July 10, 2006

7/10: It Keeps Coming Back To Iraq

Progressive bloggers bill of particulars against Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) is lengthy and includes many non-Iraq items, but following a day of horrific mob violence in Baghdad, many could not resist hitting Lieberman with their favorite club. While many MSMers play CT SEN as only about the Iraq war, some have started to deviate from that line and recognize that progressive blogger hate for Lieberman stems more from his continuous rhetorical betrayals of Dem criticism of Pres. Bush (this WSJ piece being exhibit A). Lieberman's visible role as Bush's go to for Dem Iraq-war support is really Lieberman's problem, not his support for the war per se.

Longtime gay rights activist and San Francisco resident Michael Petrelis takes Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) to task for not articulating a position on gay marriage while "in San Francisco, of all American cities." Petrelis quips: "This ain't leadership in my book. And speaking of books, I looked up 'triangulating wimp' in the dictionary and your name and photo were what I found."

Conservatives were also closely monitoring HRC's reaction to NY's gay marriage ruling. Right Angle Blog quotes an HRC spokesperson: "Senator Clinton supports full equality for people in committed relationships, including health insurance, life insurance and pensions, and hospital visitation and believes we have to keep working to reach those goals." RAB then comments: "Not exactly the Gettysburg Address of gay rights. Did she condemn the decision? Or does she support it? She could have been talking about anybody in a 'committed relationship,' including elderly heterosexual couples or Chelsea and her latest boyfriend."

Ed Kosner at lefty hang out The Huffington Post thinks trust is HRC's biggest liability: "Brains and focus aren't Hillary problem. For all her fervent admirers, there's so much twitchy calculation in her run for the Presidency that many, many people feel she simply can't be trusted. One moment, she's backing ridiculous legislation to ban non-existent flag-burning - a Bush lollypop for conservatives. The next, she's hiring a lefty blogger. ... Triangulation or cognitive dissonance? It hardly matters. ... To succeed...Hillary Clinton will have to stop being a dervish, find a groove - and stay in it.

Progressive Jonathan Singer at MyDD likes John Edwards' (D) recent focus on predatory payday lenders (which, Singer notes, can "charge up to a 521 percent annual rate on short-term loans" in OR). Singer writes: "Not only is it good policy to reign in predatory lenders, it is good politics, too. There has been polling conducted on this issue, and while I can't get into the details of it, suffice it to say that the vast majority of voters -- and even the vast majority of Republican voters -- are in favor of capping the interest rates that predatory lenders charge So I really hope Senator Edwards continues to hammer away on this issue throughout his (possible) bid for the Democratic nomination."

Right of center Roger Simon would love to see ex-NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani's (R) candidacy move the GOP left on social issues: "Suppose Giuliani actually stands by his views and the Republican Party - enough of it anyway - moves toward him and he actually gets the nomination without altering those positions. ... It would certainly make things easier for the Republicans in the general election with a candidate (the hero of 9/11) outflanking the Dems in almost every important direction. And the public would get what it seems to want - someone socially liberal but strong on defense. That would constitute a sea change in American politics. Of course, I could be a dreamer, as someone once said. But I'm not the only one."

Dales at righty hang out RedState looks at past presidential contests and wonders if America is as socially liberal as Simon thinks. Dales counts all five post-Watergate pres. wins as social conservative victories and discounts the two GOP losses: "In 1976, it was not exactly clear which candidate was more liberal on social issues -- Jimmy Carter or Gerald Ford. As the transcript of the 9/23/76 debate shows, those issues were mostly on the back-burner. ... In 1992, Bill Clinton was the more liberal of the candidates on social issues, but he did not run on his social liberalism -- in fact, he famously tried to keep his entire campaign focused on economic issues, with the slogan "It's the economy, stupid." Dales concludes: "Depending on how one tallies the 1976 and 1992 elections, the score is anywhere from 5-3 in favor of the more socially conservative candidate to 5-1-2. Either way, the evidence is against the proposition that Americans yearn for a socially liberal President."

Over at The Corner conservative Kathryn Jean Lopez notes that Giuliani ex-wife Donna Hanover has a "Love and Sex" column at AOL and comments: "This could be a small problem for rudy!" Some past Love and Sex column titles: Donna's Podcast: Rediscovering Long-Lost Love; Is it OK to hook up with an ex just for sex?; Tips for approaching an ex I'm still attracted to; Is it normal to have feelings for an old love?

Jjfuller72 at RedState pours over a 7/6 Washington Postpost on WH'08 hopefull courtship of Pres. Bush Rangers. JJ looks at Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) catches and writes: "Notice anything interesting? They are all from D.C. and/or Texas! The Bush team is obviously strongest in D.C. and Texas. I do not see this as coincidental since, although McCain is oft called a "Maverick", his political record puts him more in line with a northeastern GOP Senator than a Texas-styled GOP Senator." JJ compares MA Gov. Mitt Romney's (R) commitments and notes: "This group is the largest and most geographically diverse of all." JJ concludes: "Although Bush seems to have pointed the closest in his political machine in McCain's direction, it looks like the financial donors are thinking more independently. This Bush-McCain "back-room deal" of trading support will not sit well with the media or the GOP electorate . . . it may just turn out to be McCain's "back-fire deal."

Over at right of center RCP BlogTom Bevan follows up an earlier Romney post with some reader reax: " First, from a reader in Mississippi: I go to a very fundamentalist Southern Baptist Church. We have a membership of two thousand. We have had studies on the Mormon church. To put it very mildly, we consider it a devilish cult. ...Next from a Mormon reader in Utah: I bristle at the notion that Mormon beliefs, as touching the President of the United States, would be perceived as somehow wackier, less believable, more harmful, less worthy than say Catholicism, Protestantism, or any other major American religion."

The Corner's conservative John J. Miller highlights the pro-Romney Evangelicals for Mitt. EFM exists: "because we want a president who shares our political and moral values and priorities, can win in 2008, and can govern effectively thereafter. ... We believe we have found just a person in Mitt Romney, the governor of Massachusetts. He's not just a candidate evangelicals can support-he is the best choice for people of faith. It's not even close. ... Yes, Gov. Romney is a Mormon. We are not. According to the liberal media, this is an unbridgeable gap, and evangelicals will never turn out to support a faithful Mormon like Mitt Romney. As usual, the media have it wrong. ... Let's leave the absurd religious litmus test to the Democrats."

Ryan Sager at RCP Blog is not impressed: "There's a new group blog, Evangelicals for Mitt. ...The main activity right now seems to be closing their eyes, sticking their fingers in their ears, rocking back and forth, and murmuring over and over: "There is no Mormon problem ... There is no Mormon problem."

Progressive bloggers are attacking Sen. Joe Lieberman (D) for a new TV ad featuring a fake Ned Lamont (D) bumper sticker. The unofficial Lamont Blog calls the ad "an obvious attempt to deceive voters." Liberal Oasis notes that the sticker features the web address www.nomorejoe.com is now defunct but was owned by GOP consulting firm Highground, Inc. as part of a GOP primary campaign against Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio against Dan Saban that summer. Spazeboy.net has posted the ad on YouTube.

Even conservative bloggers are scoring this one as a strike against Team Lieberman. NRO's Greg Pollowitz: "But at a time when Joe is running as fast as he can from the Republican party, a stupid mistake that ties him (albeit, by total coincidence) to a consulting firm that has done work for the Republican party, is not good news for Joe."

Progressive and Natural Born Killers producer Jane Hamsher at firedoglake reports from the Tom Joyner radio show that Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA-35) will be coming to CT to campaign for Lamont. Hamsher notes that Waters is is "the chair of the 72 member, all Democratic 'Out of Iraq' caucus" and is "going to thoroughly enjoy watching Maxine Waters come to Connecticut on behalf of Ned and show a patronizing old gasbag like [David] Brooks how it's done."

CSPAN's 7/8 Washington Journal saw The Nation editor and pro-Lamonter Katrina Vanden Heuvel square off against ex-Pres. Clinton aide and Lieberman supporter Lanny Davis. Ramsfan at DailyKos offers a decidedly one-sided account of the affair including: "Mr. Davis couldn't have been more obnoxiously pro-Lieberman if he was on Joe's payroll, often interrupting callers or dismissing them as "liars" or "bigots" when they didn't serve his purpose of selling Joe as a progressive Democrat. ... It was all very on-message, accusing Lamont of flip-flopping on the war issue, of being a "Reagan Democrat", of "making fun" of Ted Kennedy (a tad desperate? I'd say so)."

Princeton liberal Talking Points Memo caught the CSPAN rerun and offered this review: "I watched just enough of the Lieberman-Lamont debate and Davis' CSPAN appearance to pick up on the Lieberman campaign's new theme that you just can't rely on Lamont because he's all over the place on a withdrawal plan for Iraq. I don't know whether that's an accurate criticism of Lamont (I suspect it's not), but it doesn't strike me as a winning formula for Lieberman: you can't trust this guy to fix the problem I created. If you need help getting your car out of a ditch, would you turn to the guy who just drove it in there or to the stranger who stops to help?"

Also following up on 7/6's debate DailyKos'withoutApurpose looks at Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) numbers and attacks Lieberman's 31,000 CT jobs saved claim: "[BRAC] reduced contracts for Electric Boat (EB), a sub manufacturer. At the time, EB employed 11,800, of which about 20% would have been impacted. ... So, let's do the math. 8,500 + (11,800 * 20%) = 10,860. That's only about 1/3 of 31,000. So where did the bigger number come from? According to an Electric Boat Press Release, the 31,000 number is an economic estimate of total job loss impact for Connecticut AND Rhode Island.Of the 2,360 layoffs planned for EB, 1/4 of these were to be in Rhode Island."

Progressive Suzanne Nossel at The Huffington Post looks at what CT SEN impact beyond '06: "What interests me is how the contest ties into a larger debate underway about how big the progressive tent should be when it comes to foreign policy: where should boundaries be drawn so that we can compete in moderate and even conservative strongholds, yet still emerge the base and stand for something that is clear to voters. ... This is shaping up to be one of the principal dilemmas progressives will face leading up to 2008. ... The crux of Lieberman's problem is his unwillingness to acknowledge the severity of what's happened in Iraq, and to demand accountability for it. ... No matter what they believe we must do next, any candidate who doesn't come to grips fully with the folly of Iraq risks political oblivion."

Left-of-center TNR's Michael Crowley also looks beyond '06 and wonders if the experience will change Lieberman: "Should he lose the Democratic primary but get elected as an independent, I wonder what kind of Joe Lieberman will emerge. It's possible he'll feel humbled by his near-death experience, and work to mend fences with the left. But Lieberman's public comments make him sound far more appalled than chastened by his left-wing critics. A likely result, I'd guess, is that his voting record grows more conservative. And if it's possible, the left will learn to hate him even more."

Progressive atty The Ham Hock of Liberty is tired of MSM-type finger waving over blogger interest in CT SEN. He writes an open letter to Jon Chait, Joe Klein, Lee Siegel, Richard Cohen: "So, for your own sakes, please consider trying to understand the new media environment a little better. As far as I can tell, none of you does actual investigative reporting, just opinion. Now that instantaneous worldwide publishing is available to just about anyone, you can no longer expect to have an audience simply because of your names, or your employer. There is simply no point in attacking the blogosphere because it speaks out and supports politicians with whom the writers and readers agree, and criticizes those with whom it does not agree. If you continue to perceive this as "fascism" rather than the epitome of "democracy," the next few decades are going to be very unpleasant for you." DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas is also in a populist mood: "My biggest lesson I've taken from the Connecticut primary is how much the beltway elite hate democracy and the plebes who demand a say in it."

Progressive Chris Bowers at MyDD compares Google News item numbers on Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT)/cable co. exec Ned Lamont (D), Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)/Cranston Mayor Stephen Laffey (R), and Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI)/Rep. Ed Case (D-02) and notes: "The Connecticut Senate primary has drawn nine times the national attention of the Hawaii and Rhode Island Senate primaries combined." Bowers offers two explanations:

"First, as ineffectual as some reporters would like to claim the progressive blogosphere is, clearly the media and political establishment are obsessed with us. The Connecticut Senate primary is the race the progressive netroots are focused on, and so the political and media establishment are focused on it as well. Whether they love us or hate us, they are fascinated by the progressive netroots, and are clearly following our lead."

"Second, the Connecticut Senate primary upsets the natural order to American politics over the last few decades. Progressives are not supposed to be on the attack. Progressives are definitely not supposed to be on the ascendancy. For a right-winger to unseat a moderate or a liberal, well, that is just how things are supposed to work. Thus, it seems perfectly normal for Ed Case or Stephan Laffey to pose serious challenges to more moderate opponents. The conservative movement and the DLC are supposed to win. Progressives are supposed to sit in the corner and enjoy losing."

VA SEN: It's Not About Iraq Unless It Is

Lefty VA bloggers were glued to their TVs for This Week's dueling Sen. George Allen (R)/ex-Navy Sec. Jim Webb (D) interviews. Anonymous Is A Woman writes: "Although, I really liked that the show began by contrasting Allen's cowboy boots with Webb's combat boot, I was unhappy at how ABC characterized Webb as the anti-war candidate who won the Virginia Democratic Primary based only on that issue. ... In fact, the major issues dominating the blogosphere were whether Webb could be a loyal Democrat (from the Miller campaign) versus whether support for outsourcing and guest worker programs were proper Democratic values (the Webb campaign's issue)."

The more established progressive Raising Kaine had a different take: "In particular, I was impressed by Jim Webb's willingness to call out the Bush administration on their biggest lie of all -- they don't intend to leave Iraq, and they never did. That's a key point, to me. Discussing how we got involved in Iraq isn't simply Monday morning quarterbacking (to mock George Felix Allen with a football analogy), but rather goes to the broader point of an overall doctrine for using military force."

Raising Kaine also offers a first hand account of 7/8's American Legion convention in Chesterfield County. Despite admitted Webb bias RK reports: "There were several times during his[Allen's] comments, particularly on the "no retreat, but success in Iraq" theme and the "the opponents of this amendment call it free speech, but its not speech! It's an action!" comment on the flag amendment--that the audience applauded. ... Right off the bat, Jim made note of the time constraints he'd been asked to observe (12 minutes) and the fact that Allen had taken quite a bit more. He started by saying his talk to this group wouldn't be political because in matters of security and war, and in talking about service to our country, we were all Americans."

Greg Pollowitz at the conservative NRO noted APstory on the convention reported, "At the close of Allen's remarks, Legion officers singled him out for a special ovation for supporting a constitutional ban on burning the American flag." Pollowitz thought this was great news for Allen: "If the special ovation that Allen received at the American Legion convention is any indication, Virginia veterans want their politicians to support a flag burning amendment. This bodes well for Allen in November.

MN-05: That's All So Last Decade

Power Line doesn't buy a 7/9 Minneapolis Star Tribunecolumn claiming negative coverage of state Rep. Keith Ellison (DFL) is due to religous bigotry and racism. Power Line counters:

"Ellison has been the beneficiary of the Star Tribune's double standard, not its victim. If Ellison were white and Christian, surely the Star Tribune would have reported: that Ellison's involvement with the Nation of Islam extended far beyond the 18-month period in the mid-1990's to which Ellison has admitted, that Ellison was in fact a local leader and spokesman of the Nation of Islam, that Ellison defended the "truth" of an attack on Minneapolis Jews as "the most racist white people," that Ellison affiliated himself with convicted murderer and Vice Lords gang leader Sharif Willis until Willis was convicted and returned to prison for crimes involving "a senseless display of terrorist tactics" in 1995, that Ellison supported the Vice Lords gangbangers charged (and subsequently convicted) with the murder of Minneapolis police officer Jerry Haaf ("We don't get no justice, you don't get no peace"), that Ellison has attacked law enforcement authorities in outrageous terms, that Ellison has demanded that Symbionese Liberation Army terrorist Sara Jane Olson be freed, and that Ellison has expressed concern for the continuing freedom of convicted cop-killer Assata Shakur (on the lam in Havana and recently named to the FBI's most-wanted domestic terrorist list)."

Left leaning Election Law Blog thinks Texas Democratic Party v. Bensiker is sound and breaks down GOP options: "(1) DeLay may run for office again (then potentially resign, allowing the governor to call a special election to name a replacement), a step DeLay is considering; or (2) DeLay withdraws, and Republicans support a write-in candidate. My quick look at the Texas write in rules make this look like a possible strategy, but there may be wrinkles I don't see at first glance. Even though the district is a Republican one, it will be hard for Republicans to mount a successful write-in campaign, especially if legal proceedings drag out for a while before the party unites behind a write-in candidate and explains to voters how to cast a write-in ballot."

Progressive bloggers were in full celebration mode. DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas: "There's a reason DeLay tried to pull this bait-and-switch gambit -- because he didn't think he could beat Nick Lampson. Democrats are better off with DeLay on the ballot than some clean, fresh-faced Republican. Especially now that DeLay would have to explain to the district's voters why DeLay was so keen on giving the district the middle finger so he could become a Virginia resident. This is now back to being one of the top Democratic pickup opportunities in the House this year." Jonathan Singer at MyDD: "Immediately prior to DeLay's announcement that he would resign his office and not seek another term, the Cook Political Report rated this race a "toss-up", one of the Democrats' 10 best pick-up opportunities in the House. Following that announcement, Cook moved the race into the "likely Republican" column, a switch that will no doubt have to be reversed should DeLay indeed run."

Kausfiles looks at Tony Horwitz 7/9 pro-amnesty New York Times op-ed and writes: "Current pro-legalization dogma assures us that there is no reason to worry about of Quebec style separatism or Kosovo-style irredentism in the Southwest. Horwitz shows why there are plenty of reasons to worry. The stronger the prior Spanish claim the worse the danger--and the more reason to get control of the border, and of the cultural composition of the next generation of immigrants, before it's too late."

Conservative Corner king Jonah Goldberg also hasn't canceled his subscription to the Times yet and applauds a 7/9 magazine piece showing no consensus on immigration's economic impact: "I kind of like the fact that the numbers are euivocal because it puts immigration issue in the realm it belongs: politics. Ultimately immigration is not primarily an economic issue, it's a political-cultural one. And that's every bit as legitimate as economics. The problem is that most America elites are uncomfortable or inept at making public policy on such grounds, and the press is just incompetent in covering such debates honestly. It just can't break out of the "racism" versus "tolerance" paradigm."

Not to be left out of the immigration debate, Jonathan Singer at progressive activist MyDD looks at media coverage of recent GOP immigration hearings and concludes: "If the Republicans believe that they can throw red meat to their nativist base while at the same time continue to court Hispanic voters, they are in for a rude surprise.

The pro-Dem Senate Majority Report looks at recent court filings in the Shaun Hansen NH phone jamming case and reports: "Hansen may offer an affirmative defense at his upcoming fall trial, arguing that the phone jamming scheme which his company carried out had the seal of approval of both the Republican National Committee and the White House." SM notes the Hansen's lawyers have identified Public Authority as a possible affirmative defense and quotes te filings: "Hansen may assert at trial that he and his business had performed services for GOP Marketplace in the past and, based on its name and the type of work the business had been contracted to perform, he reasonably assumed that GOP Marketplace was a governmental entity or at least that the activities that his business was being asked to perform had been approved in advance by the national Republican party."

The Moderate Voice hopes Dems excommunicated by progressive bloggers will find a new cause in Unity08:

"The whole, bitter battle over Joe Lieberman is symptomatic of the kind of bitter partisanship which has led to the creation of Unity08 and makes the idea behind it attractive, even to those who in the end might not even be able to bring themselves to vote for a third party. There is clearly a movement by a segment of the Democratic party to "take back" the party. What that means is "take back" the party from the Clintonistas, who essentially tried to take back the party from McGovernite influences to a more JFK-style oriented politics where the party would try to win elections (and did) by getting a large chunk of Democratic votes, plus centrist votes and votes from Republicans who unhappy with their own party."

"Just as the Republican party in recent years has shrunk the size of its tent, some Democrats seek to shrink the size of theirs, too. You'd think that in 2006 - a year when it appears that with a semblance of party unity, cohesive message, and careful organization - the Democrats could take back one or more houses of Congress, what do we see? Some Democrats declaring Lieberman and his kind as the first-priority political enemy."

"(a) The Democrats' focus is perilously off and it could get worse, which will make their ostensible goal in November (getting one or both houses of Congress) more elusive. (b) Polarization isn't just Democrats versus Republicans, it's polarization within parties where those who aren't pure enough (in both parties) are being essentially told in some cases: "You're either with us or against us. Totally. And if not totally, get lost." And you know what? They just might."

Erik at RedState pokes fun at a Georgia State Senator Brian Kemp latest direct mail piece in his bid Commissioner of Agriculture. The item shows Kemp shopping for cereal with a young girl and reads: "In Georgia, our Agriculture Commission is responsible for protecting our food supply from a terrorist attack." Erik comments: "Perhaps if he had left off "from a terrorist attack," I would have taken the piece more seriously. As it is, though, thanks for the laugh."

Posted by Conn Carroll at July 10, 2006 12:32 PM