April 26, 2006
4/26: Bizarro World
Up is down, left is right, day is night ... that's what the blogosphere has been like lately. GOPers are questioning oil company tax breaks and calling for FTC investigations into price gouging while Dems are calling for ... tax cuts!?!? Then we learn that Dems outraised GOPers on Wall Street last year. Luckily both sides still know where they stand when it comes to ex-CIA analyst Mary McCarthy and new WH press Sec. Tony Snow.
GAS I: GOP Wants To Raise Your Taxes ...
Righty bloggers weren't crazy about the preview of Pres. Bush's 4/25 energy speech in front of the Renewable Fuels Association, and they were equally displeased with the speech itself. Instapundit: "I heard part of Bush's speech in the car, and the part I heard didn't impress me much. ...Ethanol's okay, though he talked mostly about ethanol from corn and I don't see much future in that. ...we haven't had enough investment in additional capacity, but news reports and political sloganizing about "record high" gas prices are mostly evidence of sensationalism and innumeracy."
Many on the right are still smarting about Bush's focus on price gouging. Knowledge Problem: "The outright demagoguery from DC is disgusting but not surprising. More FTC studies of "price gouging", more threats of "windfall profits" taxes, more ranting and puffery. Ladies and gentlemen (and I use that moniker to be polite, not truthful) of Congress, look within yourselves if you want a true explanation for the increase in gasoline prices this spring beyond their previous spring increases." Texas Rainmaker: "Can someone please remind President Bush, Speaker Hastert and Majority Leader Frist that we Americans elected a Republican majority so that we wouldn't have to live in a Democrat America. It's beginning to look more and more like we only have one political party in Washington-- and it's not one I really care for." Chequer-Board: "In 2000, with gas prices on the increase, the Clinton Administration decided to tap the Strategic Petroleum Oil Reserves in an effort to make it appear that government could implement some kind of long term fix to the "problem" of increased prices... Back in 2000, Republicans rightly criticized this move. Today...they imitate it." Poliblogger: "I am hardly happy about the gas prices, but my word, have we not been down this road before? Every time prices soar, politicians feel the need to "do something" (or at least appear to look like they are doing something) to bring the price down. Has there ever been proof of serious price gouging in one of these stories? I don't think so, yet every time we hit a high price, the price gouge business comes out."
Powerline links to a National Association of Manufacturers piece suggesting price gouging is not a good explanation. Meanwhile, Sundries Shack thinks he has a solution: "You know what's not in any one of those plans? More gasoline. Simple economics says that the price of anything is dependent on two things: how hard it is to get and how much people want it. ...So what are we to do? Simple. Get more oil. Drill for it, build new refineries to handle the increase, and get it into the domestic market."
Lefty bloggers were quick to mock, especially the president's call for repealing certain energy company tax breaks. Under a header, "Tax Breaks for Big Oil: Bush Was For it Before He Was Against It" TPM Muckracker speculates: "It's not clear just which "unnecessary tax breaks" in particular he's talking about repealing, but he'll be hard pressed to find any that he himself didn't sign into law. ...The only measure that he mentions specifically here, the "use of taxpayer money to subsidize energy research into deep water drilling," refers to former Majority Leader Tom DeLay's pet project, a $1.55 billion boondoggle to benefit the Texas Energy Center in Sugar Land." Bob Cesca at Huffington Post also sees a flip-flop: "And then there's this funny thing from the AP: "Bush, in his speech, urged Congress to revoke about $2 billion in tax breaks over 10 years that Congress approved and he signed into law to encourage exploration." Look out! He's going to suspend the tax breaks he and Congress gave them, which in conservative dogma means a tax increase. President George W. Bush is raising taxes!"
Arianna isn't going to be holding her breath on the price gouging investigation: "The president may turn to God when it comes to shaping his foreign policy, but his energy policy is strictly courtesy of the Men Upstairs at Big Oil. Which is why it is beyond comical to watch Moe, Curly, and Larry -- sorry, I mean Bush, Hastert, and Frist -- getting all blue in the face about skyrocketing gas prices, and calling on the Energy and Justice Departments to look into possible market manipulation by oil companies. It's the least believable call for an investigation since O.J. set out to find the real killers."
Think Progress notes a possible inter-administration disagreement, and kosser SusanG, firedoglake, and All Spin Zone also have takes.
GAS II: ... And Dems Want To Cut Them
Lefty bloggers were mostly enthusiastic but also a little but conflicted over reports of a Dem plan to temporarily suspend the federal gas tax. Those unconflicted include: Donklephant, "This is smart thinking by the Dems because it gives quick relief to Jane and John Q Public, while addressing the record profits the oil companies have been posting recently. Take from the super rich and give it back to those who need it;" and State of the Day, "Concrete action that would directly help the American people. This is politically brilliant. "Federal gas tax holiday," even the name works. ...It's politics, it's practical, and I'm pleased." Also impressed: The Carpetbagger Report and The Left Coaster.
Most of the lefty bloggers are happy to have an issue to beat GOPers over the head with, but wish their power had the power to do more. Taylor Marsh: "I'm all for temporary relief, which is part of what Senator Menendez is offering, but this isn't even close to being a long-term solution, but it's all we've got to give. Sure, it's politics, but the Republicans control Congress so we can't do much." Mahablog: "Of course, what we really need to do is get serious about alternate energy sources and put more money into mass transit -- the sort of thing Al Gore was talking about many years ago. But you know how it is -- conservation and solar energy are for sissies. Real men drill."
Democrats.com has their own plan: "Congress should cancel the $20 billion in giveaways to the oil companies included in the 2005 Energy Bill, and use that money instead to offer a tax credit to car owners of $100 for each MPG saved by trading in their current car for a more fuel-efficient car. Car owners would love this idea because they would save money immediately. It would quickly reduce demand for gasoline so the price could come down for everyone. And we would all feel like we were doing something concrete to reduce our dependence on middle east oil - and global warming. In addition, it would show voters that the Democratic Party is the real party of ideas. Congressional Democrats, are you listening?" Middle Earth Journal doesn't think GOPers are completely to blame.
Righty bloggers feel the world is turned upside down. Outside the Beltway: "Republicans are reacting to public outrage over high gasoline prices by dusting off the Carter-era "windfall profits" idea: Meanwhile the Democrats are reportedly considering a Reaganesque policy of cutting gas taxes. Something seems wrong about this picture but I can't quite put my finger on it."
Other righties want to call the Dems' bluff and raise. A Blog for All: "That's 18.4 cents per gallon. Sounds great. But why make that change temporary? If you believe the costs of taxes are too great for the average consumer to bear, make the cut permanent and make the changes you suggest permanent. Have the courage of the convictions. Temporary solutions are not solutions but pandering. TKS at NRO: "Please take this idea (eliminating the federal tax on gas and diesel for sixty days) and run with it. Take the support of Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey and argue that this is bipartisan and make the Democrats vote for or against temporary tax relief for American drivers. If everyone votes for it, then great. Let the Democrats argue that they thought of it first. All the voters will remember in November is that gas prices dropped 18 cents a gallon (unleaded) and 24 cents a gallon (leaded) and that a GOP Congress and a GOP president got it done."
SNOW: Tony Snow Has A Gigantic Head
Whether by accident or design, the WH managed to stretch the coronation of Tony Snow as new WH Press Sec. into a two-day story. Righties had the most to say on the matter:
- Media Blog at NRO: "The good news: Howard Kurtz is reporting that he only agreed to take the job "after top officials assured him that he would be not just a spokesman but an active participant in administration policy debates." Who knows? Maybe this will mean more sensible policies from the White House."
- Radio Equalizer: "Given his substantial background in politics and broadcasting, it's hard to imagine a better possible pick. That may be what has Democrats so up in arms over his selection."
- Ed Driscoll thinks Snow will: "(a) shake up the White House press corps again and (b) make them look even more like highly-partisan fools with a lead pipe tone when they react by sticking their claws into Snow and his classic nice guy Teflon delivery."
- Captain's Quarters: "Tony will make a more forceful and eloquent spokesman for the administration than either McClellan or even Ari Fleischer, who did an excellent job in the first term. ...Tony knows how to talk extemporaneously and engage in debate on a moment's notice. It would be hard to imagine Tony being at a loss for words or failing to present the best case for any position in which he believes."
- California Conservative: "Let's also not underestimate the value of having Karl Rove totally committed to sharpening the differences between Republicans and Democrats. I suspect that the Rove/Snow team will sharpen things a lot and they'll go on the offensive on a daily basis. If they do that, the GOP base will get charged, which will make a positive difference in a lot of races nationwide."
- Suitably Flip: "Keith Olberman will tear his hair out rip his own head off over this. Of course Tony Snow's White House credentials are unquestionable...but given his strongly-entrenched Fox identity amassed over the entire decade of the channel's existence, I suspect the carping about overt and manifest ties between the GOP/the Bush administration and the Fox News Channel is about to reach an unholy volume."
- Flopping Aces: "Just awesome news! This is exactly what the WH needs right now."
- Powerline: "His congeniality and media background will buy him some popularity with the reporters who cover the White House. But essentially all of them are partisan Democrats, so that good will will last for about a week. What the White House really needs is someone who can push back aggressively against the liberal tilt of the media, and make the administration's case directly to the people. Tony Snow is equipped to do this."
The Political Animal doesn't see what the WH sees in the guy and The Democratic Daily thinks this will only blur the line between WH propaganda and Fox News
Media Matters thinks Snow is a big liar and Think Progress has a round up of Snow digs at his new employer.
This Ain't Your Daddy's... has their own theory on why Snow was chosen. Hint: size matters.
McCARTHY: She's Got Legs?
Seemingly content with McCarthy's Newsweek denial, Lefty bloggers have mostly moved onto other issues. The Washington Note argues that there's nothing to the story since McCarthy has only admitted to "contacts" with reporters which are extremely common in the intelligence community.AMERICAblog just sees another example of WH hypocrisy while TalkLeft calls it a double standard.
Righty bloggers still see plenty of meat on the bone. Ace of Spades is unfazed by McCarthy's denials of being the source: "It could be that she's guilty of the "confirmation only" thing that Deep Throat did in All the President's Men. Perhaps she didn't volunteer information (which came from another source), but she did either confirm or deny that information to Priest-- which is still a fireable, and prosecutable, offense."
Protein Wisdom addresses those that think McCarthy's actions were justified: "Evidently, an emerging trial balloon being floated by some on the left is that confidentiality itself is the problem: in short, a government that has something to "hide" is a government that must necessarily be engaging in illegal and immoral activities. Therefore, it is the duty of national security officers and employees to leak secrets in order to undermine the war in Iraq. ...The problem is, nearly 60 million Americans voted for George Bush, not Daniel Ellsberg or Mary McCarthy."
Mark Levin, My Pet Jawa, and Rightwing Nuthouse all see McCarthy as just the tip of an unprincipled Dem foreign policy establishment. Mind in the Qatar provides them with a Swiftboat-Style matrix connecting all the Dem players involved. Michelle Malkin weighs in with videoblog at Hot Air.
Righties are also still unhappy with the MSM's coverage, especially the Washington Post. Mark Levin doesn't like the smell of it: "There's something unseemly about a newspaper reporting about a story of which it is a significant part. The Washington Post not only does this here but also spins the news of its source's firing as an unprecedented administrative act."
At the Corner Andy McCarthy thinks the Washington Post should get its story straight: "On Saturday, the Post published a story by Katherine Shrader of the Associated Press regarding the CIA's firing of intelligence officer Mary O. McCarthy. That story contained the following assertions, which certainly grabbed my attention (italics are mine): The official said the CIA officer had provided information that contributed to a Washington Post story last year disclosing secret U.S. prisons in Eastern Europe. Now today the Post has published an aggressive account strongly suggesting that Mary McCarthy is not a black-sites source. If McCarthy is not a black-sites source, the Post, better than anyone else, knows that. How in good conscience do they run a story so strongly identifying her as the source (in addition to other stories that transparently connected McCarthy's termination to the black-sites reporting even if they didn't directly cite McCarthy as the source)?" Allahpundit at Hot Air has similar questions.
Righty bloggers were also quick to jump over Dafna Lizner's on-line Washington Post damage control. Media Blog at NRO picked out a Lizner lament about the Post's failure to identify McCarthy's political leanings and retorted: "Talk about a double standard. A government employee donates a lot of money to Kerry and other Democratic fundraisers, and suddenly we can't question her motives? It's not reasonable? This, coming from the same media that analyzes every step the Bush administration makes with a suspicious and incredulous eye. This, the same media that essentially called the McCarthy leak investigation a witch hunt by the Bush administration. Give me a break, Dafna."
Just One Minute pulled out this exchange:
Ms. Linzer-You said earlier "we don't know exactly what was said and to whom ". That isn't entirely correct. Dana Priest would know the nature of her contacts with McCarthy, and Dana Priest is a Washington Post reporter. Why can't she just tell us? After all, she seems to feel comfortable exposing secrets. What are the ethics on this?
Dafna Linzer: Hi, you're up late. The compact reporters enter into with sources for information that they wouldn't get otherwise is often one of confidentiality, especially on issues of national security. That is the pact that Dana entered into with her sources.
and then commented: "But... but... if Ms. McCarthy was *not* a source for Dana Priest, then there is no compact, yes? Why can't Ms. Priest simply say, "Although I will never discuss my sources, I will occasionally discuss my non-sources; in this case, Mary McCarthy was not a source to me in my Pulitzer Prize winning secret prison reporting."
ELECTION 06: Strange Bedfellows?
Lefty bloggers were uncomfortably pleased with news from Bloomberg that Dems out raised GOPers on Wall Street last year. MyDD: "According to the Center for Responsive Politics, even the financial industry has had it with the Republican Party. ...I can't say I'm 100% thrilled with this development, though. For one thing, it's not as if the financial industry has been a force for progressive change in America. To say that their money is less than clean would be a vast understatement. And it's also not as if the majority of this money is going to the Paul Wellstones of the Democratic Party. According to the article, "the two most successful fund-raisers in 2005 on Wall Street" were Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton."
Other lefty bloggers welcomed the news as a sure sign that the GOP sky was falling. State of the Day: "When Wall Street starts to hand the Democrats cash the tide may really be turning. ...I'm not too thrilled with Wall Street or their cash, however the mere fact that the folks with the money are turning away from the GOP bodes well for the Democrats in November. The Bush administration's accountability moment may really be upon us." Skimble: "When leading wealth manager Merrill Lynch goes Dem, political dominance is in play: Why would Wall Street have a change of heart? Because Bush policies are bad for all business, even big business. ...And yet all these Wall Street donation-bets are hedged if not schizophrenic in their inconsistency. Morgan Stanley's CEO gave to Bush, Santorum, and (ahem) Hillary Clinton. Wall Street loves winners -- and that's why they're switching horses." Middle Earth Journal: "Wall Street wants change and they are putting up money to get it. The oligarchs are beginning to realize that a madman in the White House is bad for business."
IMMIGRATION: Your Invitation Was Lost In The Mail
Righty bloggers were not too happy about reports on a 4/25 WH meeting on immigration. Michelle Malkin cries amnesty: "Contact the White House. Send a message: No amnesty. Clean our own house first. The looming White House open-borders deal is the dictionary definition of amnesty."
Captain's Quarters notes that Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) didn't get invites: "It appears that the White House wants to build consensus through ignoring those who have a different perspective on immigration and pretending that they don't exist. The Bush administration is about to go squishy on a national-security issue, and unlike the overblown Dubai ports deal, this one actually has real security implications for the US."
Nobody else is happy either. Rightwing Nuthouse: "Whatever credit Bush is going to get from his corporate supporters and the US Chamber of Commerce will be lost in an avalanche of criticism from the center-right." Cassandra: "I am joining the chorus of those who oppose an amnesty deal for illegal immigrants. Michelle Malkin and the Washington Times post the story of a White House deal that would create amnesty without using the actual word.Hillary Clinton is celebrating this news because this issue gives her a big wedge to capture some red states in 2008. Hillary foresaw this opportunity in November of 2004. But the Republicans apparently can not see that far ahead." Church and State: "This must be a very sticky situation for the tough reputed Bill Frist to support such a bill. We could deport all 12 million at gun point, or we can let them all stay, putting them on a path to citizenship, or we can do a combination of both. The problem lies in where is the cutoff for deportation. It's an ugly sounding word, but it's not as bad as prison or execution. Do we deport those who have been here 2 years or less? Or 4 years or less? Or 6 years or less?"
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Gasometer
Not quite as informative as those county-by-county red v. blue voting maps, but still interesting: Gasbuddy.com presents a prices by county national map.
LEST WE FORGET: Sorry Charlie
We haven't figured out who is behind this site yet, but we do know some people in FL are not very happy.
Posted by Conn Carroll at April 26, 2006 12:27 PM
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
