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 June 22, 2007 01:30 PM