July 27, 2007

7/27: A Rorschach Moment

Whatever criticism one levels at the format of the CNN/YouTube debate, it has produced a controversy that almost perfectly encapsulates the case supporters are making for their respective candidates. While making their arguments both sides seem to want their cake and eat it too. For Barack Obama supporters, his answer both signals a substantial departure from current Washington establishment foreign policy thinking; but it does not suggest that Obama lacks the experience to do so in a way that does not protect American interests. For Hillary Clinton supporters, her answer shows both a change from Bush-Cheney style non-diplomacy, but also a sophisticated understanding of the complexities involved.

The question for Dem primary voters then, is a change back to '90s-era Clinton foreign policy change enough; or is a more fundamental departure from foreign policy consensus required. More importantly, what, outside of his pre-invasion opposition to the Iraq war, should voters be looking at to determine what Obama's new foreign policy vision is?

DEM FIELD: You Don't Make Friends With Sour Grapes

Matthew Yglesias encourages DLC founder Al From "to look back at this APstory where he attacks the Democratic presidential candidates for snubbing his party, and ponder it just a bit." Yglesias continues: "He could have easily down played the significance of this, graciously noted that the candidates are busy and have other things to do, observed that Hillary Clinton helped found his organization and Barack Obama's top economic advisor is listed on the DLC staff page, and noted that the Democratic line on national security is now the mainstream one. Instead, he attacked the candidates for "tunnel vision." It's not a good way to make friends."

DEM FIELD II: YVAN EHT NOIJ

Blue Hampshire's Mike Caulfield continues his "Policy Straw Poll" series, this time receiving answers from each Dem campaign on how they differ from the rest of the field on military spending. Answers (which all must have a similarly constricted first sentence) include:

• From the Obama campaign: I am the only candidate to lay out a comprehensive vision for how to rebuild the military and responsibly use it to keep America safe in the 21st century.
• From the Gravel campaign: I am the only candidate besides Representative Kucinich who will actually reduce military spending.
• From the Kucinich campaign: I am the only candidate to call for at least a 15% reduction in the bloated Pentagon budget.
• From the Edwards campaign: I am the only candidate who has proposed a bold approach to end not just wasteful military spending but to reform our entire budget for national security.
• From the Dodd campaign: "I am the only candidate with a plan that will both end the war in Iraq and redirect the billions that we are spending on war to improving military readiness.
• From the Richardson Campaign: I am the only major Presidential candidate who believes that we must remove all our troops from Iraq. There should be no residual US forces left in Iraq.
• From the Biden Campaign: I am the only candidate who has made good on this commitment: so long as we have a single soldier in Iraq, we will make sure he or she has the best protection this country can provide, which is why I voted for the emergency spending bill for Iraq.
• From the Clinton campaign: Hillary is concerned about the billions of dollars being spent on outside military contractors. She believes there should be better accountability and controls with the Pentagon?s budget and that we need to reform the Pentagon's acquisition system to rein in weapons systems costs and spending on outside contractors.

EDWARDS: What's With All The Dem Reagan Love?

John Edwards 7/26 tax plan was well received among the netroots. MyDD's Tar Heel hopes to see the following headline in 7/27's papers: "Edwards Proposes Tax Cuts for Most Americans: Same Gains Rate as Reagan." Also at MyDD, RDemocrat blogs: "John Edwards just keeps fighting for the working man. Not only has he proposed lowering taxes on the middle and lower classes, but he wants to simplify the tax code used by working families, to cut down on the hours used to file taxes, and wean them off of using expensive tax services."

The Left Coaster's Steve Soto was also impressed: "John Edwards announced his tax fairness proposals today, and nailed both the substance and the messaging to sell it. He is proposing a new set of savings vehicles for working class wage earners, an expansion of the earned income tax credit, and a middle class tax cut, all to be financed by undoing the benefits Bush has larded upon the wealthy and corporations. It's a good package, and sold with great messaging. I now eagerly await the response from Clinton and Obama."

CLINTON VS OBAMA: Mmmmm, Bush-Lite

The netroots are seemingly evenly divided over who has the better end of Barack Obama's labeling of Hillary Clinton as 'Bush-Cheney Light'. Obama doubters claim any comparison of Clinton to Bush is ridiculous on its face while Obama supporters do see truth in Bush-Clinton comparison's and believe Obama represents 'change' from established Bush-Clinton foreign policy. From Obama doubters:

• MyDD's Jerome Armstrong: "We, a lot of times, use the "Republican lite" term, but "Bush Cheney lite" is quite an escalation. And coming from Obama, whose only serious distinction from Clinton comes from 5 years ago, it seems another slip. Does Obama have anything else to back up the differentiating claim since he's been a Senator? Since he doesn't, what does that say about him as a Senator?"
• The Left Coaster's Steve Soto: "I wanted to explore a little further the Obama default position, which I think mirrors perhaps the main objection many in the blog community have against Hillary, aside from the fact that she is a Clinton or may appear too corporate and too Beltway for many of you. ... But Hillary can be elected, and can help the party and progressives get to where they need to be over the next 4-8 years without getting derailed by the right wing media and foreign policy fear machine during that time.
• MyDD's world dictator: Clinton's answer made note of the intricacies of the question, emphasizing key words like 'within your first year' and 'without preconditions'. Her answer was in my opinion more correct to the specific question at hand. ... Never, ever,ever has Clinton ever said she would not use diplomacy. I defy you to point this out. ... Given that Clinton said she would pursue aggressive negotiations with these countries, every time you claim that she stands for Bush/Cheney's stance of no negotiations you are flat out lying Not only are you being blatantly untruthful but you know it."
• Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat: "Now I have long ridiculed this phony Politics of Hope as silly nonsense that bore no reality to the politics necessary in today's climate. But for Obama to so abruptly abandon the "high road' to attack Sen. Clinton when he has been reticent to be "partisan" in defending Democrats (or criticizing them) smacks of desperation. Obama began with a political (not a substantive) gaffe in the debate and now compounds the error. It further strengthens my view that he is not yet up to a serious run for President."
• MyDD's markjay: "Basically, all my friends thought that [Obama] simply blew it during the debate and that instead of admitting your mistake, you decided to go on the offensive to try to use this issue to attack Hillary--but that you have absolutely no intention of putting your willingness into action if you're elected.

From Obama supporters:

• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "It's about judgment, stupid, and he's using it to stress the soundness of his own foreign policy judgment (reminding us that he opposed the war from the start) and to make the case that more experience does not mean better judgment. It's a smart strategy."
• The Nation's Katrina vanden Heuvel: "Her husband's administration generally followed Hillary's approach; during his two terms President Clinton did not meet with Fidel Castro or with Hugo Chavez or with the leaders of Iran, Syria, and North Korea --while generally pursuing a policy of trying to isolate these countries. But what did the Clinton approach actually accomplish? ... In signaling that he was willing to meet with the leaders of these countries, Obama was signaling that the United States has the confidence in its values to meet with anyone."
• The Huffington Post's Steve Clemons: "With all due respect to the frontrunner in the Democratic primary race, Hillary Clinton is wrong on this issue. ... we need a new strategy of constructive, self-interested, tough-minded engagement with world leaders who are consequential to our well-being and interests. So, yes -- Obama is right that Hillary Clinton articulated a Bush-lite strategy."
• Matthew Yglesias: "Here we have Clinton riding what's surely her greatest asset. Everybody knows that the right has a unique loathing for Hillary Clinton so it just seems incredibly implausible that she could have any sympathy for the Bush/Cheney view of the world. Nevertheless, Clinton must know that a lot of people think that the more hawkish faction of the Democratic Party are, in fact, proposing to put put the Bush Doctrine under more competent management rather than actually abandon it. ... I should also note that by most accounts the Clinton campaign is deliberately seeking to woo the vile Cuban exile lobby with this Castro business which most people I know in DC seems to think is very clever of her."

OBAMA: Going Rural

Open Left's Mike Lux looks at Washington Postreporting on Barack Obama's rural IA strategy and has three thoughts:

• Hillary is not popular among rural voters generally, and their neighbors' attitudes carry over to rural Dems looking for a general election winner. Obama's team probably assumes he can take advantage of that.
• Obama's surprising success in appealing to rural Illinois in his senate primary victory in 2004 no doubt gives his team a lot of confidence that he can appeal in small-town Iowa.
• I'm guessing his team assumed early on that Obama's "can't we all just get along" message would play among community-minded rural voters. What I think they are finding, though, is that rural voters are more angry and populist right now than "we can work it out" in nature. I think that's one reason you see Obama moving toward more populist rhetoric.

GOP FIELD: First They Came For Fox...

With some notable exceptions, most conservatives hope that GOP '08ers will participate in the CNN/YouTube debate. Townhall's Patrick Ruffini blogs: "Given the huge earned media hit the Democrats got this week ... I didn't think the GOP candidates would make the political mistake of passing up it up. ... This is a big mistake. The Democrats are afraid to answer questions from Big Bad Fox News Anchors, and the Republicans are afraid to answer questions from regular people. Which is worse? ... It's stuff like this that will set the GOP back an election cycle or more on the Internet.

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt replies: "As we saw with the "insufficiently black" question, the CNN team used the device of the third party video to inject a question that would have embarrassed any anchor posing it. ... That dynamic would change completely in a GOP YouTube debate - they or their counterparts at a different network will be gunning for the Republicans, and the question set will be designed to embarrass or ridicule."

Ruffini fired back: "While I can certainly appreciate the desire to avoid "set up" questions, it is intellectually dishonest to simultaneously attack the Democrats for running from Fox News while raising the red flag at agenda journalism in the form of CNN/YouTube." Hewitt responded: "The GOP candidates skipping such a circus is not the same as the Democrats passing on a Fox News Channel ... In fact I'm all for letting Keith Olbermann moderate a debate of the GOPers because poor old Keith wouldn't know what hit him. It isn't about being willing to go anywhere and answer anything, it is about refusing to walk into a media box canyon where the anonymous MSMers will have had a few days to pick the best thirty body slams from tens of thousand of moonbat-generated videos. Would Patrick recommend the GOP candidates attend a YearlyKos sponsored and nutter-moderated debate? That's what the YouTube Debate, GOP edition will be."

Townhall's Matt Lewis thought Hewitt made a good point about the YouTube format enabling CNN to ask biased questions they wouldn't have to take responsibility for, but most other bloggers urged GOPers to attend:

• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "The debate Monday night was no worse than the three previous ones and even if it hadn't been, having to endure two hours of talking snowmen is worth it given the endless mileage the Democrats would get from them skipping out. "The GOP can't face the people, the GOP can't handle unorthodox questions, the GOP has no sense no fun" - it's a PR disaster in the making."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "I think it would be a mistake if Romney skips [the debate]."
• IA Voice: "I understand the concerns, though. CNN is a lefty news network ... But I agree with Patrick Ruffini, that would be a huge mistake for the candidates to skip it. It's about time that they embrace the internet, rather than run away from it."

GOP FIELD II: If We Can Put Homer In Space Then This Should Be Easy

AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin notes that in 7/26's Washington Post story, Fred Thompson compares those who believe in global warming to those who believed the earth was flat in Galileo's time and then examines where the rest of the GOP field stand on the issue. She reports that Rudy Giuliani says we have to accept global warming is happening and that humans are contributing to it, and that an 'Apollo project' is needed to make the US energy independent so we can stop seeing "money going to our enemies because we have to buy oil from certain countries."

Rubin finds Mitt Romney 'more circumspect on the issue, but also on board for an Apollo like project. John McCain has introduced cap and trade legislation with Joe Lieberman. Rubin concludes: "This should make for an interesting debate (preferably one with no snowman) in which not only the candidates' substantive ideas can be batted about but voters can assess in a general election setting who will be the best spokesman for conservative views."

BROWNBACK: Mister Roboto

Michelle Malkin hits Sam 'Swithcback' Brownback for funding 'robocalls' that attack Mitt Romney and Tom Tancredo in IA. Malkin calls the calls "painful to watch" and hopes "the misery ends sooner rather than later. As I said, watching the slow-mo death of a rock-bottom presidential campaign is painful."

Townhall's Matt Lewis defends the practice: "Now, let's be honest. I agree that Brownback cannot win -- and cannot raise money. But there's something more important at stake here. ... Elections are about choices, and voters have the right to make informed choices. And since conservatives surely can't count on the MSM to report the truth, much voter education must come from the candidates. .... Pointing out that Ann Romney donated to Planned Parenthood isn't a scurrilous attack -- it's merely pointing out a fact."

GINGRICH: Oh, So He Was Talking About Us

Townhall's Matt Lewisrounds upreports that Newt Gingrich's 7/23 'pygmie' reference was not meant to describe the current GOP field, but those involved in the nomination process more generally. Power Line's Paul Mirengoff was also at the breakfast were Gingrich made the comments, and as The Blogometer noted 7/24, he also doubted Gingrich was referring to his fellow GOPers.

GIULIANI: Why Do Conservatives Keep Comparing To President's From The '70s?

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein spoke to Rudy Giuliani energy aide/Reagan Energy Sec. John Herrington 7/26 and reports: "Herrington said while developing a specific energy plan is still an 'ongoing process,' there are some basic principles that Giuliani has decided on. "His strategy on this is the more choices we have, and the more sources of energy, the less we can be held hostage to one single source of energy.' ... I asked Herrington to respond to those conservatives who are cynical about any alternative energy plans, because they associate them with the Carter administration, but he said there is a difference. 'Jimmy Crater's solution was the Synthetic Fuels Corporation, a $66 billion boondoggle where the federal government decided to do things,' he said."

THOMPSON: More Waiting Till September...

Conservatives again worried less about the substance of a recent Fred Thompson story, than what the handling of the story says about Team Thompson. The latest episode began when rumors of another Thompson staff defection materialized in the form of departing advance staffer Sam LeBlond. NRO's Jim Geraghty was told by his Thompson source that Marc Ambinder's "ex-Sen. Fred Thompson's lead political advance operative" description of LeBlond was "absolute b***s***!" he was a "junior aide." Geraghty notes that LeBlond is only 23 years old, but later updates: "I should note that I'm hearing a different tune from another Thompson Associate. This individual has been less than thrilled with the developments in Thompson's not-quite-campaign in recent weeks, and this person indicates that LeBlond's activities were significantly more than the First Associate indicated."

Also getting mixed signals from Team Thompson, AmSepc Blog's Jennifer Rubin recounts her communications with Thompson spokesman Mark Corallo, including his original denials that anyone was leaving the campaign, and later explanation that he did not know about LeBlond's imminent departure since he was only an 'intern.' Rubin concludes: "Was I misled or did the campaign spokesman just not have all the facts? I would like to believe it is the latter. It does however sound eerily like the pro-choice lobby snafu. ... We pesky reporters expect that especially in Presidential campaigns we will get honest "yes" and honest "no" and candid "don't know" answers and hopefully not have to play 20 questions with campaign spokesmen to get an answer we can take to the bank. ... It is imperative for campaigns to maintain both the appearance and reality of candor and competence. Otherwise, on really big stuff there will be no reservoir of trust or credibility. Something to think about."

SC's The Shot tracks the story and comments: "Here's the deal guys. You all know we like Mitt Romney. And you all know we dislike John McCain. You also know that we have always said very positive things about Fred Thompson. Why? Because something made us genuinely like Fred Thompson. ... But the more we get to know him, the more we are bothered by this honesty issue. ... Now we see another example. Did another staffer depart the Thompson campaign? Were they high level? Were they even paid? Who knows because the Thompson team can't seem to get their answer straight."

Geraghty later concludes: "Those looking for reasons to bury Thompson will see the recent moves as a sign of a campaign in chaos, with poor lines of authority, disagreement at the top, undefined roles and a lack of organization. Those looking for reasons to believe in Thompson will see the recent moves as growing pains ... While I'm sure Team Thompson would have preferred to avoid all this, I lean towards the latter interpretation... for now. Let's see what happens when Fred announces, and where things stand a month or two from now. If we don't see any improvement in the autumn, then it will be time for the Fred-heads to hit the panic button."

THOMPSON II: Trial Lawyers Need Not Apply?

Reactions to the Washington Post's 7/26 profile titled: "No Easy Verdict on Thompson The Lawyer: Cases Indicate Willingness to Defy GOP Orthodoxy," include:

• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "The title is just plain silly. A lawyer's duty is always to his client, not to any political orthodoxy. Had Thompson not been willing to "defy GOP orthodoxy" when necessary to promote his client's interest (as where he argued against a search that found incriminating evidence), he would have violated the rules of his profession. Moreover, most of the legal positions the Post actually cites (e.g., having a client invoke the Fifth Amendment, winning reinstatement for an employee) do not defy any political orthodoxy."
• AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin: "I frankly think the larger issue for him is not his social conservative credentials (his voting record appears to have satisfied most pro-life advocates) but his legal conservative ones. In addition to opposition to tort reform he, of course, championed and until 4 years ago defended McCain Feingold, an anathema to conservative activists and First Amendment advocates of all stripes. He has also supported affirmative action. It is unclear whether he is sticking with these positions or will be "evolving," but none strike me as the product of what we think of a conservative legal disposition."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "Jennifer, perhaps it's the lawyer in you that finds tort reform a crucial issue, but I don't see it having much of an impact on conservative voters. ... To the extent that the conservative base cares about legal issues, it will be more important to them that Thompson has an excellent record on judges, that he escorted John Roberts around during his confirmation hearings, that he has said Roe v. Wade is bad law, etc. When most normal people hear the words "tort reform," they're ready to take a nap."

BLOGGERS VS. MSM: Who Knew Kossacks Watched That Much Fox News?

The netroots are enthusiastically urging readers to join Brave New Films new campaign targeting Fox News advertisers. At The Huffington PostJim Gilliam explains:

Imagine a world where every time FOX said something truly outrageous, that very day thousands of people across the country called local Fox advertisers (who had already been identified), alerted them of the outrage, and urged them to pull their ads immediately. ... We put together the FOX Attacker tool to do just that... it will become a database of all FOX's local and national cable advertisers compiled by literally thousands of volunteers who are signing up at FOXAttacks.com to monitor local FOX cable advertisers. ... Soon, we'll have a solid, verified database of FOX cable advertisers and we can start calling, and calling, and calling. And winning, and winning, and wining. ... This isn't a boycott, we're just informing FOX's advertisers... nothing is more terrifying to FOX than the truth."

Also linking to the effort Daily Kos' mcjoan posts Stephen Colbert's take on the Daily Kos - Bill O'Reilly dust up, while another dKos diarist urges Kossacks to pressure Fox by urging their local cable providers not to carry fox's new Fox Business News channel.

BLOGGERS VS. MSM II: Stephen Glass' Existence Was Never An Issue

For a fuller tracking of all things New Republic/Scott Thomas Beauchamp, see Memeorandum. Major developments include:

• Beauchamp has his own blog which he started before he was in Iraq.
• He may, or may not, be engaged to a TNR staffer.

While no one doubts his existence, conservatives still doubt the veracity and intention of his claims. NRO's Jim Geraghty blogs: "Over in Turkey, I dealt mostly with Marines who were posted at the U.S. embassy. I wouldn't claim that the sample of a dozen or so I met and drank with over the two years was anything resembling a statistically significant sample of the armed forces. But I can see these young men and women aren't perfect. If I hear an allegation of a Marine having too much to drink and getting into a fight, it doesn't strike me as implausible. They're young men and women, they have hormones, and their job requires certain levels of aggression and fearlessness. But I concur with my reader - a group of American men in uniform "folding in half with laughter" at the site of a man "march[ing] around with the skull on his head" would require a collective sense of sociopathy that I have not seen, and find unbelievable."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: It's A Chicken And The Egg Kind Of Thing

Matthew Yglesias links to "a fascinating paper by Larry Bartels and Christopher Achen about the ugly reality behind political decision-making" and shares his thoughts on one graph from the paper:

If you ask some different kinds of questions, you'll see that people usually vote for the party that they think reflects their views. One might think this means people are looking at where the parties stand, comparing that to where they stand, and then voting for the party they prefer. Bartels and Achen, however, use their way of looking at the data to argue that this is backwards -- people are committing to a political party, and then having done so simply convincing themselves that the party they're committed to shares those views.

LEST WE FORGET: We Would Totally Accept Any Job That Involved Sitting Next To Elizabeth Hasselbeck Every Day

Under the header "Is it illegal sex discrimination to hire only females to host The View? Ann Althouse links to Ian Ayres' thoughts on whether Rosie O'Donnell could prevail in a sex discrimination claim against The Price is Right:

Title VII prohibits sex discrimination in employment unless the employer can establish what's called a BFOQ or "Bona Fide Occupational Qualification." The EEOC Guidelines do allow intentional sex discrimination in hiring an actor or actress where the sex-specific roles are necessary for the "purpose of authenticity or genuineness," see 29 C.F.R. 1604.2(a)(2). But there is no way that the producers could establish that sex was a BFOQ for being host of "The Price is Right."

The same conclusion probably holds true for hosting "The View." The thought that only women could host a talk show would be difficult to square with existing case law. Probably a dozen different hosts have been employed by The View. They have all been female. There is little doubt that the producers of that show discriminate on the basis of sex in hiring.

Posted by Conn Carroll at July 27, 2007 12:37 PM