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 June 19, 2007 02:54 PM