April 25, 2007

4/25: What's Old Is Not Quite New Again

The Corner (and, thanks to Jonah Goldberg,its readers too ) finally weighed in 4/24 on the growing debate about why the 'Right' is not as successful online as the netroots. Goldberg voices skepticism that the right is as far behind in online fundraising prowess as '08 would tend to indicate (Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is succeeding online because "he's succeeding everywhere else, too"), but does allow that the left's pole position in online infrastructure (Google and Wikipedia) is worrisome.

The Blogometer is already on record arguing that recent history (Clinton impeachment, FL recount, Iraq war) are a better explanation for the left's current online advantage, but Right Wing NewsJohn Hawkins makes a good point as well: the traditional right-wing noise machine (our words not his) including Rush Limbaugh, National Review, Sean Hannity, etc. aren't committed to GOP activism the same way big-time netroots bloggers are (in other words, Chris Bowers wakes up every morning thinking about what he can do that day to help get Dems elected, Rush wakes up and tries to be entertaining). Until either traditional conservative online destinations (The Corner, The Right Angle, and Townhall all have old media roots) become more activist in nature, or a separate righty blogging community emerges (like the netroots did), we expect to see the left's dominance online continue.

DEM FIELD: Neocons At The Beach

Mike at Blue Hampshire alerts readers that with Chris Dodd and Barack Obama recently committing to "no permanent bases" in Iraq, the entire Dem WH '08 field is now on record supporting the policy. Mike comments: "We can quibble over the wiggle room in what the candidates said, but the fact is the quotes from all are clear enough that they will have to defend any changes as reversals of stated policy. ... statements like these are fudgeable, but they provide a beachhead in to the larger discussion of whether we will continue the neocon vision of using bases in Iraq to leverage other Middle East change."

CLINTON: Mind The Gap

Hillary Clinton celebrated Equal Pay Day by guest blogging at firedoglake. HRC writes: "If men in this country were paid just 77 cents for every dollar that women were paid for the same work, what do you think would happen? Mass protests? Editorial outrage? Immediate Congressional action? I think all of the above. And more. But women have been paid less than men for decades, and we are still fighting for this fundamental inequity to be remedied. ... I introduced the Paycheck Fairness Act in Congress to help close the pay gap. It would toughen the penalties for violating the Equal Pay Act, to stop discrimination in the workplace. It makes sure the government enforces equal pay in its contracts, so that we're leading by example."

DODD: Instapundit And Andrew Sullivan On Board For Carbon Tax Too

MyDD's Matt Stoller reviews '08er positions on global warming and announces his intention to vote for Chris Dodd to reward his support for a carbon tax. Stoller explains why the 'cap and trade' system favored by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards isn't for him:

The 'cap and trade' system is the other model, and the main sponsors are Joe Lieberman and John McCain. This system sets an overall cap on carbon emissions, creates a fixed set of carbon credits which add up to this cap level, and then allows companies to trade credits with each other. There really is no upside to this system, though proponents will argue that it does have a firm cap on carbon emissions. The down sides are that industries will cheat, price volatility will be really high, counties will cheat and the system privileges insiders.

EDWARDS: Smurfs To Darfur

TAPPED's Mark Leon Goldberg praises John Edwards for his 4/23 plan on Darfur: "If enacted, it would mark a significant departure from the current administration's go-easy approach. (Which, if you hadn't noticed, is failing miserably.)" Goldberg adds: "The Edwards plan is to basically use the full weight of American diplomacy to press Khartoum into accepting UN peacekeepers. ... There is only so much security that an additional deployment of 3,000 blue-helmets can provide. Getting that larger deployment on the ground in Darfur should be the real focus of American diplomacy."

OBAMA: Same Product ...

Reactions to Barack Obama's 4/22 4/22 address to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs continue to roll in the netroots consensus seems to be: blah. Takes include:

• Talk Left's Big Democrat: "My quick read of Obama's speech showed me largely nothing remarkable in it. It seemed a boilerplate Democratic speech on foreign policy."
• The Left Coaster's Steve Soto: "He is trying to lay out an overall framework that assures the Wise Men that he belongs, which makes sense politically when you are aiming to give the media a reason to sanction you. Yet Clinton's team or even 41's team could have written it. ... it's a safe play for him. But it doesn't set him apart from anyone else either.
• Taylor Marsh: "It's a good effort, even if it seems like the same old, same old to me."
• Matthew Yglesias: "Obama didn't go on to draw any broader programmatic distinctions between himself and other Democrats, preferring to stay within the formal "positive vision" framework..."
• MyDD's Matt Stoller: "What's striking about the speech was no so much what he said, but the reaction. There wasn't one. This was supposed to be a grand pronouncement with a new vision for foreign policy, and yet, the speech could have been ripped out of John Kerry's campaign, Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign, or for that matter, Jimmy Carter's.

More impressed than most, TAPPED's Ezra Klein, who has not read the speach in full yet, highlights Obama's explanation for why he opposed the war as an IL state legislator in '02 and comments: "Obama doesn't say he opposed the war because of a nagging skepticism towards Hussein's WMD capabilities, nor because this administration wasn't competent enough to pull such a conflict off. Rather, he opposed it because it was the wrong war, focused on the wrong threats, and stemming from the wrong ideology. ... And that understanding -- which neither Edwards nor Clinton have demonstrated -- says quite a bit about where Obama's foreign policy instincts diverge from theirs."

OBAMA II: ... New Packaging

First noting that the US "confronts a crisis in leadership, a paralysis not seen since the waning days of Jimmy Carter" brought about by a president who "has permanently stained the moral tradition of this country by the indelible evil of torture. And in all this, he has made the United States far weaker than it was seven years ago," Andrew Sullivan endorses Obama as the ideal figure to "rebrand" America.

From Sullivan: "By replacing one of the most globally despised and domestically divisive presidents in American history with a young leader half-Kansan and half-Kenyan, America would be saying something to the world: Bush-Cheney is not who we are. America is not what it has come to appear to be. ... The simple existence of Obama as a new president in a new century would in itself enhance America's soft power immeasurably, ... Obama would mean the rebranding of America, after a disastrous eight years. His international heritage, his racial journey, his middle name: these are assets for this country, not liabilities.

A MyDD diarist shares similar thoughts while explaining why he is leaning towards Obama despite preferring John Edwards on domestic policy and Bill Richardson on foreign policy: "He's running because we must fix our broken politics in order for us to solve our problems and take care of each other as a community. I like the frame, and it works for Obama. Using "hope" as a frame places him as the real heir to Bill Clinton ("the man from Hope"), and thereby attacks the strength of Hillary Clinton. Obama's logo (a sunrise) also very subtly places him as the heir to Ronald Reagan as well ("Morning in America"). The voters seem to love this, as they "hope" that they can put the two horrible terms of George W. Bush behind them."

Even card carrying conservatives are arguing an Obama candidacy would be good for the nation. AmSpec Blog's James G. Poulos writes: "Confronting a non-Hillary does not leave Republicans with the luxury of framing the election as a battle of age-old hatreds, crony machines, and worst nightmares. This, I daresay, would be an unmitigated good for American politics. There is no doubt in my mind that having Obama instead of Clinton at the top of the Demo ticket in '08 would elevate the national game in every way conceivable, and any Republican candidate worth his salt ought to see that as a prime time to shine."

AmSpec's Philip Klein adds: "He has the ability to make liberalism sound appealing in the way Reagan made conservatism sound appealing. When I talk to conservatives who are dismissive of Obama, I am reminded of that Bob Dylan line: Something is happening here, but you don't know what it is."

Not everyone is yet under Obama's spell. Picking up on Politico coverage of Obama's Equal Pay Day speech, Kausfiles writes: "Obama has apparently just endorsed one of the worst ideas of Carter era liberalism, "comparable worth," which would have lawyers and judges deciding what every job is "worth" according to some bureaucratic, non-market criteria that would inevitably punish "unskilled" manual work--i.e, the very workers who are screwed the most by globalization. ... Even Hillary doesn't endorse it."

RICHARDSON: Not Enough Blame To Go Around

MyDD's Chris Bowers tells readers what he doesn't like about Bill Richardson's new TV ads running in IA and NH: "What I don't like about the ad is that it does not blame Republicans for Iraq ... Saying you will "work with both parties" on Iraq I don't think accurately characterizes the current political difficulties in ending the war in Iraq. ... Overall, there are two problems with both of these ads: over-emphasis on bi-partisanship, and a complete lack of self-identification as a Democrat."

BROWNBACK: Three States Are Better Than One

Students for Sam Brownback's Billy Valentine thought Brownback "was awesome" at 4/23's Boston College debate with Chris Dodd. At Race 4 '08 Valentine highlights Brownback on Iraq:

In a moment of agreement, both Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, and Brownback, a Kansas Republican, urged President Bush to work with Congress to devise a solution that will meet his demand for continued funding of U.S. troops in Iraq while promoting a diplomatic solution to quell insurgent violence and reduce the military death toll. ... Brownback revealed he told Vice President Dick Cheney last week, during a White House meeting the senator requested, that the administration should consider a "three-state, one-country" solution in which Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis live independently but under the banner of a federal city in Baghdad.

GIULIANI: Iowa Or Bust, Literally

Outside the Beltway's James Joyner writes on Giuliani's comment that if a Dem was elected in '08, America would risk another terrorist attack on the scale of 9-11. Joyner opines that he's "troubled by the use of a paraphrase rather than a direct quotation for the key assertion here." More: "Presuming the reporting is accurate, however, it's a silly and irresponsible thing to say."

Krusty Conservative gives Giuliani some "unsolicited advice" to either go for IA or skip it all together: "There is no upside to being a part time candidate in Iowa and here's why: It's a caucus state, not a primary state." Krusty argues that because caucuses need motivated supports and a massive staff effort, Giuliani must do the "especially important task" of turning out non-traditional caucus goers. But he encourages Giuliani to come to IA and "play" hard because he thinks he "can do well," but that he's "not doing the things he needs to do right now to win Iowa."

HUNTER: Open For Business

CQposts two transcripts from Duncan Hunter's appearance on CQ radio. Ed Morrissey asks Hunter whether he sees NAFTA/CAFTA as "primarily a problem with the Chinese" or part of a larger problem with trade policy for American businesses. Hunter replies: "I see first that we've signed a dumb trade deal with the rest of the world.... We made a dumb business deal with the rest of the trading world, but beyond that, China is cheating on the deal that we do have because the're devaluing their currency 40%. What that is, is a government subsidy of 40% to every product that they make, and that is killing American industry in this country."

MCCAIN: But He Was, After All, In The Navy

Town Hall'sMatt Lewis writes under the header that McCain's camping is "Spending Money (On Consultants) Like a Drunken Sailor," which is why he found the news that he replaced fundraising consultant Carla Eudy interesting. Per FEC reports, Eudy earned $20K/month in consulting feeds and writes "that's a lot of money for a third-place finish." Though Eudy wasn't the only high-paid McCain consultant, "her fee was indicative of a campaign that spent almost half of what they raised." Lewis finishes: "While Senator McCain prided himself on being a Spending Hawk, his campaign was, in fact, spending money on consultants like 'a drunken sailor.'"

NY Sun'sRyan Sager opines on McCain's appearence on the Daily Show which looked "pretty rocky" as the "entire segment was about Iraq." Sager blogs: "To Mr. McCain's credit, he didn't try to duck any of the questions, and he's made a full-on embrace of the mission in Iraq the central organizing principle of his campaign - come hell or high water." When John Stewart "scoffed at the surge," McCain's response was "pitifully weak," saying: "I don't know that that strategy will succeed, but we do have a new strategy." Sager calls McCain's situation "pretty hopeless," but "there's not much else he can say."

Bivings Report's Zeigler blogs on McCain's Web site revamp, calling it "better from a usability standpoint." The site dropped the black/white scheme "in favor of some color" and "got rid of the little video rollover effects that would surprise and annoy visitors." But he summarizes: "However, it is a little too cluttered for my taste."

Sen. John Thune (R-SD) posts on Red State in support of McCain, recalling that their families' history together goes back more than 50 years as his father serviced under McCain's grandfather in World War II. Thune: "John McCain's bond with his brothers-in-arms has motivated his longstanding advocacy on their behalf, and it has reassured my support of his campaign to be our next president."

ROMNEY: Not Backing Down

NRO'sDavid Frum blogs on how Vin Weber"hailsMitt Romney's so-called plan to control the growth of federal spending." But Frum says his plan is like trying "to lose weight by cutting back on one's consumption of lime-flavored Lifesavers." To not cut what Romney calls "non-defense discretionary spending," is to say he wants to leave 80% of the federal budget off limits when in reality, "the federal budget problem cannot be fixed unless the American healthcare problem is fixed." Though Romney is "ideally placed" to address healthcare, he has "edged away from his own greatest accomplishement" this year as his consultants tell him his health care plan won't appeal to GOP primary voters. Frum: "I have to believe that Mitt Romney and Vin Weber know better than this. At least I hope they know better. So why don't they do better?"

Also at NRO's The Corner, Ramesh Ponnuru disputes Frum writing Romney "talks about getting entitlements under control all the time." Though he's been less specific about how to do that than cut non-defense discretionary spending," he's been "more specific about both than any of the other candidates..." Also, Frum's "criticism" that Romney is "backing away from his health-care plan" is an "overplayed story" as Romney has not, to Ponnuru's knowledge, "ever say that he would use the legislation as a national model."

F. THOMPSON: Who Knew Arthur Branch Was Such A Wonk?

Real Clear Politics'sBlake Dvorak on Fred Thompson's recent op-ed in NR: "But what we're witnessing here is the rare instance of a potential presidential candidate debating political philosophy with the some of the nation's top conservatives (in this case, NR's Ramesh Ponnuru), as opposed to rival candidates." Dvorak deems it a a "substantive debate" and his guess is that "conservatives will love this, whether they agree with Thompson or not, because so few candidates are willing (or able) to do it." Dvorak calls it a "good strategy" for Thompson to show that despite being out of the political scene, "he's still very much a student of politics and not just an actor who saw politics as a diversion."

American Spectator'sPhilip Klein blogs on a YouTube video from Thompson's '94 Senate debate. Thompson's response to a question about whether he supports/opposes law "that prohibit abortions for convenience" is that he does not believe the federal govt ought to be involved in that process, not through federal funding and states should be able to have "reasonable controls" on some things. Klein writes that if this represents statements typical of Thompson's "pro-choice" stage, "I think he'll be able to handle the abortion issue rather deftly." And "if anything, the clip shows Thompson has been a longtime advocate of federalism."

PROSECUTOR PURGE: Scandal Harmonic Convergence

TPM's Josh Marshall breaks down the importance of an AParticle reporting Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ) aide Brian Murray contacted purged US Attorney Paul Charlton weeks before the '06 election after local media reported Charlton was investigating Renzi in connection with Jack Abramoff. Marshall writes:

Unlike what happened with David Iglesias, Charlton's chief investigator did report the contact to the Department of Justice, as DOJ regs dictate. ... Now, here's the key: after all Congress's document and information requests to DOJ, the Justice Department had not revealed the Renzi-Charlton contact. For some reason, they've held that back. ... So basically what we have here is a classic scandal harmonic convergence -- new nuggets about the Renzi scandal and the revelation that another of the US Attorney firings may be tied to an investigation of a Republican lawmaker. At a minimum, the DOJ has concealed critical information about the story.

PROSECUTOR PURGE II: Bloch That Investigation

Talk Left's Jeralyn Merrit warns fellow netrooters not to get their hopes up over Office of Special Counsel's investigation into Karl Rove since Pres. Bush appointee Scott Bloch is set to lead the effort. Merrit links to a David Corn article in The Nation quoting Gov't Accountability Project's Adam Miles on Bloch's tenure on DoJ's Task Force for Faith-based Community Initiatives: "By most measures, his tenure has been an absolute failure." Corn concludes: "It is a dizzying situation. The investigator investigating officials who oversee the agency that is investigating the investigator. Forget firewalls. This looks more like a basement flooded with backed-up sewage--with the water rising."

At Talking Points MemoJosh Marshall posts 4/7/06 video of Rove identifying six vote fraud 'hot spots' to the GOP National Lawyers Ass. Marshall adds: "Of those six 'hotspots', the US Attorneys from three ended up on the chopping block."

BLOGGERS VS. BELTWAY: Playing Catch Up

An Robert Coxitem on the cost to the GOP of conceding Web 2.0 to Dems set The Corner's Jonah Goldberg on a long discussion of conservative online prowess. Goldberg's initial reaction included: "Now, I haven't read a lot about Web 2.0, but it sounds an awful lot like a buzzword for people to justify hiring people who use phrases like 'Web 2.0.' Still, the stuff about Google and Wikipedia is very interesting, and I think Cox makes a very good point about how the lefty blog infrastructure has entrenched itself in the web infrastructure - i.e. things like Google and Wikipedia - to the Right's detriment."

Goldberg later shares reader feedback on the issue including:

• "[T]he bulk of Cox's piece is, to use the technical term, horse honkey. Web 2.0 has little to do with anything he's talking about... he just heard the buzzword and feels that the left is beating the right on the Internet. ... The lefty blogosphere is excited because they feel that they were singularly responsibly for the shift in power last year, so they are giving more money because of this excitement (and their passionate hatred for Bush)."
• "Conservatives seem to more than hold their own on blogs. We're weak on social networking, mostly because of the age skew - young people are more likely to hold liberal views ... A far more serious problem for conservatives is how we communicate with people who aren't political junkies ... we need counterparts to MoveOn and its ilk that can succinctly and persuasively communicate meaningful information to largely disinterested voters, and do so using the tools and tones appropriate for our target audiences."

The Corner's Peter Suderman than weighed in: "The Democrats are indeed trouncing the Republicans in their use of these tools [but] I'm not sure it's quite as big a problem as has been suggested. Right now, Obama is extremely popular ... on Facebook and MySpace. But what does that really tell us? Not much more, I think, than that he plays well to the Get Involved youth activist types that are clearly going to go for candidates like Obama anyway. It's a pretty small subset of the population."

Not at The Corner, Right Wing News argues the left is able to outraise the right online because they have a bigger audience than conservative blogs and ask more often. RWN then explains why lefty blogs have bigger audiences: "#1) The left has been angry because they've been out of power and have sought out liberal information sources to find out how to get back into power. The same thing happened on the right in the Clinton years. #2) The right is structured differently than the left, in part because talk radio has captured a significant part of the conservative audience."

More Hawkins: "That means that if we want to compete numbers wise with the left, we either have to wait for the Democrats to take over and wait a few years for the audience in the blogosphere to really take off -- or talk radio and the big non-blog sites are going to have to make up the gap in size between the left and right side of the blogosphere in fund raising. ... And, if you think about it, why couldn't they? Why couldn't Rush Limbaugh, Lucianne, Free Republic, Sean Hannity, G. Gordon Liddy, National Review, etc., etc., raise money for the GOP?"

IRAQ: Save us Joe!

Conservative bloggers continue to hit Senate Maj. Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) most recently over his admission to CNN that "he will not believe David Petraeus if Petraeus reports progress in Iraq as he's expected to do." Townhall's Dean Barnett adds: "In other words, in addition to his declaration of defeat last week, Reid has now in essence called General Petraeus a liar."

There is even movement on the right to persuade Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) to 'fire' Reid for his previous "the war is lost" statements. Those involved include:

• Hyscience: "I besiege you Senator Lieberman to keep your word and switch sides and become a Republican, in the dire necessity of wresting power, and the Senate Majority Leadership, from Reid and his defeatist Democratic ilk."
• The Astute Bloggers: "The time is now, Senator Lieberman! Fulfill your promise, and your commitment to our troops in the field, switch Parties now, become a Republican, end the impasse about the war funding, and wrest the Leadership of the Senate from infamous Harry Reid, the Democrats, and America's enemies!"
• Wizbang's Lorie Byrd: "There was a time, not so long ago, that Lieberman expressed concern about the Democrats' position on Iraq. Now that so much has happened, including his majority leader declaring the war lost and congressional threats to defund the mission, what will he do? ... What would it take for Joe Lieberman to break ranks with the Democrats in the Senate and fire Harry Reid?"

At The Right Angle, Amanda Carpenter asked ex-House Maj. Leader Dick Army how GOPers ought to handle Dems attempt to override Pres. Bush's veto of the Iraq war supplemental: "The President has already gotten a letter with enough Republican signatures that say the President's veto will be sustained. The President has got two points to make on this. One, that he's not going to tolerate the kind of free-spending earmarks and extraneous things attached to the supplemental. And, two that he is not going to accept Democrats dictating the terms of how he'll conduct the war. So, I'm sure he'll make the veto and I'm sure it will be sustainable."

IRAQ II: Rahm And The Netroots ... Together At Last

Dem Caucus Chair Rahm Emanuel successfully reached out to the netroots to help promote his 4/25 address to the Brookings Institution on Bush Administration malfeasance. TPM Cafe's Greg Sargent summarizes: "That common thread: On every conceivable policy front, the administration and the GOP have placed party before country, and government has become politicized to its core. Rather than casting the administration's manifold failings as simply the result of incompetence, Emanuel will argue that they're really driven by nothing more than all-pervasive partisanship -- the imperative of putting party before country, always, without fail."

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis picks out some of his favorite Bush crimes: "A 24 year-old with a background in commercial real estate was hired by the Authority to reopen and manage the Iraqi stock exchange. ... The daughter of a prominent neoconservative was tapped to manage Iraq's $13 billion annual budget. Nothing was free from political influence."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Consultants Suck

In the middle of his diatribe against the term 'Web 2.0' The Corner's Jonah Goldberg shares this story: "My dad used to regale me with the monumental hucksterism of the McKinsey types who would come in and draw a lot of boxes on the grease board and drop a lot of buzzwords about Maximizing Core Mission This and Shedding External That. At the end Pops would say something like: "So we should sell more of the stuff we're good at selling and less of the stuff we're bad at selling" and the 23 year-old would exclaim, "Exactly!" "For this we needed a consultant?" would be my Dad's response."

LEST WE FORGET: What Was Your Favorite Moment Of The Coreys Era?

Comedy Central Insider notes Corey Haim and Corey Feldman are gearing up for a comeback with an A&E series and asks their readers what question they would most like to pose to the Coreys. Results include:

• Should vampires be given a license to drive? - 7%
• Are Goonies really good enough? - 16%
• Ever have a three-way with Jami Gertz? - 5%
• Will you ever dream a bigger dream? - 5%
• Ever have a three-way with Michael Jackson? - 38%
• Teddy DuChamp vs Lucas: who wins? - 27%

Posted by Conn Carroll at April 25, 2007 12:44 PM