July 31, 2007

7/31: Opportunity Knocks

If there's one thing that unites the netroots, it's disdain for DC foreign-policy elites that they feel signed off on Pres. Bush's Iraq war. No figure better represents this hated constituency, perhaps, than Brookings scholar Kenneth Pollack. His 7/30 op-ed, co-authored by fellow Brookings scholar Mike O'Hanlon, which described the progress he saw the surge making in Iraq, dominated netroots conversation 7/30.

Matthew Yglesias was the first of many to articulate his "desire to see an O'Hanlon Primary." In Yglesias words: "Democratic contenders can gain my support by providing assurances that Michael O'Hanlon won't be serving in your administration." As Open Left's Matt Stoller explains on Bloggingheads.tv, Obama is uniquely positioned to capitalize on Pollack/O'Hanlon shunning. Many in the netroots like Obama's call for change in Washington, but so far have not seen anything since he arrived in Washington to demonstrate what that change would be like. Disavowing pro-war think tank types like Pollack/O'Hanlon would be a clear and substantive signal as to how Obama would change foreign policy consensus in Washington. It would also dove tail nicely with the 'Judgment Matters' ad campaign he is currently running on netroots blogs.

DEM FIELD: Will We See A Brotha Brookings Moment?

Netroots push back against Brookings scholars Ken Pollack and Michael O'Hanlon's New York Timesarticle on the Iraq surge's success has left a major opening for Dem '08ers. First, the merits of the netroots case against O'Hanlan/Pollack include:

• TPM Cafe's Greg Sargent: "It turns out that this assessment by O'Hanlon today is in some key ways strikingly at odds with the Brookings Institution's own Iraq Index."
• Matthew Yglesias: "I think the evidence that O'Hanlon and Pollack are wrong here is fairly overwhelming. Statistics don't really corroborate what O'Hanlon and Pollack say, there's no particular reason to privilege "on the ground" knowledge if it was just fed to them by official sources (which appears to be the case), and, most of all, the point of the surge was to change the political situation in Iraq, and they concede it hasn't done that."
• Lawyers, Guns, and Money's Robert Farley: "I assume that Pollack and O'Hanlon are using "Surge Start Date Mojo"; you may have noticed that the "surge" has a magical start date that moves back and forth, depending on when the advocate wants to start counting from. So I'll do them the credit of assuming that they've found a creative way of arguing that civilian casualties have dropped by a third. If you start from the worst month ever, then it's not hard to find improvement. Unfortunately, this puts to the lie everything else they right about finding "stability" in Iraq; stability, it appears, does not include a cessation of bloody massacres, relentless suicide bombings, and an astonishing death rate.
• Think Progress takes on MSM descriptions of O'Hanlan/Pollack as 'vocal critics' of Pres. Bush citing pointing to Pollack's pre-invasion book making the case for the removal of Saddam Hussein and O'Hanlan's early contentions that the war was "going well and why they will soon go even better."

Moving to the political, Atrios awards O'Hanlon Wanker of the Day honors but has no love for the MSM either: "Years later with polls being what they are I can't believe the media still serves us up this shit sandwich." Matthew Yglesias was the first to outline opportunity for Dem '08ers: "I'm going to repeat my desire to see an O'Hanlon Primary -- Democratic contenders can gain my support by providing assurances that Michael O'Hanlon won't be serving in your administration." TAPPED's Farley seconds the sentiment: "I'm wondering whether any of the Democratic candidates will step up and try to win the "O'Hanlon primary" by publicly rejecting his strategic advice."

CLINTON: Still Gonzo For Globalization

TAPPED's Dana Goldstein links to a Los Angeles Timesarticle on Hillary Clinton's effort to lure the Indian firm Tata Consultancy Services to Buffalo, NY. Goldstein notes that only 10 jobs have been created by the project and concludes: "So while Clinton is talking frequently now about economic inequality -- I've heard her rail against astronomical CEO salaries, for example -- she isn't really backpedaling away from her long-time view of economic globalization, which is essentially a positive one."

EDWARDS: Less Cancer, More Poverty, Please

John Edwards 'taking on the powerful' message is resonating in the netroots. MyDD's Jerome Armstrong links to video of Edwards in NH and compares it to "Al Gore's terrific 2000 convention speech. ... I'm of the opinion that the "taking on the powerful" speech by Al Gore during the LA Democratic convention moved millions of people into his column, and was responsible for his gaining double-digit support in the polls at the time."

At firedoglake, under the header 'True Compassion', Christy Hardin Smith first whacks the MSM for limiting coverage of Edwards to "fluff and cancer" and then concludes: "Poverty doesn't poll well as an issue. Most people would rather not think about what they aren't doing to help the least of these in our communities. ... True compassion isn't pointing a finger and assessing blame, it is looking the mistakes that we are making square in the face, rolling up our sleeves and saying how can we do better and how can we help get us there. To help all of us get to higher ground, not just a privileged few, because that is the right thing, the decent thing, the compassionate thing to do. More of that, please."

OBAMA: Sometimes The Best Offense ... Is A Good Offense

TAPPED's Sam Boyd explains that Barack Obama's need to clarify his debate response on talking to dictators shows that Hillary Clinton had the initial upper hand, but that Obama has turned the tide by going on offense sense then: "Yet, in a deeply impressive bit of street-fighting the Obama campaign has managed to turn what originally was a Clinton attack on him into a counterattack on Clinton. On Thursday and Friday both campaigns were going at it. Obama called Clinton "Bush-Cheney lite" and Cliton's campaign called Obama "Naive." ... Today however, I'm ready to call this for Obama. Polling shows more people agree with him than Clinton (though this is probably a pretty hard question to poll fairly since it depends so much on wording) and Clinton's campaign is now on the defensive."

Matthew Yglesias seconds Boyd's Obama-victory assessments but also laments a larger debate not covered by the MSM: "Whether or not either Clinton or Obama ever intended to establish a sharp policy disagreement, there is an interesting issue here -- should the United States abandon its policy of seeking to "isolate" countries we don't like by refusing to talk to them unless they first meet a series of preconditions?"

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum argues Yglesias should blame the candidates, not the media: "On the other hand, Clinton and Obama themselves didn't exactly take the chance to elevate this into a scholarly colloquium themselves, did they? Instead we got Clinton calling Obama "naive" and "irresponsible," and Obama hitting back by accusing Clinton of endorsing a "Bush/Cheney lite" foreign policy. Enlightening stuff, no? Is it any wonder the press covered this as a food fight rather than a serious debate?"

In other pro-Obama blogging, TPM Cafe's MJ Rosenberg links to a 7/30 New York Timesexamination of Obama's IL senate tenure and comments: "[Obama] knows what he wants and makes the necessary compromises and temporary alliances to achieve his goals. This is what he did in Springfield although he hasn't had much opportunity to do the same in the United States Senate, an institution so broken that no one Senator has accomplished much of anything in the few months since the Democrats took over."

OBAMA II: Like King, Kennedy, ... and Reagan

Christian Broadcasting Network's The Brody File posts reader responses to Barack Obama's interview with Brody. Responses, mostly positive, include:

• I honestly respect this man greatly. I used to consider myself a conservative then a liberal but I think I found my spot in the center. I feel that Jesus never wanted us Christians to separate ourselves from others, especially by political party.
• For the first time in my lifetime, it seems as though the most authentic Christian in the race is a Democrat. I don't agree with him on every issue, but I like that he seems to empathize with those who disagree with him and understand where they're coming from.
• Again, as always Senator Obama proves with his answers to your questions why he will be a refreshing change for this country, a true leader who could very well bring us all back together, something this country so desperately needs.
• I don't agree with everything the Senator has said and done throughout his Presidential campaign about I have come to realize that he is that same Dreamer that President Kennedy, Senator Bobby Kennedy, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and President Ronald Reagan were.
• I thought he was very sincere in his response but that he has little understanding that this nation was founded as a christian nation even though it already had other peoples with other religions while it was founded and I'm sure they knew it. ... They chose to keep this country as a christian nation free to worship God, one God, the God of Abraham, Jacob and David no hindus, no muslims, no buddhist, etc. Why does Mr. Obama think that it should evolve?

GOP FIELD: Not Dead Yet

Townhall's Patrick Ruffini tracks signs from Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani that they night attend a rescheduled Cnn/YouTube debate and comments: "I am cautiously optimistic that there will be a Republican YouTube debate. ... Both candidates are fully on board with the idea that a scheduling conflict is no reason to pass up this unique opportunity to speak the American people."

Also at Townhall, Matt Lewis notes that 76% of Townhall readers do not think GOP '08ers show do a YouTube debate. But Captain Quarters links to a podcast with NRCC chair Tom Cole who does make "a rather impassioned plea for Republicans to engage in the debate."

F. THOMPSON: Not The Second Coming After All

NRO's Jim Geraghty was the first conservative up with Team Fred Thompson's response to their less-than-anticipated $3M fundraising total. From the email: "(1) In his first exploratory month, Thompson raised well over $3 million - more than 10x what Giuliani did in his first month and about 3x McCain; (2) Under FEC rules, you are not allowed to raise funds "in excess of what could reasonably be expected to be used for exploratory activities". Thompson has raised an appropriate amount for an exploratory phase; (3) So far we've utilized no direct mail or telephone fundraising, and we have a burn rate below 20% - far below the other candidates."

Geraghty comments: "It's a pugnacious defense, and almost convincing... until you figure that they probably would prefer to be in the situation where they have to defend raising $5 million or more. Having said that, I wonder how many potential donors are holding off, because they want to donate to an actual, hat-in-the-ring candidate, not a dipping-my-toe-in-the-water potential candidate."

Those unfazed by the news include: Captain's Quarters: "I think that Fred has no reason to panic. In fact, I'm a little suspicious of these themes of impending disaster halfway through the year before the primaries, especially for candidates and non-candidates who draft double-digit support in national polling." Tapscott's Copy Desk: "There is also a technical term for a supposedly high-ranking GOP operative who would so quickly conclude that $3 million raised in 26 days for an unannounced candidate is evidence of "a flop." That technical term is "unvarnished garbage." No truly experienced national political operative would make such a claim, unless he was talking to a reporter looking for a quote that serves somebody's agenda."

Those arguing the less than ideal totals require a more serious rethinking include:

• Race 4 '08s Justin Hart: "I've said this before but I believe that Fred is one election too early to concentrate on the virtual handshake. Romney has hosted approximately 120 in-person fundraising events since January. The average take at these events is probably $150,000+. You do the math. Better yet, Fred better do it."
• AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin: "First, they set themselves up for this expectations problem by floating big numbers and even set an initial goal of $4.6M from their big donors. Some loose lips then floated a $5M goal. ... even their strongest supporters agree that communications is not their strongest suit."
• AmSpec Blog's David Hogberg: "I don't see how can he can afford to hold off his announcement for more than another two weeks. The positive buzz he has generated by being a "non-candidate" candidate is over. It has been killed by an inept blunder on abortion that turned what should have been a two-day news story into a two-week one and then the shake up in his staff. Now it is clear they didn't raise enough money in June to be able to say, "Look how good we are doing even though our candidate hasn't entered the race." Indeed, quite the opposite.
• SC's The Shot: "This number is troubling. At this rate Thompson would only be able to raise $9 million per quarter. This figure would be about $3 million dollars less than Sen. John McCain's dismal 2nd quarter figure. Fred Thompson has been blogging a lot lately, but I think it is high time for him to put the keyboard away and bring out the rolodex."

Race 4 '08s DaveG was the most dire, writing under the header "Fred's Fundraising Flop a Rude Awakening for Cocoon Conservatives":

By, "Cocoon Conservatives," I mean the sort of conservatives who think that 2004 was the beginning of a permanent Republican majority, that all the polls are wrong, and that 2006 happened because Republicans didn't support Bush enough, weren't socially conservative enough, etc. These conservatives refuse to recognize that the Bush Coalition - a motley crew of social meddlers at home and idealistic interventionalists abroad, all united under the flag of an evangelical president - is obsolete, busted...

What does all of this have to do with Thompson? Prior to Thompson's release of his fundraising numbers, there was a conventional wisdom starting to develop on the conservative blogosphere that the reason Republican fundraising numbers this year pale in comparison to Democratic numbers is that conservatives are holding tight their purse strings. Conservatives, so went the narrative, were not about to donate one red-state red cent to Rudy McRomney, and would instead hold on to their culturally conservative millions until a True Conservative entered the race. At that point, the floodgates would open, the band would get back together, and a revived Red State Coalition would propel Republicans into office yet one more time. Well, we now know just how much the red-state holdouts are worth.

IRAQ: They're ALl In

As forcefully as O'Hanlon/Pollack were denounced by the netroots, they were also embracedbyconservatives . The Corner even hosted a symposium feature on the article with submissions from John McCain, Peter Rodman, and Michael Yon.

Conservatives paired the O'Hanlon/Pollack article with a Hugh Hewitt interview with New York Times Baghdad correspondent Jon Burns and a Washington Postitem suggesting a positive report by Gen. David Petraeus could split Dems 9/07, to make the case the "tide is turning in Washington."

The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez quotes Burns after Hewitt asks if the war is lost: "No, I don't, actually. I think the war is close to lost, but I don't think that all hope is extinguished, and I do think, as do many of my colleagues in the media here, that an accelerated early withdrawal, something which reduced American troops, even if they were placed in large bases out in the desert ... would, in effect, be a rapid, a rapid progress towards an all-out civil war."

Hewitt highlights Burns thoughts on Dem timelines: "[T]he more that the Democrats in the Congress lead the push for an early withdrawal, the more Iraqi political leaders, particularly the Shiite political leaders, but the Sunnis as well, and the Kurds, are inclined to think that this is going to be settled, eventually, in an outright civil war, in consequence of which they are very, very unlikely or reluctant, at present, to make major concessions. They're much more inclined to kind of hunker down. So in effect, the threats from Washington about a withdrawal, which we might have hoped would have brought about greater political cooperation in face of the threat that would ensue from that to the entire political establishment here, has had, as best we can gauge it, much more the opposite effect."

RedState's Mark Kilner links the WaPo item quoting Maj. Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) on Blue Dog respect for Petraeus and comments: "That's not what Nancy wants to hear. It's not what Okinawa Murtha wants piped into his padded cell. The Dem Presidential wannabes aren't going to like it, but if the rational wing of the Democratic Party would rather complete our mission successfully than humiliate President Bush at the expense of our national security, then the anti-Bush/war/GOP "GET OUT NOW!" caucus has a problem."

Finally Jonah Goldberg notes reader reaction suggests his following line may be adopted by WH GOPers come '08: "Liberals used to be the ones who argued that sending U.S. troops abroad was a small price to pay to stop genocide; now they argue that genocide is a small price to pay to bring U.S. troops home."

IRAQ II: Only You Can Prevent GOP Stalling In Congress

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) promoted a contest at his Keeping America's Promise site in in a Daily Kos diary 7/30. Kerry asks Kossacks to develop their own 30 second radio ad targeting "Roadblock Republicans" which include: Sens. Mitch McConnell (R-KY); Norm Coleman (R-MN); John Sununu (R-NH); Susan Collins (R-ME); Liddy Dole (R-NC); and John Cornyn (R-TX).

Kerry pitches: "I'm here today because I don't think this is a time for us to just join a debating society or echo chamber where we talk exclusively to each other; Republicans are denying the Senate a chance to find a new course in Iraq, so what are we going to do about it? I think we need to run radio ads in the states of the most vulnerable of the Roadblock Republicans who stand in the way, making it clear to everyone that those Senators don't deserve to be reelected because of their continued support for the Bush Doctrine of escalation without end."

IMPEACHMENT: Progress Or Distraction?

The netroots are mostly supportive of Rep. Jay Inslee's (D-WA) effort to push impeachment of AG Alberto Gonzalez. Reacting Inslee's introduction of a resolution directing the House Jud. Cmte. to begin impeachment hearings, MyDD's Jonathan Singer comments: "I think that ... the removal of Gonzales would not be entirely out of the realm of possibility. While I don't think it's likely that there would be the 17 Republican votes in the Senate necessary to convict Gonzales, it would not be surprising to see at least some Republicans support the removal of Gonzales." DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas adds: "great news and real progress."

Talk Left's Jeralyn Merritt isn't as sure: "Gonzales is a bigger detriment to the Republicans in 2008 if he remains as Attorney General. He will tarnish Bush's legacy permanently and Republican candidates will face a backlash because of him. If he goes early, voters may get over it by then. I'd rather see the Judiciary Committees spend their time on criminal justice reform legislation like restoring habeas than an impeachment proceeding."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Swinging For The Fences

Daily Kos diarist Eternal Hope makes the case for removing legal corporate personhood:

Under the law, corporations have special rights that you or I cannot have so that they can make the kinds of money that any of us ever dream of. They control our lives, they bust unions, they send our jobs overseas, and they seek to bring in "guest workers" as second-class citizens. They seek to suppress wages so that if we make too much, they can get rid of us and replace us with someone who is willing to work for less.
I suggest that the people who run businesses work and play by the rules that the rest of us play by -- which means that I suggest that we end special rights for corporations and the corporate elites. ... Should we abolish corporate personhood?

88% of the 863 dKos readers responding want to remove corporate personhood.

LEST WE FORGET: 'Cause If You Can't Have Fun At YearlyKos, Then Bill O'Reilly Has Already Won

Anticipating "lazy or unscrupulous reporters" will target YearlyKos conference attendees, a dKos diarist posts his ten point "Unofficial YearlyKos Media Etiquette Guide," including:

• 1. If approached by a member of the press, politely ask them to identify themselves and the organization they represent. Be suspicious of anyone who declines to do so. Also, be suspicious of anyone who asks probing or personal questions that does not volunteer such information. Legitimate journalists are not offended by such inquiries.
• 2.Treat all press with respect, whether it be the New York Times or the Springfield Gazette or MyMamasBasement.com.
• 8. Unless you are an official representative of this web site or the conference, you are not an official representative of this web site or the conference. Always preface your remarks as being your own personal opinions that do not extend to any other person or organization except those which you may actually represent.
• 9. You are an official representative of this web site and conference. This might seem to contradict #8, but the truth is, the aforementioned lazy and/or unscrupulous reporters will seek to attach your remarks and behavior to the web site and conference whether you like it or not. So try to behave in a manner that will reflect positively on your hosts at all times.
• 10. Have fun! This is not a gratuitous appendage so that I end up with a top 10 list. Your demeanor can shape the perceptions of outsiders who are documenting this event. Therefore, if you're not enjoying yourself, the terrorists win.

Posted by Conn Carroll at July 31, 2007 12:39 PM