, waves of direct-mail fund-raising appeals and pre-emptive blasts at those viewed by the groups as either obstructionist Democrats or extremist Republicans." By midday Friday, Robin Toner wrote, "nothing less than a national political campaign had begun."
[...]
Or, as one blogger (Dale Franks) put it: "You realize, of course, that this means war."
I do, I do. But the strange thing is that in all this talk of war and the epic showdown ahead no one tries to explain exactly how the Web ads sent to 8.7 million Americans in Progress for America's data banks, or the e-mail alerts to 800,000 activists sent within 15 minutes of the announcement by the abortion rights group Naral Pro-Choice America, or the TV ads MoveOn began running in five states yesterday (all reported in today's coverage) were supposed to make any difference at all in the eventual outcome.
There is, after all, a big difference between a national political campaign and a Supreme Court nomination. In the last election, 121 million votes were cast, and each one of those people could (in theory) be influenced by a media campaign. In the Supreme Court nomination, 100 United States Senators vote. Can they be influenced in the same way?
Rosen goes on to basically say that the kinds of emailing campaigns NARAL, People for the American Way, and now John Kerry have been waging a la MoveOn make no difference because these groups are in the business of campaigning. Without thse campaigns against their ideological enemis, they lose their sense of purpose.
Why does this go on? One reason is that activist groups, by opposing each other, use each other for mutual self-definition. They too don't know how their e-mail blasts and TV ads are supposed to work. Like spammers, they just send the stuff out. What they know is that the other side will be sending e-mail blasts and running TV ads. Spam must meet spam.
I publish two political blogs. Blogging has been an amazing medium for me, where I can reveal the personal as political in my writing virtually every day of the week. But I have been having this nagging feeling ... this sense of "what is it all for". Is this writing and activism just a creative outlet or is this really work that can effect change?
I read Rosen's post when it came out and I am still chewing on his last words:
I do think "the armies of ideological activists from both sides" now gearing up for the battle royale are embarking not on a rational exercise in political persuasion--a battle for hearts and minds in proper terms--but an absurd and wasteful media campaign that will probably have little effect on the nomination itself, yet serve perfectly the purposes of those for whom culture war is way of life.
I really want to think that what we do here and in our independent blogs, in our activism and daily life is not feeding the "culture war"; but somehow effecting culture and neutralizing said war.
Then again, the idea of a war ... is it true?
The Valerie Plame, Downing Street Memos, Gannongate, they are all evidence of how the Bushites were manufacturing the war. Which is why, today more than ever I may understand Harry Reid.
He gave us a list of conservative and Republican candidates for SCOTUS that he could see supporting. How brilliant. In other words, there is no crisis; there is no war --and it leaves people like Dobson to show their colors for what they are : Banana Repuglican Extremists.
Is this something we all need to look at more closely and ponder about? To take a step back and not declare a war that really does not exist? What should be our strategy for dealing with the extremist machine?
What would the political equivalent of Tai Chi push hands be?