May 31, 2007

5/31: We've Seen This Movie Before ...

Reading through conservative anger at Pres. Bush over his immig. rhetoric, we are reminded that every time conservatives have felt betrayed by Bush Administration legislation (No Child Left Behind, the Medicare Drug Bill, etc.), Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) hasn't been too far behind. Perhaps this is why John McCain's pairing w/Kennedy to promote the Senate immig. bill is such a death knell for his campaign: it reminds conservatives of everything they hate about Bush at the absolute nadir of his popularity. On the plus side, at least McCain (unlike the WH) isn't calling the base a bunch of racists. So he's got that going for him.

GOP FIELD: John And Ted's Excellent Adventure

RCP Blog's Tom Bevan looks at Intrade trends on the GOP '08ers including:

• Rudy [Giuliani]'s been on the slide since the first GOP debate at the Reagan Library on May 3, followed by the subsequent revelations about his contributions to Planned Parenthood.
• Fred Thompson had been bumping along in the mid-teens since the end of April until the middle of May. That was right around the time he launched his video response to Michael Moore which rang up hundreds of thousands of views over the following few days.
• Mitt Romney started picking up steam in the middle of the month, beginning with a Zogby poll on the 16th showing him surging to a small lead in Iowa, followed by his even more impressive 12-point lead in the Iowa Poll released on the 20th.
• You can pretty clearly pinpoint the beginning of John McCain's rather precipitous decline in the futures market to May 18, which was the day he stood with Ted Kennedy at a press conference to announce a grand bargain had been struck on immigration. It's been all downhill since.

GIULIANI: Conservometer

Promoting a Power Line forum thread titled Social Conservatives Back Giuliani, Power Line's John Hinderaker claims PL was among the first to argue Giuliani could diffuse social issues by preaching the virtues of federalism. Hinderaker notes: "Interesting--so far, the commenters on Giuliani's Forum site are pretty much unanimously OK with his position as laid out above. That could change as more comments come in, of course, but I think readers of this site and participants in the Candidates' Forum are a much better barometer of conservative opinion than suppositions by liberal reporters about how social conservatives think."

MCCAIN: Not Dead Yet

AmSpec Blog's John Tabin links to TownhallDean Barnett 's contest promoting the end of John McCain's candidacy and comments: "This strikes me as even more premature than Mickey Kaus's declaration in December of 2003 that 'Democratic Senator John Kerry, once proclaimed the frontrunner in the press, faces not just defeat but utter humiliation in the New Hampshire primary.' It's awfully early to be writing any top-tier candidate's obituary."

ROMNEY: Anti, Repeat, Anti-McCain-Kennedy

Captain's Quarters got 15 minutes of facetime with Mitt Romney and reports: "Romney gave an impressive performance as a man with a solid grasp on policy -- and of someone completely confident in his ability to master it." CQ pressed Romney on immigration and got a clarification:

When I asked him to reconcile his support of the 2006 McCain-Kennedy bill with his rejection of this year's proposal, he quickly corrected me and insisted he never endorsed last year's legislation. While he has been accurately quoted as calling its approach "reasonable", the same interview also has him refusing to endorse it. His staffers emphasized the point with me later.

CQ also posts audio from a Romney townhall in IA. In other Romney media, Daniel Drezner makes the libertarian case for Romney at Bloggingheads.tv.

Back in SC, the Daily Chaser responds to RCP Blog claims that the Mormon issue is hurting Romney in the state: "RCP is entitled to view the Mormon issue any way it want to. But I want to see them cite clear scientific evidence such as polling that clearly demonstrates that Mormonism is the reason for Mitt Romney's inability to climb in S.C. polls ... Don't get me wrong. I think that the Mormon issue certainly will affect some voters in S.C., but just because our we fly the Confederate Flag on State House grounds does not mean that we are all a bunch of bigots down here."

F. THOMPSON: He's Got Communication Skills, Unlike Some GOPers We Know

NRO's Jim Geraghty's Fred Thompson sources dispute Politicoreports Thompson will announce his candidacy 7/4. From the mystery source: "There will be no July 4 announcement... There was some discussion of a June 4 beginning of fundraising; that's the date checks will be collected. I suspect that's where there was some confusion."

In other Thompson reporting, SC's Daily Chaser claims Thompson has contacted state GOP chair Katon Dawson to inquire about doing a fundraiser for the SCGOP. The DC comments: "You heard that right. Thompson wants to raise cash for the party when you would think he'd be raising cash for himself. A way to suck up to the party and grab some of the key activists away from McCain and Romney? You be the judge."

And at Power LinePaul Mirengoff shares his Thompson impressions after attending a dinner with Thompson and his wife: "First, Thompson exudes the same great presence and ease of manner in person that he does on television. He's likeable and quick with the good one-liner. Second, Thompson's instincts are, with the notable exception of campaign finance reform, soundly conservative. ... Third, on the evidence of last night, Thompson needs to sharpen his message and his presentation skills."

Non-first hand Thompson reactions include:

• Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham: "He's got the charisma of Rudy with better social-con creds than most of the pack. It's a powerful combo, but will he meet expectations? We've been mooning over him for so long, couldn't he end up being a let-down."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "My issue with Thompson has nothing to do with him personally, but that he lacks executive experience and beyond a mostly conservative voting record, he really didn't accomplish much in the Senate. After six years of a president who is a disengaged executive, I think it's really important to have somebody who is detail oriented and interested in not only setting a policy, but making sure that it gets implemented properly."
• AmSpec Blog's Hunter Baker: "Thompson lacks executive experience, but what he has in spades is what George W. Bush lacks completely: communication skills. ... Any lack of executive experience on Thompson's part is more than compensated for by his gifts in presenting himself and his positions."
• Professor Bainbridge lists reasons he's happy Thompson is running, including: "The last President I really liked also was a former actor ... Lifetime 86 rating from the American Conservative Union - solid but not rigidly conservative. ... Lifetime 5 rating from Americans for Democratic Action, so he'll really annoy the far left. ... He bugs James Dobson, who bugs me."

Thompson's entry into the race also may be opening some old wounds between Townhall and RedState. After Townhall's Hugh Hewitt calls for more coverage of Thompson's indolent lymphoma RedState's Erick Erickson replies:

I know we're not supposed to talk about Mitt [Romney]'s religion. Hugh has made that very clear that even thinking about it makes us religious bigots. I am wondering, however, if when Hugh is not out pimping Mitt, will he be flagging Fred Thompson's health with wide speculation from now till the general election - a countdown till the end of remission perhaps? ... I expect the Democrats to make an issue of Fred's health, just as I would expect the Democrats to make an issue of Romney's religion. I just would think the GOP would not go there, even when flaking for their guy.

CLINTON: Opportunity Knocks

TAPPED's Dana Goldstein sees opportunity for Hillary Clinton in SCOTUS' "disastrous" 5-4 decision on gender discrimination: "In a characteristically withering dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg invited Congress to overturn the ruling. ... As I've written before, Clinton has an excellent track record on workplace discrimination, and recent reporting about her time on the Wal-Mart board of directors suggests a long-running commitment to the intersection of labor and feminist issues. Clinton's proposed Paycheck Fairness Act strikes right at the heart of yesterday's decision, making it illegal to penalize employees for sharing salary information with one another and easier for workers to file complaints of long-term discrimination."

At Talk Left, Jeralyn Merritt urges readers to vote before HRC closes her campaign song voting. Merritt voted for "Ain't No Stopping Us Now" but also suggests the Chiffons' One Fine Day and Bruce Springsteen's Tougher Than the Rest.

Not in a pro-HRC mood, The Left Coaster's Steve Soto asks: "Ever wonder why the Clintons never seemed to be out in front of Democratic efforts to fight the Bush Administration's illegal domestic spying and data mining efforts? ... Maybe it was because Bill and Hillary have accepted nearly a million dollars of free travel from the CEO of a firm engaged in data mining and the selling of consumer information to the DNC, and to known fraudsters.

DODD: But Will He Filibuster?

Chris Dodd opened up his 5/30 firedoglake chat with a video message including: "Today I want to talk to you about ending the Iraq war and an amendment that I will be introducing to the defense authorization bill this June. ... Half-measures and equivocations are not going to change our course in Iraq. If we are serious about ending the war, Congress must stand up to this President's failed policy now and do what needs to be done. ... The Dodd Amendment will improve accountability, provide a timetable for the Iraqi government to get its house in order, and safely and responsibly redeploy our troops and bring them home. Now is the time to responsibly bring an end to our involvement in another country's civil war while rebuilding our Reserve and Guard units."

Dodd's appearance garnered over 230 responses including:

• Your amendment is just what I want to see. Over and over until it's passed
• If pro-Occupation Senators find the votes to defeat your amendment, would you be willing to filibuster the Defense Appropriations Bill until the amendment were accepted or cloture invoked?
• Would you be willing to force a cloture vote to clearly delineate who cooperated and who obstructed your efforts to end the Iraq Occupation?
• Good for the Senator for clarifying that voting to defund is not voting to abandon the troops. That's a bogus argument and I wish other 08s would clarify that.
• This was really quite impressive! ... I think the Senator should move up to "first tier" instead of being somehow relegated to the "second tier" of candidates. His willingness to take a stand BEFORE the supplemental bill has really impressed me. Personally, Obama and Clinton's votes were too late, too safe.

At TAPPED notes Her Way co-author Jeff Gerth is married to a top Dodd aide and comments: "Now, in the world of punditry, such ties don't have to bind. People with skin in the game opine all the time. Gerth, to his credit, disclosed his wife's job at the end of Her Way, and even sat out reporting on the 1996 presidential campaign, during which Dodd chaired the Democratic National Committee, because of it."

EDWARDS: They Write Letters

At Calitics, Todd Beeton posts video of John Edwards responding to reader questions on health care reform and energy independence and at MyDDMatt Stoller thanks Edwards for writing a letter to the FCC asking them to set aside half of upcoming 700 megahertz spectrum auction for wholesalers "who can lease access to smaller start-ups, which has the potential to improve service to rural and underserved areas." Also Edwards wants "anyone winning rights to this valuable public resource should be required not to discriminate among data and services and to allow any device to be attached to their service."

OBAMA: Pro-Boondoggle

Despite testimonials from campaign staffers on how Barack Obama's health care plan "will help change the direction of this country" many in the netroots feel as though the plan fits into an emerging theme. Bleeding Heartland rounds up left reax and adds:

But I worry about Obama's decision to propose a plan that's less than universal. Your starting point for negotiations shouldn't be the reasonable compromise you think Congress might pass. This taps into my biggest concern about Obama, my sense that in his devotion to "consensus," he would give half the game away before negotiations with Congress even begin. The president needs to aim high.

Not on health care, The Huffington Post's Marc Gunther examines why Obama is introducing a coal liquification bill "that would promote the use of coal, the dirtiest of all fossil fuels, as a transportation fuel and make global warming a lot worse." Gunther explains: "Yes, Illinois, Obama's home state, is, like Kentucky and Wyoming, a major coal-producing state. ... I take no pleasure is saying that this will damage Obama. I read his autobiography, Dreams From My Father, a few months ago, and came away very impressed. I want to believe that he is a different kind of political leader. But by supporting a Big Coal boondoggle, Obama is not simply disappointing those voters who care about environmental issues."

RICHARDSON: Dems Can Be Clever Too

MyDD's Chris Bowers does admit Bill Richardson's "clever" bio ads may be the reason he is rising in IA and NH but still advises: "One thing we have looked for in bio ads has been for candidates to self-identify as Democrats, something which Richardson does not do in these ads. While, to a certain extent, that might explain why these ads do so well among Republicans, I can't imagine such self-identification would hurt him."

IMMIGRATION: Pretty Stupid

Conservatives are stepping up efforts to puch back against Bush Administration efforts to portray them as racists. The Right Angle's Lisa De Pasquale links to a Center for Equal Opportunity chairman Linda Chavezop-ed calling Senate immigration opponents 'xenophobes' and responds:

Does she seriously believe this? Many conservatives (myself included) went to bat for Linda when she was nominated for Labor Secretary. She was then forced to withdraw her name over criticism that she had allowed an illegal immigrant to stay in her home. It seems that we were wrong to jump to her defense. Many of us viewed it as an isolated incident because she was just helping a (supposed) battered woman in need. Now it seems as if it is actually a part of her philosophy on the rule of law and our country's borders.

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff adds: "Living in the Washington, D.C. area, I have regular contact with members of the recent-immigrant community, and have provided free legal services to several illegal immigrants. It would be a mistake to demonize these people, but just as big a mistake to romanticize them, or to label as "know-nothings" or "nativists" those concerned about some consequences of their mass influx into this country."

At RedState, Robert Bluey laments the 'irreparable rift' Bush has caused among GOPers: "In my nearly six years living in Washington, all under the reign of President Bush, I can't recall a time when conservatives and the Bush Administration have clashed so virulently. ... The debate over immigration -- coming during a low point in Bush's presidency -- has the likes of Sen. Teddy Kennedy and the National Council of La Raza agreeing more often with the Bush administration than conservatives. That spells trouble."

AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer seconds Bluey thoughts: "Bluey is absolutely right. ... Michael Gerson, and conservative columnist/activist Linda Chavez, and others on Bush's side in this debate have consistently not just argued their case but resorted to name-calling or other insults against fellow conservatives who favor a tougher stance against illegal immigrants. The president's critics from the right, on the other hand, have generally been loud but not insulting. ... What arrogance! What cynicism! What mean-spiritedness! This is not good for the conservative movement."

Conservatives also saved plenty of criticism for MSM coverage of the immigration bill. The Corner's Kate O'Beirne blogs: "Today's Washington Post has two stories on the immigration bill and neither accurately reports its provisions. Peter Baker and Pamela Constable don't rely on the bill's supporters to misrepresent it, they both incorrectly state that fines and benchmarks precede legal status."

The Corner's Rich Lowry also fact checks a "pro-amnesty activist" who claims "Amnesty is where someone comes in illegally and gets in front of others and immediately becomes legal." Lowry responds: "Again, that's exactly what the bill does. It has some hoops if people what to get a Z visa or green card, but illegals are immediately granted forgiveness for being here illegally and don't have to pay any penalties to stay here legally. How stupid do these people think we are?"

IMMIGRATION II: Will WSJ Cowards Debate NRO Racists?

Still seething over WSJ editorial board claims that opponents of the Senate immigration bill are "foaming at the mouth" NRO's editors have challenged the WSJ editors to debate the bill at a neutral venue with a moderator of WSJ's choosing. NRO writes: "We urge them to come out of the shadows, and hope defending the bill in this forum is not another one of those jobs that no American will do. (We would challenge President Bush himself to a debate on behalf of the conservatives he has maligned, but we fear he hasn't read the bill.) So who at the Journal is willing to debate the merits of the legislation rather than cast aspersions from afar?"

PROSECUTOR PURGE: Summer Blockbuster Preview

Talking Points Memo's Ben Craw summarizes the latest TPMtv episode which previews the coming week in DOJ scandal:

• First - there's the internal Department of Justice investigation. ... The investigation is being conducted by the Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility. Even though it's going on in the background, it is for the moment the only investigation that has the prospect of leading to criminal charges. If the Inspector General makes a criminal referral, that's when a special prosecutor would be brought in.
• Next up - the no-confidence vote concerning Alberto Gonzales to be held in the Senate. This is scheduled to take place once the Senate finishes its immigration bill, which means probably the second or third week of June. ... The resolution has no actual, concrete effect; it's purely symbolic.
• Last but certainly not least - next week, June 5th, any close follower of the U.S. Attorney scandal will be eagerly anticipating the testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee of two key people. One is Bradley Schlozman, the former U.S. Attorney in Kansas City and former DOJ Civil Rights Division head who's at the center of the Justice Department's efforts to suppress minority voter turnout. To make it even more interesting, Schlozman will be joined by the man he replaced in Kansas City, former U.S. Attorney Todd Graves.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Dilbert Destined For Global Warming Hell

Dissenting from Al Gore's "truth" that global warming is a "moral issue" over which there is "no longer any serious debate" Dilbertblog studies up on the issue and concludes:

• The earth is getting warmer, and human activity is an important part of it.
• The people who are well-informed about global warming are overstating the case by conflating the well-studied fact of human-created warming with the less-than-certain predictions of what happens because of the extra warming. And there's a tendency to leave out the "why I might be wrong" parts of the argument. I call that bullshit.
• The people who say global warming is irrelevant because we should all be recycling and using less fossil fuel for other reasons anyway don't understand the size of the problem. Ordinary conservation in the industrialized nations won't put a dent in it.
• The people predicting likely doom because of global warming have not made their case. Humans are incredibly adaptive. And technological breakthroughs happen in steps, not predictable straight lines. Every other predicted type of global doom hasn't happened because of human resourcefulness. No climate model can predict human resourcefulness.
• My best guess for the future is that global warming continues, conservation doesn't take hold in the less developed countries because of simple economics and corruption, and something "big" has to be done by the richest players. I think that something "big" will be mammoth carbon dioxide "scrubbers" to clean the atmosphere. It's technically possible, but not economical. The economical part will either be solved or become a moot point if the alternative is global annihilation.

LEST WE FORGET: Could You Point To The Angus Area?

Above the Law's 5/29 "lawsuit of the Day" highlights Carl's Jr's efforts to shut down a Jack in the Box ad campaign that implies "its Angus burgers are made from, shall we say, the least desirable area of the cow." ATL comments: "We don't know about you guys, but Carl's, Jr. and Jack in the Box both kinda taste like that part of the cow to us. It's all about the In and Out Burger."

And don't forget this classic Jack ad.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:40 PM

May 30, 2007

5/30: More Obama Policy Specifics ...

... and more yawns from progressives. Just like his major foreign policy address, Barack Obama's recently unveiled health care plan failed to go as far as progressives were hoping the leading anti-HRC candidate would go. On Iraq, many were unhappy with Obama's calls for a larger military and failure to promise no residual force would be left in Iraq. On health care, most are disappointed Obama's plan falls short of universal coverage and relies to heavily on private insurance companies. If recent polling is indicative of an Obama plateau, will we see him start to move left on issues? Or maybe he's just tired like Instapundit suggests here.

DEM FIELD: Must See TV

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas mocks Fox News' "big score" of getting Dennis Kucinich to commit to their CBC sponsored debate. Kos points out Barack Obama, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and Bill Richardson have all announced their intention to skip the debate, while Joe Biden has committed to attend. Kos quips: "A Biden/Kucinich debate would be HILARIOUS. I'd watch."

CLINTON: Tops Despite Top Down Tactics

Reviews/notes on Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton and A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton continue to filter including:

• TPM's Greg Sargent on both books: "One of the key charges made by Timesmen Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta in their much-talked-about new book on Hillary's lifelong ambitions is that way back in the early nineties, she and Bill were already plotting two terms in the White House for her, too. ... But we've just received our copy of legendary reporter Carl Bernstein's forthcoming book on Hillary -- and his reporting appears to directly contradict this key allegation made by Gerth and Van Natta.
• TAPPED's Garance Franke-Ruta on A Woman In Charge: "I haven't yet had time to read the review copy ... but my first impression of it based on reading the introductory pages and some key passages makes two things clear: 1) this book will be a much more enjoyable read than the Gerth/Van Natta book and 2) its tone is far more sympathetic than the one Gerth and Van Natta took, even as the reporting is more personal and seemingly invasive when it comes to Clinton's private life."
• Talk Left's Jeralyn Merritt on A Woman In Charge: "It's been decades since I read Nora Ephron's Heartburn, her novel based on the crumbling of her marriage to Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein, so I don't have a ready answer as to whether Bernstein is a sexist. But judging from his new book on Hillary Clinton, I wouldn't be surprised."

Back in CA, juls links to recent HRC staffing announcements and predicts at Calitics: "It will be a very top down coordinated campaign that relies heavily on voter files to drive in early votes. She has locked up the two highest profile Latinos in the state and will use them as surrogates on her behalf. It is unlikely that she will garner many endorsements from grassroots organizations or labor. This will require her to lean more heavily on the elected officials who have endorsed her. Targeted voters will receive glossy mailers and phone calls. She will likely go up on both radio and do some limited (relatively speaking) television. The grassroots organizing will be limited but still present. They will in short, implement proven methods of turning out the vote in California, with a heavy emphasis on vote rich LA."

Also, Blog P.I.'s Bill Beutler observes that even though communication at HRC's YouTube channel "is strictly one-way" her YouTube YouChoose Spotlight asking viewers to help choose a campaign theme song has "by no small margin" been viewed the most times. Beutler comments: "This is interesting - because it challenges the arguments made by Dana Boyd at this year's Personal Democracy Forum that the "digital handshake" - candidate interactivity and reciprocity - is necessary for an effective online campaign."

DODD: Pushing Pressure Left

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher promotes Chris Dodd's 5 PM " live video vlogging session where he will answer questions left by the FDL community in the comment section." Hamsher adds: "Dodd deserves a lot of credit for getting out in front of all the other '08 candidates on voting against those useless Iraqi benchmarks that Bush is free to ignore and also for putting pressure on Clinton and Obama. For my money I believe if he hadn't pushed as aggressively as he did things might have gone another way - he left them no choice but to vote against it. It should be interesting to see how he rates in the next DKos straw poll, his leadership position and his ability to move with agility within the blogosphere to draw the dialog to the left have certainly earned him both notice and praise."

OBAMA: Outlier Or Omen?

MyDD's Chris Bowers doubts ARG's new numbers showing Barack Obama at 11% in IA and 15% in NH but does allow: "Perhaps the ARG polls are just off, as outside of New Hampshire primaries and caucuses are not easy to poll. Perhaps they are identifying a weakness in Obama's coalition: too young, too independent to be considered "likely" voters. Or, perhaps the situation in the early states is far more fluid that we appreciate."

OBAMA II: Thanks, But No Thanks

Obama's health care plan left many on the left wanting more. Reax include:

• TAPPED's Ezra Klein: "In the end, Obama's plan sections off the health care market. Rather than going towards massive integration ... Obama's plan seeks to correct the places in the market where we see folks having the most trouble getting insured. It builds on the current system much more than it transforms it.
• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "Overall, it sounds OK but not spectacular, yet another take on the Ron Wyden healthcare plan that I'm sort of lukewarm about."
• The Plank's Jonathan Cohn: "There's a mandate for kids to get insurance -- but not for adults. By my definition, that means it's not true universal coverage. At least not right away. ... Whether you get everybody or not at the outset is one of those big issues that actually matter."
• The Huffington Post's Rose Ann Demoro: "Sen. Obama, Please No More Deck Chairs on the Insurance Industry Titanic."

GOP FIELD: The InstaPrimary

Instapundit breaks down the GOP field (cuurently leaning towards Rudy Giuliani), among other topics, at Bloggingheads.tv

HUCKABEE: Progressivism Without Penalizing

Mike Huckabee has a diary up at RedState touting support for a "fair tax" which he describes as a complete elimination of "all federal income and payroll taxes. And do I mean all - personal federal, corporate federal, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment. Instead we will have the FairTax, a simple tax based on wealth."

More Huckabee: "The FairTax will replace the Internal Revenue Code with a consumption tax, like the taxes on retail sales forty-five states and the District of Columbia have now. ... Our current progressive tax system penalizes us for our success. The FairTax is also progressive, but it doesn't punish the American dream of success, or the old-fashioned virtues of hard work and thrift, it rewards them."

MCCAIN: Romney's Already Won!!!

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt is so confident that immigration is sinking John McCain's "like the Titanic after having run into the iceberg" that he's already holding a contest to predict "the date that John McCain officially takes his faltering jalopy of a campaign off the road." Winners get "an autographed (and personalized!) copy of 'A Mormon in the White House'" from Hewitt.

Not shying away from the subject, McCain talked to Captain's Quarters about immigration on CQ Radio here.

ROMNEY: It's An Anti-Mormon Off!

RCP Blog's Tom Bevan notes no GOPer has ever carried "the nomination without carrying the Palmetto State" and predicts possible IA and NH victories will lead to Mormon fears among SC primary voters. Bevan blogs: "the whispering campaigns against McCain in 2000 may look like child's play compared to next January."

Also addressing the Mormon issue, Townhall's Hugh Hewitt links to APreports on a Hillary Clinton supporter refusing to shake Romney's hand because he's a Mormon and comments: "There are certainly some conservatives who won't vote for a Mormon, but there's much more evidence that much of the anti-Mormon bigotry is on the left. Perhaps MSM will get around to speculating why that is, and will discover that the morals of most Mormons are not of the sort that attract the left and its attachment to license in most areas of human behavior, and that specifically Romney's defense of marriage as an institution reserved for one man and one woman is a great irritation to many on the left."

SEN LANDSCAPE: We Want You, For The U.S. Senate

Despite great prospects "on paper" MyDD's Chris Bowers has "a growing sense of unease" about '08 Dem Senate prospects. Bowers explains: "With the image of the national Republican Party still in the toilet, and with it sinking deeper every month that they continue to cling to the anchor that is open-ended war in Iraq, the national mood starts out decidedly in our advantage. ... However, right now this situation does not seem to be translating into many good pickup opportunities. Off hand, the problem seems to center around recruitment problems. In some states, we are failing to get our top recruits. In other states, our top recruits now seem less promising than they did just a couple months ago. Worst of all, in most states, we don't have any challengers yet."

Specifics from Bowers: "[A]t this point in the 2006 cycle, we already had multiple challengers in RI, PA, and MT, not to mention states like AZ and TN that helped stretch the playing field. By way of contrast, so far in 2008 we have seen our chances in ME, MN and OR all receive justifiable downgrades. Basically, everywhere outside of CO and NH, where we might develop LieberDem problems, it feels like we are spinning our wheels.

IRAQ: Midnight Baghdad Basketball

An LA Timesarticle on U.S. military efforts to "redefine success" in anticipation of falling short of Pres. Bush goals for 9/07 didn't escape netroots attention. Reactions include:

• Matthew Yglesias: "Success has, however, already been redefined plenty. If you'd predicted back in February 2003 that the US would be in the mess we're in by May 2007 you would, rightly, have been viewed as someone who was predicting failure."
• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "These unnamed "counterinsurgency advisors" would be right if nobody had been working on any of these key goals until February 2007. In fact, though, they've been key goals for a long time. The problem isn't that we won't have any progress to show after six months, the problem is that we don't have any progress to show after four years. Another Friedman or two isn't going to change that."
• The Carpetbagger Report: "It's the Midnight Basketball-ization of Iraq policy. The administration can't tackle the sweeping challenges, so it's time for some micro initiatives that would give the appearance of progress. ... Be prepared for a series of almost comical examples of 'progress.'"
• Balloon Juice: "Bush's policies have failed. The war is a failure and a disaster. It is time to cut our losses. Hell, it is well beyond time to cut our losses."

Also, Jonathan Schwarz and Daily Kos' mcjoan urge Dems to call CIA Weapons Intelligence Non-Proliferation and Arms Control Center head Alan Foley in for questioning based off of excerpts from The Italian Letter which quote Foley telling center analysts: "If the president wants to go to war, our job is to find the intelligence to allow him to do so."

Schwarz comments: "Any serious congressional strategy to end this war would include nationally televised hearings about this and all the other lies that got us into Iraq. The seriousness of the Democrats can be judged by such hearings' non-existence."

IMMIGRATION: Exit, Stage Left

Pres. Bush's claim that opponents of the Senate immigration bill only want to "frighten people" was not well-received:

• The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "The president's dis to critics of his immigration is both unfair and unnecessary, albeit unsurprising. Does he really think Jeff Sessions and George Will want to frighten people?"
• A Lopez emailer: "This is the beginning of the Final Act for the Bush Presidency. I'm so over him, I may get a bumper sticker for my car that says 1-20-09."
• RedState's Rob Bluey: "Your remarks attacking opponents of the bill will only inspire my fellow critics to fight harder. ... The bill is the 1986 amnesty all over again. Only this time, instead of giving amnesty to 2.7 million illegal aliens, we're talking about doing it for 12 million. This bill will cause a flood of new illegal immigrants to America because it is so generous."
• The Corner's Mark Steyn: "I respect the President and I appreciate that his sincerity on this issue has been obvious for his entire political career. But I don't think he should impugn the good faith of those who, equally sincerely, disagree - not on "narrow slices" but on the central proposition: that drive-thru legalization for millions of people subject to desultory background checks by an agency without the resources to conduct them is not 'what's right for America'."
• The Corner's Jonah Goldberg: "Richard Cohen discovers something some of us on the right have been saying for a while: if you hold your head just so and look at Bush from the right angle, he looks an awful lot like a liberal."

Not focussing on Bush, Right Wing News announces Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) will be the first target of his Googlebomb campaign designed to "peel 5k-10k votes off the total of every pro-amnesty Republican in the Senate." Michelle Malkin and David All both chip in with videos on detailing the illegal immigration problem

Finally, Kausfiles pokes fun at immigration bill supporters: "Today, President Bush said his comprehensive immigration plan makes it "more likely we can enforce our border." Only "more likely"? Why the doubt? After all, the bill specifically provides for "4 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles" for the Southern border! ... hey, the bipartisan authors of the "grand bargain" didn't stop at three unmanned aerial surveillance craft. They have four! Sen. Kyl is one tough negotiator."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: StopBuyingUselessCrap.org

After receiving emails from Laurie David's StopGlobalWarming.org asking her to buy 'green' products that have the added benefit of filtering money back to David's group, The Huffington Post's Elizabeth Royte advises:

Green purchasing tells us to vote with our wallets, but it ignores a third choice: not buying at all. I try to resist these green come-ons because I hate to think our strength is based on consumption, instead of more substantive action. I'm appalled by the amount of junk mail I (used to) get from environmental groups, much of it offering to reward donors with cheaply made premiums (how many tote bags and baseball caps can one person use?). Some even have the nerve to offer "affinity" credit cards, which only make it easier to buy more stuff, to consume without a thought for the natural resources that went into making these goods, and for the toll they will take on human health and the environment once we've consigned them to the dump.

LEST WE FORGET: Who Knew The Pope Was So Concerned With Your Happiness?

Linking to a SUNY-Albany study showing "women who do not use condoms during sex are less depressed and less likely to attempt suicide than are women who have sex with condoms and women who are not sexually active" Andrew Sullivan comments: "The Pope is right heterosexual barebacking is good for you."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:39 PM

May 29, 2007

5/29: Why Obama Will Win (Again)

With new books rehashing old worries about Hillary Clinton, we are reminded yet again that if the Dem primary really will come down to Iraq, Barack Obama will cruise to the nomination. Recommending Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Arianna Huffington recounts how both candidates wait til the final minutes to cast their votes against funding the Iraq war, but then goes on to only criticize HRC for not leading on the issue. Also at MyDD, Matt Stoller shares his recent efforts convincing a fellow Harvard grad that Obama's foreign policy rhetoric is not as progessive as his image. Stoller laments: "[H]e acknowledged that Obama's rhetoric was at odds with what he believed about Obama. And yet, he just didn't care."

CLINTON: The Record Shows She Took The Blows

Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta's Hillary Clinton 'portrait' Her Way received few positive reviews, but still allowed HRC doubters a chance to rehash established objections. First though, Clinton defender Garance Franke-Ruta delivers the harshest verdict on the book itself at TAPPED:

I know it's the Clintons we're talking about, so that nastiness should never come as a shock, but these are Timesmen, of whom I would expect better, even in their private efforts. The introductory chapters are jam-packed with the sort of dated '90s aspersions that have been mocked into the ground this decade, as just about every hoary anti-Clinton cliche you've ever heard is trotted out and applied to events across the span of Clinton's life. You almost feel bad for the authors for failing to follow the change in the media climate.

At MyDD, Matt Stoller laments the books release since it allows Chris Matthews and his "pundit freaks" to focus an entire show on "trivial nonsense from the 1990s." Atrios links commenting: "Why I Didn't Want Hillary To Run ... Because the pundits are going to make us live through the 90s again."

At the newly redesigned Huffington Post, Arianna doesn't think all the issues raised by Her Way are trivial: "Forget the stuff about Monica, Gennifer Flowers, Vince Foster, Hillary's record as a lawyer, or the Clintons' 20-year plan for both of them to become president. The money chapters are the ones on Iraq. When it comes to Hillary's shape-shifting stances, explanations, and votes on the war, Gerth and Van Natta offer a definitive and chilling portrait of a politician solely driven by political expedience -- even when it comes to life and death matters such as Iraq. It's a portrait that will likely prove to be an anvil around her neck throughout the 2008 campaign, unless she can somehow transform herself from political weather vane to political leader."

Also hitting Clinton on Iraq, The Left Coaster's soccerdad blogs: "Hillary Clinton's cynical vote against the Iraq funding bill encapsulates the approach of the democratic leadership's approach to the Iraq war. Clinton sat back showed no leadership, did not shape the debate or policy and then when it was clear that the funding measure would pass, then voted against it. This puts her in the position of claiming she voted against the funding thus casting herself as antiwar without leaving much of a trail freeing her to put any spin on it she wants."

CLINTON II: Early Voting Makes Early Wins Irrelevant?

MyDD's Chris Bowers assures readers it is possible for Clinton to have both the highest percentage of "hard" and ("every single poll shows a smaller percentage of Clinton supporters indicating that they might change their minds than supporters of other candidates") and "soft" ("it is also true that Clinton is the candidate who benefits most when polls push basically undecided leaners to make a decision") supporters and explains how it could effect the primary:

On the one hand, it means that Clinton's numbers have the most immediate potential to drop, but on the other hand it also means that her bottom level of support is much higher than it is for other candidates. ... This could potentially allow her to receive delegates virtually everywhere no matter what happens in the early states. Combine this advantage with what I imagine will be significant super delegate support, and she is already pretty much guaranteed to have quite a few delegates after February 5th.

Also looking forward to 2/5 Bleeding Heartland comments on New York Times reports of an HRC memo pointing out millions of absentee ballots will be cast before the IA and NH outcomes are known: "This is in my mind the biggest current problem for Edwards and Obama as they try to derail the Hillary inevitability train. They have to hope that she drops in the national polls well before the end of the year. Otherwise she could rack up a big lead in early voting in places like Florida, California, and New York, helping her compensate for potentially poor performances in Iowa and New Hampshire."

DODD: Pro-Actively Interesting

Official Chris Dodd blogger Matt Browner Hamlin posts video of Dodd speaking at a house party in Laconia, NH at Blue Hampshire. BH administrator elwood adds: "Dodd gets a lot of front-page attention here -- because the Dodd campaign pro-actively provides interesting material."

EDWARDS: English First

MyDD's Nate Willems shares highlights from John and Elizabeth Edwards townhall in Independence, IA, including:

• The events this weekend are touted as discussions on "America's Commitment to Veterans." Senator Edwards spoke for about 10 minutes on the significance of this Memorial Day weekend, outlined his ideas to care for veterans returning from war, and noted his disappointment with the U.S. Senate and their recent passage of continued funding for the war in Iraq.
• The second question was about "undocumented aliens." Senator Edwards said that we should do more to "protect our southern border," and indicated a willingness to build a fence in some places. However, he stated that the idea of building a fence the entire length of the Mexican border is "crazy." In speaking about a path to earned citizenship for illegal immigrants, and this received as much or more applause than anything else, Edwards said that citizenship should be conditioned on learning the English language.
• My father asked Senator Edwards why he should caucus for him over candidates like Biden and Richardson with more foreign policy experience. ... He cited the long history that both Rumsfeld and Cheney have had in the foreign policy establishment as evidence that experience does not necessarily translate into a successful presidency. Edwards certainly did not seal the deal with Dad, but my father did say he was "impressed" that not a single hair on Edwards' head was out of place - assuredly due to the $400 haircuts.

Not in IA, Andrew Sullivan responds to a Young Whippersnapper defense of Edwards "uncomfortable"ness with homosexuals. YW writes: "John Edwards may not be perfect, but let's not call him a bigot or a dishonest supporter of gay rights, especially when the other party is built on bigotry and disdain for homosexuals." AS responds: "The rampant homophobia among Christianist Republicans is not a get-off-free card for Democrats. Or did we learn nothing from the Clinton years?"

OBAMA: Kid Tested, Boomer Approved

MyDD's Matt Stoller links to New York Timesreports on Congressional efforts to subsidize coal liquification as an alternative fuel and notes: "Obama is one of the Senators pushing this. Coal liquification plants are a horrible idea. ... Last week, I spoke to a friend who graduated from Harvard Law and just got done clerking for a high level judge. He's smart and highly credentialled, and he supports Obama because he thinks Obama doesn't believe in American exceptionalism and will decolonize our foreign policy. I walked him through the rhetoric which showed him that this was just not true, and he acknowledged that Obama's rhetoric was at odds with what he believed about Obama. And yet, he just didn't care. He just offered that Obama was saying this because he had to say it to get elected.

Back in Hanover, NH, BuckeyeStateBlog reporting for Blue Hampshire was struck not just by the size of Obama's crowds, but also the age: "Obama has really brought out the baby boomers today as well."

RICHARDSON: Is There A Worse Kind Of Sports Bigamy?

In IA, non-baseball fan Bleeding Heartland got the following email from her brother following Bill Richardson's 5/27 Meet The Press performance: "It was also funny to hear Richardson say that he was a life-long Boston Red Sox fan, yet Russert then pulled out Richardson's book and read a passage in which Richardson said that his favorite team was the New York Yankees."

BH comments: "What I really want to know is, why would Richardson write in a book that the Yankees are his favorite team if he's really a Red Sox fan? And if he's not really a Red Sox fan, why would he claim to be, knowing that a journalist could open his book and read a reference to the Yankees? ... On one level, this baseball team business is trivia. But anyone who wants to be the Democratic nominee better be able to handle a tough television interview from Russert or anyone else."

GOP FIELD: Paul/Tancredo in '08!!!

Blog P.I.'s Bill Beutler combs through the 5/07 GOP Bloggers straw poll cross tabs to demonstrate why Ron Paul's victory should not be taken seriously: "Unlike supporters of the realistic candidates, Ron Paul supporters apparently would not vote for any other GOP candidate in the Republican primary - though intriguingly, a minority would consider Tancredo. ... I submit this as fair evidence that Ron Paul's online base of support is not drawn from actual Republican party primary voters. Activists for every other candidate have their fallbacks, nemeses and frenemies, but no other group is so far outside the mainstream as the activists for Ron Paul."

BROWNBACK: Not Winning Anyone Over On Immigration Anyway

Race 4 '08s Kavon Nikrad has photos and video from the 'grand opening' of Sam Brownback's West Des Moines, IA, headquarters and blogs: "I am always amazed by the youth and enthusiasm of the Brownbackers I have come across on the campaign trail. The median age of the horde of kids there to support Sen. Brownback had to be no greater than 20. And once again, my ear are still ringing from the fiery chants of, 'We back Brownback! We back Brownback!'"

Guesting at Right Wing News, Rob Bluey was less impressed with Brownback's IA presence: "As the Senate was voting on important amendments to the immigration bill yesterday, long-shot presidential candidate Sam Brownback was off on the campaign trail taking a "whirlwind tour of Iowa." Brownback's absence meant he could avoid a vote on stripping the bill of its amnesty section -- the most contentious aspect of the legislation."

GIULIANI: Free Rudy

The Brody File reports on a "growing network of activists who are starting to take pro-active steps to shoot down a [Rudy] Giuliani nomination." Brody identifies a weekly Paul Weyrich hosted luncheon at the Free Congress Foundation that distributes flyers including: "Rudy Giuliani is wrong on all of the social issues, is wrong on the Second Amendment, and is pretty much a blank slate on all other issues of importance to conservatives."

Brody comments: "What can the Giuliani campaign do to stop this movement? Will the conservative grassroots really be able to take him down?"

MCCAIN: Not Dead Yet

John McCain scored points with RedStaters over his dust up with Barack Obama on Iraq war funding, especially for his ending line: "By the way, Senator Obama, it's a 'flak' jacket, not a 'flack' jacket." Streiff quotes Toby Keith: "I ain't as good as I once was. But I'm as good once as I ever was."

ROMNEY: Conservative For MA

A '94 campaign flyer highlighting all the differences between Mitt Romney and Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) is popping up on conservative blogs. The Brody File links and comments: "Romney has taken a lot of heat for changing his position on abortion. But you have to wonder: Maybe Romney's been a conservative all along. It's just that in liberal Massachussets, to get elected, sometimes you have to bend a little more than you want to." Race 4 '08s Jason adds: "It's pretty clear, beyond the MSM/McCain bait, Romney has been pretty consistent on his positions. I highly doubt anyone in 94 looked at this flier and walked away thinking Romney was a liberal."

At Townhall, Dean Barnett posts video of Ben Affleck telling Bill Maher "The Mormonism thing is really suspect," and responds: "I'm not screaming racism. I'm not even insinuating racism. ... I am noting, however, ... it is acceptable in the mainstream to say thing about Mormons that wouldn't be acceptable regarding any other minority. Can you imagine someone like Affleck saying in regards to a different candidate, "The Muslim thing is really suspect" or "The Jewish thing is really suspect" and not getting called on it?"

F. THOMPSON: Pro-Yahoo

The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez links to Fred Thompson's Memorial Day thoughts on NRO and comments: "You get the impression via these commentaries he might not forget or dismiss his conservative friends when and if the time comes he's in the White House. Because he actually thinks they have something important to say (those damn yahoos) and he'd probably be surrounded by a few of them from the beginning."

IRAQ: You Get Out Of War With The President You've Got

In her "resignation letter as the 'face' of the American anti-war movement" Cindy Sheehan posts at Daily Kos: "I have endured a lot of smear and hatred since Casey was killed and ... since I renounced any tie I have remaining with the Democratic Party, I have been further trashed on such "liberal blogs" as the Democratic Underground. ... It amazes me that people who are sharp on the issues and can zero in like a laser beam on lies, misrepresentations, and political expediency when it comes to one party refuse to recognize it in their own party. Blind party loyalty is dangerous whatever side it occurs on. ... I am going to take whatever I have left and go home. I am going to go home and be a mother to my surviving children and try to regain some of what I have lost."

Not giving up on Dems, but still ready to criticize them, Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat takes on Digby for suggesting bloggers should not reinforce "GOP memes about Democratic 'cowardice'." BTD blogs: "What is Digby suggesting? That the blogs/Netroots not give its true opinions? That we pull our punches? This is a very very dangerous game Digby is suggesting. For what do the blogs really have going for them? Integrity. If we don't have that, we have nothing. We become the Right blogs. This is terrible thinking, especially coming from our best blogger."

Also in a questioning mood, TAPPED's Adele Stan links to This American Life suggestions that the US has "some sort of moral obligation" to help Iraq after the invasion and blogs: "As well-meaning people scream for an immediate withdrawal, I keep thinking of another Muslim country the U.S. helped break, and then turned away from, leaving behind nothing but a pile of rubble and portable military hardware in the hands of rival ethnic groups. ... The vacuum left by the U.S. abandonment of the people of Afghanistan, after having armed its warlords to the teeth to serve as our proxies in their war against the Soviet Union, was ultimately filled by al Qaeda, which found the Taliban's Afghanistan a most accommodating landscape from which to launch a global insurgency of terror against the West."

Atrios responds: "I understand where Adele is coming from. We're good liberals, we gaze on the horror that we (yes, all of us) are responsible for, and are compelled to try to fix it. To make it better. ... The reality is George Bush and his merry band of incompetent psychopaths are in power for the next 20 months. 20 more months of the war-as-product-for-domestic-consumption rather than as an occupation to be understood. ... And 20 months from now when President Wise and Benevolent Democrat takes office there will be no political interest in helping Iraq. ... The fact is that right now the choice is, as it has always been, between Bush's war and getting out. There's no Peter Beinart's war, there's no Tom Friedman's war, there's no Adele Stan's war. There is no good liberal way out of this mess."

IMMIGRATION: Wash, Rinse, Repeat ...

Conservative bloggers John Hawkins, Rob Bluey, Saul Anuzis, Erick Erickson,Jim Hoeft , Matt Hurly, Dave Burris, Mario Delgado, and Andrew Richardson have joined forces to urge their readers to sign the No Amnesty Petition which reads in part:

The rule of law is vital to the success and character of our nation. I strongly urge our nations leaders to oppose the Ted Kennedy Amnesty Bill currently being considered by the United States Senate. Almost two decades ago, amnesty was attempted, it failed. Repeating that mistake will do nothing to secure our borders today. ... We must take steps to secure our border, but amnesty is not the way. Our message is simple, do not support amnesty.

Guesting at Right Wing News, Bluey goes on to question Maj. Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-KY) judgment after reports McConnell intended to vote for the immigration bill. From Bluey: "What a tremendous disappointment. McConnell, who is up for re-election next year, should know better."

More satisfied with the status quo, Sam Brownback blogger Leon Wolf makes the case against supporting a primary opponent for immigration bill sponsor Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) at RedState: "Let me say at the outset that I get single-issue voting. ... I will absolutely not pull the lever for any candidate that either (1) does not have a pro-life voting record, or (2) does not profess themselves as being opposed to legalized abortion. ut I think it's also relevant that you've never seen me go after Lisa Murkowski, KBH, John Sununu, Ted Stevens (for abortion), or the Maine sisters on the front page. Issues don't get dealt with outside of a voting coalition."

Finally, Kausfiles links National Journal's Clive Crook's questions about what happens to the "2 million" immigrants who enter the country after the 1/1/07 deadline under the current immigration proposal and comments:

Of course the remaining post-January illegals won't be deported, any more than all the current pre-January illegals will have to be deported if Congress doesn't pass the "comprehensive" bill. They will live "in the shadows." Then, in 10 years, with millions of new illegal shadow-dwellers there will be responsible bipartisan proposals, which you would be a yahoo to oppose, for another semi-amnesty. Potential illegals know this, one reason why they will keep coming. (That's the pattern after amnesties, it seems).

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Can't Wait For '08

Looking back at a successful effort by Digg readers to end management crack down on Digital Millenium Copyright Act violations, The Huffington Post's David Allen writes:

What I see in this story is a trend that started with the first word spoken by a human: Informational technology has been a democratizing force, shaping political reality in its own image. The further we advance our capacity to communicate, the more responsive leaders must be to that communication, if they wish to retain power. ... If the Digg revolt teaches us anything, it's that our own system of government has some fundamental anachronisms. The technology exists to enable us to give our feedback on governmental performance instantly, rather than having to wait several years for an election. There is no longer any excuse to allow a President whose approval rating is apparently lower than 30 percent, for example, to remain in office, where he or she can continue to do the things that caused the low approval rating in the first place.

LEST WE FORGET: Na Nana Na Na

Freely admitting his "trash-talk" is aimed at Daily Kos readers, Instapundit posts images of the banner scorecards for the One Billion Bulbs campaign that show Instapundit readers have removed the equivalent of 66.19 cars from the road compared to Daily Kos' 8.78 cars. Instapundit cracks: "Several readers wonder if there's anything geekier than enviro-trash-talk about compact fluorescent bulbs. Well, not much, probably. But what's your point?

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:48 PM

May 25, 2007

5/25: Screw The Base Week

If CNN's election night '06 blog party proved anything, it's that bloggers from the left and right really do hate each other. That said, if there was ever a week when both groups could sit down to wallow in their beers together it's this one. Dems cave on Iraq. GOP sells out on border enforcement. Both bases are ready to explode. Should be a joyous week home for all members over the Memorial Day break.

IRAQ: Thank God For Markos

Sensing their online allies were less than pleased with their recent performance, Dems blogged it up 5/24 in an effort to assuage netroots anger. Entries include:

• Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) at Daily Kos: "So where do we go from here? We push from every direction we can think of. ... I'm not going to call on you to do anything specific today; you've done so much already. I'm not going to ask for patience, because the truth is big policy changes like this are only achieved by impatient people - in huge numbers. ... There will be new avenues of attack, new paths to take. But, for right now, it's up to folks like me to do our part to keep the battle going, so all of you can work to keep the pressure going. Together, we can win this, as long as we keep the battle joined. Keep punching."
• Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) at The Huffington Post: "Today, I voted for both the $22 billion supplemental funding for domestic programs and the $98 billion supplemental funding for our troops in Iraq. ... Some have suggested that since the president refuses to compromise, Democrats should refuse to send him anything. I disagree. There is a point when the money for our troops in Iraq will run out, and when it does, our men and women serving courageously in Iraq will be the ones who will suffer, not this president. ... While we don't have the votes right now to change the president's policy, I believe that come September we will have the votes from both Democrats and Republicans to change policy and direction."
• Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY)at MyDD: "Let me say up front that what happened today was the result of a Presidential veto and a Republican minority that doesn't care that the American people want to end this war. ... we had a choice. We could send Mr. Bush the same bill, or allow something to pass that wouldn't be vetoed. And we elected to let something pass - to let Republicans, if they so choose, fund their own war. ... I'm hoping that today's vote won't break that link between us and you - because we will only succeed if we work together. ... I'm looking forward to your comments on this. I understand your frustration and anger at the situation we have all been placed in, and I promise you I share it.

Daily Kos' bonddad responds: "We've seen a flood of diaries from various representatives over the last few days, explaining why they are voting no on the war funding bill. I could care less. For the last 15 years or so, the Dems have suffered from the political version of battered wife syndrome. The Republicans accuse us of everything in the book and we didn't fight back. We tried everything possible except the obvious: FIGHT BACK."

Also unimpressed with Dem messaging on the issue firedoglake's TRex posts the following DCCC fundraising email: "Breaking News: Because of your help, the House just passed legislation that will go to the White House that includes critical issues Democrats have been fighting for including: canceling the President's blank check in Iraq, raising the minimum wage, and increased funding for military health care and veterans' benefits, and help for victims of Hurricane Katrina." TRex responds: "If the legislation is so very wonderful, then how come the head of the DCCC, Chris Van Hollen, voted against it?"

More reax:

• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "The public wants out, and the death toll is so high now that they'd likely accept that further bloodshed was bound to occur whether we had stayed or not. Unfortunately, Dems don't have the courage to take that chance. Apparently they'd rather fight next year's election with an unpopular Republican war in the background rather than take the chance of fighting it with an unpopular Democratic withdrawal in the background. As a result, we've missed yet another chance to look decisive on foreign policy, do the right thing in Iraq, and start the process of pulling ourselves out of the hole Bush has dug us into and giving the next president a clean slate to start building a non-insane national security policy on."
• TPM Cafe's Greg Sargent: "[T]his is, like, soooooooooo June 2006. Recall that last spring many Dems were terrified of taking on the GOP and the White House over Iraq because they worried that the Republicans would tell the electorate an irresistible story: Dems are weak, and Republicans are strong. When Dems finally realized that Republicans would tell this story no matter what they did, they started telling the story their way: The war in Iraq is a disaster; it has made us weaker; Dems want to end it, and Republicans don't. The rest is history. Dems won the argument."
• David Sirota: "In the movie "Say Anything," John Cusack famously laments after being dumped that "I gave her my heart, she gave me a pen." The American people gave Democrats their heart in November 2006. In return, Democrats gave George Bush a blank check in May 2007. We gave them our heart, they gave him a blank check."
• Atrios: "'Democrats Gave In' ... People like winners and hate losers. This basic fact seems to not be understood."

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas urged fellow travelers to channel their anger: "I've never been under any illusion that this war would end before the next Democratic president took charge. ... But there is productive pissed, and destructive pissed. The productive stuff has us redoubling our efforts to clean house in Congress, clearing out the dead weight, the corporatists, and the Republicans. There's the taking over our local parties, bringing new blood and a cohesive sense of purpose to often moribund organizations."

DarkSyde thanked kos: "All I can say is that dems are lucky to have a guy like Markos to talk guys like me off the ledge. Because for those politicos who think everyone will come back to you, no matter how many times you disappoint us, I have news: You're dead wrong."

Also on Iraq, AMERICAblog's John Aravosis succinctly sums up 5/24's Pres. Bush presser: "If we leave Iraq, Al Qaeda is going to kill your children. But if the Iraqis ask us to leave today, we'll leave." And Atrios dissents from Murtha's "When September Comes" predictions: "It really is the case that elite opinion has solidified around the idea that come September all the responsible Republicans (who are they? I have no idea) are going to decide that enough's enough and it's time to start putting an end to the boy king's little crusade. It really is the case that, once again, elite opinion is completely f**king wrong."

IMMIGRATION: Walk First, Walk And Chew Gum Later

The battle between the WH and conservatives has sparked a feud between National Review and the WSJ. Noting that the WSJ editors have described NRO opposition to the Senate immigration bill as "foaming at the mouth," The Corner's Andy McCarthy responds:

I really like the WSJ's editorial page --I don't know what we'd do without them. But they have a nasty, condescending streak when they get on their high horse, as they do with their signature position on immigration. ... I'm glad they find this issue so easy. For me, it's excruciating. ... I don't want to kick the illegals out of the country. ... I prefer legal immigration, but you'd have to be an idiot not to concede that a substantial portion of the illegal population is comprised of good, hard-working people - the kind we'd love to have here legitimately.

As a human being, I want to support legalization, even though everything in my experience tells me it is always a mistake to reward illegal behavior, and the equities tell me that (a) the illegals have chosen to be illegal so it's not unfair to make them live with that choice, and (b) legalization would be a slap in the face to the people who have respected our laws and tried to immigrate lawfully.

Despite those two weighty considerations, I think I could swallow hard and go along. Except for one thing: I don't believe the government is serious about enforcement. I've been in government, so I don't doubt their good faith - I don't doubt that they really hope and intend to do a better job. I just won't believe they'll follow through for any sustained amount of time until they actually do. ... After decades of laxity, you don't get to tell me you're now serious based on what seems like 10 minutes of stepped up enforcement, with promises of a few hundred miles of fence and some additional border agents thrown in for good measure. You gotta prove it to me, and that's going to take time.

Also unimpressed with established government competence on the issue The Corner's Mark Steyn remembers:

The more you look at this bill the more it seems just the usual Beltway kabuki. Secretary Chertoff says in a time of war we need to know who's in the country. Okay. But is dumping a gazillion new applications on a sclerotic immigration system the way to do that? Mohammed Atta was the second most famous terrorist in the world and on the front page of every American newspaper but the then INS still sent him a valid US visa six months to the day after he died, and without even updating his address from that Florida flight school to Big Hole In The Ground, Lower Manhattan. And the excuse the agency made was, oh well, we're only issuing visas to dead terrorists not living ones - which Americans pretty much had to take on trust and which seems a distinction far less likely to be maintained once there's another 15 million in the system entitled to next-day service. If I were Mullah Omar, I'd apply for a Z-visa. The odds have got to be better than even. So it will be a fraud on "conservative" enforcement grounds.

Conservatives are also up in arms over The New York Timesarticle claiming their new poll "large majorities expressed support for measures contained in the legislation" even though their poll never even asked about the specifics of the legislation. Kausfiles observes: " I don't think it's fresh news that when voters are given elaborate descriptions of the requirements for semi-amnesty ("pay a $5,000 fine, a fee, show a clean work record and pass a criminal background check") they say, 'sure'. No other alternatives are given in this question. ... It's that bill and those descriptions the Senators are going to be responsible for, not a NYT hypothetical not-quite-the-bill. (For example, the bill doesn't just give illegals "a chance to ... eventually apply" for legal status. It immediately gives them legal status.)" Hot Air has similar thoughts.

Moved to action, Michelle Malkin asks readers to help jam the Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform hotline and The Corner's Mark Krikorian urges "concerned citizens" to contact those GOPers who voted against striking the amnesty portion from the bill over Memorial Day break.

CLINTON: She's A Super Freak

The Plank's Michael Crowley is a big fan of Hillary Clinton's latest YouTube thanking Americans for participating in her theme song contest: "Hillary's back on YouTube asking for more entries, and showing highlight clips from some prior submissions. I have to hand it to the Clinton campaign, they've found a way to make her look (relatively) jolly and likeable, with no pesky reporters around to interfere. (Although I'm not entirely sure how I feel about that moment halfway through where she's kind of grooving to the beat....)"

DODD: Doddmentum Building

Gristmill's David Roberts links to Politico suggestions that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama "have sold out the public interest in favor of polluting industries in their states" and asks: "But what about Dodd, though? He's got a good energy plan too. Where's the Doddmentum?"

EDWARDS: Irrational Anti-Exuberance

Linking to Michael Crowley's recounting of Bob Shrum's John Edwards impressions, TAPPED's Ezra Klein quotes some guy named Chuck Todd on DC "animus" towards Edwards: "[F]or some reason he's pissed off half of DC. I can't tell you why, I don't know. But half of the Democratic elite here in DC just hate John Edwards. It's amazing, some of it's irrational, and the Edwards people know it and see it as a badge of honor, somewhat. Maybe they feel like it's because he didn't play ball, maybe they feel like he forced himself onto the ticket, that he was too brazen in how he campaigned for that second slot. There's no one rational reason, but there's a not insignificant clique of elites in DC who are not Edwards fans, and who are borderline irrational about it. It's not unlike that sort of clique of Republicans and John McCain."

OBAMA: The Honeymoon Is Over

After seeing the man in person, Andrew Sullivan announced the end of his Barack Obama crush, but suggests his talents may make him "The Reagan Of The Left." From Sullivan: "But one thing stays in my head. This guy is a liberal. Make no mistake about that. He may, in fact, be the most effective liberal advocate I've heard in my lifetime. As a conservative, I think he could be absolutely lethal to what's left of the tradition of individualism, self-reliance, and small government that I find myself quixotically attached to. ... From the content and structure of Obama's pitch to the base, it's also clear to me that whatever illusions I had about his small-c conservatism, he's a big government liberal with - for a liberal - the most attractive persona and best-developed arguments since JFK."

Back in Reno, NV, Myrna Minx reacts to news the Obamatrain is coming to her biggest little city: "After visiting New Hampshire and Iowa bazillions of times, and Las Vegas twice, Obama is finally going to share some of his magic with Reno. Is the unnannouced location a strategy or was the trip planned so quickly that his campaign couldn't find a venue right away? I suppose it doesn't matter, but if the secret location is part of a plan to encourage Beatles-like hysteria it could work."

MCCAIN: Mutual Contempt Society

Townhall's Matt Lewis asks: "McCain is wrong on a variety of issues. But so is the rest of the field.... Why does McCain evoke so much of the scorn?"

Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham answers: "McCain has an uncanny ability to exude disdain for large parts of the conservative base despite agreeing with them. Rudy has an uncanny ability to exude respect despite disagreement. McCain gets contempt from the base because the base feels something of the same coming from him."

THOMPSON: There Are A Lot Worse Dems He Could Have Given Money Too

NY Sun's Ryan Sager posts video of Fred Thompson at the CT GOP annual Prescott Bush dinner and reports: "One notable thing so far: He says he's proud to have given money to Joe Lieberman's campaign." RedState's Erick Erickson watches Sager's video and adds: "Fred Thompson spoke tonight in Connecticut. He addressed the immigration bill. His comments reflect those of many of the candidates already running - the American people don't trust the government when it says, 'This time we really do mean it when we say we'll secure the border first.'"

BLOGGERS VS. BELTWAY: Oh Baby, Baby

The netroots are pushing back against CBC efforts to revive their Fox News debate. Afro-Netizen posts a CBC letter "begging Barack Obama to re-commit" to the event. AN blogs: "The letter to Obama begins: 'Please, baby, baby, baby. Please!' Woops, that's the subtext, not the actual verbiage."

MyDD's Matt Stoller comments: "This is a betrayal. This is the same betrayal as 26 CBC members (19 or whom are progressive caucus members) who want our candidates to debate on Fox News, a Republican propaganda outlet. They value their insider status and connections more than the will of the public or the people they represent."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Markos Returning From Paternity Leave Notwithstanding...

Rudy Giuliani aide Patrick Ruffini pulls data from the latest BlogAds survey to offer a new theory on why the left is so much more active online that the right: "In the Blogads survey, there's support for another theory often advanced to explain the difference between the online right and left. That Republicans have kids. ... Liberals are fully 40% more likely to live by themselves. Conservatives are twice as likely to have 3 kids, and 3 times as likely to have 4 kids or more. ... someone with kids (and presumably a steady job to support those kids) is a lot less likely to have time to refresh Daily Kos. My household size recently exploded from 2 to 4, and I can safely say that my blogging output has gone down. Paging Henry: I want the next Blogads survey (probably in 2008) to break down how much time conservatives and liberals spend online in a week. And I want a breakdown of activism levels by household size (doable this year)."

Speaking of blogger surveys, Dr. Barbara Kaye of University of Tennessee's School of Journalism and Electronic Media would appreciate it if you all took the time to fill out this survey.

LEST WE FORGET: Ditch Diggers Wanted

Rachel Lucas offers some helpful hints to men seeking romance through online dating services, including:

• When composing a headline for your profile, never use the phrase "Work Hard, Play Hard!". There are no exceptions to this rule, unless you find a clever way of being sarcastic about it. Such as "Work Hard, Play Hard!...in my pants." Otherwise, you sound like a tool.
• Do not claim that you love to do "anything outdoors." Unless you really mean it, in which case I have a ditch that needs to be dug.
• Do not post photos of yourself with attractive women. Women who are evaluating your dateability are NOT TURNED ON by seeing you with your arm around a Hooter's waitress with a dopey grin on your face. It's just the way we are. Get with the program.
• Don't tell us what your friends think of you. "My friends consider me to be honest, loyal, and fun to be around." What? NO WAY. You must be totally awesome if your FRIENDS think you're a decent person.
• Do not say, "I love to have a good time." Nuh-UH!! Marry me please, because I just can't meet ANYONE who loves to have a good time. What an unusual quality for a human being.
• Do not say that you wish to find a mate with a sense of humor. Come on. Think it through. I'm repeating myself here, but...no s**t? You don't want someone with NO sense of humor? Huh. What a rare creature you are.
• Never, ever, EVER whine in your profile about past relationships and how they scarred you. Nothing says "sexy" like baggage, baby!

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:49 PM

May 24, 2007

5/24: Doddmania ... No Really ... It's Here!

Is Chris Dodd best positioned to become the anti-war candidate in '08? With Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both charting more centrist courses, Dodd has been out in front among '08er senators in opposition to the war. He was the first to back the Reid-Feingold plan to defund the war and now has ads up credibly claiming to have moved Obama and Clinton left on the issue. Now Dodd has a YouTube up pressuring them in the same direction on the Iraq supplemental bill. While John Edwards attracts derision for carping from the sidelines, Dodd is uniquely positioned among WH '08ers to actually do something to end the war. If the supplemental has enough votes to pass, Dodd has an opportunity to steal the national spotlight with an old school filibuster of the legislation. Such a showdown would place him toe-to-toe with Pres. Bush. Not a bad enemy to have in a Dem primary.

DEM FIELD: Branding Obama

MyDD's Jerome Armstrong predicts how Dem '08ers will vote on the Iraq supplemental: "The biggest question is whether Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama vote for or against the supplemental funding of the war. I would bet that, in the end, both of them vote against it. Neither of them can afford to let John Edwards (or Chris Dodd for that matter) be the candidates that would end the war now. But especially Obama, as that's a big part of his brand, his credibility and his campaign."

Not completely unrelated, DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas announces Obama and Bill Richardson will join John Edwards at 8/2-5's Yearly Kos '07 convention.

CLINTON: We're Either With Us ...

MyDD's Armstrong is in a minority believing Hillary Clinton will vote against the supplemental. Kos blogs: "Given that she doesn't regret her 2002 war vote, I guess we shouldn't be surprised that she's considering voting for the Capitulation Bill." Digby adds: "Voting for the Iraq resolution was the biggest mistake she ever made and it remains the biggest obstacle to her winning the nomination. Democratic voters reluctantly forgave John Kerry and John Edwards for making that boneheaded decision the first time but they won't do it again. If she votes with Bush on Iraq this time, it's over. She will lose the left wing of her party completely."

MyDD's Stoller concurs: "Clinton is a hawk. She believes in the occupation and she doesn't want to withdraw all our troops from Iraq because she thinks they are protecting what she sees as vital national security interest. I'm not going to pretend this is a political calculation, I'm not going to be that condescending to Clinton. She genuinely thinks this and is pretty upfront about it (though she does try to blur the difference as a strategy, her policy statements are pretty clear)."

DODD: 'No' Is Just The Beginning

Chris Dodd's YouTube challenge to fellow Dem '08ers to join him in voting 'no' on the supplemental so Dems can send a "very clear message that the time to redeploy is now" is all over the netroots. Laudatory reactions include:

• The Nation's John Nichols: "It is a very good thing, indeed, that Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd is seeking the Democratic nomination for the presidency. ... While Clinton, Obama and Biden talk an increasingly good game when it comes to criticizing President Bush's handling of the war, all three shy away from using the power of the purse to constrain executive excess in a time of war."
• Atrios: "I'm quite surprised at his willingness to take shots at his colleagues. Is This The Beginning of Doddmania?"
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "Hey '08 ... by this measure shall ye be judged."
• MyDD's Chris Bowers: "Chris Dodd keeps making sense. It will be interesting to see if there is a chorus of Democrats who start to join him on this. The other 2008ers in Congress will be interesting too."
• Bob Geiger: "Chris Dodd, who is a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, continues to display the guts and leadership he's been showing on the war throughout the new Congress."
• Bleeding Heartland's Chris Woods: "Sen. Dodd is a strong voice to end this war, particularly in the Senate. Sens. Clinton and Obama have started following his lead, but beyond Sen. Russ Feingold, he's the only other one pushing strongly in the Senate for an end to this debacle."

TPM Cafe's Greg Sargent looks at Dodd's latest ads in NH "lasting frontrunners Hillary and Obama by claiming they followed him in backing" Reid-Feingold's bill to end funding for the war and comments: "John Edwards and Dodd are both using Congress, and its failure to stop the war, as a foil -- with the one difference that Dodd is in the Senate, and Edwards no longer is. Can Dodd really make any serious inroads with the antiwar voters that Edwards is laying claim to?"

But if Dodd is going to solidify himself as THE netroots anti-war candidate, bloggers are indicating that a simple 'no' vote will not be enough. David Sirota asks: ""So isn't the natural next question when we're going to see a filibuster from these two and all the other Senators claiming they are doing everything they can to end the war?" Taylor Marsh: "Oh, and I got an email a little earlier today that asked a very good question. Where's the filibuster? Seriously, if Democratic senators don't like this bill they've definitely got options. Aren't we in charge?"

EDWARDS: Most Impressive, But You Are Not The Nominee Yet

"Impressive" was the consensus netroots reaction to John Edwards 5/23 CFR speech. Reax include:

• AMERICAblog's AJ in DC: "It was extremely impressive. The speech was perhaps most notable for what it did not include: absent was the reflexive bellicosity that conventional Democratic beltway wisdom has long insisted is necessary to project "strength" on foreign policy and national defense.
• Matthew Yglesias: "Okay. The speech is very impressive on several of the more technical aspects of military policy. It's also genuinely great to see a high-profile politician taking on the "war on terror" concept. ... All-in-all, I'm not in love, but I was impressed. Obama was much better on proliferation, but Edwards is doing a great job of pushing the envelop on topics like the need to get fence-sitters on our side, the need to move beyond "war on terror" rhetoric, etc."
• MyDD's Matt Stoller: "John Edwards and his impressive speech today on the war on terror ... I'll quibble in that he says he'll leave troops in the Green Zone to protect the embassy, but the rejection of of fear is huge."

TPM Cafe's Greg Sargent notes a quick Nexis search shows Edwards often used the "war on terror" meme throughout '04, but then posts an email response from Team Edwards on his evolution: "John Edwards has seen the Bush administration use the phrase to justify everything they do. So although he believes that there are terrorists and terrorism, the phrase itself has become a political tool the right uses to justify whatever they want to do -- like Guantanamo, like Abu Ghraib, like warrentless wiretapping of Americans here at home."

In other Edwards blogging, CaliticsTodd Beeton explains why San Francisco Chronicle's Carla Marinucci insists on covering stories like Edwards haircuts, hedge fund wealth, and $55K speaking fees to students: "Like so much of the media, Marinucci isn't concerned with truth, she's concerned with faux balance. The only way she can talk about all the good Edwards has done and does do is by framing it as a negative, lest she be accused of having a liberal bent."

OBAMA: You Get To Vote On The Obama You Have, Not The Obama You Wish You Had

Trying to flesh out how Barack Obama will vote on the Iraq supplemental, MyDD's Jerome Armstrong likes Obama circa '03:"When I was asked, 'Would I have voted for the $87 billion,' I said 'no'... I said 'no' unequivocally because, at a certain point, we have to say no to George Bush. If we keep on getting steamrolled, we're not going to stand a chance;" but doesn't care for Obama circa '07: "Obama explained that position yesterday by saying that his initial opposition to the $87 billion was based on the fact that $20 billion of that sum was earmarked for reconstruction projects that he feared would be awarded by the White House in no-bid contracts."

Armstrong comments: "Obama wants to win the Democratic nomination and is not going to let Edwards or Dodd grab the ball and be the voice/vote ending the war. Maybe, in voting against any further funding, Obama will get his 2002-03 voice back too-- that would be a good thing."

Atrios compares Obama's recent Iraq rhetoric to SNL's Jack Handey promoting this commenter Handeysim: "If you're in a war, instead of throwing a hand grenade at the enemy, throw one of those small pumpkins. Maybe it'll make everyone think how stupid war is, and while they are thinking, you can throw a real grenade at them." Atrios comments: "Given the centrality of the Iraq war this perhaps isn't the most appropriate example, but if we see this as a metaphor for politics rather than a meditation on war strategy, the basic question is whether Obama's willing to throw the grenade after confusing them with the pumpkins or if he thinks the pumpkins will be enough."

OBAMA II: Start A Love Train

TPM Cafe's Andrew Golis defends Obama's call for a "new kind of politics" from doubters uncomfortable with the "Lieberman-esque capitulation and collusion" feeling it gives them: "[I]t would be a mistake, I think, to replace the Othering politics of the Right with an Othering politics of our own. It's hard to blame folks for hating Bush and the dishonest jingoists he's populated our government with. But we should remember that our heroes, the MLKs and the RFKs, preached love and empathy for even those who are unable to return the sentiment.

TPM Cafe's Reed Hundt seconds the sentiment: "The withdrawal will be, if it ever happens, extraordinarily dangerous for people in Iraq and for stock markets and economic conditions around the world. ... We will need someone who can live the ethic of having malice toward none, and charity toward all. ... This transition to high leadership is, I think, what Senator Obama is talking about. I don't think he is by any means the only person who can aim in this direction, but he is a distinctive voice on the topic."

Atrios is still unconvinced: "I went to an Obama fundraiser yesterday at the 2400-or-so capacity Electric Factory (normally a concert venue) yesterday. His rhetoric is interesting, as he seems to be able to seamlessly shift between Liebermanesque what's-most-important-is-that-we-all-get-along rhetoric and radical "let's take to the streets and burn shit down" rhetoric (I'm exaggerating on both sides, of course). The inclusive rhetoric doesn't just worry people like me because of policy concerns, it's that one worries he's confusing idealism with reality."

RICHARDSON: Does Anyone Support This Bill?

Talk Left's Jeralyn Merritt credits Bill Richardson for opposing the Senate immigration bill "because it is too onerous for immigrants."

GIULIANI: Towards A Clearer Muddle

Ex-Pres. Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson latest WaPo punditry effort raised some blogger eyes. The Corner's Yuval Levin found it "clearer than so very much of what has been said about Rudy Giuliani's candidacy, both in laying out what's appealing about it (much more than September 11th) and in getting to the core of the problem with Giuliani's abortion position."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff dissents from Gerson's argument that Giuliani's abortion position in an "muddle." Mirengoff: "Although I don't agree with Giuliani's position, neither do I find it inherently incoherent. One can regard the fetus in its early stages as close enough to an innocent human being for us to abhor its destruction, but not close enough for us to deny the would-be mother the freedom to terminate it."

F. THOMPSON: With Enemies Like These ...

Instapundit links to a Great American Country item on ex-Fred Thompson girlfriend and country singer Lorrie Morgan's kind words: "I used to beg him to run for president. I used to say, 'If you were in the White House, I would be so safe-feeling. I could go to sleep at night and know that everything was taken care of up there.'" Instapundit comments: "As I've noted here before on several occasions, it pays to stay on good terms with your ex-girlfriends."

IRAQ: A Long-Term Project

Keith Olbermann's 5/23 'special comment' on the Iraq supplemental was widely posted in netroots circles. Highlighted portions include:

• Crooks and LiarsJohn Amato: "The Democratic leadership has, in sum, claimed a compromise with the Administration, in which the only things truly compromised are the trust of the voters, the ethics of the Democrats, and the lives of our brave, and doomed, friends, and family, in Iraq. ... You, the men and women elected with the simplest of directions - Stop The War - have traded your strength, your bargaining position, and the uniform support of those who elected you ... for a handful of magic beans."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "That's what this is for the Democrats, isn't it? Their "Neville Chamberlain moment" before the Second World War. All that's missing is the landing at the airport, with the blinkered leader waving a piece of paper which he naively thought would guarantee "peace in our time," but which his opponent would ignore with deceit."

76% of Daily Kos readers "agree 100% with Olbermann." More lefty reax:

• Kos: "I've got to say, of all the things that get me down about this job, there's nothing worse than the people who want to quit the game and take their ball home every time we face a setback. ... Did any of you really think we won that war in 2006? I sure as heck didn't. 2006 was incremental improvement, just as 2008 will be. And hopefully 2010. Along the way, we'll likely lose some ground, but we must always remain focused on the long term.
• Scarecrow at firedoglake: "I have often argued here that Congress cannot stop the Bush/Cheney neocon wars until the country removes Bush and Cheney from office and gets a President who wants to end the occupation and is committed to defeat the dark ideological forces that have the nation by the throat. I strongly favor starting impeachment hearings with the regime's Iraq deceptions and degrading our national honor being the lead article(s), followed closely by the subversion of the rule of law and administration of justice at home."
• Atrios: "As for what the Democrats should do, they should vote against the supplemental. ... If this is the bill, let it be a Republican bill."
• The Huffington Post's Miles Mogulescu: "The best hope we have right now is that a large number of Democrats will vote against the war funding resolution, perhaps even a majority of Democrats, forcing the Democratic leadership to pass the bill by relying on Republican votes. At least those Democrats could show themselves as people who won't be intimidated and stand on principle."
• TPM Cafe's Greg Sargent: "[I]t's worth noting that the Dem leadership still hasn't figured out what its messaging should be here. Dem Rep. Rahm Emanuel, for instance, is out there praising the effort as "the beginning of the end of the President's policy on Iraq," and Dem Senate leader Harry Reid has made similar noises. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is so disappointed that she's voting against the bill. If this is the successful effort Emanuel and Reid claim it is, why is Pelosi saying she may vote against it?"
• MyDD's Chris Bowers: "'Democrats divided' narratives be damned. The next national general election against Republicans isn't for 17.5 months anyway. We are in the middle of a presidential primary season where we are supposed to be arguing over the direction of the party. This is one argument that needs to be made."
• American Family Voices Pres. Mike Lux at The Huffington Post: "The Democratic rank and file should vote overwhelmingly against this deal with the devil, and make clear to their leadership that the Democrats should have the same rule as the Republicans: only bills that have a majority of the majority party caucus supporting them should go to the floor."

Looking ahead, The Left Coaster's Steve Soto advises: "As for the midterm strategy, and the long term strategy, the messaging and framing needs to start now. Democrats need to make it clear today that this war will not be dumped on Bush's successor. ... Democrats should make it clear now that there will be no permanent bases inside Iraq, and that America expects Iraq and its neighbors to collaboratively ensure regional security as we draw down in 2008."

Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat notes everyone is finally coming around to his way of thinking on the subject: "I think everyone finally gets that the Spending Power, and specifically the NOT Spending power is the only potential check on Bush on Iraq now. There will be no veto proof majorities for deauthorization, timelines ... So, for moral, pragmatic and politically craven reasons, I urge the Dem Leadership to try to end the war, by announcing a date certain when the Debacle will not be funded."

IMMIGRATION: It's The Enforcement Stupid!

The WH can have all the back and forths with The Corner they want, but nothing they say is going to convince conservatives they, or the next administration, is going to enforce the provisions of the Senate's immigration bill any better than they enforce existing immigration law. After meeting with DHS Sec. Michael Chertoff and Tony Snow, The Corner's Kate O'Beirne asks: "Why not give "enforcement only" about five years to work, given the past 21 years of lax enforcement?"

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt also talked to Chertoff and summarizes: "I had hoped to get some answers from Secretary Chertoff that would have allayed my concerns about the draft immigration bill. I was not persuaded by his answers on a number of questions, and was mystified why it was so hard to get to the bottom line on the fence: 75 new miles are under construction and none have been completed thus far. The Department hopes that the 75 miles will be done by the end of September. Getting to the bottom line wasn't easy."

Kausfiles seconds George Will's suggestion, that if we just protect the border, the immigration issue will slowly fade away. From Will: "Treat the problem of the 12 million with benign neglect. Their children born here are American citizens; the parents of these children will pass away." From Kaus: "If border-enforcement can be made to work (and the implausible premise of the "grand bargain" is that it can--indeed, that it will work so well it can hold off a new wave of illegals lured by amnesty) the problem of the 12 million diminishes gradually, steadily over time. Eventually, it disappears. The Bush administration, which always gins up a "crisis" before its big policy pushes, doesn't like to dwell on this point."

The Directors of RedState announce there opposition to the bill suggesting a similar solution:

Consider: under the current system, the vast majority of illegals here are Latino men between the ages of 18 and 50. They work, and work, and work. They send home money to their families, and live in communities outside the law. ... If this bill works as it is intended, it will essentially ghettoize these hardworking people for the foreseeable future. ... Over and over, research has shown us that most legal immigrant families are Americanized within one generation-many speak fluent English and view themselves as Americans first, not as displaced residents of their parents' country of birth. But this bill will not leverage this knowledge to help create a stable, law-abiding community of fully legal American citizens; instead, it will simply manage human beings as if they were another commodity, and provide a false promise of a solution for politicians eager for a cover story.

Many conservatives are also touting a Rasmussen poll showing only 26% of Americans favor the Senate's bill:

• Captain's Quarters: "Not a single demographic in the study favors this proposal, except under Race: Other. ... But when the subject turns to border security, the numbers turn even more dramatic. Every single demographic -- race, gender, age, and political orientation -- has majorities that show border security as 'very important'."


• Townhall's Dean Barnett: "Oh, and while you're staring agape over the fact that we've finally found an issue that Democrats and Republicans agree on, don't forget to note how astonishing that 89% number is on the Republican side of things."


• Right Wing News: "It is almost impossible to overstate how unpopular this bill is with conservatives. The reaction to this bill has been like the reaction to the Dubai Port Deal and Harriet Miers combined. If the GOP were voting to do away with the 2nd Amendment or enshrine partial birth abortion in the Constitution, I'm not sure that the reaction among their biggest supporters would be any more negative than it is today."

Finally, no friend to the right, Eric Alterman explains his support for a fence: "I think many liberals are no less woolly-headed and simple-minded about illegal immigration than they were (and still sometimes are) about welfare. Yes, the yahoos exploit the issue. Yes, there's plenty of racism involved in the opposition. And yes, the victims are often the people with the least amount to say in the outcome, but that hardly makes the current system worth defending. ... Personally, I support a fence. The current system encourages the horrific abuses that take place against immigrants attempting to sneak in. Naturally, I support allowing generous numbers of immigrants into this country, but I support doing so legally, first and foremost. I also think it encourages contempt for the law, which is a net negative in any society."

PROSECUTOR PURGE: There's Politics Going On In The Bush WH!

Firedoglake's Marcy Wheeler sums up the highlights from Monica Goodling's 5/23 testimony:

• Monica did ask political questions of civil service employees
• Rove may have emphasized that DOJ needed to make sure its story was straight
• Gonzales tried to coach Monica's testimony
• Monica is paying for her own legal defense, but she intends to set up a legal defense fund after the fact-I wonder if her performance netted her any contributions to that effect?

BLOGGERS VS. BELTWAY: So Can We Blame Klein For Kerry's Loss Now Too?

The Plank<