7/18: Storm Warning?

Well it wasn't on social issues as E.J. Dionnepredicted , but an internal GOP fight might just be upon us. George Will's 7/18 broadside has produced limited blogger reaction so far, but it's still early. William Kristol has a very well-established MSM vehicle to fight back with, but the Blogometer will continue to monitor how the debate plays out on the right side of the 'sphere. Meanwhile, while there's plenty of Middle East commentary at lefty sites like TAPPED and The Huffington Post, the granddaddy of them all (DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas) takes a pass on the recent violence and other bloggers have noticed.

Reaction to George Will's 7/18 William Kristol bashing op-ed has spread slowly throughout the blogosphere. Under the header "George Will Goes Nuclear" The Corner's conservative John Podhoretz believes "this may prove to be the most discussed op-ed of the year." Also on the right, Outside the Beltway can't wait to follow the discussion: "His column is not all that surprising since Will made a similar argument on last Sunday's "This Week." What is surprising, however, is the utter disdain with which Will dispatches his criticism. ... As expected, libs are loving this. But - I must admit - so am I: There's nothing like a good catfight to spice things up a little."

On the left, The Washington Note has the most linked to reaction so far: "His five-whack, scathing assault on Kristol and The Weekly Standard rises from a frustration and raw honesty rarely seen (but increasingly more so) among those who count themselves friends of conservative presidents like G.W. Bush. ... Applause to George Will for this brave and important piece." The Reality Based Educator adds: "It is important that we on the left acknowledge Will's points here and publicize them."

Righty Digital Rules claims "the Netroots Left, especially the Kossacks, have nothing to say on national security" beyond hollow Bush bashing and argues: "Pointing out Bush's weaknesses might be a legitimate starting point for the out party, but alone it won't get Dems anywhere past a schoolyard protest." DR then check the top ten DailyKos posts and reports: "Nothing on Israel. Nothing on Iran's support of Hamas and Hezbollah. Nothing on Iran's nuclear program. Nothing, even, on the G-8 Summit. And we're to think that the Netroots Left is a serious political player?"

Not responding to Digital Roots but still on the same subject, DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas explains to his readers why he does not comment on Middle East violence: "Me? I grew up in a war zone. And there was one clear lesson I learned -- there will never be peace unless both sides get tired of the fighting and start seeking an alternative. ... It doesn't matter what we bloggers say. It doesn't matter what the President of the United States says. Or the United Nations. Or the usual bloviating gasbag pundits. When two sides are this dead-set on killing each other, very little can get in the way. And I, for one, sure as heck have no desire to get sucked into that no-win situation. I just hope that war-fatigue sets in at some point."

Fellow progressive blogger Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly was not impressed with Kos' pronouncement: "It's one thing for an individual blogger to feel inadequate to the task of commenting on any particular subject, but I don't think that means it's OK to throw in the towel entirely and give everyone else a pass at the same time. As past officeholders have shown, it does matter what the president of the United States says (and does), and it does matter what the UN and other international actors say (and do). After all, even if they can't pull lasting peace and harmony out of their back pockets, they always retain the possibility of making things worse. (See Bush, George, 2001-2006, op cit.)"

Tired of online straw polls that showed Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) "would win any poll [by a] huge [margin] that did not include Gore, and that Gore would win any poll huge no matter who else was included," Chris Bowers suspended progressive activist MyDD polling for four months. Now they're back and the results looks a little different:

Wesley Clark 546 (27.2%)
John Edwards 522 (26.0%)
Russ Feingold 444 (22.2%)
Mark Warner 311 (15.5%)
Not Sure 47 (2.3%)
Bill Richardson 41 (2.0%)
Hillary Clinton 40 (2.0%)
John Kerry 18 (0.9%)
Evan Bayh 17 (0.8%)
Joe Biden 10 (0.5%)
Tom Daschle 3 (0.1%)
Tom Vilsack 3 (0.1%)
Chris Dodd 2 (0.1%)

GOP LANDSCAPE: The Lunatic Primary

Newt Gingrich's 7/16 Meet The Press appearance caused a flurry of WH'08 analysis over at conservative hang out The Corner. Rich Lowry broke down the field with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) as the obvious frontrunner: "My quick '08 handicapping is that McCain continues to be the front-runner. His candidacy squeezes out Giuliani, who probably wouldn't have a chance anyway. Frist appears not to be going anywhere. That leaves Romney and Allen competing to be the non-McCain conservative, and Romney has had a good couple of months. But I'm hoping Newt runs, just because he's always interesting and will surely develop at least a few ideas that the eventual nominee will want to filch." John Podhoretz wasn't buying an early Rudy exit: "The "McCain squeezes out Rudy" scenario would make more sense if Rudy weren't tied with McCain at 30 percent or so in most Republican primary voter polls. That indicates the two of them aren't niche candidates but rather the two candidates with the broadest appeal. No squeeze there."

Romney fan Kathryn Jean Lopez added a reader's opinion: "The secret beneficiary of all this Newt emergence is your guy Romney. After 8 years of Bush, the emphasis this time around is going to be on SMART. Two of the smartest guys around are Newt and Rudy, but they are probably unelectable, for various reasons." Andy McCarthy thought the whole discussion was a bit premature: "I really think there is no serious public consideration of GOP '08 right now. The 30-30 split reflects that Rudy and McCain are the best known names, that's all. Only lunatics like us are jockeying now. What was the name Bill Clinton polling in 1990?"

Under the header "The most important Republican voice in the country?" The Corner's Rich Lowry forwards along two pro-Gingrich reader emails:

"He's still a bit of a loose cannon prone to rhetorical grandiosity and he's a tad too enamored with his own intellectual/articulate capabilities for my taste ... but I hope he gets into the GOP race if for no other reason than to force McCain and others to either thoroughly explain where they stand on various issues."

and

"Newt is almost the only national GOP figure who thoroughly explains issues from a conservative point of view (I suppose there are a few issues upon which one could quibble about that - but, again, which ones exactly?). Unlike all of the others, he also doesn't make me cringe by saying something stupid or missing an opportunity to jump on a bad liberal argument. He KNOWS what he is talking about."

John Podhoretz was unimpressed: "Wait a sec. This is Newt we're talking about here. Remember Newt? The most disliked man in America? He's a very impressive strategist, a little too enamored of himself as a thinker, and a politician whose ability to turn people against himself was unparalleled."

Also from The CornerKathryn Jean Lopez reports from Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) Manhattan Institute appearance: "You got the impression while delivering the speech he might be phoning it in ... but not so once he got to the topic of Israel.He spoke passionately about their right to defend themselves, and his disappointment in our European allies who would call on them to restrain themselves. They should restrain themselves, sure, McCain said in his biggest applause line at the event, but "only in keeping with what they need to do to protect their security." ... He was good."

Conservative bloggers are taking a growing interest in the Sen. Joe Lieberman/cable co. exec Ned Lamont Dem primary. Under the header "Winning the Yard-Sign War in CT" Tom Bevan at RCP Blog links to some first hand blogger reports.

Kevin Rennie also at RCP Blog writes: "Connecticut politicians love lawn signs. And they are everywhere for Lamont. The Lieberman campaign woke up recently to find itself badly behind in the anecdotal war over how many signs each side could plant. His campaign had to deploy majordomo and longtime aide Sherry Brown to gin up the lawn sign effort. It was a sign of the parlous state of his campaign that Brown made calls and delivered individual signs to supporters. Picture Susan Estrich stopping at your house in 1988 to stick a Dukakis sign in the grass. Dire is the word that comes to mind.

Bevan also links to a Politburo Diktat account: "My dad lives near Manchester, Connecticut. While Connecticut is a blue state like its neighbors New York and Massachusetts, Manchester is an ordinary, middle-class, small American city. It's not Berkeley; it's not Ann Arbor. As we drove along Center Street Saturday evening, I counted six Lamont signs. None for Lieberman. One of my dad's neighbors, Walt T., is a long-time Democratic party regular, the type of guy who dabbles in town politics and writes letters to the editor of the local newspaper. He's not exactly a 20-something nutroots blogger. I was dismayed to see a Lamont lawn sign on Walt's lawn, too."

Back on the left Ned Lamont's official blogger this time at MyDD posts a picture of a banner-holding Lieberman supporter and comments: That's right, that huge banner says, "I want YOU to release your tax returns." Creative, and important [/snark]. Here's the deal with that line of attack. This is a total distraction, and allows their campaign to keep asking "what does Ned Lamont have to hide?" The answer is ... nothing. Ned has agreed to release his tax returns. Then they asked for the last five years of tax returns. It will never end with them until they get Ned's third grade report card and find out Ned got a "B" in History. They want to talk about ANYTHING but the issues.

Still reporting from CT, the Los Angeles based Jane Hamsher at firedoglake tells her readers about "a secret meeting" 7/16 between Rep. John Larson (D) and "CT-AFL/CIO's John Olson (not-so-affectionately known locally as "Jimy Olson, Cub Labor Leader" for his diminutive stature)." Hamsher believes the parties agreed "to go really, really sleazy and desperate on Ned Lamont."

Finally, My Left Nutmeg tracked down video of Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) pronouncement from San Diego State University's DemocracyFest that she was going to CT to campaign for Lamont because of his anti-war stance.

Progressive Jonathan Singer at MyDD sat down with Aud. Claire McCaskill (D). Highlights include:

Jonathan Singer: We learned this week that the Senate will soon bring up a vote for funding for stem cell research. Even if the bill passes - and it seems that it has enough votes to do so - President Bush has pledged to veto the bill. As Senator, how would you differ from Jim Talent on this issue?Claire McCaskill: Obviously, Jim Talent and I have a much different view of stem cell research. Jim Talent has always seen stem cell research as an issue that involves criminalizing scientists and patients and doctors and even families of patients. ... I have been a big supporter of stem cell research.

Singer: The issue of immigration appears to be one that isn't going to be solved during this Congress. So likely it will still be around for the next Congress. If elected, what type of approach would you take on the issue?McCaskill: I think that they've really, in an effort to divide the nation and galvanize their base with another kind of wedge issue, the right wing of the Republican Party has tried to use the immigrants as the whipping boy of this cycle. I think what we really need to do are, yes, we need to increase border security for a lot of reasons and yes, we need to enforce the law. I'm a former prosecutor. But what they're not talking about is the reason why this immigration is occurring. This immigration is occurring, these people are not coming across the border for a vacation, they're coming to get a job. So if we're going to get to the root of the problem, we've got to start with enforcing the law against employers.

Singer: What do you believe America should be doing in Iraq?McCaskill: My opponent is a stay-the-course, a mindless stay-the-course Senator. Back in May, I gave a very lengthy national security speech where I called for the redeployment of troops within a two-year framework. When given the choice, I would have voted for the Levin-Reed amendment, but I do believe we need to set a framework of 24 months, give or take six months, to completely redeploy.

Populist David Sirota at The Huffington Post believes the key for a Rep. Sherrod Brown (D) defeat of Sen. Mike DeWine (R) lies in Brown's anti-trade leadership. Sirota takes the AP to task for suggesting that voters did not respond to anti-trade messages in 2004: "Really? Voters didn't respond? Doesn't that assumes they would be responding to something? Because last I checked, neither party's presidential candidates offered up any message whatsoever on trade other than feeding us the standard Friedman-esque World-Is-Flat B.S. line. ... That silence was a real tragedy. According to the Associated Press's own exit polls on Ohio primary day, seven in 10 voters in Ohio voters blamed foreign trade for taking away jobs. Those 7 in 10 voters didn't "not respond" to trade when the general election came - they had nothing to respond to and thus voted on other issues."

Back from summer vacation firedoglake contributor TRex wishes she could vote in the GA GOP primary 6/18: "As a registered Democrat, I can't cast my vote in the Republican primary for Lieutenant Governor, so I am having to issue a plea to others to please, please, please vote for Ralph Reed against his primary opponent Casey Cagle. Georgia needs Ralph Reed. Not to actually get elected, but to be the poster boy for Republican corruption, our own Baby Abramoff, a giant stinking albatross around the neck of the Georgia GOP.

Lefty election site BlueNC reports Rep. Rep. Charles Taylor's (R) and Ex-NFL QB Heath Shuler's (D) fundraising totals:

4/13/06 - 6/30/06 Charles Taylor: Total Contributions (other than loans) 172,819.85. Cash On Hand At Close Of The Reporting Period 237924.47 [sic] Heath Shuler for Congress: Total Contributions (other than loans) 313,563.84 Cash On Hand At Close Of The Reporting Period 668,745.43

MyDD's Jonathan Singer is "fairly skeptical towards claims tha[t] the Republicans have a shot at picking up the House seat being vacated by Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats. But a new survey released by GOP pollster Public Opinion Strategies has caused me to be slightly less optimistic than before." State Sen. Peter Welch (D) leads Nat'l Guard adjutant gen. Martha Rainville (R) 45-42 percent, margin of error +/-4.6%. "This is a Republican poll, so the results should be taken with at least a grain of salt. But according to the firm's website, it has polled in Vermont before -- in 2002, during the successful gubernatorial bid of Republican Jim Douglas -- so the numbers should not be dismissed out of hand. At this point, I tend to agree with the rating this race has garnered from the Cook Political Report (.pdf): 'Leans Democrat.' That said, we should keep an eye on this race through election day to make certain that it doesn't get away from us and make it that much more difficult to retake the House this fall."

Lefty HorsesAss is glad to report the "official second quarter results are in and Democratic challenger Darcy Burner reports $590,561 in contributions compared to GOP incumbent Rep. Dave Reichert's $569,077. And once again Burner spent less to raise more, closing the all important cash-on-hand gap to about $340,000. Burner now sits on $770,000 in reserves compared to Reichert's $1.11 million."

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas believes school board commis. "Gary Trauner is turning the Wyoming political world upside down. [...] Now, his Q2 numbers look far better than his incumbent opponent's." Trauner has $235K CoH vs. $218K CoH for Rep. Barbara Cubin (R). "Looks like Wyoming is producing another people-powered Democrat. And note, this isn't a 'blog' thing. People-power isn't about technology, it's about, well, people."

Progressive activist Bluegrass Report is frustrated with the performance of the Kentucky Democratic Party (KDP):

"First, despite the fact that the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance (KREF) recently cited KDP for failing to file a mandatory report providing details about its fundraising events (most notably the Hillary Clinton fundraiser), Democratic Party leadership opted against calling its quarterly Finance Committee meeting in conjunction with last week's state central meeting. Notwithstanding KREF's concerns and the obvious financial problems the party is experiencing, it simply decided not to call a meeting of the only body within the party that has any oversight authority over its finances."

"Secondly, there is a story in the current issue of U.S. News & World Report about the success of the DNC's "50-State Strategy" which a multi-million dollar program where the DNC hires and trains staffers for each state party in the country. As I understand the program, Kentucky was to receive two DNC-paid staffers. But word on the street is that KDP managed to fill just one of the two -- free -- slots. Unfortunately, since the party chose not to schedule a Finance Committee meeting, no one seems to know the status of these hires, but it's time Democrats got some answers. Specifically, who -- if anyone -- are presently filling those two DNC-paid roles?"

Chris Bowers at the progressive MyDD wasn't impressed with the Washington Post's 7/17 article on The Democracy Alliance: "The article does not really report anything all that interesting about the group. It contains two typical aspects of any process story about Democrats: that we are supposedly in turmoil / disarray and that we are too left-wing. It says that some people are irritated about who has gotten he funding and who hasn't, but when we are talking about this amount of money, is that surprising in the least? There would simply be no way to distributed money in this amount without some people being unhappy with how it was distributed."

Bowers continues: "I am not saying that it isn't worth writing about, because I believe it most definitely is. What I am saying is that most of these process stories miss the point of the emerging new progressive politics. Here are the points, as I see them: 1. We are not changing just for the hell of it. We are changing because our old ways led to nothing but defeat. 2. We are not simply replicating the conservative movement through mirror institutions. Instead, we are crating new institutions with fundamentally different operating principles than currently exist int eh conservative movement. 3. We wont' fail because we are too "left-wing."

Rep. Jane Harman took to The Huffington Post to promote her Lawful Intelligence and Surveillance of Terrorists in an Emergency by the NSA ('LISTEN') Act. Harmon first criticized the recent deal Sen. Arlen Specter struck with Pres. Bush on the NSA's communication monitoring program: "Senator Arlen Specter is a careful lawyer who has been one of the few Republicans willing to take on the President when he sees an executive branch power-grab. That's why I was so disappointed to read his legislation on the NSA program. Not only does it fail to force the President to comply with the law, but it actually authorizes the President to make an end-run around FISA and gives him a blank check to conduct warrantless spying on Americans."

Adam C at RedState links to a recent Ryan Sager article arguing "that AZ, NM, CO, NV, WY, ID, UT and MT are about to become the new "swing region," as "the libertarian wing of the Republican Party looks at its options as "the Republicans become more Southern and less Western." Adam C adds:

"Goldwater conservatism came out of the West. Reaganite conservatism came out of the West. The libertarian emphasis on individualism and personal responsibility made the Mountain West the original Republican Stronghold. It took an alliance with the social conservatism in the South to win a majority, but neither group constitutes a majority in and of itself."

"It remains to be seen if Democrats can capitalize on this abandonment of small government ethos. It seems that Gov. Schweitzer of MT and Sen. Salazar of CO are part of a recent trend toward pro-gun, moderate Democrats who can win in former Republican strongholds. But if Republicans were to go back and embrace the ideals of the 1994 revolution that focused first and foremost on limiting government, they could win back a lot of ambivalent voters these days. They could also expand their majority into a functioning 55% that could solve the major problems in the country including the activist judiciary, the looming fiscal crisis from Social Security and Medicare, and the ongoing War on Terrorism."

Pres. Bush's candid 7/17 remark reminded Kevin Drum at The Washington Monthly of another GOPer:

"John McCain on Iraq: "One of the things I would do if I were President would be to sit the Shiites and the Sunnis down and say, 'Stop the bullshit.'"

George Bush on Lebanon: "What they need to do is to get Syria, to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit and it's over."

Drum comments: "No wonder Bush and McCain are so friendly these days. They both have the same finely nuanced view of world affairs."

LEST WE FORGET II: Seperated At Birth CT SEN Edition

Those of you familiar with the major players in CT SEN must stop by Connecticut's Bob casting call for "Lamont - The Movie!" Cast includes: Philip Seymour Hoffman as Lamont Campaign Manager Tom Swan; Rowan Atkinson ("Mr. Bean") as uber-smarmy Lieberman Manager Sean Smith; Abe "Fish" Vigoda as former Senator Joseph I. Lieberman; and a young James Stewart as Ned Lamont