August 21, 2006
8/21: Where Do We Go From Here?
As the rest of the nation ponders solutions to Iraq war troubles, progressive bloggers are also mired in their own strategic quagmire in CT. After toppling Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) in the 8/8 Dem primary, progressives are finding it more difficult than anticipated to rid themselves permanently of the 18-year incumbent. Now that it's clear cable exec Ned Lamont (D-CT) faces a tough battle that threatens to drain progressive resources and attention from other races, as well as draw out GOPers in close House races, some are arguing that Lamont should be cut loose to focus on the larger war against the GOP. For now, the "stay the course" crowd is winning the debate. But a lot, as they say, can change between now and 11/06.
CT SEN: You're Either With Lamont, Or You're With The Neo-cons
Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) 8/20 comparison of Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) to VP Cheney on ABC's This Week (video here) led the league in blogger reaction 8/20.
Middle Earth Journal thought the description was pretty accurate and wanted to see more Dems take a similar position: "So where do some of the other personalities in the Democratic party fall. We will find out in the next couple of weeks. The litmus test will be if they actively campaign for Ned Lamont. Now it's really nice that many of them have endorsed Lamont but that's not enough. Are they going to side with the pro-neocon Republican Lite of the DLC or a majority of the base. Yes, they are going to have to decide who they are going to alienate. This is especially true of any who have presidential aspirations. Yes, Hillary I'm talking to you and that goes for Bill as well. Yes, Joe Biden I'm talking to you. The next couple of weeks you need to decide - are you with us or against us?"
CT Blog has video of Lieberman on Face The Nation and asks readers to "point out Joe's lie in the interview." Under the header "Iraq Better Than One Year Ago, Worse Than Six Months Ago" Lamont Blog was already on the case, summarizing Lieberman positions on Iraq: "July 6th: Iraq better than it was a year ago. Iraqi military ready to lead the fight. August 20th: Iraq worse than it was six months ago. Iraqi military not ready to lead the fight."
Conservatives also noted the dust up. Allahpundit at Hot Air posted heavily edited video of the two performances but questions recent Lieberman personnel decisions: "Question: is he going too far to woo Republican voters? James Joyner notes that Liebs just hired Neil Newhouse, a pollster who, literally, has never had a Democrat for a client. Connecticut's a blue state last I checked; as such, he might do well to worry a little more about alienating left-wing fencesitters than right-wingers who would sooner burn their ballot than vote for the McGovernite candidate."
Also on the right Captain's Quarters finds the Lieberman-Cheney comparison farcical: "Democrats seem intent on painting Joe Lieberman as a pariah these days. The ever-ridiculous Kerry has to push it even farther with a ludicrous comparison to conservative Dick Cheney. I doubt that Cheney ever garnered a 75 rating with NARAL (identical to Chris Dodd), nor did the VP's legislative voting record land him square in the middle of the Democratic caucus, as does Lieberman's."
CT SEN II: Lamont As Loss Leader?
DK at Talking Points Memo set off a lefty blogswarm by questioning progressive priorities in CT: "Should progressives shift their money and attention from the Connecticut Senate race to more important contests? Lamont v. Lieberman is a carnival sideshow, a titillating and distracting spectacle. Rove is the carnival barker. So ignore the hoopla and keep moving on down the midway, folks. The main event is still to come, and it will be in places like Montana, Missouri, and Ohio. We've come too far to get side-tracked now. Absolutely."
Atrios was annoyed by DK's focus: "I'd like more of that advice going to, say, the people who gave money so that Hillary Clinton could have $22 million cash-on-hand. Does Bill Nelson need $12 million to run against Katie Harris? On the House side, does Marty Meehan, who won with 67% of the vote last time, really need to have 5 million bucks in the bank? There is always an incredible misallocation of resources in elections and that's the money which flows to incumbents. Sure, they're not all safe and it's understandable that they need somewhat of a defensive warchest just in case, but if you want to criticize where donors are directing their money (and attention) start there."
Nathan Newman at TPM Cafe linked to data on HRC campaign fund sources and questioned Atrios' reasoning: "That incumbent money isn't progressive money that cares whether Dems control the Senate-- it's money by special interests looking to buy access and influence with those with potential power. .. So the issue for labor and ideological groups is not whether to give money to Hillary or Lamont-- almost none of them are doing so now. The groups interested in progressive control of the Senate are choosing between Lamont and [Sherrod] Brown and [Clair] McGaskill. Talking about lobbyists giving money to Hillary has little to do with the choices progressive groups are making in deciding which challengers to fund to increase progressive power."
DK fired back on his own: "Call me crazy, but I think I'll stick with criticizing the circular firing squad that is the Lieberman-Lamont race, rather than focusing on whether everyone has their fair share of bullets, as Atrios seems to want to do." Atrios responded by shifting the blame to Dem leadership: "this race is about more than Lamont now, it's about 3 important House races that Lieberman's going to [mess up] with all of his Republican pals. Attention must be paid by time-wasters like myself because too many of the powers that be have apparently forgotten that they do, indeed, have a Lieberman Problem. It's not a circular firing squad, it's the implicit Republican candidate (Lieberman) versus the explicit Democratic one (Lamont). Joe's going to try to win by bringing Republicans to the polls, and when he does it won't be the fault of Lamont supporters, it'll be the fault of Lieberman and Dems who failed to confront him."
Consensus on the left centered on the value of Lieberman's defeat outside CT:
- AR at Talking Points Memo: "Strategically, those of us who work on "brand architecture" understand the notion of "anchor brands". This race is not an either/or proposition (support Lamont and ignore the other races). There is an interaction effect -- the more traction Lamont gets, the more the "Democrat" brand benefits, and vice versa."
- mcjoan at DailyKos: "What is important in this race, and why it deserves the attention it has garnered not only in the blogosphere, but also in the traditional media, is the national implications it has. ... He is an obstacle to holding George W. Bush accountable for the myriad disasters he's wreaked upon the nation and a good chunk of the world. Joe must go."
- a TPM reader: "Sorry but with your and Atrios' blog battle over Joe Momentum the real issue is being missed. This is now an issue about the basis of the Democratic Party - if Lieberman gets re-elected as a Independent after loosing a Democratic Party primary and the Dems in the Senate welcome him back into their caucus like nothing has happened our Party is dead. If there is no Party discipline there is no Party - if there aren't rules and regulations there isn't a Party.
- Matt Stoller at MyDD: "You see, Capitol Hill is a small place, and it's a place where there's a certain incestuous cycle of staffers, lobbyists, journalists, and politicians. It's a community, with its own rules about who you can talk to, what can be said in polite company, and who you can bribe. There's a partisan divide, sure, but there's a much bigger divide between those on the inside of the Hill and those of us who aren't. We get our news from the New York Times, but they know the personalities involved and the real story. Many Dodd staffers were Lieberman staffers, and vice versa. Puncturing this bubble is a really big deal, because it changes how laws are passed."
KERRY: No Negotiating New Nomination Necessity
Conservative bloggers read Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) 8/20 comparison of Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and VP Cheney as part of Kerry's '08 ambitions. Blue Crab Boulevard: "Mindlessly ambitious, Kerry does not realize how utterly silly he sounds these days. This is a fundamentally uncurious person with a long record of mediocrity (that being the kindest assessment of his political career). His vilification of Lieberman is all about Joe's failure to recant a position that Kerry once openly backed. A position that Kerry abandoned not out of principle, but to advance his career."
Ace of Spades also focussed on Kerry's principles: "Republicans voted for the Iraq War because they believed in it. ... Democrats voted for the Iraq War, a war they believed was doomed to become a Vietnam-style quagmire, in order to to retain/expand political power. Which is worse? John Kerry voted for a war he never believed in, and always thought would result in thousands of American casualties, because he was too chicken[excrement] to voice his true beliefs." Decision '08 questioned Kerry's commitment to democracy: "Tell me something, Mr. Jackass - er, I mean, Senator Kerry; if Joe Lieberman is so out of touch with the voters of Connecticut, why are you attacking him? His Independent candidacy doesn't matter, right, since he'll surely lose? Isn't the Democratic Party big enough for dissent, or is it a Soviet-style home for apparatchiks now?
Pamela LeaveyThe Democratic Daily responded to Decision'08 directly: "When John Kerry spoke out about Joe Lieberman on 'This Week' today, he spoke out because Lieberman is "making a Republican case," and "adopting the rhetoric of Dick Cheney," on the issue of Iraq. Kerry spoke out not only about Lieberman but the Republican "stay the course" rhetoric. In a word, what Kerry said today was classic "dissent" against Iraq and the current administration. Sorry Decision '08, but you can't have it both ways. Kerry's entire interview today with George Stephanopoulos was all about "dissent" - "dissent" against an administration out of control, a president who has overstepped his authority over and over again."
Natural Born Killers producer and progressive activist Jane Hamsher at firedoglake also sang Kerry's praises: "Kerry has done the right thing before - he had the courage to lead the filibuster against Alito even though he knew all the hacks were going to accuse him of pandering to the base. ... but Kerry now looks prophetic - Alito is a third-rate legal mind who owes his fealty to the fundies, and Kerry's actions will be well remembered both in the blogosphere and the history books." SusanG at DailyKos argues Kerry has defined a new litmus test for all '08ers: "Let's hope all 2008 hopefuls jump on the bandwagon and begin to realize that cutting Joe off is one non-negotiable requirement to nomination."
GOP FIELD: GOP Lazers Locked?
Mark Davis at RCP Blog sees security as the issue for GOP '08 primary voters and argues that ex-NY mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) are the big beneficiaries: " I might prefer other candidates along the way. George Allen and Sam Brownback could wind up duking it out for the Reagan base. Mitt Romney will get deserved attention, and a Newt Gingrich candidacy does not draw as much skepticism as it used to. ... But if Rudy Giuliani can top a Pew Research Center poll as he did last week, and if his numbers and McCain's can reach 45 percent when no single candidate can crack 25, that says GOP voters are laser-locked on the war views of the candidates (Condoleezza Rice at 21 was the only other name topping 9 percent), and less compelled by the "God, guns and gays" issues which have lifted some recent candidacies and destroyed others. This is a good thing."
ALLEN: But Enough About Allen, Let's Talk About Me
Ryan Lizza at TNR phoned Charlie Cook for his take on Macacagate's affect on Sen. George Allen's (R-VA) '08 chances:
To answer your question, I think Allen's presidential hopes had dimmed considerably from last fall when insiders might -- and many did -- say that he was a co-frontrunner for the Republican nomination. To be honest, your TNR piece raised a ton of questions about Allen, that further eroded his position, but more than directly hurt him, simply put some suspicions up in the air, floating around. Then when the macaca hit the fan, this incident just began to corroborate some of the questions you raised.
Later Lizza plugs his 8/20 New York Timesarticle on YouTube-ization of politics: "I'm guessing that right now George Allen is wishing he never appeared as a Confederate officer in the 2003 Civil War movie Gods and Generals in which he sings, "Hurrah! Hurrah! For Southern rights, hurrah!" (Allen's closeups are at 00:12 and 1:18.)"
GIULIANI: Palmettoes Prefer Powerful Leaders
Chrunchy GOP looks at 2000 SC primary exit poll data and sees good news for ex-NY mayor Rudy Giuliani (R): "When asked which was more important in deciding their vote on Primary day, 55% of the 2,078 voters surveyed said a candidate's leadership/personal qualities were more important while 41% said a candidate's position on the issues were more important. ... Matching Rudy's strong personality with South Carolina Republicans' preference for strong leaders above all else could prove to be a winning combination for America's Mayor. Of course, there's a lot time between now and that wintry day when the SCGOP holds its primary, but if Republicans are looking for a strong leader in 2008, Giuliani may have already cornered the market.
MCCAIN: Little Use For Bush, Outside Of War And Taxes
Conservative Captain's Quarters looks at a New York Times 8/21 article on Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) recruiting efforts in SC and sees "the heart of this article is the question as to whether McCain is the logical choice to bear the Bush mantle into another election. However, outside of war policy and taxes, many Republicans may ask themselves if they want to continue the policies of George Bush at all, especially on domestic spending. And this is where McCain has the advantage."
CQ sees two major barriers between McCain and the GOP base: "McCain still has to answer for the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, the monstrosity that put political-speech restrictions into American law. Conservatives have opposed this strongly since before it passed Congress, and are not likely to trust McCain with executive power while he continues to support government restrictions on political speech. Had it not been for the BCRA, McCain could probably have won the nomination by acclaim. ... Nor will they easily trust him with judicial appointments, not after his Gang of 14 grandstanding maneuver. McCain gave liberals cover for their assertions that prominent jurists like Henry Saad and Janice Rogers Brown were either incompetent or too radical to sit on appellate courts."
Machiavel at RedState also looks at McCain maneuverings in SC, Hotline On Call (go team!) report on McCain locking up Maj. General Stan Spears, and argues McCain is barking up the wrong tree: "McCain is in essence fighting the last war, locking up the endorsements he imagines were denied to him last time. ... In short, McCain thinks he was doomed by a powerful, insular cabal of Republican insiders, so he's building a powerful, insular cabal of his own. But Bush in 2000 also had plenty of grassroots support and led decisively in public opinion polls, while McCain's position with the grassroots is much more precarious and will likely remain so."
ROMNEY: The Macaca Winner?
John McIntyre at RCP Blog looks at Sen. George Allen's (R-VA) falling stock and tabs MA Gov. Mitt Romney as the biggest '08 beneficiary: "With Virginia Senator George Allen's recent Macaca gaffe downgrading his status a few clicks, Romney is fast emerging as the alternative to the two moderate heavyweights McCain and Giuliani. Allen's bigger problem (who in many ways was poised to become the conservative choice in the race) is the reality that the country is not exactly pining for another southern, folksy-talking politician wearing cowboy boots. So, Macaca or no Macaca, 2008 was probably not going to be George Allen's year, simply because he reminds people too much of George W. Bush and he appears to be not seasoned enough, especially when compared to Giuliani, Romney and McCain."
MT SEN: Where There's A Will, Not Always A Way
Noting that Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT) campaigned recently with VP Cheney, DailyKos' SusanG points out a Great Falls Tribune piece in which Burns said the US would stay in Iraq "as long as it takes, regardless of whether popular support for the war diminishes." SusanG writes: "This is truly an astounding statement, even considering how accustomed the American people have become under Bush rule to blatant disregard of their wishes. Burns is saying, in so many words, that no matter what the citizens of this country want, he will help continue to ram this fiasco of a war down their throats. So much for the will of the people, eh?"
RI SEN: Laffey All The Way To The Bank
BruinKid, also a Kossack, parses the second debate between Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R) and his opponent, Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey (R), saying he's concerned "about whether or not Laffey's challenge will help or hurt Democrats here. Laffey shows just how right-wing he is in this debate, allowing Chafee to come out looking like a reasonable moderate."
VA SEN: Snakes On A Gun Show
Todd Smyth at Raising Kaine reports on the ex-Navy Sec. Jim Webb (D) campaign's foray into deep Red territory: "The gun show in Roanoke, VA this weekend was a telling tale. A table of Democrats supporting a native Virginian and not one shot was fired. We confounded expectations by not having pentagrams etched on our foreheads dispelling many rumors to the contrary. We actually got a number of compliments for having the balls to show up at all and there was no Allen table around." Brian reports on the rest of the weekend's events.
Righty Outside The Beltway, meanwhile, thinks the Washington Post is "gunning for [Sen.] George Allen (R)" and points out over 30 items on Macacagate. Glenn Reynolds contributes a zinger, then goes on "Reliable Sources" to talk about the scandal.
Highlighting what may be considered a good week for Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), Taylor Marsh points out not only his comments on ABC's "This Week," but also a speech Kerry gave to a group of Indian-Americans. The speech, according to Marsh, "nails George Allen, a man who does not deserve to be in the United States Senate." Kerry: "Well, to Senator Allen I think it's time we said 'welcome to the twenty first century' where slurs and slights aren't a laughing matter."
TERROR POLITICS: The Best Defense ...
Lefty bloggers went on the attack in response to Sen. Orrin Hatch's (R-UT) comments on terrorists waiting for Dem electoral victory before striking. SusanG at DailyKos described the GOP strategy: "It's becoming easier and easier to see why the Republicans are so unconcerned about the whereabouts of Bin-Laden. Apparently capturing him and his fellow conspirators is less important to our national security than ensuring a Democratic defeat in November. In the world according to Republicans, the more words spent trashing the opposition party and its candidates for daring to even question the wisdom of our foreign policy - much less offering specific alternatives - the safer we are.
Ezra Klein at TAPPED offered the solution: "That means, however, that Democrats shouldn't be afraid to mention that the Bush administration is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of American troops, World Trade Center employees, Iraqi civilians, and adorable little puppies. It also wouldn't hurt to wonder if Bush isn't some sort of Manchurian plant, so dedicated has he been to ensuring that America did exactly what its enemies hoped it would. Democrats too often complain that the GOP politicizes terror. But the response to terrorism is a political issue, and it's to the Democrats' discredit that they refuse to treat it as such."
Greg Sargent at TPM Cafe noticed that Dems may be gaining traction on the issue: "It appears that gung-ho pro-war GOP incumbent Rep. Chris Shays -- under fire from antiwar challenger Diane Farrell -- is planning to hold hearings next month on whether Iraq has devolved into civil war. This is important, because it shows how dramatically Ned Lamont's victory has intensified pressure on Shays to distance himself from his party's leadership on Iraq. What's more, the hearings could spotlight the chaos in Iraq, making life unpleasant for other endangered GOP pro-war incumbents who may soon be forced to break ranks over the war, too."
John in DC at AMERICAblog simply asks: "Where the hell is Osama?"
Conservative bloggers were not deterred, stepping up their rhetoric if anything. Radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt: "Not a single Democrat of any stature or visibility has stepped forward to criticize much less reject the opinion from Judge Anna Diggs Taylor declaring NSA surveillance of our enemies contacting their operatives inside our country to be unconstitutional. ... The Democrats cannot be seen to say anything against the opinion because of Kosputin and his minions. The party of Lamont is unhinged, and Judge Taylor's opinion is now a new icon of the movement. ... Any vote for any Democrat is a vote against victory and a vote for vulnerability.
Extreme Mortman quotes Iraqi Amb. Samir Sumaida'ie's 8/21 op-ed and asks if it is "An Iraqi Attack On Ned Lamont?" Sumaida'i's quoted portion:
Plan B, advocated by Friedman and others, is to abandon the region to religious fanatics and Baathist terrorists. It is nothing but a declaration of defeat dressed up to look like a vision for the future. Not only would abandoning Iraq to its fate now be irresponsible, it would almost certainly lead to disintegration and dictatorship, with a high risk of a wide regional conflict.
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: From Politics To Platform
Tom Hayden at The Huffington Post offers up a six point peace movement platform on violence in the Middle East:
- Instead of staying the course, we demand that our officials immediately change the course we are on.
Instead, we must prevent a military escalation by our stalemated warmakers. There should be no US or [US-backed] Israeli bombing against Iran or Syria. We demand to know if the White House and Pentagon have any active plans to do so, as reported by such reputable sources as Seymour Hersh. - Second, we demand that the White House yield to the bipartisan Congressional demand that there be no funding of permanent military bases in Iraq.
- Third, we demand a timetable for ending the US occupation and bringing the US troops home. We will petition and demand that the White House relinquish its formal role to the United Nations Security Council when a re-authorization vote is scheduled later this year.
- Fourth, a "Marshall Plan" for Iraq. A US transfer to the UN would permit a fresh approach to negotiations with the insurgents, reconciliation, humanitarian assistance, reconstruction. and transitional security arrangements. We must shift from unilateralism to multi-lateralism.
- Fifth, respect for the sovereignty of Iraq in all its diversity must be at the heart of any transition. A UN-appointed body must mediate the complex issues of amnesty for those who fought the occupation, and an agreement on equitable power sharing concerning oil revenues and security arrangements, among other issues. Proposals for a false federalism that would actually subdivide the country into satelites should be rejected.
- Finally, the US will have to change course in the region, seriously promote a viable Palestinian state, and abandon all neo-conservative fantasies of turning Sunnis against Shiites in a regional sectarian conflict.
LEST WE FORGET: The Next Bob Barker
The Sneeze shares a story of his six-year-old Game Show Network loving son dinner antics:
My 6-year-old (who's now okay with being six) has been watching the Game Show Network. I know this because he turned our dinner into a game show in which he was the host and I was the contestant. The rules are easy. You're given a multiple choice question with 4 possible answers. Each question is worth 1 million dollars. What makes the game fun is sometimes the questions don't make sense, sometimes there's more than one correct answer and sometimes he's just wrong.
It's very entertaining to watch him run the game, especially as he comes up with the multiple choice answers on the fly. I wrote down all the questions and answers, essentially creating a "home version." [For space the Blogometer offers one example].
2. Which restaurant invented chicken? A) Islands B) Deli C) El Pollo Loco D) In 'N OutAnswer-->El Pollo Loco
NOTES AND ERRATA: Team Hotline Needs You!
The Hotline is looking for a Virtual Intern (three hours, five days a week) to assist in daily compilation of Blogometer updates and assist on special projects. Applicants must consider themselves regular consumers of blogs, be familiar with nationally read blogs from across the spectrum; know how to use blog search engines/aggregators (such as Technorati and Memeorandum); be able to quickly analyze and synthesize developments in the news as well as summarize ongoing blog activity with brevity, clarity and accuracy. Excellent writing and time-management skills are also a must.
This is a "virtual" position, so as long as you have always-on Internet access, Firefox, a plain text editor, and a pulse (i.e. actual presence in DC not necessary) you can apply. As with every Hotline position, we don't expect our writers to not have an opinion, we just expect them to keep it out of their work. Interested applicants should send their resumes to ccarroll@nationaljournal.com
Posted by Conn Carroll at August 21, 2006 12:37 PM
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
