May 18, 2007

5/18: The End Of McCain Online

Up until 5/17, John McCain had had a great recent run in the conservative blogosphere. His strident defense of the war in Iraq played to his strengths in the community and his regular blogger conf. calls seemed to revive at least a glimmer of this "Straight Talk" magic. Any immigration legislation co-sposored by Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), and signed by Pres. Bush, will kill any and all McCain sympathy online. The issue plays on everyone of the bloggers fears about McCain: outside of Iraq, he is too willing to put progress over principal; he is too cosy with the MSM consensus; he does not share many of their policy priorities. McCain better hope the immigration bill dies (and quickly).

GOP FIELD: A New Villain In Town

Right Wing News John Hawkins asked 240 conservative bloggers: " If you had to pick the presidential contender that you would LEAST like to see as the party's nominee in 2008, who would it be." Results include: Ron Paul 30%, John McCain 19%, and Rudy Giuliani 11%.

MCCAIN: In Need Of Amnesty On Amnesty

The leaked details of impending Senate immigration legislation induced a solid round of John McCain bashing, including:

• Power Line's Scott Johnson: "It seems to me that for those of us who have kept an open mind on Senator McCain, hoping that he might pay us that minimal respect, the time has come to check out on his candidacy. Claiming paternity of the prospective immigration amnesty along with Senator Kennedy and others today, Senator McCain has saved me the traditional buyer's remorse. Pending further developments, I've narrowed the field of acceptable Republican candidates. I'm opting for Anybody But McCain."
• a Kathryn Jean Lopez reader: "McCain is toast. The top tier GOP candidate (i.e., Giuliani, Romney, Thompson) who best channels the base's seething outrage over this deal gets the nomination."
• Townhall's Dean Barnett: "Today's events put the non-viability of the McCain candidacy into stark relief. ... The Counter Terrorism blog refers to it as a national security disaster. I would add that it's also a moral disaster. And John McCain, more than any other single senator, is responsible for it."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "John McCain's antics throughout 2005-2006 cost the GOP the majority in the Senate. Now he's going to do for Smith, Sununu, Coleman and others what he did for DeWine, Talent and Santorum."

ROMNEY: More Ideology Wanted

Power Line's John Hinderaker "had the pleasure ... of attending a breakfast meeting with Mitt Romney." Hinderaker reports the audience was impressed with on exception: "A friend who has personal experience with Minnesota's caucus system wondered whether Romney's pitch, which centers on management rather than ideology, would sell with party activists, as opposed to the business people who attended today's breakfast. He suggested that a Minnesota Republican caucus group would be put to sleep."

The Brody File reports a "senior campaign advisor" expects the Mormon issue to fade as voters get to know Romney but admits a "JFK type speech about Romney's Mormonism" is still an "option on the table."

F. THOMPSON: Blog Lover

Fred Thompson was the lone '08er to post his thoughts on the immigration bill at RedState: "With this bill, the American people are going to think they are being sold the same bill of goods as before on border security. We should scrap this bill and the whole debate until we can convince the American people that we have secured the borders or at least have made great headway."

Further proving what a lover of the medium he is, Thompson blogs at Pajamas Media: "Whether or not the Internet can elect any particular candidate in any particular race, it's clear that all of you and our many friends across the blogosphere and the Web are part of a true information revolution. That's why so much of my effort has been focused on talking to Americans through this medium. By empowering individuals and building communities, the Internet provides a way of going around the inside-the-beltway crowd to reach people in numbers unheard of not that long ago."

T. THOMPSON: Where's Jack Kevorkian When You Need Him?

RCP Blog's Jay Cost comments on Tommy Thompson's first two debate performances: "In the two GOP debates to date, Thompson has been the only candidate who consistently induces cringes from me. It is painful to watch him."

DEM FIELD: A Vast Pro-Clinton Conspiracy

Right Wing NewsJohn Hawkins asked 240 conservative bloggers: "If we absolutely had to have a President chosen out of the Big 3 Democratic contenders, which one would you most prefer to see as the POTUS." The results: Hillary Clinton 59%, Barack Obama 25%, and John Edwards 16%.

CLINTON: Classic Clarity

TPM Cafe's Greg Sargent rounds up the "most direct drubbing on Iraq" Hillary Clinton has yet received from fellow Dem '08ers. Sargent highlights Barack Obama's, "if you leave out the fact that she authorized it, and supported it, and I said it was a bad idea," line and adds: "That is a significant escalation of Obama's rhetoric against Clinton -- the first time to our knowledge that he's made this point with anywhere near this clarity: She supported the war; he opposed it."

Sargent also notes Chris Dodd camps shot at HRC on Reid-Feingold: "We're as confused as anyone on Sen. Clinton's position, and frankly it's hard to know whether it's indecision, miscommunication, or simple word games and political gamesmanship we're dealing with." Sargent comments: "This strikes us as pretty over the top. A vote for cloture is basically a vote for the bill."

The Plank also hit HRC on Reid-Feingiold dancing: "This paragraph from the Washington Post is a real classic. Try to count how many times her position ping-pongs."

Also in HRC bashing mood, MyDD's Matt Stoller links to an Ari Berman Nation item on Team Clinton's relation with the Glover Park Group and comments: "Clinton is a very dangerous candidate. She has a very strong base of support, a huge number of women who love her, and power among the youth. She is also surrounded by a group of opportunistic anti-progressive con men and women. It's a disturbing state of affairs. I hope that someone organizes a PAC or 527 against her brand of centrism, and points out the wild inconsistencies from the left."

CLINTON II: Jenna Jameson Is Like An Evangelical, But Different

TAPPED's Tom Schaller promotes his Baltimore Sun op-ed "about unmarried women and how pivotal they will be to the Democrats" electoral prospects. Schaller likens them to "what evangelicals are to the GOP." More Schaller: "A couple months ago ... Terry McAuliffe said very frankly that they will be targeting women under 35. ... Is Hillary - despite the notion that she takes the Democrats backwards and keeps the country mired in generational culture wars - actually the Democrat most likely to engender (yes, pun intended) a realignment?"

Speaking of single women under 35, Just Hillary plucks these Jenna Jameson quotes from a PR.com interview: "I love Hillary. I think that in some ways she's pretty conservative for a Democrat, but I would love to have a woman in office. ... The Clinton administration was the best years for the adult industry and I wish that Clinton would run again. I would love to have him back in office."

EDWARDS: Not So Blue About ActBlue

MyDD's Vox Populi notes John Edwards "is on the cusp of raising $3 Million on ActBlue" and asks readers to help put them over the top. More VP: "John Edwards is running an unconventional campaign. From being the first candidate to shut out Fox News as a legitimate source for debate, to being the first candidate to call for Alberto Gonzalez to resign, to being the first and only major candidate to support comprehensive Universal Health Care, for running as a friend to the environment via a carbon-neutral campaign, to using the progressive website ActBlue to raising the bulk of his internet funds, John Edwards has been there for us and has represented our interests."

RICHARDSON: Chaos Averted

Bill Richardson's 5/17 climate/energy plan unveiling drew mostly positive reviews:

• Gristmill: "As of today, Bill Richardson has become the boldest, most visionary Democratic presidential candidate on climate and energy policy. No politician from either party has put forward a plan that comes closer to being a realistic response to the energy shortages and climate chaos heading our way."
• Matthew Yglesias: "I particularly liked his insistence on the idea that most people underplay the role of transportation and land use policy in the energy puzzle. This was appealing because it's what I already thought ... More fuel efficiency is good, and more renewable energy is also good, but we're also going to need people to drive less."
• Atrios: "We need to increase the proportion of the population who live in areas where one car per driving age household member isn't a necessity. Well-designed mass transit and pedestrian transit-oriented development is a requirement for that. I think it's wrong to see it simply as encouraging "high-density constructions," as there are plenty of places which are actually quite dense, but are dense in stupid ways and lack adequate transit."
• Brian Beutler: "he began by referencing Jimmy Carter, saying he would not be telling his fellow citizens to put on a sweater and turn the heat down. But then he went on to list the things he thinks his countrymen should do. He included in that list low-hanging fruit like doing laundry smarter and taking public transportation. In the end, though, I don't see how that's at all different than putting on a sweater and turning the heat down."

IMMIGRATION: It's 1986 All Over Again

Tons of negative reaction against the Senate immigration plan. First the case against:

• The Corner's Rich Lowry: "This is the key thing to understand about the immigration deal-the amnesty effectively happens no matter what. As soon as the bill is signed into law illegal immigrants get probationary legal status. Before any of the enforcement happens. So the ordering is exactly the same as 1986-amnesty first, enforcement later. ... will you trust the Democratic administration we will probably have in two years and its secretary of homeland security? This has disaster written all over it."
• The Corner's Heather Mac Donald: "Republican supporters of the Senate's latest amnesty bill are trying to distract voters by dangling before them the requirements for an illegal alien to become a citizen or purchase a green card. ... Its key feature is rather that illegal aliens, according to press reports, can immediately have their illegal status wiped away with a temporary-residency permit, available virtually upon demand. That's it. The rest is noise."
• a retired Border Patrol agent reader of Michelle Malkin's: "I resent the attitude and actions of the Senate and House with respect to aliens in the USA. With IRCA in 1986, all things pertaining to illegal aliens in the USA were going to be answered. We were going to make employers responsible. Let me tell you: If there was ever a US Attorney scandal, it was their refusal to prosecute the violators. It only took about 1 year for every one concerned [to realize] that it was just hot air from Washington."

Reactions to the deal as understood:

• Kathryn Jean Lopez emailer: "Death Ride of the Republican Party...as soon as I email this, I'm figuring how to change my California voter registration over to independent. I'm done.
• The Corner's Kate O'Beirne: "I just talked with a veteran conservative activist whose group doesn't engage on the immigration issue but who is glum about the expected reaction of the conservative grassroots to the immigration deal. 'We'll all be hurt. They'll just stay home,' he predicted. 'They'll figure they didn't support Republicans in order to federalize education, create a big, new entitlement program, and grant amnesty to illegals.'"
• Ankle Biting Pundit's Bull Dog Pundit: "This sends a great message doesn't it. Come here illegally, and it's OK. Why? Because we're scared of the protests and want to mollify big business."
• more K-Lo email: "The last two years of this Bush presidency will well prepare us well for the Hillary years. We won't be able to tell the difference
• Right Wing NewsJohn Hawkins: "Any senator who votes for this bill, in my view, does not deserve your support and I would strongly encourage you not to volunteer for him or contribute money to his campaign. Moreover, although I don't believe in protest votes, if I were going to refuse to pull the lever for a Republican over a single vote, it would be over this monstrosity.

Not a site prone to advocacy, The Corner's Mark Krikorian directs "frustrated and perplexed and despairing" readers to voice their dissent with the RNC, NRSC, and NRCC. Sending bricks to Congress is always an an option too.

Kausfiles is also thinking strategy: "Perhaps House Democrats could be subtly encouraged to hold a large hearing, attended by activists from the undocumented community, at which spokespeople loudly demanded not just instant legalization but free instant legalization! ... They might also emphasize that they do not think they are immigrants at all--this is their homeland! We stole it from them. ... Not only would these hearings mobilize Latino opposition to the compromise, they might also turn off the rest of the country (much as some famous hearings featuring George Wiley's welfare rights activists soured the country on the guaranteed income).

Captain's Quarters is the lone dissenter: "Here's the problem with the hard-liner arguments, which amounts to 'they'll never engage the border-security and workplace enforcement portions.' Well, that could be true of any immigration bill, even if it completely matched the conservative position on immigration."

Kausfiles responds: "That's silly. You could pass "the border-security and workplace enforcement portions" and then see if they worked--and tightened them if they didn't--before you went ahead with amnesty. ... There doesn't have to be a bill, remember. Bipartisan cooperative "action" isn't necessarily always a great thing (as the 1986 amnesty showed). The country is not in crisis, only Bush. The no-bill status quo, Lowry's own magazine notes, has been moving in a good direction on immigration, with greater enforcement (and rising wages at the bottom)."

NSA: It's 1974 All Over Again

Ex-DAG James Comey's 5/15 testimony has bloggers calling for the beginning of the impeachment of Pres. Bush:

• Glenn Greenwald: "There is clear and definitive evidence of deliberate lawbreaking. In addition to Congressional investigations, there is simply no excuse for anything other than the immediate commencement of a criminal investigation by a Special Prosecutor."
• Atrios: "I kind of feel like Glenn Greenwald has to write a version of this post every day for the next 5000 years before maybe a few more people will understand: the Bush administration was, for years, illegally spying on unknown numbers of Americans in clear and obvious violation of statute and likely still are."
• The Huffington Post's Jeff Cohen: "From my perch as a consultant to Progressive Democrats of America, I see mounting pressure to put impeachment on the table. Momentum is building due to continuous revelations of an imperial White House bent on undermining our system of justice (now, with sick-bed coercion). ... Yesterday, the Detroit City Council called for impeachment of Bush and Cheney in a unanimous resolution sponsored by Council President Pro Tem Monica Conyers, wife of the House Judiciary Chair John Conyers. Detroit is now the biggest city to pass such a resolution."

Daily Kos' Leaves on the Current notes the Watergate era rhetoric in the Washington Post's 5/18 editorial on the matter and comments: "In a previous editorial, the WaPo had already excoriated the Ashcroft sickbed episode as "lawlessness so shocking [the account of] it would have been unbelievable coming from a less reputable source" than Comey, Justice's former number 2 official. In another, it had already used the word "coverup," the WaPo's own description for the cause of Nixon's downfall. But tomorrow's editorial is different: tomorrow's editorial focuses for the first time squarely on the president. Was his conduct "breathtaking" enough to raise the prospect of impeachment?"

BLOGGERS VS. BELTWAY: And It'll Stay That Way If Ken Calvert Has Any Say In The Matter

MyDD's Jonathan Singer strongly recommends Roll Call's article on "how various party committees are interacting with the grassroots on the internet, both on the left and on the right" specifically highlighting how Dem cmt blogger outreach personnel are significantly more senior then their GOP counterparts. Singer comments:

I think it's quite telling that internet outreach coordinators in both the NRSC and the NRCC "are more junior positions and are a part of the communications department" rather than stand-alone operations that are at least somewhat independent from the communications department, as the DSCC and the DCCC have things set up. Whether this is a result of the fact that the Netroots are to this point more developed than the Rightroots or because Republicans don't trust their online grassroots supporters or whatever else, it's clear that the GOP committees just aren't giving the type of attention or placing the type of importance on internet activism than are the Democratic committees.

BLOGGERS VS. BELTWAY II: Turning Out The Third Way

Third Way Looking Red, Voting Blue study authors Jim Kessler, Anne Kim, and Scott Winship guest blogged at TAPPED responding to criticism from Tom Schaller and Mark Schmitt. Kessler, et al. acknowledge Schaller's point that comparing '04 presidential data to '06 is imperfect but responds: "we are writing in the realm of the practical ... and if one's aim is to take over the House, the Senate or both you can't rely only on presidential years to create your majority. And that is really what the heart of Looking Red, Voting Blue is about. ... In 2004, it was a bluer electorate that voted red by re-electing George Bush and reaffirming the Republican majority in Congress. In 2006, a redder electorate turned the tables by voting blue, and our paper tried to determine where those new Democratic votes came from.

Schaller responds: "The normal turnout in an off-year is simply not the same in a presidential year, for a variety of reasons, of which Mark Schmitt's smart point about differential turnout in competitive v. non-competitive districts is just one. ... This is why their results are artifactual, and it is also why I produced a very simplified example of two, back-to-back elections in which Democrats both do no better among whites and better among blacks in a congressional cycle and yet still draw a greater share of votes from whites during that cycle -- again, because of differential turnouts. Third Way offers no response to this demonstrated mathematical fact because, well, there is no counter-argument."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Ferruginous Pygmy Owls Against Amnesty

The Huffington Post's Glenn Hurowitz worries about the "jaguars, Sonoran pronghorn antelope, and the ferruginous pygmy owls" that will be affected by the 370 mile fence included in the Senate's immigration proposal but notes they are just the tip of the immigration/environmentalism conflict:

But the wall may be just one part of the environmental double whammy likely from any grand bargain on immigration. There's significant evidence that the influx of people from less developed countries like Mexico to developed countries like the United States is helping fuel the United States's rapid increase in global warming pollution by increasing the number of people partaking of America's high consumption habits. It's also one force driving the sprawl eating up the countryside in cities everywhere. But most mainstream environmental groups have sat out the immigration debate. The issue has historically divided the movement between those who sympathize with immigrants' hunger for a better life (and who point out that the only reason immigration has such a negative effect on the planet is because the American way of life is so polluting to begin with) and harder core activists for whom environmental concerns always come first. National environmental groups are wary of reviving these fights. With environmentalists largely sitting it out, many usually pro-environment Democrats are all too happy to ignore these hidden costs of immigration as they seek to placate immigration advocates and foes alike.

LEST WE FORGET: 2/3 Of All Americans Love James Dobson

Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall notes a CNN item where James Dobson claims "his daily radio program is heard by as many as 220 million listeners over 3,500 stations in the United States." Marshall quips: "Now, I know it says Dobson's outfit 'says' and 'as many as'. But couldn't the reporter do a little brain work on this one? 220 million listeners? 2/3 of all Americans? I'm laughing even writing it. Actually, I should mention our new tagline for TPMtv -- with as many as 1.7 billion viewers worldwide."

Posted by Conn Carroll at May 18, 2007 12:47 PM