Bluey Blog - Official Blog of Robert B. Bluey

Sitting Down With Chertoff

I was one of a handful of bloggers invited to interview Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff yesterday at DHS headquarters in Washington. I asked him about a variety of issues, including the fence along the U.S.-Mexico border, compliance with Real ID and the prospects of immigration reform in 2008. You can check out the videos I’ve put together below.

I filed reports for The Foundry and RedState. Others in attendance included David Venturella of Security Debrief, Anne Broache of CNET and Jonah Czerwinski of Homeland Security Watch.

This was Chertoff’s second meeting with bloggers. Unfortunately, I missed the first because of a conflict, but I hope he does these regularly. He’s setting a great example for other Cabinet secretaries.

Five Questions for Danny Glover of Eyeblast.tv

As I mentioned on Saturday when I posted my interview with Second Amendment attorney Alan Gura, I’m starting a new weekly feature on Bluey Blog called “Five Questions.” Each week I’ll post an interview with someone about an important news event, a new product or perhaps simply something I find interesting.

This week I asked Danny Glover, executive producer of Eyeblast.tv, to answer some questions about the Media Research Center’s newest venture — a video sharing and social networking site. I came to know Danny through his work at National Journal’s Beltway Blogroll, where he covered the politics/technology scene in Washington.

Since leaving National Journal, Danny has had his hands full. In additional to launching Eyeblast, he’s writing an outstanding personal blog called Taxation With Representation that tracks every tax his family pays over a year’s time.

On to the questions for this week.

1) In a world where YouTube dominates online video, why did the Media Research Center decide to create Eyeblast?

Eyeblast is the conservative answer to liberalism online. It is designed to fill voids in both the online video market and the social-networking realm by creating a community for conservatives in general and young, Internet-savvy conservatives in particular. For years, conservatives ceded the online battlefield in the war of ideas to liberals. We’re in the fight now but need better weapons. Eyeblast is one of them –- and the Media Research Center is committed to upgrading and expanding the new media arsenal.

2) What’s the goal of Eyeblast and why do you think conservatives will embrace it?

The primary goal is to persuade the next generation that the principles and values of conservatism are essential to America’s success. When the media report on the youth vote these days, they focus on young people’s fascination with Barack Obama, the poster child of tomorrow’s liberalism. I’m sure you’ve also noticed — not coincidentally, I hasten to add — that journalists are fascinated with Obama. They will not cover him, or his ideas, objectively. With Eyeblast, young, passionate conservatives can bypass the media and take the movement’s message straight to their peers. They can be the media.

I don’t know whether conservatives will embrace Eyeblast — they have a poor track record when it comes to grasping the significance of new media — but they certainly need to embrace it. The Media Research Center is taking the high-speed leap of building the community because of our conviction that digital tools are essential to preserving and advancing conservative ideas for generations. We need others to join us in the cause. I’m happy to say that the Heritage Foundation already is an active member of Eyeblast. Newt Gingrich’s American Solutions has uploaded content, and Dick Armey’s FreedomWorks is a member. That’s a great start to building the premier Web 2.0 community for conservatives and spreading the gospel to America’s youth.

3) Based on your experience running AirCongress, who on Capitol Hill is best capitalizing on video and podcasts?

I’ll take the podcast part of the question first because that one is easy: No one. I must have been out of my mind when I first thought of AirCongress. YouTube was but a blip on the political radar back then, so I initially envisioned AirCongress as a portal to online audio. Foolish me!

Thankfully, Internet video hit the big time politically about the time I hired a Web designer. Congress as a whole is nowhere near to embracing Web video, either, but there are some innovators. Most are in the House. Eric Cantor, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and George Miller come to mind first — a 2-to-1 Democratic advantage, by the way, which is more evidence of why a site like Eyeblast is necessary.

4) How important of a role will online video play in the 2008 elections, both at the presidential level and in congressional and local races?

In 2006, I would have answered that question with one word: Macaca. In 2008, it will take two words: Jeremiah Wright. The inflammatory rhetoric of Barack Obama’s preacher and mentor prove that online video is here to stay as a political force. Videos of Wright’s words saturate Eyeblast, YouTube and the blogosphere; the speech Obama gave in reaction to the “Wright is wrong” controversy has been watched by hundreds of thousands online; and now an anti-Obama mash-up created by Lee Habeeb and two other conservatives has led to the suspension of a John McCain staffer.

You’ll continue to see these kinds of video-inspired stories erupt regularly at the presidential level. Some will be genuine controversies; others will be manufactured by the candidates or, more likely, their mischievous online allies. Think nutroots. It will happen at the congressional, state and local levels, too, though not as often. Whether online video will win or lose elections depends on what’s in the video.

5) Now that you’ve given up Beltway Blogroll, where do you suggest those of us who relied on it get our news about technology and politics in Washington?

I’m not aware of anyone who covers all things blogosphere as single-mindedly as I did at Beltway Blogroll, but the news is there to be had. You just have to piece it together from multiple sources. Instapundit is my first stop. Glenn Reynolds regularly linked to my work at Beltway Blogroll because he was interested in the subject, so I know I’ll be able to find links to much of what I’m looking for there. Other blogs I read for politics and technology news include Personal Democracy Forum, techPresident, TechRepublican, e.politics, Blog P.I. and PrezVid.

Beyond that, I follow bloggers on the right and left who contemplate the new media world. You cover the Republican side of the beat well at Bluey Blog and RedState. Other bloggers on the right who have informed insights about politics and tech include Ed Morrissey, Michelle Malkin, Mary Katharine Ham, James Joyner, Patrick Ruffini, Michael Turk and Jim Geraghty. I like new media thinkers Jay Rosen, Dan Gillmor and Jeff Jarvis on the left. I also skim Open Left, MyDD, TalkLeft and Talking Points Memo for their insights on the subject.

Stay tuned for next week’s interview with David Kralik, director of Internet strategy for American Solutions and manager of the Silicon Valley office.

Five Questions for Alan Gura on D.C. v. Heller

Today I’m debuting a new feature on my blog called “Five Questions.” My first interview features Second Amendment attorney Alan Gura on the D.C. v. Heller case he argued before the U.S. Supreme Court this week. Gura argued that the D.C. gun ban should be ruled unconstitutional.

Normally I won’t be on camera doing the interviews — it’ll be the traditional print Q&A format — but because Alan was in the neighborhood yesterday, I couldn’t resist the temptation to do this one on video. He covers some important ground about the oral argument on Tuesday and what this important case means for the citizens of Washington, D.C., and gun owners nationwide.

I’ll probably do about one of these per week — perhaps more often depending on my schedule at work. Coming soon will be interviews with Danny Glover of Eyeblast.tv, David Kralik, director of Internet strategy for American Solutions and manager of Newt Gingrich’s Silicon Valley office, and Ed Morrissey, formerly of Captain’s Quarters and now blogging at Hot Air.

Tom Reynolds Must Be in Some Pretty Deep Do-Do

Another Republican in Congress will bite the dust today, making the GOP’s prospects even worse in a cycle when 29 members have already announced they won’t run for re-election. The latest casualty is Rep. Tom Reynolds of Clarence, N.Y., who has spent the better part of two years fighting scandals, poor management of the National Republican Congressional Committee and a hostile electorate back home.

Just a few weeks ago, Reynolds’ press secretary, L.D. Platt, told me I was dead wrong to speculate that his boss might retire. At the time I wrote my Feb. 27 post about the extinction of New York Republicans, I relied on information from longtime conservative journalist and my former Human Events colleague John Gizzi. He predicted Reynolds would call it quits.

Nonetheless, I let a Capitol Hill press secretary feed me a line of bull. “I can put to rest any speculation about Tom not running. He is running,” Platt wrote in an e-mail on Feb. 28. “And I would point out he has not be accused of any wrong doing, in fact no member has because it was one long serving employee who pulled an elaborate scheme over the course of 15 years.”

In the time since I reported Reynolds would indeed run for re-election, his mismanagement of the NRCC has become an even bigger story in Washington, which leads me to believe he was left little choice but to retire. The Post has run two front-page articles (here and here) about how the NRCC’s former treasurer, Christopher J. Ward, began stealing what could amount to $1 million the year Reynolds took over as NRCC chairman. This marked the second scandal stemming from Reynolds’ tenure; his handling of former Rep. Mark Foley’s inappropriate messages to teenage House pages contributed to the GOP’s loss of Congress and nearly cost Reynolds his own seat.

The prospects for keeping New York’s 26th District in Republican hands appear grim. If an experience pol like Reynolds can barely hold the seat — despite outspending a protectionist Democrat opponent by more than 2-to-1 — then I can’t imagine a novice Republican will be able to win in what’s likely going to be a very tough environment, particularly with the poor economy in Upstate New York. And if Hillary Clinton is on the top of the ticket for Democrats, it won’t even be close.

You see, I really wasn’t lying when I said New York Republicans would soon be extinct. Even in the wake of the Eliot Spitzer debacle, I’m not seeing anyone on the GOP farm team in New York who’s ready to play in the big leagues.

It’s Not About Race, It’s About Honesty and Judgment

[Note: This post was written by Conn Carroll, Rob’s colleague at Heritage and editor of The Foundry.]

Barack Obama’s Philadelphia speech on race was an extremely deft pivot turning an issue about his honesty and judgment into an issue about America’s racism.

Obama correctly believes that any discussion about race benefits his candidacy. And judging by the positive headlines (some even altered to be more positive) the press is more than willing to play along.

The real news out of Obama’s speech is not that he is a gifted speaker; we already knew that. No, the real stories are that Obama changed his story yet again about his relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright and what Obama’s long association with him says about his judgment.

As late as this Friday, Obama was still sticking to his claim that he never heard any of Wright’s controversial statements while in the pews of Trinity church.

Today, Obama admitted that was not true: “Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes.”

But Obama’s admissions did not end there. Obama went on to describe what he knew to be Wright’s views:

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country. … As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems.

If Obama knew that Wright had such a “distorted view of this country” that is “not only wrong but divisive” then why did Obama make him a member of his African American Religious Leadership Committee? Would a President Obama also appoint people with distorted and divisive view to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights? To the Justice Department? To the Supreme Court? And if Obama has known all along that Wright has distorted and divisive views, then why fire him from the campaign and scrub him off the website now?

Obama has been dishonest about his relationship with Wright from the beginning. At first he thought a cooperative media would let his close association with Wright go unnoticed. Then he said he never heard Wright say anything controversial. Then Wright was like a crazy uncle. Now Obama claims he always knew about Wright’s controversial views and he hopes they will help America reflect on “the complexities of race in this country.”

Obama made a bad judgment when he chose to include Wright in his campaign. He made a bad judgment when he hoped the media wouldn’t discover Wright’s bigotry. When the issue came to light, Obama immediately began lying about what he knew about Wright’s views and distorting his relationship with him. So of course Obama wants the Rev. Wright issue to be about race, because otherwise the issue is about Obama’s dishonesty and lack of judgment.

A Supreme Test for D.C.’s Unconstitutional Gun Ban

It’s days like today when I wish I was still a reporter who covered the Supreme Court. Several years ago when I worked at Cybercast News Service, I was able to attend some of the biggest Supreme Court cases in recent memory — the Lawrence v. Texas sodomy case, University of Michigan affirmative action cases and several others that drew large crowds to the highest court in the land. (Read my clips.)

Today the court is just as busy as justices hear a challenge to D.C.’s extremely restrictive ban on handguns. My colleagues at Heritage have been closely watching the case. Todd Gaziano, director of our Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, recorded a video yesterday explaining why the D.C. gun ban is unconstitutional.

The Washington Post profiles Alan Gura, the 37-year-old lawyer who will be challenging the gun ban before the justices. It is Alan’s first time arguing a case before the Supreme Court. As a two-time guest at our Conservative Bloggers’ Briefing, I’ll be closely watching today’s arguments and wishing Alan and the rest of his team luck as they defend freedom and the true meaning of the Second Amendment.

John McCain’s Journey to Freedom

This is a must-see video of John McCain’s time as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. It’s a remarkable story of survival, determination, loyalty and patriotism — the characteristics that define the man who wants to be the next commander-in-chief.

Dick Cheney = Darth Vader

Speaking last night at a Heritage dinner celebrating the 25th anniversary of President Ronald Reagan’s missile defense speech, Vice President Cheney had this great line.

You can read the whole speech on Heritage’s blog and watch other highlights on YouTube.

Was She Worth It?

New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer is mockingly called “the smartest man in the world” by Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.). On this day, however, the smart guy turned out to be an ordinary John (quite literally). The cocky and arrogant governor who made ethics reform the hallmark issue of his administration saw his promising political career come to a painful end when he was tied to a $5,000-per-hour prostitution ring.

Spitzer’s illegal behavior will almost certainly end his short tenure as governor and strip liberals of a hero who they’ve been grooming for a presidential run in 2012 or 2016. There’s no reason to celebrate Spitzer’s downfall; my heart goes out to his wife and three daughters. This scandal further taints politicians who have betrayed the public’s trust, most recently Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Larry Craig (R-Idaho).

I’m saddened and disappointed Spitzer didn’t tender his resignation today. Although he said “I do not believe that politics in the long run is about individuals,” his actions today didn’t reflect that statement. The good people of New York deserved better. If Spitzer meant what he said about the “public good,” then he’ll leave office immediately.

‘Saturday Night Live’ Hits Obama Where It Hurts

Who said Barack Obama was beloved by the media? This one hits hard.

Hat tip to RedState.