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 May 25, 2007 12:49 PM