July 24, 2006

7/24: It's '08 Already?

The '06 elections are still more than 100 days away, but 7/24's blogosphere makes it feel like it's already '08. From reactions to the DNC's early-primary schedule to GOP straw polls, all eyes are on the future. Even the 'sphere's two biggest SEN races have '08 implications with Sen. George Allen (R-VA) as the "default candidate" on the GOP side, and possible Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) implications, no matter how ex-Pres. Bill Clinton's trip to CT today goes.

Progressive Chris Bowers at MyDD looks at Hotline On Call's (go team!) DNC early-primary schedule and has five thoughts:

• Unlike SC, the southern state chosen to have a primary shortly after NH, NV has no tradition as an important, early state in the nominating process. This could lead to a more unpredictable, and potentially less establishment-friendly, state of play in the caucus.
• Because it is a caucus, and because it is on Saturday, you can expect extremely low turnout. Like #1, this could again favor the progressive movement in this state.
• This year, the presumptive Democratic nominee for US Senate is Jack Carter, who for all his establishment pedigree, has become something of a movement candidate. ... I'm not sure if either of these candidates fall into the A-list of movement candidates ... but they are not bad. The progressive movement in NV seems to have real teeth.
• Las Vegas is not only a heavily unionized town, but it is a town heavily dominated by the Change to Win coalition. Again, another new, rising progressive power has some real teeth in NV.
• What this could all add up to is an important state in the nominating process that is very favorable to the progressive movement. ... In one scenario, a progressive movement candidate could target a strong second in IA, leading to a victory in NV, that could propel that candidate into near-frontrunner status in just one week.

Righty bloggers are highlighting Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) "If I was president, this wouldn't have happened," criticism of Pres. Bush from a campaign stop for MI Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D). Don Surber comments: "Maybe Sen. Kerry - who lost by 3 million votes - thinks he would have dazzled Hezbollah with his waffling like he did on Iraq." Wizbang adds: "OK, Which part would he have prevented? Would he have prevented Hezbollah from being terrorists and kidnapping 2 Israelis or would have have held some Svengali type mind grip on the Israelis and prevented them from retaliating? This is the exact reason the voters of the United States did not elect him."

Kausfiles picks up on Slate colleague's John Dickersonprofile of ex-VA Gov. Mark Warner noting that Warner is supporting Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) against blogger-fav cable co. exec. Ned Lamont (D) and asks: "After all, Kos snipes at Sen. Dodd and Senators Boxer and Biden for their support of Lieberman in the primary. How is Warner any different?" Kaus concludes that DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas friendship with Warner employee Jerome Armstrong must be the answer.

Dales at RedState offers a more obscure explanation poking fun at Armstrong's past: "Through 2008, Uranus would conjunt his natal Pisces Chiron, while Saturn would transit over the natal Uranus. And we all know that it will be Uranus, with its sudden, unexpected awakenings, rebellions, and lightning-like strokes, that will intermittently clamor for our attention in the next four.* ... * Actual astrological terms and phrases, as the link demonstrates, from paid Warner consultant Jerome "Vis Numar" Armstrong!"

Back on the left side of the 'sphere Nancy Scola at progressive activist MyDD pumps Warner's Forward Together PAC by highlighting House Dem candidate use of the web: "Charlie Melancon, running for re-election in LA 03, has a full-color downloadable walk card (.pdf format) that supporters can print and hand it out door-to-door in his district in the southeastern part of the state. Darcy Burner, a first-time candidate in WA 8, lets volunteers add "Doorbelling for Darcy" events right to Outlook using vCal. Diane Farrell, in CT 04, has a running tally of the cost of the Iraq war. ($297,121,600,300 as I write this.) Farrell has also begun a weekly podcast, now in its second week."

'08 GOP LANDSCAPE: The Default Candidate

Right Wing News tabulates results from a GOPbloggers straw poll based on Gallup's latest "acceptable nominee" question.

The Top Tier Candidates
George Allen: 69% acceptable and 18.3% unacceptable = +50.7%
Newt Gingrich: 63.1% acceptable and 28% unacceptable = 35.1%
Rudy Giuliani: 57.6% acceptable and 33.2% unacceptable = 24.4%
2nd Tier Candidates
Mitt Romney: 50.9% acceptable and 34.6% unacceptable = +16.3%
Tom Tancredo: 45.2% acceptable and 38.7% unacceptable = +6.5%
Sam Brownback: 37.1% acceptable and 41% unacceptable = -3.9%
Mike Huckabee: 35% acceptable and 40.9% unacceptable = -5.9%
3rd Tier Candidates
John McCain: 21% acceptable and 68.7% unacceptable = -47.7%
Bill Frist: 18.6% acceptable and 66.8% unacceptable = -48.3%
George Pataki: 12.2% acceptable and 71.3%% unacceptable = -59.1%
Chuck Hagel: 10.6% acceptable and 70% unacceptable = -59.4%

RWN goes on to comment: "Unfortunately for McCain, independents and Democrats don't get to pick the winner of the Republican primary, conservatives do, and they don't like McCain. Conservatives do seem to like Rudi, but his support of gay marriage, abortion, and gun control (among other left-of-center positions) will keep him from winning. Romney? It's seems highly unlikely that any Republican who has done what it takes to thrive in a state as liberal as Massachusetts is going to be prove his conservative bona fides to the base. ... So, unless someone new enters the field, there's only one candidate left standing at the top of the heap, almost by default: George Allen."

John Miller at National Review Online writes If you like the cover of the current NR, then you'll love this short video of Rudy Giuliani. Something tells me it won't play in Peoria.

Conservative Power Line dips into the wording of a 7/3 Los Angeles Times poll to debunk the papers chosen "A Mormon for President, Voters Balk" headline. Power Line the question used by the pollsters ("Just thinking about a candidate's religion, do you think you could vote for a Mormon [or Jewish, or Catholic, or Evangelical, or Muslim] candidate.") and writes: "Thus, contrary to what the Times reported, the poll does not show that 37 percent of those questioned would not vote for a Mormon candidate; it shows that 37 percent of those questioned would not vote for a Mormon candidate if they thought only about that candidate's religion."

Power Line goes on: "The story also neglects to mention that, while half of the Democrats who expressed an opinion said they would not vote for a Mormon if all they thought about was religion, independents and Republicans showed less prejudice. About 60 percent of independents who expressed an opinion, and more than 70 percent of opining Republicans, were prepared to vote for a Mormon even if they thought only about his religion. Thus, Romney's religion would appear to be less of an obstacle to his nomination than one might infer from the Times' story, which quotes a political science professor who states that religious-based resistance to Romney "among Southern Baptists" could be a "huge problem."

DK ar Talking Points Memo becomes the latest blogger to write Sen. Joe Lieberman (D) out of the Dem Party. But he doesn't make him out to be a GOPer either: "There are three parties in American politics. The third is the Incumbent Party. By that, I mean the peculiar (though certainly not inexplicable) tendency of the interests of incumbent elected officials to merge or align in a way that starts to erase the traditional partisan divide between them and creates a different kind of divide between them and their respective Republican and Democratic constituencies. Sad to say but Joe Lieberman has become a member of the Incumbent Party. Ned Lamont's candidacy is as much about opposing an Incumbent Party candidate, as it is a litmus test on the Iraq War."

Chris Bowers at progressive activist MyDD thinks the same incumbent mind set that has captured Lieberman has infected much of the Beltway Dems as well: "There is a connection between the sense of privilege Lieberman and Lieberman supporters feel, and between his terrible campaigning. ... It is actually a problem that is a serious detriment to the Democratic Party's electoral success. Because so many Democratic elected officials, staffers and consultants feel they are entitled to their positions, rather than viewing those positions as something they have to earn and justify. ... Lieberman's campaign has been terrible precisely because he feels he is entitled to his Senate seat, and isn't accountable to anyone. When even having to campaign becomes offensive to you, you are probably going to suck at campaigning. ... If you don't like campaigns, then get out of politics."

Connecticut Blog reports on Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) campaigning for Lamont in Waterbury, CT, and has video of state Rep. Peter Tercyak (D-CT) and Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) campaigning with Lamont at a stop in New Britain, CT. Over at firedoglakeNatural Born Killers producer and progressive activist Jane Hamsher reports that Tercyak: "jammed last night with his band comprised of other state reps. Chris Donovan, Ken Hewitt and Andy Woodcock called - yes - "The Bad Reps" at the Quality Time Cafe in Meriden. Lemme tell you, you haven't lived until you've heard the CT house majority leader belt out "I Wanna Be Sedated." My Left Nutmeg chips with video of WTIC's "Afternoons with Bruce and Colin" show featuring: "an impromptu interview with Jane Hamsher asking both [Lowell] Weicker and [Colin] McEnroe to share their thoughts on the Lieberman-Lamont race. The result is quite revealing by both men."

Perhaps anticipating Bill Clinton's trip to CT, Political Punch reports: "In my previous incarnation as a columnist for Tina Brown's Talk Magazine, I profiled Mr. Lieberman and found tensions between him and more traditional Democratic constituencies long preceding his fights today with liberal antiwar forces inside and outside of the Nutmeg State. In fact, they were between himself and then-Democratic presidential nominee Al Gore -- during the time that Lieberman was Gore's No. 2. At issue: Gore's populist slogan "The People Versus the Powerful." Lieberman didn't like it. And he refused to say it. Causing tensions between him and Gore's chief campaign consultants in Nashville. ... It should be noted that Lieberman wasn't the only high-profile Dem who thought Gore's approach wrongheaded. Then-President Bill Clinton thought it was "bullsh-t," according to sources close to Clinton, and blamed Gore's loss on that approach to no small degree."

In anticipation of his CT visit to support Sen. Joe Lieberman (D), mcjoan at DailyKos penned an open letter to ex-Pres. Bill Clinton including: "You are a kind and forgiving man. It takes a good man to forgive one who had scolded, berated, and chastised you, and come to his assistance in his time of need. ... However, in the event that the people of Connecticut choose Ned Lamont as their candidate on August 8, I hope you will use your considerable influence with Senator Lieberman, witnessed by your presence in the state next week, to urge the Senator to change his mind about betraying the Democratic party and the Democratic voters of Connecticut. If Senator Lieberman loses this primary, I hope you will help him make the decision to recognize and accept the will of the Connecticut voters and bow out as graciously as his years of service and the dignity of the Senate seat deserves."

The liberal and pro-Liberman LieberDem responded: "The Lieberhater crowd has repeatedly said that Lieberman "stabbed Clinton in the back" by daring to make that speech, and have used the speech to argue that Lieberman was a disloyal Democrat who helped push the GOP drive towards impeachment. Such a charge could easily be dismissed as patently false without exposing the implicit hypocrisy behind it. Lieberman never supported the impeachment efforts. He voted to dismiss the charges and end the trial every time such a motion came before the Senate, and he voted against both counts during the impeachment trial (here and here). many have actually credited Lieberman's speech as providing the Democrats with the position that allowed them to save the Clinton Presidency: Separate the legitimate questions about his personal conduct from the illegitimate legal attacks."

LieberDem then went on to spread the anti-Clinton label around: "But even if we were to accept the absurd characterization of Lieberman's actions as "stabbing Clinton in the back," then Russ Feingold stabbed Clinton in the back, twisted the knife, and shot him with an Uzi. Among Democrats, Feingold was the most persistent and vocal critic of Clinton and the greatest Democratic proponent of continuing the GOP investigations throughout the period from 1997-1999. During the Lewinsky scandal in particular, Feingold was Clinton's strongest and earliest Democratic critic. And yes, this is the same Russ Feingold who is a hero of the progressive blogosphere."

Mcjoan at DailyKos quickly shot back at Lieberman and offered a limited defense of Feingold: "Lieberman's speech was huge news and provided cover for Republicans and the media to continue the impeachment witchhunt. Indeed, Lieberman expressly stated that the Senate should await partisan Special Prosecutor Ken Starr's report before deciding on a course of action, a course of action that could have included impeachment and removal of President Clinton. Crooks & Liars has a clip of the speech that is an illustrative reminder of exactly how scathing Lieberman's speech was. ... To put it plainly, I think Russ Feingold was wrong every step of the way in the Clinton/Lewinsky saga. But Russ Feingold did not deliver a speech on the Senate floor intended to garner the approbation of Republicans and the media. Feingold's criticism of Clinton stemmed from his personal sense of disappointment and principle, not for grabbing attention. Indeed, Feingold's position on the Clinton impeachment garnered almost no coverage at all. Funny how that worked out."

At deadline, LieberDem had the last word: "The truth, of course, is that we have absolutely no way of knowing what Lieberman and Feingold's motivations were. All we can do is judge them by their words and actions. On that basis, no reasonable person could say that Lieberman's actions were somehow more critical or disloyal than Feingold's. Lieberman made one speech criticizing Clinton's personal conduct; Feingold said he was open to impeachment, said Clinton 'disgraced himself,' and was the only Democrat to vote with Republicans on the key motions which could have ended the impeachment trial's public humiliation of Clinton."

Conservative bloggers had a uniform reaction to a New York Times 7/23 article cataloguing NRSC financial woes. Matt Lewis at Human Events Online: "But, if there is any room for criticism of the NRSC -- and Senator Dole's leadership -- it lies in their unwavering support of liberal Republicans, such as Lincoln Chafee. Granted, it may be part of the NRSC's charter to support all Republicans, but to what degree they support these candidates is a matter of discretion." Hugh Hewitt agrees: "The New York Times wants you to believe that its Senator Dole's fault that the NRSC is far below its fund-raising goals. Two words: Lincoln Chafee."

Hewitt goes on to differentiate his criticism of Chafee and the CT SEN race: "Facile comparisons with the lefty netroots campaign to unseat Joe Lieberman ignore the Connecticut senator's long term status as reliable Democratic vote, standard bearer in '00, and spokesman for core Democratic values. He's being purged because of a single issue. Chafee, by contrast, does not stand with the GOP on any crucial issue except on the issue of organizing the chamber, and if his vote ever became critical to that exercise, at a minimum the GOP would be under threat of a Jeffords jump at any time.

National Review Online's Greg Pollowitz declared Sen. George Allen (R-VA) the winner of the 7/22 pre-debate yard sign battle: "The battle before the debate has begun. George Allen's campaign has blanketed the one road that leads to the debate site with campaign signs. There are no signs whatsoever for Jim Webb's campaign. As a matter of fact, I've yet to see any sign or bumper sticker for Jim Webb on the entire drive down from NYC."

Progressive phriendlyjaime at Raising Kaine found it "a reeeeeeeeal shocker" when the Richmond Times Dispatch went with a "Allen Takes First Round" headline. She went on to report: "Remember, I was there, and AT BEST it was a draw for Allen. And yes, I spoke with writers-they all agreed with me."

Also at Raising Kaine, Webb Netroots Coordinator Lowell Feld rounds up coverage of the debate including: "The Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star says "no clear winner in Senate debate." The Washington Post's Robert Barnes says that Webb proved he could "stay on the same stage with Virginia's genial conservative," but did not succeed in "putting the incumbent on the defensive, scoring headlines and promising a furious fight to come." The Charlottesville Daily Progress quotes Virginia Tech political analyst Robert Denton said Webb "did relatively well for a newcomer...didn't get defensive...kept his cool."

Raising Kaine rounds out there Webb coverage with a Jamie Martin post comparing the Allen/Web race with other SEN races: "Even though Allen has twice the name recognition, Webb only trails Allen by 10 points (less than what Kaine trailed Kilgore). The two most competitive races this year are similar: Pennsylvania - Casey (D) leads by 9. Ohio - Brown (D) leads by 9."

DK at Talking Points Memo looks at the current environment and asks: "But what if the Democrats lose again? Is anyone quietly angling to replace Nancy Pelosi? The rest of the House Democratic leadership? It's a fair question. If you can't bring it home for the Dems in this political environment, then you should probably go home."

National Review Online's John Pitney Jr. notes a bump in California First Lady Maria Shriver's campaign road and point a finger. Shriver came to Watsonville, CA, "to encourage poor families to use food stamps to buy healthy fruits and vegetables" when a group called the Brown Berets drove her away, shouting "You're not welcome here" and "racist." Pitney links to a New West Notes report describing a similar incident "in the 2003 recall campaign, where Democratic dirty trickster Bob Mulholland had union members disrupt her first campaign event. Mulholland, now working for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides, refused to comment on the latest incident."

Conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt looks at the eight votes against 7/20's House resolution supporting Israel and notes five of the seven Dems voting no "Conyers, Dingell, Rahall, Stark and Abercrombie are ranking members --and presumptive chairs if Democrats regain a majority in November-- of Judiciary, Energy and Commerce, Resources, the Health Subcommittee of Ways and Means, and the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee of Armed Services, respectively. If Democrats win in November, all these gavels fall into hands of Members who voted against Israel even as she was under a massive and continuing barrage of terrorist rocket attacks."

Over on the left Matt Stoller at MyDD looks through his email and laments that while he's "honestly not sure what Israel should do," he is diappointed with "the extremist AIPAC crowd" for whom "anyone who doesn't believe in indiscriminately killing Arabs should go join Hezbollah." Stoller worries that Pres. Bush's inaction on the violence could harm American citizens: " At any point, Bush could stop Israel from attacking Hezbollah, as Reagan did in 1982. Bush is doing nothing. As a result of this combination of quiet encouragement through logistics and intentional diplomatic impotence, American citizens will be held accountable for Israeli actions. Maybe Israel is doing the right thing, and maybe not. But we should at least have the debate with all the facts on the table, since it's not just Israel that will wear the consequences."

Kevin Drum at The Washington Monthly is also frustrated with Isreal's behavior: "Israel's military strategy continues to baffle me. As Gideon Levy puts it, Israel "claims it has declared war on Hezbollah but, in practice, it is destroying Lebanon." It remains unclear whether this was part of the plan all along or merely the all-too-predictable result of lofty political promises leading to improvised escalation, but it's quickly beginning not to matter. A war against Hezbollah is justifiable, whether wise or not, but a war against Lebanon isn't. Israel will gain nothing from continuing it."

Also on the left, Cenk Uygur at The Huffington Post asks: "How Many Civilians Do You Have to Kill Before You Become a Terrorist?" Uygur goes on: "The United States and Israel love to throw around the word "terrorist." It's hard to name any of our enemies who we have not called a terrorist yet. I was led to believe that a terrorist was someone who killed innocent civilians for their military or political goals. ... Are Israel's enemies not allowed to fight at all? If they have to audacity to challenge Israel in any way, do they automatically become terrorists? Is arguing with Israel also an act of terrorism? These days I wouldn't be surprised. I imagine they'll call it verbal terrorism. Sorry, I didn't mean to give them any ideas. Was the resistance to German occupation in France during World War II a terrorist operation? Oh no, that's right, they were on our side, so they couldn't possibly be terrorists. They were freedom fighters."

The Volokh Conspiracy's Ilya Somin uses a 7/22 Wall Street Journal account of the division between libertarian Milton Friedman and his wife Rose over the Iraq war as a jumping off point to examine how Iraq has divided other libertarians as well:

"The dissension in the Friedman family would be unimportant if not for the fact that it mirrors a broader split within the libertarian community over the war. Just looking at the major libertarian websites and blogs for example, Instapundit and Techcentralstation have strongly supported the war (as have most of us here at VC), whereas Liberty and Power and others have opposed it. So too has the most prominent libertarian think tank, the Cato Institute. The commentators at Reason, probably the leading libertarian magazine, are internally divided among themselves."

"I do not as yet have a definitive explanation for the intra-libertarian split. One possibly theory is that this disagreement tracks the longstanding division between those who endorse an absolutist interpretation of libertarian principle versus those who take a maximizing approach. Wars clearly lead to violations of rights to life, liberty, and property. ... A second possible explanation is more autobiographical than ideological. It is possible that those libertarians who embraced the ideology primarily out of hostility to the various works of the US government are more likely to be antiwar than those who came to it primarily because of personal or familial experience with statist and socialistic governments elsewhere."

"Certainly, anecdotal evidence suggests that immigrant libertarians are more likely to be pro-Iraq War than native-born ones. ... If you are highly focused on the evils of oppressive regimes and political movements outside the US, you might be more willing to countenance the use of American military power to destroy or contain them than if you have regarded the US government itself as the main threat to your freedom."

In response to National Review Online's "50 greatest conservative rock songs," Raising Kaine has put together a list of the "50 greatest Progressive (as in, politically not musically "progressive") rock songs." The top ten include:

1) "If I Had a Rocket Launcher" (Bruce Cockburn)
2) "Welcome To The Occupation" (REM)
3) "Cuyahoga" (REM)
4) "Fall on Me" (REM)
5) "Imagine" (John Lennon)
6) "Working Class Hero" (John Lennon)
7) "Ohio" (Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young)
8) "Keep on Rockin' in the Free World" (Neil Young)
9) "Born in the USA" (Bruce Springsteen)
10) "Bullet the Blue Sky" (U2)

Posted by Conn Carroll at July 24, 2006 12:27 PM