I was in Palermo when Italy last won the Cup -- a month shy of 4. It was a long wait for this one -- but well worth it.

Savor the intensity of the game and the worldwide celebrations. How else? Two words. YouTube.

And videowall.

Turn on your speakers, but not too loud. (You may also want to save all your documents before hitting play 30 times :-)

At the other extreme, we have Jeremy Hermanns photo-blogging a near-disaster at 30,000 feet. Yes, folks, the potential applications of this thing called the blogosphere stretch to infinity.

Congratulations, Brendan (though we would have gladly waited for the hi-res photos).

Wasn't that something today?

While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. (Applause.) Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs.

They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. And many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: "When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security." That's why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate -- who had access to the same intelligence -- voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power. (Applause.)

The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. (Applause.) These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them. (Applause.) Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. (Applause.) And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory. (Applause.)

Dr. Alan Kors is best known for his principled, unyielding defense of intellectual freedom on college campuses. In his day job, he also has a rare gift for channeling the great thinkers through the ages, giving 17th century epistemology the same sense of urgency as today's raging debates over the war on terror or bioengineering. I had the pleasure of taking three classes with him while at Penn, including a seminar on libertarian thought (yes, such a class was actually taught on a college campus). Practically every student has had their own strong suspicions of Professor Kors' political leanings, but when he finally revealed them to us at a social occasion at semester's end, I must say they surprised even me.

If you're a student frustrated by the Moore-ite tilt on your campus, take matters into your own hands. Find the two, three, ten conservative or heterodox professors at your school (these two concepts have come to be synonymous in academia, but they need not be). And seek their counsel. Take all of their classes. Persuade them to mentor your independent study. This is how I injected some measure of balance into my college curriculum, and luckily the guides I found along the way were all gentlemen and scholars of the highest order. It brightened my day to see one of them receive this honor.

This week, I'm starting on a new path that will take me away from the day-to-day upkeep of this blog. I'll be returning to the Republican National Committee to serve as eCampaign Director. This is a tremendous opportunity to work with a great team to make GOP.com the nerve center of our efforts in 2006, pushing the envelope with new ideas and tools that set the standard for online politics.

When I started this thing back up again eleven months ago, little did I know how successful it would become. And this blog is only a tiny part of the larger story. It would have been easy for the blogosphere to take a breather after 2004, with the big question answered. But instead, it just kept on growing and growing. Today, it's becoming the essential medium for interacting with the news, just as the Web has become the indispensable medium for getting involved with politics and campaigns.

In no way, shape, matter, or form am I "leaving the blogosphere" with this announcement. I look forward to continuing to hear from all of you in my new position, and I suspect I'll be working with many of you on an ongoing basis. Don't be surprised to see me blogging on GOP.com. (Consider this your invitation to switch your bookmarks.) I've learned just as much about the medium from my time on this site as I did on the campaign, and I view this is an important time to synthesize the lessons learned as well as to break new ground. With that in mind, I've set up a special e-mail address for your ideas on what we should be doing online: ideas@patrickruffini.com. Don't be shy now.

On a housekeeping note, the '08 Wire and the SCOTUS Wire should continue to work as normal. I'm also pleased to announce that Hugh Hewitt has agreed to take over the polling functionality you know and love.

Thanks to all of you for making this place like a second home these many months. What's special about this group of readers is that none of you consume your politics passively. You take an active role in separating fact from fiction, and when the chips are down, volunteering and contributing to the causes you believe in. Thank you – and keep it up. What you do is at least as important as what the folks in D.C. do.

Keep in touch: ideas@patrickruffini.com.

-Patrick

Correction to This Article A Sept. 23 Metro article about people coming to Washington for the Sept. 24 demonstration against the war in Iraq described ^ (don't want to say "incorrectly" in this case) Patrice Cuddy, 56, of Olathe, Kan., as a novice protester. Cuddy had participated in three other large rallies against the war, two in Washington and one in New York.

I thought the whole point of a correction was to correct something that was stated, um... "incorrectly." I guess I'm mistaken.

The dictionary defines "novice" as follows:

nov·ice n. 1. A person new to a field or activity; a beginner.

To refer to someone who's attended at least two major protest rallies -- and who helps organize a bus caravan for a third -- as a "novice" is flat-out -- what's the word? -- incorrect. But for some reason, an editor actively interceded to ensure that word would not be used. Here's a screenshot before it's flushed down the memory hole:

"She decided that she wanted faith to be a bigger part of her life," Justice Hecht, who now serves on the Texas Supreme Court, said in an interview. "One evening she called me to her office and said she was ready to make a commitment" to accept Jesus Christ as her savior and be born again, he said. He walked down the hallway from his office to hers, and there amid the legal briefs and court papers, Ms. Miers and Justice Hecht "prayed and talked," he said. ...

Ms. Miers, born Roman Catholic, became an evangelical Christian and began identifying more with Republicans than with the Democrats who had long held sway over Texas politics. She joined the missions committee of her church, which is against legalized abortion, and friends and colleagues say she rarely looked back at her past as a Democrat.

"There weren't that many Republicans in Texas in those days," said Merrie Spaeth, a director of media relations at the White House under Ronald Reagan who met Ms. Miers after moving to Dallas in 1985. "Harriet is what you would call a Southern lady. It is marvelous to watch her in meetings with huge egos, where she allows people to think good results are the product of their own ideas."

The Court has seen its share of conservatives, but religious conservatives have been underrepresented. This could well be changing:

In an interview Tuesday on the televangelist Pat Robertson's "700 Club," Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the Christian conservative American Center for Law and Justice, said Ms. Miers would be the first evangelical Protestant on the court since the 1930's. "So this is a big opportunity for those of us who have a conviction, that share an evangelical faith in Christianity, to see someone with our positions put on the court," Mr. Sekulow said.

Miers on life:

Religion appears to have influenced her views on certain subjects. In a discussion with her campaign manager in 1989, Ms. Miers said she had been in favor in her younger years of a woman's right to have an abortion, but her views evolved against abortion, influenced largely by her born-again religious beliefs, said Lorlee Bartos, a Democratic campaign consultant in Dallas who managed Ms. Miers's City Council campaign.

"She was someone whose view had shifted, and she explained that to me," Ms. Bartos said.

Reading this, there seems to be nothing watered down about Ms. Miers' association with Valley View Christian, down to her embrace of a splinter group that's forming a new church to maintain its traditional forms of worship. (No hidden blueblood tendencies here.) In terms of pure bio, Miers seems to be more in tune with the rank-and-file conservatives than a legal elitist with a Cambridge or New Haven address who's never written a contract.

The lawyer types round these parts need to remember: Outcomes over Process.

Let me be clear. I was NOT chillin' at the Gang of 14 deal. But the sentiment seems pertinent today, as some well-meaning folks are letting old school credentializing get in the way of confirming a real-world conservative who would move the Court in the right direction.

Feel free to steal the graphic.

So, who's in? Join the Coalition by tracking back this post, or leaving your post in the comments, and we'll get a blogroll going.

UPDATE: Read PoliPundit. Now.

It's true. Little is known about the views of Harriet Miers. But what is known, through official and unofficial channels, paints a picture of a conservative Texas lawyer with rock-solid beliefs on life, strong religious convictions, and a modesty that should allay fears of a renegade Justice determined to remake society through the courts. John Roberts was the silver-tongued, inside-the-Beltway pick for the Court; Miers is the plain spoken red stater.

In 1993, when the American Bar Association moved to enshrine its support for abortion-on-demand, Miers fought to have the issue put to a vote before the entire ABA:

"If we were going to take a position on this divisive issue, the members should have been able to vote."

As the Note Notes, she kept at it, seeking to overturn the Bar's pro-abortion stance into the late-'90s. Tim Carney observes, "In favor of democracy on the issue of abortion? Let's hope she carries that through."

NARAL can read the writing on the wall, and it's not very pleased, stating that Miers "does not appear to have a public record to assure America's pro-choice majority that she is a moderate in the tradition of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor."

Marvin Olasky gives us by far the most illuminating glimpse into Miers' personal thinking, interviewing longtime friend and Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht, as well as Miers' pastor. Here's Hecht on Miers and life: "[H]er personal views are consistent with that of evangelical Christians... You can tell a lot about her from her decade of service in a conservative church." And here's her pastor, Ron Key:

I don't know how strong her faith was at that time. She came to a place where she totally committed her life to Jesus. She had gone to church before, but when she came to our church it became more serious to her.... Our church is strong for life, but Harriet and I have not had any conversations on that…. We believe in the biblical approach to marriage.

Miers was raised Catholic, and became Born Again around '79 or '80. We have no idea how her religious beliefs would impact her decisions on the Court, but in terms of the environment in which she has come up, she couldn't be further from the RINO-dominated New Hampshire of David Souter and even the libertarianish Arizona of Sandra Day O'Connor. Can anyone read these passages and not have hope that Miers would be light years ahead of O'Connor and Souter on Roe v. Wade?

Leonard Leo, president of the Federalist Society – you know, the evil, neanderthal Federalist Society – is a supporter. And so is Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice.

But, as usual, quite possibly the most important perspective comes from Hugh Hewitt, who posits that Miers would be particularly strong in the area of national security jurisprudence. Having been "present at the creation" in the war on terror, not cooped up in isolated Circuit Court chambers or rarefied law school classrooms, a Justice Miers would be unlikely to let Jose Padilla roam the streets, or open up the gates of Gitmo. Folks – that's at least as important as the social issues.

As our picture of Miers comes into clearer focus, the Souter II narrative begins to strain credulity. It requires us to believe that the President who gave us Janice Rogers Brown, Michael McConnell, Bill Pryor, Priscilla Owen – and no RINO that I could name at the Circuit or District Court level, who fought the fight on Miguel Estrada, and who had originally orchestrated the masterful trade of Roberts-for-O'Connor, would suddenly punt at this critical moment. It also requires us to believe that Miers, who has worked with Bush for a decade, who is the White House staffer most intimitately involved with vetting nominees' judicial philosophies, and is one of the people Bush knows best, has been able to hide her true beliefs from her boss until – Ah, ha! – she donned the judge's robe. I'm sorry, but I don't think this is the same thing as an unknown from New Hampshire handpicked by Warren Rudman.

It's true this fight does not come under the most opportune circumstances. Had Chief Justice Rehnquist lived just two more months, making possible the elevation of Associate Justice Roberts, conservatives would now be in a position to replace a Justice undeniably their own. Instead, the Roberts nomination became an even trade for the fallen Chief, and Bush needed a certain conservative that Senate Democrats didn't know and couldn't tag as such. Given these tricky circumstances, President Bush has threaded the needle wisely, giving us a confirmable and reliable conservative for the Court's most sensitive seat.

Some would prefer a nominee in a more esoteric, elitist, or eccentric mold, with the penmanship of a Scalia. Harriet Miers will not be the flashiest Justice – but nor will she make leaps of logic that sometimes lead her in unconservative and unpredictable directions (see McConnell on polygamy, or Scalia on pornography). This is not the time to act like preening Ivory Tower elitists, but to call Harry Reid's bluff. Miers will cast the votes that O'Connor wouldn't. And that's all that matters.

UPDATE: Miers on the Second Amendment:

The same liberties that ensure a free society make the innocent vulnerable to those who prevent rights and privileges and commit senseless and cruel acts. Those precious liberties include free speech, freedom to assemble, freedom of liberties, access to public places, the right to bear arms and freedom from constant surveillance. We are not willing to sacrifice these rights because of the acts of maniacs.

Adds David Kopel, "As far as I know, you have to go back to Louis Brandeis to find a Supreme Court nominee whose pre-nomination writing extolled the right of armed self-defense."

ANOTHER UPDATE:

Rudy Giuliani once again emerges as the straw poll winner. His strength is a consistent theme in these exercises. He finished second to Condi Rice in February, dominated a series of two-way matchups in April, narrowly lost to George Allen in July's five way, won a comfortable victory against the full field in August, and now extends his lead in September. Here's where we stand at this writing with a record 18,600+ votes cast (August figures in parentheses):

Giuliani 	33.0% (29.5%)
Allen 		18.8% (19.8%)
Romney 	        9.5% (8.9%)
Undecided 	8.7% (3.9%)
Tancredo  	7.0% (7.2%)
McCain	        6.6% (7.9%)
Barbour     	6.0% (--)
Brownback	2.6% (2.9%)
Huckabee	2.4% (1.9%)
Frist 		2.2% (2.2%)
Pawlenty	2.0% (--)
Hagel		0.7% (1.3%)
Pataki		0.4% (0.5%) 

Condi Rice again won the fantasy ballot running away, though with a somewhat reduced percentage as the poll was clarified to emphasize that the likely candidates were still in the running.

Giuliani seems to have received a "Katrina bounce" of about 5 points. Haley Barbour opened strong at 6% in his debut, well above the 2% that seems to be about the standard for favorite son Governors and Senators. The media chatter favorably comparing their leadership skills to those of Nagin and Blanco is reflected in these results.

Drilling down further on specific subcategories suggests the Giuliani bounce may be higher – perhaps as high as 12 points.

First, as in August, the July five-way poll was active in the sidebar. Of the 1,084 sidebar votes in the last week, Giuliani pulls out in front of Allen by 37.3% to 32.8%; during August's, it was Allen 38.0%, Giuliani 30.5%. It's a smaller sample size, but it's also direct apples-to-apples comparison; with the larger polls, the lineups changed slightly.

Longitudinal Analysis: A Political Polling First?

Thanks to site registrations in July and August, I was able to conduct a longitudinal study of 2,496 August voters who also voted in September. In August, this sample was slightly more favorable to Giuliani, 27.0% to 25.7%. In September, Giuliani won these very same voters 33.3% to 23.5%.

The underlying movements are more complicated than simply, "X's supporters moved to Y." Surprisingly, candidates lost at least 20% of their August voters (sometimes as high as 50%) to other candidates. Giuliani was simply more successful at keeping his August supporters in place (79.3% stuck with him) while benefiting from the high churn elsewhere. Tancredo was next most successful at 78.0%; Allen kept 64.9% of his August voters in the fold, but those down the list didn't fare as well. Herein might lie the case against early straw polls like mine: with 20-50% churn rates each month, we see how the numbers can turn on a dime, and how support is shallow. I'd like to hear from someone in the polling business if turnover rates like this from month to month are unheard of – or does traditional polling simply not enable us to understand individual behavior on this level beyond the highly problematic queries asking respondents to self-report past voting history? (Drop me an e-mail if you'd like.)

This was Newt Gingrich's "bye" month, but through longitudinal analysis we can know where his voters went, and the results are not all that far off from the baseline: Giuliani 29%, Allen 21%, Barbour and Romney 11% apiece.

August undecideds broke heavily for Giuliani over Allen, 35% to 14%, with 28% remaining unsure.

Tagging the Vote

The tagging system provided a veritable treasure trove of data, enabling us to build a very finely grained view of the candidates' support bases. To that end, I've set up a special page where you can sort the popular tags by candidate.

Among conservatives (4,806 tags), Giuliani leads by 3.9%. Among pro-lifers, it's Allen by 4%. Concern about illegal immigration seems to cross cut all segments of the party, since the results for this tag roughly mirror the overall poll results.

Fiscal conservatives and business conservatives lend Giuliani strong support, with even higher support among those concerned about spending. His numbers are through the roof with those who identify the war on terror as a top issue, though they're somewhat lower with those who frame the issue more broadly as "national security" or "strong defense." His lowest numbers tend to come with pro-lifers and religious conservatives – though roughly one in five back the former New York City Mayor (22% of pro-lifers and 19.4% of evangelicals).

A priori disparagement of Giuliani's support among social conservatives is rife in comment sections, even as America's Mayor continues to win at the digital ballot box. Hard numbers would not seem to support their view. But in the tags, you can find strong arguments for both sides. Why does Giuliani continue to do well? Though conservatives and pro-lifers are far more numerous in the sample, their support is divided among many candidates, and compared with moderates, they are not as adamant about nominating one of their own. Even among the most hardcore conservatives, a sizeable contingent, about 25%, chooses Giuliani. Right now, against a divided field, the battle for pro-life conservatives is effectively a draw, and with Instapundit-reading libertarians supplying the Giuliani margin of victory.

There's also the question of intensity. 80% of the moderate, pro-choice subgroups want one of the moderate candidates, while only about 60% of pro-life, social conservatives support one of the conservative candidates. The question then becomes if Rudy can survive a late-primary two man race, losing the pro-lifers 60-40 but winning everyone else 80-20. The tags indicate it would be close – and it bears repeating that conservatism is more than just social conservatism. Generic conservative taggers are split right down the middle on a conservative vs. moderate nominee. Bottom line: it'll be a nailbiter. It (gasp) might be too early to speculate as to who'd come out ahead.

All of this could be rendered moot by demographics. Taggers were more apt to identify their affiliation in the conservative family than list demographic attributes. If this tentative indication of a sizeable gender gap is reliable – and we know the blogosphere tends to be male-dominated – then it's a whole new ballgame.

By State

The state-by-state breakdowns didn't seem to change much, so I don't feel the need to cover them in as much detail as last time. Besides, I find it's more fun to obsessively sort on this dynamic table.

The early states:

Iowa: Giuliani 33.8%, Allen 11.8%, McCain 9.6%, Romney 8.8%, Tancredo 8.1%
New Hampshire: Giuliani 39.0%, Allen 22.9%, Romney 12.4%, Tancredo 5.7%
South Carolina: Giuliani 28.6%, Allen 23.4%, Romney 8.9%, Barbour 5.1%

Giuliani: Dominates in NY/NJ/CT home base – 48.5%, 46.8%, 42.8%. Luckily for him, NH is his 5th strongest state. Runs strong in CA (36.7%) and PA (36.0%), and runs slightly better than average in large Southern states – NC (37.1%), FL (35.3%), and TX (34.7%) – while faring poorly in smaller ones, SC (28.6%) and AL (27.6%) being two without their favorite son candidates.

Allen: Allen's strong appeal to the border states was noted last time, and he's had some breakthroughs in Deep South (flip side of the Giuliani coin in SC, AL) – but he only wins one "primary" this time (VA, with 48.0%). NH is his 7th strongest state, showing the sophistication of Granite Staters honing in on the supposed frontrunners.

Romney: Sole primary win is in UT, though by a less decisive vote – 39.4%. He runs second in MA with 23.1%; his appeal is distinctly bi-regional: New England plus the West, with some surprising numbers in WI (13.5%) and WV (12.3%). His lowest numbers tend to come in the South.

Tancredo: Posts some big numbers in his Western home base and a few others that defy categorization. This might be a repeat of the Gingrich phenomenon from last time, where the farther you get from the D.C. Beltway, the more support he gets.

McCain: Arguably McCain the most consistent support base of all of them. There's a reason his PAC web site says "America's Senator" – Arizona is his 27th best state. He doesn't come close to winning any states, with 13.8% being his best performance (in Hawaii). His top ten is again dominated mostly by deep Blue states (DC is his 4th strongest). Looking at the map, his strongholds do seem to have a northern, Yankee tinge to them, encompassing New England and the Pacific Northwest.

I miss anything? You've got the tools. Sound off and tell me where I'm wrong. ]]> http://www.patrickruffini.com/archives/2005/10/tag_the_vote_re_1.php http://www.patrickruffini.com/archives/2005/10/tag_the_vote_re_1.php 2008 Mon, 03 Oct 2005 00:31:16 -0500 So, this morning, I open up my copy of ABC's knowing, name-dropping, self-referential The Note and see that Dick Wadhams had made the quite the catch in George Allen's office. Todd Weiner is going to over to be the Mike Gerson of the Allen Administration the Senator's speechwriter. At the risk of doing a bit of name-dropping of my own, Todd and I first connected as Amazon reviewers. We then became colleagues at AEI, where he made his first splash pondering the effects of the then-impending baseball strike on the 2002 midterm elections. (That prediction didn't work out quite as well as his perfect election call last year.) He comes to the job from Luntz Research, where I interned in '98. I guess you could say our paths have crossed in more ways than one.

Congrats, Todd!

The tagging concept is going over very well, with all pieces of the center-right spectrum represented in one way or another. The Polling Purity Police is probably going to kill me for bringing this up now, but I'd like to see more tagging on demographic attributes: male, female, religion, hispanic, nascar, etc.

Also, this month and last, some asked why they couldn't find their blog in the referrer's list. That's because only the top 20 referrers are displayed, but here's a way around it. Go this link. Then replace the hughhewitt.com part of the URL with the address of your blog, but leave out any www., so it would be yourblog.com or yourblog.blogspot.com. Ditto for the tags. You can "search" for a tag by manipulating the tag= attribute to anything you're interested in, even if it's not on the list.

It's crunch time. Vote.

Last month's GOP primary straw poll got over 17,000 votes (!) and provided reams of state-by-state and blog-by-blog data to chew over. This month's poll has all the features you know and love -- the results by blog referrer, the state data -- plus this twist: you can now "tag" your vote, like you'd tag a blog entry in Technorati or a photo in Flickr. Tired of meaningless poll questions that don't ask about things you really care about? Want to get across what really drives you, and find what others exactly like you think? Then tagging is perfect. If you're a pro-life libertarian concerned about immigration and taxes, just type in: pro-life, libertarian, immigration, taxes. Then see how other self-identified libertarians and pro-lifers voted. (Though it's an unscientific poll, could tagging revolutionize how traditional polling is done? Could be.)

I've modified the candidate list slightly to get a sense of what impact these changes might have on a real primary. Newt Gingrich is given a bye in this poll, with two notable additions to the big ballot: Tim Pawlenty and Haley Barbour. (I'll be monitoring what a sample of Newt supporters do this time.) Mark Sanford is added as a fantasy candidate, as he has said he won't run.

Here are last month's results. Let's see if we can beat the overall total. This poll is completely unscientific. Use of these results for anything other than their entertainment value or while operating heavy machinery may result in severe bodily harm.

Main Ballot: George Allen Haley Barbour Sam Brownback Bill Frist Rudy Giuliani Chuck Hagel Mike Huckabee John McCain Tim Pawlenty George Pataki Mitt Romney Tom Tancredo

Fantasy Candidates: Now, imagine a new race with ALL the regular candidates PLUS these fantasy candidates. How would you vote? You can still choose your main ballot pick by voting "Keep My Vote the Same." Keep My Vote the Same Jeb Bush Dick Cheney Condoleezza Rice Mark Sanford Fred Thompson Select Your State: AL AK AZ AR CA CO CT DE DC FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MD MA MI MN MS MO MT NE NV NH NJ NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VT VA WA WV WI WY ">

Tag the Vote: Pick a few issues or labels that describe you politically and enter them separated by commas. You'll see how everyone like you voted. Examples: conservative, pro-life, pro-immigration OR moderate, pro-choice, illegal immigration

Results.]]> http://www.patrickruffini.com/archives/2005/09/september_straw.php http://www.patrickruffini.com/archives/2005/09/september_straw.php 2008 Tue, 27 Sep 2005 00:00:35 -0500 On its website, The Washington Post has embraced the idea of corrections-in-context. When it screws up, it not only edits or deletes the offending passages from its online version, but it posts a notice atop the article telling you what's changed (see example).

For all its nods in the direction of "transparency" and "accountability," MSM has yet to come up with a way to properly acknowledge blogstorms surrounding out-and-out spin that may fall short of needing a correction (though not in the example that I'm about to give that's gripping the blogosphere as we speak).

From WaPo's "novice protester" story:

Because of that sharp focus, they will be joined by novice protesters such as Patrice Cuddy, 56. Interviewed by phone yesterday, the former public school teacher in Olathe, Kan., said she had to pull off her gardening gloves each time a neighbor interrupted her yardwork to ask about joining the bus she had chartered to go to the nation's capital.

Now, Matt Rustler does some real reporting on the matter:

But it turns out that Patrice Cuddy is also known as "J. Patrice Cuddy-Lamoree (see here and here), and has been helping organize antiwar protests from the beginning. Here's the Internet Archive of a website that Patrice edits, Wyeyed ("Wide-Eyed"), containing many photos from the February 15, 2003 anti-war rally of United for Peace and Justice, in New York City.  No word on whether Patrice herself took those photos, but she says openly, on her blog at Greater Kansas City Democracy for America: "I have been in the streets since the beginning of this war . . . " And she advises her readers at Kansas City IndyMedia (where she has been posting since at least February of '03) : "If you ever get an opportunity to go to one of these big rallies, DO IT! A Total rave thing without the drugs and alcohol." She once tried to march in a local St. Patrick's Day parade as an "Elf for Peace," carrying "PEACE IS GREEN signs decorated with shamrocks."

"Novice" protestor? Not hardly.

To WaPo's credit, you can access the blog back-and-forth via a little Technorati bug they have in the sidebar of all their articles. But useful widgetry is no substitute for real accountability. The error is egregious enough to merit a correction atop the article (we're still waiting) -- but even if it weren't, the Washington Post still needs to acknowledge -- within the piece -- the citizen journalists who challenged the article. If MSM wants to engage the blogosphere and instill accountability, it needs to streal a page from its corrections editors and do so in context, not in ghettoized features or segments seen by a fraction of those misled by the initial narrative or storyline. This has been my problem from Day One with how the MSM spotlights the blogosphere. The CBS Public Eye blog is a nice touch, but it only reaches a fraction of the CBS Evening News' total viewership.

If MSM really wanted to be transparent (and get a nice traffic bump to boot), they'd arrange for weekly (or daily!) conference calls where bloggers and media critics could question editors and reporters on their coverage that day and put them up as podcasts. The NYT call could be at 10, the WaPo call at 11... Because of the fast-moving news cycle, reporters almost never respond to serious criticism, except on their own terms (whatever blog tidbits they choose to write up in cutesy Sunday or Style section pieces) or if pinned down by Hugh on the radio. We're fast moving into an environment where if Glenn Reynolds calls out Aaron Brown, Brown can't afford not to respond on the air, the next night, in a one-on-one debate with Reynolds. Every week, Brian Williams should pick out his most serious critic that week and have a five minute back-and-forth on the Nightly News. If MSM is going to do "storytelling" they need to stop pretending that they're not part of the story; if they claim to stand for scrutiny and accountability, they need to embrace it in themselves on air, not just on the Web; if they cop to being "skeptical" but not biased, they need to be skeptical of ANSWER; and if they want to be seen as credible again, they need to be doing rapid response.

The blog activism space is really maturing on the right, and I have a feeling 2006 will be a tipping point, as key Senate and Governor's campaigns embrace the medium, each serving as a lab for online best practices.