May 23, 2007

5/23: Mission Impossible?

Licking their wounds over the defeat on the Iraq supplemental, MyDD's Chris Bowers urges fellow netrooters to focus on "how we move from a solid base of about 160-175 progressive votes in the House, and 25-30 solid progressive votes in the Senate, to number far closer to a majority. Where can we make improvements in solid blue open seats, in primary challenges, and in seats currently held by Republicans." Taking the long view may well be the best course for the left on Iraq right now, but taking a quick look back wouldn't hurt either. Of the three big netroots victories in the Senate, (Sens. Jim Webb (D-VA), Jon Tester (D-MT), and Sherrod Brown (D-OH)) none voted in favor of the Reid-Feingold plan to end the Iraq war. Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat even takes Tester to task for "Repeating GOP Talking Points" on the issue. As the netroots look ahead to WH '08, they may want to make sure their eventual nominee doesn't disappoint them on their signature issue as well.

IRAQ: See You In '09

The netroots are by no means happy with news the latest Dem Iraq supplemental will not include "a troop withdrawal timeline," but, for the most part, are eschewing criticism of current leadership, taking a longer view of their effort to end the war. First though, Daily Kos' Devilstower posts Google News leading headlines on the subject (Democrats Concede On Iraq, Democrats Retreat in Funding Showdown, Bush Wins Congressional Battle Over Iraq) and comments: "Democrats Concede. Democrats Retreat. Bush Wins. And that's not even covering the many stories on how the Democrats "caved in" or "blinked." Yes, that's exactly the kind of news everyone was looking for after 2006. I think we were all hoping for headlines just like these." Others voicing frustration include:

• Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) at Daily Kos: "This situation is a collapse for Democrats. We had a strong start, pushed back against the President's failed policy and held our ground that the supplemental should include binding language to end the war. But now, as Congress gets ready to send the President a bill that does nothing to get our troops out of Iraq, we are just folding our cards."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Sorry, but that's exactly what it is - a blank check. ... In my view, they blustered and they blinked. Yeah, it's nice that the Dems attached the minimum wage, and I'm happy about that, but that's not really the point is it? ... It's also not why the Democrats were elected."
• Daily Kos' Meteor Blades: "If the latest legislation is as it appears to be, a toothless, gutless, spineless bill that gives Mister Bush his blank check, Democrats who vote for it are essentially buying the occupation."
• The Huffington Post's William Jackson: "Democrats in Congress would like to bring an end to America's role in the war without being held primarily accountable for how it ends. ... Democratic Senators and Representatives will share ownership when they fund putting men in harm's way and keeping the war machine going into 2008."
• The Huffington Post's Lane Hudson: "The Democratic Leadership needs to understand something. ... The number one thing they want you to do is change the course of the war in Iraq. Thus far, you're failing. ... If you aren't able to pass meaningful legislation in September that will begin the process of bringing our troops home, then you will lose credibility with us, the American people."

While frustrated, many expressed sympathy for Dem leaders. Meteor Blades at dKos writes: "Unlike many Kossacks, I sympathize with the Democratic leadership when it comes to Iraq. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have difficult situations. You can twist arms, make threats, pressure, cajole and otherwise try to cobble together a majority from Blue Dogs and conservatives like the Nelsons, Pryor, Landrieu and others, but, ultimately, you can't shout your way to victory." Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher seconds the sentiment: "MB has a good point - this is not a meaningless vote, and those who expect us to look to them for leadership beyond 2008 ought to know that the 65% of the country who want out of this war will be watching."

MyDD's Jerome Armstrong provides some background on the Senate negotiations: "I've not seen it reported, but have heard that both told Democratic leadership in the Senate that they would not go forward with further votes. Hagel has made it clear from the beginning that it was "about sending a signal to Bush" and the administration. For Smith, it's all about his threading a re-election campaign in Oregon with high-profile acts of disagreement with Bush. ... If that's the case --that Hagel and Smith were not aboard for another vote-- the Democrats were left with just 48 votes, not the 50-49 result needed to return the withdrawal language to Bush. ... The war sucks, I'd love for it to be ended tomorrow, but there's no sense in adopting the press frame of a hyperbolic defeatism aimed at the Democrats in the Senate for not having the votes from Republicans to end the war."

Also urging against "defeatism," MyDD's Chris Bowers prefers to look at the "meta-issue for progressives" surrounding the fight. He advises: "The overall issue is how we move from a solid base of about 160-175 progressive votes in the House, and 25-30 solid progressive votes in the Senate, to number far closer to a majority. Where can we make improvements in solid blue open seats, in primary challenges, and in seats currently held by Republicans?" On a similar note The Left Coaster's Paradox explains why he isn't staying with the Dems: "It will be a bad hit. But the country and the party will never have a chance if I and others stomp away for whatever immature reasons and I couldn't anyway. Not a chance-if this terrible moment for our country and party is about to occur know this: I'm staying with my people."

The Huffington Post's Thomas de Zengotita even praises the long term Dem strategy on the issue: "But for those progressives who want to ensure a Democratic sweep in '08, here's the deal. ... What House Democrats are trying to guarantee is this: the Iraq war belongs to Bush and the Republican Party now -- and so it must when the election of 2008 rolls around. Cynical? Indifferent to the suffering of US troops and Iraqi civilians? You bet. Welcome to the political world of grown-ups who hold office and have institutional responsibility."

Against the wait-til-'08 strategy from the beginning, Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat offers a lengthy response to Chris Bowerspatience approach and defends his criticism of the party: "No one wants to distance themselves from the Democratic Party. But we understand that politicians understand PRESSURE, and very little else. Indeed, the writer and his web site was pressuring the Out of Iraq caucus members in the House to vote for the horrible Iraq supplemental bill. His expectations were not the problem, rather his poor judgment on the matter. One could read this type of sophistry from the DLC. I repeat, what a crock."

KY GOV: A Ken Calvert GOPer Wins Again

RedState's Leon Wolf on Gov. Ernie Fletcher's (R) victory over ex-Rep. Anne Northup (R) in 5/22's primary: "This is probably bad news for Republican chances at keeping this seat, as Fletcher has probably been mortally wounded by a series of scandals - at least some of which seem to be efforts at retribution for upsetting the state's civil service system. Fletcher's approval numbers have been in the 20s or 30s this year, and unless something shocking and unforeseen should happen in the next six months, it appears that the parties will trade Governor's mansions in Louisiana and Kentucky in 2007."

GIULIANI: Security First

At Power Line, ex-Rep. Jim Nussle (R-IA) responds to Politico suggestions that Rudy Giuliani may be skipping the caucuses: "After all the work I've witnessed first-hand by the campaign in Iowa, and with all the positive comments I hear from Iowans about Rudy's strong leadership, I am encouraged by the Caucus operation that is being built from the ground up. ... We have work to do, but I feel confident about our positioning in Iowa and the rest of the country. As Rudy continues to meet with Iowans, they will recognize that he is the strong leader with proven results we need as our candidate in 2008."

Giuliani also drew praise for his belated but security focussed response to the Senate's immigration bill. Dave at Race 4 '08 blogs: "Republican frontrunner Rudy Giuliani opposes the immigration bill for the same reason I do. It does nothing to tackle the central issue of border control facing our nation today: the inability of our government to know at all times just who is within our borders. ... I agree wholeheartedly that this is first and foremost a national security issue. " AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein adds: "This is the perfect way for Giuliani to handle the situation. Opposing this version of the bill on security grounds is a realistic way for him to come out against a piece of legislation that has drawn the ire of the conservative base, without reversing his prior stances on the need for comprehensive reform."

MCCAIN: Free Fallin'

The Corner's Ramesh Ponnuru links to Intrade's virtual trading floor showing "McCain has been sinking fast ever since the immigration deal was announced. Now he is rated less likely than Giuliani, or Romney, or Fred Thompson to win the nomination."

RedState's Hunter Baker asks readers: "Does the McCain campaign survive his key role in the new immigration bill? Why or why not?" The first commenter out of the gate quips: "If the bill passes... McCain supporters may be the only ones left *in* the party."

Townhall's Matt Lewis "cannot think of any example in history where a candidate for president has been embroiled (as a Legislator) in such a hot-button issue -- this close to the nomination" and advises McCain to double down on the issue: 'Back in 2004, George W. Bush's best debate line was: "You may not agree with me, but you know where I stand.' In my estimation, in order to get past this, McCain must adopt a similar position. For McCain to win, the contrast simply must be that with McCain, you at least know what you're getting."

ROMNEY: Progressing Towards Perfect Pitch

Mitt Romney's turn to humor in addressing John McCain's immigration one liners ("I guess it just shows that, even when he's wrong, he's amusing") is pleasing conservatives. Power Line's Paul Mirengoff says Romney is finally hitting "the right note."

DEM FIELD: Does This Mean Kucinich And Gravel's Plans Are Dishonorable?

At The Huffington Post, Center on Politics & Foreign Relations Dir. Robert Guttman urges Dem '08ers to attend their 6/6 debate on Iraq: "No more 30 second sound bites. The candidates will have to actually spell out their plans for ending American involvement in Iraq and discuss what their plans are for the Middle East region after the Iraq War. Senator Obama, Senator Clinton, former Senator John Edwards, Senator Biden, Governor Richardson and Senator Dodd all have plans for ending this horrible war in an honorable way and it is time to hear them. ... On June 6th I invite not only the candidates but all interested voters to watch and listen to a long overdue debate on Iraq with the Democratic presidential candidates."

CLINTON: Corporate Women For Universal Preschool

Largely sidetracked by a debate on how specific candidates ought to get in campaign policy proposals, TAPPED's Ezra Klein and Matthew Yglesias are still both impressed by Hillary Clinton's "ambitious" new preschool initiative. From Klein: "There are few more cost-effective interventions than early childhood education, and it's got the added benefit of being a social program that's not opposed by massively powerful, invested interests." From Yglesias: "Politically, I think this is a great issue for her to take a leading role on since ... anything that enhances her "woman" branding can't but help with a primary where Edwards and Obama can gain the support of all the young men and bloggers they like and still lose. It's also a good plan on the merits."

Back in IA, Bleeding Heartland notes that neither Edwards nor Obama are ceding the women's vote to HRC, and in NH BuckeyeStateBlog blogs at BlueHampshire about her visit to HRC HQ: "The meeting went really well and it seems like the campaign is enthusiastic about bloggers poking around. ... I didn't get the feeling that Clinton staffers were placating me or feeding me any lines. They were just nice, good people who are enthusiastic about their candidate. It's refreshing."

Finally, The Nation's Ari Bermananswers TPM Cafe's MJ Rosenberg's doubts about Berman's claim that Clinton is more tied in with corporate America than others in the field: "Yes, all major presidential candidates, Democrat or Republican, these days have significant ties to corporate America. It's a sad fact of our political system (and the reason why we need public financing of elections). What I write in my article is that Hillary is more reliant on large donations and corporate money than her Democratic rivals."

DODD: Defunding Debacles

Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat thanks Chris Dodd for not "lying down" on the Iraq supplemental: "But now is the time to redouble our efforts for the only way to end the Iraq Debacle, the Reid-Feingold-Dodd framework of setting a date certain for not funding the Debacle."

EDWARDS: Kos Powered

Elizabeth Edwards chose a Daily Kos diary to officially announce John Edwards would be attending 8/2-5's '07 Yearly Kos convention in Chicago, IL. From EE: "The decision was easy: the opportunity to talk, to listen, to question and to learn from the people who make online the center of real political dialogue that YearlyKos offers is important. Unparalleled, really. And so John will be there, there with you. ... It may frighten some candidates. It doesn't frighten John; it energizes him. You energize him. So, he is headed to Chicago to get some of that energy."

RICHARDSON: Pro-Grown Up

Bleeding Heartland finds Bill Richardson "too conservative for me when it comes to domestic policies" but does like his focus on using diplomacy in foreign policy: "I like it. Time to treat the voters like grown-ups who can understand that our foreign policy needs to be about more than dropping bombs and talking about an 'axis of evil.'"

IMMIGRATION: What Would Reagan Do?

Intense reader reaction to the Senate immigration bill has many bloggers posting thoughts from readers. Messages in blogger inboxes include:

• The Corner's Jonah Goldberg: "I immigrated, with my wife, 28 years ago and went through all the legal steps required and after a year was admitted to the United States. We both have become citizens and both of our children are officers in the armed forces. I supported Mr Bush in 2000 and, in fact, worked hard for his campaign. In '04 I held my nose and voted for him again as I could not consider voting foe a Democrat. However, right now, I would not care if Bush resigned or was impeached...he has lost it.
• Andrew Sullivan: "It's just my opinion and some or many probably wouldn't admit it. But I think the unspoken about aspect of this thing is that many of us in the conservative, grass roots have at best, no trust in Bush's competence at all and at worst, are hoping the I-bill goes down in flames specifically to deal Bush an embarrassing and ignominious defeat."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: ""Here's all you need to know about how some of us regular folks and once-prouder Republicans feel about this immigration bill nightmare. Today, I am scraping the Bush/Cheney 04 sticker from the back window of my Ford Expedition. I had vowed to keep it up as long as I still saw lefties with their Kerry stickers. But after this slap in the face, I'm done. I hope the guy continues to fight terrorism and even hopes he gets another SCOTUS nomination... but I'm done openly supporting this guy."
• more from Goldberg: "Immigration is basically a plumbing problem - our border leaks. When you have plumbing that leaks, you fix the leak before you start cleaning up your house. Build a fence and stop the leak, then decide how to clean up. ... Yes, I am an engineer.

The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez even dives into Ronald Reagan's recently released diaries to resurrect his take on the subject circa 10/16/86: "After 5 yrs. of trying the House finally passed [Sen. Alan Simpson's (R-WY)] immigration bill. They have one or two amendments we could do without but even if the Sen. In conf. cannot get them out, I'll sign. It's high time we regained control of our borders and this bill will do this."

Thomas Sowell blogs at RCP: "The big talking point of those who want to legalize the illegal immigrants currently in the United States is to say that it is "unrealistic" to round up and deport 12 million people. Back in 1986 it was "unrealistic" to round up and deport the 3 million illegal immigrants in the United States then. So they were given amnesty -- honestly labeled, back then -- which is precisely why there are now 12 million illegal immigrants."

Power Line's Scott Johnson comments: "The implicit question raised by Sowell's analysis is whether the status quo is worse than the predictable consequences of the proposed immigration legislation. I think the status quo is less harmful than the legislation."

BLOGGERS VS. BELTWAY: My Way Or The Third Way

The Iraq supplemental and recent Dem negotiations on trade have some progressives buzzing about the direction of their party. The Huffington Post's Glenn Hurowitz asks: "It's almost six months since Democrats took Congress, and it's time to ask: are progressives getting anything from the Democrats? ... It's pretty clear what we progressives want: an end to the Iraq war, a boost in the minimum wage, clean government, freedom to organize unions, and a living planet. To be sure, Democrats, especially in the House, have made some moves to deliver those items. ... They've passed some bills and resolutions - but here's the thing: almost none of them have become law."

Also at HuffPo, David Sirota recounts his keynote speech to the MT AFL-CIO: "I entitled my speech "Get Busy Living, Or Get Busy Dying" - a reference to The Shawshank Redemption's haunting message. This is a particularly important message for organized labor and the progressive movement, as we watch the Democratic Party attempt to triangulate against us on the key issues of trade, corruption and the Iraq War that drove the 2006 election. Will we as a movement get busy living and demand that our friends stand up for us? Or will we get busy dying and be too afraid to make demands because that would make people in power uncomfortable?"

Responding to entreaties from friends to meet with Third Way people to discuss their research, MyDD's Chris Bowers asks: "Really, all of my questions boil down to this one question: to what two other ways, exactly, is Third Way "third?" It is only when I hear the answer to that question that I can determine if it is a group I want to work with or not. I mean, if we not only disagree on everything, but their entire purpose for existence is to help prevent my desired public policy initiatives from being enacted, then why would I possibly want to work with them, or even talk with them? Working with a group whose expressed goal is to defeat your "way" seems rather self-defeating to me."

Entirely off message, The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum links to Nicholas Beaudrotanalysis of House Dem freshman ideology data and comments: "Did Dems win in 2006 by electing a bunch of centrists and moderates? I remember that was a hot topic of conversation back in November, but it's easier to evaluate now that we have a few months worth of voting records to look at. The answer ... appears to be yes."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: But Jailing Oil Execs Is So Therapeutic

Matthew Yglesias is no fan of MoveOn's latest campaign to make "gasoline price gouging a federal crime." From Yglesias: "Oil companies are a kind of a blight the planet, soaking up subsidies they don't deserve and lobbying against emissions regulations we need, so one hesitates to come to their defense. Nevertheless, what makes the oil companies bad is their opposition to much-needed policy changes. The solution is to adopt the policy changes we need -- higher CAFE standards, higher gasoline taxes, a carbon tax, a well-designed cap and trade regime, whatever -- piling this farce on top of the status quo doesn't solve anything."

LEST WE FORGET: With Frickin' Lazer Beams Attached To Their Heads

A Jonah Goldberg reader explains why he could care less about whatever statements the WH puts out about immigration:

The text of the bill is meaningless because the provisions which the executive branch does not care, or is unable to enforce will never be enacted. ... Here it is presented in the preferred "FACT/MYTH" format:

• MYTH: The bill will cost the taxpayers billions in welfare benefits and other services.


• FACT: In the bill, fines for hiring an illegal worker are $1 Kajillion maximum per illegal worker for the first offense, $2 Kajillion maximum per illegal worker for the second, and $3 Kajillion maximum per illegal worker for the third.


• MYTH: The bill will not fully fund the previously enacted border fence.


• FACT: In the bill, the fence will be 1,000 feet tall, 300 feet wide, run the length of the southern border and extend thirty miles into the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. In the bill, the top of the wall will be patrolled by orcs riding giant cougars and wielding frickin' lasers.

Posted by Conn Carroll at May 23, 2007 12:39 PM