June 29, 2007

6/29: The Inevitability Is Back (If It Ever Really Left)

We understand that IA is still more than six months away, and that it is hard to attack an opponent in your own party, but John Edwards and Barack Obama are going to have to change their debate strategies in some way if they ever plan to cut into Hillary Clinton's lead. There is, perhaps, no more primed an audience than the netroots to jump on HRC for a slip up, or latch onto a stellar non-HRC performance than the netroots, but so far after every debate the story is always the same: Hillary looked strong, smart, and confident, and since there are no real policy differences between the candidates, Hillary would represent the party just fine. Do the Obama and Edwards camps really want these impressions solidifying in the MSM and the netroots?

DEM DEBATE: Another Debate, Another Clinton Win

While not normally representative of consensus netroots opinion, The Plank's Michael Crowley's overall all impression of 6/29's All American Presidential Forum closely mirrored online opinion: "Once again I found myself thinking that Hillary Clinton is on track to be the next president, and that Barack Obama always slightly unsatisfying in the shadow of his amazing 2004 Democratic convention speech." As in all previous Dem debates, a Daily Kos straw poll found John Edwards to be the winner of the debate (with 27%) while significantly underperforming his regular straw poll number (40%). Again, HRC's debate win total more than double her normal straw poll results (17% v 6%).

Reactions to the performances of non-big three candidates includes:

• Jack and Jill Politics' Jill Tubman: "Biden, Richardson and Dodd - sadly weak. Richardson seemed quite unprepared to discuss HIV/AIDS which was odd. Did no one tell him this is a big deal for African-Americans? Gravel played his usual role saying what no one else has the courage to say. I love that guy. ... Kucinich did very well. He's always been the sleeper candidate. The crowd loved his answers. The big three candidates would do well to pay attention to why people like him -- he talks about the things people care about in ways that are compelling, down-to-earth and stunningly sensible."
• Daily Kos' Betsy McCall: "Kucinich is most necessary to keep the debate focused on real problems we're dealing with now. Without him, Dems would ignore Iraq, health care reform and the illegal acts of the Bush administration."
• Oliver Willis: "It should be noted for the record that Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate who came by the bloggers to press the flesh, along with his wife Elizabeth who positively towers over him. ... The handlers Mike Gravel had around him were just the kind of guys you would think would follow Mike Gravel around. A little... off."

DEBATE CLINTON: Steady As She Goes

Daily Kos and MyDD comments regarding Hillary Clinton's performance included:

• from MyDD: "I stood up and clapped for my sister, yes my white sister, when she said if it was WHITE WOMEN with AIDS it would be an outcry. DAMN RIGHT."
• from Daily Kos: "It's going to take something big to stop Sen. Clinton, she knows her stuff and is getting better and better at the whole debating thing."
• from MyDD: "Clinton is just too damn good in these things. Second place to Obama and Edwards. Dodd gets 3rd."
• from Daily Kos: "The crowd gave a roar of approval for Hillary, the Clintons have been great friends for black Americans for years and many of the women in the crowd applauded too. Also it's obvious that there is crowd support for Obama but let's face it, black Americans can't go wrong with any of these candidates!"
• from MyDD: "She did very well but she did not "dominate" this debate, as she did the last one. She knows how to effectively deliver one-liners."

Non MyDD/dKos reax include:

• Oliver Willis: "If there's a winner so far it's HRC. But its kind of like Martyball - you hold the ball when you have the lead and don't make any sudden moves."
• Skeptical Brotha: "First question: Does race matter as it did for Du Bois at the beginning of the 20th century? Hillary-strong. Obama-weak."
• Jack and Jill Politics: "I am not sure if there were any big winners. Clinton in particular did not receive the love that her husband would have had he been there and she would have been smart to bring him. Her answers were well-received in general and I particularly appreciated her take on AIDS and its impact on African-American women which received a standing ovation from some black female attendees."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "I didn't see any campaign-changing moments, though Hillary Clinton just about brought the house down when she said AIDS would be a higher national priority if it were the number one killer of white women ages 25 to 34. (The comment drew the loudest, most sustained applause of the night.)"

DEBATE EDWARDS: Is It Too Late To Make Elizabeth The Candidate?

John Edwards did nothing to sink him among netrooters watching the debate, but he did not 'wow' many of them either. Daily Kos commentator reax include:

• Miss Laura: "I thought Edwards was really underwhelming the first debates, and is doing better tonight. But I guess that makes sense, since this has been much more domestic policy oriented, more open to his key issues being raised."
• GU Dems: "Edwards has been totally forgettable and said nothing really exciting or new."
• America 08: "Edwards answers best and complete, the Debate moving along. Eliminate all tax breaks for companies taking jobs off shore! YEA!!!!!"
• TJB: "Already leaning Edwards and I thought he showed a very strong grasp of the issues tonight. This debate certainly did him no harm and he quite likely will be helped."
• Diana in NoVa: "Edwards...I still can't warm up to him. Don't know why. Wish I could vote for Elizabeth."

Also from Jack and Jill Politics Tubman: "Edwards did very well in most of his answers and I was certainly impressed at his thoughtful, practical and on-point responses. The Edwards campaign reached out to me and sent me a document with his answers to the Covenant for Black America best-selling book."

DEBATE OBAMA: Too Bill Cosby

Non-MyDD/Daily Kos takes on Barack Obama's effort include:

• Oliver Willis: "Obama discusses homophobia with black America. He's the only one I think who can be critical of black America's problems, and I'm glad he's doing it rather than mindless boosterism."
• BlakProf's Sherrilyn Ifill: "[Dr. Michael Eric] Dyson, clearly is feelin' Obama. When asked by columnist Clarence Page to react to the fact that Hillary Clinton seemed to get the biggest applause of the night, Dyson said slowly, "Hillary is extremely poised and practiced." ... I asked him whether he felt that Obama was coming up on a Cosby moment when he started talking about "valuing achievement." He was candid. Say yes, he was concerned about where Obama was going, but felt that Obama is willing 'to work on social construction.'"
• Pam's House Blend: "Obama's short, but powerful statement on black homophobia is one that none of the other candidates mentioned. Is this a surprise? No. ... The candidates fear perceptions of a paternalistic white finger being waved at the community will result in blowback from black voters."
• Jack and Jill Politics Tubman: "He did so well in tapping his fingers on the touchstones of our culture in thanking Howard, its president, Thurgood Marshall, the Covenant with Black America authors, etc. He referenced history and put himself in that context. ... Still that early advantage was eroded with overall lackluster answers. He was fine, but I can't think of many standout moments where he electrified the audience. I'm so proud of him - it's true. But I can't help but expect more from him."

Dkos/MyDD reactions include:

• from Daily Kos: "I've been leaning Obama, but I wish his answers were as polished as Mrs. Clinton's."
• from MyDD: "Ok, this is the 4th time Obama and Edwards have agreed. Maybe y'all can take a hint and quit flaming and troll rating each other."
• from Daily Kos: "Obama was very good and he looks good and he connects well. He's certainly at the top of my list...but I still wish we'd hear more solid proposals."
• from MyDD: "But as someone who was already leaning Obama, I have to say he continued to impress and build upon his last debate performance. Obama looked presidential. He was thoughtful and concise. I think he has developed a lot more gravitas and with this debate has continued to show he can stand with the big boys."
• from Daily Kos: "Obama Is Sounding Very Bill Cosby-ish I expected better."

CLINTON: She Probably Really Does Like Celine Dionne

Catching a CNN segment entitles "Bill Clinton Factor: Campaign Asset or Liability?" Atrios responds: "Only to the Drudge-addled brains of our elite press corps would this question even occur. ... Bill Clinton is probably the most popular man in the country. The 90s were a period of growth, optimism, wage growth across the board, declining unemployment and declining poverty. America got its groove back. Like the guy or not, the idea that he'd be anything but an asset for Hillary Clinton is absurd."

Upset that Clinton's YouTube theme song contest contributed to the "trivialization of politics," MyDD's Matt Stoller posts a new YouTube mocking HRC and comments: "It does capture Hillary Clinton, who probably really does like Celine Dionne, Hallmark cards, and casserole."

Back in IA, Bleeding Heartland is not upset by recent stories on the polling practices of Team Clinton: "There have been some claims that Hillary Clinton is "push-polling" against her main rivals, Barack Obama and John Edwards in Iowa and New Hampshire. Her campaign appears to have commissioned some detailed message testing in both states. That is different from a sleazy push-poll (such as what Bush did to McCain in South Carolina in 2000, having people call up voters asking if it would change their opinion if they knew that McCain had an illegitimate black child). I don't have a problem with message testing ... I do think it's sleazy for Democrats to attack each other using right-wing talking points, but I don't blame campaigns for wanting to know which messages are going to be effective for and against them."

DODD: That's Him In The Spotlight

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas is yet another fan of Chirs Dodd's use of YouTube's spotlight series to try an end the Iraq War: "Yes, it's a campaign tactic. But Chris Dodd's use of his YouTube spotlight is the kind of campaigning I personally want to see. ... That's leadership."

OBAMA: The $37M Man

Reactions to Barack Obama's goal of 250k donors by 6/30 include:

• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "Obviously, the comparison to [Howard] Dean isn't a perfect one. Voters overall are significantly more engaged in the presidential race at this point than they were at the same point last cycle, and Obama already has a much higher profile within the media, and thus the primary electorate, than did Dean. That said, 250,000 people is a lot people, and you can't underscore that fact."
• MyDD's Obama08: "When you crunch those numbers that means that he has recruited an average of over 1,380 new donors EVERY DAY this year. Impressive you say. Now we look a little deeper and remember that he had over 100,000 donors in the first quarter, meaning that there will be about 150,000 new unique voters this quarter. That means that he will have recruited about 1,650 donors a day throughout this quarter, that is nearly unbelievable. I don't care whether you call it a movement or not, moving that many people to donate on a daily basis is incredible."
• TAPPED's Garance Franke-Ruta: "Let's do some back-of-the-envelope math here, shall we? Last quarter, Obama brought in $25.7 million from 104,000 donors. This time around, he is shooting for 250,000 donors (his campaign currently reports 245,272). Even assuming that all Obama's second-quarter growth was from low-dollar donors (an assumption that's almost certainly incorrect), I don't see how this adds up to less than $37 million."

In less positive Obama blogging, The Left Coaster's Steve Soto notes Obama's opposition to an impeachment of Pres. Bush or VP Cheney and blogs: "Gee, thanks for that window into your judgment Senator."

BROWNBACK: The Yellowbrick Road Hits A 'Switchback'

One might think it was impossible to vote against the Senate immigration bill and yet still comes out a bigger political loser on the issue than John McCain, and yet Sam Brownback's 'yea' to 'no' vote switch accomplished just that. Hot Air's Allahpundit describes the scene:

Say, how come there are 47 yes votes when the roll says there were only 46? Ah, my friends, that's because Sam Brownback turned out to be the weaseliest "no" vote of all. He voted yes right at the very beginning, during the alphabetical vote, probably thinking that cloture was going to pass. Then, when it died, he switched to a no. I almost wish he was pulling more than 1% in the presidential polls so we could hammer him into oblivion with that. As it is, I've captured his moment of shame for posterity on video. I think that's him in the red circle; you'll see him gesture to the clerk just before she announces his deep, principled opposition to amnesty.

NRO's Jim Geraghty posted Brownback's official "I wanted to signal that I am supportive of comprehensive immigration reform, but that now is not the time and this is not the bill" explanation, but no one was buying it. Reactions include:

• Michelle Malkin: "Bryan and I cooked up another Kaus-inspired shamnesty Hot Air ad just for Senator Switchback."
• more Geraghty: "It's a shame that he's named Brownback, since the "Switchback" nickname is going to stick."
• The Corner's Rich Lowry: "Brownback Voted "Yes"...as far as I'm concerned. The way the game is played is that you vote "yes" if they need your vote, and then when it becomes clear that it's failing, you become a "no." Now, if the campaign's (hard-to-believe-verging-on-laughable) explanation is true that this was a deliberate strategy on his part to vote first "yes" and then "no," well, then, he's badly in need of better political advice and you have to question his judgment for going along with it."
• The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "He Voted For It Before He Voted Against It. Ouch."
• Ace of Spades posts a mock inspirational poster with Brownback's picture and the caption: "Courage: The bravery to choose the unpopular path - and then choose the other path, once you realize just how unpopular it is. Oh Well! That's why god gave pencils erasers!"

GIULIANI: Copying The Terminator Will Get You Terminated

Captain's Quarters links to a NY Sunarticle reporting "Mayor [Rudy] Giuliani is telling California voters wondering what kind of president he would make that they need to look no further than their popular Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger," and warns: "Arnold has done very well for himself in California, but no one confuses him with a conservative, not even the state's GOP. ... In California, as in New York City, that's the only kind of Republican that can get elected to an executive office. That doesn't mean that the rest of the Republicans around the country want to elect them, however, and Rudy may be making a mistake by reinforcing the impression that he's so far out of step with conservatives in the party. He could find himself positioned well for a general election that he'll never reach."

MCCAIN: Not Dead Yet

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein makes the case the defeat of the immigration bill is the best possible outcome for John McCain's WH hopes: "Over the next few months, the level of anger people have toward this immigration legislation will lose intensity as long as it remains dead. By the fall most of the attention will be focused on Iraq, an issue on which McCain will again take a courageous stand--only this time he'll be on the same side as the conservative base. While I still think that McCain has alienated too many conservatives since 1999 to capture the nomination, now that the immigration bill was defeated, I think his longevity has increased dramatically."

Townhall's Dean Barnett agrees that nothing can change the fate of McCain's campaign: "And regardless of what Mort Kondracke or McCain's other friends in the media believe, the base's disdain for McCain does not primarily derive from personal animus. Instead, that disdain flows directly from the fact that John McCain has been a more damaging presence in the Senate over the past six years than anyone else - Tom Daschle, Ted Kennedy and Harry Reid included. ... Yes, he's right on the war, but a lot of senators are right on the war. But McCain has been so wrong and so destructive on so many other issues, his relationship with the base is fractured beyond repair."

ROMNEY: Not Getting PETA's Endorsement

All the rage in more lefty circles, the Boston Globe's account of Mitt Romney strapping the family dog's carrier onto the family car's roof for a 12 hour drive to Ontario, CA, is beginning to penetrate conservative sites. NY Sun's Ryan Sager links to Swampland's post and comments: "I'm no dog lover (I've thought of running for mayor on a "Dog Free NYC" platform), but some people like the disgusting little beasts. For any of those people considering voting for Mitt Romney, read this."

Also in anti-Romney blogging, Outside the Beltway's Alex Knapp links to a Reasonstory looking at a civil suit against Romney UT finance co-chair Robert Lichfield which claim one of the "various business entities" he is involved in locked teens in outdoor dog cages and exercised them to exhaustion. Knapp comments: "While it's certainly true that people should be considered innocent until proven guilty ... common sense would seem to dictate that a presidential candidate might refrain from hiring people accused of child abuse and molestation pending the outcome any criminal investigation or civil lawsuit."

THOMPSON: Finally, A Non-Reagan Comparison

The Corner's Jonah Goldberg notes: "that if Fred Thompson becomes president he'll be the first bald Commander-in-Chief since Ike. ... CORRECTION! Yikes! Sorry, I should have said first follically challenged candidate to be ELECTED president since Ike. Which was the whole point. Woops."

TERROR POLITICS: Dems Want Dems In Charge Of War

Many in the netroots are flagging Eric Kleefeld's catch in the internals of Fox News latest poll. At TPM Cafe Kleefeld quotes from Q24 on the survey: "If there is an all-out war between the United States and various radical Muslim groups worldwide, who would you rather have in charge - Democrats or Republicans?" 41% of respondents chose Dems, while only 38% chose GOPers.

Kleefeld comments: "Granted, the result is within the poll's three-point margin of error, so we can't say with certainty that the Dems have a lead here. But really, this bespeaks truly terrible times for the GOP. The question of which party the people would trust more to lead World War III against a global coalition of Islamofascists should have been a gimme for the Republicans. But they couldn't even manage to get a plurality. Pathetic."

TERROR POLITICS II: On Sneezes And Condoms

The fight over the Foreign Ops App bill is allowing some netrooters to question how closely AIPAC wants to be associated with the GOP. A Dem amendment to the Mexico City policy has GOPers threatening to block the bill to which TPM Cafe's Daniel Levy blogs: "The episode speaks volumes about how far AIPAC has positioned itself in the Republican camp, how deeply in denial the Democrats are of this fact, and how deliciously divorced from Israeli reality the American political debate is."

TAPPED's Ezra Klein adds: "AIPAC, of course, will generally go after Congressmen for taking precious seconds to sneeze when they should be whipping support for this or that pro-Israel bill. They allow absolutely no distractions, or competing priorities, when the legislation is meaningless to Israel. They are absolutely single minded when the question is aid. So their silence here was uncustomary, but, given their tilt in recent years, sadly predictable."

IMMIGRATION: The Right's First Lieberman?

SC's Daily Shot reports "that high level state and national Republican leaders are currently in the process of recruiting SCGOP Chairman Katon Dawson to run against Sen. Lindsey Graham in next year's" GOP primary. More Shot: "Many of these leaders are currently unhappy with Sen. Graham's stances on several key issues including immigration. ... Katon is extremely popular with the party's base. ... Dawson would not have to give up his chairmanship if he ran against Graham, which would allow him to garner the necessary level of earned media most fringe candidates would struggle to get."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Nobody Likes You

Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat looks at recent Dem inaction on Iraq and GOP crack up on immigration and comments:

One of the more interesting things to happen politically this year is the manner in which the Beltway Establishment has basically been utterly rejected by most of the country. While David Broder bleats for "sensible bipartisanship" without ever explaining what substantive policies should actually look like, the American People have basically rejected the performance of the Washington Establishment.
For Democrats in Washington, their performance on Iraq has pushed their approval ratings to extreme lows. For Republicans, it has been Bush's immigration bill.

One thing is clear about this year, the big loser has been the Washington Elite. NOBODY likes them. They have never been as out of step with the country as they are now. I wonder if they have any clue about this.

LEST WE FORGET: And The Portland Trailblazers Select ...

For those of you that missed the NBA draft last night, Cracked picks the top 11 11 Movie Basketball Players of All Time including these top five:

• 1 Teen Wolf (Teen Wolf): "Dr. J in a Chewbacca costume"
• 2 Neon Budreau (Blue Chips): "Plays uncannily like Shaquille O'Neal"
• 3 Saleh (The Air Up There): "A more athletic, less sexually forthright Dikembe 'Who Wants to Sex' Mutumbo"
• 4 Jesus Shuttlesworth (He Got Game): "A less charismatic, more idiotically named Ray Allen"
• 5 Jimmy Chitwood (Hoosiers): " A whiter Jeff Hornacek, if that's possible"

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:31 PM

June 28, 2007

6/28: After McCain

As part of his '[John] McCain Death Watch' series, NY Sun's Ryan Sager notes 6/27 that Quinnipiac is now including a "without McCain" question in their WH '08 GOP polling, just like they do for longshot undeclared candidates like Condi Rice and Newt Gingrich. While Quinnipiac may be jumping the gun on taking the first look at the post-McCain era, it's worth wondering what a resurgent McCain campaign could look like. Is there a single issue, outside of Iraq, that conservatives agree and identify McCain with? Short of a dramatic 180 degree turn on progress in Iraq, what series of events could possibly end a McCain candidacy? With the Senate immigration bill now dead, McCain may be able to stabilize his downward spiral, but what on earth could possibly start moving his numbers in a positive direction?

BROWNBACK: It's Amnesty If The Base Says Its Amnesty

The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez posts a Sam Brownback press release defending his 6/26 vote for cloture on the immigration bill and comments: "I'm not sure he gets the bill is amnesty."

MCCAIN: What Was Your Favorite Moment Of The Candidate McCain Era?

NY Sun's Ryan Sager links to Quinnipiac's latest polling on the GOP Field in FL, OH, and PA and flags a significant development: "They've started adding a category to the GOP primary results labeled, "WITHOUT McCAIN." (See question 2.) ... Now, to those of you who don't spend all your days reading polls like this, the "without" breakdowns are usually reserved for candidates who probably won't be in the race, such as "without Gingrich," "without Rice," etc. This, as far as I know, is the first instance of a major polling organization starting to look publicly at a race without John McCain."

F. THOMPSON: Bloggers Help Those Who Help Themselves

Fred Thompson called into Captain's QuartersRadio to respond to Dem attacks on his past lobbying efforts. Thompson later promoted the segment at RedState and NRO's Jim Geraghty transcribed the call, including:

The Democrats, it looks like, have chosen a fella that's not even in the race yet to launch their attacks against. I don't know when I've been so complimented. ... I'd just say, keep it up guys. These are the same things you tried back in the 1994 campaign when I first ran, and it got you within 20 points of me.

Thompson did not bother responding to a Drudge linked YouTube challenging his pro-life credentials, but plenty of other conservative bloggers did including:

• The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "Some of it was not Fred at his best, but it can't really be that damning considered some of the YouTubes on his competition."
• Ankle Biting Pundit's Bull Dog Pundit: "Drudge has a big headline up about this YouTube video entitled "Pro-Choice Fred?", which purports to prove that Fred Thompson is pro-abortion. Yeah sure. Even by an amateur standard this video is so transparently lame and misleading as to be a joke."
• RedState's Alexham: "The many deficiencies in the video are self-evident, so there's no need to recount them here ... Update: It appears that Drudge is no longer linking to the video in question. Good for him."

Also fighting anti-Thompson memes, RCP Blog's Tom Bevan explains why he isn't buying into George Will's claims that Thompson is a "substance-free Republican flash in the pan." Bevan writes:

I remain unconvinced by such arguments, if only because the other top tier contenders in the Republican field continue to have major problems that, even though it remains early in the contest, they either haven't addressed or seem unable to put to rest. ... Thompson has his own issues with the base from a policy standpoint, though none of them appear to be hugely significant. Furthermore, personality is not an unimportant piece of the pie, and when you combine policy preferences with the kind of likable demeanor Thompson possesses, it naturally generates a level of comfort among Republican primary voters that few, if any, of the other top tier candidates can match.

F. THOMPSON II: 50 Million Reasons To Wait

SC's Daily Shot posts video of Thompson at 6/27's GOP luncheon in Columbia, SC, and comments: "He took on abortion right out of the blocks, in response to the heat that he has been taking from groups attacking his right flank. As he continues to move toward a candidacy, he will have to defend his record, just like the rest of the pack. Also, he was right the lucky SOB sure has saved himself 50 million by not getting in just yet."

Later, the Shot joins Marc Ambinder in speculating who will be Thompson's top SC consultant, concluding: "Ambinder seems to think that Walter Whetsell of Starboard Communications could be the guy after spotting him with an "I'm with Fred" button on at today's event. The question is; would that negate his lucrative contract with the "Ed in '08? Campaign? ...Well, that leaves Rod Shealy really. There aren't that many big guns out there who haven't signed on with a candidate already and Rod would be the biggest yet to pick a horse. Our guess is Rod will probably win the day if he so chooses. He has a hot hand right now and could help Thompson organize a decent grassroots game pretty quickly.

DEM FIELD: A Coulter Bounce?

Daily Kos' 6/27 straw poll showed John Edwards maintaining a strong lead over second place finisher Barack Obama (unlike the 6/13 MyDD straw poll which showed Edwards dropping 10 points after Edwards advisor David 'Mudcat' Sandersinsulted the netroots). DKos results include:

6/07 5/07
Edwards 40 39
Obama 22 24
Other 9 6
No F'ing Clue 7 7
H. Clinton 6 6
Richardson 5 8

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas comments: "Not much analysis since I'm headed out of here in a few hours. But in short, the Gravel boomlet is over. Richardson continues to tank. He had his own serious boomlet here while his poll numbers were non existent. Now, as his candidacy gains steam in the early states, he fades here. I'm surprised Obama isn't doing better than this and I suspect his numbers will improve. Still, the Daily Kos primary is a two-man race."

CLINTON: Des Moines Or Bust?

Intent on stopping Hillary Clinton's coronation, MyDD's Big Tent Democrat looks at the most plausible ways she could be derailed. BTD believes Al Gore would have the best shot at beating HRC, but argues Gore would only do so after the MSM roundly concluded that Barack Obama and John Edwards had no chance of winning. BTD says no such MSM consensus would ever crystalize before IA, and that waiting till after IA would be too late for a Gore entry.

BTD concludes that the most realistic chance of knocking HRC out is for Obama and Edwards to finish in the top two in IA placing Clinton in a "crippling" 3rd: "It would take a miracle in New Hampshire for her to recover and I doubt there will be any miracles there. Clinton supporters are not deeply committed to her in my opinion. I actually think this is the most likely of the events that could happen to derail Hillary. ... Iowa is the key to the whole race. Hillary wins Iowa, the race is over."

DODD: Against Bikini Clad Models

Chris Dodd is receiving rave reviews for his use of YouTube's Spotlight series to urge voters, in TPM's Greg Sargent words, "to go and visit their Senators and Congressmen and ask them what they have to say about the Dodd amendment to the Defense Authorization bill." Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher comments: "Chris Dodd is using his to call bulls**t on the media's obsession with haircuts, bikini clad models and other fluff while people are dying and to promote the "Dodd Amendment" to end the war in Iraq. He's encouraging everyone to go pay a visit to your senator over the upcoming recess because they just don't seem to be getting the picture that the American people want out of Iraq."

Dodd also garnered praise for his speech to the Day Of Action To Restore Law and Justice. Firedoglake's Christy Hardin Smith blogs: "Standing up for the Constitution and the rule of law is a must to gain political support from folks in this country who are fed up with the Bush Administration's outright hostile treatment of the laws of this nation and their utter disregard for human rights."

EDWARDS: Against Dumb Trade

MyDD's okamichan13 rounded up highlights from an Elizabeth EdwardsDaily Kos liveblogging session including:

• On IA: "I don't take anything for granted. But I feel great about Iowa. They look for a candidate with a constellation of qualities: character, vision (as exhibited by fully formed ideas) and (because they are pragmatic) electability. John meets all their criteria and, in addition, he is well-liked in the state. The Iowa team has done a great job of organizing so we are ready. I am convinced John will win Iowa and the only question (which I do not know) is the percentage."
• On 'smart trade': "John opposed NAFTA (which was passed before he was in the Senate) and other trade bills that did not have a baseline of worker and environmental protections. He believes that all our trade agreements without these (which may be nearly all) need to be renegotiated and that no new trade agreements should be entered into that do not guarantee a reasonable (for each locality) wage, worker safety protections and environmental protections."
• On 'some in Congress not standing up to Bush': "It is disappointing. I don't know enough who to blame. We clearly need leadership. I spoke at a Rage for Justice dinner recently and that is what we need: leaders who will rage for justice. The Iraq vote was an example. Even those who voted the right way didn't exhibit the leadership we need right now. Silence, as MLK said, is betrayal."

At Firedoglake, Christy Hardin Smith reviews Edwards new NH ad: "Edwards uses a line from his stump speech that has resonated well with audiences: that it is time for the President of the United States to ask Americans to be patriotic about something other than war. It talks about lifting people up from poverty, and the fact that the most valuable asset in America is Americans themselves and what they can accomplish together. ... I think the Edwards folks were trying to go for that "morning in America" ad feel, but from a fresher take on how Americans need to pick up and take charge of the issues we face ourselves. A sort of "we're in this together" sort of theme."

IMMIGRATION: Eight Men In Or Out?

The Senate is voting on cloture as we got to deadline, but conservatives werecautiously optimistic heading into the vote. Blogger activism focussed on what The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez dubbed "The Amnesty Eight" which included: Sens. Kit Bond (R-MO); Sam Brownback (R-KS); Richard Burr (R-NC); Norm Coleman (R-MN); John Ensign (R-NV); Ben Nelson (D-NE); Mark Pryor (D-AR); and James Webb (D-VA).

Kausfiles forwards advice to bill opponents who can't get through to their Senator on busy phone lines: "Besides calling the senate office, folks should call the state chair and county chair of the senator's party. ... It would let the senator know that folks know how to do more than get riled up over an issue. Someone who tracks down his county chairman is a lot more likely to be a primary voter." Michelle Malkin posts video of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) telling Fox News: "Radio talk show hosts know more about this bill than most Senators, if you want to know the truth."

Finally Mark Levin pens a conservative response to the Wall Street Journal's scolding of "open borders" opponents. Levin blogs in part:

What drives the editorial writers at the Journal is their insatiable demand, on behalf of their advertisers, for sweat-shop conditions and slave wages. ... Since 1965, the government has promised the public border security in exchange for amnesty. Today's Journal writers aren't as honest as their predecessors. They deny this bill provides for amnesty. In the past, they would have proudly proclaimed it.

Today's Journal writers take refuge in the anonymity of the editorial page as they assassinate the character of those with whom they disagree. Apparently, those who insist on enforcing the law are racists. Those who insist that the government fulfill its obligation to secure the border and punish businesses that hire illegal aliens are anti-Hispanic.

The Journal writers are prodding Republicans to play ethnic politics. They argue that if the Republicans are viewed as anti-Hispanic, they will lose elections. Of course, the Journal writers are perpetuating that smear by assigning racist motives to opponents of the bill. But Republicans do best when they run on principle and act on principle. Unlike the Journal writers, I happen to believe that Hispanic Americans are motivated by the same principles as other Americans, including - liberty, security, the rule of law, capitalism, and faith.

HOUSE LANDSCAPE: Merry Q2 Charlie Brown

MyDD's Jonathan Singer urges readers to help Blue Majority ("this cycle's version of the Netroots Candidates list on Act Blue") close out a successful Q2. Singer pitches for "Al Wynn-foe Donna Edwards and soon-to-be John Doolittle-slayer Charlie Brown ... We are not making a huge ask today, but it's an important one. We're fast approaching the end of the second fundraising quarter -- all contributions need to be in by the end of the day on June 30 -- so we are asking folks to chip in $10 for Edwards and Brown, and we would like to see 100 new contributions for each of them by the end of the day Saturday."

NSA: Against Negotiated Settlement

The netroots have little faith in WH compliance with Senate Judiciary Cmt. subpoenas issued 6/27 for all documents related to the NSA's warrantless surveillance program. TPM's Spencer Ackerman blogs: "Circle July 18 on your calendars -- that's the compliance deadline. If it's not met, the committee will seek explanatory testimony from White House chief of staff Josh Bolton, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Cheney chief of staff David Addington, and National Security Counsel executive director V. Philip Lago."

Daily Kos' Kagro X lays out the options Dems have after the inevitable WH non-compliance: "1. Move to hold the targets of the subpoenas in statutory contempt of Congress; 2. Move to hold the targets in inherent contempt of Congress; 3. Extend the deadline for compliance and make threats regarding either #1 or #2 above; 4. Come to some negotiated settlement with the "administration" -- i.e., closed door, no transcript testimony, limited document release, etc.; 5. Do nothing, complain loudly about obstructionism, stonewalling, and lawlessness, and hope that voters elect Democrats in 2008, because Republicans are so nasty; and 6. Ask the House to impeach."

Kagro bets the Dems will go with negotiated settlement but then makes the case for impeachment. The Left Coaster's Steve Soto adds: "Democrats in Congress need to get over the fantasy that they can negotiate a solution with this White House. The Bush Administration will reject the subpoenas on grounds of executive privilege and force the Democrats to take this to court. Do it now, so that the rest of Bush's agenda and his remaining time in office are spent in a turf war brought on by his criminal Vice President. Make the administration justify to the American people why Dick Cheney should be above the law and free from public scrutiny."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Let The Sunshine In

The Corner's Stanley Kurtz waxes on the effect blogs have had on the immigration bill:

The Internet was critical to the immigration bill's first failure. If not for the blogs, the bill's deceits and flaws would not have been so well or quickly exposed, and "comprehensive reform" would probably otherwise have passed within a couple of days. Now we're at yet another new level. The public is being exposed to a basket of legislative tricks-of a sort that are rare in any case, and surely of a kind that have never been subjected to mass and rapid-fire public exposure. The undemocratic character of all that is happening here is being conveyed to the public in short order and with clarity-often through the medium of Senate aides themselves.

LEST WE FORGET: We Thought Graham Was Against Torture

The Corner's Rich Lowry and Jonah Goldberg take turns mocking the pointlessly punitive measures Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) kept attaching to the "Grand Compromise" in misguided hopes of convincing conservatives his immigration bill was tough on border enforcement. Lowry faux-reports:

Now, instead of merely requiring a "touchback" from heads-of-households to apply for a Z-visa, the heads-of-households will have to head back to their home country for the "touchback" in chains, accompanied by a federal marshall. "We're going frog-march the bastards back to Mexico," Graham said in a written statement, vowing never, ever to support any amnesty legislation that doesn't include this measure that he calls "essential to the nation's security" and "important to the cause of providing the most humiliating and symbolically tough path to amnesty and citizenship as possible."

Goldberg adds:

I have it on good authority that Graham had to be "walked back" from his preferred "Yakuza model" before he would even agree to this latest "touchback-plus-plus-plus-plus" as some on the Hill are calling it. Graham had originally suggested that, like a failed Yakuza gangster, illegal immigrants would have to remove one finger, at the knuckle, for every year they stayed here illegally before they even left in chains for their home countries.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:34 PM

June 27, 2007

6/27: Hitting Soft Balls

As Fred Thompson's 5/15 smackdown of Michael Moore showed (and as Elizabeth Edwards' 6/26 televised phone call to a certain blonde pundette is reinforcing), sometimes the best thing to have in a crowded primary is the right opponent. One has to wonder if Edwards managed to capitalize on his PR gift as well as Thompson did. Thompson's video response to Moore's call for a debate on the relative merits of Cuban style health care hit on all of Thompson's strengths (ease with set creative pieces, mastery of the medium, humor, etc). But in what ways did Team Edwards response highlight any of J. Edwards strengths?

DEM FIELD: First Time's Free

The Huffington Post's Miles Mogulescu pleads with 6/28 Dem debate host Tavis Smiley to press the big three on single payer health care. Mogulescu blogs: "The leading Democratic candidates - Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama - criticize America's broken health care system and call for fundamental change with great rhetorical flair. But when it comes to proposing the most effective plan for change - Medicare-For-All - they don't show an audacity of hope. They show a paucity of courage. ... Obama's, Edward's and Clinton's timid half-way measures are as likely to be attacked by Republicans, big pharma and the insurance industry as a Medicare-For-All. Why not do it right the first time?"

CLINTON: At Least The Non-Profit Didn't Pay For The Haircut

Picking up on Politicocoverage of a Daily Kos diarist's recent run in with Mark Penn's PSA Interviewing field polling firm, TPM's Greg Sargent revisits a 6/8 story about a similar call received by a Jason Eness-Potter in IA.

Ennes-Potter confirmed to Sargent that his 6/7 account to IA Independent was accurate including the description of a question testing whether the John Edwards $400 haircut story "made the respondent more or less likely to approve of Edwards." Sargent also tracks down a second IA resident, Ellen Ballas who confirms the haircut question.

Sargent goes on to link back to the Daily Kos diarist's 6/24 call from PSA in NH. The diarist reports that Penn's firm has added the New York Times/non-profit story to its list of possible anti-Edwards memes. Sargent concludes: "Penn and the Hillary campaign didn't respond to requests for comment."

Also in HRC news, DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas notes that Clinton is the only Dem hosting her site with the "evil empire" (Microsoft), while the rest of the field has chosen to go with Linux.

EDWARDS: Weak And Incapable Of Defending Himself

Ann Coulter logged a full 2 days as convenient foil for the John Edwards campaign 6/25-26. AMERICAblog's John Aravosis posts video of Coulter kicking off her 6/25 AM telling Good Morning America that she wished Edwards had been killed in a terrorist assasination plot. Aravosis comments: "If you or I said this, we'd be arrested. And we certainly wouldn't be given TV time on ABC, NBC or any other show than FOX."

TPM's Greg Sargent then reported that early 6/26 the Edwards campaign sent out a fundraising email featuring the Coulter video, followed up by Elizabeth Edwards phoning in to Hardball to confront Coulter. Sargent comments: "Elizabeth is basically now the lead front-woman for attacking the wingnuts -- standing up for her man, and all that. ... This is clearly a storyline being laid out by the campaign, and for good reason. (Cue up the pundits who will claim this makes Edwards look weak and incapable of defending himself.)"

MyDD's Jerome Armstrong asks: "Why does Hardball and ABC legitimize her by giving Ann Coulter a platform to say these things in the first place?"

EDWARDS II: Blogger Conference Calls Are Always More Entertaining

The Huffington Post's Anna Burger takes the New York Times to task for their 6/22 coverage of Edwards non-profit org: "Insinuation and hyperbole seem to be part and parcel of today's campaigning. But to suggest ... that John Edwards' work on poverty is anything less than honorable is just plain wrong. Worse than that, it's insulting to the workers around the country he's lent his tireless support to over the years. ... To call into question the motivation of a person who has done so much to advance the cause of workers is unwarranted and unjust."

Also mentioning the Times story, MyDD's Jerome Armstrong sat in on a MSM conference call set up to promote Edwards new NH ad buy, but reports non-profit questions dominated the inquiry: "Another question on the non-profit organizations. It seems pretty clear that the reporters are all focusing on the non-profit organizations which Edwards worked for in '05-06, one reporter asked "why did you publicize it"; which is such a stupid question. ... Blogger conference calls are much better."

OBAMA: Less Than Ideal

While announcing that she won't give a penny to any of the Big Three due to their equivocating on gay marriage, The Huffington Post's Nancy Goldstein singles out Cass Sunstein's profile of Barack Obama for special abuse: "Sunstein takes this bigotry-as-religious-belief-and-respect even further in this past May's New Yorker profile of Obama ... In a dazzling display of University of Chicago law school pyrotechnics, Sunstein suggests that Obama might be more liberal than he lets on re: marriage equality while spinning his colleague's failure to publicly support it as a healthy outgrowth of Obama's penchant for compromise and his respect for - of all things - difference."

In more mixed Obama blogging TPM Cafe's MJ Rosenberg likes Obama's latest statement on the Israeli-Palestinian situation for it's "emphasis on the need for US leadership to help move the two sides to the two-state solution" but bemoans Obama's insistence on " buying into the idea that we can isolate Hamas forever and create a Palestinian state while rejecting the elected Palestinian government." Rosenberg, however, is clearly grading on a curve: "I don't judge candidates statements on the Middle East against the ideal but against the pander garbage almost all of them cynically and invariably put out. By that standard, this is fine.

RICHARDSON: We Thought The Seventh Day Was For Resting

MyDD's Nate Willems reports that Bill Richardson laid out his top six priorities to over 200 Dems at the Iowa City, IA, Public Library 6/26 ("1) Get the Untied States out of Iraq; 2) Create an "Apollo Program" for energy independence; 3) Unveil a plan for universal health care; 4) Unveil a plan to upgrade America's school systems; 5) Unveil a plan to reinvigorate the economy; 6) Redefine what the United States stands for.")

When "one of the first questioners from the audience suggested that on the 7th day Richardson should get the Employee Free Choice Act passed into law ... Richardson heartily agreed and touted his labor record in New Mexico." Willems notes though: "Labor issues, though, did not make it into his top six priorities."

BROWNBACK: The Next McCain?

After noting that Sam Brownback's 'yes' vote on cloture for the immigration bill "is probably going to lead to some hostile questions on the campaign trail," NRO's Jim Geraghty shares "Team Brownback"s clarification: "Senator Brownback voted in favor of cloture on the motion to proceed to the immigration bill today. That means he voted to bring the bill back to the floor for debate and for amendments to be offered. This does NOT mean that Senator Brownback supports the immigration bill itself - he feels the bill needs to be improved. "

GIULIANI: Admits He Couldn't Keep It Up

The Brody File breaks his 15 minute interview with Rudy Giuliani into seven chunks titled: Giuliani Says No to Federal Marriage Amendment...For Now; Giuliani on School Prayer and Separation of Church and State; Giuliani Responds to Those Who Want to Take Him Down; Giuliani Responds to Catholic Criticism; Giuliani Says No to Priesthood Because "Celibacy Was Something I Wasn't Sure I Could Keep."; Giuliani Won't Say if Roe is Bad Law; and Giuliani on the GOP Platform.

HUCKABEE: Farris' Day Off

Race 4 '08s Kavon Nikrad sat in on a 6/26 blogger conference call with LIFE Outreach International's Dr. James Robison and Patrick Henry College Chan. Michael Farris. Farris told callers that Mike Huckabee "is the most able political communicator he has ever met in his life, which includes over twenty years in Washington D.C."

On immigration, Huckabee assured participants "that he cannot support the bill due to it's failure to address border security and to properly identify the people who have entered the US. He remarked that he still must show his ID when he returns to his own home town and believes that most Americans would love to pay the $2000 fine to the IRS rather than the much greater amount of income tax that they have had to pay in. It simply unfair to give this option to non-citizens."

MCCAIN: Following The Leader

Townhall's Patrick Ruffini explains why John McCain's attempts to tag his opponents as flip-floppers is, and will, not work: "Sure, all of them took McCainiac positions at some point or another. On some issues, they followed and McCain led. But that's the problem isn't it? McCain led. He led on BCRA. He led on CIR. He led the fight against the Bush tax cuts. He led the Republicans for the Kyoto treaty. All of [Mitt] Romney's flip-flops don't change the fact that McCain is responsible for the abomination that is the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. Whenever McCain leads, it's usually in the wrong direction. That's why conservatives don't trust him."

Also trying to explain McCain's inevitable demise, a Rich Lowry reader at The Corner explains why Stu Rothenberg's prescription for McCain to focus on his bio will fail: "[B]iography doesn't work very well once voters are familiar with and have internalized the biography. ... for many of the same reasons that Jonathan Rauch's "14-year-rule" makes sense: the longer a pol is in office, the more his actions in office will cloud out the (often loftier) achievements before he was in office."

PAUL: Some Of Us Have To Waste Our Time Listening To Them

IA Voice congratulates the IAns for Tax Relief for their decision not to invite Ron Paul to their 6/30 debate in Des Moines, IA. IA Voice comments: "Good idea. Just because someone declares themselves a candidate does not mean the rest of us need to waste our time listening to them. Ron Paul has no chance to win; he doesn't even appear to have a chance to frame the debates in any way. He's a non-factor."

Also in anti-Paul blogging, AmSpec Blog's Shawn Macomber hits Paul for supporting NH tax protester Ed Brown. Macomber writes: "Does Paul really wanted to be associated with someone who is currently stockpiling weapons for a confrontation with law enforcement, threatening another Waco should anyone attempt to make him do the time he was tried, convicted and sentenced to serve for tax evasion?"

F. THOMPSON: A Freding Fenzy

RedState's Mark Kilmer and Race 4 '08s Tommy Oliver both post plenty of video from Fred Thompson's visit to the Old Fall School Building in Nashville, TN 6/26. Kilmer reports that Thompson will probably use the building as his HQ should he run, and Oliver adds: "Thompson's homecoming has dominated the Tennessee airwaves for the last day and a half. This state is truly in a frenzy unlike any other. It really is amazing the amount of universal support he is receiving. You'd have to see it to believe it. The newspapers and local news channels have been falling over themselves. ... Even our Democrat governor, Phil Bredeson, has had only nice things to say about Thompson."

F. THOMPSON II: Rebel With A Cause

Power Line's John Hinderaker wasn't done hitting back at the AP for their Thompson lobbying story after just one post. Hinderaker does some digging and discovers that the AP author, Travis Loller, normally covers "Hispanic issues and general assignments" and was once reported my Mother Jones to have an "extensive activist history" including "protests against the Gulf War, the Rodney King verdict and Propositions 187 and 209." Loller always was "deported from Mexico on April 12, 1998 for alleged collusion with the Zapatista rebels (EZLN)."

Hinderaker comments: "As a former radical, I'm not unsympathetic to Ms. Loller's history. For all we know, her politics may be very different today from what they were in 1998. At a minimum, though, it's an interesting background for a reporter for the Associated Press, an organization which is still regarded by many as a neutral and objective wire service.

NRO's Jim Geraghty adds: "Boy, that must just shine on a resume submitted to AP, huh? 'Experience agitating for Mexican Separatists? Why, yes, that's exactly what we're looking for in our Tennessee bureau!'"

IMMIGRATION: It's The Morning Of Just Week 2 ...

Conservatives are seemingly confident that despite their 6/26 defeat, they will manage to find enough votes to defeat 6/28's impending cloture vote. AmSpecBlog's Quin Hillyer names names: " According to Insider(s), Burr, Brownback, Gregg, Nelson of Nebraska, and Webb are VERY good targets for switching against cloture (or perhaps not being there, which amounts to the same thing). Pryor, Bond, and Coleman are other serious possibilities. I am told, too, that Barbara Boxer remains decidedly unhappy with the bill, and is still a definite possibility to switch to the anti-cloture, anti-amnesty side."

RedState's Rob Bluey urges: "Conservatives need to continue educating their senators about the dangers of the bill. 'We need to give it all we've got over the next 48 hours,' one conservative ally told me. 'The second cloture vote will be the most important vote of the year.'"

Michelle Malkin is urging GOPers that have given money to candidates and party committees in the past to call back and demand a refund. The Corner's Mark Krikorian lists the anti-GOP ads conservatives have created attacking pro-compromise Senators including: Muchas Gracias, Senor Graham; The Love Song of Edward M. Kennedy; John McCain - Weak on Immigration; Trent Lott - Bad for America; Trent Lott Sells Out Mississippi to Illegal Aliens; Come Home, Lindsey; Lindsey Graham on South Carolina Bigots; and Lindsey Graham to Taxpayers.

Not all are optimistic, particularly about the future of the GOP. Instapundit heads a post "R.I.P. G.O.P." and blogs: "Out in the car I heard a few minutes of Rush Limbaugh talking about the immigration bill moving forward. I think the Republicans' situation is looking pretty grim, and I wonder, what impels them to make such a self-destructive move? Limbaugh was wondering too." An Instapundit reader later urges primary challenges for compromise supporters, Kausfiles seconds the idea. Riehl World View is just done with the whole party: "Having voted Republican in every election for the past 30 or so years, it is increasingly difficult to comprehend how I am going to be able to pull the lever for a candidate aligned with that party in the future, unless or until they get their act at least halfway together."

The Corner's Kate O'Beirne notes: "A veteran Senate aide reminded me that the essential function/core responsibility of a Senate majority or minority leader is to represent his party on procedural issues. This responsibility doesn't rest with other members of the party's Senate leadership. Speaking for his party on procedural issues defines the job of a Senate leader. A majority of Republican senators voted against cloture and Senator McConnell voted on the other side. Apparently, that's unprecedented."

IRAQ: Another One Bites the Dust

Taking a break from immigration blogging, conservatives are beginning to react to Sen. Richard Lugar's (R-IN) call for a change in Iraq policy. The Corner's Rich Lowry concludes Lugar is "basically saying ... that the war is lost, and all the rest of it - a diplomatic offensive, forging progress on the Arab-Israeli conflict, etc. - is window dressing" and that he'll now do more to impose a timetable.

The Corner, Andy McCarthy responds noting that what Lugar, the great GOP "Foreign Policy Doyen" is saying, is that the US has lost a way against "rag-tag terrorist cells....and, knowing that, he would have us run away anyhow." McCarthy posts later on Lugar that he's "hardly a singular voice here," but from his personal experience jihadists "really do think they can and will win."

Michael Ledeen replies The Corner that he's glad Lowry likes Lugar, but the Senator is a "foreign service officer masquerading as a political leader." Ledeen writes he can't "recall a moment of courage" in the 30 years he's watched Lugar. As Foreign Relations Chair for many years, "What did he accomplish? Nothing." As RightWingNewsJohn Hawkins notes, "Get Ready for Republicans to Start Abandoning The War in Iraq" and adds: " I think the political tide has irrevocably turned against Iraq, even amongst Republicans."

TPM'sJosh Marshall blogs the latest CNN-Opinion Research Corporation poll shows 69 percent believe things are going badly in Iraq and anti-war sentiment among GOPers has suddenly increased. As long as "the vast majority" of GOPers oppose Dem attempts to end the war, "that will keep" Dems "from really going to the mat over it." But "eventually" public opposition "will become so overwhelming that" Dems "may be willing to really force the matter and not worry about lacking any bipartisan cover." Or maybe by Sept '07, enough GOPers will see the numbers to give Dems a veto-proof majority.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Doing The Jobs American Corporations Are Definitely Willing To Do

Wired's Jason Pontin recounts a probably apocryphal story of a programmer who outsourced his own job to India for $12K and then pocketed the difference between that and the $67K his employer paid him, and comments:

It's a case where everyone wins. By subcontracting out the generic parts of his job, the programmer gives himself a promotion. The Indian developer is well paid. The employer gets good code. In the US, the debate about outsourcing often focuses on large companies laying off employees. ... The wisdom of outsourcing applies to businesses great and small. When companies have some of their operations performed elsewhere, they reduce costs and allocate capital and labor instead to those activities that cannot, or should not, be subcontracted. When businesses use capital and labor efficiently, they can better explore expanding markets. And faster growth creates a need for new workers. The result is almost always a net gain in employment.

LEST WE FORGET: Beware The Muslim Werewolves

Cracked.com details the past gaffes of WH '08ers and predicts what Future Faux Pas will doom some candidates, including:

• Hillary Clinton: "Radio interference during a fundraiser speech will definitively reveal what conservatives have long suspected: that Hillary is, in fact, a cold, lifeless robot."
• John Edwards: "In a humiliating, Al Gore-like defeat, Edwards will fail to win the South Carolina primary, despite being born there. Shortly thereafter, he will fail to hit the side of a barn with an underhand softball pitch from a distance of five feet and forget how to tie his shoes."
• Bill Richardson: "While watching Ocean's Thirteen with his wife, Richardson will fail to comprehend that the secretive group led by George Clooney is, in fact, a criminal enterprise, pleading with his wife for days afterwards that, "they seemed so honest." And if that's not humiliating enough, GOP insiders will leak the secret that Richardson looks suspiciously like this guy from Dances With Wolves, but with more neck fat."
• Rudy Giuliani: "Elaborating on his reputation as an excellent judge of character and a realist, Giuliani will claim, in all earnestness, that if a Democrat is elected president, Muslim werewolves will break into your home and peel your nipples right off of your chest like Buddha says in the Koran."
• Fred Thompson: "Loudly inhaling a foam microphone cover as he snores like a Looney Toon on stage at the next debate."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:37 PM

June 26, 2007

6/26: No Amendment Can Assuage Critics Of This Bill

The WH and 'Grand Bargainers' can toughen the Z-visa background checks and require even more pointless 'touchback' provisions but they are not going to cool their burning phone lines one bit. Conservatives could not be more clear: after 20 years of broken promises on border enforcement no legislation from Washington is going to convince them that Americans are going to get the border security they crave. Only future government results can rebuild trust. Captain's Quarters (an original supporter of the bill) puts it best: "Secure the border. Fix the visa program, and the passport system as well. When those tasks have been completed, then we can talk about how best to normalize those remaining in the US and how best to incentivize them to come forward."

CLINTON: It's Almost As If Arianna Doesn't Like Hillary Or Something

The Huffington Post hosted a full round of attacks on Hillary Clinton's 'authenticity' 6/25. Most notably, Robbie Baitz, a dissenter from HRC's 6/23 fundraiser at the Hollywood, CA, home of Roland Emmerich blogs: "I am the man who suggested that the senator's answer to a single question felt -- well, sorry -- a little bit like a set-up. ... The young lady in charge of the mic hissed at me, and a couple I knew accused me of being cynical and naive at the same time. ... Hillary was a pro, cautious, hard core, and clean-edged. At the point where I felt gypped for a moment by her, at the moment when I felt let down (again!), something snapped. And when I bemoaned it, more out of worry -- if you're fake here, where the hell will you be real? -- she bristled at me."

The Huffington Post's Bill Barol later thanked Baitz for calling out HRC's "zombie-like caution and unshakable allegiance to talking points." Barol adds: "A peevish sense of entitlement doesn't look good on a US president, and the reason I know that is that I've been looking at it for the last seven years. Democrats and Republicans, left, right and center, we all deserve better."

Not to be out done on her own site, Arianna Huffington pairs recent coverage of VP Dick Cheney's penchant for secrecy with Carl Bernstein's Clinton bio A Woman in Charge and blogs: "[I]t's pretty safe to say the central question facing Democratic voters in the presidential primaries is: which candidate will be most effective at rolling back the Bush years? ... But when it comes to the issue of secrecy and an administration operating in the shadows, there's an argument to be made that the candidate least likely to turn on the lights is Hillary Clinton. Her lifelong commitment to secrecy is one of the main themes of Bernstein's book."

Finally, Mike Gravel blogs about "Why Hillary Scares Me" including: "Hillary's speech last week to the Take Back America conference gives me yet another reason to be afraid. In an indignant voice she decried the Bush administration's 'stunning record of secrecy and corruption, of cronyism run amok. . . It is everything our founders were afraid of, everything our Constitution was designed to prevent.' Actually, our Constitution grants Congress the power to prevent these ills but Hillary and her colleagues weren't up to the task."

EDWARDS: Is There Such A Thing As A Haircut Card?

MyDD's Jerome Armstrong picks up on "something that's been going around," namely suggestions emanating from the John Edwards campaign that Edwards is more electable than Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Armstrong blogs: "Though it's not a clear-cut case though that Edwards does better nationally than Clinton or Obama, I do think the polls make enough of a case that it's a good strategic move, if only to put the others on the defensive."

Some at MyDD were not eager to engage in an 'electability' debate with Loving J even suggesting such arguments were borderline racist: "The most concerning aspect to this whole debate is the notion that any democrat can win a large number of states in the South. This remains to be seen since to date, democratic presidential candidates have done poorly in the south ... So I am going to stick my neck out on a limb here and suggest that John Edwards may be gearing his campaign up to play a subtle race/gender card strategy. I hope this is not the case but the fact remains that America has never elected a woman or a black man."

More popular among the netroots, Edwards aide Jonathan Prince email attacking the New York Times for their 6/22 coverage of Edwards non-profit orgs were well received. Daily Kos' McSnatherson blogs: "A lot of Edwards backers and observers in the blogosphere - most definitely including myself - have been hoping that the Edwards campaign would hit back against the slanderous smears our corporate media have been pumping out, and I'm more than happy to say that Mr. Prince delivers with gusto." TPM's Greg Sargent adds: "It's unusual, to be sure, for candidates to attack the almighty Paper of Record so directly. Also unusual, [p]ointing to a negative story about yourself in order to raise money."

Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat also tracks recent negative MSM stories on Edwards and concludes: "This reminds me of no one so much as Bill Clinton circa 1992 and during his Presidency. The Washington Establishment never liked the Clintons because, as far as I could see, they were nouveau powerful and, in the minds of the Beltway, tacky. Sort of like they feel about the blogs. ... I tell you what, I think it is becoming pretty clear that the BEST politician in the race appears to be John Edwards."

EDWARDS II: His Better Half

Linking to Elizabeth Edwardsendorsement of gay marriage , DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas sums up the sentiments of many netrooters: "If Elizabeth Edwards was running for president, she'd be my candidate with no reservations. Unfortunately, she's not."

Also impressed with EE, MyDD's Todd Beeton live blogs part of the Edwards' Tonight Show appearance including: "The first part of the interview focuses on Elizabeth and she is really brilliant -- smart, compassionate, funny. ... Jay asked Sen. Edwards about the fact that Elizabeth came out in support of gay marriage, which he disagrees with. He said 'I'm not where Elizabeth is yet' but said he is a strong supporter of gay and lesbian rights."

Earlier 6/25, CaliticsBrian Leubitz posted video from EE's 6/24 meeting with bloggers in San Francisco, CA, and recounts: "She addressed a litany of issues, including her husband's Senate record, the Iraq war, and economic/poverty issues. She had a very long speaking engagement, and she seems to be holding up remarkably well. I'm quite amazed that anybody, let alone a woman battling cancer, has the stamina to keep the kind of schedule that she's keeping."

Also with video and a live account Left in SF: "She also was faced with a series of questions about some passages from political consultant Bob Shrum's book. She endeared herself to the bloggers in the crowd by referring the questioner to YouTube to see her point-by-point refutation of Shrum."

OBAMA: Everyone's A Critic

Plenty of mixed reviews on recent Barack Obama campaigning including his new ads in IA, a speech in New York, and his evolving position on liquified coal:

• MyDD's Jonathan Singer on liking only one of Obama's new IA ads: "[T]he longer biographical spot that deals with Obama's community organizing. I think this ad hits on the right points and is fairly effective. ... Now on to the second ad. ... My issue with the ad ... is that Iowa isn't necessarily the best place to run an ad about bipartisanship, at least when running for support in the caucuses rather than in the general election.
• The Huffington Post's Glynnis Macincol on not liking Obama's 6/22 speech at New York, NY's Hammerstein Ballroom: "However, as his speech progressed it felt more and more as though we were watching him on television; there was simply no gesture on his part that suggested he knew where he was, or to whom he was speaking. ... Talk that Obama is running a traditional campaign, lacking the innovation and substance he has led people to expect, is on the rise and one can only imagine what a little bit of originality on Friday might have led to in terms of coverage.
• The Huffington Post's David Berreby on liking Obama's 6/22 speech at New York, NY's Hammerstein Ballroom: "He doesn't sound like a politician; he sounds like a preacher, with a pastor's way of rising to high rhetoric and then swooping down to take in a heckler's shout, fold it in to his sermon ... A really simple emotion, actually. I was feeling: This guy, the actual person I'm seeing and hearing, the man having this effect on everyone around me -- this is who I want to be President of the United States.
• Matthew Yglesias on rumblings over Obama and coal: "Barack Obama attempts to rise above the trivial matters (i.e., chemistry and economics) that divide supporters and opponents of liquid coal technology and makes everyone unhappy with a nonsensical compromise position. ... I think Obama had an opportunity here to just tell the truth ... and now he's flip-flopping to the correct position because as president you need to respond to matters of pressing national and global importance."

OBAMA II: We're All Conspiracy Theorists Now

Connecting ongoing coverage of both Pres. Bush's Prosecutor Purge and the federal indictment Antoin Rezko, The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum urges journalists to ask if political harm to Obama could be behind the investigation: "[D]espite all the evidence that the Department of Justice has become little more than a political instrument of the White House, we've heard almost no questions about whether Rezko's indictment is legitimate or simply puffed up. ... [U]ntil recently, faith in the basic integrity of our justice system has run so deep that it's been hard for most journalists to shake it. But shake it they should. Given what we've learned over the past several months, it's no longer conspiratorial to wonder whether political scheming could have contaminated the DOJ. It's an established fact."

OBAMA III: Extremism In Defense Of Price Gouging

Progressive States Network ED Joel Barkin is asking Obama to reject The American Legislative Exchange Council's (ALEC) invitation top speak at their summer conference. Barkin explains: "I look forward to Sen. Obama rejecting the invitation, rather than lending any more legitimacy to ALEC's extremist agenda. After all, Obama has spent his career working against many of the policies ALEC pushes."

David Sirota claims ALEC is using Obama's notoriety "to build an audience for its conference" and urges Obama to use this "PR gift given to him by the Right" by demanding "his photo be removed from ALEC's website and marketing materials." Sirota also details the agenda of this "extremist group" including: "This is a group that takes truck loads of cash from ExxonMobil to rail against proposals to stop oil industry price gouging and start regulating greenhouse gas emissions."

MCCAIN: September Is A Popular Month For Big Decisions

Conservative bloggers may have questioned the fall date of a London Timesprediction that John McCain may drop out by 9/07, but few questioned the inevitability of his campaigns demise. Posts include:

• RCP Blog's Blake Dvorak: "When you're a candidate of McCain's stature, you don't drop-out before the first vote is cast. Money might certainly be a problem for McCain going into the fall, but he'll have enough to last the first round of primaries.
• Townhall's Patrick Ruffini: "Don't count me in the McCain Death Watch camp just yet. ... The true moment of decision for McCain won't come until September, when net cashflow starts turning red. ... If things got really dire, McCain would have the option to self-fund or loan himself some of his wife's eight figure fortune, like Kerry mortgaged Teresa's house to rescue his failing campaign in late 2003.
• The Corner's Rich Lowry: "I'm not sure what McCain has to do to revive his campaign (avoiding driving it into a ditch on immigration would have seemed the obvious thing to do). But I do know that whatever it is will have nothing to do with 2000, but with the here and now in 2008."
• Captain's Quarters: "I don't think McCain will get the nod, but he's not finished yet. McCain has weathered tougher situations than a mid-campaign slump. Anyone expecting him to quit while polling 11% nationwide in June is indulging in earlyitis."
• IA Voice: "He could very well hang in until the convention, just to prove everyone wrong. But facts are facts: with his poll numbers tanking the way they are (driven by his boneheaded amnesty bill that he's pushing), he really can't survive much longer. I'm actually surprised he's managed to stay in the race as long as he has."

The Daily Chaser has two videos up from McCain's recent Columbia, SC press conference including one featuring a person greeting him with a McCain mask "surrounded by a giant cardboard box with words 'S.S. Titanic' scrolled across one of its sides." The other video features McCain telling a reporter people saying he will drop out 9/07 must be "smoking something stronger than is legal here in the state of South Carolina."

MCCAIN II: At Least He's More Popular Than Lindsey Graham

Conservatives were not happy with McCain's response to 6/25's SCOTUS decision striking down elements of the McCain-Feingold campaign speech law. Reactions include:

• Townhall's Jonathan Garthwaite: "I'm sure the [Mitt] Romney folks smiled every time they typed "'McCain'-Feingold" in the following press release. Always helps when the U.S. Supreme Court repudiates a bill with your opponents name on it."
• Ankle Biting Pundit's Bull Dog Pundit: "What the hell are you and your colleagues so afraid of anyway? Corruption? Well, you were one of the Keating 5?, weren't you?
• AmSpecBlog's Philip Klein: "Again, a problem for McCain that his reaction to the decision is the exact opposite from the reaction of most conservatives."

Finally, 1426 Right Wing News readers fingered Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) as their least favorite GOP Senator. McCain came in third.

F. THOMPSON: Kicking 'Em While He's Down

NY Sun's Ryan Sager notes that Fred Thompson is running Google ads "next to stories about John McCain's tanked poll numbers" and Power Line's John Hinderaker hits back against an AParticle on Thompson's lobbying on behalf of "billion-dollar corporations." Hinderaker writes: "[I]t's easy to make a lobbyist look bad by associating him with his clients' causes. That said, the ammunition against Thompson is pretty thin. ... Most of his lobbying activity fell between 1975 and 1993, when, according to the AP, "lobbying clients paid him about half a million dollars." That works out to a gross of less than $30,000 a year--small potatoes, although it may not seem so to the average voter."

IMMIGRATION: The Party Of Lincoln ... Chafee

Going into the 11:50 AM scheduled vote, the vote counter's at The Corner pegged 'no' on cloture votes at "around 35." The Corner's Jim Geraghty reports on how the job is getting done: "Someone following the immigration issue closely says White House representatives have been up on Capitol Hill in force today, trying to arm-twist as many "no" votes as possible. ... For wavering senators, it's the phone lines ringing off the hook vs. the administration men sitting in their office lobbies."

The National Review have targeted seven Senators who have voiced opposition to the bill in the past, but have also shown signs they intend to vote yes on cloture: Sens. Kit Bond (R-MO), Sam Brownback (R-KS), Richard Burr (R-NC), Thad Cochran (R-MS), Norm Coleman (R-MN), John Ensign (R-NV), and Jim Webb (D-VA). Conservatives areurging compromise opponents not to believe WH and leadership assurances that their amendments will be addressed, and claim the only way to stop the bill is to kill it whenever possible.

The Corner's Jim Geraghty warns: "You know what the immigration bill reminds me of? It reminds me of Lincoln Chafee trying to have it both ways by allowing Roberts and Alito to get to the floor, but then voting against them. Chafee was expecting pro choice support in his bid for reelection, but voters saw through his little charade. If Republicans think they can let the bill come up for a vote, but then hide behind a no vote later, they're in for some trouble."

Right Wing News posts the latest anti-Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) video and Kausfiles rounds up his favorite "Shrumesqueattackads " designed to show GOP Sens. what awaits them at home.

IMMIGRATION II: Against American Dubai-ifacation

Daily Kos' Trapper John makes the progressive case against the immigration bill including:

[T]he fact that Tancredo and the Minutemen oppose this bill doesn't make it something worth supporting. It's not. And when you look at it closely, it's a bill that progressives ought to vigorously oppose. In fact, this immigration bill is an historically bad bill, one that will undermine wage markets and which will permanently cripple skills training in vital sectors of the economy. ... No, the fatal flaw in this bill isn't "amnesty" -- it's the euphemistically termed "temporary worker program."

And one day, we'll wake up and there won't be but a handful of skilled American tradespeople in the US -- because the wage markets will have been deliberately eroded to the point where those positions are filled almost entirely by 21st Century indentured servants. ... America will have become like Dubai -- a nation crowded with gleaming skyscrapers built and maintained by exploited foreigners living in labor camps. ... This is not a progressive bill. And if we can't get a progressive bill now, it would be better to wait till January 2009 to try again than to pass a bad bill now.

BLOGGERS VS. MSM: First They Came For Fox...

Led by Media Matters, the netroots are rallying to pressure PBS into dumping Frank Luntz as a post-6/28 debate analysis. David Brock writes: "With his well-documented Republican ties and history of being criticized and reprimanded by his peers, it's clear that Frank Luntz cannot be trusted to provide objective analysis of Thursday's forum. ... Today, I'm asking you to contact PBS and let the organization know that it should reconsider its decision to use Luntz in light of his partisan Republican ties and history of questionable scientific methodology."

Daily Kos' Kagro X ads: "PBS proposes to bring the FOX modus operandi to public television. How stupid (or evil, if you believe CPB's Republican-heavy Board of Directors is behind it) is it to have the debate performances of both Democrats and Republicans reviewed by Giuliani's pollster, for crying out loud? No, this just has bulls**t written all over it.

BLOGGERS VS. MSM II: The First Step Is Admitting You Have A Problem

Conservatives are no fan Howard Kurtzsuggestions that media companies ban their journalists from giving to political parties in light if a MSNBC story showing 125 of 144 MSM donations went to Dems. Reactions include:

• Instapundit: "But isn't banning those donations just covering up the problem? It's really a failure of diversity."
• Captain's Quarters: "Contrary to media management's belief, political contributions do not create political bias. Donations reveal political bias, as Kurtz himself notes. ... Rather than argue for openness, Kurtz and the industry argues for maintaining a secrecy that seems both hypocritical and a denial in and of itself, the same condition that Kurtz accuses journalists of having."
• The Corner's Jonah Goldberg: "This is a "scandal" because journalists revealed a symptom. But nobody is talking about the underlying malady. Sure, you can ban drinking on the job, but that's not the same thing as banning drinkers or alcoholics from coming into work. ... most drinkers aren't lushes (and many lushes aren't obvious about it) and banning campaign donations from journalists won't change coverage one iota, it'll just take away one small source of corroborating evidence for liberal media bias away. Unfortunately, there's so much more evidence out there."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Evangelists Wanted

Responding to Kathleen Parkersuggestions that WH '08er skip the "coolness" of the web and instead focus on "everyday people," Townhall's Patrick Ruffini responds:

[C]ampaigns have thoroughly bought into Keller & Barry's Influentials thesis. Meaning that more and more of campaign communications are about developing an intense connection with the 1-in-10 who really care rather than a passing connection with those who couldn't care less. I would argue that there is now almost complete overlap between online citizens and the 1-in-10. In a primary, this matters even more because the "don't care" voters probably won't be voting at all. Right now, it's more important for Rudy Giuliani or Barack Obama to tap into an energized base of evangelists than it is to be broadly acceptable to a wide audience who may get yanked away by the media tide tomorrow. The debates were watched by 2 million people apiece, and there's a legitimate argument to be made that they moved the 30-40 million universe being polled.

LEST WE FORGET: More Erin Andrews Please

Wrigleyville23 "very much likes" the Make-A-Wish Foundation and SportsCenter, he just wishes Bristol had the common sense to keep the two separate:

The problem is this: I tune in to SportsCenter for two reasons only: 1. highlights and 2. the off chance that Erin Andrews is on (College World Series!). I do not tune in to SportsCenter to see sick kids. If I wanted to see sick kids, I'd watch that Extreme Home Makeover show (another Disney property) or the National Georgraphic channel. Or the Sick Kids Channel (in the 300s somewhere). So, ESPN, my wish is this: Show more Erin Andrews and fewer sick kids. Please.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 01:13 PM

June 25, 2007

6/25: Anonymous Attack Accountability

The Blogometer always sympathizes with blogger bemoaning of MSM attacks on anonymity in the blogosphere. Bloggers rightly point out that pseudonymous posters are just as accountable, if not more so, for their postings as journalists are for their copy and unlike professionals, bloggers rarely use anonymous sources. That said, nature of the web does make it easy for people to attack candidates in ways their rivals never would. Already we have seen a Barack Obama supporter anonymously attack Hillary Clinton via YouTube and now a HRC supporter is gaining notoriety for returning the favor in blog form. While both Clinton and Obama seem content to allow these attacks to go forward without an effort to put a stop to them, it would be hard for each campaign to control the creative efforts of all their online supporters. However, unless government regulation is to be the answer, candidates must assume some responsibility/control for the more notorious unauthorized efforts. Otherwise we should expect a flurry of web based Swiftboat style attacks as consequential primaries draw close.

DEM FIELD: Over Before The Super Bowl?

Tabulating recent polling from key early primary states, MyDD's Chris Bowers concludes: "It's all about Iowa. If [Hillary] Clinton were to win Iowa, she will probably run the table. She probably would even be OK if she finishes in second in Iowa, as long as [Barack] Obama isn't the winner. ... [Bill] Richardson's continued rise, as he now surpasses the 5% threshold even in Florida, is also interesting."

CLINTON: Tangled Webs Wove

The netroots are beginning to pick up on others' complaints about anti-Barack Obama site HillaryIs44.org. MyDD's Stephen Cassidy links to Prof. Bainbridge's questioning of the site's possible link to the Hillary Clinton campaign and adds:

As I noted, on www.Hillaryis44.org there is a denial of any nexus with campaign. Yet, in web terms a link exists. If you click on the contributions link on www.Hillaryis44.org, you are sent to HRC's campaign website. This may be a specifically designated campaign contributions page to track donations from www.Hillaryis44.org as the URL varies slightly from the main contributions page on HRC's website. ... Also relevant, the site is content rich and updated regularly. It does not appear the work of one person, but a team. I doubt these people are working for free. Someone or organization is paying for the operation of the site.

DODD: With Liberty And Mandatory Service For All

Positive reactions to Chris Dodd's 6/23 National Service Plan speech include:

• BuckeyeStateBlog: "Installing a Democratic president will help us gain the cooperation of the international community once again - but it's not the end all be all. ... That's one of the reasons I like what I'm hearing out of Dodd with this national service plan, not only is it the right thing to do, but it's also the smart thing to do in terms of American self interest in the long run."
• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "The cause of national service is one that interests me, particularly as someone who is patriotic but who believes that patriotism need not only be expressed through military service (of course not denigrating military service). As such, I am pleased to see that Chris Dodd is making a similar call during this year's Democratic primaries. ... The AP also notes that both John Edwards and Barack Obama have promoted or proposed service plans of their own, but from my understanding the Dodd plan appears to be more universal in its nature than any of the two other plans -- and more like the [Wes] Clark plan from '04."
• Blue Hampshire's Mike Caufield: "Yesterday I watched as Chris Dodd announced a bold, practical public service initiative from the steps of Nashua's City Hall. ... Yesterday, talking about his public service initiative he proposed many ideas in his refreshing no-nonsense manner. But the one that stood out was mandatory community service for graduation from high school. ... Hard medicine for some, to be sure. But good policy."

EDWARDS: Most Effective Anti-Poverty Center Ever

Netroots push back against the New York Times 6/24 article on John Edwards use of his anti-poverty nonprofit organization as a vehicle to keep him in the news to further his presidential ambitions, has failed to coalesce into a coherent attack. For some, the Times failed to "prove" the piece's "central assertion." For others, the article presents nothing "an even mildly cynical political sophisticate" didn't already know. Leading reactions include:

• TPM's Greg Sargent: "The Times' piece didn't prove its central assertion against Edwards in any way, shape or form. In endeavoring to support its central reported assertion, the case it built against Edwards relied largely, if not entirely, on circumstantial evidence."
• Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat: "In short, the lede of a NEWS article is an OPINION. Simply egregious journalism. The Times can not defend that lede. Apparently it has chosen to ignore the problem."
• TAPPED's Ezra Klein: "[S]houldn't the question of ends enter in here? ...Given that the sum of money we're talking about is $1.3 million, how has this not been an extraordinarily effective anti-poverty center? Granted, among its methods were to enable a national politician to continually raise the issue's profile through his personal advocacy, but isn't that what folks donating to a John Edwards poverty center were expecting? ... If you care about poverty, this seems like $1.3 million well spent."
• Daily Kos' MissLaura: "As long as the Times refuses to even look into the possibility that this was "an extraordinarily effective anti-poverty center," they are not doing responsible journalism."
• Daily Kos' TomP: "Last Friday's New York Times front page hit piece was just the latest in the MSM's attempt to misdirect people from the real issues. ... Just as Franklin Delano Roosevelt was attacked as a traitor to his class, the MSM will attack John Edwards as a hypocrite, a phony, because he does not fit the conventional wisdom."
• AMERICAblog's Chris in Paris: "How dare John Edwards create an organization to fight poverty in a time of war. Instead of setting up an organization to combat poverty in America, he should have been using the state of Massachusetts to fund his trips all over the US to build his political network at great taxpayer expense. ... This attack on Edwards is a yawner."
• Matthew Yglesias: "In particular, there's nothing at all here that's scandalous if you're an even mildly cynical political sophisticate, since it was always clear if you were paying attention that Edwards' outfit existed, in part, to test the viability of a 2008 presidential bid."

Some otherwise sympathetic Edwards supporters, however, see Edwards reaction to the article as more evidence Edwards is not ready for prime time. Firedoglake's Pachacutec blogs: "Okay. Let's cut the bulls**t. Your anti-poverty agenda is heartfelt and really meaningful for what ails America. Your willingness to call bulls**t on the "war on terror" is genuinely courageous. But you're too gentle, so far, to be trusted. It's time to get your hair mussed. ... The questions for you, if you really want to pay the price to make the changes you say you want to make, are: can you "hit" a woman? Can you beat up, politically, on a black man and not feel guilty about it? If not, please, stop wasting people's time and money."

EDWARDS II: So Close, Yet So Far

Elizabeth Edwards is again proving top be the more popular Edwards in netroots circles after telling the San Francisco Chronicle, "I don't know why somebody else's marriage has anything to do with me, I'm completely comfortable with gay marriage." AMERICAblog's John Aravosis blogs: "Wow. ... Pillow talk matters. I want my civil rights, I don't want to be on the receiving end of constant triangulation. Mrs. Edwards will be a force for good, at least as it concerns the civil and human rights of gay and lesbian Americans."

Talk Left's Jeralyn Merritt was less impressed with EE's explanation ("He has a deeply held belief against any form of discrimination, but that's up against his being raised in the 1950s in a rural southern town") for why JE does not support gay marriage: "I don't like that excuse. He seems to have broken the chains of the rest of his southern taboos, why not this one?"

OBAMA: Let Obama Swim

After noting "the last few weeks haven't been good for the [Barack] Obama campaign," The Political Brain author Dr. Drew Westen blogs advice for Obama at The Huffington Post: "On the stump, Obama can be electrifying. ... But if you have electricity, the last thing you want to do is pull the circuit breaker and start explaining the fine points of transistors, electrons, and electrical engineering. Yet that's exactly what Obama has done in his recent debate performances. ... Obama would do a lot better to take a leaf out of [Ronald] Reagan's book than to retrace the journey of the long list of Democrats who have drowned on the dispassionate river: Let Obama be Obama."

Reports from recent "electrifying" Obama stumps on faith, immigration, and ethics include:

• Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat: "Senator Barack Obama gave another speech on faith and politics. I like this one ... This is the way to discuss the way the Right has exploited religion in politics. ... Obama has learned some lessons it seems. This is a very good sign. Obama becomes much more viable in my mind with this change in political tone."
• The Brody File: "To me though, the criticism of the religious right was a small part of the speech. I saw it more as an uplifting speech that can bring people of faith together. For example, Obama talked about how God should not be removed from the public square."
• On Obama telling a United Church of Christ crowd that "his is a nation of laws and we cannot have those laws broken when more than two thousand people cross our borders illegally every day" MyDD's Melissa Ryan blogs : "At that point Obama lost the crowd. The fevered ovations turned into muted polite applause. While he did get back some of the enthusiasm towards the end of his speech the Senator never managed to regain the fevered excitement and momentum he had built with the attendees. ... Democrats need to redefine immigration as an issue. Candidates have to focus more how reform affects families and communities. It's also essential to divorce it from national security. Yes, securing our borders is important. But what about the estimated 12 million people already living here?"
• Jack And Jill Politics' Jill Tubman on Obama's new ethics plan: "Ok, I'm Getting Legitimately Excited About Obama ... This is unequivocally hot. I'm always excited by people who change the game. Obama here is attacking some of the underlying threats on our system of democracy. He's vowing to change those practices which corrupt our political system."

OBAMA II: Smells Like Teen Spirit

Responding to Jerome Armstrongconcerns that Obama supporters were not "part of the movement" and that therefore Obama was not "a movement candidate," MyDD's Jennifer Fernandez Ancona writes: "A movement candidate in 2008 is one who is both saying the status quo isn't going to happen anymore, and has the largest number of people involved. Right now, it's Barack Obama. ... And you want to know what's politically and strategically significant, for those of us who care about long-term movement-building, about the people who are drawn to Obama? ... They are young: The Millennial Generation is as big as the Baby Boomers. They are decidedly more progressive than older generations, and the most diverse. They are the future of this movement."

Also at MyDD, Mike Connery worries what will happen to those young Obama supporters should Hillary Clinton capture the nomination: "Right now, the youth vote is with Obama. He's riding the youth wave, and that manifests itself in a number of ways ... So what happens if Obama doesn't get the nomination? Will that generate another negative youth vote narrative in the media? Have we made enough progress among the political class to avoid blowback in terms of the attention that campaigns pay to our generation? I'm not sure."

F. THOMPSON: Five Out Of Five Girlfriends Can't Be Wrong

A London Timesstory on strong Fred Thompson support among women he used to date drew mostly positive attention. RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh blogs: "There isn't a dollar amount you can put on that kind of publicity. And to be perfectly honest, if I were running the Thompson campaign, I would get the ladies mentioned in this story to do a commercial together for Thompson."

Power Line's John Hinderaker admits he finds "the whole Fred Thompson boom rather annoying" but links to the item and allows: "I still have reservations about Thompson's lighting out for Hollywood rather than serving his country in a time of war and crisis, but it doesn't appear that skeletons in the closet need be one of them."

Reacting to Hinderaker, fellow Power LinerScott Johnson blogs: "Like the strengths of the top three candidates, Thompson's strengths are self-evident. ... What about his weaknesses? In my view, his foremost weakness is his likely lack of appeal to independents in states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota. Anticipating Thompson's announcement in the next week or two, I wonder which of the top four candidates would run strongest against a Clinton/Obama ticket. It is not evident to me which Republican candidate is the one, but it is not evident to me either that it is not Thompson."

IMMIGRATION: Titanic Tuesday

Conservatives firmly believe the first Senate cloture vote scheduled for 6/25 is the only vote that matters in stopping the immigration compromise. Right Wing News details the stakes: "This is not a vote on one amnesty, folks; it is a vote on whether we're going to have a string of amnesties, whether we're going to secure the borders or not, and whether your children's futures are going to be thrown away to line the pockets of corrupt businessmen and pad the vote totals of the Democratic Party."

The Corner's Mark Krikorian seems to have assumed the role of anti-compromise whip and has identified the 32 "pretty solid No votes for cloture" as well as the 12 Senators "leaning against the bill itself but so far are leaning toward the cloture motion - which means, in reality, that they would be helping pass the amnesty." The dirty dozen include: Sens. Kit Bond (R-MO), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Richard Burr (R-NC), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Thad Cochran (R-MS), Kent Conrad (D-ND), John Ensign (R-NV), Carl Levin (D-MI), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), and Jim Webb (D-VA).

Kausfiles notes that past compromise supporter Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) does not support the current bill and will probably be away campaigning 6/25 (thus effectively voting 'no' on cloture). Krikorian later notes that Sen. Thomas Barrasso (R-WY) has also committed to vote no.

At Hot Air, Allahpundit gleefully links to Sen. Lindsey Graham's (R-SC) tanking approval numbers and renews his call to defeat the compromise leader: "We can do this, people. We can make it happen. We'll dial up Kos, get him to guarantee a Blue Dog challenger (the only kind who'll stand a chance in Carolina anyway) and for once the netroots shall be united. Exit question: Dare we deal with the devil?"

Finally, Kausfiles fact checks Tim Russert's faulty understanding of what the bill actually would do, and mocks Fox News for holding "another no-holds-barred discussion between a supporter of comprehensive immigration reform (Feinstein) and ... a supporter of comprehensive immigration reform (Lott)!"

LANDSCAPE: Distraction Or Opportunity?

John Judis and Ruy Teixeira write about '06 in the recentAmerican Prospect : "[T]his election signals the end of a fleeting Republican revival, prompted by the Bush administration's response to the September 11 terrorist attacks, and the return to political and demographic trends that were leading to a Democratic and center-left majority in the United States."

Democratic StrategistEd Kilgore responds in part: "It's become commonplace for Democrats and others to observe that 9/11 (and later, the runup to the Iraq War) made national security a suddenly preeminent public concern, to the benefit of Bush and the GOP. But Judis and Teixeira go further, suggesting a psychological process they call "de-arrangement" ... some readers of this article may well conclude that Judis and Teixeira are too quick to dismiss the post-9/11 national security climate as ephemeral, and insufficiently attentive to the counter-measures power-hungry Republicans might take to expand their own ideology-bound base into a coalition of their own."

Daily Kos' mcjoan links to Kilgore and adds: "I share that concern, but with a different angle--should the Democrats be able to find a way to take decisive action in getting us out of Iraq and refocus security efforts on actually effectively combatting terrorism, we might see the kind of realignment in American politics that the New Deal brought. But there's also the real danger that incrementalism and inability to act decisively in Iraq could lose the gains we made both with Independent and younger voters who are not necessarily habitual voters."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Two Internets

MyDD's Mike Connery points us to Danah Boyd observations on demographic trends at popular social networking sites:

The goodie two shoes, jocks, athletes, or other "good" kids are now going to Facebook. These kids tend to come from families who emphasize education and going to college. They are part of what we'd call hegemonic society. They are primarily white, but not exclusively. They are in honors classes, looking forward to the prom, and live in a world dictated by after school activities.

MySpace is still home for Latino/Hispanic teens, immigrant teens, "burnouts," "alternative kids," punks, emos, goths, gangstas, queer kids, and other kids who didn't play into the dominant high school popularity paradigm. These are kids whose parents didn't go to college, who are expected to get a job when they finish high school. Teens who are really into music or in a band are on MySpace. MySpace has most of the kids who are socially ostracized at school because they are geeks, freaks, or queers.

LEST WE FORGET: Trent And Rosie Sitting In A Tree...

Reacting to Sen. Min. Whip Trent Lott's (R-MS) assertion that "If the answer is 'build a fence' I've got two goats on my place in Mississippi. There ain't no fence big enough, high enough, strong enough, that you can keep those goats in that fence" a Jim Geraghty reader responds:

Right, senator. Fences don't work. That's why no ranches use barbed wire, why no prisons are surrounded by high walls, why pricey residential communities never have security gates, and why there aren't traffic barricades to protect government buildings from car and truck bombs. Because fences don't work. Goats can find a way around them. ... Trent Lott is to fences what Rosie O'Donnell is to metallurgy.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:53 PM

June 22, 2007

6/22: Keeping 'Em Honest

Conservative bloggers' efforts against the Senate immigration bill reach a critical point with the upcoming cloture vote. The leading righty voices have fully mobilized and seem to have (with the helps of Lou Dobbs and company) put the focus not just on the bill itself, but on a cloture motion to allow that vote to happen in the first place. While the bill's leading supporters bemoan the influence of talk radio (it's "running America," apparently), we'll see soon enough how successful the blogs are.

IMMIGRATION: Down The Stretch They Come

John Hawkins talks to a Capitol Hill source who "thought the amnesty proponents definitely had the upper hand last week, but now, he thinks the momentum may be swinging back the other way." Sens. Trent Lott (R-MS) and Lindsay Graham (R-SC) "were cocky and thought they'd get this bill through with 70 votes, no problem. But now, because of the blogs and talk radio, they've lost the public debate on the issue and they know it. So, at this point, they're way out on a limb supporting a wildly unpopular bill that may or may not pass, and they're lashing out in frustration. ... A lot of Republican Senators have been offended and embarrassed by their comments and are worried that the voters will lump them in with Graham and Lott."

The editors of Red State call Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) the "keystone" on the bill. "Without him, support for the bill collapses. With him, there are enough votes of both sides of the aisle to pass it." They say his support has allowed other conservative sens to hide in his "shadow hoping sunlight won't shine on their intentions. With Senator Kyl out of the way, these senators would vote against the bill." Earlier, some had debated Kyl's role. Bluey said it was "Kyl's choice to negotiate with Sen. Teddy Kennedy (D.-Mass.) and a pro-amnesty president. No one made him sit at the table. ... I see no reason to defend him."

Michelle Malkin redflags this quote from DHS Sec Michael Chertoff: "I lived for a long time in an environment where I was prosecuting people, organized crime. So these are people who are bad people who will do pretty much whatever they can to stay out of jail. So I figure if I survived that, you know, I'm not going to worry about people calling me names." Meanwhile, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) gets on her good side.

CHENEY: Checks, Balances, And Cheney

Rep. Henry Waxman's (D-CA) oversight cmte released details about Cheney's claims to be his own branch of government. Liberal bloggers are obviously shocked. But we start with Andrew Sullivan: "The idea of impeaching him really doesn't seem so outrageous as the months go by, does it?"

Several make the point SilentPatriot does: "There may be a bright side to this: If Cheney wants to assert that his office is not an 'entity within the executive branch,' that means he's not entitled to executive privilege, right? I want those energy task force minutes!!"

John Aravosis notes that '03 was when Cheney stopped complying, and: "It's also the same year that Scooter made his famous leak."

EDWARDS: Laugh It Off

Greg Sargent spotted Elizabeth Edwards' response to daughter Emma Claire allegedly "endorsing" Hillary, which was bandied about by Drudge. On, Sparrowblog, someone purporting to be E. Edwards wrote: "It was Emma Claire, who pointed to a Hillary pin slyly and then, smiling pointed to her father. A nine-year sense of humor -- you would have thought Matt Drudge would have been able to pick up on that.."

Byron York notes the New York Times story about Edwards using his Poverty Center as a means to finance pre-campaign travel. "In his financial disclosure reports, Edwards has reported personal assets of about $30 million." Sista Toldjah: "Just more proof that John Edwards is a self-serving creep."

Captain Ed: "First, it seems significant that the New York Times broke this story. Given their proximity to Hillary Clinton, one cannot help but wonder about the provenance for this article. Regardless, it's a good piece of reporting by Leslie Wayne. Edwards used the poor as a Trojan horse to rake in an untold amount of money away from the prying eyes of the FEC. Instead of spening it on those he champions from the stump, he spent it on foreign-policy retreats. That has the obvious intention of bolstering his gravitas for another presidential run -- and doing so in a sneaky, underhanded manner."

At Huffington Post, Susan Madrak counters: "As anyone who's ever paid a lick of attention knows, John Edwards cares about poverty. ... Nothing he did was illegal. ... Did you know the nefarious John Edwards also hired on members of his old campaign staff to work at his organization? Oh, the horror! Here's a hint, New York Times -- campaign workers are, you know, campaign workers. Whether it's a political campaign or an issue campaign, it's pretty much the same. How very Machiavellian of Edwards to hire people he already knew, people with whose skills he was already familiar."

As Edwards struggles to put on a good showing in the 2ndQ, Dean Barrett imagines what John Edwards must be thinking. "In spite of my natural gifts, there's no denying the campaign is stuck in the mud. The situation in Iowa is static, even though I've poured everything I have into it. And now the other two are going to have so much money, they're going to be able to overwhelm me in the final months there. How did things ever get to be like this? It is my destiny to rule! "

DEM FIELD: Iowa Or Bust?

Jerome Armstrong is the latest to seek clues on the Dem nomination based on early polling. "I don't see any indications that Clinton is going to fade in the polls come the fall of '07. But taking the current DNC dates at face value, here's how Clinton doesn't win: she has to lose Iowa. If Edwards wins IA, then he's in an excellent position to take NV on the strength of Labor, and ride the momentum to the nomination. If Obama wins IA, then I expect that we will have a mega-battle on our hands, with Clinton making 'a comeback' in NV and NH, and the contest going on for months. It's a strange catch 22 for progressive that want to see either Edwards or Obama defeat Clinton. One or the other probably has to get out, for the defeat of Clinton by progressives to have a chance."

Human Events' Right Angle plays on Hillary Clinton's "Outsourced" campaign song and gives us 10 other options for some of the other candidates, and other Dems. For John Edwards: "If I Had $1000000" by the Barenaked Ladies. "If he had a million dollars Senator Edwards could afford a month's mortgage, a few hair cuts and possibly still have a few dollars left over to start building the bridge between the two America's that he and his limousine liberal friends so passionately lecture the rest of us on."

NADER: Oh, Him Again

Let's just say Ralph Nader's re-emergence doesn't rival the boffo coverage of Michael Bloomberg's party switch. James Joyner: "He'd rather be talked about than advance his other agendas... There's no doubt that, with the race starting this early, there's plenty of time for niche candidates to emerge to exploit voter dissatisfaction with the major party nominees. Funding and ballot access are the keys there. Bloomberg has the advantage simply because of money an the UnityO8 "party" seems to be getting organized; conceivably, the two could marry up."

At the Corner, Stanley Kurtz: "Let's see, we've got Ralph Nader considering a run on the left against Hillary. Bloomberg's in the middle. Now all we need is for some social conservative to run against Rudy on the right and that makes five. Should be interesting debates."

BLOOMBERG: Where's The There?

There may be a growing consensus that Michael Bloomberg hurts Dems in a three way general election. But just how much? Bloggers seem to have moved on to questioning his viability. Philip Klein at AmSpec Blog: "When Ross Perot ran in 1992, following the end of the Cold War and the U.S. triumph in the Persian Gulf, Americans were not concerned with outside threats, but with deficits and a mild recession. Perot was able to do well in that environment, but he still didn't get one electoral vote. Now, with the primary concerns of the electorate overseas, and the economy doing well, it's hard to see what demand there would be for a billionaire businessman."

RCP's John McIntyre agrees with a reader, who said: "Bloomberg's viability only arises from (1) a polarizing, social conservative GOP nominee; or (2) both parties' nominations of candidates with no executive experience." Bevan: "It is hard to imagine how a serious Bloomberg run, with Giuliani as the Republican nominee, would do anything except deliver the White House to the GOP."

Greg Sargent points to a UN Speech by Bloomberg "tacitly" endorsing the war in Iraq.

Paul Starr takes the specualtion further and says Bloomberg, if he ran as VP with Obama, "would have a genuine chance of ending up in the center of power. ... Bloomberg has not one but two ways to alter the outcome of the 2008 election. He can help keep the Republicans in power by running as an independent, or he can help put the Democrats in power by taking the second spot on the Democratic ticket." But fellow Tapped blogger Ezra Klein thinks ex-VA Gov. Mark Warner (D) makes a more attractive VP pick for Obama because he may bring more regional support.

IRAQ: Another Dem Target?

BigTentDemocrat isn't happy with Senate Armed Service Cmte chair Carl Levin, who he thinks "miseleadingly" invoked Abraham Lincoln. Levin wrote that Lincoln was an "ardent opponent of the Mexican War" but voted to support troops "without hesitation." BTD: "This is incredibly disingenuous of Levin. He is misleadingly quoting a letter Lincoln wrote in 1858 while under political attack in a Senate race and trying to compare that with what he is saying and doing now. There are no pretty words to describe what Levin has done here -- he has disingenuously and cravenly used Abraham Lincoln to defend his actions. Levin should defend his actions with his own honest arguments, not by the misleading tactics of the Right. He should be heartily ashamed."

BLOGGERS VS. THE MACHINE: I Want My EIB

Following up on a study of "balance" in liberal vs. conservative talk radio, Ankle Biting Pundits writes: "Conservative talk radio is popular because the majority of the hosts are good at what they do, and are articulate in what they say. Liberal talk radio is so far to the left it's only going to appeal to the same kind of people that run and read sites like Think Progress and democraticunderground, the same folks who so consistenly focused on the bad and negative in America, and who are so intolerant of more conservative views they turn off the political middle. ... If liberals, who already control much of the MSM and get carte blanche with their views daily, could put forth a talk show host that wasn't a charter member of MoveOn who could appeal to a broad base of folks this wouldn't be an issue. But they have yet to try that.

B.T. notes a supposed effort to regulate talk radio to force more balance: "Conservatives have been complaining about a liberal bias at those news outlets and CNN for years, but we're not running campaigns to silence those outlets. And all we've gotten is attacked by those outlets for daring to suggest they keep things fair."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Free Speech?

Yesterday we noted some of the feedback to the MSNBC story about donations from Republicans. Ed Morrissey provides a counterargument that journalists should be free to donate. "The reaction of these media outlets tends towards cover-up rather than openness. In that sense, they take a page from modern campaign-finance reform by trying to solve a problem through top-down suppression of political action rather than just opting for full disclosure. As my friend Paul Mirengoff notes, demanding an end to political donations does nothing to establish balance or objectivity; it just hides the evidence of bias a little more effectively. It hides information from the news consumers that could give them a more informed basis on which to judge the product.

"And there's an even more fundamental problem with this approach. Why should journalists have to trade away their rights to political expression in order to work in the media? They are Americans, after all. Again, in this instance, it's exactly like the BCRA; it strips a fundamental right of political assembly and speech from a segment of American society. Regardless of how one feels about bias in the media, that approach is fundamentally wrong. Journalists should demand an end to those policies, and First Amendment activists should support them."

LEST WE FORGET: Doddmentum!

In case you missed it (you are reading Last Call!, aren't you?), Chris Dodd did an interview with everyone's favorite sports blog, Deadspin. It ends with Red Sox fan Dodd giving his World Series prediction: "I know it's still early, but with a big lead in the AL East, I'm feeling good about the Red Sox's chances of taking home another trophy. I think they're going to have to watch out for the San Diego Padres' pitching and the entire New York Mets' team, but I'm confident that, with Beckett staying healthy and Manny picking it up, the Sox have the talent to get another ring."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 01:30 PM

June 21, 2007

6/21: You Win Some ...

The Politico reported that Barack Obama "scored a victory among progressive activists" by winning the straw poll of activists at Take Back America. Indeed, he edged John Edwards among the largely anti-war crowd that booed Hillary Clinton. And yet, he still hasn't reached Howard Dean-like status among the progressives online.

That will be even harder to do with incidents like one in NH recently, when his campaign shut out a blogger who wanted to attend a forum there. That blogger was from Buckeye State Blog, an important one in an important state. And while it's not a death blow by any means, people are clearly disappointed. As coverage of the (D-Punjab) showed, the lofty expectations that have been set Obama also mean an increasingly higher standard.

CONGRESS: That Election Feels Like Months Ago, Doesn't It?

A new Gallup Poll shows that Congress' confidence rating has plummeted to 14%, an all time low. Glenn Reynolds: "It's well-earned. Nonetheless, this is troubling, and not just for the Democrats, who are only doing somewhat worse than the GOP Congress did. How long can we have a free and successful nation with such an unpopular -- and deservedly so -- political class. ... You need a certain amount of confidence for a nation to operate as a nation. Worse yet, I think this low approval number is justified, which illustrates that we're being pretty badly governed. That's a problem, too."

Anonymous Liberal: "The electorate is fed up with Congress for very different reasons. Some (a very large percentage I suspect) are upset because they think Congress is not doing enough to stop the Iraq War. Others, particularly those on the far right, disapprove of Congress because it is trying to stop the Iraq War. Still others, also mostly on the Right, are fed up with both Democrats and Republicans in Congress because of their joint efforts to pass comprehensive immigration reform. And still others, particularly independents and moderates, are upset because they perceive Congress to be gridlocked by partisanship and unable to get anything done. Frankly, I'm surprised anyone has confidence in Congress. But that's neither here nor there."

Roger L. Simon: "This should give a little pause to those Democratic Party triumphalists who think their crowd is going to waltz into the White House in '08. But that's the least of it. The more important question is why our government is run by such dimwitted mediocrities on both sides of the aisle." At The Corner, Ramesh Ponnuru writes: "Republicans should not get too gleeful about this finding. If the public is just unhappy with all the politicians, they may take it out on the party they perceive to be in power -- and that is still the Republicans."

Gun Toting Liberal: "These numbers, in my eyes, reflect our collective rage at Congress's impotence and inaction on the war front, not anger that they're not governing like the 109th. I personally can't imagine the Republican's making gains in this sort of atmosphere."

John Hawkins: despite all these woes, the voters trust Democrats more than Republicans on 10 out of 10 "key issues" that Rasmussen tracks -- which raises an interesting question -- how bad do the Republicans have to be to be keep losing to the Democrats? It's like going on Jeopardy and being crushed by Paris Hilton."

DEM FIELD: Mr. Brightside

The other day, Kos explained what bothered him about the current field. Today, the good stuff:

• Hillary Clinton: "I celebrate and embrace anything that pisses off the right wing, and is there anything in the world that pisses them off more than HIllary Clinton? Heck, what bigger a 'FU' could we give not just the wingers, but the corporate media establishment than to return a Clinton to the White House, laying waste to their fiction that Clinton was 'unpopular' and somehow rejected by the American people. And isn't it past time we had a woman president?" She is "rough on Iraq," but would "be more responsive to popular sentiment and the U.S. Congress. On other issues she's pretty solid."
• John Edwards: "I remember heartily booing Edwards" at the CA Dem convo in '03, when he "just three days removed from Bush's invasion of Iraq, lectured the attendees on why it was important to support this war. He's come a long way since, chucking his b.s. and timid consultants and being more open to following his conscience. He's made several missteps, but I'm more willing to forgive a candidate for making his own mistakes, than for making those of his risk-averse consultants. ... This lone white dude is also the least risk-averse, the boldest, and the most passionate candidate in the race."
• Barack Obama: "Like Hillary, the historical ramifications of an Obama president would be huge, and a great step forward for our nation. Obama may be running a risk-averse campaign, but his actual performance in the Illinois lege and Senate gives us someone who would be reliably progressive on all the important issues -- perhaps the most solid of all our choices." He has a way "of dressing up liberal policies in a way that makes them sound appealing to even conservatives, and there's HUGE value in that."
• Bill Richardson: "The more I see him in action, the less impressed I am with him as a politician. But on the substance, he's solid. As the cliche goes, he has the strongest resume of the lot. ... It may be an indictment of our system that actual governing skill may mean little without the political skills, but it is what it is. The fact that he sucks as a presidential candidate shouldn't mask that beyond that facade, there's real substance."

"Like I said yesterday, none of these guys may be lighting me on fire, but I'll have no trouble getting behind any of them once the nominee is chosen. As much as we may quibble around the edges, step back and it's hard to argue that they're all solid candidates."

OBAMA: Rut Ro

Jerid of the Buckeye State Blog writes under the headline: "Don't Tell Obama You Blog." "At least that's the message his New Hampshire campaign sent me last night. I would've had a glowing post up today about all the neat approaches to faith the campaign is taking, or maybe how 'the audience was really interested in what the Obama campaign had to say,' or even maybe something I learned. Instead all I have is this. A picture of the door to the meeting that I wasn't allowed into because, for better or worse, I blog."

The event was a "Faith, Action, Change" forum in Keene, NH. It was "billed as an opportunity for Progressives to discuss their faith in terms of social change, they're free and open to the public." When he introduced himself as a blogger to someone from Obama's NH camp, he was told: "Oooooooh, I'm sorry, but you'll have to leave. These events are closed to the press." Jerid: "I was dumbfounded. Searching for words I spurt out, 'But I'm a blogger,' as she started to usher me out of the room. Apparently that didn't matter. It was of no consequence that I'm a Democratically slanted activist who's trying to learn as much about all of the candidates in New Hampshire as I can. It didn't matter that I phonebank and canvas for candidates I support. I didn't matter that I put my 'super friendly blogger hat' on when I go to these events and am respectful of folks privacy, taking great care with what I write about. All she saw was the press. The Obama campaign, along with some of the other prezzies, don't understand the concept of citizen journalists."

Jerid contrasts this with the fact that Obama paid for a table at the '06 OH Dems dinner so that bloggers could attend. Later, in the comments, he clarifies that Obama wasn't present, that it was just a gathering organized by the camp.

Kos: "It's stupid to keep people out of events because they have a blog. In today's world, everyone has a blog, or writes at blogs, or has a MySpace or Facebook page, or participates in online forums like bulletin boards. It's 2007. Please have your campaign update its SOP accordingly. As for bloggers, don't say that you are bloggers. I'm not sure what benefits you get from announcing it to the world."

OBAMA II: For What It's Worth

Obama's straw poll win was not much of a surprise. Philip Klein: "All the normal caveats apply in a straw poll such as this, but you can either say that it's incremental evidence that the progressive base of the party is gathering behind Obama/Edwards, or consider it a decent showing for Hillary with this wing of the party, and the things she would need to do to make a stronger showing in a crowd like this could hurt her general election strategy."

Matthew Yglesias: "For eons, liberals have dreamed of a straw poll whose meaninglessness could equal that achieved by the Ames Straw Poll on the GOP side. The Politico/Take Back America straw poll doesn't quite reach those lofty heights, but it's the best we've got." It's also noted that Ben Smithreported that Obama's camp was offering free tickets to the event via Facebook.

IRAQ: Madame Speaker ...

Jonathan Singer interviewed Speaker Nancy Pelosi and asked about the Dems' political strategy with Iraq. Pelosi: "I believe that we're right on course. We had the votes to say that there are timelines and the President had to honor them. The President vetoed the bill. There isn't much more you can do after that. But we have changed the debate in our country." She adds: "I know outside people are dissatisfied. And I am too. I would have liked him to sign the bill and bring the troops home. But that's not where he is. And he's not respecting the wish of the American people in that regard."

Pelosi, on the path ahead: "We have a number of options, but the timing will relate to when we think it's best to do them. One will be to repeal the authority of the President's ability to conduct the war. Another will be to have appropriations similar to the McGovern resolution that says that our troops come home, except to fight Al Qaeda, protect our diplomats and train the Iraqis. A much, much, much smaller number of troops would be needed for that."

Andrew Sullivan doesn't like what he hears from David Petraeus. "You get the sense that, in Petraeus' mind, only al Qaeda and Iran are preventing total success in Iraq, and that he is almost preparing for war against Iran as a result."

The Left Coaster sees more bad news as Iraq's political house is falling. "The Shiites are splitting apart in advance of a major power struggle, while Cheney works with the Saudis to arm the Sunnis. This isn't a recipe for success, and yet our forces are being ordered by the White House to police it all, and to die trying."

Meanwhile, Kevin Drum is happy to see that the State Dept is responding to Amb to Iraq Ryan Crocker's urgent call for staff. He adds: "I don't get it. These guys believe in the free market. Why not just keep raising the salaries for postings in Baghdad until they get enough volunteers? I doubt they'd have to go much above a million bucks a year."

BLOOMBERG: Still Trying To Figure It Out

Ramesh Ponnuru: "My gut feeling is that his chief appeal will be to upscale social liberals, and will therefore cut into the Democratic vote. David Frum makes a pretty good counter-argument: Bloomberg is likely to spend his ad money attacking the Republican candidate. But of course, if he does that, it will be because he is running a campaign that emphasizes the liberal aspects of his political identity: So the anti-Republican effect will be muted by the fact that his candidacy will appeal to Democratic voters."

David Brody notes that Bloomberg "may not do too well with the Fundamentalist crowd." According to the New York Sun, he said: "It's probably because of our bad educational system, but the percentage of people who believe in creationalism is really scary for a country that's going to have to compete in a world where science and medicine require a better understanding."

Meanwhile, Steve Soto looks at timing: "There's something to be said for making the committment, doing all the hard work in 2007, and putting yourself out there instead of waiting until the masses beseech you to come into the race late as a savior. I am starting to feel this way about Gore, although I understand why he doesn't want to jump in now, if ever."

GIULIANI: The Morning After

Bloggers continue to react to the Newsday story about Rudy Giuliani's role on the Iraq Study Group. James Joyner "Frankly, faced with a choice between $1.7 million and participating in a group with a bunch of other people who aren't experts to present advice to the president he isn't going to take anyway, I'd take the $1.7 million every time. (In full disclosure, I must confess that neither alternative has been offered.) Then again, I'm not, as Kevin Drum puts it, "running for president based on his reputation as a hero of 9/11." Drum's right, too, that this is a significant story and that it's odd that there has not been more press coverage.

Drum, meanwhile, can't believe the lack of coverage. "A quick Nexis search shows that among the mainstream media, the New York Times wrote a short piece, and the Kansas City Star and Chicago Tribune carried brief blurbs. That's it. On TV, Olberman discussed it, but no one else. I'm keenly aware that an awful lot of blog criticism of the mainstream media is basically just partisan sniping. But is this seriously not considered news?"

F. THOMPSON: Take That, Obamagirl

David Brody links to this video, "I've Got A Crush On Fred Thompson's politics."

Thompson also gets some attention for calling out CAIR in his ABC radio commentary.

PAUL: We're Going To Get So Much E-mail For This

IMAO lists some "Fun Facts About Ron Paul Supporters."

• Ron Paul supporters not only appear when his name is invoked 3 times, it drives them crazy, an admittedly short trip.
• The Federal Reserve killed most of Ron Paul's supporters puppies.
• If you're bitten by a Ron Paul supporter if you don't become one, you do become a carrier.
• Where do Ron Paul supporters have their meetups? A house of mirrors.

BLOGGERS VS. THE MSM: What Bias?

The Corner's Jonah Goldberg jumps on the MSNBC.com story about political giving from reporters. "Reporters giving money to Dems by a margin of 9 to 1 is a glorious thing to behold." Michelle Malkin: "The Left wants increased regulation to address the lack of ideological diversity in talk radio. What do they have to say about the lack of ideological diversity in America's newsrooms?"

Greg Sargent criticizes AP's Ron Fournier for leading an HRC profile with "Slick Hillary." "Look, we have no problem with the piece for pointing out questions Hillary won't answer. We were frustrated, for instance, with Hillary's refusal to say whether she favored a Libby pardon. But artful dodger? Slick Hillary? Can't we be a little more subtle about our panting desperation for a nineties." rerun?

Meanwhile, Media Matters hits Politico for not reporting about Rudy Giuliani's quitting the ISG panel, but frequently writing about John Edwards' haircut. McJoan: "Now maybe it's just us crazy lefty bloggers who want to know about the actual, you know, substance behind various candidates' positions, posturings, and claims to fame. After all, Rudy is trying to inherit the national security mantle of the GOP by touting his thus far entirely made-up and over-blown credentials. This is the man who wants to inherit the Iraq debacle, but couldn't be bothered to actually work on the issue. And this story is trumped by a haircut? Really? No wonder Politico is Drudge's new BFF."

SENATE '08: Double Take!

Blue Hampshire almost had us when we saw the headline: "Lieberman to Hold Fundraiser for Sununu in Manchester Tonight." Turns out, they are just urging support for Tom Allen's (D-ME) virtual fundraiser, meant to counter Sen. Joe Lieberman's (I-CT) event for Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME). "It's only a matter of time before John E. reaches out for some Joementum cover. But you can help put a stop to that by heading him off at the pass now."

Meanwhile, Daily Kos polls readers to ask which GOPer up in '08 they'd most like to see ousted. The leader: Senate Min. Leader Mitch McConnell (KY), followed closely by Sens. John Cornyn (TX) and Norm Coleman (MN).

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: No Need To Move Your Primary Up

Jonah Goldberg weighs in on some of the news from SC, which is "shaping up to be party central. You've got coke dealing Republican treasurers and daredevil rooftop fornicators falling from the sky. No wonder everyone wants to cover the South Carolina primary."

LEST WE FORGET: At Least It's Not "What Do You Dislike Most About America?"

10 Zen Monkeys scours YouTube for some of the submissions for the CNN debate. "YouTube has barely managed to assemble more than 50 questions to choose from." They offer the five worst of the bunch. One, from a user named "DickGhostmoon" "wants to ask the candidates 'a very, very serious question ... about aliens.'"

Posted by Conn Carroll at 02:41 PM

6/20: It's Up To You, New York

There tends not to be much middle ground in the blogosphere. Voices on the left rail against those on the right, and vice versa. When we want a conservative or liberal viewpoint, we know which sources to go to. All of this makes a Michael Bloomberg ($-NYC) candidacy all the more interesting. In the early going, many bloggers want to write him off, but in the end there seems to be no consensus view of the NYC mayor and which party he hurts the most. The left is nervous that he'll spoil what appears to be a favorable environment. The right is divided as to whether his moderate-to-left policies or his business background will be stronger in helping or hurty the GOP's chances in '08. Some say Hillary Clinton must be uncorking champagne, while others fear an all-New York election.

But so far, no one thinks he can win. Can Bloomberg turn that around? That's the $1B question.

BLOOMBERG: Stuck In The Middle With You

Word of the Bloomberg switch came late afternoon. And speculation followed instantly.

Sister Toldjah: "Will Chuck Hagel be next, to complete a future 'Independent' presidential ticket?"

At MyDD, Jonathan Singer looks at polling that showed Bloomberg helps Hillary in a matchup with Rudy Giuliani. "The quick unweighted average of this polling indicates that a Bloomberg run could help Clinton or the Democratic nominee by as much as a couple points across the board. In 10 states, a Bloomberg run boosts Clinton's net margin; in 3 states it boosts Giuliani's net margin; and in 2 states it has no net effect. At the least, these numbers seem to undercut the notion that a run by Bloomberg would hurt his first party, the Democrats. At the same time they seem to point to the possibility that a Bloomberg run could hurt -- potentially in a significant way -- the party he just left, the GOP. Either way, this is a lot of tea leaf reading, but it's still worth thinking about for a few moments."

Hugh Hewitt thinks a Bloomberg candidacy "has to help Mitt Romney. ... Not only does Romney have the best fund-raising network -- by far -- he also has considerable personal wealth at his command, and -- crucially -- a network of entrepreneurs and experienced and successful investors who believe enough in his abilities to form the sort of 527s that would level the financial playing field." Later, Hewitt says Bloomberg's candidacy is another argument against McCain-Feingold. "Political power is deeply connected to money, and McCain-Feingold greatly favors the very very rich while limiting the ability of everyone else to compete. ... Political speech shouldn't be rationed to begin with, but it certainly shouldn't be rationed when self-funding billionaires can spend all they want. Wealth should not confer an advantage this enormous in the political arena."

Don Surber calls him "H. Ross Bloomberg." Dan McLaughlin: "Remember the first, and perhaps only, rule of even modestly noteworthy third parties in our system: they must be organized around some issue on which the two major parties agree. The gravitational pull of the major parties is too strong to overcome simply by fielding a candidate who is charismatic (as the bloodless Bloomberg most assuredly is not) or who picks a different set of positions from the menu than either major party candidate. I've argued for some time that the sweet spot for an impact third party in 2008 would be anti-abortion, anti-war, anti-immigrant, anti-spending, anti-trade and perhaps anti-racial preferences, and almost none of that describes Bloomberg."

Huffington Post contributor Glenn Hurowitz: "In a three-way race, it's easy to envision Bloomberg and the Democrat splitting the anti-Republican vote, and letting another hard right Republican slip back into the White House without majority support." The solution? "The Democratic candidates should enthusiastically invite him to join the Democratic primary contest. The first gutsy candidate off the mark could say something like: 'The country and the world can't afford to elect another Republican administration that will continue the failed Bush-Cheney policies. A three-way election could put a Republican back in the White House with only minority support, leaving the rest of the country sadly and dangerously disenchanted with our democracy.'"

James Joyner: "Whether he'll take more from the Democrat or the Republican is an interesting question that will largely depend on who the nominees are. It's not inconceivable that we'll wind up with an all-NYC general election, with Rudy Giuliani facing off against Hillary Clinton, with Bloomberg in the role of spoiler. That would be interesting, indeed."

John Hawkins goes issue by issue and concludes: "It's too early to say for sure who Bloomberg would hurt the most given that we don't who the Democratic candidate will be and which issues will move to the forefront in 2008, but given that Bloomberg is well to the left of center, you'd have to think he'd take a bigger bite out of a Democrat than a Republican."

Some shied away from electoral math and focused simply on the person: Michelle Malkin: "He was always a Republican in name only, so I don't know what the big deal is now. Slow news day, I guess." Allahpundit: "He has no discernible principles aside from avoiding the limelight and trying not to screw anything up. As a governing philosophy, you can do far worse than that; as an organizing ethos for a messianic presidential campaign, it's pathetically wanting." Glenn Reynolds: "I'd like to see a third-party candidate, but I'd like one who stands for more freedom, not less, and the nannyish Lee Kuan Yew-wannabe Bloomberg clearly doesn't fit that description."

GIULIANI: So You Had A Bad Day

The day started with a tough Newsday report about his role with the Iraq Study Group. By noon, his IA chairman was snatched away by Pres. Bush. And when dinnertime rolled around, he saw his endorsed successor as mayor abandoning the GOP, and his SC chairman being charged with cocaine posession. Ouch. Still, the blogosphere focused on the Newsday story, which hinted that America's mayor quit to make some more money giving speeches.

Josh Marshall thinks the story is "the kind of thing that ends campaigns. ... His whole campaign is about him as Mr. War on Terror. ... But the upshot of this little story is that Rudy's real priority is money. He literally doesn't have time for finding a solution to the problem we face in Iraq. Couldn't make the meetings." Kos: "Help figure out a solution to the mess in Iraq, or make $11.4 million. The battle between 'Rudy the businessman' and 'Rudy the presidential candidate' wasn't even close. On this one, it really was one or the other."

MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Clearly Giuliani wanted a place on the panel to bolster his warrior facade but didn't want to have to do any work. Good for Baker for making Giuliani choose: 'either attend the meetings or quit." Jonah Goldberg agrees with Greg Sargent: "Giuliani's case for blowing off the ISG is pretty weak."

Paul Mirengoff: "Giuliani's decision will be portrayed as Newsday portrays it -- a case of putting his personal finances above service to his country. But this assumes that, at the time he made his decision, he thought that serving on a study group led by James Baker and various Democrats would advance his country's interests. Giuliani may seriously have doubted that anything worthwhile could come from the ISG and feared that the ISG's recommendations would be perverse. If so, his doubts and fears proved well-founded."

DEM FIELD: Take That Back

Joe Sudbay briefly reviews Dems at the AFSCME conference. This morning, HRC got another tough reception at the Take Back America conference. More on that to come.

Meanwhile, Kos looks at Hillary's growing lead in the nat'l polls. He had believed that "the more voters realize there are alternatives, the more they'll stray from Hillary." That's not happening yet, he notes. Still, nat'l polls in '04 turned out to be meaningless. "Will they be as irrelevant this cycle as in 2004? Perhaps. We have a de facto national primary this year, so they may be a bit more relevant. Or maybe the country will bend its will to Iowa and New Hampshire again, as they did four years ago. These are uncharted waters."

HILLARY: The Friendly Skies?

HRC's "Sopranos" spoof was received mildly. But TPM Cafe's Election Central finds a Financial Times report that Hillary's new song, "You and I," was originally written for an ad campaign for AirCanada. Interesting to see how that plays out.

RICHARDSON: Say What?

TNR's Ryan Lizza wonders what Bill Richardson was talking about when he attacked other Dems for supporting recent legislation on Iraq. "What is the nefarious legislation Richardson's opponents supported? The text of Richardson's speech includes a footnote pointing to two bills: the version of the Iraq supplemental that would have required Bush to begin withdrawing troops, and the Feingold-Reid amendment, which would have cut off funds for the war next March. Since Richardson argued today that the difference between him and his opponents on these two bills is a fundamental dividing line in the campaign, it's only fair to ask what Richardson said about the bills when they were moving through Congress. "

SCALIA: There He Goes Again

A few on the left note a report on Justice Scalia using Jack Bauer as a case study in how terrorism changed all the rules. SusanG: "Got that? Fictional super-heroes are perfectly reasonable to introduce into panel discussions about the legality of torture. International judicial opinions, on the other hand, are to be discarded as un-American. Next up: How H.G. Wells' The Time Machine made irrelevant the Bush administration's failure to provide for post-invasion Iraq."

BLOGGERS VS. THE MSM: You're Playing Hardb#@$

Chris Matthews' dust-up with the audience at an AFSCME forum got some laughs. MyDD: it's definitely cringe-worthy must-see viewing. How does Hillary manage to come off as the reasonable one when she's essentially just ducking a question?" Crooks and Liars catches Chris Matthews dropping the S-Bomb again. Matthews, while discussing Bloomberg speculation: "We're all reacting here and putting on shit. We have nothing."

Meanwhile, even folks at TownHall are questioning Politico's biases after seeing this John Edwards headshot.

IMMIGRATION: Trent Warfare

Mark Krikorian isn't happy with Sen. Trent Lott's (R-MS) appearance on a talk radio station. "Lott is rapidly turning into a parody of himself." When presented with a petition asking him to stop supporting the immigration bill, Lott answered: "To think you are going to intimidate a senator, any senator, that way." Krikorian: "Well, at least he didn't say anything about 'outside agitators'!"

DIGBY: Nice To Meet You

At long last, anonymous Digby was unveiled at Take Back America. Crooks and Liars shows her speech. Atrios' take: I'm not sure if Digby and Candy Crowley should be allowed in the same room together. Matter/anti-matter, rift in the space-time continuum, etc..."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Building An Army

Firedoglake's Eli wonders what the netroots might do if Dems take the WH and maintain congressional majorities in '08. Up until now, some had been willing to support electable Dems rather that ideological soulmates in the interest of winning. But: "If the 2008 election pulls us back from the brink of disaster, then our support for the Democratic Party does not need to be unconditional. If Congressman X isn't supporting progressive interests or values, then progressives don't need to support him -- the free ride is over. We can focus all our money and time on making sure the Blue America type candidates get elected, and even back some primary challengers against the worst of the Blue Dog and pro-war Dems. And needless to say, we should only give to individual candidates, never to the DSCC or DCCC. The Democratic establishment and corporations can help their buddies, but we won't. Will that be enough for them to win anyway? Maybe, but that's not our problem - unless we're backing their primary opponent, of course."

Of course, it's debatable as to whether we should even be supporting faithless Democrats now (I sure as hell don't plan to help any of them), but it will be much, much harder to scare us into donating if the 2008 elections go well. Which makes me worry that the Democrats might tank them deliberately"

LEST WE FORGET: Like A Bat Out Of Hell

TownHall's Dean Barnett weighs in on steroid allegations and Barry Bonds, who is closing in on the all-time career home run record. He agrees with baseball writer Bill James, who apparently "is the reason I became a conservative in spite of growing up in a hotbed of hysterical liberalism," that other factors are at play.

"In the past two decades, the handles of baseball bats have shrunk down to almost nothing. That means hitters generate more bat-head speed at impact. A lot more. So the ball goes farther. James doesn't mention the additional effect of hitters becoming more selective at the plate. The homerun hitting Barry Bonds shows remarkable and indeed historic discipline waiting for a pitch that he can drive." Lest we excuse Bonds, however, Barnett adds: "No one should infer from the preceding that I'm disputing the irrefutable fact that Barry Bonds is one of the most obnoxious baseball greats of all time."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 06:54 AM

June 19, 2007

6/19: That Chafee Feeling

Conservative angst over the immigration bill and its chief GOP supporters has been well documented here. And it's becoming clearer by the day that John McCain is not the only candidate will have to deal with the base in '08. A new project launched by conservative bloggers promises a primary challenge for any GOP Senator who votes for the proposal. The most prominent in that field? None other than McCain supporter Lindsay Graham (R-SC). So far, there have been rumblings of a primary challenge for Graham but no candidate yet. If the revived immigration plan comes up to a vote, will Graham's yea or ney be the triggering mechanism?

Clearly, the dynamics in blue Rhode Island are very different red South Carolina (for one, the lack of a strong Dem to face a bloodied victor). And on most issues, Graham's voting record is hardly Chafee-esque. But if a primary comes to fruition, most will look at the contest as a similar defining battle for the party.

IMMIGRATION: Putting You On Notice

At her newly-redesigned site, Michelle Malkin points us to the "Payback Project," launched by John Hawkins, which makes this promise: "If the amnesty bill in the Senate passes, we're going after any Republican Senator up for reelection in 2008 who votes for it. Conservatives put these Senators into office and if they won't listen to us, then we will replace them in the primaries with Senators who will."

Meanwhile, Ace of Spades HQ is part of the growing chorus upset with Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC). "Graham has upped the rhetorical ante each time he opens his mouth. What I don't get is this -- if the immigration debate is all but over and they have the votes, why does Graham feel he has to resort to such low tactics? Is it because he can't help himself, or is the amnesty caucus feeling the unpopularity?" [Also, Ace managed to link a Colombian festival involving donkey sex to Trent Lott and immigration.] At the Palmetto Scoop, however, we see video of FNC's Sean Hannity praising Graham. The caveat: the video is a month old.

Mickey Kaus has a cautionary vote for some of the GOPers on the fence, who may vote against the bill but for cloture in the hope "that the voters won't notice that you helped pass it." An e-mailer: "Needless to say, voting for cloture, but against the Alito nomination, didn't do Joe Lieberman or Lincoln Chafee any good, thanks to the internet."

Mickey Kaus notes John Edwards' take on immigration, and says: "Edwards is making the 'left' objection to the 'temporary' guest worker program rather than the 'right' objection to semi-amnesty. But -- and don't stop me if I'm repeating myself -- this is a bill where both the left wing objections and the right wing objections are valid. Nor are they incompatible."

OBAMA: D-oh!

John Aravosis continues to be disappointed at the way in which Sen. Barack Obama's senior campaign staff have handled the controversy over the (D-Punjab) Memo. Obama, he says, has apologized and blamed his senior staff, while said senior staff doesn't seem to find anything wrong with the memo. "I know some Indian-Americans with pretty good jobs here in town who were offended to their core at what they saw as a racist attack coming from the Obama campaign. Obama's people did a terrible job of handling this episode. They're only feeding the perception that perhaps they're not yet ready for prime time."

Andrew Sullivan has been propounding the theme that history may well record the Bush presidency "as the breakthrough for a revival of domestic liberalism" in the same way Republicans exploited ex-Pres. Clinton's declaration that the "Era of Big Government" is over. Sullivan has been pondering the faith-and-politics message of Obama and concludes that "what Obama might represent is a twist on Bush's 'compassionate conservatism.' That label was always a way to disguise well-meaning big government liberalism. Obama, unlike Bush, need not pretend otherwise. He can raise taxes on the successful as a Biblical injunction. He can increase even further the reach of the welfare state because Jesus is calling him to." The Corner's Andrew Stuttaford finds "the more interesting question" to be whether "'compassionate conservatism' acted as a device to revive domestic liberalism or whether it was an attempt to shape a revival that was already inevitable."

CLINTON: Not A Crook

An Andrew Sullivan reader calls Hillary Clinton "Nixon in a pant suit." "They both have brilliant strategic minds, suffer from extreme paranoia about the enemy of their agenda, and both are extremely secretive. Nixon had very high negatives, and re-launched his "brand" image in the 1968 campaign, just as Hillary is doing in 2007. In short, Hillary is Nixon in a dress, or more appropriately Nixon in a pant suit." Another reader responded that under Nixon we had: "1)The end of the Vietnam War; 2) Opening to China; 3) Stability among the major nations in the Middle East; 4) A weaker USSR; 5) A decrease in nuclear weapons around the world. Yes, he wasn't perfect, but no president is, was, or will ever be. We'd be lucky to have another Nixon."

Garance Franke-Ruta writes that one of the questions ahead of the "Take Back America" conference in DC is whether or not HRC will be booed again. Also, the blogger known as Digby "will be given an award sources say she plans to accept in person, thus ending her tenure as the best-known still-pseudonymous liberal blogger in the 'sphere."

EDWARDS: A Lighter Shade Of Reid

At Real Clear Politics, Blake Dvorak looks at John Edwards' response to Sunday Show Iraq talk. "One imagines [his statement] could have been harsher. But Edwards isn't interested in out-doing Harry Reid, who called Gen. Peter Pace 'incompetent.' He's interested in controlling the debate in the Democratic field. Once more, Edwards is using his freedom as a non-elected candidate to force the elected candidates in the field (Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, primarily) to follow. He did it with regards to health care, Iraq, and now the generals."

Meanwhile, ex-Edwards speechwriter Wendy Button defends her old boss against Bob Shrum. As others have done, she disputes Shrum's versions of events while acknowledging some of the nice things he said.

BIDEN: Better Left Unsaid

Big Tent Democrat is among those unhappy with Joe Biden's latest explanation of his anti-Surge-but-for-funding vote: "Biden is telling you is that even though he opposes continuing the war, he will vote to continue funding the war indefinitely. So let's be clear, Senator Biden, speaking for a good number of Beltway Democrats, including Netroots darlings like Senators Webb and Tester, despite opposing continuing the war, will not use the Not Spending power to end the Iraq Debacle. As long as this is true, the Iraq Debacle will not be ended. And, despite the protestations of these Democrats to the contrary, this means they are effectively, even if it is against their will, supporting President Bush's policies on the Iraq Debacle."

DEM FIELD: C'mon Get Happy?

Steve Soto gives his two cents on the latest Gallup poll: "Far be it for me to say, but I sense that the party is bored already with the choices we have, and that Obama has had his boomlet. For her part, Hillary is playing for the long haul and is trying to be ready to absorb any early defeats in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. As for Edwards, he needed to be in better shape by now than 11%.

The man himself, Markos Moulitsas, weighs his options as they stand today. "In some ways, I dig our field -- all our top-tier candidates can beat the best the other side throws at us. ... And I'll have no problem getting behind any of them when the final results come in. That's a reason why I have no urgency to pick a horse in this race." But there "has been little effort amongst the candidates to differentiate themselves, and enough niggling apprehensions to push off any decision on who to support far off into the future."

• Hillary Clinton: "She's done a great job bamboozling people into thinking she's anti-war, even though she's a proponent of the 'residual force' strategy ... . Meanwhile, she refuses to see anything wrong with her war authorization vote. Of course, that's a sign of poor judgement, but it's compounded by George Bush-like refusal to acknowledge mistakes. We've had plenty of that with Bush. I'm not eager for more of the same." Also: "She's surrounded by people like union-buster Mark Penn." And finally: "While Hillary should have as good a chance as any Democrat to win the White House, she'll kill us downticket in House and Senate races in the South."
• Kos is still upset with John Edwards over his haircut: "There are two narratives Edwards' opponents are building against him -- one, that he's a 'pretty boy', and two, that he's so rich he's out of touch with "regular" people. And in one fell swoop, Edwards reinforced both negative narratives!" Also, "If he wants his pimp haircuts, I couldn't care less. But why do it in such a way that it's easy for your enemies to use against you?" Finally: "I'm willing to bet that most of the small dollar donors Edwards has solicited don't have that much. For them, that $20 or $50 or even $100 contribution is a big sacrifice. Yet given the choice between taking out his own checkbook or having his campaign pay for the $400 the haircut cost, someone made the choice to put this on the contributors. More than anything, it's this that offends me about this incident.
• Barack Obama: "Where are the innovations? Where are the risks? Why the stultifying caution? We are looking to elect a leader. Yet during the supplemental fight, Obama refused to lead. He refused to even say how he would vote. ... It comes down to this -- while in the Senate, has Obama ever advocated for anything that wasn't safe? Has he taken a leadership position on anything controversial?"
• With Bill Richardson, Kos hasn't gotten past his Lieberman-esque critique of fellow Dems. Also, "his Russert appearance was amateurish, and no, you cannot be both a Yankees and Red Sox fan. If you're going to pander, try to be a little more subtle about it."

As conservative John Hawkins puts it: "Kos says he likes all the big Democratic candidates and then proceeds to rip all of them down."

GIULIANI: They'll Call It Rudy Tuesday

Townhall's Dean Barnett has a memo for Giuliani campaign manager Michael DuHaime: "I figured out how Rudy can win. He needs Romney to win Iowa and New Hampshire. He then needs Fred to win South Carolina. Rudy has to hope that each candidate's momentum cancels the other one's out so Rudy can go on to win Florida and mega-Tuesday."

F. THOMPSON: We Use "F. Thompson" As If Tommy Thompson Is Doing Anything

David Brody gets some oppo on Fred Thompson about a '95 vote on a bill prohibiting fed employees from receiving abortions. Thompson's camp responded that rivals are "quick to throw up the charge without doing any real research in an attempt to smear Fred who, unlike several of them, has a 100% pro-life rating from National Right to Life." Brody adds: "Fred. Welcome to the race." On the same subject, Brody also wrote: "Out of all the top tier candidates the most reliable pro-life vote out there seems to be John McCain."

ROMNEY: Keeping Up Appearances

At AmSpec Blog, John Tabin writes about Mitt Romney's alleged "detached-and-plastic" demeanor "seems to be a function of the size of the room. In front of a huge audience, he can seem robotic. In front of a smaller audience (a few hundred or so), he's more impressive, because he connects much better. In a small group at a party or press conference, he's really charming. What this means is that if he can keep up a fast enough pace practicing retail politics in small rooms in Iowa and New Hampshire, he's going to win over a lot of voters. But that means the early contests are more important for Romney than for anyone else."

GOP FIELD: Elections Would Be Great If The Voters Were Left Out

Kos contributor Devilstower gloats about one consequence of the Republican presidential disunity: "Seeing the Republicans head into the primaries with divided strategies, underfunded state operations, and a 'you can't lose if you don't play' attitude, is like watching boxcars jockey for position in a train wreck. Campaigns are already talking about a skip Iowa and Nevada and New Hampshire strategy, to focus on the cluster of big states. Sure. You do that."

IRAQ: No Car Tax?

Dave Schuler looks at Jim Gilmore's Iraq plan. "I have a good deal of sympathy with this position. But to it he adds a proposal for an 'over the horizon' force to be used in case of emergency, similar to the proposals of John Murtha, among others. I find this part of his proposal particularly incredible. What, other than re-invading and re-occupying Iraq, can be done by an 'over the horizon' force that can't be done from 20,000 feet? What would a president ordering such a thing say to the American people?"

Kevin Drum notes a Washington Post report that U.S. Amb. to Iraq Ryan Crocker has put out an urgent request for staff at the embassy. "Now that the ideologues have left in disgrace everyone has decided that we need the pros after all. Unsurprisingly, though, after having been tarred as striped-pants appeasers by the right-wing lunatic crowd for the past four years ... it turns out that the pros aren't especially keen on being left holding the bag for the disaster that the right-wing loons have left them. Can you blame them?"

BUSH: Now You Tell Me

Captain Ed: It's late in the game for Bush on out-of-control spending, but at least he's finally decided to fight. The battle over the budget should highlight the expansionist designs of the Democrats, who won the midterms in part over the irresponsibility of Republicans on spending. The remaining GOP caucus in the House has enough votes to uphold vetoes on spending, and they want to reinstate themselves as the good stewards of the public purse. Thanks to the Democratic overreach, they have that opportunity just five months into their minority status -- and can position themselves well for the 2008 elections.

Ankle Biting Pundits: "Maybe if you had done that a few times before 2006 the base would not be so irritated at you and the spendthrift GOP and maybe, just maybe, they wouldn't be in the minority. Hopefully this is the first step in Republicans starting to act like Republicans instead of spending like Democrats, and in some cases, even worse than the Democrats used to spend."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Because We Know Some Bloggers Who Aren't Active At All

The Townhallers are debating the nature of online activism. Responding to Robert Bluey's criticism of Dean Barnett for eschewing the role of an activist, Matt Lewis takes the middle: "In the past, I've made the point that not all conservative bloggers need to be activists. There is a place in the movement for all sorts, including intellectuals, writers, and, yes, activists .. On the other hand, I recently heard a sermon about the 'Acts' of the apostles. The preacher made the point of emphasizing these were 'acts' -- not words. And it made me think of Bluey's point about activism. Now, I don't want to compare blogging about politics to spreading the Gospel, but I do know one thing: At the end of your life, you won't hear the Almighty say: 'Well blogged, thou good and faithful servant.' So Bluey's point about activism is well taken."

LEST WE FORGET: Ted Kennedy Had Nothing To Do With The Remodeling Of This Web Site

Michelle Malkin rolls out a new design today. Far be it from us to critique Web sites (National Journal's revamp seems to be years in the making now). But apparently others weren't thrilled right away. So Malkin writes: "I am still giving you the same content -- just in a remodeled house. Some of you are such diehard conservatives, you are allergic to any and all of the changes. For once, people, Embrace The Change. It'll grow on you. I promise."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 02:54 PM

June 18, 2007

6/18: MyDeparture

During a relatively quiet news weekend, the two Is -- Iraq and Immigration, dominated the attention of the left and right, respectively. Meanwhile, we note with interest the departure from MyDD of two of its leading voices: Matt Stoller and Chris Bowers. Along with DailyKos, MyDD has been at the forefront of the so-called "netroots" effort in the Dem Party. After playing a role in some key victories in the '06 elections, the duo is apparently giving up electoral politics for a new project dealing more with social justice issues. We'll see what impact the move has on MyDD and the netroots effort in general.

And speaking of those netroots, we note with interest a poll tucked away at DailyKos asking readers if they've donated to any '08 campaigns yet. With fundraising in the WH race is off to a torrid start, it may surprise some that nearly 70% of Kos' readers have not yet given yet. In fact, 27% don't plan to give at all. With Dem candidates all trying to show great strength among Internet donors, one could argue that they have work to do to capture this interested group.

IMMIGRATION: Casting Your Lott

Pres. Bush is raising money for immigration bill foe Sen. Jeff Sessions (R) in AL today, and Kathryn Jean Lopez says the timing couldn't be worse. "The bad news (besides the awkward factor) is Senator Sessions will have to be missing some of the Senate debate on amendments to appear with the amnesty legislation's leading proponent."

Glenn Reynolds says the Bush admin "is still acting like Democrats -- even to the point of complaining about the 'Right-Wing Blathersphere.' Do they want whining from Michael Chertoff and Trent Lott to form the public image of the Bush Administration and the Republican Party? Apparently they do. Good luck with that, guys." More: "It's not really a case of bloggers vs. the Administration. Rather, it's a case -- like Harriet Miers, Dubai Ports, PorkBusters, etc. -- of the Bush Administration ignoring the clear warnings available in the blogosphere."

Meanwhile, Michelle Malkin noted Friday that www.trentlott.com redirects you to MoveOn.org. "How appropriate. It is most definitely time for Trent Lott to Move On. ... Trent Lott and his ilk are on a suicide mission. Will they bring the GOP--and the country--down without a fight?"

John Hawkins interviewed NRSC chair John Ensign on Friday. Hawkins asked about the feedback at NRSC HQ to immigration. Ensign: "The number of calls to our personal offices as well as to the NRSC are overwhelming and they are overwhelmingly against the bill. It's, I don't know, ... a hundred to one against."

F. THOMPSON: Polls. We Got Polls. We Got Lots And Lots Of Polls

Patrick Ruffini looks at Fred Thompson's lead in the latest Mason-Dixon SC poll. "Fred has to be considered the frontrunner in South Carolina, for the same basic reason Rudy is the frontrunner in Jersey and Rudy and Romney can be expected to do well in New Hampshire: identity politics. Being the lone Southerner competing in the 'first in the South' primary can rocket you to the top of the heap like nothing else."

At the national level, Thompson places second behind Rudy Giuliani. The Corner's KLo notes: "When the poll is narrowed to just Giuliani and Thompson, Giuliani's lead actually grows (53-41, 12-point gap)." But Captain Ed says: "That's a pretty impressive showing for a man who has not yet taken the wraps off of the campaign."

McCAIN: OverReacting.com?

Matt Lewis follows up on reports that John McCain's purchased the domain www.mittvsfact.com. A source says it "was merely one of dozens of URLs the campaign has purchased over the last several months, with no plans to launch these websites any time soon. As someone who has worked on political campaigns, it does not strike me as odd for a campaign to purchase as many campaign-related URL's as possible."

GOP FIELD: From The Left's Point Of View

TheCarpetbagger Report asks: "Who is the most genuinely scary Republican presidential candidate?" And since Tom Tancredo "won't win any primaries," he sticks to the top tier. Giuliani "is autocratic, thin-skinned, and self-absorbed. He's inexperienced, ignorant about policy specifics, and his only selling point (performance on 9/11) doesn't stand up well to scrutiny."

McCain: "A shadow of his former self, the senator appears to be a man who';l do anything to win. McCain is combative and intolerant of dissent. He defends the indefensible and lashes out angrily at anyone who dares to disagree with him." Romney: "The man appears to have no real convictions at all." And F. Thompson: "doesn't seem to have any real rationale for seeking the presidency, other than the belief he might win. Thompson is at least as phony as Romney ... and developed a Bush-like reputation for being lazy and incurious."

HILLARY: Unstoppable?

The aforementioned Gallup poll also shows Hillary Clinton expanding her lead over Barack Obama, with John Edwards in third. Oliver Willis: "The Obama campaign has not taken advantage of the momentum they had after his announcement and I think they've suffered for it. I still have some worries about Sen. Clinton's possible nomination but less so since I saw her campaign's tactical mastery and subsequent ability to stay on message. They're the closest Democratic campaign to the 2004 Bush campaign as far as overall strategy goes (and certainly not on the issues) and that's an appealing position considering the media and opposition environment we face."

DEM FIELD: Strength In Numbers?

DailyKos runs a poll asking readers if they have donated to any Dem candidate yet up in '08. As of 7 am, more than 9K people had responded, and the results were as follows:

Yes 30%
No 42%
No, and I 27%
don't plan to

BLOGGER TRACK: Exit, Stage Left

Late Friday, Chris Bowers announced that he was leaving MyDD, where he's been blogging for three years (1,141 days, to be exact). He is starting a new Web site with Matt Stoller and Mike Lux of Huffington Post. Why leave? Bowers: "As much as I have enjoyed writing about politics and elections from a partisan Democratic viewpoint, my political background is in the social justice movement and decidedly on the left. I want to write about more than just elections and political infrastructure, and I want to explicitly work toward building a progressive governing majority. However, to do so would be to take MyDD too far away from its longstanding purpose." Stoller writes: "I hope, as Chris Bowers, Mike Lux, and I go on to our new venture, that we are able to help more people understand the power of disagreement, the power of ideas, and the power of dissent. The notion of unity is a very powerful framework, and it's one I believe in strongly."

Jonathan Singer follows up: "Simply put, there are going to be great holes to be filled (possibly, probably, unfillable ones); Matt's organizational prowess or willingness to speak truth to power, Chris's profound insights into American politics and the progressive movement." He then asks: "Where do we go from here?" He has "some ideas," and notes a new stable of bloggers at MyDD, but throws it open to readers for input. Meanwhile, DailyKos' Eugene writes: "The liberal blogosphere needs to change, dramatically, its aims and orientation. While focusing on electing any old Democrat may have made sense in the face of a brutal Republican onslaught, the first 6 months of the Democratic majority prove that it is not enough to just elect Dems. It is now time for us to move to the second, more important phase of our political work: rebuilding the Democratic Party itself."

IRAQ: Wake Me Up ...

Discussion of Iraq on the Sunday shows again sparked discussion on the left about whether the September update on the surge will really open the door to a withdrawal. John Aravosis notes that General David Petraeus answered no when asked on Fox whether "the job would be done by the surge by September." And on NBC's "Meet the Press," Amb. to Iraq Ryan Crocker said that in Sept, "We'll also try to provide an assessment of what the consequences might be if we pursue other directions." Aravosis: "Petraeus' plan for September is to so scare the American people, and our politicians, about what will happen if we leave Iraq, that no one will have the nerve to say enough is enough." He notes that would put the GOP in a bind, as reflected by Senate Min. Leader Mitch McConnell's (R) statement on CBS: "Everybody anticipates there will be a new strategy ... and I don't think we'll have the same level of troops that we have now."

Pejman Yousefzadeh counters: "It should surprise precisely no one that a surge in troops will be needed for longer than September in order to bring order and stability in Iraq." But: "I have long ago lost faith in the ability of the Bush Administration to campaign on behalf of seeing the reconstruction effort through. ... Petraeus is surely right in saying that the surge needs to be extended past September. If he and the White House manage to pull off actually extending the surge, it would be nothing short of miraculous."

Also at RedState, Bluey does a point-counterpoint on Petraeus vs. Senate Maj. Leader Harry Reid, in the wake up him using the word "incompetent."

Several blogs on the left note today's New York Times report, that "the search for Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction appears close to an official conclusion, several years after their absence became a foregone one." Also of note the latest Washington Post report on the treatment of Iraq veterans. This one focuses on mental health. AMERICAblog posts under the header: "War vets are still being treated like dirt." And finally, after reading Seymour Hersh's story on ... Steve Soto wants the Abu Ghraib inquiry reopened.

As he often does with things like these, Atrios notes when a GOP timeline has expired. Six months ago, Sen. John Thune (R-SD) said: "We're spinning our wheels, and we've got to turn the corner on this thing, and we've got to do it, I would say, in the next six months." Atrios: "Approximately 490 US troops have been killed since then, and it does not seem that we have turned the corner." Miss Laura at DailyKos adds: "When will the traditional media start holding feet to the fire over these ever-shifting deadlines?"

LIEBERMAN: No Resolution

DailyKos' Kagro X writes about the potential effects if Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) decided to caucus with the GOP. Though it would move the Senate from 51-49 Dem to a 50-50 split, VP Cheney's tiebreaking vote would not make it a GOP-controlled Senate. That's because cmte leadership is set by an organizing resolution passed at the start of Congress, and that resolution contained no provision for a power-sharing agreement if somebody switched parties. "In order to change the way the Senate was organized, they'd have to pass a new resolution to supersede the old one, and while they'd have a numerical majority with Lieberman on their side, remember what we're constantly being told: it takes 60 votes to do anything in the Senate."

Now, that resolution is the same reason why Dems could not strip Lieberman of his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Cmte. Lieberman "nominally because of the agreement of the Senate Democratic Caucus to put him there. But officially, he's the Chairman because Senate Resolution 27 says he is. Try and repeal and replace that resolution in the middle of a fight in which Lieberman threatens to switch parties, and you see where this ends up going."

BLOGGERS VS. THE MSM: Meet The Pressure

Tim Russert, already held in low esteem by some on the left, did himself no favors with a recent FNC appearance. When asked about Dem WH candidates' boycotting a Fox-sponsored debate, Russert said: "It's a TV show. If you can't handle TV questions, how are you going to stand up to Iran, and North Korea, and the rest of the world?" Talking Points Memo's Steve Benen: "The point, which I'd hoped was obvious by now, is that Dems (accurately) perceive Fox News as a partisan outlet, with a Republican audience, and with an agenda contrary to Democratic policies. ... Mr. Russert, steering clear of such nonsense has nothing to do with an ability to 'stand up to Iran and North Korea.'"

HAMAS: Missing Medal

Lost in the latest turmoil in Gaza this weekend was a detail noted by several in the blogosphere: Yasser Arafat's Nobel Peace Prize was stolen. James Joyner provides a helpful roundup of some of the reaction. Maynard: "This violent criminal act is completely pointless. If Hamas had been willing to wait just a few months, the Nobel committee would have awarded them their own peace prize." TigerHawk: "I think this is hilarious ... the funniest thing Hamas has ever done." Don Surber: "Here is hoping they sell it on e-Bay to Castro."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: "I Blog, Therefore I Am"

Earlier, we noted Chris Bowers' departure from MyDD. In his farewell post, he offers this touching yet cautionary tale: "My existence has merged with the blog. When MyDD is doing well, I feel like I am doing well. When MyDD isn't doing well, I feel like I have failed. I blog, therefore I am."

LEST WE FORGET: Don't Stop ...

One week after the possibly disappointing/possibly enjoyable "Sopranos" finale, TownHall.com blogger Dean Barnett gives his list of the Top 10 Best Shows "evah":

• 1. The Sopranos
• 2. Hill Street Blues
• 3. The Wire
• 4. Rome
• 5. Picket Fences
• 6. Crime Story
• 7. Deadwood
• 8. The Twilight Zone
• 9. Star Trek: The Next Generation
• 10. Wiseguy

No signs of "The Simpsons" or "All In The Family."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:45 PM

June 15, 2007

6/15: First They Came For Fox ...

While the netroots seems increasingly resigned to a Hillary Clinton nomination, as evidenced by their killing of the Fox News debate, they still hold a significant amount of sway in the party. Since its inception, the netroots have long questioned the political leanings of Politico, and a 6/14 article divulging details of a Senate Maj. Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) conference call with bloggers only fueled their suspicions. If Politico wants to keep co-hosting debates with netroots-approved networks like Keith Olbermann's MSNBC, they might want to tone down their Dem coverage.

BLOGGERS VS. MSM: Rage Against The Machine

As part of their ongoing campaign to tar The Politico as just another cog in the "right-wing noise machine," the netroots went all out to discredit Josh Bresnahan after he reported Sen. Maj. Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) called outgoing Joint Chiefs of Staff chair Gen. Peter Pace "incompetent" during a conference call with "liberal bloggers."

The netroots quickly moved to quash the story by gathering assurances from bloggers on the call that Reid never said any such thing. TPM Cafe's Greg Sargentlanded assurances from Daily Kos' mcjoan and BarbinMD, AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay and John Aravosis, as well as MyDD's Jonathan Singer.

Daily Kos' BarbinMD describes the impact of Bresnahan's crime: "And since Politico "broke" this news, just as it happened when they created the "slow bleed" story that was immediately picked up by every conservative publication and prominent Republican, the alleged remarks by Reid are being used to paint Reid as an anti-military surrender monkey. John McCain has called Reid's alleged remark "highly inappropriate, Wolf Blitzer is breathlessly reporting that Reid "bashed" the military, and this is how Tony Snow began today's White House press briefing. ... It seems that this newest mouthpiece for the Republican Party is, again, just making it up."

Atrios chipped in naming The Politico his Wanker Of The Day and AMERICABlog's Joe Sudbay adds: "The right-wing noise machine is in full attack mode against Harry Reid over comments he allegedly made on a conference call with several bloggers, including John and me, earlier this week. ... This is a vintage trick from the right wing. Take something that's based on a rumor, and that isn't a problem even if it's true, and try to turn it in to a story."

Later, another blogger on the call, Bob Geiger, came forward with a tape of the call including this passage from Reid:

I guess the president, uh, he's gotten rid of Pace because he could not get him confirmed here in the Senate... Pace is also a yes-man for the president and I told him to his face, I laid it out to him last time he came to see me, I told him what an incompetent man I thought he was.

Faced with evidence Reid did use the word 'incompentent' to describe Pace, the netroots shifted their criticism, claiming The Politico over hyped the story, took the quote out of context, and gave GOPers a pass on similar comments in the past:

• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Contrary to what the Politico reported, Harry Reid didn't call General Pace "incompetent" to a bunch of liberal bloggers. Reid said that he met with Pace and laid out for him, in person, what an incompetent man he was."
• Bob Geiger: "What he said about Pace was not said in the spirit of throwing some rhetorical red meat to a bunch of liberal bloggers by gratuitously bashing General Pace -- which is certainly what one could infer from The Politicos "reporting" on this story."
• Talking Points Memo's Greg Sargent: "Yes, he did say that Pace is "incompetent." But the context shows that the controversy's way overblown."
• DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas: "If you want to see how the right-wing noise machine works, compare the freakout over Harry Reid calling the incompetent Gov. Pace "incompetent", and the, um, nothing that happened after John McCain said this to Gen. Casey."

CLINTON: Caged Birds For HRC

Jack and Jill Politics' Jill Tubman recently stumbled across Maya Angelou's endorsement of Hillary Clinton, but found the video "a bit... strange." More Tubman: "Angelou focuses almost exclusively on Clinton as a strong woman and what her rise to power represents. She also draws parallels to Hillary and black women everywhere."

EDWARDS: No. 3 Just Ain't Happening

John Edwards supporter and MyDD contributor TarHeel admits "us die-hard Edwards supporters would like to see Edwards doing better" and offers some suggestions for the campaign:

• Macro Idea 1. Run as an Outsider, who's not a lifelong politician and not backed by the Washington DC Lobbyist insiders. ... (a natural contrast with Hillary)
• Macro Idea 2. Do something to "undo" if possible some of the ridiculous haircut coverage. ... I know he says he wants to make sure everyone should have the same chances as him but it hasn't broken through.
• Macro Idea 3. Come out against Bush's Immigration Bill. This is hugely unpopular. Most americans outside the blogosphere heavily oppose it. Union workers seem unhappy with it. Americans (outside the blogosphere) instinctively don't believe in rewarding illegal behavior with citizenship. This would bring lots of free press for Edwards and distinguishes him from others on the Democratic side. I'm fairly certain this wouldn't lose any votes in Iowa or NH or SC.
• Macro idea 4. More innovative ways to use the internet. ... I'm hoping to see more innovative use of the internet and YouTube only type "commercials" MADE BY THE CAMPAIGN that could break through and get free media air time.

In other Edwards suggestions, Matthew Yglesias felt "warm and fuzzy inside" after reading reports Edwards may be proposing to removing drug company patents on "breakthrough drugs" in exchange for "cash incentives," but is later disappointed to find out Edwards proposal "turns out to be less awesomely radical than it at first appeared." From Yglesias: "What's not clear to me is whether companies who invent drugs under this "prize track" would need to forgo a patent in exchange for the prize. If not, this is a mildly useful way to encourage the development of drugs whose market potential isn't so hot (malaria treatment, say). If the answer is yes, by contrast, then this turns into a neat pilot program that, if successful, could come to supplant the current development model."

OBAMA: The Choice Of A New Generation

MyDD's Jerome Armstrong is tired of Barack Obama's "fake self-proclaimed movement" and is ready to declare the "race is Hillary Clinton's to lose at this point." Armstrong says Obama has never aligned himself with the existing netroots movement "that began with Dean in '02, swelled for Wesley Clark in '03, led Dean to the DNC Chair and propelled the Hackett and Lamont candidacies, leading to the surge of activists voting for Democrats in '06." Armstrong adds:

It is not a movement, but a candidate. It's about Obama, and nothing more. He's got numbers in the same way that Coke or Pepsi have consumers; supporters in the same way that Bono and the Dixie Chicks have fans. But this is partisan politics, and Obama will not survive the rightwing machine's onslaught without a strategy that includes internet partisanship.

Armstrong's post drew out Obama defenders including:

• The Huffington Post's John Bohrer: "Even in a campaign of hype, it's hard to fake this kind of excitement. ... there's no denying Obama's campaign has tapped something that is pumping people up and getting them to hit pavement for him. Call it a movement, call it whatever you want, but it's something we're not seeing from the other campaigns."


• TPM Cafe's Nathan Newman: "I think there's a real possibility that Obama may be doing the deepest form of movement building, tapping into previously ignored issues and constituencies that may come roaring into prominence and power with his campaign. And that kind of movement building can create significantly expanded political majorities for such a candidate if he succeeds."

RICHARDSON: Give Me A Sign ...

Impressed with Bill Richardson's "warmth and charm that proved he was half-Mexican" The Huffington Post's Vicky Schorr still left a San Marino, CA, Richardson fundraiser unnerved after the host's daughter's fell flat on her face during Richardson's remarks. Schorr blogs: "Most of the crowd trickled off then, but some of us lingered, unable, quite, to leave the scene. ... Nor could we shake the sense that it had somehow meant something. Was a sign of something, something wrong, broken, that maybe we couldn't fix this time. A sign that even if Richardson is as terrific as he seems, as smart and as right-thinking, as able a diplomat as well, a man of the world the way this gang in office are boys in the club, it still wouldn't matter."

Also blogging on Richardson, The Plank flags news that an audience member in NV had to remind Richardson that France is a member of the UN Security Council. Ryan Lizza comments: "For those not familiar with the Richardson resume, he was Clinton's ambassador to the United Nations."

GIULIANI: The Ramesh Primary

Responding to Ramesh Ponnuru's latest National Review article arguing Rudy Giuliani's "stand on abortion is so bad in so many ways that it ought comprehensively to disqualify Rudy for the Republican nomination," The Corner's Peter Robinson points to Giuliani's promise to "increase adoptions, decrease abortions, and protect the quality of life for our children" and asks: "Does this affect your thinking? And a second query: Would it affect your thinking if early on Rudy persuasively hinted-or came right out and stated-that he would name as his running mate a throughgoing pro-lifer?"

MCCAIN: The Anybody But Mitt Campaign?

Jonathan Martinreporting on John McCain's purchase of an anti-Mitt Romney URL produced a second day of conservative pondering about how McCain's new anti-Romney offensive could possibly end an a McCain nomination:

• Townhall's Dean Barnett: "Does he think he'll reap some benefit from turning himself into the political version of Grandpa Simpson? If I were McCain, I'd go upbeat and explain my own positions and repair my own relationships with the party faithful. That's what he has to do."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "Does the McCain camp simply think that Giuliani and Thompson will fade and they'll be left with Romney? Or do they think if they can knock off Romney early, they'd do better in a two man race with Giuliani or Thompson? Beats me."
• Townhall's Patrick Ruffini: "McCain-friendlies seldom if ever tout the Senator's thin conservative credentials; they know that doing so would only draw conservative fire. The goal is to muddy the waters with attacks on Romney that seem to materialize out of thin air. ... The McCain camp's strategy: McCain's opponents are just as bad as he is. The only difference is that McCain was never pro-choice. ... If it works, their strategy will give us a Giuliani vs. Thompson race. Two clear finalists: a moderate vs. a conservative. Where exactly does the hard-to-pigeonhole McCain fit in in this scenario?"

ROMNEY: Science Friday

The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez promotes Mitt Romney's new NRO article looking at "real scientific opportunities" in stem cell research. Romney highlights recent developments showing a possibility for non-embryonic stem cell research and writes: "It is time to move beyond typical Washington politics, and offer support for stem-cell research techniques that bring science and ethics together to promote life, protect life, and save lives."

In other pro-Romney blogging, The Brody File reports Traditional Values Coalition chair Rev. Lou Sheldon has a commitment from Romney that if elected he will be sworn in on The Bible, not the Book of Mormon. More Sheldon: "I felt sincerity, not phoniness."

F. THOMPSON: Grading On A Curve

The Brody File posts exclusive video of Fred Thompson's pre-recorded message to he National Right to Life conference 6/15 in Kansas City, MO. Brody comments: "He sure does come across as authentic. It's downright folksy and non-threatening. It really is his first official "salvo" into the pro-life arena as a presidential candidate. Oh, that's right. I forgot. he's not a candidate...yet." K-Lo is also impressed: "It's good - on stem-cell research, on SCOTUS, on infanticide....on entitlement reform, and then to the war."

Also touching on Thompson and life, AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein explains why past pro-choice statements won't hurt Thompson: "after months of hearing Giuliani's pro-choice views, and watching Romney's embarrassing, and recent, flip-flop on the issue, Thompson's pro-life voting record in the Senate is looking pretty good. ... The bottom line is that after months of being disappointed with the current crop of candidates, conservatives want to rally around somebody. As a result, they'll likely be more forgiving to Thompson than they may have been otherwise."

Not a fan of yet another GOP hopeful, Andrew Sullivan blogs after watching an interview of Thompson: "Thompson seems charming if you need someone to while away a long evening - and you'll have to remind him of what's recently been in the news. But he also seems bored. And remarkably free of any specific ideas to run on."

IMMIGRATION: The Enforcement Is In The Mail!

The Corner's Mark Krikorian sums up conservative reaction to news the WH is reviving the Senate immigration bill with promises of $4.4 bil. in supplemental spending for securing the border: "You know what they say: The check is in the mail, Islam is a religion of peace, and Sure, I'll enforce the immigration laws!" At Redstate, Rob Bluey's Senate sources say Sen. Min. Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has agreed to "roll over conservatives" by scheduling the debate and vote at a time he knew Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) would be out of town. And Laura Ingrahamasks WH press. sec. Tony Snow why nobody believes anything he says.

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt picks up on McConnell promises to bring the Senate to a halt if Dems sink a 5th Circuit judicial nomination and blogs: "it seems hard to imagine McConnell following through on his threat and yet allowing a huge immigration package desperately wanted by Ted Kennedy to sail through. ... Why a path to citizenship when the Bush nominees can't get a path to a floor vote?"

Also tanking in conservative eyes, Sen. Min. Whip Trent Lott (R-MS) is drawing fire for his denunciation of "talk-radio people." Hewitt responds: "I will invite Senator Lott on the program next week to discuss what is in the bill and the amendment package. I suspect he will decline, but you never know." Kausfiles adds: " Is that Rush you're talkin' about?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Wash, Rinse, Repeat

Right Wing News answers a readers query on why big business wants the Senate immigration bill to pass:

[T]his bill isn't going to end illegal immigration. Instead, it will guarantee these businesses a flow of illegal immigrants for years to come. For example, illegals who come here on a guest worker program will simply go underground when their time is up instead of going back home. Moreover, the bill won't secure the border, which is why even the CBO admits it will only cut the flow of illegals by 25%.

That means the shady businesses get to keep the 12-20 million illegals who are already here, get more workers from chain immigration and a guest worker program, and in another 20 years, we'll have 9-15 million more illegals ready to accept their amnesty. Then, the process will start all over again, except it will be even easier on the illegals because there will be 12-20 million former illegal aliens who will be voting citizens by then.

LEST WE FORGET: Our Long National Nightmare Is Over

Watching the Spurs Kevorkian the Cavaliers 6/14, Basketbawful blogs: "Nike's 'We are all witnesses' commercial ... seems a little silly with an impending sweep ... we are all witnesses to WHAT? Self-destruction and ignominious failure?"

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:44 PM

June 14, 2007

6/14: If Not Now, When?

After noting that "current national polling of presidential preferences for 2008" show Hillary Clinton will likely be the nominee, Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat blogs: "Horserace blogging on the Presidential election may be fun, but it is completely nonserious and not based on anything. And it will continue to be so until about a couple of months before the Iowa caucuses." In a not-completely-unrelated post, MyDD's Matt Stoller writes: "I'm beginning to think that progressives might have to embrace a different strategy than to hope that we get a progressive in the 2008 race, and work to build the machinery for a progressive primary challenge in 2012 against a sitting Democratic President."

Reading these posts (and many others), it appears that many in the netroots have resigned themselves to a Clinton presidency despite a clear understanding in the community that she does not share their policy position on Iraq. While they berate Dems in Congress for not doing more to end the war, are the netroots doing enough to make sure the next WH occupant will? If now isn't the time to use netroots power to push an HRC alternative, when is? If the netroots waits til IA for a U.S. out-of-Iraq candidate to emerge, they just might have to wait til '12 before they have a real chance to affect policy again.

DEM FIELD: A Mudcat Bounce?

Coming the day after John Edwards aide David 'Mudcat' Sanders insulted the community, MyDD's 6/07 straw poll shows a sharp decline in support for Edwards. However, no one candidate picked up many of Edwards' disaffected supporters: 6/07 and 5/07 results include:

6/07 5/07
Barack Obama 33% 31%
John Edwards 31% 41%
Bill Richardson 13% 10%
Hillary Clinton 6% 5%
Chris Dodd 3% 2%

OBAMA: So Many Wankers, So Little Time

Barack Obama general counsel Robert Bauer did not make positive inroads to netroots communities with his Huffington Post "Progressive Case for a Libby Pardon." Bauer blogged: "President Clinton's pardons included one granted to a farmer convicted of perjury in a bankruptcy proceeding. ... Is the difference one of station in life, the difference between the Chief of Staff to the Vice President and a hog farmer? ... But if the President pardons Libby, and by this act makes the case his own, he will have picked up a portion of the cost. Libby will fall back, restored to obscurity. Bush will step forward and take the lead role. He will have to explain himself; he will have to answer questions."

Reactions include:

• MyDD's Matt Stoller: "Were I an Obama supporter, I might hope that Bauer be kept away from anything sharp, heavy machinery, toys that look edible, and/or Obama himself."
• MyDD's George P: "This plays right into the argument many hard-core Democrats have with Obama that he is getting too chummy with Republicans. ... We simply CAN'T play nice with them all the time. They are the "common enemy," not partners in government."
• Jane Hamsher at firedoglake: "So are we to accept that the General Counsel for the Obama campaign stepped out on his own in such a high profile way with such a hot button issue and the candidate had no knowledge of it? ... I like and respect Senator Obama and think he's done some very smart things, but the role of General Counsel is not an inconsequential one."
• Christy Hardin Smith at firedoglake: "It also raises some interesting questions in terms of what he expects if Obama wins the campaign. Last I checked, people who work on campaigns generally hope to gain a position in a subsequent administration if their candidate wins in a whole lot of cases. If Mr. Bauer thinks that the rule of law is malleable in terms of politically expedient questions of the moment, then we ought to be asking the questions now rather than in a confirmation hearing later, don't you think?"

Many took on the merits of Bauer's case including Scott Lemieux, Jeff Lomonaco, Ezra Klein, Digby, Matthew Yglesias, and Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat.

The Plank's Jason Zengerle observes: "But hey, give the Obama campaign credit. While it took Mudcat a whole eight hours to apologize, the Obama campaign managed to disassociate itself from Bauer's remarks a mere 97 minutes after they received the scarlet W."

OBAMA II: Like Moths To A Flame

Linking to Ramesh Ponnuru's questioning of him on Bloggingheads.tvMatthew Yglesias explains why he believes Obama would have a more progressive foreign policy despite Obama's recent votes and foreign policy speeches mostly matching Hillary Clinton's:

As I said to Ramesh it's my sense that Barack Obama would probably appoint a sounder team, but I've found it difficult to articulate what's driving that sense. ... Basically, left-of-center foreign policy professionals who opposed the Iraq War felt very alienated by the party leadership's embrace of the war back in 2002-2003. Since Obama opposed the war, and since Obama entered the Senate as a celebrity figure interested in foreign policy, those people have tended to cluster around him. Conversely, the left-of-center foreign policy professionals who won the argument in 2002-2003 tend to find themselves in Clinton's orbit and see boat-rocking as a bad thing.

OBAMA III: We Gotta Crush On Obamagirl

The Huffington Post's Karen Russell flags Jake Tapper's back story on a new Obama fan YouTube titled "I Got A Crush.... On Obama." Tapper caught up with the video's 32-year-old Wharton grad producer Ben Relles who also received notoriety for his female POV take on SNL's "dick in a box" skit. Relles, a fan of Obama, claims not to have produced the video for profit, but is selling "Obamagirl" and "I Got a Crush on Obama" t-shirts.

Russell asks: "If you are running for President, how do you respond intelligently and effectively to "tribute videos and ads" like the new risque "I Got A Crush.... On Obama" video? Should a campaign always distance itself from these types of ads or videos? Is "no comment" and "we didn't do it" the only viable responses to voter generated ads?"

OBAMA IV: Don't Stop Believing

TAPPED's Garance Franke-Ruta promotes Obama's recent voter registration and voter contact drive in NH, SC, and IA. GFR blogs: "Now the Obama campaign has posted videos of some of those campaign events, and they have a quality about them that's different from the usual highly-edited, highly-scripted campaign videos that makes them quite charming. ... For all the cynicism we have about politics and politicians, it's also worth recalling the optimism of true believers."

GOP FIELD: Confessions Of A Sausage Maker

Ex-Pres. Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson's 6/13 op-ed admonishing GOPers for abandoning the center was not well received by conservatives. Reactions include:

• The Corner's Ramesh Ponnuru: "If he wants to make the case that it is a mistake for conservatives to abandon Bushism , which is to say Gersonism, he ought at least to grapple with the reasons that they're doing it. It isn't as though this presidency has been such a huge success that this behavior is mystifying."
• The Corner's Jonah Goldberg: "As someone who has argued for years that compassionate conservatism is the Republican version of Clintonism, not the conservative alternative to it, it's wonderful to hear someone who helped make the sausage admit it."
• The Corner's John Podhoretz: "[W]hatever the merits or lack thereof when it comes to "compassionate conservatism," the central point is this: The slogan and the idea were brought into being explicitly to separate Bush from Gingrich-ism, Dole-ism, and what might be called Bork-ism. ... My guess, though, is that, as is always the case, Republicans are going to have to go a little mushy to soften their hard edges and Democrats are going to have to play tough to prove they're not wimps afraid of power."
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "I think Gerson is wrong when he claims that in this cycle no major candidate is reaching towards the middle, and that all of them are simply drifting with the hard-line current of their party. ... Giuliani is running unapologetically against Republican party orthodoxy on several key social issues, most notably abortion. McCain continues to be a maverick when it comes to immigration, campaign finance reform, and terrorist rights. Both have clear centrist tendencies."
• AmSpec Blog's James Antle: "If all of Michael Gerson's Washington Post columns are going to be about how Republicans aren't enough like his ex-boss, they are going to get old pretty fast."

MCCAIN: The Next Dick Gephardt?

Conservatives and other observers are interpreting John McCain's latest YouTube attack on Mitt Romney over abortion as the last acts of a desperate campaign:

• The Corner's Rich Lowry: "Another sign of McCain's extraordinary descent so far in this race is that he has been reduced to frontally attacking Romney in June!"
• Ace of Spades: "I'm not sure how on earth this is supposed to work -- if he destroys Romney, Romney's more social-con constituency moves to... McCain? Why wouldn't they go to the more reliably conservative Thompson?"
• Kausfiles: "I don't quite understand why John McCain is picking a fight with Mitt Romney, given that there are two other GOP contenders who poll better than Romney nationally. Won't this tactic do for McCain what attacking Howard Dean did for Dick Gephardt?"
• The Huffington Post's Thomas Edsall: "If the tactic fails, the McCain campaign may be effectively over."
• The Brody File: "McCain and Romney have become like Luke and Laura from General Hospital after a big argument. Keep checking back here for more episodes."

ROMNEY: At Least He's Consistent On Amnesty

The Brody File is a big fan is Mitt Romney's recently unveiled National Faith and Values Steering Committee: "Mitt Romney has done it again. When it comes to assembling a top notch team, he always seems to knock it out of the park. ... When you go down the list, it really is a very impressive list. He has some of the top social conservatives in the country behind him and that will help immensely as these leaders spread the word about Romney's conservative values."

In not-so-positive Romney blogging, The Corner's Kate O'Beirne in unnerved by APreports that Romney refused to pardon an Iraq war veteran whose conviction, at the age of 13, for shooting a another boy with a BB gun prevented him from qualifying for the police force.

MyManMitt, however, has computer models that show Romney is a shoe in for the nomination.

F. THOMPSON: Twitter Our Hearts

Fred Thompson's new web team continues to roll out all the latest bells and whistles for their new client. Townhall's Matt Lewis details Thompson's new blog 'The Fred File', a MySpace page, a Facebook page, a YouTube channel, and of course, a Twitter channel.

Mitt Romney fan Dean Barnett is not impressed and blogs at Townhall: "A blog? Is that one of those web log thingies I've heard so much about? Surely you jest. ... Every move that Fred makes is for the moment being universally hailed as genius. But he has feet of clay like every politician. The bar is getting raised so high, it's going to be impossible for him to get those clay feet over it."

Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham defends Thompson: "True, campaign blogs, Facebook and MySpace pages are pretty standard practice... But all I know is I had a Twitter friend request from Fred Thompson less than 6 hours after his team announced their online efforts had officially kicked off, which is more than I've had from any other Republican presidential campaign in that particular milieu. ... So, yeah, I'm with Matt."

NRO's Jim Geraghty also argues Team Fred is a cut above the field in the tech department: "Okay, let me observe one example of how Team Fred might be a bit sharper than the average GOP campaign. Recently Michael Moore issued his debate challenge to Fred Thompson on Drudge, and within a few hours, Thompson had his cinematic, cigar-chomping "mental institution, Michael... Something to think about" video response up on Breitbart (which Drudge linked to immediately)."

Also in multi-media Thompson land, The Corner's Peter Robinson links to video of Thompson at Hoover Institution and adds: "In this, my first encounter with Thompson, I was hugely impressed-hugely. He proved relaxed, likeable, determined, warm, funny, and-a trait not always seen in candidates for high office-humble."

F. THOMPSON II: We've Only Just Begun

The promised Thompson oppo research is beginning to filter into conservative circles. The Brody File posts a '96 Thompson Tennesseans for Choice questionnaire including this response on Thompson's 'personal philosophy' on abortion: "The Supreme Court has attempted to delineate the constitutionally appropriate roles for individual and governmental decision-making on the issue of abortion. Beyond that, I believe that the federal government should not interfere with individual convictions and actions in this area."

The dumping campaign tells Brody: "It's notable that in the entire questionnaire he never once says he's pro-life or says what he thinks about Roe."

At the NY Sun, Ryan Sager shares details from Thompson efforts to poach John McCain fundraisers: "In a telephone interview ... the source says that he has personally received two phone calls from Thompson associates, one months ago and one in the last week or so, and that several other major donors have received similar calls. ... The McCain donor said that the calls did not badmouth Mr. McCain, but that they did point out the obvious: that the Arizona senator has not caught on with conservatives."

IRAQ: Wait Til Next Cycle?

Linking to reports Hillary Clinton expects U.S. troops in Iraq throughout her Administration, MyDD's Matt Stoller blogs: "Atrios, and Kevin Drum think that the residual force idea is a bad one. It would be nice if one of the major candidates would actually point out that Clinton does not actually intend to end the occupation of Iraq by American troops. ... I'm beginning to think that progressives might have to embrace a different strategy than to hope that we get a progressive in the 2008 race, and work to build the machinery for a progressive primary challenge in 2012 against a sitting Democratic President. That way, regardless of which Democrat becomes President, they will automatically weaken their position if they don't withdraw troops, and strengthen it if they do end the occupation."

The netroots are also increasingly unhappy with the Senate's resolve to end the war in Iraq before '09. Daily Kos' mcjoan blogs about Maj. Leader Harry Reid's (D-NV) four pronged approach to the '08 DoD authorization bill: "Reid acknowledged the role the blogs have played in driving the Iraq debate in a press conference following the call, and also noted that leadership made mistakes in the supplemental fight. ... Reid and his caucus need to understand that it's not just the bloggers' disappointment they are feeling--it's felt by each and every voter who voted for an end to the Iraq war last November. That's reflected in the series of new polls we've seen over the last week, including an LA Times/Bloomberg poll released yesterday that shows public approval of Congress the lowest level in over a decade."

Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat adds: "Democrats need to face this reality - the "expectations" are that they will do everything possible to end the Debacle. If they do not try to end it, they will suffer consequences."

IMMIGRATION: Do It For McCain

Right Wing News' Senate insider has ominous news for conservative opponents of the immigration bill: "First off, it does look like the Senate immigration bill is coming back. The conventional wisdom seems to be that it's going to be brought up right before the July 4th break, so that the Senate Republican leadership can try to use that as leverage to get votes." More from RWN:

[T]the conservative leaders of the anti-amnesty movement are refusing to cooperate, and won't give Mitch McConnell a list of amendments that they want considered. My source tells me that the reason for this is that the game has now been rigged. McConnell is essentially promising to bring the amendments up in exchange for cloture votes, but he's publicly saying that they will strip any problematic amendments out in committee.

I asked my source to speculate on why [Trent] Lott was pushing so hard, and he said that Lott may be naive enough to think that this bill might help John McCain's presidential campaign. ... In addition, he told me that he thinks a lot of these Senators have "drunk the DC Kool-Aid", and believe that they're better off passing a bad bill, even one that won't ultimately become law if, as expected, the House kills it, so that they can at least tell the voters in 2008 that they did something about immigration.

At Slate, Kausfiles tackles the latest MSM poll showing a majority of Americans approve "a path to citizenship" noting the LA Times skillfull use of "start" and "path" in their latest question on the subject. Kaus links to Rasmussen explanation of why MSM polling on the issue is still compatible with his showing strong majorities of Americans oppose the Senate bill: " he thinks the public is in fact willing to accept "paths to citizenship" as part of a compromise that would also secure the borders. But the public thinks the Senate bill won't secure the borders." Finally kaus observes: "The LAT could have countered Rasmussen by asking voters what they thought about the actual bill. They didn't. Why take chances?

On the left, The Huffington Post's Rick Jacobs announces he will be riding "The Dreams Across America Tour" train crossing the country to "dispel myths, give real facts, and shares personal stories about the need for just and humane immigration reform in this country." Jacobs explains his vision of a better immigration policy: "When there are strong economic imbalances, such as we now have with the less than perfect trade agreements that are in place with Mexico and other countries, we export poverty while magnetically pulling workers north. So rather than address what is an essential flaw in policy and law, our government dithers while families and businesses ... suffer."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Professionalizing Progressive Politics

In These TimesAdam Doster reports that 'When College Ends, So Does Activism':

Because of the growing cost of college, these tiring, low-paying gigs or unpaid internships are increasingly inadequate options for left-leaning graduates. With state and federal legislators redirecting funds away from universities, college tuition has outpaced family income for the past 15 years and inflation for the past 30 years.

The importance of engaging and gainfully employing young progressives is hard to overstate, both for its immediate practicality and the long-term sustainability of the left. By ignoring progressive grads' economic constraints, the progressive movement-activists and funders-are squandering an immense opportunity to utilize the ideology, size and energy of the post-graduate generation. ... One remedy for this crisis is the professionalization of progressive politics. If legislators won't find ways to ease the financial burden hampering young folks, politically engaged graduates, eager to work full-time for social change, should be given the opportunity to provide for their economic needs in the same way as their colleagues in the private sector.

LEST WE FORGET: Communism Works!

Cracked.com shares the important lessons we should have learned from some of our favorite cartoons:

• The Smurfs ... LESSON: Communism works! For naysayers who point to the Former Soviet Union as proof that communism is inherently flawed, may we merely direct your attention to Smurf Village, where everyone shares everything, wears similar utilitarian clothing, battles Gargamel and his turn-Smurfs-to-gold get rich quick schemes and obeys the dictates of a bearded, red hat-wearing, benevolent authority figure. Quoth Comrade Papa: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." Really, he actually said that.
• G.I. Joe ... LESSON: Knowing is half the battle. The other half of the battle is kicking Cobra's terrorist ass. And with the coolest soldier codenames ever --Snake Eyes, Duke, Lady Jaye, Shipwreck-- winning the war on terror should be no problem. Good will always win out over evil, because good guys work together (Team Work! Cooperation!), while bad guys are ruthless cowards who turn tail and run whenever G.I. Joe's laser guns get to zappin'. As Sergeant Slaughter once said: "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people and neither do we." Now that's some good strategery.
• He-Man ... LESSON: It's OK to be gay. Look at this guy: golden locks cut in a tasteful bob, buff biceps, tanned, toned, hairless torso, a magic sword and most importantly, fabulous powers. What's more, He-Man invites his handsome friends, the Masters of the Universe, to come hang out in his castle anytime. Of course Skeletor and his fugly cohorts are never allowed access to the secrets of He-Man's dark, dry palace. Yes, we had He-Man toys, like Ram-Man, Trap-Jaw and even Castle Grayskull. We also had a favorite pair of tighty whiteys that had He-Man on one cheek and Skeletor on the other, battling over our asshole. But did merely owning and wearing that underwear make us gay?

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:38 PM

June 13, 2007

6/13: Distinctions Without Differences

Ending US involvement in the war in Iraq is the number one issue for the netroots. It's not unanimous, but the super majority opinion among them is that the US must get out entirely, more along the lines of Bill Richardson's promises. Despite this, the "big three" have largely gotten a pass on the issue despite the fact that none of them have joined Richardson in his pledge. That may be changing.

Matthew Yglesias is picking up on reports Hillary Clinton admits to seeing significant amounts of troops in Iraq throughout her presidency and calls out Barack Obama and John Edwards for not "exactly come out swinging against Clinton on Iraq in a forward looking sense." Also applying pressure, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) is rolling back some of his words from earlier this year that praised Obama for being strong on Iraq. A reading of his current statements clearly implies he sees no difference between Obama and Clinton on the war. If Obama ever does want to energize the netroots to his cause, a clear embrace of a Richardson-type promise to bring everyone home ought to do the trick.

DEM FIELD: It's Iraq, Stupid

Daily Kos' MissLaura flags a key question from CNN's post NH debate poll. When asked to volunteer "which one issue is most important to your vote" 57% of Dem respondents identified Iraq. ML comments: "Say what you will about the New Hampshire primary, it's good to know that for 2008, the presidential candidates will face early voting from a public they cannot pretend wants them to be equivocal on Iraq."

CLINTON: Well At Least She's right On Domestic Issues

In the most biting criticism of Hillary Clinton we've seen, The Huffington Post's Russell Shaw responds to Washington Postpolling showing HRC leading Barack Obama by a 2 to 1 margin among women:

She is on the correct side of many domestic issues. ... My problem with Sen. Clinton is more related to her personal behavior. ... Hillary knew about Bill's serial infidelities all along. Although she expressed some profound discomfort over them, she elected to stay in the marriage. ... Why did she stay in that serially adulterated marriage? One overarching reason? Power. ... How these women could bond with someone who stayed with someone who repeatedly humiliated her female honor is beyond me. What these "needs" women voters should realize is that Hillary never felt any pain tha[t] you did when you divorced your husband and are now laboring to support your children alone. ... Do you really want a President of the United States who is less honorable than you?

In more policy focussed critiques of HRC, Matthew Yglesias reacts to Ted Koppel's NPRcommentary in which Koppel observed: " I ran into an old source the other day who held a senior position at the Pentagon until his retirement. He occasionally briefs Senator Clinton on the situation in the Gulf. She told him that if she were elected president and then re-elected four years later she would still expect U.S. troops to be in Iraq at the end of her second term." Yglesias responds:

I find that the tendency when I talk to people leaning in a Clintonish direction is that they express confidence, as Clinton herself does in the debates, that all of the Democrats will, if elected, move rapidly to end the war. If anything, I think the stronger argument for Clinton is the reverse -- that while she seems disinclined to really end the war, it's not clear that her main rivals are inclined to do so either. Neither Edwards nor Obama has, after all, exactly come out swinging against Clinton on Iraq in a forward looking sense. There have been some indications that Clinton's envisioned "residual" force would be bigger than what other candidates have in mind, but her main rivals haven't argued this explicitly.

DODD: Baby Steps

Chris Dodd official blogger Matt Browner-Hamlin promotes Dodd's two new ads "Amazing Grace" and "Split" at Bleeding Heartland. Bleeding Heartland's Des Moines Dem comments: "They are basically biographical pieces. I especially liked the second one. I was not aware of Dodd's role in passing the Family and Medical Leave act. Although that act doesn't go far enough for many families, it was still an enormous step forward, and I know tons of young parents who appreciate it."

EDWARDS: Just Edwards Being Edwards

John Edwards campaign damage control on David 'Mudcat' Sanders anti-blogger tantrum has not mollified netroots concerns over Sanders or the Edwards campaign. In defense of Sanders, Edwards aide Joe Trippi blogged at MyDD: "Mudcat is...well he's Mudcat. I am not sure if he considers me one of the "Harvards" or not. But I consider him one of the best rural strategists in our party -- we can probably learn a lot from each other's strengths and weaknesses." TPM Cafe's Greg Sargent quotes Edwards spokesman Eric Schultz in a similar vein: "That?'s just Mudcat being Mudcat. He speaks for himself."

Reactions to the reactions include:

• MyDD's Matt Stoller: "And as for Joe Trippi and the Edwards campaign saying 'Oh Mudcat's Mudcat', what is he, seven years old? That's ridiculous. This is an adult man, not a child. And this is a Presidential contest, not a playpen."
• TAPPED's Garance Franke-Ruta: "People who are working for presidential candidates -- and this goes for all of them, and not just John Edwards -- are ill-served by engaging in anything but the most innocuous personal blogging efforts. They're likely to get their candidate in trouble if they speak freely but in a way that's off-message for the campaign."
• Jane Hamsher at firedoglake: "Mudcat's half-hearted apology for telling liberal bloggers to "go to hell" did not appear quite so deeply held as his interest in perpetuating the kind of class warfare that has been a hallmark of Republican talking points for decades, one that Edwards himself has suffered from mightily. ... Saying that "Mudcat will be Mudcat" is not enough. I invite Senator Edwards to appear on a Blue America session with Howie Klein to distance himself from Saunders' comments and give his liberal supporters the reassurance they deserve that these attitudes will not be reflected in his Presidential campaign as it goes forward."

OBAMA: Losing Russ?

Responding to a Daily Kos diary highlighting Sen. Russ Feingold's (D-WI) endorsement of Barack Obama as "being clearly stronger [on Iraq]" than Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, Feingold press sec. Zach Lowe comments "people should know that this interview was done in mid-March and the highlighted quotation reflected Senator Feingold's views at the time."

MyDD's Matt Stoller then followed up with Feingold and got a statement from Trevor Miller including:

The debate in the Senate over the misguided mission in Iraq has shifted significantly in the last couple of months. ... All four current Democratic Senators seeking the presidential nomination in 2008 voted in favor of a timeline to end the war, three of the four candidates voted against the supplemental appropriations bill, and all four also voted in favor of the Feingold-Reid bill. Taking the tough votes on this issue - rather than just taking potshots from the outside - should be praised as important steps in helping to end this war."

Stoller comments: "This would seem to be a smack at Edwards. I don't like the clubbiness of the Senate, even when it comes from Feingold, though this is a clarification of his earlier comments."

OBAMA II: We Wish We Were Taller Too

Some at MyDD are pushing back against criticism of Barack Obama's support for coal liquification by citing Team Obama assurances that "Obama will not support the development of any coal-to-liquid fuels unless they emit at least 20% less life-cycle carbon than conventional fuels."

Few are buying the distinction. Alex Urevickresponds : "Can he make me 10 feet taller too? Though I am very, very glad that Obama is changing his tune, this is laughable. ... In the most optimistic and theoretical situations, CTL would produce the same amount of carbon as regular fuel. ... I'm glad Obama has come around to the fact that you cannot be pro-pollution and a Democratic darling, but the fact that he had to be pushed to do the right thing on such an immensely important issue says a lot about his lack of leadership."

John Edwards supporter Vox Populiadds : "I really don't think he's clarifying his position. He sponsored the bill in January. This is now June. Even if he's been saying he supports it but doesn't for several weeks, it's still in his bill--subsidies to the coal companies in Illinois. If he's shifting his position I applaud him, but he should probably withdraw his name from the Coal-to-liquid bill first."

OBAMA III: Let The Conversation Begin

The Brody File has positive things to say about Barack Obama's religous out reach efforts: "Obama's religious outreach team has received e-mails from pro-life groups that express concern about Obama's pro-choice position. They've also received correspondence from moderate Catholics concerned about this, too. ... Obama's campaign responds by saying that a conversation does indeed need to start on how to reduce the number of abortions. ... In my dealings with the Obama campaign, I believe they are truly sincere in furthering the discussion, having a dialogue when it comes to the role of faith in politics and abortion."

RICHARDSON: Beyond Iraq

CaliticsLucas O'Connor likes the fact that Bill Richardson took mass transit while in Los Angeles, CA, but he likes Richardson's eagerness to put Iraq behind us even more: "He's free to talk about things like light rail because for him, Iraq is no longer an issue. Bill Richardson unequivocally wants all troops out of Iraq now. He thinks that congress should de-authorize the war, and if he were to become president, all American personnel would leave Iraq. That's it, next question. Say what you will about the rest of his platform and framing (I have), but by dispatching with Iraq and leaving no doubt about his plan and commitment to ending the war, Richardson is free to talk about everything else. You know...the stuff that actually makes up a presidency."

GIULIANI: The Ten ... Oy ... Twelve Commitments

Rudy Giuliani's recently released "Twelve Commitments to the American People" drew plenty of positive attention from conservatives including:

• Townhall's Patrick Ruffini: "The critics will blast this for lacking in specifics. But I find this pretty refreshing for being clear and succinct. This is something that can fit on a palm-card, something your backers can easily refer back to when answering the question, 'What does he believe?'"
• The Corner's Byron York: "And Immigration is Number Two"
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "Interesting, I thought, that ending illegal immigration comes right below staying on offense against terrorism. Clearly, Giuliani believes he's been gaining traction from his criticisms of the Senate bill. This makes sense to me."
• Robert Bluey: "A good list (especially No. 2 [on immigration]) and a great way for conservatives to hold him accountable.
• RCP Blog's Blake Dvorak: "Fairly solid conservative agenda, until around #8 and #9. There's going to be a few folks wondering if Rudy should have put the "constructionist judge" issue above "adoptions," which is essentially his pro-choice views without the word "abortion."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "It's a sort of Contract With America, at the executive rather than legislative level. ... I'll tell you what I think: there is a whole lot there for conservatives, and many other Americans, to like."
• Outside the Beltway's James Joyner did not like the list and negatively responded to each one including this on securing the border: "No, you won't. And, frankly, I wouldn't want to give you (or anyone else) enough power to 'identify every non-citizen in our nation.' There are over 300 million people living here, stretched across a continental landmass. How on earth would you do that?"

GIULIANI II: Pitch Perfect

Giuliani also appeared on Hugh Hewitt's radio show and explained his opposition to the Senate immigration bill:

I would have voted against it just on the grounds that we're better off the way we are now than the change that we're going to make, and we're not in good shape right now. ... I believe, and that was my second commitment, that you can end illegal immigration without anymore legislation. You have the authorization to build a big part of the fence. You can supplement that with a technological fence that would spot people and alert the Border Patrol to people coming over the border. You could use a border stat program like my compstat program to reduce crime, to strategically place the Border Patrol like we used to do with the police. ...

And if we could show the American people that we could stop it at the border, then the rest of this stuff that's being debated, I think you could come to a more reasonable accommodation about it. But right now, people look at the things that Ted Kennedy wants to do, and people who are compromising with him, and they say my goodness, I mean, ... if we don't get control over our borders, this 12 million's going to become 20 million.

MCCAIN: Oh My Darling, Oh My Darling, MSM

Townhall's Matt Lewis writes the media's "new narrative" on McCain is that his campaign is falling apart, hence the Washington Post's story on John Dowd's switch from McCain to Fred Thompson. But Lewis points out Dowd raised less than $7K for McCain, "but you can't let that fact get in the way of a good story." Lewis warns; "My point is that -- as John McCain has learned -- if you live by the media narrative, you die by the media narrative..."

Patrick Ruffini responds via Townhall that he sees where McCain "is a tad undervalued on the Intrade." But unlike John Kerry in '04, Mccain "doesn't just have the unstable Howard Dean to climb over and instead must defeat "skilled politicians" like Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. Against one of them, "you might give McCain better than even money." Nut against all of them, "McCain would have to hit the jackpot."

Dean BarnettTownhall responds to Ruffini and Lewis that the media still loves McCain, as proven by how the MSM "couldn't stop gushing over how brilliantly John McCain performed" at the last debate. "For what it's worth, I was with the CNN posse; I thought McCain did well" and "I see no evidence that the media has misplaced its fondness for its favorite maverick." Barnett argues McCain's immigration stance "is a real killer" as all the other WH '08 GOP candidates "detest" Mccain's immigration bill in what is sure to be "a fundamental problem" for his campaign.

Lewis then takes on Barnett's point on McCain's immigration position, agreeing that "it's a real killer" for the Senator. "In fairness, the other frontrunners are -- or have recently been -- for Amnesty," leaving no real contrast on the issue. "But perception is reality, and the fact is, the bill is called, "McCain-Kennedy."

The Shot notes ex-McCain Aiken Co Chair David Nix "has been making some news" for leaving McCain's campaign because of immigration, but he argues "the media should really lay off this David Nix story" because "They are blowing it WAY out of proportion." Nix isn't McCain's manager or adviser, he's a county activist. "Do we believe the McCain campaign is falling apart? Yes, we do...But should David Nix be touted as some grand example around the country? Absolutely not."

ROMNEY: That's Me In The Spotlight, Confusing My Religion

CBN'sDavid Brody blogs some Mormons are "scratching their heads" because of a recent Romney comment. ABC's George Stephanopoulos asked Romney: "In your faith, if I understand it correctly, it teaches that Jesus will return probably to the United States and reign on earth for 1,000 years..." Romney responded: "[T]hat doesn't happen to be a doctrine of my church. Our belief is just as it says in the Bible, that the messiah will come to Jerusalem, stand on the Mount of Olives and that the Mount of Olives will be the place for the great gathering and so forth. It's the same as the other Christian tradition." Though Christians and Mormons agree their faiths teach differently about this, "it's pretty well document that Mormons believe that Jesus is coming back to Jerusalem AND Missouri." So why did Romney leave MO out of it? "Some Mormons are dumbfounded too" and "in this case, it looks like he's backing away from Church doctrine."

John Hood writes at National Review that the Boston Globe's story on the conservative civil libertarian group American Freedom Agenda calls Mitt Romney "unfit to serve as president" for not signing their wiretap pledge. "Actually, it isn't just Romney they criticize," but he "does appear to be their first big target."

The Corner's John Podhoretz blogs Romney's $4M spent on TV ads since Feb. is "smart politics on Romney's part, but it is worth noting that what he's doing here, essentially, is paying to raise his poll numbers." While "buying" IA support "is a time-honored tradition," Romney "appears" to be "buying the Ames straw poll." It's "smart," but stories like the that one "are going to help his rivals by giving everybody the sense that he's simply spending his way into good numbers."

F. THOMPSON: You Can Call Me, Al

Latest Politics' Ryan Sager blogs that ex-Sen. Al D'Amato (R-NY) just endorsed Fred Thompson. But it's definitely not a surprise, given that D'Amato and Giuliani "have had a longtime feud going on."

Meanwhile, The Corner's Ramesh Ponnuru dug up "a bit of a record" on Fred Thompson when it comes to cloning and stem-cell issues. He voted with pro-lifers on a bill to ban cloning in '98, though actually "a procedural motion about the bill, but it looks like the vote divided based on the perceived merits of the bill."

Erick Erickson at Red State blogs the Huffington Post says Thompson is a lobbyist, and as George Will writes, a lazy lobbyist -- or The Nation "would have us believe," a "foreign agent lazy lobbyist." Erickson reminds us that Thompson has been a practicing lawyer for 27 years and has only had 6 lobbying clients, a couple of which "were nothing more than a phone call or two on behalf of friends of his." This is another "example of both why Fred Thompson is running and why he is running such an innovative campaign," though the "beltway crowd" loves to "pigeonhole anyone and everyone."

IRAQ: A Disaster Sine '92

MyDD's Jonathan Singer sat in a Maj. Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) conference call detailing Dem plans to force as many votes as possible on Iraq this summer. Singer comments: "When Reid talked about the need to get 60 votes, I asked him ... wouldn't it be more effective to not only force Senate Republicans to vote no on cloture votes but to actually sustain a filibuster, physically talking the bill to death? ... Reid seemed to answer in the affirmative that Democrats should put the pressure on Republicans but at the same time seemed to stop short of endorsing a move to keep the Republicans talking indefinitely, blocking funds from going to American troops in Iraq. ... That's why I'd like to see Senate Democrats force Senate Republicans to actually filibuster over Iraq. Put the onus entirely on them."

Watching the Daily Show Atrios quotes Bob Shrum: "The blogosphere was a lot more right about Iraq than all the experts in the Democratic party." Atrios comments: "Bob Shrum Kisses Up To His New Masters."

Still on Iraq, Atrios also links to Matthew Yglesias complaints about Madeline Albright invoking the name of Harry Truman with out discussing policy specifics and comments: "Ultimately this will continue until our elites are willing to confront Iraq and their own culpability, from Gulf War I through the sanctions period to the present. While there's a tendency to see Gulf War I as a "good war," presumably because it wasn't a clusterf**k for the US, there seems to be little willingness to examine that war as part of a continuous chain of events which led, ultimately, to where we are now."

Speaking of Gulf War I and the elites who supported, Power Line's John Hinderaker summarizes the contents of a You Tube widely posted by conservative bloggers: "This video of Al Gore excoriating the first President Bush in 1992 is pretty entertaining. His theme: the Reagan and Bush administrations failed to appreciate the monstrosity of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. Iraq has carried out terrorist acts and supported terrorists, has active WMD programs and is in hot pursuit of nuclear weapons. And it's ridiculous to think that sanctions could work against Saddam."

IMMIGRATION: When Al Frankenstein Monsters Attack

The Corner's Kate O'Beirne reports on Pres. Bush's 6/12 meeting with GOP Senators and worries that suggestions of an "emergency-supplemental bill to fund enforcement measures" that would "move on a parallel track with their grand compromise as a testament to their good intentions on enforcement promises" could "grease the skids for the grand compromise." The Corner's Andy McCarthy isn't buying: "Only people steeped in Washington and permanent government culture could possibly think throw-money-at-it proposals light anyone's fire in the real world. ... There's one great way to demonstrate the government's commitment to enforce the immigration laws: ENFORCE THE IMMIGRATION LAWS. After they've done that for a while - and can actually persuade people that they will continue to do so no matter who is in the White House - then people might be willing to listen."

Niether is Rob Bluey: "Bush's argument that the status quo won't work is an embarrassing admission of his administration's failure to enforce existing laws. Today during a visit to Capitol Hill, Bush told reporters, "We've got to convince the American people that this bill is the best way to enforce our border." Convince us? Why doesn't the administration use the laws already on the books to clean up the border?"

Also at The Corner, Jonah Goldberg posts a readers response to a recent GOP fundraising call: "NO! Not one thin dime to any Republican organization as long as the President continues to support this idiotic amnesty plan, refuses to fire Gonzalez and keeps kissing Teddy Kennedy's butt." The correspondent adds: "Last week, before the amnesty bill was beaten back, I got a call from Norm Coleman's campaign. I sent him a check the last time he ran, but laughed out loud when they called to ask for my support this time. 'He'll get my support when I get his - in the form of a vote against this Al Frankenstein Monster of a illegal immigrant amnesty bill.' Guess I owe Norm a check now."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: First Things First

Responding to Ezra Klein questions on why Dems "want to shoehorn energy policy issues into discussion of national security," Matthew Yglesias blogs:

The correct answer is that it's serving as a substitute for an issue Democrats are still uncomfortable talking about. Global warming is an extremely important issue for the country. It's potentially a favorable issue for the Democratic Party. But when people say they want to hear from Democrats about foreign policy, they're saying they want to hear a message about war and peace. The trouble is that you can't articulate a clear theory about war and peace that doesn't provide a clear conclusion about Iraq. And reaching a clear conclusion about Iraq would involve confronting the large number of Democratic elites who backed the war.
People on both sides of that divide, however, have been very interested in sort of covering up the breach and having everyone play together nicely. And party unity is a good thing. But you're never going to have a clear, forceful message on the core foreign policy issues unless you're willing to take a stand on preventive war, on democratization by invasion, etc.

LEST WE FORGET: Kate Winslet Is Practically Perfect

In response to Maxim's Hot 100 list, After Ellen posts their 'Hot List' for lesbians. After Ellen describes their list:

"Hot" for lesbians and bisexual women comes in all ages, sizes, colors and styles, as the diversity of women on our list demonstrates - from Tina Fey (No. 7) and Helen Mirren (No. 31), to Ellen DeGeneres (No. 50), America Ferrera (No. 30) and Queen Latifah (No. 55). There's even a conservative Republican in the mix (Angie Harmon, No. 82), proving we can still find a women sexy even if we don't agree with her alternative lifestyle choice.

The top three are:

• Leisha Hailey: As Alice on The L Word, Leisha gets more beautiful every season, and her acting skills have flourished too. Nobody has better comic timing, but she can also make us cry. And before she became our Sunday-night crush, she Murmur-ed in our ears as a pink-haired rocker who dated k.d. lang. Leisha makes it official: You're even hotter when you're out.


• Angelina Jolie: Ever since she caught our eye as the tattoo-bearing tomboy in Foxfire (1996), Angelina has been an undeniable lesbian favorite. It doesn't hurt that she played gay in Gia and publicly admits to her attraction to women. So what if she's shacked up with Brad Pitt? She's still the hottest bisexual actress - and mom - around.


• Kate Winslet: "Kate Winslet is practically perfect. A brilliant actress who picks great roles. A beautiful woman who believes you should never skip dessert. A class act who still fancies a dirty joke. Funny. Smart. English. Just go ahead and swoon now and get it over with already.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:38 PM

June 12, 2007

6/12: Ana Marie Is Our Hero

It seems at least once a week someone at Swampland (be it Joe Klein, Dick Armey, or Ana Marie Cox herself) manages to get in a tizzy with the netroots over something, fueling a blogswarm that generates links and traffic to all sites involved. On 6/11 the instigating honors fell to John Edwards advisor David 'Mudcat' Saunders, who sent the netroots fuming with a post denouncing the "Metropolitan Opera Wing" of the Dem Party. Saunders has since apologized in a post much less widely linked to than his original. But give him and Cox time ... we bet they'll be fighting with the netroots again in no time.

DEM FIELD: Notorious HRC

MyDD's Jonathan Singer notes the LA Timesnew poll shows John Edwards and Barack Obama out performing Hillary Clinton in head-to-head match ups with GOPers and speculates: "While I think this is largely a factor of Clinton's near universal name recognition, which any Democratic nominee would have by the time voters decide the next President in November 2008 (and thus it is not necessarily the case that Clinton would be a weaker general election candidate than either Edwards or Obama), these numbers do seem to undercut the notion shared by many Democratic primary voters that Clinton is the most "electable" candidate in the race."

CLINTON: Outscoring Jobs Clinton Staffers Won't Do

Today in anti-Hillary Clinton blogging, the netroots attack HRC for being opportunistic on trade, for not committing to Univision's WH '08 debate, and for letting Chris Lehane do her anti-Barack Obama dirty work. On trade Clinton's '06 Sen. Dem primary opponent Jonathan Tasini reacts to Clinton's rejection of trade with South Korea at The Huffington Post: "There is a caveat to her apparent position ... because support for such deals is not polling well among Americans. Until candidates reject the very concept of so-called 'free trade,' we still have a long way to go. The problem isn't that the so-called 'free trade' agreement with South Korea, or other countries, is out of balance, as Sen. Clinton seems to indicate in her statement. The fundamental problem is the basic underpinnings of so-called 'free trade.'"

On Team Clinton's claim they would skip the Univision debate since it was not sanctioned by the DNC, firedoglake's Pachacutec blogs: "I'm a little confused by the Clinton camp's statement, since Clinton attended the Sojourners Faith & Politics Forum, which was not sanctioned by the DNC. She is also reportedly attending the NAACP debate on July 12 and the Tavis Smiley debate on June 28. Neither of these are sanctioned by the DNC. It's one thing to decide not to attend the Univision debate, conducted in Spanish, because you can't, well, speak Spanish. ... But the campaign's stated reason for not attending insults the intelligence of everyone involved. This dog ate my homework shit just doesn't fly."

On Clinton using Lehane to attack other Dems MyDD's Matt Stoller blogs: "Lehane is regularly used by reporters as a quote machine, speaking unofficially for the campaigns in a 'hands-off' manner so Clinton spokespeople don't have to say it. When Lehane says something, you can pretty much be assured that it's coming from the Clinton campaign. ... If Clinton wants to draw attention to Tony Rezko's history with Obama, if she and Mark Penn really want to open up that can of worms, they should have enough principles to come out and say it in the open. ... But I don't think it's fair to spread rumors like this in print using surrogates who are clearly on your time under the guise that they are unofficial and neutral observers when they are obviously such pushers of pro-Clinton spin."

EDWARDS: Dragged Into the Mud

Guest blogging at Swampland, John Edwards aide David 'Mudcat' Saunders ruffled netroots feathers with a post attacking "those Democratic bloggers" that make up the 'Metropolitan Opera Wing' of the Dem party "who talk of tolerance but the only true tolerance they ever exhibit is for their own pseudo-intellectual arrogance."

MyDD's Chris Bowers penned the most linked to netroots response:

Maybe it is just because I am an irony-loving Gen X type, but there is so much of this type of bizarre, self-contradictory language in Mudcat's post that I think it should be considered a work of true paranoid genius. Start an exchange of ideas by telling people to go to hell. Attack the metropolitan, pseudo-intellectual wing of the Democratic Party by defending Joe Klein. Dismiss John Edwards's biggest area of activist support in the name of rural southern whites. Decry intolerance by stating "I don't care what the "Metropolitan Wing" of my party thinks." Call others pseudo-intellectual without ever sourcing a single stereotype you use. Say you have no problem with incivility in politics, and then lash out against the political blogosphere for being incivil. Claim others are being hypocritical while doing everything I already listed here. Somehow, manage to do all of this in 600 words while maintaining a straight face.
Remarkable stuff. I haven't seen a Democratic consultant be more open with their paranoia concerning, prejudices toward, and general ignorance of, the political blogosphere in some time. This is a post for the ages.

Daily Kos' Miss Laura adds: "If he wants to make a strong argument for why the Democratic party should give respectful attention to rural voters (in any region of the country) I'm all for it. But trying to do so by furthering exactly the kinds of culture wars bull that Republicans specialize in is not ok."

It didn't escape MyDD's Matt Stoller that Saunders works for Edwards: "I appreciate Edwards, his statements on the FCC, and his attack on the war on terror. ... The reason I can't get behind him is because he has still not created a coherent framework around which he bases his decisions. ... Edwards is trying to run a populist progressive but without blaming anyone. In a world full of villains, you can't convince people you're going to change things unless you have the courage to say who's to blame and how you're going to beat them. ... Who does he blame? I don't know. I do know who Mudcat blames. Us."

MyDD's Bowers adds: "I'm sure it will help the Edwards campaign to have staff members blasting the progressive blogosphere, which leans toward Edwards more than any other demographic in the entire Democratic Party. I'm also sure that there will be calls to have Mudcat fired now for openly insulting said demographic, just as there were for Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan when they said naughty words."

OBAMA: The Buzz Is Back

Many in the MyDD community were not happy with Matt Stoller's 6/11 post on declining Barack Obama 'buzz.' A MyDD contributor in Greenville, SC shares his 'personal experiences' that don't jibe with Stoller's appraisal:

I have attended two "official" campaign organizing meetings in Greenville; the first, shortly after his announcement, drew approximately 75 people. ... The second meeting I attended was last Saturday in preparation for the "walk for change" national canvass. The meeting was at the main branch of the downtown library and about 50 volunteers were present in addition to the "official" campaign staff. Again, I was kind of blown away by the enthusiasm and professionalism of the folks running the show. ... This is a true people powered, bottom-up movement, and I'll just continue to do my thing and we'll see where the race stands in the weeks and months to come.

RICHARDSON: Get Whitey

IA's Bleeding Heartland links to Bill Richardson's new ad promoting his work on global warming as Gov. of NM and comments: "Environmentalists are an important voting bloc in Democratic primaries. I know some environmentalists for Edwards and some for Obama, but most are undecided. I think many would consider Richardson as well, so he is smart to be emphasizing this aspect of his resume."

And at The Huffington Post, Mike Stark celebrates Richardson's endorsing his idea of "another alphabet department within the DOJ for corporate crooks and bureaucratic bamboozlers" that would go "after greedy white men that just can't get enough without resorting to ripping the rest of us off."

MCCAIN: Straight Talking Himself Right Out Of The Race

New video of John McCain promising IAans he is also upset that a border fence has not been constructed is providing yet another excuse for conservatives to slam McCain on immigration. Ace of Spades notes: "Trouble is, while McCain really says he 'gets it' about the two miles of the promised 850 miles of fence being built, he's made his real feelings clear earlier, stating 'I think the fence is least effective [element of border security]. But I'll build the goddamned fence if they want it.'"

IA Voice links to McCain blaming 'more conservative, anti-immigrant' lawmakers for the defeat of the immigration bill and responds: "Normally, at this point, Republican Presidential candidates are trying to convince people they are the conservative candidate. ... And no matter McCain's support for the bill, he has to know that most conservative voters do not support the immigration bill. So what does he think he's accomplishing by 'blaming' conservatives for the bill's demise? He's basically paying the candidates a compliment in the eyes of their base supporters."

F. THOMPSON: Flower Child

George Will's latest Newsweekcolumn comparing Fred Thompson to Holland's 1630s tulip mania is drawing mostly negative reaction among conservatives. Reactions include:

• Captain's Quarters: "Thompson is a lot more than 99 percent charm. His speeches and writings have very clearly defined his driving philosophy as a federalist, and his track record as a reformer needs no apologetics to anyone except Will. He has to answer for his record on campaign-finance reform as well as the rest of his votes and actions, of course, but that's what all candidates have to do when they run for President."
• The Corner's Ramesh Ponnuru: "At this point, repeating that Thompson is lazy, without going into the charge, is symptomatic of journalistic laziness. People who expect Thompson's "bubble" to "pop" because of his laziness are, I'd wager, going to be disappointed."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "On the one hand, Thompson has been leading a one-man crusade to return something resembling sanity to the presidential selection process. ... And yet, one of the results of this slow, gradual opening is that expectations for Thompson are through the roof. Will he have to blow the doors out the back of the auditorium in his announcement speech in order to meet expectations?"
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "The Thompson boom has so far been based much more on style than substance, whereas anybody who understands Reagan (see his diaries), knows there was much more to him than an actor who played the role of a president. ... As I have argued before, Thompson supporters have made the case for him on the basis of his style and a belief that he is a "true conservative" who can fill the vacuum in the current field. Now that he's by all indication a serious candidate, it's time to make a much more substantive case for Fred.

IRAQ: Everyone's A Critic

Stu Rothenberg's 6/7 Roll Callcolumn congratulating Dem leaders for playing the Iraq supplemental vote "like a Stradivarius," has angered those in the netroots advocating a firmer Dem committment to end the war. Reactions include:

• MyDD's Matt Stoller: "To truly understand how ignorant this is, just take a look at this pretty graph put together by the Washington Post last week. ... The Democrats lost twelve points among independents and eighteen points among liberal Democrats, leading to an overall slide of ten points. From a twenty four point lead in leadership over Bush in April, the Democrats now sit at parity with him. If you are politically craven, this was a terrible move.
• MyDD's Chris Bowers: "leaving aside actual polling numbers for a moment, there are other reasons why catering to mythical, center-right swing voters and other 1990's chimeras should not always be the number one priority of the Democratic leadership. For one thing, swing voters don't contribute money, they don't volunteer for campaigns, they don't challenge right-wing media narratives, they don't keep Democrats active and energized to vote, and they don't expand the electoral playing field."
• Arianna Huffington: "This sclerotic framing is wrong on every level: moral, strategic, and psychological. ... With America stuck in the Iraqi tar pit, the last thing we need is for Democrats to de-evolve into invertebrates and slither back into the sticky muck from which they only recently crawled."

IMMIGRATION: Life's Not Fair

A Center for Equal Opportunity Chair Linda Chavezarticle at National Review admitting "there are good and decent people who oppose the current immigration bill for reasons that have nothing to do with disliking Mexicans" but reminding conservatives that "it is also dangerous to win the immigration debate by stirring up racial or ethnic animosities by playing to the prejudices of that small group of Americans who are motivated by racism and nativism," is generating discussion at The Corner. Chavez' piece singles out John Derbyshire and Heather Mac Donald for admonishment.

Derbyshire responds:

[T]here are people who do like Mexicans, and also people like me who have no opinion about Mexicans in the grand collectivity at all, but who, in both cases, think it's a really bad idea to let the 40 percent of Mexicans who want to come live here, come live here. That would be 43 million people. Ask yourselves ... Does the U.S.A. need another 43 million people? One-seventh of our current population? If it does, would it be a good idea to take them all from one place? A place right next door to us? With ... A historical claim on our territory? Then ask yourself if a person who poses these questions out loud must ipso facto be a person who 'hates Mexicans.'

The Corner's Roger Clegg adds: "Yes, we must have secure borders, especially post-9/11. Yes, we must defend American culture, not multiculturalism, and we ought to spell out what this means. Yes, a little un-p.c. humor can be okay (How many feminists does it take to screw in a light bulb? That's not funny).
But conservatives in the public eye have a special responsibility to be above suspicion when it comes to sounding anti-minority or associating with those who are. The criticism we get when we don't meet that responsibility may not be fair. But, as conservatives of all people know, life's not fair.

IMMIGRATION II: If Bloggers Could Legislate

MyDD's Matt Stoller admits "there is no coherent progressive position on immigration" but does argue: "What is clear is that if progressives are going to play on immigration, we need a strategy and a set of arguments. My gut says that this is going to require linking immigration and trade ... Our current immigration 'problems' cannot be disassociated from NAFTA ... In other words, if there's a 'grand bargain' to be struck on immigration, it should address the millions of Mexicans and Americans thrown into poverty by our trade policies, who then become immigrants or dispossessed. "

On the right Townhall's Hugh Hewitt suspects "the immigration bill is beyond repair" but outlines what a possible successful strategy might look like: "(1)bring over one of the big critics like Senator Sessions or Senator DeMint, (2)hide Lindsey Graham and every other Republican who has blasted the base as "nativist," (3)put a detailed plan out to build much of the fence in 24 months, (4)put out a detailed plan on the Border Patrol and related agencies build-up (4)make very clear that no probationary benefits --none-- kick in until the triggers are pulled, (5)there are no automatic benefits for any illegal from a country of special concern."

Also Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT) thinks we should do something.

PROSECUTOR PURGE: No Confidence In No Confidence

Netroots support for Senate Dem efforts to pass a no confidence resolution in AG Alberto Gonzalez appears mixed:

• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "this vote should be considered just the beginning, more than just a procedural vote to put some Republicans on the spot. It should be considered a critical step forward in building the case to remove Gonzales from office. ... It can't end here. We can't have another colossal Dem cave-in to match the Iraq supplemental. If they are serious in having no confidence in Gonzales (and who couldn't be, outside of Bush?) then it's time to begin the process for the next step: impeachment.
• Down with Tyranny: "Gonzales should be subjected to a full on impeachment trial, not a charade meant to embarrass him and make him feel badly. If Reid can't get anything done, he should step aside and let the Democrats elect someone who can."
• Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall: "Not that it would have altered the final result. But one of the reasons for the relatively low vote tally in favor of the Gonzales no-confidence resolution was that presidential candidates Biden, Dodd and Obama didn't bother to show up."

Blogging at The Huffington Post, ex-Rep. Major Owens (D-NY) argues Dems should skip straight to impeaching Pres. Bush: "Opening the impeachment front is as important to the winning of the peace in Iraq as the launching of the Normandy invasion on D-Day was for WW2. ... Nothing would focus the American mind and foster clarifications like an impeachment proceeding. Impeachment permits a consolidation of all of the evil blunders."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Identity Politics

Commenting on Joe Klein's recent exchange with Dick Armey at Swampland, Atrios comments:

As an aside, one of the more amusingly revealing comments by Joe Klein recently was when he expressed his belief that both he and Dick Armey were playing within the 40 yard lines. It's very important for Joe Klein's identity to believe that's where he, and all sensible people, are playing. It's also very important for people like Dick Armey to con people like Joe Klein into thinking that they're just quibbling about the details. But the fact is that Dick Armey is selling a vision for this country which is radically different than what mushy centrist Joe Klein supports. That he fails to see this after all this time, even as he constantly fights the dirty f***ing hippies who live under his bed, is hilarious.

LEST WE FORGET: You Say "Settling" Like It's A Bad Thing

Inspired by Slate's Wedding IssueRamesh Ponnuruadmits that like many conservatives he tends to think the "too-romantic conception of marriage has reduced its stability" but even he can't endorse Corinne Colbert's 'anti-romantic' feelngs. From Colbert's "This I Believe" essay:

My husband is not my best friend. He doesn't complete me. In fact, he can be a self-absorbed jerk. We're nearly polar opposites: He's a lifetime member of the NRA who doesn't care for journalists, and I'm a lifelong liberal with a journalism degree. On the other hand, he doesn't beat or emotionally abuse me. He doesn't drink or chase other women. He's a good provider. So I'm sticking with him. Some people would call that "settling," like it's a bad thing. But I believe in settling.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:45 PM

June 11, 2007

6/11: The New Center

Guess who said the following on the Senate immigration bill:

• Here's what I'm looking for in immigration reform: I want immigration reform that prioritizes tougher security at our ports and borders to keep out terrorism, illegal drugs and illegal immigrants.
• We must also gain control over our porous borders by properly utilizing the assets and legal means now at our disposal. We have these laws and these means. The President needs to enforce them.
• The Senate immigration bill was a deeply, deeply flawed proposal, and I'm glad it has finally landed in the political graveyard. America needs enforcement, not amnesty.

If you said netroots-supported Sens. Jon Tester (D-MT), James Webb (D-VA), and Rep. Nancy Boyda (D-KS) then you are correct. While Maj. Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), the Washington Post, and the New York Times were all bemoaning the immigration bill's defeat at the hands of nativist GOPers, few noticed that many of the netroots' favorite candidates either voiced opposition or voted against Reid's "grand compromise." It's possible that Reid, the Post, and the Times were correct when they claimed most Americans were in favor of the bill and that only a small minority strongly opposed. But if we had to bet, our money would guess that the newcomers to Washington had a better grasp on what their constituents priorities were. If immigration reform is going to get done under Pres. Bush, proponents may want to try and get the enforcement first netrooters on board. Even hardcore conservatives, like The Heritage Foundation's Rob Bluey, are more than willing to talk amnesty (check out Bluey at Bloggingheads.tv), if enforcement is done first.

CLINTON: Good Girl

The Netroots are celebrating Hillary Clinton's move left on trade following her announced opposition to the U.S. -South Korea Free Trade Agreement. MyDD's Matt Stoller theorizes: "Good for her. She's feeling the pressure on [Mark] Penn."

David Sirota adds: "The South Korea trade pact is one of the pacts that was included in the larger secret deal to approve a package of trade deals that a handful of congressional Democrats and the White House announced last month. ... Make no mistake about it - the South Korea deal is the easiest out of the pending trade deals to oppose, because there are at least some Big Money interests (like the automakers) opposed to it. ... Nonetheless, this is a great announcement and she should be applauded for it."

CLINTON II: Bad Girl

Atrios is not impressed with news Power Rangers producer Haim Saban is supporting HRC. Atrios blogs: "That would be Haim Saban, funder and namesake of the Brookings' Saban Center for Middle East Policy and home to the dangerously credulous Kenneth Pollack, the man who made the good liberal case for war so popular."

Matt Yglesias notes that one need not beat up Pollack to worry about the foreign policy preferences of Clinton's financial backers. Yglesias links to a Haaretzinterview where Sabam says, "When I see Ahmadinejad, I see Hitler." Yglesias comments: "Saban was the largest overall contributor to the Democratic National Committee during the 2001-2002 cycle, when the party leadership was backing the Iraq War and Terry McAuliffe was DNC chair, and if Clinton becomes president, they'll be back in the positions of influence they enjoyed back then. I doubt this all means that Hillary Clinton's secretly itching for war with Iran, but it's yet another illustration of the fact that her views on national security policy are too neoconnish for my tastes."

EDWARDS: How Are You Different Than Hillary Again?

Frustrated with Hillary Clinton's success at blurring distinctions between herself and other Dems on Iraq, MyDD's Matt Stoller posts video of Sam Brownback attacking Mitt Romney on an array of issues and asks: "Have you seen anything remotely similar to this on the Democratic side?" Stoller then recounts how John Edwards refused to admit to taking a direct shot at Clinton on Iraq in the SC debate and comments: "Why couldn't he have just said yes? I mean, it is a direct shot at Clinton. It's not an 'attack', but it's a disagreement. And that's FINE. That's democracy."

Stoller concludes: "And when John Edwards refuses to acknowledge that he disagrees with Hillary Clinton, while obviously dancing in the media with a high profile apology that implies a whole lot of disagreement with a whole lot of people, he's avoiding the argument the party needs to have. Edwards is putting forward real and different ideas about America's place in the world. He disagrees with Clinton and Obama about a bunch of stuff. That's fine. There's no reason to hide it."

Not directly responding to Stoller, Edwards supporter Michael Conrad lays out his reasons for supporting Edwards at MyDD, including:

• 1st and only of the "big 3" candidates to publicly support the 2006 Kerry - Feingold amendment to set a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq (both Obama and Clinton voted against it).
• 1st and only of the "big 3" candidates to support cutting off funding for the escalation of the war in Iraq (both Obama and Clinton stopped short).
• 1st major candidate to endorse and campaign for Ned Lamont against Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Senate race. Edwards was also the 1st candidate to call for Lieberman to drop out of the race. Edwards said that because Lieberman had just run in the Democratic primary and lost to Lamont, he should honor the result of the primary. Edwards was neutral during the primary, unlike Obama and Clinton who supported Lieberman.

EDWARDS II: No Joy In Johnville

The netroots are lauding the poverty focus of the Edwards campaign evident on 6/10's New York Timesarticle , but worry the piece shows Edwards is not serious about his WH ambitions. TPM Cafe's Greg Sargent writes: "The piece, which has just gone up online, argues that the Edwards campaign is "joyless" and is hampered by a sense that the campaign is little more than a vehicle for him to discuss his signature issue of poverty."

Firedoglake's Christy Hardin Smith also appreciated the feature, but did not go on to promote Edwards campaign: "More of this sort of discussion please - because the children born into this cycle of poverty need all of us. And good on Edwards and every other politician who has been working on this issue, publicly and privately. Hillary Clinton was correct all those years ago when she said that "it takes a village," because it does - and the sooner everyone realizes that we are all connected to one another in ways that we cannot always immediately quantify, the better we will all be."

EDWARDS III: A Haircut To Remember

Astonished to find 44% of respondents to a new Fox poll could volunteer Edwards as the "presidential candidate [who] has been in the news recently for paying four hundred dollars for a haircut" TPM Cafe's Greg Sargent looks at past polling and notes: "Only one point more knew Saddam didn't have WMDs -- a statistically identical amount. That's right -- the same number know about Edwards' haircut that knew the truth last year about Saddam and his phantom weapons. .... Something's wrong here."

OBAMA: A Younger, Less Competent Clinton?

MyDD's Matt Stoller is eager to declare "Obama Buzz" dead after looking at recent polling trends. Stoller blogs: "It's no secret that I'm no fan of Obama, Clinton, or Edwards, but this BB post is reserved for Obama. In 2005, I began criticizing him for doing nothing in the Senate. And now, with the hype finally and sort of over, it's become clear that he seems to have nothing new to offer except a Gen X and less competent version of the Clinton campaign. He's going to have one more boost of hype, after he beats Clinton in fundraising again this quarter. Hopefully he'll take advantage of that. I doubt he will, since he doesn't tend to do anything. But he might. Hopefully these polls are an alarm bell ringing in Obama HQ."

RICHARDSON: The Withdrawal Method Requires Actual Withdrawal

Thomas Ricks' WaPoarticle on "post-occupation" Pentagon planning for Iraq has some in the netroots promoting Bill Richardson's plan to abandon Iraq entirely. Matthew Yglesias blogs:

The goal, according to the war's proponents, is to create the kind of situation where the country is sufficiently stable and under sufficiently docile leadership as to be willing to play host to a series of permanent bases. ... this plan is tragically consistent with the Democratic mantra of withdrawing "combat forces" from Iraq but leaving troops for training, force protection, and counterterrorism. Bill Richardson says let's really withdraw.

Also blogging on Iraq, Siun at firedoglake comments on Richardson's plan to deauthorize Bush's Iraq policy now: "September will come (and go) with more hype and maneuvers and equivocation but one candidate is asking for our help - now - Bill Richardson. ... I haven't picked a presidential candidate but this very clear approach from Gov Richardson sure has my attention, as has the recent work of Sen. Dodd.

GIULIANI: All Security, All The Time

SC's Daily Chaser voices his satisfaction with Rudy Giuliani's recent "indirectly assail[ing] of John McCain on immigration. After McCain voted against Sen. John Vitter's (R-LA) amendment making it mandatory to identify every non-citizen who enters and exits this country. From Giuliani: "There is no guarantee in the current legislation that this will happen which is a fatal flaw. ... The American people demand that their politicians enact an immigration reform bill that addresses security first. I cannot support any immigration deal that compromises on this basic principle."

MCCAIN: Kerry's Defacto VP

John McCain's latest rhetoric that no immigration bill equals a "defacto amnesty" is only enraging conservatives further. Right Wing News takes on "the latest spin from John Kerry's first choice for Vice President": "Ehr, what, the hell is he talking about? By this same logic, we should allow every burglar to be able to skip prison time if they admit they committed a crime and pay a small fine because, since we haven't detained them yet, they're being given amnesty for their crime. Who even came up with this nonsense for him?"

F. THOMPSON: He's About Three Feet Taller Than Clark Too

Jennifer Rubin's doubts about Fred Thompson conservative credentials are spreading in conservative circles. NY Sun's Ryan Sager is one of many to post video of Rubin criticizing his "tort reform" views and NRO's Jim Geragthy links to her New York Observerarticle that argues "Thompson may be about a quart low in the "new ideas" category." Geraghrty adds:

Thompson has done a fine job of articulating classic principles; turning these into policies is a slightly different story. ... It's a different world; we need new ideas on how to apply what conservatives have long stood for - limited government, free markets, hawkish defense of our nation and interests, and balancing traditional social values and libertarian leave-me-alone interests - to the problems we face today.

Captain's Quarters, however, defends Thompson from charges his campaign will flounder like Gen. Wes Clark's '04 run: "Clark did not take the time to build this kind of movement on a broad vision, but instead focused on a narrow issue -- Iraq -- and contributed nothing new. Other Democrats had already adopted his point of view on the war, including John Kerry, which made him superfluous as a presidential candidate. Fred has avoided that fate by casting a much broader policy vision and, unlike Clark, eloquently and clearly delineating it."

IMMIGRATION: Not Dead Yet

Conservatives are under no illusion that the Senate immigration bill is dead citing multiple assurances from the bill's supporters that more efforts will be made. Reports include:

• NRO's Jim Geraghty commenting on Com. Sec. Carlos Gutierrez telling CNN the bill is 'alive and well': "He called the objections 'clerical issues.' ... Holding a losing hand, the administration chooses to double its bet."
• Michelle Malkin on New York Timesreports Pres. Bush will be coming to Capitol Hill: "The "Grand Bargainers" will be toiling behind closed doors again. As I've warned many times, if they can't get what they want in one "comprehensive" package, they will do what they've done for years under the radar--break off their favorite enforcement-undermining provisions and pass amnesty piecemeal."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt after hosting Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) on his radio show: "The immigration bill is clearly not dead, and the effort to resurrect it will be intense. ... To bring back a bill with only cosmetic changes will enrage the GOP base far beyond where they already were when their complaints were perceived as being ignored. Republican activists will feel as though they are being conned if the bill that was thought to be dead is raised up in the same form and quickly passed."

Trying to be proactive, conservatives are eager to detail what a new bill would have to include to get their support. Hewitt recommendsNational Review 's editorial calling for the construction of a border fence as a precondition a bill and adds: "This essential nexus between the border fence and immigration reform is so crucial that I find myself amazed by the proponents of immigration reform who don't seem to get it. The fence is the visible expression of the invisible resolve --loudly proclaimed but hardly manifest anywhere-- to actually enforce the immigrations laws present and future. Because so little has been done in the past, even proponents of regularization of most of the illegals in the country are demanding the actual construction of the fence as a down payment on the security guarantees being offered by the Administration and senators backing the big bill."

Kausfiles looks at WH promises on border enforcement and asks: "If all these enforcement measures are so wonderful, why not enact just them and drop the questionable legalization part? Bush is holding the parts of the bill everyone says they want hostage to the parts he wants. ... If we tried the enforcement parts first, then we wouldn't have to trust the federal government. We could make sure the measures work before we go ahead with legalization (and attract a new wave of legalization-seeking illegals)."

Many area also citing recent Rasmussen polling that contradicts MSM assertions that the majority of Americans support the Senate immigration bill. Townhall's Dean Barnett blogs: "There is no vast middle of the American body politic that liked this bill. This bill died because it stunk, and its stinkiness became a matter of public knowledge. It died because Senators Clinton and Obama didn't want to defend it during the campaign." From Rasmussen:

The immigration bill failed because a broad cross-section of the American people are opposed to it. Republicans, Democrats, and unaffiliated voters are opposed. Men are opposed. So are women. The young don't like it; neither do the no-longer-young. White Americans are opposed. Americans of color are opposed.
The last Rasmussen Reports national telephone poll found that just 23% of Americans supported the legislation.

There is no mystery to why the public opposed the bill. In the minds of most Americans, immigration means reducing illegal immigration and enforcing the border. Only 16% believed the Senate bill would accomplish that goal. ... It wasn't amnesty or guest-worker programs or paths to citizenship that doomed the bill. Each of those provisions made it more difficult for some segments of the population to accept. However, most voters were willing to accept them as part of a true compromise that accomplished the primary goal of reducing illegal immigration.

IRAQ: 4evah!

Thomas RicksWaPoarticle on the Pentagon's "post-occupation" Iraq planning that includes "a smaller, longer-term force that would remain in the country for years" is being grudgingly accepted on the right and even has found some support on the left. Conservative Captain's Quarters blogs: "Both capitals understand that the US cannot entirely leave Iraq while al-Qaeda continues to operate there. Even most Democrats acknowledge that; only Bill Richardson among the serious presidential candidates has committed to total and immediate withdrawal."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff adds: "This approach is not terribly different from the one I recommended last fall before the surge began, although I was thinking in terms of a U.S. presence of 50,000 to 60,000 troops. ... The challenge for the administration in its last year likely will be to find an approach that minimizes U.S. casualties but maintains a sufficient presence to prevent the worst scenarios in Iraq. Assuming there is such an approach to be found."

The Left Coaster's Steve Soto names some ways Dems can benefit from a quick embrace of the plan:

• If Democrats get out ahead of this before the White House, they can portray the eventual policy in the 2008 defense budget as a case where Bush was forced to follow the Democrats rather than the other way around, repairing the disappointment felt by the base over the war funding vote
• Democratic messaging can be built around the theme that a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress are needed in 2009 to get us out of Iraq in the right way consistent with what the generals rather than the armchair GOP warriors want; it will be a Democratic president and Democratic Congress that removes the Al Qaeda menace from Iraq that Bush and the GOP put there
• It forces the major drawdown to occur on Bush's watch so that the Democratic president in 2009 doesn't get tagged with doing it, forcing Bush to clean up his mess

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Put Up, Or ...

Dan Balzsanctimonious missive on the Senate immigration bill's failure includes: "The collective failure of the two parties already appears to have stimulated interest in a third-party candidate for president in 2008 whose main promise would be to make Washington work." DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas responds:

Seriously, Dan, if you write shit like this, prove it. And I'm not talking about you and your cocktail party circuit buddies, praising Joementum in between munching on crab cakes and weenies. Where's the evidence that people outside of DC want a third party? The fact that there is gridlock in DC and it's tough to move legislation is a feature, not a bug of the system. Had they wanted one-party uncontested rule, they could've set us up with a parliamentary democracy.

LEST WE FORGET: How You Doin'?

Mo Rocca makes the case Pres. Bush better rethink addressing the Pope as 'Sir' as opposed to the accepted "His Holiness." From Rocca: "Be careful, President Bush. You better be nice to Benedict. He's got a constituency of a billion. And he's German. You don't want to piss His Holiness off. No, sir."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:48 PM

June 08, 2007

6/8: We Can Dream, Can't We?

With John Edwards and Rudy Giuliani exchanging barbs with each other instead of their actual primary opponents, some bloggers are wondering if it wouldn't be better to have candidates from different parties square off in deabtes instead of (or in addition to) the Dem v. Dem and GOP v. GOP contests we've always had. Since electability is a reasonable issue for many primary voters (see a pre-arrest Eric Alterman make the case here) wouldn't GOP vs. Dem debates help many voters decide who they feel would make the best case for their party?

DEM FIELD: Dems Not A Dime A Dozen

Noting the "markets such as this have a legendary accuracy in predicting the outcome of elections" Daily Kos' Devilstower looks at the current state of the Iowa Electronic MarketsPresidential Nomination Market : "Over on the Democratic side of the nomination market, shares of Hillary [Clinton] top the board at 49 cents -- that's a very high number for a market with this many candidates. [Barack] Obama follows with a respectable 30 cents, and [John] Edwards is way back at only 7 cents. Edwards supporters are apparently far more common on Daily Kos than they are at the IEM. The Rest of Field token on the Democratic side is at 11 cents."

CLINTON: Bad Company

Team Clinton, not Hillary herself, is drawing the lions share of netroots criticism this week. Spurred by a 6/5 New York Times story on labor complaints about Clinton pollster Mark Penn's PR firm efforts to block union organizing drives, HRC and Penn told Marc Ambinder that Penn, "will cede all oversight responsibilities for his company's labor relations clients to other managers." The netroots are not buying the distinction. The Nation's Ari Berman blogs: "Penn's 'recusal must thus be seen as a classic case of PR spin; a phony gesture that fails to address the underlying problems or the reasons prominent labor leaders are upset with Clinton's campaign."

Matthew Yglesias agrees: "So, in short, Penn and Clinton are promising that in response to labor's complaints they're going to . . . keep doing all the same things. He'll still be profiting from his firm's union-busting work. ... A Clinton administration, like the Clinton campaign, would doubtless be pro-union in a whole variety of ways. Clearly, though, she doesn't really have her heart in it."

Also critical of those close to Clinton, AMERICABlog's John Aravosis buys Bob Shrum claims that Bill Clinton advised John Kerry to support "the anti-gay amendment to the US Constitution that would have banned gay marriage and vitiated scores of other rights that gay couples may have" and comments: "There's already a growing concern in the gay community that Senator Clinton, while "good on paper" on gay issues - and once considered remarkably good personally - will throw us under the bus if and when she becomes president."

CLINTON II: Edwards Got A Haircut?

IA Independent reports of Clinton campaign polling in IA are unsettling already suspicious netrooters. Jason Eness-Potter recounts a 5/25 phone call he got testing pro-Clinton and anti-Obama/Edwards messages. Questions included:

• "As an Iowan, do you feel that Iowa's role in the caucuses is very important or 'a silly waste of time?'
• "During Bill Clinton's administration, the Clintons helped to create 100,000 jobs in Iowa. After hearing this, is your opinion of Sen. Clinton higher or lower?"
• "Sen. Obama boasts of his consistent opposition to the war, but he has contradicted himself by voting for appropriation bills to fund it. Does this make you approve of Sen. Obama more or less?"
• And on Edwards, the subject was, predictably, about his $400 haircut a month or so ago.

Swopa at firedoglake comments: "Sounds like Hillary's trying to figure out the fastest way to flame out of the 2008 campaign. ... From the sound of these polls she's running, it seems like Clinton hasn't figured out that communicating a clear sense of what she'd do if she was President isn't just the most idealistic way to run, it's the most practical."

DODD: Doddmania Is Back!

Chris Dodd utilized Senate Cmt. passage of the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act to push for support of his Restoring the Constitution Act at The Huffington Post. Dodd blogs: "My father served as Executive Trial Counsel under Chief Prosecutor and Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson at the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals ... one of the saddest days in my 26-year career in the Senate occurred last fall when the Congress passed the Military Commissions Act (MCA), allowing evidence obtained through torture to be admitted into evidence, denying individuals the right to counsel, the right to invoke the Geneva Conventions. ... America can lead again, but we must restore our moral authority. That is why I introduced the Restoring the Constitution Act (RCA)."

Daily Kos' mcjoan is on board: "The evisceration of the Constitution lays at the heart of every egregious wrong we've seen done by this administration in the past six years. It's difficult to overstate the importance of what Dodd is attempting with this legislation. There really is no greater cause for the rule of law, for our liberty, for the basis of our very government." Atrios proclaims: "Doddmania ... Glad to see someone actually cares about that constitution."

EDWARDS: All The Right Enemies

John Edwards attacks on Rudy Giuliani and Pres. Bush are faring much better among the netroots than his 6/3 jabs at Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for their belated votes against the latest Iraq supplemental bill. TPM Cafe's Greg Sargent enjoyed this quote from Edwards 6/7 press conference in New York, NY: "If Mayor Giuliani believes that what President Bush has done is good, and wants to embrace it and run a campaign for the Presidency saying, 'I will give you four more years of what this president has given you,' then he's allowed to do that. He'll never be elected President of the United States, but he's allowed to do that."

Matthew Yglesias also enjoyed the anti-bush focus: "My favorite part, though, is really just the opening line: 'There is no question that America is less safe today because of the president's War on Terror Doctrine.' ... obviously, that's not a strategy, but by simultaneously rejecting the war on terror conceptual framework and the notion that Bush's policies have been successful, Edwards is signaling that he's open to running a foreign policy that's different from Bush's in broad, strategic terms. Hillary Clinton, by breaking the other way on both of those questions in the most recent debate, did the reverse."

Also helping Edwards out in the right enemies department: Bob Novak. David Sirota blogs: "Bob Novak resorts to using his entire column to attack John Edwards for having the nerve to alienate the Washington Democratic Establishment by -- gasp! -- being a populist. Making the kinds of enemies who become so desperate that they run to an archconservative Republican columnist to vent their anger is a good sign that a Democratic presidential candidate is doing something right." Firedoglake's TeddySanFran adds: "I don't know if you've chosen a Presidential candidate for 2008 (I have) but could you do worse than to choose the one opposed by Bob Shrum?and James Carville?and Robert Novak?"

OBAMA: Obama Vs. Gore

MyDD's WVaBlue asks readers for advice on how to derail Barack Obama's coal liquefaction bill. WVaBlue blogs: "As Al Gore denounced it, we asked everyone to call the bill's co-sponosors (including Obama) and express their displeasure ... What's the best way to go about this? Target the sponsors? Target committee members? This is one of those situations where the support (with a well funded coal industry lobby) is well organized and the opposition diffuse (though passionate)."

OBAMA II: Keep Workin' My Way Back To You Babe

Andrew Sullivan seems to be a fan of Obama's rhetoric on urban poverty blogging, "Obama's speech/sermon at Hampton University was about much more - an outline for a presidency focused in part on urban isolation and despair. Notice the conservative pitch for a liberal policy. Obama focuses on young children and ex-offenders. His big government programs are all geared toward fostering conservative social behavior and opportunity. Who does this remind me of? George W. Bush, of course. The rhetoric at least. Perhaps the true legacy for compassionate conservatism will be in the Democratic Party."

Also praising Obama, AMERICABLog's John Aravosis picks up on Jake Tapper's crowning Obama as the winner "in the race between Democratic presidential candidates to be first to criticize the Bush administration's appointment of Dr. Jim Holsinger to be surgeon general." Aravosis comments: "Obama is expressing concerns about Bush's choice of an anti-gay bigot, who thinks being gay is something you can "cure," as our next Surgeon General. As he, Dodd, and Hillary are on the committee that needs to confirm this guy, this is important."

GILMORE: Whiner In Chief

Jim Gilmore came away with no positive reviews from his 6/7 American Spectator Newsmaker Breakfast. AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein blogs: "The problem with Gilmore was that he spent much of his opening remarks complaining about how he wasn't given enough time to speak in the debates, but here he was, with a room full of journalists all to himself, and he was harping on his lack of speaking time. But I don't think it's just a matter of time, it's a matter of making the best out of the time allotted to you. According to this clock, Mike Huckabee only got to speak for 49 seconds more than Gilmore, and yet most people agree that Huckabee had an impact."

GIULIANI: If You're Gonna' Skip IA ...

Random Rudy Giuliani blogging thoughts include:

• a Corner reader on Giuliani skipping the Ames, IA, straw poll: "Also I feel the need to point out that Rudy's campaign said they still plan to compete in the caucuses in January. If 'Iowa specific issues' were going to cause him not to compete in the straw poll in August, it would stand to reason that 'Iowa specific issues' would keep Rudy from competing in the caucuses in January as well. This clearly isn't the case. There are other reasons why he's skipping the straw poll."
• AmSpecBlog's Philip Klein on Giuliani's impending health care plan: "I'll be interested in seeing the plan once it gets fleshed out, but broadly speaking, I like the approach, and that's based on my personal experience. ... Politically speaking, healthcare is an area where Giuliani has a huge opportunity to outflank Romney from the right as the campaign goes on.
• and Andrew Sullivan seconds Ben Affleck's cogent case that Giuliani is, in fact, a fascist.

MCCAIN: Maybe He Should Stop Calling Conservatives Racists

RedState's Erick Erickson make the case John McCain did better in 6/5's debate than most conservatives claim: "I disagree with McCain on the Immigration Bill, but I think his comments, following Tancredo's veiled xenophobia, were right on the money. Make no mistake about it, were Tom Tancredo President of the United States, Dora the Explorer would be deported."

Most conservatives, however, are still trumpeting the demise of McCain's campaign. Townhall's Hugh Hewitt highlights WaPo's 6/7 story McCain staffers defecting to Fred Thompson and comments: "Thompson won't be the only beneficiary of the collapsing McCain campaign. Some of the money folks and much of the grassroots will have noticed Romney's momentum as well, and as the disembarkation begins, many will head straight to the Iowa frontrunner."

Also tracking McCain defections, SC's Daily Chaser posts the text of Aiken County Chair David Nix's resignation from Team McCain: "Please consider this my resignation as Aiken County chair for McCain. I am too far from him on the Amnesty Bill. I was hopeful that he could keep his nose clean this time around, but he can't read the pulse of the American citizens."

ROMNEY: Romney Derangement Syndrome

The Brody File flags a Mitt Romney exchange in Concord, NH, that may worry some social conservatives. Responding to a gay mother's question on the validity of her family Romney said: "There are other ways to raise kids that's fine: single moms, grandparents raising kids, gay couples raising kids. That's the American way, to have people have their freedom of choice." A John McCain aide emailed to attack Romney: "It looks like Romney's willingness to say anything was on display yesterday in New Hampshire where he endorsed gay couples raising children."

Andrew Sullivan comments: "Mitt Romney blurts out his real views in New Hampshire. He's really got to watch that. The Christianists are getting pissy." Also unhappy with Romney, Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall blogs: "This guy really rubs me the wrong way. ... Romney seems so transparently phoney, so willing to say anything that I find him genuinely frightening. ... Romney seems almost like a caricature of the political phoney. ... I feel it to an extent with Bush, though nothing like I do with Romney."

F. THOMPSON: Silly Math

NY Sun's Ryan Sager does the math on the early outcome of ImWithFred.com fundraising efforts: "In 48 hours since the Web site launch (with no paid advertising, or pre-oorganized push by donor operation): 29,463 registered supporters; $352,323.00 in donations; 3,360 contributors; Or: $7,340 an hour. If they could keep that up for a month (just as an admittedly silly mathematical exercise), they'd have $5.3 million by early July."

In not-so-positve Thompson blogging, Race 4 '08s Kavon W. Nikrad posts video of Thompson's 6/5 Fox appearance and asks: "Does Fred Thompson hold the 'Jim Gilmore Position' on abortion? Namely, that he opposes Roe but does not support the criminalization of abortion at the state level in the first trimester?

IMMIGRATION: They Have Not Yet Begun To Fight

Conservatives are under no allusion that 6/7 cloture vote victory is the end of the immigration fight in the senate. The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez writes: "First, yes, the victory yesterday - a product of tireless efforts by a handful of conservative Senators and staff - is a nice pause in this debacle. But I am afraid that is all it may be... the White House is still 100% committed to getting this bill passed. ... Conservatives should note precisely which Senators were with us on defeating cloture and compare that to how Senators may change if the bill comes back... in other words, we should make sure we know which Senators are bought-off if the White House does what we believe they will." Kausfiles adds: "Of course, the bill isn't dead. Just resting. There will be an instinctive, goo goo guilt-tripping MSM effort to induce its revival. ... It could well come back. This is no time for gloating."

Many on the right were eager to recognize and reward those who stood with them. Right Wing News urges, "Conservative Foes Of Amnesty Should Be Magnanimous In Victory ... Furthermore, I think it's important to take a "carrot and stick" approach with politicians." The Corner's Lopez reports that in the end Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ) "stood up for conservatives" and "their right to offer amendments" contrary to "Graham, McCain, Martinez, and Specter" who "all told the GOP senators to stuff it." RedState's Leon Wolf urges readers to show their thanks by popping checks in the mail to Sens. John Sununu (R-NH), Gordon Smith (R-OR), and Susan Collins (R-ME).

McCain drew the lion's share of conservative ire. Townhall's Dean Barnett writes: "And what is the media reward to the Republican Party for this insanely misguided misadventure? MSNBC.com now leads with the headline, "Bush-backed immigration bill stalls in Senate." Thank you Senator McCain for so courageously once again reaching across the aisle and getting your party yet another stick in the eye." Michelle Malkin adds: "If Lindsay Graham and John McCain think their abominable behavior is going to be forgotten, they better think again."

On the left Ezra Klein blogs: "It's worth noting, too, that this is a huge defeat for the White House, and proof positive that they utterly lack capital in Congress. Bush's power over his party is insignificant now, and he is, as officially as can be, a lame duck." And Atrios says he is not sad to see the effort die: "The real thing to take away is that much of the "bad" is bad that Michelle, Lou, and I can all agree on. It isn't in there because it appeals to Republican/conservative voters, it's there because it appeals to elite business interests. A guest worker program without any path to citizenship will just lead to lots of people entering the country legally and then overstaying their visas."

And for those of you keeping score at home, Netroots favs Sen. James Webb (D-VA) and Jon Tester (D-MT) both voted with the GOP against cloture.

PROSECUTOR PURGE: The Long And Winding Rove

TalkingPointsMemo's Josh Marshall writes about AL atty Dana Jill Simpson (R), who swore in an affidavit that in '02, a close associate of Karl Rove claimed that Rove had told him that he had gotten the DoJ to investigate then-Gov. Don Siegelman (D-AL) "and that he was sure the investigation would eventually take Siegelman out of politics."

Marshall, on the WH and DoJ refusing to answer questions about the issue: "In the context, I don't think that's acceptable. Now, perhaps the issue here is that the Democrats in Washington won't press the issue, and thus the press won't either. And from a political standpoint their position may be understandable, even correct. ... [But] from what I can tell there are real questions about the prosecution and the trial." More Marshall: "So who's going to press this question with the White House and the DOJ? TPM may not be able to get answer but the big papers can. So who is going to ask? Or does this one just get ignored?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: You Can Act Like A Man

After reading Joe Kleinlatest anti-netroots missive, NRO's David Frum figures out why Klein "is such a special target of left-wing blogger wrath." Frum quotes from Klein: "Anyone who doesn't move in lockstep with the most extreme voices is savaged and ridiculed-especially people like me who often agree with the liberal position but sometimes disagree and are therefore considered traitorously unreliable." Frum responds:

Sorry Joe: that's whining. In a media age, we who write make public figures of ourselves. We seek a public platform, but the prominence of our platforms carries a price. There will be criticism, and not all of it will be fair. Words will be misconstrued, false stories will be circulated. We've all experienced it. It comes with the territory. ... Just as you say, the left-wing bloggers are fierce, intolerant, and often witless bullies. But remember: bullies prey on weakness. Your quavering, pitiful, "hey cmon you guys, quit it" pleas only invite more pummelling. Be a man! Stop complaining. Stop paying the Danegeld of false compliments to people who don't deserve them. Hit back when you must; otherwise suck it up and keep working.

LEST WE FORGET: Send In The Clowns

The Huffington Post's Gabriel Delahaye is no fan of the "middle-to-upper-middle-class white kids of the world" protesting the G-8 summit in Germany. Linking to news that some of the "motley band of more than 800 protesters" are wearing "fluorescent wigs and clown noses" Delahaye blogs: "I understand the aversion that the Avril Lavignes of the world feel towards globalization and a free-market economy, but the part that I don't get is why they are confused that no one takes them seriously ... Oh, good work. Nothing says "take me seriously, I have important views on the geopolitical situation that need to be heard" like clown costumes.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:31 PM

June 07, 2007

6/7: An Issue For Fred

Fred Thompson has made no secret of his intention to run a non-traditional, more online based campaign and his recent hiring of Bush Cheney '04 eDirector Mike Turk and New Media Strategies demonstrate a strong commitment to that strategy. But if Thompson is going to capture a Howard Dean/netroots-like magic to keep him afloat while he skips traditional campaign events, he will need to ride an issue like Dean rode Iraq. The best candidate: immigration. One of the netroots' biggest frustrations in the run-up to the Iraq war, was Dem leadership willingness to dismiss them as "dirty f***ing hippies" (to borrow one of Atrios favorite phrases). Similarly, conservative anger over the current immigration debate is in no small part fueled by WH and John McCain willingness to portray them as "racist yahoos" (to borrow a Jonah Goldberg phrase).

Also like Iraq, conservatives simply don't believe what their leaders are saying about the issue. The WH repeatedly claims the Senate bill is a "once in a lifetime chance" to end illegal immigration, but conservatives point out that the CBO estimates that even if the bill's enforcement provisions are fully implemented (a big if) illegal immigration will decrease only 25%. Just like those in the netroots never believed Iraqis would welcome US troops with flowers, conservatives don't believe Karl Rove claims that the hundreds of thousands of guest workers allowed in through the bill, will go home (or be deported) when their visas expires. Will Thompson run with this issue to tap into growing conservative online energy?

IA CAUCUS: The Incredibly Shrinking Candidate

Conservative consensus seems to be Rudy Giuliani's decision to skip the Ames, IA, straw poll is a necessary tactical decision, while John McCain's similar announcement is just another sign his campaign is destined for the dust bin:

• The Corner's Rich Lowry: "Looks like the McCain people are taking advantage of the opportunity to make a Romney victory in the Straw Poll meaningless. Very interesting. Ultimately has to help Romney's cause in Iowa, no?"
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "You don't win nominations by not winning contests -- whether key straw polls, caucuses or primaries. ... Would you give money to Senator McCain right now?"
• Townhall's Patrick Ruffini: "We had been led to believe that despite the McCain campaign's public woes, internally they were solid as a rock and they had a stellar organization could go toe to toe with Romney. Now, the once prohibitive frontrunner is (at best) on pace with Giuliani in the money and organization game, and fares somewhat worse than that in the polls. ... Are we seeing an Incredible Shrinking Campaign?"
• Race 4 '08s Jason: "I think we just saw superior ground game, great endorsements, strategic fundraising, rising poll numbers and the best candidate all collide in perfect storm."
• IA Voice: "I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I think the real reason these guys are skipping the straw poll is because they know they will lose it. ... McCain is just using Giuliani's backing out as an excuse, but he's doing it for the exact same reason."

Those minimizing McCain's decision include Townhall's Matt Lewis ("Rudy and McCain had nothing to gain -- and everything to lose -- by participating. And now, the fact that neither Rudy or McCain will participate, means that winning is irrelevant.") and AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "If [Fred] Thompson skips too, then three of the frontrunners will not be participating, removing a lot of the significance of the event. The question now is how much Romney will benefit from his near certain victory in Ames.").

HUCKABEE: Aren't They Working Already?

RedState's Rob Bluey reports on a 6/6 Mike Huckabee blogger conference call: "I asked about immigration and whether Huckabee thought the Senate bill should be fixed or just killed. Huckabee said he's very much in favor of trying to work on it to make it better. ... He cited his concern that the bill would reward illegal aliens with legal status first, rather than making them work toward it."

MCCAIN: Church Pillager

SC's Daily Chaser asks, "What you can get for $42,000 in S.C?" asserting that what is John McCain has spent so far on their "Christian outreach consultant" who has put together a team of "five activists who have little notoriety and even less political experience." DC comments: "Personally I think the 5250 BBQ dinners will garner more votes than this 'Christian outreach team.' But who knows they might be really good at pillaging church directories."

ROMNEY: Simple Exposure

Conservatives couldn't get enough of pro-Mitt Romney Fox News clips 6/6. The most posted was Frank Luntz telling Fox that Romney faired the best in his post-debate focus groups. Townhall's Dean Barnett blogs: "When the voters get to see Mitt Romney, they like what they see. That's why he's doing so well in Iowa and New Hampshire where the voters have seen so much more of him than other parts of the country have. Luntz's research also buttresses what I was saying earlier today. Literally every time Romney enters one of these forums, he wins just because of the increased exposure."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff adds: "While pundits and bloggers "score" the presidential debates, Frank Luntz brings in focus groups, consisting of two to three dozen likely primary voters, and assesses their reaction. ... Edwards and Romney are the two major candidates who court with the least amount of nuance the anti-war left and traditional conservatives, respectively. Maybe it's just that simple."

Also posting Fox clips, RedState's Alexham posts Romney "emphasizing in a simplistic, but profound way, the importance of social conservatism in the Republican Party's belief system." Alexham adds: "See, we do have nice things to say about Romney here at RedState."

The Christian Broadcasting Networks The Brody File shares "an email that's circulating among the grassroots" defending Romney from Sam Brownback attacks on Romney for not calling abortion murder. The email from Heartbeat Int's Dir. Nathan Burd reads in part: "Because post-abortion trauma is so common, we really have to be careful about throwing out the terms 'murder', 'homicide', etc. Judgmental, emotional pro-lifers who don't think through the entire issue seem to miss the fact that the words they use can be a dagger in the heart of a woman who regrets her decision to abort."

And from the left, The Plank's Michael Crowley counts: "Number of times in last night's debate that Mitt Romney uttered the word "future": 5. Number of usages by the other GOP candidates combined: 0."

F. THOMPSON: You Choo- Choo- Choose Me

The Hotline's Shira Toeplitz's look at the burgeoning online Fred Thompson was widely linked to. Toeplitz reports Bush Cheney '04 eDirector Mike Turk will be the 'chief architect' of Thompson's online operation and that New Media Strategies will perform "Web 2.0 outreach and online intelligence" for the campaign. Ex-Mitch McConnell New Media Advisor John Henke will work on the Thompson account for NMS.

Henke blogs at his pre-Senate home Q&O: "I do not choose to support Fred Thompson because of the job; I've chosen the job because of Fred Thompson." Outside the Beltway's James Joyner hopes: "The Henke hire is a good one, presuming they'll actually listen to him. ... Mitch McConnell did plenty of blog outreach through Henke, they mostly used him as a press flack sending out far too many emails against his own judgment." Robert Bluey adds: "The Henke hire is a major coup for New Media Strategies, which wanted someone of Henke's stature to manage Thompson's online operation."

Early reports from Thompson's first official online presence, ImWithFred, appear positive. Townhall's Patrick Ruffini reports more than $220K has been raised since 6/5 and comments: "We'll see what traffic measuring services like Alexa say in a day or so, but this has to be considered a powerful shot across the bow."

DEM FIELD: Potential Fulfilled

The Huffington Post's Roy Sekoff reports "sources close to both" Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama confirm "the Obama campaign will surpass the Clinton campaign in second quarter fundraising." From an Obama fundraiser: "It's a matter of pure mathematics. We had 104,000 donors in the first quarter; Clinton had 60,000. And while 75 percent of Hillary's contributors had maxed out, only 50 percent of ours had. So we had had a lot more potential to grow -- and we did."

On the spending end, MyDD's Chris Bowers examines candidate expenditures at Open Secrets and notes:

• Obama spent the most in all of these categories, except for salaries / benefits, where Edwards leads, and polling, where Biden stunningly leads.
• Obama's expenditures on Internet media are five times more than the rest of the field combined. Dodd is actually in second place in that category.
• Edwards and Obama are spending a ton of money on travel. I'm not really sure what that means, except that they might be travelling with large groups
• Clearly, the numerous, large campaign events for Clinton and Obama don't come cheap.
• The staff and office supply gaps between Clinton, Obama / Edwards and Dodd / Biden / Richardson show a real problem for second tier candidates. They just don't have the same size of operation to manage a campaign.
• What's up with Biden's massive fundraising and polling expenditures? It is funny how much money he has spent on those aspects of a campaign, with spending only $2,600 on actual campaign events. Not exactly a grassroots campaign.

EDWARDS: Which One's Felix?

A John Edwards video featuring Joe Trippi and Jonathan Prince trying to "raise some dough" in kitchen (they're trying to bake a pie for John Edwards birthday) is circulating among the netroots. TPM Cafe's Greg Sargent blogs: "The lighthearted vid is at bottom an unorthodox fundraising pitch. And whatever its effectiveness, which certainly isn't assured, it's in keeping with the Edwards campaign's promise to try and use YouTube in novel political ways, something that reflects the influence of Trippi, who of course pioneered Howard Dean's Internet-driven campaign in 2004."

IA's Bleeding Heartland adds: "I watched the video, which was amusing. I'm not sure how many people who You Tube are old enough to recognize the "Odd Couple" music in the background, but the video is unusual enough to stand out among the usual candidate bio material."

IMMIGRATION: Sometimes, The Ads Just Write Themselves

The defeat of Sen. John Cornyn's (R-TX) amendment which Michelle Malkin says "would have established a permanent bar for gang members, terrorists, and other criminals looking to snag a shamnesty visa" is the main focus of conservative outrage heading into the imminent cloture vote. Reactions include:

• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "My understanding is that most observers considered Cornyn's challenge to the compromise to be the most likely to derail it. ... Meanwhile, Rasmussen reports that public support for the compromise package is slipping. Currently, only 23% support the bill, with 50% opposed. When given the alternatives of enacting the present bill and doing nothing, 49% prefer to do nothing, compared to 32% who favor passage of McCain-Kennedy.
• Ankle Biting Pundit's Bull Dog Pundit: "We all know that Senator McCain has demonstrated what little regard he has for our 1st Amendment free speech rights. Today proved he has very little regard for the rule of law as well. ... You have now just left the door open for felons and other illegals who have even less respect for our laws than the normal illegal alien, to gain citizenship."
• SC's Daily Chaser: "While it would seem like common sense to prevent these criminals from gaining permanent legal status, the amendment was defeated by a vote of 51-46. Ten Republicans voted against the measure that was introduced in order"to establish a permanent bar for gang members, terrorists, and other criminals." The most notable party defectors on this amendment were Sen. John McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham, who chose to side with Sen. Ted Kennedy.
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "Look folks, I'm to the left of a great many of you on immigration. I have leaned toward support of this legislation. But it is blocking amendments like this and showing no willingness to fix the Z-visa issue that keep me from supporting the immigration reform effort. I do not support the "send them all home and build a Great Wall of America" position that many of my friends have. But I must join them in opposition to this legislation."

At The Huffington PostMorton Halperin explains why the left is sticking behind the bill: "Don't Let the Perfect Be the Enemy of the Good on Immigration ... The most important reason is that from the moment the bill is signed, most undocumented workers in the United States will be safe from deportation and able to work legally. They will be on a path to legalization and citizenship which is far too long and too costly, but nevertheless, it will permit most undocumented workers to eventually gain citizenship and bring in close family relatives."

PROSECUTOR PURGE: Turning This Investigation 360 Degrees

Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall followed up on claims from ex-interim Kansas City U.S. atty/current DoJ atty Bradley Schlozman's 6/5 claim before the Senate Jud Cmte that DoJ Election Crime Branch Dir. Craig Donsanto authorized him to issue vote fraud indictments weeks before 11/06 contrary to DoJ guidelines. TPM talked to fired NM atty David Iglesias who says Donsanto would not authorize similar indictments for him and that: "I can't believe that he'd have gone 180 degrees on that policy. I just don't believe it."

TPM's Marshall comments: "It's not an idle point. Given Schlozman's record of supporting efforts to suppress minority voter turnout, purge non-Republicans from key jobs in the Civil Rights Division and other infamies, it looks very much like he timed the indictments to drop just before the 2006 election to provide Missouri Republicans with a cudgel to use against then-candidate now-Senator Claire McCaskill."

Also, Think Progress is promoting a Monica Goodling email directing a colleague to draft a directive giving her authority to hire and fire political staffers and to "send [it] directly up to me, outside the system."

TERROR POLITICS: Eviscerating The Constitution Isn't A Bad Thing?

The netroots and Andrew Sullivan are promoting Sens. Pat Leahy (D-VT) and Arlen Specter (R-PA) Habeas Corpus Restoration Act which Daily Kos' mcjoan says, "restores habeas rights to foreign nationals who are detained as enemy combatants or who are awaiting determination of their combatant status. It's a critical piece of legislation to undo the most egregious wrong of the Military Commissions Act."

Alliance for Justice's Kelly Landis announces a partnership with MyDD and Hart Research Associates to work on a poll identifying the best language to "figure out what arguments are the right arguments and how we can best persuade people that eviscerating the Constitution is not the way to protect American interests." Landis asks: "In the comments section, let us know what questions you think we should be asking, what you think about wording them and which message points we should be testing."

Andrew Sullivan adds: "If you care about American liberty, there is no greater cause right now. Do your bit by calling or emailing your Senators and representatives."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: No Wonder Dems Do So Much Better On Facebook

Arguing that "online social networking as it currently exists is largely a waste of time," The Huffington Post's Nick Antosca makes the case for "A Facebook.com-like 'social networking' site designed with the primary purpose of facilitating casual sexual encounters among educated young people." Antosca explains:

Sex is the unstated goal of many daily interactions. Some people might consider such interactions crass, but that's irrational -- an attitude rooted in moral inhibitions and the idea that people shouldn't want sex, especially casual sex. Such interactions are inefficient, however. Intelligent people waste time in conversations about topics in which they have no interest and make plans for time-consuming activities they'd otherwise avoid. A well-designed, widely used "sexual networking" site, facilitating real-life sexual encounters, could make the lives of its users easier and happier.

By allowing large numbers of intelligent young people to conveniently arrange sexual encounters without spending unnecessary time suffering through painful dinners, a web portal of this nature could benefit society. Satisfied people -- more fulfilled, less ashamed. To many, the idea of a sexual Facebook may at first seem distasteful -- sordid -- but such a view does not arise from reason. Such a site, if created and promoted with skill, would result in increased pleasure, diminished frustration, and more leisure time. This is a good idea for planet Earth.

LEST WE FORGET: 2-to-1 Odds The Blogometer Will Have A Beer At Happy Hour Tonight

The Corner's Jonah Goldberg pokes fun at an AP story reporting Newt Gingrich "gives himself 4-to-1 odds against running for president." Goldberg News Service Writer Ima Couch reports:

WASHINGTON (AP) - National Review Online editor-at-large Jonah Goldberg gives himself 7-to-1 odds against having a turkey sandwich for lunch, an assessment that conflicts with his recent pronouncements about how excited he is to have "leftover turkey in the fridge."

Goldberg outlined his decision-making process to GNS: After looking around the icebox he will decide whether it's worth having a sandwich with mustard instead or going to the store for more mayonnaise. If he does go with the mustard, he says he'll need a really good cheese to offset it. "Maybe if we still have some of that Jarslburg," Goldberg mused as he stood by the refrigerator with the door open. "Look, I really like pizza too. I can have turkey tomorrow." He said he will talk about his decision process later this afternoon while watching TV on the couch.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:35 PM

June 06, 2007

6/6: Lightning Round

With an assist from, literally, an act of god, Rudy Giuliani established himself as the clear blogger fave coming out of 6/5's NH debate. Giuliani was direct on the Iraq war while Mitt Romneydodged , and he all but told John McCainto go read his own immigration bill . But Giuliani's best moment came while answering a question on abortion, normally a sticking point between Giuliani and conservatives. Interference with his microphone from a lightning storm provided an opportunity for levity that Giuliani seized on, much to the liking of usually suspect social conservatives. With Fred Thompson's "Hannity & Colmes" counter programming efforts being largely panned, Thompson just might have to enter the arena next time if he hopes to continue to chip away at Giuliani's lead.

GOP DEBATE: Been There, Done That

Many conservatives made fun of MSM surprise at the strong anti-Pres. Bush sentiment that ran through the 6/5 debate. Michelle Malkin: "I see that the Bush Derangement Syndrome victims at the Associated Press are trying to frame the debate as some sort of newfangled bash-Bush-fest with "startling criticism" of the president. Newsflash: There wasn't any substantive criticism of Bush tonight on the war and immigration that hadn't already been aired in the past two debates--or the last six months, for that matter." Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham adds: "Puzzle and puzzle 'til your puzzler is sore, guys."

Also with candidate unspecific reactions:

• The Corner's Michael Graham: "As A Graduate of Oral Roberts University I can say with confidence that all this Jesus talk will kill the GOP if they aren't careful. America elects Episcopalians, not Evangelicals. The more people tune in these debates and hear 'abortion, creation, etc', the more typical suburbanites wonder 'Who the heck ARE these people?'"
• Andrew Sullivan: "It's fascinating to watch the GOP candidates try and walk back from Christanism. But they're in too deep. Since the Rove strategy, the GOP has appealed on explicitly religious grounds to Biblical literalists. In fact, they sometimes defend public policy - like opposition to civil marriage for gay couples - on Biblical grounds. If they have cited Genesis, it's fair to ask if they literally believe in it. They all dodged it."
• Hit and Run's David Weigel: "Romney and Rudy agree: Let's launch a major national project, paid for with tax cuts and a kissing booth, to solve the energy crisis. I guess everyone misses the Carter presidency."
• Michelle Malkin: "Bottom line: No knock-out punches, no fireworks. None of the candidates have changed their mind on anything since the last debate. And they probably didn't change any viewers' minds about them tonight."
• more from Graham at The Corner: "The advantage of watching the debate in a room full of Republicans, as I'm doing right now, is you get to watch and listen to them. The conversation about Iraq barely got their attention. As soon as the debate moved to immigration, the crowd immediately moved forward in their chairs. Every single pro-enforcement statement inspires immediate applause."

In mulitmedia offerings, Hot Air has select video highlights from throughout the evening and The Brody File posts video of campaign hacks in the spin room.

DEBATE GIULIANI: The Freevangelical

The near unanimous appraisals that Rudy Giuliani bested the field include:

• Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham: "Let's face it. Debates are composed of moments. And, Rudy is momentous."
• NY Sun's Ryan Sager: "Rudy Giuliani won that debate hands down. ... Whether it was Iraq, immigration, health care, or whatever, he just sounded so much more relaxed and in command of the situation than the other candidates that it was ridiculous."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "Though he didn't have as defining a moment as his smack down of Ron Paul in the last debate, he still turned in the best performance of the evening."
• Ankle Biting Pundit's Bull Dog Pundit: "Among the Top 3 candidates I thought Giuliani did the best. I liked his strategy of attacking the Democrats and sort of 'going over the head' of the other candidates and especially the press."
• Captain's Quarters: "Giuliani performed the best. He took advantage of a recurring technical glitch to demonstrate his sense of humor, and he gave great answers on national-security questions."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Rudy Giuliani stepped forward in a way that he hasn't until now. His performance was terrific."

Specific moments that helped Rudy include:

• The Corner's Michael Graham: "Rudy does it in one sentence. It's unimaginable that you'd leave Saddam in power while fighting a war on terror. That's the argument the GOP should embrace, seize and use to beat Hillary's campaign into a coma."
• The Corner's John Derbyshire: "Jumps right into health insurance issue. Clear, concise. He's looking really good tonight. He's engaged, at last."
• The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "Rudy Wins Points for telling McCain he is wrong about the details of McCain's bill, while standing next to him."
• The Corner's Rich Lowry: "Rudy's a Freevangelical. He keeps coming back again and again to freedom-spreading it overseas, believing in it here at home."
• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "Rudy's "lighting" moment will be the most played clip of the night. I think the humor of the whole thing helps him."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "His unequivocal defense of the Iraq war by putting it in the context of the broader war on terror will anger liberals, but can only help him in a Republican primary. The direct answer also stood in stark contrast to Romney's use of the 'null set' dodge."

DEBATE MCCAIN: It Was The Best Of Times ...

John McCain's shining moment with the sister of a fallen soldier was widely appreciated, but while some thought he gave his best defense of the Senate immigration bill so far, it once again proved his ultimate undoing among conservatives. On Iraq:

• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "He had some wonderful moments in the debate. When he stood up and addressed the woman who lost her brother in Iraq with a heartfelt, passionate, and substantive answer it reinforced why, though I may disagree with McCain on many issues, I'll always have a lot of respect for him."
• The Corner's John Podhoretz: "McCain at His Best. He gives a beautiful, soulful, substantive answer to a woman whose brother died in Iraq."
• Townhall's Patrick Ruffini: "If you're the maverick, you need to show unscripted flashes of authenticity with the goal of getting voters to respect you when they don't agree with you. McCain did that twice tonight. First in his moving response to the sister of the fallen soldier. And second in his tribute to the immigrants who've fought in our military."
• Instapundit: "The McCain people are on top of things -- they've already sent this YouTube video of McCain on Iraq."

On immigration:

• Mark at RedState: "Sen. McCain's presidential campaign ended last night. ... I saw him talking down to the audience, the other candidates, and the nation on the issue of immigration. Second, I saw Sen. McCain being beaten up by everyone on stage over his position on immigration. Third, I saw and heard him in an insultingly thinly veiled fashion accuse every opponent of his position on immigration of being a racist."
• SC's Daily Chaser on McCain saying, "This isn't the bill I would have written": "Excuse me? What does that even mean?
• The Corner's Michael Graham: "McCain's Moral Preening: Does it ever end? His opponents on immigration want to hurt America, they're bigots, and he's better than those who want to enforce the law. Now I have to abandon the rule of law because some of the fine men who gave their lives in Vietnam were Hispanic? I bet a few were of Arab descent, too. What does that prove?"
• The Corner's Mark Levin: "I'm sorry, but when McCain turns the illegal immigration discussion into a like v. dislike Hispanics he does himself and this nation a great disservice."
• The Corner's Rich Lowry: "The underlying thematic argument between Rudy and McCain on the immigration bill is anti-Washington v. pro-Washington, with Rudy attacking the way Washington worked on this thing and McCain defending it. Politically, that's a big winner for Rudy."
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "McCain defended his position on immigration eloquently, but it's a losing position. Indeed, at the peak of his eloquence he probably gave the game away, stating that America is a shining city and we're not going to build a fence around it. McCain thus confirmed the worst fear the Republican base has about him, that he doesn't really care about immigration enforcement."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Senator McCain simply does not care what the republican base thinks. He didn't care on McCain-Feingold. He didn't care on the Gang of 14. He didn't care on McCain-Kennedy 1.0 or the treatment and trial of terrorists bill, and he doesn't care on the fence and McCain-Kennedy 2.0."
• Captain's Quarters: "He called the US a shining city on the hill, evoking Reagan, and then asserted that he "would not build fences and barriers" around it. Rhetorically, it's a great flourish -- but politically, it's suicide. He just reinforced the notion that he won't actually follow through on border security, which most Republicans believe involves building fences and barriers."

DEBATE ROMNEY: The Unflappable Flip Flop

Mitt Romney changed few minds with his 6/5 performance. Those with a favorable impression before the debate left with that belief, and those that like to label Romney a flip flopper left pleased as well. The flip flop fans include:

• The Corner's Andy McCarthy: "Mitt doesn't answer the question about why he's running spanish ads. Not his best moment tonight ... and since he hasn't seemed to get called on much, that's making it a bad night."
• Ankle Biting Pundit's Bull Dog Pundit: "Mitt Romney was utterly awful tonight. His answer about whether Iraq was a mistake (i.e. 'null set' and 'non-sequitir') was utterly incomprehensible."
• Andrew Sullivan: "It's rare to see a fraud exposed quite as clearly in real time as the Republichameleon. So he's for making English the national language, but runs campaign ads in Spanish: an almost perfect representation of the plastic one's bullshit."
• The Corner's Rich Lowry: "Romney was polished as always, but didn't quite have the gravitas of Rudy and McCain on national security, seemed to get less time than the other top-tier candidates and seemed to dodge some of the flip-flop questions."

More supportive takes on Romney include:

• IA Voice: "If anything, I'd say that Romney won because he didn't do anything to shoot himself in the foot and damage his standings in the polls. Which, when you're the frontrunner, is goal #1. He did that last night."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "As I was watching this, I thought, 'I would be comfortable with Romney as the nominee.' The word 'unflappable' comes to mind."
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "Romney had a solid night, but he just can't hit the notes that Giuliani and McCain reach at their best (and you can probably add Fred Thompson to that list too)."

THE SEVEN DWARFS: It's True, Jim Gilmore Was Jim Gilmore

Mike Huckabee was the consensus winner among second-tier candidates, but no one was ready to elevate his chances yet either. Reax on all include:

• The Corner's Andy McCarthy: "Is Brownback Insane? Answer to woman whose brother was KIA in Iraq is let's divide the country into three? She wants to hear what he died for, damn it.
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "Hands down, my friends, hands down, Mike Huckabee won tonight's debate. You can have your favorites. I have no desire to vote for Mike Huckabee. But he totally, fully, and completely dominated this debate.
• Hit And Run's David Weigel: "Things Duncan Hunter doesn't want to nuke: the border wall, the Liberty Bell, Disneyworld's California Adventure. Things he does: All that other stuff.
• The Corner's John Podhoretz: "Ron Paul basically just invalidated World War II. Nice going, Congressman!"
• The Corner's Michael Graham: "Tom Tancredo is Right but he somehow manages to make all his arguments seem wrong."
• On Tommy Thompson introducing, "My name is Thompson-Tommy. I'm the candidate, not the actor," Podhoretz blogs: "Oh. Well, probably not the candidate much longer."
• Captain's Quarters: "Jim Gilmore was ... Jim Gilmore."

GOP FIELD: The Fred Factor

RCP Blog's Blake Dvorak is surprised by McLaughlin and Associates findings that show Fred Thompson has moved to second among GOPers on the back of moderate GOPer support pulled from Rudy Giuliani: "Considering the kind of Republican Giuliani is and how this race has gone so far, you probably wouldn't have predicted Giuliani losing the most support among moderate Republicans, especially to Thompson."

ROMNEY: Cliff Notes

SC Daily Chaser's highlights the important names from Mitt Romney's recent SC Finance Chair announcement:

Anybody who has any clue about golf in the Southeastern U.S. knows about Jim Anthony's real estate development 'The Cliffs'. And Bill Hewitt might not have a last name like Ravenel or Maybank, but he is an esteemed member of Charleston's exclusive high society. Also on board is Peter Brown who is the VP of Colite International. The group will be lead by the highly experienced Drea Byars, who spent last election cycle partnered with the Crunchy Republican Sunny Philips in advising numerous candidates on fundraising.

F. THOMPSON: Where's Michael Moore When You Need Him

Without Michael Moore to beat up on, Fred Thompson failed to outshadow 6/5's debate the same way he did the 5/15 contest. Both NY Sun's Ryan Sager and AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein caught Thompson's Hannity & Colmes appearance after they watched the GOP debate and neither was particularly impressed:

From Klein: "After watching two hours of Republicans answer tough questions, I thought Thompson's performance was a dud. ... He was fine at laying out a lot of the problems and challenges we face that he said people aren't really talking about correctly or don't comprehend ... but he didn't offer any solutions to those problems or make any sort of case for why he thinks he might be the person best suited to solve them."

From Sager: "The biggest loser of the night, in my opinion, was Fred Thompson. ... Mr. Thompson's "Hannity & Colmes" appearance just didn't do the trick. It would have been better to stay home and wait for the next debate than to set-up his own special forum, separate from the other candidates."

The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez, flags Ann Coulter distaste for Thompson, and RedState's Erick Erickson is a fan of Mike Huckabee's Mighty Mouse jab at Thompson, posting a video compilation of Thompson set to the MM theme song.

DEM FIELD: Lynchpin Me, I Must Be Dreaming

MyDD's Chris Bowers comments on Franklin Pierce's NH poll post-debate that shows Hillary Clinton at 38% (up from 32% 3 mo. ago), Barack Obama at 16% (down from 25%) and John Edwards at 13% (down from 15%). Bowers writes NH remains the "strategic lynchpin" in Clinton's advantage for the Dem nod. While "some cracks are showing" her advantage in other states, as long as she leads in NH, she has the "inside track" to the Dem nod -- and her lead "actually appears to be increasing" there. Also per the poll, 45% said Clinton performed the best, while no other candidate reached single digits.

CLINTON: Was Lost, But Now Am Profound

Byron Williams writes in Huffington Post that Clinton's mid-debate statement -- "I think it's important particularly to point out, this is George Bush's war -- he is responsible for the war...He started the war. He escalated the war. And he refuses to end the war" -- was "the most profound statement in that it was so superficial." It might have been "red meat" for Dems to blame it on Bush, "but it is historically dishonest" because "this is America's war; the president and Congress saw to that." Anyone who fails to understand this "immediately disqualifies himself or herself as worthy to lead the country at a time such as this."

Nate Willems writes at MyDD on news that Teresa Vilmain will head Clinton's IA operation. Vilmain is a Dem operative "who has been awarded genius status" and is "given a lot of credit" for Vilsack's '98 GOV upset. "The idea is that Hillary Clinton has made one big hire that has the potential to turn her campaign around in Iowa.... if I were working for either Obama or Edwards in Iowa today, my paranoia level would have just gone through the roof."

Bleeding Heartland chimes in on the Vilmain hire, adding Clinton has lined up the support of "some big Vilsack donors as well," including Bill Knapp and Jerry Crawford. But he's not feeling paranoid now because "expectations for the Clinton campaign will now rise. What is her excuse going to be if she comes in a distant third on caucus night now?"

Meanwhile, Talk Left writes that it takes "chutzpah" to publish a book on Clinton by Jeff Gerth, but the publisher Litter, Brown did so anyway. Given Gerth's "atrocious record as a reporter, particularly on Whitewater," leaves him "with no credibility whatsoever" especially on the Clintons.

EDWARDS: Insecurity Breach

New Donkey's Ed Kilgore calls Edwards efforts during the Dem debate to "separate himself from Clinton and Obama" with his comments on the "War on Terror" were "politically perilous, to say the least." Though there's been talk that Edwards is struggling in national polls, and in SC and FL, but "it's generally conceded, even by the Edwards campaign, that he pretty much has to win the Iowa Caucuses to have a serious shot at the nomination." So far he's doing best in IA, "but it doesn't like like he's going to get a clear path" the Dem nod "by being the disputed antiwar Democrat in the top tier."

Atlantic Monthly's Matt Yglesias blogs that he disagrees with Kilgore's post, and actually Edwards comments are the "most significant aspect" of his "decision to take to take this bit of sloganeering on." Clinton's "shameful efforts to play right-wing demagogue" to Edwards "have no sting whatsoever." A party that "doesn't have sufficient confidence in its national security chops...is bound to end up projecting that insecurity to voters" in a hit that's "much more damaging" than in the 48-hour news cycle.

GRAVEL: It's Actually Really Easy To Say I'm Sorry

Mike Gravel blogs at HuffPo that Clinton "refuses to admit an obvious mistake" at the debate when asked about her husband's "Don't Ask" policy. Clinton "tried to rewrite history by spinning 'Don't Ask' as a 'first step' toward gays and lesbians openly serving in the military." Gravel blogs if he's elected, he'll "immediately" apologize on behalf of the govt to each of the 100K service people discharged because of sexual orientation -- and challenges the rest of the candidates to do so as well.

OBAMA: The Story's Framing Was Not So AP-propriate

TPM'sGreg Sargent calls the AP's Obama story some "really, really rank journalism." The AP is "badly distorting" Obama's speech, "giving his words a scary and racially-threatening cast that they simply didn't have in reality." The "loaded language" in the story's lede, such as "warns" and "threatens," combined with the "obvious insinuation that Obama is somehow threatening that riots may occur," is on Drudge Report and CNN. But Obama "is actually making a subtle and interesting point" in that he's not saying "quiet riots" are actual riots, but rather they are "things that devastate communities" such as crime and violence. Sargent ads: "That idea simply isn't in the speech. The AP just dreamed it up."

Mark Kleiman also blogs at Same Facts on how the AP covered Obama's Hampton Inst. speech. Kleiman writes Obama's argument was that the "quiet riot" gets ignored, but instead AP's bob Lewis "decides to treat the speech as a Jesse-Jacksonesque 'no justice, no peace' threat that noisy riots will break out again unless inner-city programs are dealt with." Kleiman concludes: "Again, I don't think the problem is bias; it's just post-literacy." Atlantic'sAmbinder concurs that the AP's lede is indeed "incendiary,"

At TAPPED, Ezra Klein is buying into Obama's health care plan as its "evolving in positive directions since it was first announced." The "public insurance program appears to have been elevated to a place of larger centrality and wider relevance." Though he described it as a plan of "almosts" last week, Klein writes he's "happy to say it's getting closer with each passing day."

The Plank's Cohn links to Klein, writing: "I've always thought single-payer systems worked better than individual mandate schemes. But if individual mandate schemes are imperfect, they're still a whole lot better than nothing."

GLOBAL WARMING: It's Getting Hot In Here

The netroots are upset over a Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA) bill that would preempt any state action on global warming once the federal government finally acted. Daily Kos' Devilstower blogs: "This is such an astoundingly bad bill, that it's amazing it could ever be considered. That it's been seriously put forward from a Democratically chaired committee is sickening."

Also at Daily Kos, The Lighthouse Keeper note Rep. John Dingell's (D-MA) support for the effort and adds: "This is an effort to thwart California and other states' attempt to lead the country in the right direction and it must not stand! ... I think it's about time both of these men got a serious dose of reality. Obviously, neither of them represent constituencies remotely reflecting the average DKos member, but surely, someone out there must be able to mobilize voters in those respective districts. ... Is Boucher a closet Republican? What the hell is wrong with him?

IRAQ: He Names Names

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum's estimation that "maybe 20% of congressional Republicans will join [Democrats] in voting to fund a gradual drawdown when September rolls around. If Democrats are willing to stand their ground and fight, that's probably enough," drew fire from Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat:

I think that is simply fantasy. Who are these "20% of Republicans?" And even if they exist, what of a Presidential veto Kevin? 20% of Republicans is NOT enough for a veto proof majority. When will folks deal with reality here? the NOT funding after a date certain option is the only way to end the Iraq Debacle.

Drum responds:

First, the 20% number is obviously just a flyer. My guess is that events in Iraq combined with constituent pressure will end up pushing maybe 10 GOP senators and 40 GOP congressmembers into the anti-war camp. This will likely be a combination of moderates who are on the fence already (think John Warner); temperamental isolationists who are hawkish but were never really that thrilled with the neocon grand plan in the first place (think Jeff Sessions); and folks who simply decide that opposition is the only way they can win reelection next year (think Norm Coleman). Needless to say, though, I could be all wet about this.

Second, my whole point was precisely that even if this happens, it's not enough for a veto-proof majority. ... There's really no alternative since Democrats aren't likely to ever "have the votes" to end the war if that means having a veto-proof majority. Public opinion is key, not partisan majorities.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Kill Bill

Kausfiles is beginning to warm up to the idea that the Senate immigration bill could be killed by an amendment that shifts the burden of proof on employment eligibility from immigrants to employers and makes all fines due immediately upon citation ("Let the employers appeal the fine after they've paid."). Kaus adds:

At the very least, tough anti-employer amendments would give labor Dems who'd like to kill the bill--but who might not want to leave many fingerprints--a way to accomplish their goal: they merely vote to make the evil, illegal-hiring employers bear their fair responsibility. It just so happens that this breaks apart the bill's core coalition.

LEST WE FORGET: Arrrr, At Least The Busty Wenches Part Is True

Following Johnny Depp's win at the MTV Movie Awards for his role in the Pirates of the Caribbean, Slate's Christopher Bonanos asks if pirates really ever said "arrrrr." Unfortunately:

Probably not. Both that phrase and the accent that goes with it are strictly Hollywood. They originated with Robert Newton, the actor who played Long John Silver in the movies and on TV through much of the 1950s. ... So, was there a typical pirate accent at all? Among British outlaws, yes: The onboard speech was most likely underclass British sailor with extra curse words, augmented with a polyglot slang of French, Italian, Spanish, and Dutch picked up around the trade routes. "Arrrrr" is strictly fiction, as are a number of the other affiliated signifiers: Nobody ever walked the plank, and nobody has ever discovered an actual pirate treasure map. On the myth-confirming side, pirates were known to dress in loose clothing, guzzle rum and smash the empty bottles, and chase busty wenches through Caribbean ports.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:35 PM

June 05, 2007

6/5: All Eyes On Mitt

The Blogometer doesn't even need to look at the polls to tell who is currently ahead in NH. Judging by blog attacks, both anonymous and not, Mitt Romney is clearly the frontrunner in the Granite State. Whether it's shots on Mormonism from Rudy Giuliani or questions on abortion from Sam Brownback, the GOP field is signaling all guns will be trained on Romney 6/5. Will CNN's apparent preference for top-tier air time, will Romney benefit from more time to respond to opponent charges, or will John McCain and Giuliani shy away from challenging Romney head on?

DEM FIELD: Less-Blind Faith

Christian Broadcasting Network's The Brody File attended Sojourners Presidential Faith Forum at GWU, anticipating before the start: "OK, this is put on by the liberal Christian group Sojourners so the candidates will come up and talk about poverty, health care, Darfur. They'll say each one is a moral crisis and that will be that." Brody later admitted how wrong he was:

For the next hour I sat in my seat in awe. There was conservative Christian 'red meat' everywhere. Topics ranged from evolution to abortion, to forgiveness of sin, to prayer, to homosexuality, to whether this is a Christian nation, etc. ... I think Clinton, Obama and Edwards helped themselves last night. These faith conferences further the discussion about religion and politics and that's always a good thing.

CLINTON: Do Not Underestimate The Powers Of The Dark Side

Commenting on mostly positive reviews of Hillary Clinton's 6/3 debate performance, Atrios blogs: "I do get a sense that a lot of online negativity against Clinton is misplaced and counterproductive to the cause, that is the cause of derailing her candidacy if that is your goal. ... People like Clinton. She's the clear frontrunner in national polls. ... I'm not writing any of this to make the case for Clinton, I'm just trying to make the case that her detractors underestimate the strength of her support at their peril. Whatever the reasons, her support is real and significant."

Marshalling ahead with online HRC negativity, TPM Cafe's Greg Sargent explains why her "I am a senator from New York. I have lived with the aftermath of 9/11" irks liberals so much:

Here's why this sort of thing gets people hot and bothered. It seems designed to imply that Edwards doesn't grasp the import of terrorism itself -- in other words, that he doesn't take terrorism in general as seriously as she does. In this sense it carries echoes of the bogus Dems-don't-grasp-the-terror-threat talking point used so frequently by wingers and by the GOP to slime Hillary herself and Dems in general.
We have no problem believing that Hillary actually does believe in the "war on terror" frame. But we'd genuinely like to hear her explain why she believes this, rather than implying she has a better gut-level grasp of the import of terrorism than other Dems do.

OBAMA: Either Get Busy Living ...

Netroots anticipation for a more forceful Barack Obama challenge to Hillary Clinton continues to grow. Not backing of her assessment that HRC won the 6/3 debate, Obama lover Arianna Huffington blogs:

Barack Obama's strategy also appears to be rising above the fray. But that is no way to unseat a front-runner. Iraq is Hillary's Achilles heel. But it will become less and less so if Obama keeps letting her off the hook on the war and on national security. ... In the spin room after the debate, David Axelrod, Obama's chief media strategist, told reporters that debates like last night's are part of a larger sequence -- and that there is still a long time to go before the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary. ... But he'd better get started -- and stop leaving choice opportunities on the table.

In IA, Bleeding Heartland admits Obama faces an uphill climb in her state but still comments: "But if I were Obama, I would fire the scheduler who put him at a west-coast fundraiser instead of in Cedar Rapids on Saturday night. That was a crazy decision. He's rolling in money and is probably going to outraise Clinton in the second quarter. He's trailing in the Iowa polls and should have taken that opportunity to make the sale with party activists. ... Ordinary voters won't care a bit about who came to the Hall of Fame dinner. But every one of the 1,000 people who attended can probably influence at least a dozen friends and neighbors.

At MyDD, Jerome Armstrong notes the latest Gallup Poll showing Obama besting Clinton 37%-36% when independent voters are included (but trails Clinton 43%-29% among Dems) and blogs: "Independents could crumble as voters unaffiliated with the Democratic Party cannot always participate in nominating contests and Independents are less likely to turn out for a Democratic Primary than Democrats. Nonetheless, if Obama ... can run up a major lead among Independent voters and turn them out in the states where they can participate (particularly in New Hampshire), there is a potential that this voting clique can in fact play an oversized role in picking the next Democratic nominee."

Finally, The Brody File posts video of his interview with Obama Dir. of Religous Affairs Joshua DuBois.

OBAMA II: Mend The Market, Don't End It

Obama's approach to health care reform is slowly gaining more blogger adherents. BlueMassGroup's Charley blogs at firedoglake: "Obama tapped Harvard econ prof David Cutler to help him wonk out a plan - and to sell it. ... Cutler's emphasis has changed to making health care markets work more rationally. So it shouldn't be surprising that Obama's plan is chockful of very appealing market reforms. ... Bottom line: The Obama plan envisions a much bigger role for the federal government as an honest broker for the health care free market, and bolsters and expands the government health care system to include more people - especially the working poor and children."

Brad DeLong is also on board: "The right should embrace it for its market elements - allowing people to vote with their feet for the mechanisms that they want and the promise to support successful institutions. The centre should embrace it because the right has no strong ideological reason to oppose it - hence it is politically viable. And the left should embrace it because it promises the utopia of ending the problems of the uninsured."

Finally TAPPED's Ezra Klein reports The Politico was wrong when they reported Obama once favored mandates as part of a health care solution. From Klein: "A fuller transcription of his quote is below the fold, and it's clear in this version that he was offering mandates as one idea, not personally backing the concept."

HUNTER: Ahead Of The Anti-Bush Curve

Power Line's John Hinderaker promotes columnist Michael Tremoglie's Duncan Hunter in their forum. Tremoglie favors Hunter because he has: 1) Demonstrated his willingness to serve this country in time of war; 2) Demonstrated a family history of such duty. (He is the only candidate whose son has served in combat in Iraq.); 3) Been ahead of the curve about the issue of unfair trade with China; 4) Is an illegal immigration hawk who has been ahead of the curve on this issue as well; 5) He has a stable family background and a political career with no hint of corruption; 6) He is a tax cutter.

Hinderaker adds: "My own view, for what it's worth, is that once the field starts to narrow, Hunter could get some serious interest. He could be a viable alternative to Fred Thompson for those who are looking for a down-the-middle conservative. Apart from the Presidential race, he certainly could be a credible Vice-presidential candidate in 2008.

MCCAIN: He Was For Amnesty Before He Was Against It

Politico's 6/4 story on John McCain's past use of the word 'amnesty' to describe his immigration legalization efforts gave conservatives a fresh excuse to bash him on the issue. The Corner's Mark Krikorian links to a Dallas Morning Newsstory showing the National Council of La Raza has been advising politicians to not utter the 'A' word since focus group testing found the term put legalization proponents at a disadvantage."

Power Line's John Hinderaker links but begins to doubt whether immigration really hurts McCain: "In the conservative world, the conventional wisdom is that McCain/Kennedy dooms McCain as a Presidential candidate. I've heard that said enough that I was starting to believe it. Now, I'm not so sure. Undoubtedly, McCain's position on immigration hurts him with a big segment of the base. But those are mostly the same people who weren't going to vote for him in primaries anyway, because of McCain/Feingold and other issues."

Kausfiles has no doubts immigration is hurting McCain and has SurveyUSA data to back him up: "McCain supports legalization of illegal immigrants [and] loses 5 points over the month among Hispanic Republicans in California. Fred Thompson blasts the legalization bill from the right and his support among Hispanics quintuples, putting him ahead of McCain (and Giuliani) among Hispanics."

ROMNEY: Wonder Who Everyone's Really Worried About In NH

NY Sun's Ryan Sager exposed efforts by the Rudy Giuliani campaign to promote a Salt Lake Tribunestory tying Mitt Romney to a disavowed Mormon prophecy.

Sager later posts an apology from the Giuliani campaign: "This was a regrettable mistake and is not acceptable. We extend our sincere apologies to Governor Romney and reaffirm our commitment to running a clean campaign."

Townhall's Matt Lewis comments: "Until now, it was unclear whether this story was being pushed by the McCain campaign, the Giuliani campaign -- or was merely spreading organically. Sager's revelation demonstrates that the Giuliani campaign is pushing the anti-Romney story." The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez adds: "If There Is Going to be a Mormon Whisper Campaign ... I suspect it won't be Romney, but the camp that is doing the whispering, who will be hurt."

Townhall's Lewis also notes that Sam Brownback's campaign is "going after Mitt Romney for his failure to label abortion 'murder.'"

ROMNEY II: Wiggler In Chief

In other Romney attacks, Townhall's Matt Lewis posts video of Romney endorsing 'leagal residence' and explains that anti-Romney forces our touting the video as more proof of Romney flip-flops. Lewis isn't buying: "But the statement is nuanced enough to allow for some wiggle room. For example, he is calling for "legal status" -- not "citizenship," per se. I'd like to see the full video."

Also pushing back for Romney at Townhall, Hugh Hewitt links to New York Timessuggestions that Romney enriched himself by cutting jobs to increase profits while at Bain Capital and responds: "As Romney's campaign increases its momentum, so too will the digging into Bain Capital's history. Expect detailed scrutiny of every business ever acquired by Bain Capital, and the publication of long lists of the numbers of employees laid off from each concern."

F. THOMPSON: Does Anyone Bother Defending Bush Anymore?

NY Sun's Ryan Sager picks up on Paul Wyrich's National Ledger thoughts on Fred Thompson including: "Both [Ronald] Reagan and Thompson were actors. Both men connect with the voters. Both men excite conservatives and even Republicans. Both men are seen as saviors, Reagan from the inept President Jimmy Carter; Thompson from the mistakes of fellow Republican George W. Bush, although that is not said out loud very much."

Sager comments: "I already reported Gary Bauer's very friendly remarks regarding a Fred Thompson candidacy. ... It looks like we have another not-quite-an-endorsement endorsement."

AmSpec Blog's Washington Prowler is also in a pro-Thompson mood, promoting Thompson's latest Paul Harvey commentary on the JFK plot as well as Thompson's Senate report "Government on the Brink" which the Prowler notes: "published before the September 11 attacks and Hurricane Katrina, while not predicting such failures in government coordination or basic services, certainly made the case that our government was due for a fall. Thompson has spoken of the report often in his public remarks of late."

BLOGGERS VS. MSM: Does Joe Need More Time With His Family?

Conservatives are more than ready to throw Joe Scarborough under the bus after the MSNBC talent attacked Fred Thompson's wife by asking a guest if she "works the pole." Reactions include:

• Michelle Malkin: "Scarborough owes Thompson and his wife an apology. Be a man, Joe. Would you let someone publicly joke about your wife that way?"
• RCP Blog's Tom Bevan: "The Curse of Imus ... This one has to be seen to be believed."
• Captain's Quarters: "Thompson's wife is beautiful, but that doesn't make her a whore or a stripper. Perhaps it speaks to Scarborough's view of women that he immediately associates one with the other. This is nothing more than character assassination, and especially egregious as it targets someone who isn't even a political player. Scarborough should be ashamed of himself."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "In related news, Scarborough has officially entered his fifteenth minute of fame."

In the minority, Townhall's Matt Lewis advises conservatives to "get over it."

BLOGGERS VS. BELTWAY: Meet The New Boss...

The 16-count indictment of Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) had the netroots hoping their party would take some kind of action to distance themselves from the embattled CBC member. Reactions include:

• MyDD's Jerome Armstrong: "Why in the world would Democrats linger and not act quickly on this matter? Why would Pelosi and the CBC let House Minority Leader John Boehner seemingly take the lead on getting rid of corrupt officials? Are the Democrats in the House (and specifically the CBC) going to squander the anti-branding effort achieved against the Republicans in 2006?"
• The Left Coaster's Erin Alecto: "The Democrats need to get ahead of the narrative on this, and strip him of his only remaining committee seat."
• Jack and Jill Politics' Jill Tubman: "Shame on all of us. I hope you agree and will speak out that African-Americans do not support this behavior. The Republicans are already seeking a tit-for-tat to brand Democrats (and African-American legislators) with the same brush of corruption they currently wear."
• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "Hopefully he'll recognize the drag he is on the Dems and will do the right thing by resigning."

Also, TPM's Josh Marshall posts video showing Fox News ran footage of Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) while covering Jefferson's indictment. Marshall blogs: "[A]pparently Fox News Channel can't tell one African-American member of Congress from another."

IRAQ: The Summer Of Nancy

The netrootsare trumpeting a new ABC News poll showing Dem approval has dropped from 54% to 44% in six weeks as evidence that Dems have not done enough to stop the war. Daily Kos' mcjoan blogs: "Given that upwards of 70 percent of the public in any given poll are steadfastly opposed to this war, that erosion in support for the Democratic Congress is worrying. It's not insurmountable, of course, but does show the the primacy of Iraq over every other issue now in the public mind. And that they want the Congress to stand up to Bush on the war."

Reports that Dems intend to create a "summer of repeated Iraq-related votes" to pressure GOPers into ending the war are not satiating the netroots either. Mcjoan, again:

That Iraq will stay on the front burner for Congressional leadership is great as far as it goes, but there's a problem in this formulation, for both the leadership and for MoveOn: the GOP is not showing any real sign of breaking with Bush on Iraq. ... The efforts by the Dem leadership in the coming months have to be about more than trying to put GOP members in a tough spot and the politics of 2008. This has to be about pressuring our own wavering members, building unity in our own caucus, and making the possibility of ending this war by not passing another funding bill after March 31, 2008 more of a probability.

IMMIGRATION: Where All Reform Proposals Are Above Average

Conservatives are talking numbers to try and persuade wayward GOP Senators against the immigration bill. At Townhall, Jonathan Garthwaite promotes Heritage's new NoFreeMustang site which "gets its name from an analysis of the fiscal costs of illegal immigrant amnesty." The site quotes heritage's Robert Rector:

"The average illegal immigrant family receives an average of $30,000 in governmental benefits! Yet they pay only about $9,000 in taxes per year. That creates a $21,000 shortfall that the American taxpayer has to make up. That's like buying each of these illegal immigrant families a brand new Mustang convertible-each and every year!"

Also quoting Rector, The Corner's Rich Lowry pushes back against Washington Postclaims that immigrants have been a fiscal boon for NC. Lowery summarizes: "Rector says its odd how supporters of lax immigration say things about the wondrous economic benefits of low-skill immigrants that they would never say about native low-skill workers. But if low-skill immigrants are a great benefit to the economy, low-skill natives should be as well. This kind of thinking, Rector says, is like a 'fiscal Lake Wobegone, where everybody is a net fiscal contributor.'"

An original Senate bill proponent, Captain's Quarters is turning against after a CBO report estimates the bill will only reduce illegal immigration by 25%: "Any immigration bill has to succeed at two tasks: stop illegal immigration by securing the border, and reach a resolution of some kind for the millions of illegals already here. According to the CBO, this bill won't do either very well. All it does is reduce annual illegal immigration by 25% -- which is not nearly enough."

Finally, SC Daily Chaser asks emailers to dial their opposition down just a bit: "Here at the Shot we received an e-mail blasting Sen. Lindsey Graham for his public support of the Senate immigration bill. ... This e-mail, which came with the subject line 'Lindsey's Lies', comes in the midst of the debate on the Senate floor. ... While I disagree with Graham on immigration, I do not feel that he is a "liar". Overall I think Graham is a good Senator, and his willingness to reach across the aisle is a great complement to DeMint's staunch conservatism."

IMMIGRATION II: Interns Out Debating The WSJ

Best of the Web's James Taranto shares the Wall Street Journal's "astonishment" at National Review's invitation to debate, explaining that NR's Byron York already cancelled an appearance on their Fox show to debate the issue.

The Corner's Rich Lowry replies: "We already basically addressed what Taranto says in that post in our latest from this morning on our challenge to the Journal. But this is progress. Now we're debating the debate, soon I hope we'll be debating the shape of the table and then-if the Journal can ever bring itself to agree to the challenge-actually debating the immigration bill."

Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham channeling conservative sentiment on the issue: "The WSJ, as fellow intellectually curious conservatives, should accept just to give us all a good show. It's part of the spirit of the conservative movement to have these spirited debates. Hence, the Cato vs. Heritage interns annual debate, which is always a hoot. Come on, WSJ. What are you? Chicken? Don't let the interns outdo you."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: He's A Keeper

Reacting to news the Wikipedia entry for the late Steve Gilliard had been nominated for deletion, Blog P.I.'s Bill Beutler makes the case for his online immortalization:

Love him or hate him, he was controversial in his time and certainly well-known in political blogging circles. (Full disclosure being that I did interact with him infrequently). I also think Gilliard meets the notability requirement for web content. But what this really goes to show is that Wikipedia needs a notability standard for bloggers. As others have noted, bloggers of lesser note are included in Wikipedia, and if this actually comes to a formal debate, I will vote Keep. ... When the big book on the liberal netroots is written, Gilliard will be more than a footnote. Wikipedia has the ability to record that now, and I believe it should.

LEST WE FORGET: The Money Wants What It Wants

Responding news of Rep. William Jefferson's (D-LA) indictment, The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum asks readers to name some perfectly legal reasons "why a congressman might have bricks of hundred dollar bills wrapped in aluminum foil and stuffed in his freezer." Entries include:

• A common energy saving tip is to keep your freezer full. (Keep the freezer full - A full freezer does not allow warm air in when the door is opened, and if there is a power outage, the freezer will stay cool longer.) ... So he was just trying to save electricity, and the wingnuts can't stand it when Democrats try to save the planet so he's being persecuted.
• I know a lot of guys who do this. It's kind of like putting your underwear on straight out of the dryer...
• The money likes it in the freezer! Who are we to deny it.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:37 PM

June 04, 2007

6/4: Slow And Steady

Just looking at the raw 'who won the debate' online straw polls can be a bit misleading since the blogosphere's hyper-informed audiences generally have strong preferences going into each contest. Comparing the debate numbers to the most recent regular straw poll results provides a better indication of who won, and as far as 6/3 goes, Hillary Clinton was the big winner. Polling at 6% at Daily Kos normally, 17% of respondents picker her as 6/3's winner. Barack Obama came in at 23% (compared to 24%) and John Edwards at 27% (compared to 39%).

While Obama did not outperform his normal levels of online support, it's possible his two major confrontations with Edwards were a more significant development than HRC's showing. While some point out that eventually Obama will have to break through, with money and volunteers currently streaming through his doors, there is no reason that moment has to be any time soon. Obama does have to stay positioned as THE anti-Hillary though, and he clearly bested Edwards to stay in that position last night.

Also, Eric Alterman, who was arrested outside of the debate spin room (see his account here), makes the case for Edwards on electabilty grounds at Bloggingheads.tv.

DEBATE BIDEN: Anti-Genocide

Joe Bidenled the league in positive debate reviews among non-top tier candidates. Positive Daily Kos comments include:

• Biden's Always Been Consistent on Genocide. He was great during the Balkans. Wacky in some other ways, but props to a career of consistency on genocide.
• Why am I liking Biden do much? Seriously, I like Biden every time he opens his mouth! Who knew??
• Biden let it fly. I like that.

DEBATE CLINTON: Best Moderator Ever

For the second debate in a row, Hillary Clinton surprised netroots doubters with a strong and compelling performance. As always with HRC, negative takes were easy to find, but first the good:

• I am unalterably opposed to Hillary, but her answer to the question of whether we'd take out Bin Laden was perfect, if obvious. She said we'd have to assess the probable human cost and weigh it against our need to eliminate a megavillian.
• Clinton lecturing Wolf ... I don't like her, but that was much-needed.
• She's got gumption
• The Plank's Jason Zengerle: "She may be wishy-washy on Iraq, but Hillary is firmly against annoying hypothetical questions. Good for her."
• TAPPED's Sam Rosenfeld: "Clinton's targeting of the insurance and pharma lobbies in her discussion of the political dynamics of this issue deserves particular praise here."
• Talk Left's Jeralyn Merritt: "A great 16 second moment in the debate -- Hillary blasts Condi Rice and Dick Cheney for their lack of diplomacy skills."
• firedoglake's Scarecrow: "Response of the night so far: Hillary says we need to use all our Presidents to help us repair the damage of the last 7 years. Wonder how George 41 feels about that?"
• Andrew Sullivan: "There were times when her robo-lecture act began to wear down my ear-drums, but, in general, Senator Clinton bestrode the debate as an authoritative figure. In fact, I've never witnessed a U.S. political debate in which a woman clearly dominated as she did tonight. ... she wins this one. It kills me to admit it. But there you are."
• poor kos - hillary is doing so well!

Speaking of Markos, he was not impressed with Clinton's refusal to admit mistake on Iraq: "Shorter Hillary Clinton: 'I trusted Bush on Iraq.' That, alone, should be enough to disqualify her. 'Good judgement' is a must-have trait for our next president. ... I don't know why she just can't say about her war authorization vote: 'I regret that vote. It was a mistake.' Edwards did so and it hasn't hurt him."

Many were also unhappy with Clinton's appraisal that we are safer now than we were on 9/11/ Daily Kos' TomP responds: "I thought Senator Clinton was absolutely terrible on GWOT. She appears to me to be a demagogue. She uses 9/11 to endorse a war against a method. Clinton is a smart woman and knows better. That is what a demagogue is to me. Harsh words, but she earned them. She is everything wrong in the Democratic Party that we must change."

DEBATE EDWARDS: Leadership A Little Late

John Edwards attacks on Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton fell flat in even his most sympathetic venues (Daily Kos and MyDD). Those and other reax include:

• firedoglake's Scarecrow: "Edwards points out that Clinton and Obama waiting to last minute to announce their vote; that's not leadership, but Obama says Edwards is 4 1/2 years late on 'leadership.' And Hillary says this is George Bush's war - asserting herself to speak for the group. ... She's won the rhetorical point and Edwards seems on the defensive ... Ironic that Obama and Clinton join to neutralize Edwards."
• TAPPED's Sam Rosenfeld: "John Edwards took the first direct shots at fellow candidates in tonight's Democratic primary debate in New Hampshire ... he said the way in which Obama and Clinton handled the vote illustrated the difference between "being a leader and being a follower" ... This seems ... thin."
• a MyDD commentator: "Edwards struck me as too attacky to do him good. Maybe it's just my reading between the lines but when he said Clinton and Obama didn't show leadership because they wouldn't loudly proclaim how they would vote beforehand, I thought that was really off the mark."
• a Daily Kos commentator: "Edwards is sounding petty with this criticism. What he's saying may have merit, but it's falling flat."
• The Plank's Isaac Choitner: "Edwards seems pretty pathetic keeping this up, especially when he acknowledges that Obama and Clinton 'voted the right way.'"

Panning of Edwards performance was by no means universal:

• a Daily Kos commentator: "Edwards is very strong when he talks about health care and how it needs to be paid for."
• a MyDD commentator: "I also liked how aggressive Edwards was, spiced up the debate a bit--Gravel and Kucinich can be safely ignored, but not Edwards."
• more from Daily Kos comments: "911 is a bumpersticker. Edwards Nails It!!"

DEBATE OBAMA: He's A Uniter, Not A Divider

Barack Obama scored his biggest points when he accused Wolf Blitzer of trying to divide people with his English as official language question. IA's Bleeding Heartland writes: "It played to the image he is trying to cultivate as a uniter, but more important, it was a step toward holding journalists accountable for the framing of their questions." DailyKoscommentatorsreallylovedit .

The netroots also decisively handed Obama wins in both of his direct confrontations with John Edwards. MyDD commentators wrote:

• On Iraq, Obama refused to let Edwards steal the anti-Iraq war mantle from him. Obama reminded Edwards and the whole world that he has been vocally against this war from the beginning.
• I thought Obama shut Edwards down pretty effectively on health care actually.
• Edwards did well, but Obama sort of nailed him on the Iraq NIE question and the health care mandate question. Actually I really liked Obama's defense of his health care plan, even thought I might have agree with Edwards' points prior to Obama's response.

Other pro-Obama reactions:

• Daily Kos' JWH: "Barack Obama - 'When you have a military target like Bin Laden, you take him out.' Sweet!
• Daily Kos' Unstable Isotope: "Surprised Obama calls Iraq an "occupation." It give me warm fuzzies."
• The Plank's Noam Scheiber: "I think Obama probably helped himself more than anyone else. He was pretty facile with the policy details, his mastery of which seemed to be the major question mark hanging over him."

DEBATE RICHARDSON: Anti-Shrinkage

Bill Richardson did little to change the downward trajectory of online opinion of him:

• MyDD's BenjaminK: "Does anyone who watched the debate happen to know what Bill Richardson does for a living?"
• Daily Kos' Miss Laura: "I do not like Bill Richardson's incessant "I'm a pro-growth Democrat" line. As I said at Blue Hampshire yesterday, is he implying that the other candidates are pro-shrinkage?"
• Daily Kos' troqua: "Richardson is getting too much time considering his tier status. And he's boring me to tears."
• Daily Kos' thereisnospoon: "Richardson speaks fluent Platitude."
• Daily Kos' Gutterboy: "All my previous interest in Richardson is just gone. Gone. Between his MTP appearance and this, he's been a disaster."
• The Plank's Jason Zengerle: "Which brings me to Bill Richardson. Is there any reason at this point that we should take his candidacy any more seriously than we do Gravel's and Kucinich's? If there is, I certainly didn't see it in this debate."

DEM FIELD: If Only Obama Could Be Like Dodd

Prior to the debate DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas shared his latest thoughts on the state of the Dem field including:

• On Hillary Clinton: "You gotta give the Clinton team credit for bamboozling the public on her Iraq stance. While clearly stating that she would not end the US involvement in the war, she portrays herself as an anti-war crusader. And so far, her opponents have let her get away with it."
• On John Edwards: "Of the top three, Edwards is currently the strongest anti-war voice, unafraid to take a strong stance against the Iraq Capitulation Bill (unlike Clinton and Obama, who were afraid to state an opinion on it until after the vote)."
• On Barack Obama: "Obama passed up a great opportunity to lead the charge against the Iraq supplemental, only deciding to vote against it at the last minute. Unlike Clinton, Obama was probably against it from the beginning. So why the caution? Why the hesitation? Why not demonstrate some leadership? Was he waiting for Axelrod's poll to come back from the field?"
• On Bill Richardson: "Damn, Richardson's star has nearly collapsed these past six weeks. ... His appearance on last Sunday's Meet The Press was an epic flameout, unable to handle Timmeh's questions. And no, you can't be both a Yankees fan and a Red Sox fan."
• On Chris Dodd: "Did the sort of "leadership" thing on the Iraq Supplemental that Obama could've owned, and got lots of well-deserved props for it."

CLINTON: Book Club

Both Jeff Gerth and Dan Van Natta pumped their book Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton at The Huffington Post.

• from Gerth: "For all her criticism of George Bush and Dick Cheney for secrecy and incompetence, she has exhibited both traits on occasion. ... She and her allies are working hard in their attempt to obfuscate the book's revelations. Their motive is clear: Her Way shines a spotlight on certain areas of Hillary's political and professional career that she hopes voters will ignore."
• from Van Natta: "The largest chunk of our new book, Her Way, shines a spotlight on the six and a half years that Hillary Clinton has served in the Senate. ... The other Hillary book being published this month devotes just 7 or 8 pages out of 600 to her life in the Senate. It's another reason that Her Way is the one book that Senator Clinton doesn't want you to read."

OBAMA: The Resistible Rise Of Arturo Obama

A month old Chicago Tribunestory on Barack Obama efforts to force primary opponents off the ballot to pave the way for his IL state Sen. run are drawing attention, but not condemnation in some netroots circles. MyDD's Vox Populi summarizes the article:

In his first run for State Senate in 1996, Obama's campaign team challenged the signatures on the nominating petitions of all his Democratic rivals. In the end, only Obama was left. He won his first primary election by default, after a fair share of the dirty politics that makes Chicago famous. ... This 'unconventional' politician used quite conventional methods to restrict the choice of voters in his district.

MyDD's Curt Matlock responds: "Politicians at this level just don't rise that high by living in a Jimmy Stewart world. Spin on the event can certainly vary. As a Democrat partisan my own opinion is that I'm glad to see Obama is a Democratic politician who is going to fight for every vote and use every legal means to win elections. That's what we need in 2008.

GIULIANI: You Talkin' About Me?

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff responds to a National Review On Dead Tree Ramesh Ponnuru article arguing abortion should doom Rudy Giuliani's campaign. Mirengoff first summarizes: "The article seems directed at what Ponnuru calls 'the party's swing voters on abortion' who are 'pro-life, but not vehemently so, and [who] may pay more attention to issues such as the war on terrorism and taxes than they do to abortion in determining for whom to vote.' This is the group to which I belong."

Mirengoff then responds: "I'm not persuaded that nominating Giuliani in 2008 would hurt the party in the future. Republicans would have time to "right" the party, as happened after the first President Bush supported new taxes. Given that we're in the middle of the war on terror, I think swing Republicans should seriously consider supporting Giuliani if there's good reason to believe that he's the only candidate (or the only candidate other than McCain) who can lead the party to victory."

Reacting to newsPatrick Ruffini will no longer be serving as Rudy Giuliani's 'Internet Guru' NY Sun's Ryan Sager blogs: "While it seems Mr. Ruffini left on fine terms, it's probably worth noting that so far the Giuliani Internet operation hasn't been any great shakes."

ROMNEY: If Klein Hates Him, He Must Be Good

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt links to audio from his hour-long interview with Joe Klein about his recent anti-Mitt Romney column and hits back:

In short, Klein delivers another example of ... a collective shudder among the MSM at the prospect of yet another conservative GOP nominee who could keep the White House in Republican hands. Joe got testy when I called him on his transparent Hillary-McCain shilling, his backflip on Romney, and his dismissal of ... anyone, in fact, who sees Iraq as one battle in a vast war between the West and jihadism, a view which Romney holds and defends at every turn. ... Klein's column and the other anti-Romney attacks are the best indication yet that Romney is emerging as the strongest conservative in the race

Back in SC, the Daily Chaser posts to video of Romney at a TN fundraiser and comments: "So you are running for President and you are invited to a big GOP function in TN. You accept, but then a popular former Senator from TN "announces" he might be running for President too. What do you do? We thought Mitt Romney handled this situation pretty darn well."

THOMPSON: Attractive Wives Need Not Apply?

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff caught CSPAN's replay of Fred Thompson's address to a GOP fundraiser in Richmond, VA and comments: "[I]t was an excellent speech. Thompson has a knack for stating conservative principles simply and with what seems like deep conviction. And, perhaps most importantly, he states them strongly but palatably. My wife, who is an independent, liked the speech as much as I did."

Instapundit shares: "A journalist who was there emails with uncharacteristic enthusiasm: 'it's what a stump speech should be.... a standing ovation in the middle of the speech even.'"

Poliblogger notices Thompson's wife is attractive and asks: "I will eschew specific discussion of the 'trophy wife' label (as it is unnecessarily derisive), but given the entire issue of marriage and family, and its prominence in Republican circles, and given the overt lack of GOP front-runners with stellar marital credentials, one has to wonder if pictures like the following might have an effect on some Republican primary voters."

IMMIGRATION: How Low Can He Go?

The Senate immigratin bill continues to drive strong anti-Pres. Bush sentiment among conservatives. Belief Net's Rod Dreher agrees it is time for conservatives to turn their backs on Bush but also advises: "But let's not kid ourselves: Bush has failed conservatives, yes, but we have also failed ourselves. Bush is today who he always was. The difference is we conservatives pretty much loved the guy -- when he was a winner."

The Corner's Jonah Goldberg responds: "Rod's right that the Bush years should foster introspection. So, for me, I can tell you that lessons like this are among the reasons I've become more libertarian in response to the Bush years. What I would like to know is why - on domestic policy - even as Rod has become so virulently anti-Bush, compassionate conservatism has made Rod more, well, compassionately conservative.

Also at The Corner, Mark Steyn challenges Dreher's assessment that 'winning' is why conservatives supported Bush: "But I don't believe the president would have received the kind of support he has received from the conservative base, for as long as he has received it, had we not been attacked. ... And apart from the war (although there's a growing voice of dissent in that regard) much of the national agenda is seen as misplaced (amnesty) and reactive (global warming)."

Also announcing the end of their support for Bush, IA Voice blogs: "I'm sure I'm not the only person in the conservative blogosphere to feel this way, but after Bush's comments the other day in regards to his amnesty scam, I'm officially out of the 30% club ... This is one thing I don't get about Bush or this administration. He attacks those who support him but happen to disagree with him on a single issue, yet he tries to be BFF with those on the left who will NEVER support him on ANYTHING."

Back in TN, Blue Collar Muse reports on talk radio accounts of a Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) constituent meeting on the issue: "Most of the callers also made the observation, in one form or another, that Sen. Alexander seemed shaken by the emotion and reaction from those attending. Prior to this morning, all I've heard from the Senator, personally (on radio interviews) and via others is that he was undecided or neutral but leaning to supporting the bill. It remains to be seen if he is shaken enough to finally declare his opposition to the bill."

IMMIGRATION II: The WSJ vs. The WSJ

It is unclear whether the WSJ editorial board has accepted National Review's challenge to debate the Senate immigration bill. The Corner's Mark Krikorian debated The Journal's Steve Moore on Bill Bennett's radio show and reports Moore committed the WSJ to a debate. However, Townhall's Hugh Hewitt points out that a 6/2 New York Timesarticle on the GOP split over the issue quotes Paul Gigot rejecting NR's invitation.

Do not visit WSJ's Best Of the Web Today for clarification on whether or not the debate will be occuring.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Truth Is Good

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum links to Spencer Ackerman's latest story quoting a US soldier, "I don't want them to just support the troops. I want them to support the mission." Ackerman writes: "This matters, because pretending that in ending the war they're doing the troops a favor hurts Democrats politically. They risk looking condescending, and, worse, oblivious - which has the broader effect of undermining public trust in the Democrats to handle national security." Drum adds:

This is God's own truth. Ditto for the Democratic obsession with using better body armor, higher GI pay, or the quality of military medical care as proxies for "supporting the troops." As with leaving Iraq, these are all good things to support. But they're good things on their own terms, not because anyone in uniform will be fooled into thinking that voting for them means you support the military. It's the equivalent of Democrats who thought that John Kerry had automatic credibility on national security just because he was a Vietnam vet.

Telling the truth, as usual, is better: we need to leave Iraq not because we think the troops need rescuing, but because we think that leaving is what's best for our national security. And in the future? That we'll support the troops by making sure that we send them into war only with proper leadership, proper planning, and when the national security of the United States is genuinely at risk. On all these counts both the civilian and uniformed leadership of the military has let down the troops in Iraq. We need to promise that we won't do the same on our watch.

LEST WE FORGET: Root Beer For Everyone!

Watching the 6/3 debate's Hit and Run's David Weigel quuips: "If we repeal the Bush tax cuts, can I have a lifetime supply of root beer and a perpetual motion machine? Because apparently repealing them would pay for everything."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:58 PM

June 01, 2007

6/1: Let's Pretend ...

Let's pretend the House Judiciary Cmte. tires of Monica Goodling and Co., and returns their attention to the NSA surveillance program. Article II powers aside, has anyone really made the case Pres. Bush didn't violate FISA? Wouldn't monitoring Americans phone records contra to federal law constitute a high crime or misdemeanor? And if articles of impeachment were drawn up, after the immigration debacle, who exactly would come to Bush's defense? Laura Ingraham? National Review? Conservative stalwart Ace of Spades sums up conservative sentiment: "Message To The Left: I'm not saying you should impeach him, I'm just sayin', you know, go with your hearts."

IMMIGRATION: It's So Over

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt ably sums up the state of the immigration debate from a conservative perspective: "The president's speech on Tuesday had the effect of throwing gas on the flames, and the anger has multiplied, and it isn't nativist in the least. ... Quick: Name one person who went from undecided or opposed to supporting since the bill was unveiled. ... Proponents have produced such a bad bill and marshalled such bad arguments that they have brought no one to their cause."

While we can't find a single conservative Bush and his allies have won over, their rhetoric on the motives of immigration bill opponents definitely energized the base:

• Instapundit: "There's a difference between disagreeing with your base and disrespecting it. And they've been very disrespectful to everyone who disagrees with them on this. Heck, I'm basically pro-immigration and I find the Administration's arguments for the bill sufficiently unpersuasive and insulting that I'm leaning against it on that basis alone."
• NRO's Mark Levin: "Does the president have any conservative domestic initiatives that he's actively pursuing? If so, I'd like to know what they are. Richard Nixon tried this when his ratings were low. It didn't work.... Today you disparage us for opposing a massive amnesty program that endangers our economy and national security. ... What's a conservative to do?
• an Andrew Sullivan emailer: "I'm a Two-Time Bush voter. In Pennsylvania in 2004 I voted for Pat Toomey. I voted straight Republican last fall. Now I want an "Impeach Bush" Bumper Sticker. You're right. It's the arrogance and condescension that finally gets to you."
• Ace of Spades: "Hey, President Bush? F**k off. You are going down in history in a neck-and-neck battle with Jimmy Carter as worst president of the twentieth century. ... Message To The Left: I'm not saying you should impeach him, I'm just sayin', you know, go with your hearts.
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Mr. President; if Reagan couldn't get enforcement after 1986, we're not that optimistic about your chances - and his administration's not-so-funny suggestion that the enforcement-first crowd wants the death penalty for illegal immigrants, and the utter arrogance and dismissal of deal critics and thinking... boy, maybe Bush Derangement Syndrome is a little more understandable?"
• a David Frum reader: "I voted twice for this man and his abdication of the most fundamental executive responsibility, to protect our country from foreign invasion, is cause for regret. ... I wish he were already gone."

Michelle Malkin was one of many to pick up on a Washington Timesstory reporting donations to the RNC have dropped 40% "due to anger over Beltway elite open-borders policies." Malkin quips: "Brilliant, Karl Rove! Keep insulting your base and maybe donations will drop by half by the end of the weekend." Also unhappy with WH attacks, IMAO parodies WH talking points on the bill: "Q. This isn't a racial issue. Many people think this bill will only encourage more illegal immigration and leave our borders open and dangerous. What are the answer to these charges? ... A. To answer your underlying question, I'm afraid the the President is against your proposal to commit genocide against Hispanics."

Jeb Bush and Ken Mehlman's WSJ op-ed insisting "Both of us have spent much of our professional lives working to help build the Republican Party. We believe this legislation will be good for the GOP. Hispanic Americans are natural Republicans" drew conservative scorn as well. RedState's Rob Bluey responds: "Does that argument sound familiar? The White House told conservatives the same thing in 2003 when Karl Rove and President Bush strong-armed Republicans in Congress into supporting the largest entitlement program since the days of LBJ's Great Society. The Medicare prescription drug bill, we were told, would guarantee Republicans the majority for decades. Three years later, the GOP was knocked out of power in Congress."

Also fact checking Bush/Mehlman claims, NRO's Heather MacDonald points out that no GOPer has won CA since '88 ... six years before the Prop. 187 initiative that Mehlman/Bush claim sunk the CA GOP. MacDonald adds: "In fact, California's transformation from "Reagan country" to labor-union country is the far more likely consequence of the growing Hispanic population per se and the corresponding outflow of white Republicans to other states."

IMMIGRATION II: Will The WSJ Be Honorable, Or Will They Cut And Run?

National Review's challenge to the Wall Street Journal to debate the merits of the immigration bill at a forum and with a moderator of WSJ's choosing drew wide conservative attention including:

• Power Line's Scott Johnson: "In addition to the question of civic instruction involved here, I think there is a question of honor raised as well. Surely the editors of the Journal will rise to the challenge. Right?"
• RCP Blog's Blake Dvorak: "Here's hoping the Journal's editors accept the challenge, not only for the spectator value involved, but also -- and more importantly -- because this is a debate worth having, certainly from the top conservative editors in the country. It recalls a time when many of the Right's most fervent battles were waged within the movement itself, battles that were at the same time exciting, smart and good for the country."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "I offer an entire show, pretaped if necessary for the convenience of the east coasters. Next Wednesday or Thursday anyone? ... I'd also invite Michael Medved to pose questions, and he's a supporter of the bill as written."
• Michelle Malkin: "Longtime readers of this blog know that the Wall Street Journal is notorious for refusing to acknowledge its factual errors in editorials about immigration policy and for tarring its opponents as anti-immigrant racists. Will they rise to NR's challenge or continue to smear amnesty opponents from the safety of their Manhattan offices? ... I'd pay to see that smackdown."

The Corner's Jonah Goldberg praises WSJ's James Taranto for his daily efforts at Best of the Web but notes that Tartanto failed to mention NRO's challenge to the WSJ at all, even though it was widely talked about. Goldberg goes on to thank the WSJ for publishing Peter Berkowitz recent op-ed "lambasting the left for its refusal to debate first principles while cheering the right for its eagerness to do exactly that" and then asks the WSJ to join NRO in "precisely the sort of debate conservatives take pride in."

DEM FIELD: Let The Man Sell Books In Peace!

MyDD's Chris Bowers declines to do another straw poll in favor of soliciting explanations for "why you are currently supporting whatever candidate you are currently supporting for President." Al Gore led the league in support among commentators; Barack Obama garnered the most cases in support, at least among declared candidates. A sampling:

• for Obama: "I think that he is the most talented Democratic politician since JFK. He has the personality and background to 1. solidify a long lasting Democratic majority, 2. bring the political center towards progressive values, 3. stop the boomer strangle hold on politics and 4. radically improve our relations with the rest of the world. And he can win against Hillary Clinton.
• for Chris Dodd: "I'm well aware he's not got a snowball's chance in hell as it stands, but just because northeastern liberals haven't done well electorally in the past two decades, doesn't mean that they aren't necessarily the best men for the job. I like his policies and his attempts at outreach, which are a lot less halting now than they were a few months back, and if he can pick up some netroots support it might give Edwards an added impetus to tack a little further to the left."
• for Clinton: "I support Senator Clinton. She has had unparalleled experience (having been in the White House 8 years, having been a legislator, and having worked in the justice system). ... I'm thoroughly convinced that she will restore America's greatness both economically and politically. Right now we need experience, pragmatism, and reasonable governance.
• for John Edwards: "John Edwards is the only candidate who offers real Progressive change. John Edwards has come out with detailed proposals for healthcare, fighting global warming and making us energy independent, leaving Iraq sanely, restoring rural communities, restoring our military after the disastrous Bush years, cutting waste in the Pentagon, and helping all Americans achieve a college degree. Those are just off the top of my head. There are many more."

DODD: Leading Left

Firedoglake's TeddySanFran thanks Chris Dodd for his 5/31 vlogging session and comments: "You may well know that I've made another choice for President in 2008, but I think this kind of Senate leadership needs our support and our help. We're past presidential politics on this. We need to turn the ship of state, and Senator Dodd's on the right path to do that. Please ask your Senator to join him." Crooks and LiarsNicole Belle adds: "Congratulations, Sen. Dodd. THIS is the kind of leadership that the rest of the Democrats ought to be showing."

TPM Cafe's Greg Sargent posts video of Dodd's new ads and asks: "Just as with his earlier ad on Iraq, Dodd clearly is trying to stake out ground as bolder, more radical and less fearful than his more cautious Dem rivals when it comes to advocating solutions to the biggest of the big problems. Of course, John Edwards has already planted a fair amount of his own flags on this turf, on topics ranging from Iraq to global warming to Internet availability. Can Dodd make inroads?"

EDWARDS: An WiFi For All

John Edwards letter to the FCC demanding net neutrality for the upcoming 700 megahertz spectrum drew wide positive reaction:

• TPM Cafe's Art Brodsky: "Most active legislators don't care about this stuff. Presidential candidates never do -- until now. The Obama campaign has a telecom policy advisory group, but even they haven't gone this far. ... What is also worthwhile is that it was the Edwards camp that contacted public-interest experts in the field for help. That shows an unusual awareness of a very important issue. ... In his letter, Edwards had it exactly right, and we congratulate him for that.
• Caliticsdday: "This is the "chicken in every pot" for the 21st century. ... Not only is Edwards asking that the principle of net neutrality be mandated for anyone who buys this spectrum (which is a big victory in and of itself), but he wants a significant portion to be used to wire America."
• Matthew Yglesias: "This is the kind of thing where the president winds up with a ton of latitude, so it's definitely nice to see a major candidate committing himself to sound views on this issue -- the business interest pressure pushing in bad directions here is intense."

EDWARDS II: So Many Stories To Choose From

Some netrooters find themselves in rare agreement with Bob Shrum's claims that Edwards comes out looking better under his version of the lead up to Edwards vote for the Iraq war. MyDD's Chris Bowers writes: "I don't actually find this passage to be a particularly damning characterization of his political instincts or lack of leadership. Rather, I think is shows how his decision to originally support the war in Iraq probably served as a useful object lesson for a politician still trying to find his comfort zone. ... Considering the many ways that Edwards has since bucked that same establishment--not firing McEwan and Marcotte, being the first to refuse a Fox News debate, publicly apologizing for his vote on Iraq, developing a populist, anti-corporate message--my belief is that Edwards learned from his past misplacement of trust in the Democratic establishment and the DLC, and has decided instead to trust his own, far more progressive instincts."

Matthew Yglesias agrees: "Chris' story ... is of a man with longstanding progressive instincts, who ran for Senate in North Carolina and fell in with some conventional wisdom about the need to position himself as a centrist to win the White House. This young Senator then failed in his quest to become Vice President, recognized that the war was a giant fiasco, and determined to spend his next years saying what he believed and hoping for the best. ... This seems like a reasonably plausible, reasonably appealing story. Interestingly, though, it's not the story the Edwards campaign tells."

OBAMA: Mandateless

The role of mandates is dominating discussion of Barack Obama's health-care plan. TAPPED's Ezra Klein picks up on Politico reporting showing Obama supported mandates before he was against them and speculates that "someone convinced the campaign that they'd be better off politically without a mandate." Fellow TAPPEDer Mark Schmitt dissents claiming "Traditionally, as Ezra well knows, the objection to mandates has come from the left, and it has come in primaries."

Klein responds: "So whatever the Left's "traditional" take on mandates may have been, it's hard to find evidence that they remain seriously controversial. And I'm quite sure that Obama intuited all this because, merely a year ago, when he was still but a hyper-popular liberal Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama channeled this conventional wisdom and called for...a mandate. Now that he's running for president, that approach has been jettisoned ... We can speculate about why that may be ... but it's hard to believe, particularly looking at the rest of his plan, that it came as part of a shift left."

Also defending Obama's mandateless approach:

• MyDD/Daily Kos' DemocraticLuntz: "Obama's plan doesn't require people to be covered. However, it does provide people an affordable way to get health insurance."
• MyDD's lovingj: "Critics assume that healthcare will become universal simply because of a mandate, however, auto insurance is a requirement as well and there a lot of people without it because they cannot afford it. On the other hand, if healthcare becomes affordable to all then it will become universal as result of being universally affordable. Most people do not have healthcare because they cannot afford it not because they were not forced to buy it."

OBAMA II: Bush Lite

Obama's Foreign Affairsarticle only reinforced Daily Kos' Jerome a Paris' worries, which were planted by Obama 4/23's address to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. Jerome blogs: "Let's cut to the chase: Barack Obama sees the world as a dangerous, scary place which requires a bigger and badder military than now, "aggressive diplomacy" and more American 'leadership.' ... Again, I'm sorry to say this, as I know it will bring me grief from many of you, but Obama sounds just like a hawk - maybe a more competent version of Bush."

More impressed with recent Obama revelations, MyDD's Chris Bowers recommends "Obama's Come To Jesus Moment" in the New York Times. Bowers blogs: "I am about as secular and generally irreligious as someone comes, but that Obama's connection to his faith arose in the context of left-wing activism and preaching somehow still makes me feel a personal connection with him."

OBAMA III: Reno 411

Reporting from the trail, Reno and Its DiscontentsMyrna Minx reviews Obama's World's Biggest Little City stop: "Obama was pretty good-but he's no Hillary Clinton in person, and no, that's not because he is not a Caucasian woman, she just out performs him in every way except wage and support of the war in Iraq. ... Obama is more charismatic on TV, Clinton less so. Why? Well, personally, I think it has something to do with the fact that he is a young, black man rather than an older white woman, but that's me."

More Minx: "Don't misunderstand me-I like Obama. I like that he is the latest dish, the new kid on the block, that he is thoughtful and intelligent, young and handsome, not to mention politically gifted. He'd probably m