December 04, 2006

12/4: Enemies List

The netroots are not a monolithic entity, so not every list of blogger grievances with Dem stalwarts merits covering. But David Sirota is a New York Times best selling author and has enough pull in the netroots community to get select items cross-posted at both The Huffington Post and Daily Kos ... the two most trafficked blogs we cover. So as we approach the holiday season, and you want to know which Dems have been naughty or nice according to some progressive activists, check out the story below.

DEMS: He Named Names

Firedoglake's Pachacutec thanks David Sirota for "naming some names" when it comes to "who's on the side of the people and who's on the side of the DC/K Street Elites." Sirota's "People Party Leaders" include: Sens.-elect Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Jon Tester (D-MT) Jim Webb (D-VA) and Sens. Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Russ Feingold (D-WI) , Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Dick Durbin (D-IL), Reps. George Miller (D-CA), David Obey (D-WI), John Conyers (D-MI), Louise Slaughter (D-NY) and Henry Waxman (D-CA) Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), Tim Ryan (D-OH), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) Nancy Boyda (D-KS), and Bruce Braley (D-IA).

Enemies of the people (with their crimes in parenthesis) include:

• Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) ("trumpeted a new report calling for post-Enron corporate reforms to be gutted")
• Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) ("the architect of NAFTA")
• Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) ("bragged on his website about starting his own K Street Project")
• Rep. Ellen Tauscher ("ran to newspapers desperately trying to let K Street know that she would be working to undermine Democrats' efforts to reform our trade policy")

Those being watched closely by progressives (with their suspicious behavior in parenthesis) include:

• Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), ("this year he voted for the Oman Free Trade Agreement")
• Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) ("told reporters that he did not think Democrats should be so quick to embrace efforts to gut post-Enron corporate accountability laws")
• Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) ("never met a lobbyist-written trade deal he didn't like")
• Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) ("supporting the Bush tax cuts, the Bush Medicare bill and nearly every major lobbyist-written trade deal that has come through the Senate")
• Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) ("opposed to repealing Bush tax cuts, is interested in potentially continuing our current trade policy")
• Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) ("has proposed to business lobbyists a so-called "grand bargain")
• Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) ("may oppose efforts to allow seniors to purchase lower-priced, FDA-approved medicines from Canada")
• Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) ("she this year headlined the DLC's national conference - a very public rebuke of the People Party")
• Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) ("He additionally voted for the industry-written class action bill that limits citizens ability to seek legal redress against corporate abusers, he voted for the oil industry-written Energy Bill, he voted against legislation to crack down on exorbitant credit card interests rates, and he voted for the Oman Free Trade Agreement")

Echoing Sirota's concerns, Daily Kos' ManfromMiddletown reports "[t]here's a war on for the heart of our party, and it seems that Speaker Pelosi has chosen sides." Middletown specifically is concerned that Pelosi did not include voices from Labor among a series of seminars for freshman reps. that included a session by "free trade fanatic from the Clinton administration" Robert Rubin. Middletown writes: "Never in my life did I think that I would see a Democratic speaker of the House ban Labor from talking to the people's representatives."

OBAMA: Cancer Curer

Populist activist David Sirota cross posted his latest concerns about Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) potential candidacy 12/1 atSirotablog, Daily Kos, and The Huffington Post. Specifically, Sirota warns progressives to be wary of "national media" "swooning over Obama" since even they admit Obama has not "developed significant legislative initiatives" while in the Senate. Sirota explains: "For progressives, this situation is perilous indeed. Obama is a candidate who has kept his record deliberately thin, who has risked almost nothing for the bigger movement, and in fact who has sometimes gone out of his way to reinforce dishonest stereotypes about the left ([link to Sirota piece on Obama addressing Dems and faith]).

Sirota does acknowledge in an update that Obama "was a great State Senator in the Illinois legislature" but argues "that should only cause more skepticism, because if he was willing to push such a strong agenda in his previous job, why has he been unwilling to do the same now?" This admission did not stop Daily Kos' demosthenespublic from responding: "Sometimes, you really just have to sit back and laugh at the ridiculousness of the purity-obsessed political culture we now live in. Take this poorly written screed in which Dave Sirota belittles Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's (D) anticipated run for president."

Responding to demosthenes and others Sirota says Obama defenders fall into two camps: "1) Barack Obama was a great state legislator in Illinois even if he hasn't done much OR EVEN TRIED TO DO MUCH in the Senate, and therefore he is the second coming of the Almighty or 2) Barack Obama is just really incredibly awesome for no actual substantive reason, and therefore he is the second coming of the Almighty." Sirota then offers: "I'm not sure how to really argue with any of these absurd cliches because they are so fact-free, As one commenter said, if you apply Obama topically, he cures cancer. He can walk on water and split oceans to lead the people to their freedom...I mean, really - does it ever end?"

Sirota does add though: "None of this is Obama's fault, and as I've written repeatedly, I strongly believe he has incredible potential to be one of American history's great leaders, and in fact a great presidential candidate right now - but only if he starts aspiring to actually lead, starts using his bully pulpit to promote a real, substantive cause."

BIDEN: Unwelcome Comparisons

Under a header "Joe Biden's Trent Lott moment" Corrent Wire picks up on Columbia Statereports that Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) charmed a GOP crowd in Columbia, SC telling them DE was "a slave state that fought beside the North. That's only because we couldn't figure out how to get to the South. There were a couple of states in the way." CW responds: "But why on earth would a Democratic Senator, in 2006, help enable Republican to feel nostalgic for the "lost cause" of the slave market and the lash? What is wrong with this guy?"

MCCAIN: Leave No IA GOPer Unhired

IA's Krusty Konservative notes that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) "has been aggressively lining up staff after the November elections" including: Tim Miller, Scott Will, Jenn Crall, Erik Helland, Bob Haus, and Karen Slifka. KK adds: "With new these new faces, the McCain folks are going to need some office space. I hear they will be setting up shop in the same office that the Nussle kampaign occupied in the last election cycle. ... None of these hires really surprise me, and I'm sure this is just the tip of the iceberg."

IA's Caucus Cooler reports McCain also brought on "one of Iowa's leading social conservatives, Marlys Popma." CC comments: "Popma worked on the caucus campaign of Phil Gramm in 1996 and Gary Bauer in 2000. This is mostly significant because of Popma's strong ties to the social conservative community in Iowa- a group McCain will have to do a lot of work to win over. Bringing on Popma will go a long way in helping him do this. She is close to the Iowa Christian Alliance, Iowa Right to Life, and the Family Policy Center."

Over at RedStatePejman Yousefzadeh reminds readers of his differences with McCain but explains: "anyone who is brave enough to resist the bedlam of public opinion and announce his support for more troops in Iraq in order to achieve a successful reconstruction has my respect.

ROMNEY: Not A Bad Enemy To Have For The Primary At Least

Righty blogger consensus seems to be that Boston Globereports of MA Gov. Mitt Romney's lawn service provider hired illegal immigrants says more about the Globe than it does about Romney. Townhall's Hugh Hewitt writes: "The Globe story tells us a lot more about the Globe's animus towards Romney ... than it does about anything else, and certainly nothing about Romney's electability. ... As both Fred Barnes and Morton Kondracke agreed on tonight's show, it isn't a story of any consequence except it indicates again that the MSM has its knives out early and pointed only in the direction of the Republican candidates."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff adds: "Of course, there is no evidence that Romney had any idea that this guy or any of his comrades are illegal. Nor is this something he should have known. Romney contracted with a legitimate company; that company hired the illegals. Romney is no more culpable than I am if I go to a restaurant that employs illegal aliens as waiters or busboys (or the Globe is if one of its vendors employs illegals)."

Not everyone was impressed with Romney's handling of the situation though Ankle Biting Pundit's Bulldog Pundit writes: "Why did he have to walk away and go back to his handlers to deal with the situation. That's pretty juvenile. The statement "several hours later" was that Romney didn't know anything about the legal status of the workers and only dealt with the guy who ran the company. ... That's totally believable and makes sense ... But why did he have to run away instead of issuing that statement himself. His actions make him look weak and indecisive, and that he has something to hide, even though he probably doesn't.

IRAQ: Rumsfeld Six; Kucinich One

The leaked ex-Def. Sec. Donal Rumsfeld memo on six options for Iraq received plenty of blogger reaction 12/3. Righty reactions include:

• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "Oh so predictably, the Washington Post tries to use Donald Rumsfeld's classified memo on Iraq as a weapon against the Bush administration. And, just as predictably, the use of the memo for that purpose signals Rumsfeld transformation from chief villain to respectable analyst."
• Captain's Quarters: "However, it will be interesting after this memo to see how the press and the Democrats approach Rumsfeld. They have made him the Devil incarnate for the last three years for his prosecution of the war. Now that he has endorsed a lighter approach to Iraq, similar to what the media and the opposition have demanded, will they rehabilitate Rumsfeld as a "wise man" on the war?"
• Riehl World View: "What I sensed in reading the actual memo was just how much Rumsfeld was opposed to nation building in Iraq. Left with that impression, I wonder if it wasn't the final straw for Bush in deciding to let Rumsfeld go. The Bush policy, which I continue to support, by the way, is to establish democracy in the Middle East as a means of combating radical Islam with a long term solution that will actually work."
• The Corner's Andy McCarthy: "My strictly non-military observation, based on many years in government, is: We appear to be in for two years of increasing dysfunction.
• Outside the Beltway: "Rumsfeld is a bright guy and capable of doing much more in-depth analysis on his feet at press conferences so, presumably, his intent was merely to collect the various ideas floating around as a starting point for discussion. ... Had he intended it to be a detailed analysis advocating a specific course correction, he would have written one.
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "What strikes me most about the memo is how similar Rumsfeld's recommendations are to what we have been doing for some time. ... The conventional wisdom is that both President Bush's firing of Rumsfeld, and the timing thereof, were dictated by political considerations. On the whole, I still think that is right. But reading Rumsfeld's final memo does raise another possibility: perhaps Bush read the memo and decided that, if the current leadership of the Defense Department couldn't come up with any ideas that represented a more significant departure from our existing policies, he would give someone else a shot.
• Andrew Sullivan: "Here's a mischievous thought. What if the two most recent leaks - the Hadley Memo and the Rumsfeld Memo - came from the same source? What if they were designed to kill any attempt by Bush and Cheney to pretend things are okay, that Maliki is viable, and that a revamped effort can work? And what if the leaker were a man who just got fired and who's skilled at bureaucratic payback? Just musing."

On the left, The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum was not impressed: "In other words, the options Rumsfeld isn't open to are the ones most frequently mentioned by outside analysts: Increasing the number of troops, concentrating on Baghdad, withdrawing, splitting Iraq into three mini-states, and negotiating with Syria and Iran. He doesn't like any of 'em. ... The bottom line then, is: maybe some small changes, maybe a change in rhetoric, but nothing serious."

At The Huffington Post, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) argues "There is only one way in which the United States will withdraw from Iraq, prior to the end of President Bush's term: Congress must vote to cut off funds." And later adds: "The Democratic majority is upbeat about establishing a domestic agenda including additional funds for health care and education. But, the unassailable fact is that the war is devouring the hopes for any domestic agenda. Each and every vote to fund the war is a vote to drive the United States deeper into debt and further away from humane aspirations."

BLOGGERS VS. MSM: Guilt By Association?

Beltway Blogroll's Daniel Glover came under heavy netroot fire for an accompanying write up to a New York Timesop-chart on paid campaign bloggers. Mentioned in the piece, MyDD's Jerome Armstrong calls the piece "slanted "opinion" with an agenda" and fellow MyDDer Jonathan Singer explains: "Glover ... seems to allege that political campaigns are getting more than they appear to be paying for with some of their consultants and employees, with top-tier bloggers on politicians' payrolls using their personal sites to boost their benefactors." Many on the left were quick to point out that two bloggers mentioned in the chart, but not the article, quit their blogs before starting with campaigns:

• Pandagon's Amanda Marcotte: "Daniel Glover and Mike Essl are hinting around that a lot of bloggers have undisclosed conflicts of interest and forget to include an extremely important disclaimer about some of the bloggers on their handy little chart here. You know, the part where they clearly state that bloggers like Peter Daou and our own Jesse Taylor have no conflict of interest at all. Because they quit their blogs before starting their campaign jobs so there was no conflict of interest.
• Atrios: "I guess the blogger ethics standard is now if you've ever run a blog there's something unseemly about actually working with politicians, even years later."
• Roger Ailes: "Neither mentions that Jesse Taylor no longer blogs at Pandagon and that he announced the fact when he went to work for Strickland. And why doesn't Glover mention Holy Joe Lieberman's hiring of Bull---t Marshall Wittmann in his article/chart?"
• Steve Gilliard: "What these cretins don't get is not all bloggers are the same. Many of us come from journalism backgrounds and don't do politics. Others are looking to get into politics. Look at the relatively small figures that these people have made, and this pernicious idea that bloggers are "selling out" is so f---ing silly. Some people do politics, some don't."

Glover even managed to join Atrios' illustrious "Wanker of the Day" club.

Blog P.I. wonders where all the vitriol comes from since the "only blogger explicitly criticized" by Glover is Ankle Biting Pundits contributor and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) advisor Patrick Hynes: "The only blogger explicitly criticized is Hynes, a Republican, yet most of the outcry comes from the left. Why? Guilt by association. That's why I think that the article might not have received such harsh criticism had it not been paired with a chart placing bloggers' quotes about their employers."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Is James Bond Responsible for the Iraq War?

Slate's Richard Cohen argues that when Pres. Bush told Americans: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," he meant that James Bond had personally attained the information. Cohen continues:

At the time, I did not give much thought to how Bond got this information, but I supposed it entailed a killing or two, a fast car, a gorgeous woman of situational morality, and a lethal gizmo provided by Q. Of course, I knew that it was not literally Bond who discovered that Saddam had gone shopping in Africa, but the fact that it was the British government that came up with the goods gave Bush's assertion unimpeachable authority. You need only ask yourself what the effect would have been if Bush had cited the Italian government or the Russian government or even the Israeli government, which could be seen as an interested party. "The Italian government has learned " We'd still be laughing.

LEST WE FORGET: Definitely The French

Matthew Yglesias points readers to a Go To Quiz that determines "Do You Want the Terrorists to Win?" by asking questions like:

"Who wants the terrorists to win more?"

• The French


• The Dutch


• The Spanish


• The American liberals


• None of these want the terrorists to win

Yglesias scored a 96% generating this write-up of his beliefs: "You are a terrorist-loving, Bush-bashing, "blame America first"-crowd traitor. You are in league with evil-doers who hate our freedoms. By all counts you are a liberal, and as such cleary desire the terrorists to succeed and impose their harsh theocratic restrictions on us all. You are fit to be hung for treason! Luckily George Bush is tapping your internet connection and is now aware of your thought-crime. Have a nice day .... in Guantanamo!"

Posted by Conn Carroll at December 4, 2006 12:31 PM