September 10, 2007

9/10: We Should Know Soon...

We hear Barack Obama is billing his 9/12 IA stop as a major speech. If Obama comes out strongly against the surge, against the Iraq supplemental, and against any residual forces in Iraq, look for the netroots to quickly coalesce around him as the consensus 'Anybody But Hillary' candidate. For every little bit that he equivocates, however (unfirm withdrawal dates, unspecified troop levels left behind), he will fail to solidify the anti-HRC vote around him. If that happens, John Edwards and Bill Richardson stand the most to gain. Edwards recent speeches on a new approach to terror have been warmly received among lefty bloggers and Richardson's firm 'no residual forces' stance has long been has best (and recently only) selling point. If Congress ends up signing off on another Iraq supplemental, the netroots will be dying to unleash their frustration on somebody. The candidate who best channels this anger should have a decent shot of challenging HRC.

IRAQ: It's Deja Vu All Over Again

Netroots counter-Gen. David Petraeus messaging is cohering around three discernible talking points: 1) Petraeus is just a tool of a larger WH PR campaign; 2) recent polling shows the public already does not believe Petraeus and wants out of Iraq; 3) Petraeus call for troop level decisions to 'be put off for six months' is exactly what war supporters have ben saying since 11/30/03.

Two weekend items drove netroots talking points undercutting Petraeus credibility. First, came Washington Postrevelations that WH aide/ex RNC chair Ed Gillespie has helped set up "a rapid-response PR unit" to sell the surge. Talking Point Memo's Josh Marshall writes: "Now, it isn't exactly a big surprise that a Gillespie-run public-relations team in the White House would be fully integrated into Gen. Petraeus' team, but it does reinforce what observers have known for quite a while now: Petraeus is a part of the president's political operation. That's not necessarily a criticism. It is, however, a realization that Petraeus' testimony is not that of a neutral, dispassionate observer."

Also popular among Petraeus detractors, Fox News' Chris Wallace's 9/9 announcement that Petraeus would give an exclusive interview to Fox News 9/10. AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay comments: "Everything, well almost everything, you need to know about the report this week from General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker is summed up in this one factoid: The duo will be doing spin for an hour on Fox News tomorrow night. ... Besides all the lies and cherry-picking that's already been exposed, nothing should diminish the cred of Petraeus and Crocker to the real world more than knowing they need a full hour on GOP-TV to tell their 'story.'"

On the polling front, Glenn Greenwald is one of manybloggersciting a Washington Post showing "a strong majority (53-39%) believes that Gen. Petreaus' report 'will try to make things look better than they really are' (rather than 'honestly reflect the situation in Iraq'). ... Moreover, huge majorities continue to believe that the war was not worth fighting (62-36%) and that the U.S. "is not making significant progress toward restoring civil order in Iraq" (60-36%)."

Greenwald comments: "The P.R. campaign to persuade the country that the Surge is Succeeding has been as intense and potent as any P.R. campaign since the one that justified the invasion itself. While this campaign has worked wonders with our gullible media stars and Democratic Congressional leadership, it has failed completely with the American people.

Matthew Yglesias adds: "It's worth emphasizing in this regard how much the high regard in which Petraeus is held is a purely inside phenomenon. ... So while Democrats should certainly be respectful when he testifies, there's no reason to be super-deferential. If some other Bush administration appointee showed up and said some stuff that didn't seem to be true, Democrats would give him shit about it and the public would expect them to. This situation, at the end of the day, isn't really any different."

Also cited: The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum links to a New York Times/CBS poll asking, "how much longer would you be willing to have large numbers of troops in Iraq" and summarizes: "77% of the public wants us to leave Iraq within 24 months. Good job, public!"

Not citing any particular numbers '04 Bush strategist Matthew Dowd blogs at The Huffington Post: "The public does not see withdrawal from Iraq as a signal America doesn't support the troops. In fact, the public sees removing the troops from harm's way and having them in a place where the mission is supported, welcomed and understood as the most proper way to support our troops."

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas links to Dowd and comment: "I've never fathomed why Democrats are so fearful of this? You support the troops by keeping them stuck in a hopeless war? No, you support them by bringing them home safe and sound to their families. It should be an easy enough concept to grasp, but then again, for a crowd obsessed with what David Broder says about them, it's apparently not so easy."

Finally, Petraeus' call for a six month delay in troop level decision making is also being mocked. The time frame fits perfectly into the widely popular netroots phraze 'Freidman Unit' which mocks New York Times columnist Tom Freidman's habit of asking for six more months before judgment on Iraq is made. DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas blogs: "Six months. It's always six months."

IRAQ II: At Least Something Changed In The Last Eight Months

Conservatives are well aware of netroots attacks on Petraeus, which they see as coordinated with the MSM. Defenses of Petraeus include:

• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "The Democrats' pre-emptive attack on General David Petraeus, and his yet-unseen report to Congress, is really pretty stunning. The New York Times and other liberal media outlets have led the way; The bottom line is that the Democrats have irrevocably committed themselves to defeat, and, since it is politically impossible (i.e., unrewarding) for them to change their minds, the facts on the ground in Iraq no longer matter."
• The Weekly Standard's Pete Hegseth on MoveOn.org's 'General Betray Us' New York Times ad: "Let's be clear: MoveOn.org is suggesting that General Petraeus has 'betrayed' his country. This is disgusting. To attack as a traitor an American general commanding forces in war because his 'on the ground' experience does not align with MoveOn.org's political objectives is utterly shameful. It shows contempt for America's military leadership, as well as for the troops who have confidence in him, as our fellow soldiers in Iraq certainly do.
• The Corner's Cliff May: "So they are implying that Petraeus has betrayed the country - that he is a traitor. And what is the nature of the betrayal? That he refuses to accept defeat at the hands of al-Qaeda and Iranian-backed militias in Iraq."
• Gateway Pundit: "General Petraeus was approved by the US Senate 81-0 less than 8 months ago! Who changed?... Petraeus or the Dems?"
• Right Wing News: "You can find these smear jobs all over the place on the left -- and they're more than a little ironic. After all, it was the Democrats in Congress who confirmed Petraeus and demanded that he come before them on 9/11 to testify. ... It's really shameful that the left is trying to do this to a decent, talented general, whose only crime is winning a war that the Democrats are heavily politically invested in losing."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "What do you call a community whose Senate members voted unanimously to confirm General David Petraeus as the commander of coalition forces in Iraq, stated that they looked forward to his September report concerning the effectiveness of the surge and then, right before the report was to be delivered, started sliming him by accusing him of lying for the White House? Why, you call that community "reality-based" of course."

Also popular on the right: The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez posts a Hill staffers observations on positive trends in public opinion on Iraq and Ace of Spades links to a anti-war strategy conference call transcript featuring Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). Ace's Chad comments: "I really enjoyed the disappointment that was expressed in Pelosi. It warmed the cockles of my cold Republican heart."

DEM FIELD: Anti-Warrior Wanted

Netroots frustration with Dem WH '08 positioning on Iraq has reached a breaking point for some. Open Left's Chris Bowers rounded up candidate statements on Iraq and concluded: "These proposals for residual forces seem to be coming off a Democratic foreign policy assembly line. ... Until either Edwards or Obama starts emphasizing differences from Clinton on future Iraq plans, it seems reasonable to assume that those differences do not exist. That possibility should send shivers down the spine of every progressive activist in the country."

Later, Bowers links to Center for American Progress redeployment plan and concludes: "Notice how similar this plan looks to "no residual forces," and how it once again provide troops estimates to go along with specific, proposed missions for American troops? I know that some people think making troop estimates in Iraq is too hypothetical an exercise. However, it seems like every think thank is willing to do it, and only elected officials / campaigns are wary. ... Basically, at this point, I am done asking campaigns questions about their proposed residual forces in Iraq. If they will not do so on their own, then it is time to start applying numbers to their residual force plans for them."

Also at Open LeftMatt Stoller acknowledges strong netroots antipathy towards HRC, but dismisses the efforts of some progressives to get Edwards and Obama to unite under one ticket ("It just doesn't seem remotely realistic"). Instead Stoller urges "Edwama" supporters to try and push their candidates left on Iraq: "I wouldn't try to cut a deal with the other side, what I'd do is try to force my candidate to argue for no residual troops. Bringing either Obama or Edwards into the genuine antiwar camp is the most likely strategy to beat Clinton in the primary. ... Now is a good time to do this. It would be easy to use the Petraeus report or the supplemental in November to change one's mind."

DEM FIELD II: Dios Mio

The Huffington Post's Marc Cooper was not impressed the Univision's Spanish debate: "Almost everything about it was a dud, rendering the entire exercise little more than a gimmick. ... The huge live Miami audience, even more than usual in these sort of events, were reduced to mere props. Not even token questions were allowed from the floor. Worse, Univision allowed no other reporters, other than their own two star anchors Jorge Ramos and Maria Elena Salinas, any form of participation. ... While the questions were supposedly culled from those submitted earlier by Univision viewers, the chosen queries were uniformly non-confrontational and conveniently open-ended - the sort of questions pols dream of. The candidates might as well have been tele-transported to an underhand soft-ball batting cage for 90 minutes."

BIDEN: Pulling Pages From Wrong Playbook

Joe Biden scored some points by bashing Gen. David Petraeus on Meet the Press 9/9, but lost any gained good will when he admitted he would vote for the new Iraq supplemental. Crooks and Liars Logan murphy blogs: "When asked by host Tim Russert if he would vote to cut off funding for Iraq if President Bush refuses to accept a withdrawal date, Biden moves directly to the 'cutting off funding means you don't support the troops' mentality pulled straight from the pages of the RNC playbook. Instead of speaking the truth, that it means appropriating funds to begin a safe and smart withdrawal from the country, not abandoning out troops, Biden instead says he won't vote to cut off funding and chooses to chastise Democrats who support it.

EDWARDS: The Anti-Itch Candidate

John Edwards 9/7 'New Strategy Against Terrorism' speech received strong netroots reviews. Matthew Yglesias blogs: "His idea to build a new, global, multilateral organization focused on terrorism scratches the same itch that's led a lot of people to talk about a Concert of Democracies but it's a much better idea on the merits. ... Long story short, though, it's really good."

The Left Coaster's John Patric was also a fan: "This John Edwards speech on how to handle terrorism is so sensible and reasonable that the Republican Wide-Stance Neo-Con Macho Men might feel compelled to invade a Middle Eastern land just to distract attention. It's that good."

OBAMA: No Word On Obama Girl's Position On Iraq

Open Left's Brklyngrl hopes Barack Obama steps up his opposition to Pres. Bush's Iraq supplemental soon: "I'm baffled by Senator Obama's reticence in stating his views on the supplemental. Since he voted against the last supplemental, I assume he must not support this one either. So why not just say so? Or better yet, why not say so loudly and often so as to put some pressure on Republicans, Democratic leadership, and wavering Bush Dogs. Or by loudly supporting any of the options discussed here, including pushing for the Webb amendment and raising taxes to pay for any additional funding. ... So why not you, Senator Obama? His supporters, and anyone else who would like to see him take a stand, may want to call and tell him so."

At The Huffington Post, Brendan Spiegel defends takes aim at the New York Times 9/9 article on Obama's '00 challenge to Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL). Spiegel blogs: "The article plays into the Clinton-scripted characterization of Obama as idealistic, inexperienced and not ready for prime time. ... In fact, Obama's unsuccessful challenge in 2000 played a large part in establishing him as a presence in the Illinois political scene and paving the way for his historic 2004 Senate campaign. Without the name recognition, connections and fundraising ties he cultivated in the 2000 race, Obama would not have been positioned to break out of the crowded Senate primary when he ran in 2004."

RICHARDSON: Richardson In Name Only

Matthew Yglesias links Bill Richardson 9/8 op-ed 'Why We Should Exit Iraq Now' and admits: "I'm really not sure that, all things considered, I would want to see Bill Richardson be president of the United States. But as long as he's the only one publishing op-eds feature clear calls to actually end the war in Iraq I would, at a minimum, definitely tell a pollster that I'm voting for Richardson hoping to, if nothing else, try to prompt the other Democrats into shifting in favor of his position."

GOP FIELD: No Word On Cosmo The Wonderdog's Preferences

For those that are curious, The Corner's Jonah Goldberg has not yet picked a favorite candidate yet, but assigning numbers to each candidate based on "how much I agree with them, how much I would like to see them as president and my gut estimate of how likely it is they would win in the general" John McCain and Rudy Giuliani lead the pack at 55%.

GIULIANI: He's Innocent

Rudy Giuliani 9/7 admission to Glenn Beck that immigration, "is not a crime. I know that's very hard for people to understand, but it's not a federal crime" drew little conservative response. Race4'08 and Townhall's Matt Lewis both asked "Didn't Rudy just lose the nomination?" but no one made a strong case against him. Defenses were more common. Race4'08s Kavon Nikrad blogs:

Did Rudy once say that illegal immigrants have done nothing wrong? Did he say that we should do nothing about the problem? Did he propose that we encourage more people to cross the border illegally. Absolutely not. ... if you are a person who is looking for a real solution to our nation's immigration crisis, then take a look at what Hizzoner has proposed to solve the problem: seal the borders (thereby ending illegal immigration), identify every single person in this country illegally, deport the criminals (drug dealers, gang-bangers, and security risks), make those who remain learn English and assimilate, and then begin the debate as to what should be done with the remaining people.

MCCAIN: Surging On The Surge

Early posts indicate John McCain's decision to run on the surge will be a hit among conservatives. Power Line's John Hinderaker blogs: "Front and center at the moment is national security, which is McCain's strongest suit. This week, McCain will embark on a No Surrender Tour of a number of states. "No surrender" sums up pretty well our view of the conflict between civilization and Islamic radicalism. ... We haven't endorsed a candidate, and may never do so; or maybe we will ultimately disagree. At the moment, though, McCain is mounting a comeback. And I would say, don't make your choice without taking a good look at a candidate who has proved his mettle under conditions a heck of a lot tougher than the halls of the United States Senate."

THOMPSON: Ryan Leaf Or Peyton Manning?

Conservative skepticism of Fred Thompson continued through out the weekend as bloggers made unfavorable historical comparisons to the newcomer. Outside the Beltway's James Joyner picked up on Obsidian Wing comparisons between Thompson and '04 Dem candidate Gen. Wesley Clark: "Perhaps the second hardest career progression is that of a quarterback moving from college to the NFL. ... Thompson (and Clark before him), though, are like the rookie who missed training camp because of injury or a contract holdout. I can't think of a single case where one of those guys did well his first season."

At AmSpec Blog, Jennifer Rubin puts recent Thompson rhetoric nest to a mystery speaker and asks: "Who is it? Jimmy Carter from his malaise speech. The difference between just diagnosing problems and leading a country forward is the difference between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan."

Also doubting Thompson, The Brody File links to AP reports on whether "prominent Evangelical leaders" will back Thompson and responds: "I can tell you that in my dealings with these leaders the article is correct. These leaders would probably like to endorse Thompson but by no means is this a done deal. His marriage amendment stance will be an issue." On marriage, Brody also points out Thompson doesn't have his facts straight yet.

Finally, NY Sun's Ryan Sager advises to skip 'sleepy' early events and confine himself to 'peppy' evening events.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: We're Definitely Cleaner, At Least

Mike Treder links to BBC reports that human skull size has increased 20% in the last 650 years and asks: "So, does it seem plausible to you that humans today might be, say, 20% smarter than our medieval ancestors? Could that, if it's true, be a contributing factor to the explosion in scientific discovery, technological progress, and improved living conditions over the last half millennium?"

LEST WE FORGET: We Hear Britney Might be Available For That Jenna Jameson Role

Cracked identifies some of "The Easiest Acting Roles Ever" including:

• R. Lee Ermey as Sgt. Hartman in Full Metal Jacket: You remember Lewis Gosset Jr.'s badass drill sergeant from An Officer and a Gentleman? Well R. Lee Ermey was the guy who coached Gossett Jr. on the role. Stanley Kubrick then hired Ermey, a retired drill instructor himself, to do the same thing with Full Metal Jacket. ... R. Lee Ermey is Sgt. Hartman, always will be, and God help the man who disagrees. Or not, because God's afraid of him, too.
• John Belushi as Robert "Bluto" Blutarsky in National Lampoon's Animal House: There's a reason every fraternity in America has that poster of Belushi in his "College" sweatshirt, chugging a bottle of Jack Daniels. He was the patron saint of college partiers. Unfortunately, Belushi's own real-life tragic end served as a reminder to a generation of frat guys: that shit you were doing at 22 isn't so funny at age 33.
• Courtney Love as Althea Leasure Flynt in The People vs. Larry Flynt: So why was Love tapped to play Althea, the wife of human porn factory Larry Flynt? Well, Althea grew up an orphan, then became a stripper, then picked up a crippling drug habit, then got married to a prominent figure in the industry ... see a pattern here?

Posted by Conn Carroll at September 10, 2007 12:51 PM