May 31, 2006

5/31: Role Reversal?

However much Dems may have been divided in past elections, unity is the sharpest contrast between left and right bloggers today. Following an AP story critical of Senate Min. Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) lefty bloggers not only dismissed the charges, but quickly turned their gun on the AP. Lefties also roundly condemned a 5/30 SCOTUS opinion in the face of deafening righty silence. And where there is energy on the right, it is tearing the GOP apart as apparent '08 front-runner Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) takes righty criticism for his pull back from a CA 50 fundraiser.

Lefty reaction to revelations that Senate Min. Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) accepted boxing tickets from the Nevada Athletic Commission is best summed up by this AMERICAblog headline: "Democratic Senator from Nevada attended Nevada event as guest of the state of Nevada along with Nevada constituents. Oh the humanity!" Also along those lines: Ezra Klein at TAPPED, "On Harry Reid and the case of the comp boxing tickets, this is about as fully a non-story as you can imagine." Kos, "At a time when "corruption" literally means the buying of congressmen and legislation with cash, boats, houses, and hookers, we're supposed to get upset because Reid (a former boxer and boxing commissioner in Nevada) got free tickets to a boxing match?"

The MSM quickly became the real story for lefty bloggers. Talking Points Memo thinks AP author John Solomon just like fishing: "If I didn't know better I might think that Solomon was developing something of an Ahab complex with that Great White Whale of the Senate, Harry Reid. Back in February, Solomon produced a lengthy expose on Team Abramoff's alleged efforts to sway Reid to support their Marianas sweatshop clients, without ever mentioning that Reid consistently voted against the Marianas sweatshop owners." AMERICAblog has an even longer Solomon dossier: "AP's John Solomon has a history of writing anti-Democrat hit pieces that don't really hold water: John Solomon's AP story about Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan leaves out key information. ...John Solomon's February AP story attacking Harry Reid was exposed as having unfairly slanted the story by not noting the not-insignificant fact that Harry Reid never took any action on behalf of the folks who AP claims bought him. ...After being shown to have written a sloppy story attacking Harry Reid (point 2 above), AP's John Solomon writes a third story again refusing to include key information favorable to Reid. ...From AMERICAblog last July, 2005 we learn of John Solomon's untrue reporting about Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson."

CNN also comes in for some lumps under the header "CNN Juices AP's Story on Reid" this time from TPMmuckraker: "Here's the second paragraph from the longer version of Solomon's story that ran off the wire: "Reid, D-Nev., took the free seats for Las Vegas fights between 2003 and 2005 as he was pressing legislation to increase government oversight of the sport, including the creation of a federal boxing commission that Nevada's agency feared might usurp its authority." ...And here's the version of that paragraph as edited by CNN: "The Nevada senator took the free seats for Las Vegas fights between 2003 and 2005 from the Nevada Athletic Commission as he pressed legislation to increase federal oversight of boxing, including the creation of a government commission." ...Do you see what's missing? The fact that Reid voted against the party he was allegedly influenced by apparently isn't worthy of mention."

Righty Kung Fu Quip has a handle on his brethren's feelings: "When you start throwing that "culture of corruption" crap around, you ought to be sure you're clean, Harry." California Conservative and A Blog For All also perceive Dem hypocrisy. Captain's Quarters notes that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was at the same fight, but paid for his ticket: "In a further blow to efforts to paint corruption as Republican, two GOP Senators also attended fights with Harry Reid. John McCain insisted on paying for his tickets at the retail value ($1400) while Reid's fellow Nevadan, John Ensign, recused himself from participating in Reid's pending legislation. ...I wrote last year that Democrats would regret their attempts to turn corruption into a partisan campaign issue. That problem relates to power, not party, and corruption affects enough of both parties to require a bipartisan effort to truly contain and end it."

Righty Powerline has a response to RNC senior adviser Matthew Dowd's memo arguing for GOP candidate support for a "comprehensive solution" first reported by On Call (go team!). Powerline attacks the poll and Dowd's conclusions: "First, and obviously, one should not support a bad immigration reform plan regardless of its popularity. ... Second, the poll results don't persuade me that Republican candidates for Congress are doomed unless they accede to the Senate's plan or something similar. Candidates should easily be able to distinguish between the euphemistic "comprehensive reform" posited in the poll questions and the reality of the Senate's Christmas tree bill. ...Third, the poll highlights why, even as a purely political matter, the administration's position is so disappointing to conservatives. Look again at the position that was found to be make 71 percent of voters more likely to support a candidate. It says nothing about a path to citizenship -- rather it encompasses only enforcement and a restrictive temporary worker program. That is the perfect center-right position. But that's not the president's position."

On the other hand righty Rich Lowry at The Corner likes what he's hearing from the Senate: "We're getting preliminary indications that there might be support for a phased-in approach from Senate Republican conferees, and not just Cornyn and Kyl. The idea would be first to have benchmarks for success in interior and border enforcement, and then move on to a much more limited amnesty and possibly a guest-workers program. If Republicans could forge a compromise around this approach, it would be a big deal. It would leave it to Democrats to explain why they oppose-as they probably would-tougher enforcement, and possibly turn the politics of the issue around. Alternatively, if enough Democrats supported it, Republicans could pass sensible legislation addressing an important national issue, which could only help them."

Righty PoliPundit also sees possible GOP political gain from the immigration battle in Nov.: "S. 2611 is not a Republican Bill and deserves to be rightly known as the "Democrat Immigration Reform Bill." That Bill is a Democrat albatros and Little Debbie (Stabenow) ran from it because she knew what it was politically. Republicans need to hang the "Democrat Immigration Reform Bill" around the necks of democrats in the fall. A majority of Republicans are working against against this plan and the public needs to know that so they are not punished by voters." And PoliPundit also points to races where immigration already played a deciding factor: "The issue of immigration has already proven decisive in at least two Republican primaries this year:1. In Nebraska, enormously popular Rep. Tom Osborne lost the Republican primary for governor, in large part because he supports in-state tuition at state colleges for the children of illegal invaders. 2. In California, in the race to replace disgraced Republican Congressman Randy Duke Cunningham, Brian Bilbray brushed aside an entire field of Republican challengers by focusing almost exclusively on illegal immigration. Bilbray is a former lobbyist for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a group of good guys if there ever was one.

Right Wing News has a post titled "22 Problems With The Senate's Illegal Immigration Bill" that includes: "3) The National Guard Gimmick...17) Favoring Ditch Diggers Over Scientists...19) The Illegal Alien Tax Amnesty"

Powerline describes Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) as "one of the most new-media savvy politicians in Washington" and highlights "a nice video that includes footage shot at the border by the Minutemen and a conversation between Congressman Kingston and the Minutemen's spokeswoman."

And in the most important immigration debate development of the day Michelle Malkin notes that the cheesesteak crowd is on her side: "If you know Philadelphia, you know Geno's. Best cheesesteaks in the world. Reader Willie S. sends word via the Philly Inquirer that Joey Vento, the grandson of Italian-born immigrants who owns Geno's, is taking a stand for assimilation and against illegal immigration. The Inquirer does its best to knock down Vento, but his blunt Philly style overrides the paper's wishy-washy open-borders slant."

Observer Taegan Goddard reports from The Huffington Post: "If email from Political Wire readers is a reliable indicator, it's safe to say that inside the Beltway chatter about Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) political future has increased dramatically in recent weeks. Many Democratic powerbrokers now hope the freshman senator will enter the presidential race as his many fans have hoped. Adding fuel to the speculation: 'The Audacity of Hope,' Obama's second book, is due out this fall. His first book, an autobiography, was a New York Times bestseller."

Lefty DailyKos is an Obama fan, but thinks patience is called for: "Obama will have to give a definitive answer to his plans for 2008. Otherwise, he's going to get hounded to death. The rumors are really flying fast and furious. I would guess his smart play would be to stay out, run for Illinois governor in 2010, and then look at the White House in 2012 or 2016. I say he stays out unless Hillary decides not to run. If Hillary drops out (a very real possibility), we'll see a free-for-all on the Democratic side."

Bloggers on all sides picked up on a Guardianstory reporting ex-VP Al Gore's statement at An Inconvenient Truth screening describing the Bush administration as "a renegade band of rightwing extremists." Righties labeled Gore a traitor or (gasp!) a "Kos Diarist."

Lefties couldn't agree with Gore more and the story provided another opportunity for speculation. TalkLeft: "Al Gore told the Guardian the Bush administration is a band of right-wing extremists. He also repeated his now familiar refrain that he is a "recovering politician." Yet when the Guardian pressed him on a 2008 run, he gave non-definitive denials. My prediction remains that he won't run. Message to Al Gore: Jump in or give a final signal you are out. The time is now. Whomever the Democratic candidate will be in 2008 needs to muster all of our support at the earliest possible moment. We can't provide that that so long as we are waiting on you. A simple yay or nay will do it."

Ezra Klein at TAPPED adds: "To be clear, I don't think Gore will run -- I'd put the odds at 60:40 against. What makes divining his political intentions so frustrating is that Gore has, comparatively speaking, all the time in the world. It used to be that fundraising required a lot of rich buddies, a heap o' travel, and endless chicken dinners. Now, Gore could enter shortly before Iowa and, if the base was sufficiently dissatisfied, become financially competitive in a matter of hours. And he wouldn't have to lift a finger for infrastructure building until he sent out that press release. Meanwhile, Gore is playing the reluctant savior card just right. The more desperate liberals are for him to swoop into the election, the less interest he needs to show in doing so. With no alternate bigfoots on the horizon (save maybe Obama), there's no other game in town for dissatisfied liberals."

Righty Captain's Quarters doesn't think Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) played his ex-Rep Brian Bilbray (R-CA) fundraiser cancellation as well as he could have: "If a candidate for the presidency had an ambivalent relationship with his party, would he (a) go out of his way to show loyalty to the party by appearing on behalf of its candidates for lower office even when the two disagree on one issue, or (b) stiff the candidate by backing out of a promised appearance over said disagreement? If you answered (a), you're one step ahead of John McCain."

Captain's Quarters offers an update casting doubt on the source of the cancellation: "A CQ source in San Diego's North Coast says that the district would not have reacted well to a McCain visit, and that perhaps Bilbray responded to pressure within the local GOP to distance himself from the Senator. Well, maybe, but it was the McCain people who canceled the appearance, and considering his reputation as a reformer, a McCain appearance in Duke Cunningham's district in the aftermath of his removal from office would have carried some weight with centrists in San Diego. If this came from Bilbray and the North Coast GOP, it was pretty short-sighted."

Lefty Matt Stoller at MyDD sees larger GOP problems at work: "I've written before about the surrogate problem that the Republicans currently have. They have no stars to show the public. This is not a small deal. A political campaign is basically a massive content suck desperately looking for any way to get into the media or draw crowds. And while Democrats can bring any number of popular figures - Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Wes Clark, Howard Dean, Mark Warner - to most areas with little controversy, the Republicans cannot. Bush is poison, Cheney is worse. Bringing them in for secret fundraisers is fine, but anything more and you anger voters who don't like either of them and generate bad press. The rest of the field ain't great either. Frist is weak and pathetic, Hastert is a joke, Coburn is crazy, Romney isn't well-known, etc."

Over at The CornerJonah Goldberg thinks immigration could be the issue that sinks McCain's '08 hopes: "Unlike campaign finance 'reform' -- which conservatives rightly despised -- immigration is not an abstraction. CFR mattered to conservative interest groups, but was generally meaningless to the average person beyond the principle of the thing. On immigration, McCain has taken the same sort of sanctimonius position on an issue the conservative base both understands and feels viscerally rather grasps abstractly."

SCOTUS: Alito's First Impact?

TalkLeft succinctly summarizes SCOTUS' 5/30 Garcetti v. Ceballos decision: "...the Court denied First Amendment protection to Los Angeles prosecutor Richard Ceballos, who "wrote a memo questioning whether a county sheriff's deputy had lied in a search warrant affidavit." Ceballos argued that he was "demoted and denied a promotion for trying to expose the lie." While this would seem to be a classic instance of whistleblowing -- the kind of speech by public officials that should be encouraged -- the Court held that Ceballos was discharging his official duties when he wrote the memo, and that he was not entitled to the same protections he would have had if he had been speaking out against the lie as a private citizen."

Many court watchers concluded Justice Alito's presence altered the outcome of the case.

• Lefty Marty Lederman at SCOTUSblog: "Alito's was the fifth vote in favor of reversal (although we don't know for certain whether the judgment or opinion would have been different with Justice O'Connor participating). ...As I predicted here, Justice Souter -- who likely was assigned to write the majority before Justice O'Connor's retirement -- wrote a dissent, joined by Justices Stevens and Ginsburg."
• Lefty Lawyers, Guns, and Money: "George Bush's drive to consolidate power and squelch dissent from dissenting professionals in the civil service got a boost today, as his appointment of Alito paid immediate dividends."
• Lefty The Carpetbagger Report: "For example, this 5-4 ruling would likely have gone the other way were it not for Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement. Recent Supreme Court rulings had been expanding constitutional protections for employees who speak out; this one interrupted that progress. What was the difference? In this case, Garcetti v. Ceballos, Samuel Alito, and not O'Connor, was the deciding vote."

More to the center Ann Althouse had some reservations: "Should we call Alito the "deciding vote"? It seems more appropriate to think of Kennedy as the deciding vote, that is, the man among the 5 most likely to have voted with the dissenting group. But Alito replaced O'Connor, and O'Connor might well have voted with the dissenters. In that sense, we may perceive him as the deciding vote."

Most of the commentary on the actual decision came from the left and was uniformly negative. Under a header "Ceballos - The Court Creates Bad Information Policy" Balkinization provides the best critique: "After Ceballos, employees who do know what they are talking about will retain First Amendment protection only if they make their complaints publicly without going through internal grievance procedures. Although the Court suggests that its decision will encourage the creation and use of such internal procedures, it will probably not have that effect. ...Hence employees will have incentives not to use such procedures but to speak only in public if they want First Amendment protections (note that if they speak both privately and publicly, they can be fired for their private speech). However, if they speak only publicly, they essentially forfeit their ability to stay in their jobs, first because they become pariahs, and second, because they have refused to use the employer's internal mechanisms for complaint (mechanisms which, if they used them, would eliminate their First Amendment rights)." Or put more succinctly by TalkLeft: "The decision is nonsense. Should Ceballos be entitled to less protection because he wrote a memo in the course of his official duties rather than calling a newspaper to disclose the lie?"

Very little written about the case on righty blogs especially those with a legal focus...but Strata-Sphere did have this to say: "That means the individual cannot take the law into their own hands, cannot circumvent the democratic process with personal or partisan views, and cannot risk our lives simply because they have a different opinion than the over arching government (which is elected to enact the people's will)."

Pres. Bush managed to make most lefty bloggers happy by picking Goldman Sachs chairman Henry Paulson as the next Treas. Sec. Lefty Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal asks: "Is this the beginning of the change for the Bush administration? Henry Paulson is not somebody who is going to passively watch economic policy made by political operatives in the White House. This could be very good news."

The left's Think Progress believes Paulson's involvement with the Nature Conservancy shows that he, "not only endorses the Kyoto Protocol to limit greenhouse emissions, but argues that the United States' failure to enact Kyoto undermines the competitiveness of U.S. companies." Ezra Klein at TAPPED wonders what Paulson, "thinks of Bush's belief that "Kyoto would have wrecked our economy. I couldn't in good faith have signed Kyoto."

The right's Competitive Enterprise Institute has come out against Paulson's nomination: "The White House made an unfortunate mistake in nominating Henry M. Paulson, Jr. to be the next Secretary of the Treasury. ... The Goldman Sachs chairman's other role as chairman of the board of the Nature Conservancy, which is under investigation for financial misdealings that benefited some of its officers and donors, should automatically disqualify him for the top Treasury job." Most righties aren't terribly worried about the pick. At The CornerKathryn Jean Lopez quotes a reader: "After reading it (Washington Post article), I'm in love with the Nature Conservancy. How can you hate an environmental group that drills for natural gas and is in logging?"

Also at The CornerRich Lowry reports positive conservative reviews: "It is significant that the White House managed to get someone of stature, since the conventional wisdom had become that no one serious would take the job. Paulson is not a Bush insider like Don Evans and has a sterling reputation on Wall Street. ...He has a reputation as a very smart guy and has been a defender of the Bush tax cuts. He should pretty quickly give Bush added credibility on the economy."

Former Bush advisor Greg Mankiw's Blog outlines the job Paulson faces: "But while Mr. Snow helped steer the economy through a recessionary storm, he leaves for Mr. Paulson a more daunting task -- getting the long-term fiscal numbers to add up. The government budget is on an unsustainable path. ...Some supply-siders like to claim that the distortionary effect of taxes is so large that increasing tax rates reduces tax revenue. Like most economists, I don't find that conclusion credible for most tax hikes, and I doubt Mr. Paulson does either. ...If Hank Paulson wants to leave the nation's finances in better shape than he found them, his main job will be to focus attention on the problem." Lefty ex-Labor Sec. Robert Reich's Blog doesn't think Paulson has the power to implement any real solutions: "He has his work cut out for him. Wall Street may give two cheers to have one of their own at the helm at Treasury, but I don't really think the Street gives two hoots. ...Paulson's nomination doesn't alter the economic fundamentals. Bush continues to spend like there's no tomorrow, while cutting taxes (mostly on the rich)."

Think Progress and The Carpetbagger Report highlight a Bush "lie" on Snow's departure. The Carpetbagger Report: "As Think Progress noted, Bush was asked on May 25 if Treasury Secretary John Snow intends to leave his job. The president was unequivocal: "No, he has not talked to me about resignation. I think he's doing a fine job." That, we now know, was completely untrue. White House Press Secretary Tony Snow acknowledged today that John Snow and Bush talked on May 20, Snow stepped aside, and Henry Paulson agreed on May 21 to take the job. What the president said a few days later was obviously false. It's a no-brainer."

Righty Blanton at RedState is looking for "issues that poll in a lopsided way but that cross-pressure D's with their core constituencies, like labor, the trial bar, enviros, alternative lifestyle groups." Blanton offers four of his own: "1. Gov't issued photo identification to vote; 2. End double taxation of dividends; 3. Tax reform; 4. Allow individuals to buy healthcare across state lines" and asks his readers to offer more. They did. Including: Term Limits; Rescind No Child Left Behind; Rescind McCain/Feingold; End Domestic Subsidies; Balanced Budget Amendment; and more....

Chris Bowers at MyDD looks at the potential of social networking sites in politics: "I feel pretty confident this will take off, even if Essembly or MySpace do not turn out to be the ideal platforms. With the rise of the netroots, it has been revealed that the demand for DIY political organizing is clearly very high. The political blogosphere, for all its free-wheeling nature, it ultimately not a very effective location for organizing actions and events. While Democracy for America and MoveOn.org have shown some promising ways to find like-minded members of their organization near where you live, those networking actions are still, generally speaking, limited to the events officially sanctioned by the parent organization. Eventually, platforms will be created for mass public use where anyone can begin organizing an political event they want. They will be able to find like-minded people in their local area, or build mini-national email lists and discussions around their actions. Howard Dean's campaign had something like this in late 2003, but to my knowledge nothing like that exists now. Combining an old "Dean Space" type model for general progressive action along with a social networking platform would result in a devastatingly powerful online action engine for the progressive movement. The political power of the netroots has already been revealed in countless ways. Creating an engine to release that energy--an engine that is not owned by News Corp--is key to our future success."

LEST WE FORGET: Every Day Can Be Fitzmas!

Iowahawk has some scripts worked out for a "Reality-Based" 1-900 number: "ANNOUNCER: For just $5.95 and $1.95 per minute, you'll be connected with one of our information insiders who is aching to fulfill your every fantasy of governmental overthrow!...MARY: Hi, I'm Mary. Dial extension CBS and let me show you my private collection of shocking Texas Air National Guard documents. Stay on the line and I'll show you how I can do things with Microsoft Word that Bill Gates never dreamed of!...JASON: Hi I'm Jason. Do you like domination? Well I want to tell you all about how I am going to make Karl Rove do the perp walk. I really want to get my truth out just for you! Call me at extension WWW and every day will be Fitzmas!"

Posted by at May 31, 2006 12:24 PM