By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 27, 2006; 7:40 AM

Usually, bloggers get hammered for what they say. These days, liberal bloggers are being denounced for what they aren't saying.

As I've noted before, most of the lefty blogs are avoiding the Middle East war. Some of those puzzled by the relative silence have suggested that these bloggers don't want to wade into this particular crossfire. Some of the bloggers have noted that they have no particular expertise on the subject.

Now the debate has taken a new turn, with the accusation that the liberals are really just hiding their anti-Israel views. I have no idea whether this is true or not--the bloggers are not exactly reticent on other subjects--and there are some liberal commentators who have certainly not shied away from criticizing Israel.

Still, conservatives are ramping up the argument that there's a game of camouflage going on, and the back-and-forth is revealing.

David Adesnik at Oxblog declares:

"Clearly, something else besides complexity is preventing liberal bloggers from writing about Israel. I would suggest that there is a part of the online left which is so viciously anti-Israel that moderates have been intimidated into silence. Let's hope that this kind of viciousness never migrates off line, where it might threaten bipartisan support for Israel."

At the liberal TPM Cafe, Matthew Yglesias dismisses that charge, but then concedes some of Adesnik's points:

"I have to say that David Adesnik's account of why a number of major liberal bloggers have eerily silent on the Israel-Lebanon war strikes me as a bit absurd. He thinks the problem is that extreme anti-Israel voices on the interweb have intimidated more moderate folks out of expressing their more-supportive-of-Israeli-policy views which he imagines are akin to the lockstep support of Israeli policy that one hears from Democratic Party elected officials. I can't say for certain since I don't read minds, but I'm almost positive this is false.

"Suffice it to say that I know lots of liberals and talk to them. The number of rank-and-file liberal people who agree with the sorts of things Democrats have been saying about this is vanishingly small. And, indeed, what Israel is doing is certainly incompatible with the general liberal outlook on use of force questions. The Democrats aren't expressing a mainstream liberal view of the situation, they bowing to pressure from the Lobby That Must Not Be Named. If we heard more from liberal bloggers, we'd be hearing commentary that ranged from somewhat critical to very critical. So why don't we hear more?

"Two things, I think. For one thing, a lot of the liberal blogosphere is primarily interested in partisanship rather than robust ideological conflict. Support for Israel isn't a partisan issue in American politics, and liberals (like me) who criticize America's Israel policy are ginning up trouble for the Democratic coalition. So you're not going to see DailyKos and blogs with a similar mentality making a big deal out of this. The other thing is that David's right to see an intimidation factor at work. But annoying and even maddening as hard-core Israel-bashers may be, there's nothing especially intimidating about a group of powerless and marginal email-senders and comment-writers. Israel's hard-core supporters in the United States, by contrast, are extremely powerful and in the habit of mounting broad-brush smear campaigns against people they dislike."

In the Weekly Standard, Dean Barnett does a content analysis of the most popular liberal blog:

"When the bombs began to fall in the Middle East, the Daily Kos had a problem. And the Daily Kos's problem could soon be the Democratic party's problem . . .

"Perhaps sensing that this issue could highlight just how far removed the Kos community is from the American mainstream, [Markos] Moulitsas and his other front-page bloggers have opted to ignore Israel's war. Combined, the half dozen front-pagers have written exactly one post on the subject. And that post, authored by Moulitsas, simply declared that he wouldn't write anything further on the subject. So while the most important story of the year develops, the nation's leading progressive blog has chosen to focus on the Indiana second district House race between Chris Chocola and Joe Donnelly. Nothing wrong with that; it's their prerogative to blog about whatever they like.

"But inside the Kos diaries, it's been a different story. The conversation in the diaries has been overwhelmingly anti-Israel--and potentially disastrous for the Democratic party.

"One diarist labeled Israel 'a destabilizing force in the region' and saw 'no difference between Iran's support of Hezbollah and Hamas in the form of finances and even arms and The United States' financial support of Israel.' Before modifying this diary into a more moderate form, the author opened his essay with the declaration, 'Israel is showing the entire world why the Iranian President was absolutely right to suggest that Israel cease being a sovereign state as is.'

"Echoing the themes of moral equivalence and hostility towards the Jewish state, another diarist observed that, 'War is nothing but terrorist attacks. Call it what you will, whatever rhetoric you want to use . . . when it comes down to it, that's all it is. Israel committed terrorism today. And we helped to fund that terrorism.'"

The problem with this analysis is that the views of a few people who write in to Kos (I don't know how it's decided who gets on the diary page) represent . . . well, mainly themselves. It's like characterizing a radio show by a few of the loons who call in. And getting from these few folks to a problem for the Democratic Party seems like a big stretch.

Atrios explains his lack of posting this way:

"I've said nothing about war in Lebanon or Ethiopia because I have nothing to add, and also because -- as you may or may not be aware -- the United States is actually involved in a hugely bloody war right now, and this is more of a pressing concern to me personally."

Andrew Sullivan is dismissive:

"Are lefties unable to grapple with complex regional wars? Nah. They're just wimping out."

One liberal voice, The Nation , isn't pulling any punches:

"It makes no sense for Israel to destroy the civil infrastructure of the Palestinians and of Lebanon in response to the kidnapping of its soldiers, or to further weaken the capacity of the governments of Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority while at the same trying to hold them accountable for the actions of groups and militias they cannot reasonably control. This collective punishment of the Palestinian and Lebanese people is not only inhumane and should be condemned but also leads to more radicalization and to more chaos."

Kevin Drum , who initially opted out of the Mideast debate in his Washington Monthly blog, says of the failed cease-fire talks:

"Of course, it's increasingly obvious that we don't want to get anything done. The Rome conference is pretty clearly not designed to accomplish anything serious, and in the meantime Israel is gearing up for a long-term occupation of Lebanon -- I'd bet on years myself, not weeks or months. It's hard to think of a worse outcome for Israel, the Middle East, or the world, but that's what we're getting."

Attention: We have some new polls, with the NYT and WSJ both showing Bush blipping up 2 points to 39 percent.

"Americans are overwhelmingly pessimistic about the state of affairs in the Middle East, with majorities doubtful there will ever be peace between Israel and its neighbors, or that American troops will be able to leave Iraq anytime soon, according to the latest New York Times /CBS News poll.

"A majority said the war between Israel and Hezbollah will lead to a wider war. And while almost half of those polled approved of President Bush's handling of the crisis, a majority said they preferred the United States leave it to others to resolve.

"Over all, the poll found a strong isolationist streak in a nation clearly rattled by more than four years of war, underscoring the challenge for Mr. Bush as he tries to maintain public support for his effort to stabilize Iraq and spread democracy through the Middle East."

The Journal: "Americans persist in their bleak assessment of events in Iraq, the state of the U.S. economy, and the job performance of President Bush and Congress, the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows.

"The Journal/NBC poll shows a modest uptick in Mr. Bush's job performance, to 39% from 37% last month, but a 56% majority disapproves Mr. Bush's job performance. Congress fares even worse, with 25% approval and 60% disapproval . . .

"The public's desire for a change in direction represents bad news for the Republican majority. By 48%-38%, voters say they prefer that Democrats win control of Congress this fall; by identical proportions, voters say its time to 'give a new person a chance' in Congress."

Now that Maryland Republican Senate candidate Michael Steele has been outed as the mystery guest at a press lunch where he bashed Bush and the GOP, he's targeting . . . Dana Milbank?

"In the fallout from his remarks belittling the Republican Party," says the Baltimore Sun , "Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele went after The Washington Post yesterday, saying his comments had been 'off the record.'

"Steele told WBAL radio that The Post had violated the terms of a 90-minute luncheon meeting Monday with nine reporters at a Capitol Hill restaurant by being the only news outlet, initially, to publish a story about what was said there."

Well, guess what? Milbank has actual proof that Steele is wrong.

"'It's the usual "shoot the messenger,"' Milbank, who writes the paper's Washington Sketch column, said yesterday evening. 'But we followed the ground rules scrupulously.'

"Milbank said Steele's press secretary, Doug Heye, was aware of which quotes he planned to use. Milbank forwarded to The Sun an e-mail he received after the luncheon from Heye, offering to 'sign off' on the quotes. 'I can hold off on signing off for other press for the time being, as well,' Heye volunteered, suggesting that he approved of Milbank having a scoop on the story."

Dick Polman says of Steele:

"If indeed his candidacy is in trouble -- he's trailing the two most viable Democrats in the polls -- that would be further proof that this year's oft-repeated story line about 'the rise of the black Republicans' is a crock.

"I have been repeatedly tempted this year to write 'the rise of' story, but whenever I gear up, I ultimately shut down, having digested the latest evidence -- that Lynn Swann's gubernatorial candidacy in Pennsylvania peaked the day he announced; that Ken Blackwell's gubernatorial candidacy in Ohio is threatening to tank (he's now down by 20 points); and, now again, that Michael Steele might be lamenting his fate as a carrier of Bush baggage." ( Might be because Steele had not yet confirmed at the time of Polman's Philly Inquirer post.)

Did the nation's television writers dis Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes at their Pasadena convention? The Miami Herald says:

"About two-thirds of the 150 critics left the room before Ailes took the stage, several of them openly voicing their scorn for what they say is Fox News' conservative spin."

But in a letter to Romenesko, Peter Carlin of the Portland Oregonian objects: "I have no idea what made him think that two-thirds of our colleagues left the room before the Fox News session with Roger Ailes. If some reporters left grumbling about FNC's politics they were a distinct minority."

Herald reporter Glenn Garvin stands by his observation: "I certainly heard several derogatory comments about Fox News before the session from critics who did not attend." One person who was there tells me Garvin had it right, which doesn't exactly make the critics look fair and balanced.

By the way, HuffPoster Eric Boehlert says Fox has been a cheerleader for Israel during the Mideast war.

Despite my many years of critiquing the New York Times, apparently I don't know Jack. Because I would never think to assess the paper's television listings , as Slate's Jack Shafer has done:

"The capsules spend 20 words--and usually fewer--to pass informed judgment on movies. Even if you never intend to watch any of the films, the capsules make for good morning reading. Consider this taut kiss-off of The Matrix Revolutions: 'Ferocious machine assault on a battered Zion. Stop frowning, Neo; it's finally over.' Appreciate, if you will, the efficient setup and slam of the 2 Fast 2 Furious capsule: 'Ex-cop and ex-con help sexy customs agent indict money launderer. Two fine performances, both by cars.' And for compression, it's hard to better the clip for the Julie Davis feature Amy's Orgasm. It warns potential viewers away with just four syllables: 'Change the station.'"

It's hard to bore people with 20 words.

Blog Watch

Blogger Patrick Hynes, a New Hampshire political consultant, has been firmly in John McCain's corner lately.

On July 11, Hynes wrote on the Web site Ankle Biting Pundits: "It was only a short time ago that Sen. McCain took a lot of grief for mending fences with the Rev. Jerry Falwell. Anti-McCain politicians, pundits, and bloggers cannot have it both ways: McCain cannot be a finger-in-the-wind liberal and a suck up to the Religious Right."

Two days later, Hynes was biting the ankles of the Arizona senator's critics again: "Sen. McCain's remarks seem to have been taken out of context and misconstrued and then blown way out of proportion."

Jim Geraghty, a National Review Online columnist, raised questions about whether Hynes might be more than just a McCain admirer, and it turns out he was right. Hynes confirmed yesterday that his firm, New Media Strategies, has been hired by McCain's political action committee, Straight Talk America. And Hynes has been working for the PAC for at least a month.

He acknowledged Geraghty's criticism, writing: "You are right, Jim. I ought to have disclosed my relationship with Straight Talk America earlier. The reason I didn't do so is because I was not being paid 'to blog.' I have been a political consultant for fifteen years. That's what I was doing for Straight Talk America: providing political consulting."

Maybe Hynes wasn't being paid "to blog," but he was being paid, and his readers should have known that. He is not the first blogger to go to bat for a candidate without disclosing that he was on the payroll, but that doesn't make the practice any less questionable.