February 06, 2007

2/6: Leader Of The Pack?

The netroots often talk about how they're out in front of Dem officeholders in the major issues of the day (think Lieberman '06). But Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) is way ahead of 'roots consensus on how they should approach the issue of Iraq now that Dems control Congress. While some netroots leaders have changed their minds on what Dems should do, Feingold has been unequivocal in calling for full withdrawal through a defunding of the war. Will the netroots respond to his leadership and pressure Dems to exercise their power of the purse?

IRAQ: Not As Useless As He Thought

Following the cloture vote on the Warner/Levin bill, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) had harsh things to say about fellows Dems in a blogger conference call, singling out John Edwards in particular. The Brad Blog says Feingold: "was also critical of John Edwards who, he says, has been 'masquerading' as a critic of the war, but whose proposal so far only calls for refusing to fund the proposed Bush troop escalation in Iraq. Even he, Feingold said, fails in his rhetoric to call for withdrawal and a full defunding of the current debacle."

Daily Kos' Mcjoan quotes Feingold on his Dem colleagues: "This almost reminds me a little bit of the way Democrats behaved in October 2002, which was trying to play it safe, trying to use words such as 'well, we're going to vote for this resolution, but what it really means is that the president should go to the UN. That stuff doesn't fly."

When asked how bloggers can help to stop the war, Feingold urged them "to call their Congress Members to demand tough action in hopes that it might give them the backbone to do the right thing." David Sirota has select audio excerpts of the call here.

The bloggers themselves kept fire away from Dems and concentrated on GOPers, regardless of whether they voted to end debate. DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas notes that up-in-'08 GOP Sens. Susan Collins (ME) and Norm Coleman (MN) both voted to end the debate but Kos promised anyway: "they'll both be axed in 2008." And for those Senate GOPers who voted to keep debate open Kos writes: "we'll make you regret this vote in 2008."

The episode seems to have changed Kos' mind on the value of the non-binding resolution as well: "So this "non-binding resolution" wasn't as useless as I thought. Now, we can beat Republicans over this vote for the next two years. ... This was always the GOP's war, but now more than ever. ... Because of the Senate filibuster and presidential veto, It's near impossible for Democrats to end this war. But what we can and do, and should do, is keep bringing up these resolutions. ... Bring them up and keep forcing Republicans to stand with Bush in support of this war."

Kos later adds specific posts on his top GOP targets, calling Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) a "coward," Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) "weak," and Sen. John Sununu (R-NH) "spineless."

IRAQ II: When More Debate Is Less Debate

Righty bloggers are crying foul over MSM coverage of 2/5's cloture vote on the Warner/Levin bill. RedState's California Yankee notes the AP, New York Times, and CNN all blame the GOP for "block[ing]" debate. CY then informs the MSM: "According to Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary "cloture" is "the closing or limitation of debate in a legislative body especially by calling for a vote."

Also at RedState, Leon Wolf calls CNN's coverage of the vote "probably the most stupendous piece of bias I have ever seen in anything that has tried to pass itself off as "news," ever." Wolf says he would "love some screenshots of CNN's coverage of, say, the judicial filibuster fight circa 2005... just for purposes of comparison. I'm willing to bet it'd be very.. interesting." Instapundit also claims the MSM is getting it backward: "There's a pattern to these errors, it seems."

GIULIANI: Straight Talk II?

Rudy Giuliani has been at or near the top of many online straw polls for some time, and the reaction to his 2/5 announcement demonstrates that right bloggers are open, but not yet sold, on his candidacy. Reax include:

• Ankle Biting Pundit's Bull Dog Pundit: "The way Rudy could handle this issue, and still come out OK is to say that while he personally supports the outcome in Roe v. Wade, that he thinks the issue should be left up to the states themselves. ... If Rudy would address the abortion and gay marriage issue like that he would immediately become my choice."
• The Corner's John Podhoretz: "[A]t some point Rudy skeptics are going to have to come to grips with the fact that Republican primary voters seem to want to choose him. That is a new phenomenon for someone who has no record of siding with social conservatives on symbolic issues, and it suggests a changed dynamic in the GOP.
• Captain's Quarters: "He will find the Republicans an open-minded but cautious group. Rudy gets high marks for leadership and action, two characteristics that have not been found in much quantity in the GOP field. He gets yellow flags for his positions on abortion and gun control, and the Republican Party wants to hear him square the circle on those points before taking him seriously as their banner-carrier in 2008."
• Kausfiles: "Here's one way to put the difference between John McCain and Rudolph Giuliani when it comes to getting the GOP nomination--McCain has the wrong friends (the press), while Giuliani has the "right enemies," as Amy Holmes just said on Anderson Cooper. ... Anyone who inspired such enmity from the Times, conservatives may conclude, can't be all that liberal.

Many blogger TV sets tuned in for Giuliani's appearance on Hannity and Colmes 2/5. The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez posts video and reviews were mostly positive. Despite not necessarily agreeing with his views on social issues, IA's Krusty Konservative compared Giuliani's performance to "John McCain of 2000, just tell people where you stand and let them make up their mind if they can support you or not." Captain's Quarters thought the interview played "to both Rudy's strengths and weaknesses. He is not going to change his beliefs to win the nomination, a position that will build both respect and opposition for his campaign. On the other hand, he shows that he has a thoughtful position on these issues."

The Brody File, however, noted Giuliani's invocation of Justice Ginsburg as judge in the same "category" as Justice Roberts and Alito might not "hold up under the bright lights of scrutiny from social conservatives in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, etc."

Back in IA, the Caucus Cooler notes "Rudy has no staff to our knowledge as compared to the well-oiled, well-organized Romney and McCain machines" and advises Giuliani that not all interviews "in the coming weeks are going to be like the Hannity t-ball fest last night."

The Right Angle's John Gizzi adds that while Giuliani will not be at the state Republican Convention in Grand Rapids, MI, 2/9-10, he "make a major effort to win Michigan's delegates to the Republican National Convention in '08" and "will nonetheless make news this weekend by announcing that a senior member of the Michigan congressional delegation will chair his still-to-be-announced presidential bid."

ROMNEY: What Would President Romney Do?

Mass Resistance's latest Mitt Romney hit piece claiming Romney supported tax payer funded abortions circulated the righty blogosphere 2/5 with little noticeable damage. At first highly troubled by the allegations, RedState's Ben Domenech spoke to Team Romney about the MA health plan and concluded: "Governor Romney does not support taxpayer funded abortions."

But Domenech goes on to argue that the issue does highlight the policy trade offs a president Romney would face on social conservative issues: "If Gov. Romney's plan ... has the unintended but inevitable effect of meaning "expanded taxpayer funded abortions," we now know what choice he made. We can debate that choice. What I wonder, as a pro-lifer, is whether President Romney would make the same choice."

Also related to Romney's health care plan, The Corner's Yuval Levin argues the plan "is already looking much more expensive than promised" and the "radical change in the way health insurance works" is bound to trouble "the poor and employees of small businesses" first. Levin adds: "And you can bet the Boston Globe will be on the street looking for the most egregious examples of individuals falling through the early cracks."

ROMNEY II: Not His Target Demographic

Mitt Romney's decision to become the first candidate to have an official Facebook profile drew some righty blogger derision. Power Line's John Hinderaker jokes the "initiative is expected to increase his support among teenage and pre-teen girls. ... Now, if only 16-year-olds could vote." The Corner's John Podhoretz mocks the press release trumpeting the announcement writing: "But to be honest, Romney Press Shop, color me skeptical that Mitt Romney actually spoke these words you claim he spoke: "I am pleased to be the first potential 2008 Republican presidential candidate to have an official Facebook profile."

Rep. Jack Kingston's (R) ex-aide David All, however, appreciated the effort highlighting what Facebook brought to the table for '06 MI Sen. candidate Mike Bouchard: "We also set-up several events for College Republicans, e.g., tailgating meet-ups, through the tool and invited our friends to help us spread the word (lapel stickers, bumper stickers, etc.) at football games. Not everyone who supports you is willing to make phone calls, and this is a modern way to identify those people."

CLINTON: Not Better Late Than Never

Iraq continues to be the major source of contention between lefty bloggers and Hillary Clinton. After watching NBC's Tim Russert parade a slew of pro-war clips in front of John Edwards 2/4 on "Meet," Arianna Huffington asks: "Does anybody really want to spend the next two years listening to the answer to 'Sen. Clinton, here is a clip of you from 2005 explaining an earlier clip of you in 2004 defending your comment in 2003 confirming your 2002 vote for the war. If you had to do it over again, would you give a different explanation in 2004 or 2005 justifying your 2003 defense of your 2002 vote?'"

Also at HuffPo, Paul Abrams looks at HRC's promise to end the Iraq war in '09 if she is elected president and wants to know: "Just what is it that is going to be accomplished in Iraq in '07 and '08 that will make the withdrawal at the end of '08, the deadline you set for Bush, worth the loss of 24 battalions ... of US troops to death and injury? ... Unless someone can show that withdrawing at the end of 2008 will make the final outcome materially better than withdrawing in '07, then what is the moral (and political) basis for sending more troops, or even to retaining the troop levels we have, beyond the time that it takes for an orderly and safe troop redeployment?"

EDWARDS: The Man Who Knew Too Much

John Edwards faced heavy criticism from more than just Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) 2/5. Following his 2/4 Meet The Press performance Arianna Huffington congratulated Edwards for strongly renouncing his Iraq war vote, but added "no amount of contrition could mitigate the effect of Russert playing clips of what Edwards had said about Iraq before everything went south, including this bellicose blast from October 2002:"

My position is very clear. The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

Huffington adds: "You gotta love Edwards' explanation for why Obama was right and he was wrong: It's because Obama, not yet in the U.S. Senate, wasn't 'burdened' with the bad intel Edwards and his fellow Senators were getting. This has to be the first time in history the 'I was too much in-the-know' excuse has been used in a presidential race."

And over at MyDD Matt Stoller examines how blogger pressure forced Edwards to "walk back" his "extremely bellicose rhetoric" on Iran. Stoller writes: "I have always had suspicions of John Edwards, but it doesn't really matter if any of us trust him on a personal level. The issue is what are the structural constraints upon someone's behavior. And now Edwards, because of the blogs and new media outlets like Raw Story, will be confronted with his Iran comments repeatedly, and walked back against hawkishness."

EDWARDS II: An Incomplete

Edwards did receive mostly positive reactions for his 2/5 health care plan unveiling. TAPPED's resident health care expert Ezra Klein said "the plan satisfied every plank of my progressive health reform test" but Klein also did not understand why Edwards insisted on putting "the onus of the responsibility for funding health coverage on employers."

For Kossacks, the plan did not seem to go far enough. A diary originally titled "Please give John Edwards a big kiss for his bold health plan" now includes this UPDATE at the top of the post: "There are very significant concerns being expressed by commenters in this diary. I hope Senator Edwards will return to Daily Kos as quickly as possible and spend the time necessary responding to these important questions."

Commenter concerns include allowing private insurance companies to continue to exist, regressive taxation, and a desire for a single-payer plan.

OBAMA: The First 'Clean' Black President

Normally turned off by talk "of a transformative change in the American political landscape," The Huffington Post's Adam Hanft was still impressed with "the first clean black guy ever to run for president." Hanft writes of Barack Obama's inclusive rhetoric: "But when he talked about this, about moving beyond what has become a resistant structure of calcified grudges and frozen positions, he didn't sound like a politician or business guru spouting New Age claptrap."

VILSACK: A Conversation Dems Don't Want?

Tom Vilsack has a diary explaining the discussion he started at the DNC Winter Meetings that "beltway insiders don't like. ... it's about making it clear that we need immediate withdrawal from the civil war in Iraq."

Linking to Vilsack's call for an immediate end to war funding, Daily Kos' Mcjoan praises: "There is no other way to force the end of this war than for the members of this Congress to recognize that they have a responsibility to oppose this president and oppose this war. The only way it ends is by cutting off funds. ... Hear, hear, Governor."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Old Men With Beards Need Not Apply

Daily Kos' DrSteveB continues his examination of Kossack religious beliefs this time asking: "But rather than a diary on "what religion" are you, I thought I would drill down to an underlying question... what sort of God(s) do you believe in, if any? By God(s), I include any conception of a higher power or spirit or essence that moves the universe or is within us all; so long as what is meant is super/supra/extra-natural (does not have to be old man with a beard)." The top three vote-getters were:

• Does not exist and never did; and there is nothing supernatural, no spirit; the universe is completely natural and has no higher aspect. - 32%
• It is my firm belief that I really really do not know; that we cannot know (well thought out devout agnostic). - 18%
• Does not exist; but that there is something spiritual or super-natural; something beyond just physics, chemistry and biology; universe is not reducible to just math and science even in principle. - 12%

LEST WE FORGET: Scott Adams Is A Glass-Half-Full Kinda Guy

The Dilbert Blog has fun with a CNN story on a chimp in Shreveport, LA, who got pregnant even though all the male chimps have had vasectomies. Adams riffs:

My first thought was that the groundskeeper has been tapping the chimps. ... You might argue that having sex with a chimp would be dangerous. Chimps are both strong and unpredictable. For many guys, these disadvantages would be outweighed by the fact that chimps don't talk while you're trying to watch the Super Bowl. Sometimes you have to take the good with the bad.

Posted by Conn Carroll at February 6, 2007 12:14 PM