May 08, 2006

5/8: Confidence Is High

Lefty bloggers think they have the GOP on the run. Buoyed by reports that a House takeover is not only possible but probable, lefties are itching for a full-out fight over the confirmation of Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden to succeed CIA Dir. Porter Goss. While the war still divides some lefties on Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) many of them can't wait to unite behind Dem controlled House investigations into WH pre-war claims on Iraq.

Lefty bloggers roundly welcomed the news that both House Intel Cmte. Chair Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) and Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) expressed doubts about the nomination of Gen. Michael Hayden to succeed Porter Goss as CIA Dir. Righty reaction was mixed. Some welcomed a confirmation fight that could make Dems look weak on security while other righties thought the WH should reconsider their decision.

Lefty bloggers feel as though the Hayden nomination might just mark the beginning of the end of GOP domination on security issues. The Reality Based Community: "The basic Republican political play from 9-11 to the present is "Propose something plausibly related to national security so bone-headed, unconstitutional, corrupt, or just plain disgusting that Democrats will have to vote against it. Then attack the Democrats for being soft on terrorism." The Hayden nomination may be another iteration of that play. But times have changed, and I doubt it will work. Why not? Because the President is now widely unpopular and distrusted."

Lefty Mahablog also senses a change in the air: "Time was when a Republican like Hoekstra left the reservation and publicly opposed some White House policy, within a few hours (and after being called to the White House for a chat) he'd be back in front of cameras claiming he was misquoted. He's just fine with Policy X after all. It will be interesting to see if Hoekstra will be persuaded to back down. If not, Hayden's nomination hearings might be fun." Other lefties were in full gloat mode. Tbogg: "Heckuva job, Boltie!" Just a Bump in the Beltway: "This is another pass the popcorn moment: Bushco is going to have a truly awful summer."

Other lefties were more cautious. The Political Animal: "I assume the White House figures that Republican critics will air out a few mild criticisms and then shut up, leaving them free to paint Democrats as weak on national security because they think the NSA ought to get search warrants if they want to spy on U.S. citizens. They went to this well in 2002 and 2004, and I assume they figure it's not dry yet. But I wonder if they've finally miscalculated? Stay tuned." The Left Coaster: "Arlen Specter has put the administration on notice that he will use the Hayden hearings to hold Bush and Abu Gonzales accountable for the NSA spying program. So any effort by Rove and the White House to use the Hayden nomination for political purposes may fall flat."

Lefties TalkLeft, mcjoan at DailyKos, firedoglake, and NewsHog all denounce Hayden for his role in the NSA wiretap program. While Left in the West wishes Dems would take the lead in opposing the nomination: "Somehow, GOP leaders are more willing to come out on this than Democrats. I think it's good that Rep. Hoekstra has the cojones to take on the President on this issue. Someone needs to. But Democrats are still so terrified of the national security debate, they won't even engage in it."

Righty bloggers showed respect for Hoekstra and Chambliss but most were not buying their objections. Powerline admits to being confused by their concerns that a military man shouldn't head the CIA: "This seems a little odd to me. When Gen. Colin Powell was named Secretary of State, did anyone say that the State Department was being put "under Pentagon control," or had been "gobbled up" by the Defense Department? Not that I recall." WILLisms also thinks the concern is unwarranted: "Just find the best person for the job, and get him confirmed. I think after 200+ years of successful civilian control of the military and related apparatus that we can trust our military officers to know their place and do the right thing vis-a-vis the Constitution. The idea too that a military guy is going to fight harder for budgets or influence than a civilian is just belied by history. Relax, this guy might be a great appointment." Outside the Beltway has similar thoughts: "After all, to paraphrase George Will, these people are essentially arguing that, if we put the military in charge of CIA, we would risk sacrificing the superb intelligence work we're getting now."

But there were righty concerns that the WH could lose a nomination fight right now. Byron York at the Corner: "That is not to say that some Republicans do not support Hayden; Sen. John McCain had encouraging words for him today. But it does suggest that Hayden, if nominated, will face serious problems from a bipartisan group of senators, and a simple resignation from military service might not be enough to resolve the problem." Captain's Quarters: "One has to wonder why the administration did not consult with Hoekstra and Chambliss before sending out their test balloons on Hayden. The White House knew his confirmation would present difficulties even without having key Republicans in opposition to his appointment. With legislators like Hoekstra and Chambliss publicly objecting to Hayden's nomination, the White House faces yet another botched appointment process. These two are not on par with Lincoln Chaffee, Arlen Specter, and Olympia Snowe. Hoekstra and Chambliss represent the core of the party in regard to war policy and support. With these defections, I expect the White House to name another candidate by tomorrow morning."

Righty Big Lizards wasn't happy with Chambliss: "If Chambliss has a political death wish, he could vote against Hayden, which would result in the committee rejecting the nomination. ...That would be catastrophic to Republican chances in November (currently looking pretty good)...The question is, does Chambliss really want to be known as the man who destroyed the Republican majority -- just because he's upset that a military man was appointed?"

Everyone is happy with the Washington Post's 5/7 article outlining House Min. Leader Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) agenda should November turn out well for the Dems ... although everyone appears to be happy for different reasons.

Lefty AMERICAblog is just pleased to see Dems thinking positively while Sadly No and Booman Tribune can't wait for investigations into WH malfeasance. Seeing the Forest even thinks a Dem House could destroy the entire GOP: "If a few top Democrats get the word out that they are also going to investigate corporate funding of the Right's machine - contributions to supposedly non-partisan tax deductible organizations like Heritage Foundation, but that are really bribes used illegally as Republican Party election-support organizations, the insurance companies that cover these corporations will shut down all such funding and the Boards will also work to stop it, fearing jail."

Lefty Obsidian Wings loves all of the policy proposals and claims this article proves Dems do have ideas. Lefty The Glittering Eye likes all the policy except the minimum wage hike but is worried the investigations could overshadow: "What concerns me most is the prospect that an obsession with going after Bush and his administration will overwhelm all other objectives under a Democratic House majority. There's very little likelihood that enough Democrats will be elected in the House to achieve much without any Republican support whatever."

Lefty Demagogue is also concerned that investigations might not be the best course: " But Pelosi and her fellow leaders need to be very careful. If the Dems assume control of one or both houses in Congress, they should think twice about launching a series of investigations of Bush administration activities. As the Clinton years taught us, the public has little patience for long, time-consuming investigations that have the appearance of partisanship." Lefty Ambivablog thinks the investigation talk could stop the takeover before it happens: "Now, besides the unwisdom of counting chickens before they're hatched -- especially for a party that's laid so many rotten eggs in the recent past -- telegraphing this blitz of partisan revenge seems like a really bad idea to me, both strategically and on principle."

Righty bloggers thought Pelosi's plan was just what the GOP needs to get their base motivated:

• Blogs For Bush: "I give a hearty 'thanks' to Nancy Pelosi -- this is all we'll need to rile up the GOP base for November. These "open mouth, insert foot" Democrats tend to make things too easy."
• California Conservative: "For those conservatives who plan on sitting out this election to send a message, think about what message you'll be sending. That message would essentially be "I didn't get what I want so I'm quitting. I'm letting the Democrats impeach President Bush. I'm letting the Democrats lose the war on Islamofascism."
• Blue Crab Boulevard: "I somehow think that crowing about victory too soon may actually work against the Democrats, though. It will energize the base to get out and vote - on both sides. In other words, it's another two-edged sword Pelosi and her fellows are wielding. The "culture of corruption" sword didn't work out so well. What makes them think they'll be better at swinging this one?"
• Right Voices: "Hate it or love it - this is what you can expect with a Democrat controlled House - if it gets that far. On the taxpayers dime - the Dems will call for such investigations that will result in endless days of toil and trouble that will dog the President through the very end of his Presidency."
• The Influence Peddlar: "There is some concern on the Democratic side that their base is not fully energized, and while this leftist litany may advance that goal, it probably helps Republicans more, comparatively. ...Plus, the Pelosi agenda obviously includes a fatal flaw - the investigations."
• GOP Bloggers: "So, their agenda is to destroy jobs, dismantle a prescription drug law that has helped seniors save lots of money, and raise taxes. One can only assume their "homeland security measures" include not wiretapping terrorists, and focus more protecting the civil liberties of the terrorists, rather than the lives of Americans... Real good plan."
• Ankle Biting Pundits: "Democrats have articulated only two actions they will take should they win control of Congress next year: 1. they will impeach the President of the United States in a time of war for eavesdropping on our enemies, and 2.) they will tax conservative churches, as DNC Chair Howard Dean confided to the Christian Science Monitor a couple of weeks ago. That's the agenda: Impeach Bush and tax churches."

Righty Hugh Hewitt thinks the GOP can retain the House if they nationalize the elections and urges his readers to support some specific campaigns. Right Wing Nut House isn't sold on Hewitt's plan: "Will a push by the Bush Administration to nationalize the election by making the war and terrorist threats the overriding issues save Republicans in November as Hugh seems to think it will? I would say to my friend be careful what you wish for. By nationalizing the election, other factors would come into focus that would play to the advantage of the Democrats including people's feelings about this President which at the moment are as low as one can go without an impeachment trial."

Underscoring the Blogometer's recent poll finding DailyKos not as popular among fellow bloggers as his traffic might indicate, kos' 5/7 attempted take-down of Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) in the Washington Post was roundly panned by both sides of the aisle.

From the left:

• The Democratic Daily: "I fear that Hillary Clinton's chances at the 2008 nomination, while still far from certain this far out, jumped tremendously today. Kos has an opinion article in the Washington Post on his perceptions of Hillary's problems. Considering Kos's track record, Hillary is probably celebrating tonight."
• ReidBlog: "Presidential elections are about turning out the base -- but Kos and friends misunderstand this country if they believe that they -- the very left-wing Internetistas -- are a majority of that base. ...The Kos kids may despise her (and other DLCers who fail to toe the line on the war), but Hillary remains the Democrats' best bet to take back the White House in 2008."
• NewDonkey.com: "But I do think Markos misses something important in drawing a direct parallel between Hillary Clinton and those "D.C. Establishment" candidates who got thrown off-balance by Howard Dean in 2004. ...I'm perfectly willing to agree that netroots support specifically, and activist support generally, is important, but in the end, it's all about votes."
• Bull Moose: "These netroots types think they are something cutting edge when they are merely McGovernites with modems. One only wonders why the much maligned "Main Stream Media", much less elected officials, pay so much attention to them."

From the right:

• Powerline: "Better that Hillary should listen to Kos who foresaw that Howard Dean would sweep past Joe Lieberman in the 2004 Democratic also-ran sweepstakes. Message to Hillary -- please listen to Kos."
• littlegreenfootballs: "It's NutRoots at the Washington Post, as Markos Moulitsas "Screw Them" Zuniga (in his trademarked hamfisted prose) gives the Democratic Party the kind of advice only a "progressive" with a near-perfect record of backing losing moonbat candidates could give with a straight face. It boils down to, "We gotta get even crazier!"
• Tim Blair notes kos belief that HRC does not appear "electable" and retorts: "Unlike every other candidate backed by Daily Kos."

From an analyst:

• RealClearPolitics: "Is Markos Moulitsas a mole for the Hillary Clinton primary campaign? I have to ask on account of this piece on the Washington Post op-ed page today. Because, you see, the surest way to guarantee a candidate's election is to put them on the side opposite the Kos Krowd. Let me go out on a limb here: There is nothing Hillary Clinton worries less about in life than whether the folks over at Daily Kos think she's liberal enough."

Righties HolyCoast and RightWingSparkle have detailed responses to kos arguments throughout the article while Andrew Sullivan throws his two cents in: "I have two major issues with Senator Clinton. The first is that she is, willy-nilly, a deeply polarizing figure. ...Secondly, the Bill problem is insurmountable. I'm not talking about sex. I'm talking about what on earth you do with him if she wins the White House. ...But I don't think she'd even stand a faint chance up against McCain. The theme of the next few years will be change. The Democrats shouldn't offer up a warmed-over version of a bitter, divisive past."

Not all lefty bloggers are ready to see Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) run out of the party. Reaction to The New Republic senior editor Jonathan Chait's critique of lefty blogger opposition to Lieberman in the Los Angeles Times has been mixed. Lefty Matthew Yglesias at TPMCafe quotes Chait: "since their anti-Lieberman jihad is seen as stemming from his pro-war stance, the practical effect of toppling Lieberman would be to intimidate other hawkish Democrats and encourage more primary challengers against them."

Yglesisas, who earlier professed his own ambivalence to Lieberman, responds: "This strikes me as a convincing reason to root against Lieberman. ...Indeed, it seems to me that a person who genuinely wants Lieberman to win really ought to avoid making this argument. Connecticut Democrats overwhelmingly oppose the war, and if the main argument in Lieberman's favor is that a Lieberman win is necessary to maintain congressional support for misguided military actions then Lieberman is certain to lose. If you want Lieberman to win, you need to convince people that this isn't what the practical impact of the vote is going to be."

Lefty Ezra Klein also thought Chait's logic was fuzzy: "Jon Chait's column explaining his moral turmoil over Ned Lamont's primary challenge is surprisingly incoherent, particularly given what a clear and systematic thinker Chait usually is. ...If the netroots are right on the merits, and Chait's reluctance to substantively defend Lieberman suggests he thinks they are, then their simplistic sloganeering belies subtle, sophisticated political minds that he might wish to listen to. After all, they're right." Lefty Majikthise also had thoughts on the article.

Righty Decision '08 thought Chait was on to something: "Chait hits on a real truth here; as much as...other supporters of the 'Bush Cult' theory would like to believe in a monolithic, knee-jerk Right that supports Bush come hell or high water, such a group, if indeed it exists at all, is exceedingly small and without influence. ...It is in fact, the 'Progressive' Left...that brooks no opposition and tars and feathers anyone who steps out of line (witness the quick elevation of Stephen Colbert into a untouchable saint)."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Any Excuse To Party

Responding to Mystery Pollster speculation that an earlier poll showing immigration could propel a third party candidate to victory really just demonstrated voter desire for any third party, Rasmussen Reports ran a similar poll this time using health care as the third party's primary issue. Rasmussen concluded: "But, while the immigration candidate drew equally from both parties, the Universal Health Care candidate cost the Democratic candidate 18 percentage points while the Republican lost just six. ...Because immigration cuts across the typical partisan and ideological lines, it may have more potential to shake up political status quo than other issues."

LEST WE FORGET: Can't Touch This

The Smoking Gun is reporting that Suge Knight is down to his last $11. The Blogometer can't wait to see his Super Bowl commercial.

Posted by Conn Carroll at May 8, 2006 12:40 PM