March 23, 2007

3/23: Spin Cycle

Even though nobody is happy with the Iraq war supplemental funding bill, the netroots are determined to portray its passage as a win for progressives since it represents a "first step ... to get the U.S. out of Iraq." The netoots are determined to amplify MSM headlines like US Democrats press deadline for Iraq pullout so they can win "the message war," "hold the White House and Congress," and make this war history.

Although it has been "an extremely trying experience" for progressives to submit to this compromise, one must wonder what further compromises they'll make when it comes to their WH '08ers. Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) recently told CNN: "Well, first of all, I don't know anybody who's been talking about packing up and going home. I think that there is room for providing logistical training, counter-terrorism support for Iraqis if they have met various benchmarks that would allow our -- our assistance to be effective." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) has been criticized for similar comments. As the primaries draw near, what will an netroots-acceptable WH '08er position on Iraq look like? Have Obama and Clinton already passed that bar?

IRAQ: All About '08

At about the same that "key House liberals" Reps. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Lynne Woolsey (D-CA), and Maxine Waters (D-CA) announced they would "not stand in the way" of the House Dem Leadership's current Iraq war funding supplemental, an overwhelming majority of left blog traffic leaders threw their, at best tepid, support behind the measure. Those urging progressives to support the bill include:

• MyDD's Chris Bowers: "I arrived at my position because, in my final analysis, I believed the politics of the situation demanded it. ... Republicans have to be the ones who hold this bill up, and / or fail to implement it, not Democrats and not progs. If the war will continue either way, then it must be clear that it was their decision to continue it, not ours.
• DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas: "I'm actually quite proud of the progressive caucus -- it's time House progressives start flexing their muscles a little. And the concessions they've won are important ones."
• Atrios: "Democrats being in the majority makes life a bit more difficult for people like me. ... It isn't perfect, but the choice isn't between nothing and a pony, it's between nothing and this. From what I understand Pelosi has called in every chip she has (and thrown some elbows) for the Bill. Whatever its imperfections, it's better than the realistic alternative. Let's hope it passes."
• VoteVets.org co-founder Jon Soltz at The Huffington Post: "To be sure, the legislation is not perfect.But, while not perfect, the legislation being offered is clearly a compromise that opposes President Bush's "stay the course on steroids" policy. It is not the end all, be all, but a significant first step in bringing about what the American people, Generals, the Iraq Study Group, and the troops want - a change of direction in Iraq, focused on disengaging troops from the Iraqi civil war."
• AMERICAblog's AJ in DC: "The bill isn't perfect. It isn't even great. But it's the right first step. ... This is not a conservative bill and it's not a progressive bill, it's the product of what I can only imagine were herculean efforts by Pelosi, Rahm, and others to corral a variety of opinions and constituencies behind a very public statement that President Bush is mismanaging the war and it needs to come to a close."
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "While it's hard to justify giving Bush another penny for his illegal and immoral war, I'm surprised at the glee I feel knowing that Nancy Pelosi got the votes to finally beat George Bush on an Iraq vote at a time when the abuse of power makes the most paranoid amongst us look rational. Let's hope this is a first step toward restoring some kind of sanity."

Many on the left justified their support for a less than ideal by calling it a 'first step.' For some, the bill is a step to future votes on legislation's more resembling Rep. John Murtha's (D-PA) "recent plan requiring that all troops be properly rested, trained and equipped before being sent to Iraq."

For most, however, the bill is part of a larger effort to keep "the fault of this war and its mismanagement firmly on GOP shoulders" as Dems try and take the WH and strengthen their control over the Senate. MyDD's Bowers says progressive "won this fight" since the bill will eventually get defeated anyway and progressives get "headlines showing Democrats trying to end the war, but being thwarted by Republicans."

Markos was the most forthright about why he supported the bill, linking to "headlines the Supplemental is generating" and commenting: "Few care about the details. The message being sent is that Democrats want out, Republicans want more Americans to die in Iraq." Kos continues: "That is the clear distinction we need heading into 2008. Voters will then decide which they prefer -- pullout or escalation. And when we win that battle and hold the White House and Congress, this war is history. So the particular of the bills matter little. So we use this as part of the message war."

Dissenters could still be found. Netroots backed '06 candidate Gary Trauner (D-WY) blogs at Daily Kos: "This is Congress' chance to show the American people that they have the courage to hold others accountable, and that they have the intestinal fortitude to do the right thing regardless of political calculation." Others, like Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat, took on Kos' "But ultimately, it matters little. Bush will veto it, just like he'd veto a "tougher" bill." arguments more directly:

But what bill will Bush see? The Senate now starts from a weak baseline - and McConnell has the filibuster power. What bill will Bush see? If he sees any bill, it will certainly be even weaker than this bill. Then Bush starts to negotiate. Markos thinks this is the end of the concessions. It is only the beginning of the "compromises." See what Kos is saying, the war does not end until 2009. He thinks that is something to celebrate. Obviously I do not.

BTD then turns to Kos' arguments that the bill is good for Dems in terms of '08: "But just as importantly, Kos assumes that the politics will play favorably for a craven Dem Congress that did next to nothing to end the war. Where will the GOP nomine be then on Iraq? This is a bad business policy wise and politically. I think Kos is too clever by half on this."

IRAQ II: They Say 'Butter' Like It's A Bad Thing

Conservative bloggers are playing up MSM reports on Dem efforts to secure votes for the bill "with billions of dollars for parochial projects." Instapundit comments: "Isn't it interesting that the Democrats -- who ran on an anti-corruption, anti-war platform -- now offer us a porked-up supplemental to fund the Iraq war?"

AmSpec Blog's John Tabin points readers to the Washington Post's "spot-on editorial" titled: "Retreat and Butter: Are Democrats in the House voting for farm subsidies or withdrawal from Iraq?" Gateway Pundit adds: "Holy, Honey Baked Ham! Democrats are out buying votes to lose a war. Honestly, could there be anything more disgusting."

But all is not well in GOP land either, The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez reports some "porkbusting types" are chaffing at House GOP debate time allotment that only allows leadership and Apps. Cmte. members time to speak. More worried about developments in Iraq, Instapundit links to reports conservative blog favorite/Iraq was reporter Michael Yon might be kicked out of Iraq. Instapundit comments: "Jeez. Can somebody at the Pentagon or White House with a clue intervene here?"

CLINTON: They Really, Really, Don't Like Her

TAPPED made their "debate over Hillary Clinton" available to non-subscribers just in time for Mark Schmitt to tell readers his beef is not with HRC, but with her "very influential and multiply employed" pollster Mark Penn. The rest of the TAPPED contributors though, seem to have plenty of beef with Clinton."

• Sam Rosenfeld: ""nobody is entitled to a presidential nomination on account of unfair treatment at the hands of scoundrels, and liberals should avoid the danger of judging Clinton's political maneuvers and struggles from her perspective rather than from the perspective of what's best for liberalism ... Clinton's new dissembling, on an issue where the record is so clear, fits a pattern: Not only is she not much of a liberal, she actually seems determined to insult liberals' intelligence."
• Matthew Yglesias: "Liberal Democrats should want a nominee who is, in fact, a liberal. ... Clinton, however, is a moderate who people think is a liberal. This is a terrible combination of qualities from almost every point of view -- except, perhaps, for the faction of her advisers whose views are probably too right-wing to be associated with the Democratic presidential nominee, unless they can latch onto the one candidate both blessed and cursed with an undeserved reputation for liberalism. Well, bully for them. But liberals should open their eyes."

EDWARDS: Go Get 'Em, Elizabeth!

Reaction to Elizabeth and John Edwards announcement that the family intends to stay on the campaign trail while fighting the return of Elizabeth's cancer drew wide support and admiration from bloggers everywhere. Three time cancer survivor Jane Hamsher of firedoglake explains why she "fully understand[s] why Elizabeth made the decision she did." Hamsher blogs: "Even though Christy, Marcy, Pach, Swopa, Jeralyn and Arianna practically had to prop me up and my brainpower was marginal when I was in DC, I was at the Libby trial. Every. Single. Day. I needed to know, for myself, that even though accommodations had to be made, I was still living my life on my terms."

TAPPED's Scott Lemieux described the choice as "entirely beyond criticism" and offers "good luck to them both." Daily Kos diarist nyceve was a bit more effusive his/her praise in the most commented on diary on the subject: "I honestly and sadly ask myself, do we deserve John Edwards, a man of such compelling decency leading us and our beleaguered nation? Are we worthy of him and Elizabeth? Will the American people sacrifice for them as they are sacrificing for us?"

Townhall's Dean Barnett's post sharing his own struggle with progressive illness was by far the most linked to conservative blog item on the story: "Through the years, I've come to view serious and progressive illness as an ever constricting circle with oneself at the center. The interior of the circle represents the contents of one's life. As the circle gets smaller, things that were inside get forced out. ... he Edwards have begun their own journey of that sort. Whether they still find presidential politics at the center of their lives a few months from now is an open question. Regardless, the journey is theirs, and one would have a heart of stone to wish them anything other than good luck and Godspeed."

OBAMA: First They Came For Fox News ...

A letter from Barack Obama's pastor Jeremiah Wright to the New York TimesJodi Kantor is beginning to circulate around lefty blogs. Skeptical Brotha posts the letter including:

Jodi, out of two hours of conversation I spent approximately five to seven minutes on Barack's taking advice from one of his trusted campaign people and deeming it unwise to make me the media spotlight on the day of his announcing his candidacy for the Presidency and what do you print? You and your editor proceeded to present to the general public a snippet, a printed "sound byte" and a titillating and tantalizing article about his disinviting me to the Invocation on the day of his announcing his candidacy.

I have never been exposed to that kind of duplicitous behavior before, and I want to write you publicly to let you know that I do not approve of it and will not be party to any further smearing of the name, the reputation, the integrity or the character of perhaps this nation's first (and maybe even only) honest candidate offering himself for public service as the person to occupy the Oval Office

MyDD's Matt Stoller comments: "The larger context here is twofold. There's a lot of anger among black leaders in this country over Barack Obama because he isn't showing enough deference to their place in the political system. At the same time, this leadership is struggling to remain relevant in the face of a serious disconnect between younger African-Americans and an older generation."

Stoller concludes: "Normally I'd say that there is something to the rumor that Obama rubbed his pastor the wrong way, but this letter is incredibly passionate about the New York Times. It is not a non-denial denial, it is an aggressive statement that the NYT made up this story. The sensationalism of the New York Times and political journalism has been so pronounced for so long that the newspaper no longer has the credibility to do reporting like this and get away with it."

BROWNBACK: The Yellow-Brick Road Does Not Go Through Manchester

Blog P.I.'s Bill Beutler details his amusement with Sam Brownback's "Brownback on the Blogs" box that features only two quotes since "most of the Brownback commentary I've seen could be most favorably described as disappointed."

Beutler further notes that one of the blog currently cite, Thurrock Tory, is actually from England. Beutler comments: "That Aker's website is relatively obscure is no problem - most bloggers' are. ... But when your biggest online supporter comes from across the pond, well, that's a little different. And actually, there is another problem. Two paragraphs later, Aker writes: 'I still support Newt Gingrich.'"

GIULIANI: Just Win, Baby!

After blegging for evangelical reader thoughts on Rudy Giuliani's early success with the community, The Brody File shares emails for against the ex-NYC Mayor:

• For: "Giuliani does not offend me at all even though I know I differ extremely with him on social issues. Christians may need to consider the BIG PICTURE and realize the consequences of NOT WINNING the next election. ... As long as we get the right judges appointed I don't believe turning things back over to the states is a bad idea and one that would work. After all, which democrat will even try to save us from radical Islam? There is also a big problem brewing against ISRAEL and we cannot let the US forsake them at this time."
• Against: "Rudy used the name Reagan some 21 times in his CPAC speech, and God a number of times in his speeches to Religious Conservatives. He is reading what he is told will go over well with whatever crowd he is speaking to. Have you ever heard him reference Jesus outside of said group?"

Back in IA, Krusty Konservative shares polling data from a Giuliani mailing that went out statewide. KK comments: "Everyone, including Iowa's conservative activist, likes to support a winner. Information like this is always good to send out in the mail. What I find interesting is McCain's strength in the early contest states. McCain polled well in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Michigan. He needs to do well in those states, because it looks like Rudy is primed to do well on Super Duper Tuesday."

Finally, The Bivings Report gives "low marks" for Team Giuliani's official website "at this point."

ROMNEY: An Infomercial That Doesn't End

Hugh Hewitt hosted a bloggers conference/book sales call 3/22 about "A Mormon in the White House?". Those with posts on the proceedings include:

• My Man Mitt: "I asked whether or not a larger debate and dialogue is necessary outside the campaign to relieve the concerns (legitimate or otherwise) that people have about Mormonism. ... Hugh believes it would be a good thing and notes that it has already started. The appendix of his books is a transcript of a dialogue he had between two prominent theologians. Get the book and read it... it's very instructive.
• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "My last question to Hugh had to do with the importance he places on Romney's intelligence. I argued that if intelligence were so important, Jimmy Carter would have been a "great" President. ... Hugh agreed that intelligence isn't the only thing that matters. He went on to add, though, that the the issues we face today have made it more important than ever to have a president who is intellectually curious, and understands complex issues."
• Ankle Biting Pundit's Patrick Hynes: "I work for McCain, so take whatever I say with the usual grain of salt. You all know how I feel about Mitt Romney and I don't think he's going to win. That said, if he's the nominee, you all know I'll back him."
• Captain's Quarters on whether John McCain will get any credit for backing away from amnesty: "Hugh, whose book on Romney was the main topic of conversation, disagreed with me on this point, saying that the flip-flop meme was more of a commentariat artifact than a real concern for voters. The Republicans certainly used it to great effect in 2004 on John Kerry, however, making him appear (rightly) as indecisive and inconsistent."

For some, however, Hewitt's book tour is wearing thin. AmSpec Blog's Hunter baker writes: "I'm turning into a full-time Hewitt critic, but as someone who has often enjoyed reading his blog in the past, I simply can't take the continuing infomercial quality of his endorsement of Mitt Romney and the way every conversation comes back to Romney somehow. ... It's become like a verbal tic. Hewitt mentions Romney when ordering dinner these days."

In more positive Romney blogging, IA's Krusty Konservative congratulates Mitt on the hiring of ex-IA Christian Alliance Dir. of Outreach Joe Earle. KK comments: "Romney's Iowa campaign needed a Christian conservative organizer on their campaign. Earle's job is no easy task, but his rolodex and contacts he has created by working with the ICA is priceless."

Also, Jason from Race4 '08 links to a Romney release on mandatory union dues and blogs: "One of things that distinguishes Romney from other candidates is that he has already begun to lay out concrete positions. Most of the other candidates are resting on the stilt legs of name recognition and image, with no sign of where they stand on important issues. Romney knows the presidential race needs to be raised to the level where policy initiatives are put forth and discussed at length, thus pushing our country in a better direction."

THOMPSON: No 'Road to Des Moines' Convert

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein hits back against pro-Romney blog claims that Fred Thompson ran as a "pro-choicer" during his two TN SEN victories. Klein tracked down National Right to Life exec. co-dir. Darla St. Martin who shared: "I interviewed him and on all of the questions I asked him, he opposed abortion."

NY Sun's Ryan Sager breaks down Thompson's strengths and weaknesses, first arguing the Thompson's entry hurts Romney the most: "Mr. Thompson is pro-life, pro-gun, anti-gay marriage, and anti-tax - like Mr. Romney. But he has one advantage over the former governor: He didn't just come to these positions over the last year or so, in a "Road to Des Moines" conversion."

On his weaknesses, Sager includes: "First ... He is, after all, a close friend of Mr. McCain's. ... Second, he doesn't have a particularly distinguished legislative record. ... Third, while Mr. Thompson has an actor's flair for talking plain and talking tough, it's not entirely clear what qualifies him to lead a nation at war with worldwide Islamic fundamentalism."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Real YouTube Losers?

Bush '04 eCampaign Director Michael Turk of Kung Fu Quip worries that GOP-tech-trepidation will be the lasting fallout from the "Hillary 1984" video:

The real impact will be felt in the Republican party, and for our guys, it's not good.
At this moment, there are a bunch of Communications guys in GOP campaigns and consultancies who are using this as justification to avoid doing anything interesting on the web. They're pointing to the 1984 ad as evidence that doing anything that isn't "strictly on message" is inherently bad. They're going to use this to reinforce their position that the Internet is simply too wild, too hard to control, and has no place in their well oiled machine. ... So ParkRidge47, despite what you may hear on the news for the next few days, is not a rogue operative who as done damage to Hillary or Barack. He ultimately will be seen as a hero to Democrats, because he will have kept the GOP from realizing the potential of the Internet for a little while longer.

LEST WE FORGET: WH Aides As Fashion Accessories

Linking to reports that the WH may be "pointing the finger at former White House counsel Harriet Miers" for the Prosecutor Purge Fanatical Apathy's Adam Felber blogs: "Is Harriet Miers poised to take the fall for Karl Rove? How many human shields does that guy get? Maybe that's why he often looks fat to me - he's actually wearing actual staffers under his suit! Think about it. It's what we've all known all along but haven't dared suggest."

Posted by Conn Carroll at March 23, 2007 12:48 PM