March 21, 2007

3/21: They're Going To The Mats On This One

So far the biggest netroots find in the latest prosecutor doucument dump is what's not there: an 18-day gap between emails. First noticed by a Talking Points Memo commenter, netroots heavyhitters are tying the gap into the larger House Dem struggle to get senior WH aides to testify under oath. While some on the right may say Dems are letting investigations get in the way of the main reason voters gave them control of Congress (Iraq), the netroots aren't having any of it. From firedoglake: "Of course, whenever the threat of Democratic "overreach" is brought up, it is natural to compare it to Republican investigative overreach during the Clinton administration, and how that supposedly soured the public on the GOP. ... The Democrats are investigating the Bush administration for real, honest-to-God serious crimes, like outing a covert operative, and using the Justice Department as a partisan sword and shield. That is oversight, not overreach - and it's about bloody time."

PROSECUTOR PURGE: Game On!

Surprise! Both progressive and conservative sides of the blogosphere hope their respective parties don't give an inch in the upcoming "Constitutional confrontation" between Congressional Dems and Pres. Bush over requiring top WH aides to testify under oath. From the left:

• The Left Coaster's Steve Soto: "The issue of our times, indeed the issue for the modern Democratic Party is whether or not this group of Democratic leaders has the stomach to wage that fight even if they lose. It is not a partisan issue: legislative branch prerogatives hang in the balance here because the Congress will be eviscerated if this fight is not waged now. If the Democrats fail to force this issue now, their entire ability to oversee this administration and provide any kind of check and balance will evaporate."
• The Reality Based Community: "There will be calls for negotiation and compromise. They should be rejected. The Congress need not, and should not, compromise its capacity to carry out its core functions. And this White House has certainly earned no particular comity. ... This is a confrontation Mr. Bush and his cronies cannot win."
• Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat: "But if this to be fought in the court, it'll end up in the Supreme Court. ... What is the state of the law on this issue? ... Short version - it won't be decided by law. It will be the politics of this that decides it. To wit - who ever loses the political battle with the American People will give in the most. Right now, the Dems have a great hand to play. Let's hope they don't screw it up."
• DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas: "this story dead by having Gonzales resign, but his petulance ensures this story goes strong into this coming cycle."

While some on the right were not impressed with Bush's performance, many National Review Online readers liked what they saw: "Good press conference by Bush, he finally got mad. He was firm, aggressive, and, frankly, pissed off. ... I liked it. Defiant, assertive, and full of vigor. His message to Leahy... Up Yours. Good Stuff."

Many on the right welcomed a battle over investigations with cong. Dems, many citing new Gallup poll data showing public approval of Congress is down:

• Captain's Quarters: "In a way, this kerfuffle has provided an interesting distraction from the Democrats' other promised investigations. ... Instead of just making the point that the administration allowed political hacks to run wild at Justice and embarrass the White House for a while, the Democrats have turned it into an issue that has overshadowed all others -- and has deprioritized their ever-changing efforts to end the Iraq war."
• RCP Blog's John McIntyre: "Any effort by Chuck Schumer and John Conyers to lead a protracted fight against the White House will pretty quickly deteriorate into a partisan brawl, which will actually have the effect of bolstering Bush. ... The President said he hoped the Democrats "don't choose confrontation," but not unlike the Clinton phenomenon in his last two years, confrontation with this Democratic Congress may be just what this ailing President needs...and wants.
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Gallup is not alone. Check out all of the polls, collected at Real Clear Politics. The polls consistently show that Congress never got more than a slight bounce when it changed hands in January, and its ratings now are pretty much where they were when the Republicans were in control before the election. I attribute this to the fact that the Democrats have no positive agenda. They patently have no interest in doing the people's business, and, similarly, show no interest in appealing to any element of the electorate other than the hard-core haters who form their base."

PROSECUTOR PURGE II: Seeing The Forest ...

Unsatisfied with the Washington Post's recent breakdown of the scandal, The Left CoasterSteve Soto ably sums up the progressive bill of particulars against the admin.:

The truth still remains that a political hit list was drawn up inside the White House to rank these attorneys on their loyalty to Bush and not on their performance; that the rationale for these firings has changed several times as each reason fell apart under scrutiny; that the list of targets changed due to pressure from Republicans around the country on corruption cases and petty personal backbiting inside Justice; that there was an organized effort from the White House to provide misleading testimony to Congress; that the White House wants to avoid at all costs going under oath on this; and that the AG and his senior aides not only mismanaged the department but were willing participants in the White House's efforts to politicize the federal prosecutors.

Based on these facts, Atrios and MyDD's Matt Stoller are calling for the impeachment of AG Alberto Gonzales. Daily Kos' Miss Laura also wants ethics charges filed against Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM).

Keeping their noses to the 3K page document dump grindstone, Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall credits a TPM commenter for first noting an 18-day gap in the emails turned over by DoJ. Marshall comments on the 11/15/06 to 12/4/06 stretch: "The firing calls went out on December 7th. But the original plan was to start placing the calls on November 15th. So those eighteen days are pretty key ones."

Also plowing through documents, The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum divides "the quality of the stated reasons" for firing the eight fired prosecutors into "strong" "middling" and "weak." Drum adds: "Notice anything unusual about this list? I didn't at first, but it turns out that the five firings with the weakest official explanations are the same five prosecutors who have been suspected of being either too tough on Republican corruption cases or too weak on Democratic ones. You can't very well put that on your summary sheet, though, which probably explains why the DOJies had trouble coming up with good reasons for firing them. The dots are practically begging to be connected here."

On the right, The Corner's Andy McCarthy says in his 18 years as a prosecutor under 6 different US Attorneys "I can't remember a single time when the transition resulted in a major investigation - especially a corruption investigation - being shut down." McCarthy adds: "What I think is most regrettable about this controversy is that the political nature of U.S. attorney appointments (which are virtually always political) is being conflated with the day-to-day work of U.S. attorneys' offices (which is virtually never political). Democrats should take heed."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff describes the story as "the mother of all employment cases" but The Corner's Ramesh Ponnuru is already looking forward to the next AG: "I just want it to be somebody the president has never met."

DEM FIELD: Obama's Campaign To Lose

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas unveiled his latest WH '08 'cattle call' ranking "where these candidates sit in the race today." Hillary Clinton still sits atop the rankings even though Markos thinks Barack Obama "will win this all by the time votes are counted." Thoughts on the big three plus Bill Richardson include:

• On HRC: "She wussed out on the Fox News debate thing. ... Her campaign's hissy fit over David Geffen betrayed how afraid they are of Obama. A campaign that believed their spin about "inevitability" wouldn't be so twitchy.
• On Obama: "When you are drawing crowds in the five-figures 10 months before the election, you know you've got a special something. However, a disproportionate percentage of his support is from young people. ... Obama's fate will depend, in large part, on 1) how much of this vote turns out, and 2) how effectively Obama can expand into other demographics.
• On John Edwards: "Edwards was the big winner of the Fox News debate mess, showing clear and early leadership pulling out of the propaganda network's attempt at legitimacy. He is also apparently the big winner as Clark looks less and likely to enter the fray. Clark's supporters appear to be gravitating toward Edwards in large numbers."
• On Richardson: "Richardson ended up on the right side of the Nevada Fox News debate, squeezing in his withdrawal right before the whole event imploded, just a couple of days of being the sole candidate to confirm his attendance (the campaign should pay greater heed to their netroots coordinator). So they snapped a little victory from the jaws of a major embarrassment. And Richardson remains the sole candidate to increase his support in every single one of the last six dKos straw polls."

DEM FIELD II: Don't Make Me Pull This Car Over, You Two!

Following the Mark Penn/David Axelrod Kennedy School of Government exchange, Atrios offers some "free campaign advice" to Clinton and Obama: "Every public disagreement, no matter how serious or valid, will be portrayed as CNN is doing it now as a trivial schoolyard "spat." As it is only March, 2007, this gives them many months to infantilize and trivialize you as much as possible. By next year, all the public will know about you is that you are very silly people who have regular temper tantrums about nothing."

CLINTON: Classy Lady

Hillary Clinton is receiving praise for her official and unofficial responses to the "Vote Different" YouTube (ed. note: now viewed by over 1.5 mil users) invoking Macintosh's '1984' ad. Mary from The Left Coaster calls her response "classy" and The Nation's Ari Melber argues she "deserves credit for looking past the horserace to celebrate the promise of Internet politics: meaningful participation, democratization ("more people") and inclusion ("reaching people who otherwise are not at all interested in politics")."

Melber also suggests Team Clinton may " be warming up to Internet activism because their supporters are now striking back online. A new video called "Barack 1984" projects Obama on the Big Brother screen, flush with confidence yet poised to lose, just like his favorite football team. The ad ends with the warning, 'The Bears Lost So Will Obama.'"

Back commenting about the "Hillary 1984" ad, IA Progress argues that the original ads "one people, one will, one resolve, one cause," big brother voice over actually has more in common with Obama's message: "Themes such as unity, and "one people" are actually coming from the Obama campaign."

OBAMA: Get Off My Lawn!

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas calls Stuart Rothenberg a luddite, whom he pictures as "an old crotchety guy screaming at the kids to get off his lawn" for suggesting the "Hillary 1984" ad "won't change any votes and "is unlikely to create or re-make impressions of Senators Clinton or Barack Obama." Kos responds by noting the size of crowds at recent Obama rallies and adds: "Fact is, Obama is generating huge buzz online. And I'm not just talking blogs, I'm talking Face Book, MySpace, and other social networking hangouts. People are organizing hard for Obama, and the results are the largest early crowds since I've been paying attention (I'll let the historians go further back)."

Not responding to kos or Rothenberg, Matthew Yglesias offers a less tech-focussed explanation for Obama's popularity: "There's a long tradition in Democratic primaries of a "fresh face" underdog candidate who's plausibly an alternative to "the establishment" but at the same time not a radical who gets treated very kindly by the press until he gets within striking distance of winning the nomination. This is the Gary Hart story, the Paul Tsongas story, the Howard Dean story. Similarly, Obama's combination of somewhat platitudinous rhetoric about finding pragmatic solutions to domestic problems is a perennial media favorite."

Finally, CaliticsTodd Beeton post "Part I" of his coverage of Obama's 3/17 rally in Oakland, CA, blogging: "As you can see, he was greeted like a rock star. Talk about energy. It was incredible."

OBAMA II: Get Hillary

Some netroots supporters of John Edwards are taking issue with recent Obama references to Edwards as "cute" and "good looking." MyDD's Curt Matlock compares Obama's backhanded compliments to Ann Coulter's recent CPAC appearance writing: "In fact, it's an obvious case of Senator Obama using right-wing, Republican attacks against other Democrats."

MyDD's PsiFighter37 pleads with Edwards' supporters to tone down their rhetoric: "There's a diary on the recommended list about how Obama is allegedly insinuating that Edwards is effeminate, in a manner more subtle than Ann Coulter. I think it's rather ridiculous, and I'm surprised that so many people feel compelled to agree with such a hyperbolic assessment. ... Although I'm an Obama supporter, I'd like to tell both sides that they need to shut up and focus on the common opponent - namely, Hillary Clinton."

BROWNBACK: So Is He The Anti-War Candidate Or Isn't He?

A New York Sun article on Sen. Sam Brownback's (R-KS) vote against Maj. Leader Harry Reid's (D-NV) bill to mandate a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq has Kausfiles and Instapundit wondering if he is "Brownbacksliding" back into the pro-surge camp. Kaus highlights "unprincipled" explanation for the 'change': "He's running for president and '[t]he people who will show up in New Hampshire and Iowa to pick the Republican nominee are victory voters.'"

MCCAIN: 'Suck Up To Everyone Or To No One At All'

For the most, part conservatives are not impressed with New York Times reports on John McCain's "re-thinking his position on immigration" following the feedback he's received from voters on the trail. The Corner's Rich Lowry advises: "If he's going to shift, he might as well make it count. He should adopt enforcement-first, requiring certain enforcement benchmarks and a system of workplace enforcement to be in place before we have a major guest-worker program or a quasi-amnesty."

Ankle Biting Pundits BT is more generous: "At the very least, it's encouraging to see McCain hint at moving away from Sen. Kennedy (D-runk) in some way on immigration reform and towards a bit more conservative view." For fellow ABPer Bull Dog Pundit, McCain's credibility on the issue has already sailed: "Clearly such a reconsideration by McCain of making illegals first go back to their home country would be a huge "flip-flop" on his part, and to argue that it wasn't made solely for political considerations would be foolish. Quite frankly I don't trust him on this issue."

Noting the back and forth between McCain and the Club for Growth, RCP Blog's Tom Bevan argues McCain is "frittering away a chance to work with the Club For Growth to reposition himself as a dynamic supply side conservative." Bevan adds: "A few weeks ago McCain was caught on tape responding to a question about him sucking up to the religious right by saying, "what's wrong with sucking up to everybody?" McCain should take his own advice and either suck up to everyone or to no one at all. Sucking up to social conservatives but stiffing anti-tax conservatives is neither smart nor productive."

Meanwhile, The Brody File revels in being the "Malcom" in the middle of it all.

THOMPSON: Better Communicator Than the Current President

It was "Our Readers Love Fred Thompson Day" at The Corner 3/20. Posted emails include:

• I think Thompson could hope to be in this race: Stylistically like the McCain of 2000 (straight-talking, outsider-ish, interesting 1970's biography), but with genuine establishment affection in a race in which (quite unlike 2000) the establishment's center of gravity remains indeterminate.
• A large chunk of conservatives who are now swallowing hard and supporting either McCain or Giuliani as our "best hope," would swing to Thompson in a heartbeat.
• As a conservative I was going to settle for Rudy. Now I won't have to settle.
• Iowans for Thompson
• I think Fred wins over the pro-lifers who think Sam [Brownback] has no chance, if he is acceptable on stem cells.

One reader thought the Thompson boomlet said more about the current field than Thompson's actual chances: "Wow - did you need any more proof that the conservative base is less than overjoyed with the current crop of candidates, or what? I think if you mentioned in the Corner that you heard one of Reagan's brown suits was considering entering the race, within five minutes you'd get 2,000 e-mails from desperate conservatives volunteering for the campaign."

Finally, The Right Angle's Mac Johnson links to audio of Thompson subbing for "radio legend" Paul Harvey and writes: "Much of Ronald Reagan's success was based on his polished natural ability to communicate and persuade. Much of G.W. Bush's lack of success can be explained by his lack of ability to communicate, persuade and defend his own policies. ... This is a man who could speak to his nation if necessary."

IRAQ: A House Divided Cannot Win In '08

MyDD's Chris Bowers urges progressives to continue supporting the House's current Iraq supplemental funding bill arguing: "There are serious messaging considerations to take into account. ... If, in the House, this bill goes down to defeat because Democrats are divided, not only will we get an even worse bill, but we will also get a national narrative on how we don't have our own House in order on Iraq. Thus, the war will be prolonged anyway, and Republicans will be one step closer to regaining control of Congress. That will only prolong the war even further."

Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat responds: "It is ironic that while reporting that THIS bill is in grave danger of not passing, Chris assures us that a WEAKER bill WILL pass. What is he saying here? It is this - the DEMOCRATIC Leadership will accommodate REPUBLICANS before it will accommodate Progressives. What an indictment of the Dem leadership in the House. I could not have said anything more damning than Chris has just done."

Also arguing for the bill, MyDD's Matt Stoller notes the recent slide in Congressional approval ratings and argues the slide will "reverse itself" if Dems can continue funding the Iraq war: "Ultimately, though, this Congress can only succeed if it is willing to go beyond the traditional boundaries of discourse and punish Bush for what he has wrought." BTD also responds to Stoller: "I am also confident it will somewhat. In the very short term. But it will even further the damage when it counts - November 2008. Because this bill does NOTHING to end the war. ... In the long run, meaning the 2008 election, the label is only going to inflame the anger further. Because progressives and the Dem base will know they were lied to, by Democrats.

Finally, Stoller also concedes he "was probably not as charitable as I should have been with Joe Sestak. He has a withdrawal plan, he has strongly advocated against the war and he speaks against Bush on prominent platforms

IRAQ II: Mmmmm, Pork Tastes Good

House Dem Leadership efforts to line up the votes necessary to pass their Iraq war supplemental by adding $21 billion in dom. approps. to the bill are helping to unite GOPers against the bill. The Corner's Kate O'Beirne reports: "Republicans think they are are on solid political ground in objecting to both "General Pelosi's" insistence on micro-managing the war and to the Democrats' attempt to buy $21 billion worth of votes to get their caucus to support the withdrawal deadline." Instapundit calls the Dem efforts "buying votes against the war" and shares a readers qupi: "Coalition of the bribed! I heard that somewhere, once."

Progressives are supportive of the "bare-knuckled" efforts. TAPPED's Dana Goldstein writes: "It puts Louisiana Republicans in the awkward position, for example, of either supporting redeployment or voting against tens of billion dollars in funding for Hurricane Katrina relief and flood prevention. ... I like the way Pelosi is playing this one.

LEST WE FORGET: Worst Job Ever

Mo Rocca tells readers who he most feels sorry for in the whole Obama/Clinton YouTube war:

There's a scruffy twenty-something year old sitting in his cubicle at Clinton headquarters. He's on the team that tracks the blogosphere for what's being said about his candidate. (He spends most of his time on YouTube.) He's a window into what younger voters want. (Help me out here, is he wearing a Metallica t-shirt? Whatever he's wearing, it's kind of ironic.)

But at this very moment, Clinton operative Howard Wolfson -- or maybe even Mrs. C herself - is bearing down on this guy: "Listen, Seth. We need a response ad to that Obama hatchet job - that bulls**t 1984 Orwell hit job. You come up with something just as funny, edgy, and untraceable. And it better get 2 million hits by the end of the day." ... Right now, there's no other person I'd rather not want to be.

Posted by Conn Carroll at March 21, 2007 12:37 PM