September 18, 2007

9/18: They're Here, They're Opinionated, Get Used To It

If you're expecting MoveOn and their netroots allies to apologize for the 'Gen. Betray Us' ad, don't hold your breath. If anything, expect only more of the same. And if you think criticism from traditional media or Beltway Dems will temper their behavior, it's time to re-orient your thinking. Bottom line: The netroots blame you for allowing the country to get into Iraq and therefore don't think too highly of your advice. The netroots are a great source of energy and ideas for Dems, but they also come at a cost: They aren't going to stick to establishment talking points.

DEM FIELD: It's Not Hard To Say You're Not Sorry

The more the establishment media criticizes MoveOn's 'General Betray Us' ad, the more the netroots are defending MoveOn's decision to run it. Open Left's Matt Stoller tracks quotes from NBC pol. dir. Chuck Todd ("MoveOn is sort of like this old friend of the Democratic Party ... they get a little drunk and obnoxious, but you'll still, you're afraid to criticize them") and NYT's Frank Rich ("This left-wing brand of juvenile name-calling is as witless as the "Defeatocrats" and "cut and run" McCarthyism from the right") and responds: "Though their work is often good, both Rich and Todd are acting here like lapdogs to the Georgetown cocktail circuit. ... It's really sad to see 'journalists' or liberal columnists discuss the ad as if it overshadows the issue at hand, which is a horrific occupation and a civilian and military leadership that betrays the country by justifying it."

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas links to Stoller's analysis and adds: "It's nothing we haven't heard from the 'grownups' inside the Beltway. The only difference is that it's not us teenagers who bankrupted the family and burned down the house. It was the supposed grownups. And yet we're supposed to defer to their so-called 'wisdom'? Pretty darn silly."

UC Berkeley prof. George Lakoff tells Huffington Post readers why he is no fan of Rich's take either: "MoveOn's "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" ad has raised vital questions that need a thorough and open discussion. The ad worked brilliantly to reveal, via its framing, an essential but previously hidden truth: the Bush Administration and its active supporters have betrayed the trust of the troops and the American people. ... Thanks to their making it a national issue, we can now proceed to discuss their Betrayal of Trust on the national stage they have conveniently provided."

Arianna Huffington seconds Lakoff's interpretation: "Was the MoveOn ad blunt? Yes. Did it go for the jugular? No doubt. But while the way it chose to make its points can be debated, the accuracy of those points cannot. ... Does anyone really doubt why the president hid behind Petraeus' medals and sent him on a week-long talk-show tour to sell a policy he could no longer peddle himself? So, yes, betrayal is certainly the operative word."

Also blogging at The Huffington post, Beth Arnold blogs: "I hadn't seen the ad in The New York Times, but I'd caught it on the Internet. I'd thought that at least somebody in this country -- thank you MoveOn.org! -- wasn't going to lean over and take it anymore in the wham-bam-without-any-thank- you-ma'am way the American people have been treated since the Bush/Cheney duo has been in power."

Back in NV, Taylor Marsh is no fan of Barack Obama's admission to NBC's Brian Williams that "if they had asked me, would have suggested that we focus attention on George Bush, the commander in chief." Marsh comments: "There's a lesson in this for Obama and the Edwardses, but also for other Democrats who just don't get what MoveOn.org accomplished with their daring. They expanded the conversation and blew out the parameters so that we could bring on the facts about the actual violence in Iraq, as well as what wasn't being accomplished during a time when Mr. Bush was parading General Petraeus in front of the public as his credibility shield because he no longer has any himself."

Open Left's Stoller picks up on Marsh's post and adds: "The key narrative of the last seven years is betrayal. In this episode, Clinton and Richardson gets this, but Obama and Edwards somehow do not.

CLINTON: Not Too Cautious, Not Too Ambitious, But Just Right

Blogger reviews of Hillary Clinton's health care continue to roll in and they continue to be mostly positive. The gold standard in netroots health-care wonkery Ezra Klein briefs: "The short answer is that it's a very good plan, similar in style and scope to Edwards, substantially better than Obama's." Later he elaborates:

Clinton's plan is of the "individual mandate" variety, in which universal coverage is achieved by mandating that every American purchase health care. In order to ensure that that's both possible and affordable, the Clinton plan creates a few new coverage options, reform the insurance industry, limits coverage costs to a percentage of income, and washes your car. ... Okay, it doesn't wash your car. It does open the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program to everybody ... Throwing the doors to that program wide open is the most basic and ubiquitous of coverage solutions. ... More importantly, the plan also creates a new public insurance option, modeled off, but distinct from, Medicare. That's a big deal: The public insurer offers full coverage and is open to all Americans without restriction. Public insurance is what I feared her plan would avoid, and instead, she embraced it wholeheartedly.

Other reactions include:

• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "I have to say that I agree with Ezra: although the three leading Democratic presidential candidates have proposed healthcare plans that are similar in a lot of ways, Hillary's strikes me as not just substantively as good as any of them (and better in some ways), but also the politically savviest and most practical of the lot."


• Matthew Yglesias: "I feel like Clinton is drawing close to checkmating her opponents. I'll have to wait and see what more expertish people have to say about this proposal, but it certainly has the look and feel of a decently ambitious proposal in a way that really undercuts some of the main arguments that have been made (including by me) against her."


• The Huffington Post's RJ Eskow: "It's not likely to change anyone's mind about her candidacy, or about health care reform, but at the overview level it's well-designed and thorough. Her plan is solidly in the center of Democratic proposals. ... At first review, it reinforces the sense that she and her staff are knowledgeable, highly competent, and incrementalist in their approach.

There were some doubters. The Left Coaster's Steve Soto blogs: "From where I sit, there are two legitimate concerns with the approach. First, I agree that consumers and labor have a right to question how balanced a final Clinton universal health care approach will be. ... Second, I am still troubled by an individual mandate and the efficacy of tax credits if working Americans can't afford the insurance premiums in the first place."

Fire Dog Lake's TRex was by far the unhappiest: "I am wildly underwhelmed. First we need to get something out of the way. For you to proclaim that your plan provides, "Universal Health Care" is a decided misnomer. "Universal Health Insurance" might be more like it. ... Universal Health Care is what they have in England and Canada and Spain and Germany and Japan and, well, every civilized nation in the world but ours. It's single payer health care provided free of charge with no need for interference by a greed-crazed insurance and pharmaceutical industry. Is that so freaking hard to understand?"

CLINTON II: Now All They Need Is A Consensus Candidate

Despite her "strengthened .... position in national and early state polls over the past couple of months," Open Left's Chris Bowers wants readers to know that "for all of [Hillary] Clinton's national poll advantages, and all the strategizing that many people are engaging in, the path to defeating Hillary Clinton for the nomination is pretty straightforward: defeat her in Iowa and New Hampshire."

Bowers reasons: "in order to survive a double defeat from a single candidate in both Iowa and New Hampshire, she would have to be ahead of that candidate by at least 33% in national polls before the Iowa caucus. ... The truth is that Clinton's supposedly enormous advantage in the campaign is held together by only a few thousand voters in Iowa and New Hampshire. If either Obama or Edwards were to flip 7,500 Clinton supporters in Iowa, along with 12,500 Clinton supporters in New Hampshire, than that person would take command of the nomination campaign. That is it. That is all that really needs to be done."

And at MyDD, a diarist pitches: "For those of you who dedicated to preventing Hillary from becoming the nominee and who are willing to work together, please do the following: 1) Send an email to nothrc at gmail dot com. Leave your user name and I'll respond. 2) Post a comment in this diary confirming that you sent me an email. We can salvage MyDD together."

DODD: Only You Can Help Restore Habeas

Chris Dodd capitalized on Constitution Day 9/17 by asking bloggers to join his fight to restore Habeas Corpus. Dodd guest blogs at Taylor Marsh: "I pledge that if elected I will restore the Constitution of the United States in my first hour in office. I won't wait until then to take action and I'm committed to leading to restore the Constitution from my place in the Senate. This week I am working with my colleague Patrick Leahy to restore habeas corpus and I'll need your help."

Fire Dog Lake's Christy Hardin Smith writes: "The Senate will again take up the Habeas Restoration Act. Sens. Leahy and Dodd are asking for our help. While restoring the rule of law and voting to uphold the principles written into our nation's constitution ought to be a given, it, unfortunately, has not been the last few years."

At Open Left, Chris Bowers shares conclusions from their Habeas Corpus Polling Memo: "A solid 63% majority of American voters say they favor passage of legislation that would "give Guantanamo detainees the legal right to have their detention reviewed in federal court, and require the government to demonstrate that it has a lawful reason to imprison them." Only one-third (32%) of voters express opposition. This level of support for habeas is more impressive still when one considers that survey participants had been informed that the detainees are 'accused terrorists.'"

EDWARDS: And If They Don't Pass His Minimum-Wage Hike, He'll Drown Their Children's Puppies Too

John Edwards' 9/17 promise to "cut off health care for the president, Congress and all political appointees in mid 2009, if a universal health care plan for all Americans has not been passed by then" was a hit among many Kossacks, but less so among wonkier netroots circles. The most popular Daily Kos diary 9/17 writes on Edwards promise: "It seems quite appropriate to ask all the presidential candidates whether they too will support the Edwards proposal. ... John Edwards challenge to the political class changes the very character of the national discussion. The time has come to demand that every member of Congress agree to give up their coverage at a date specified in 2009, if all American citizens do not have cradle to grave, affordable and guaranteed healthcare. We've been asking where are our leaders, this, my friends, is leadership."

There were some dissents among the commenters, including: "some other posters point out that this would be unconstitutional to do. Edwards is going to win nothing by proposing radical, unconstitutional, and un-humanitarian things like this. I've seen desperate people do desperate thing before in politics but this is over the top. Seriously." But pro-Edwards comments (like the following: "I would suggest the un-humanitarian thing is for congress to receive health care, on the taxpayers dime, is a bit un- humanitarian.") were much highly rated.

Matthew Yglesias notes, "Not to get too wanky here, but I'm pretty sure this violates the 27th Amendment to the constitution." TAPPED's Garance Franke-Ruta comments: "I just don't think it's a good management practice to threaten revoke the health insurance of public servants and their families as a legislative pressure tactic."

OBAMA: Expert Experts Needed

Talk Left's Jeralyn Merritt reports that the Barack Obama campaign has begun reaching out to bloggers. She was contacted 9/17 by Zack Edwards of the Nevada Barack Obama campaign to answer the following questions: "Question One: Should bloggers be considered journalists? ... Second question: Should bloggers have access to press passes through the same outlets as traditional media? Should they accept press passes?"

More concerned about Obama's over reaching out to academia, Open Left's Chris Bowers comments on a Chicago Tribunearticle reporting that Obama has assembled a policy team of at least 700 'experts': "Given this, it certainly isn't surprising that the policy proposals coming from the Obama campaign are always in line with the most mundane, non-controversial policy ideas of the Democratic establishment. ... I think Obama's academic instincts are taking over here. coming from academia myself, I can say that in many ways it is the opposite of a political movement. ... This is the main reason why the Obama vs. Clinton narrative to this point has focused on personality issues, including the ever tiresome "change" verses "experience" argument. Neither campaign represents a challenge to the institutional status quo in the Democratic establishment."

SEIU: Bathroom Reporting Is Becoming Quite The Fad

TAPPED's Garance Franke-Ruta wraps up her 9/17 SEIU conference blogging: "Despite the tremendous outpouring of enthusiasm for Barack Obama from the conference's audience of union leaders and regular members earlier in the day, member after member predicted that loyalty would trump enthusiasm, and that John Edwards, the candidate who has most assiduously courted labor, would win the SEIU's straw poll, and eventually the powerful and activist union's nod."

Other SEIU blogging highlights include:

• TAPPED's Dana Goldstein on Edwards: "A key distinction emerges between John Edwards and Hillary Clinton; Hillary discussed the history of labor in terms of the creation of the middle class, Edwards portrays it as a fight against poverty: 'The greatest anti-poverty movement in American history is the organized labor movement.'"
• Goldstein on Clinton: "Unlike her rivals, Hillary doesn't direct any veiled barbs at her fellow Democrats. She keeps the focus on President Bush, which goes over well with crowd. ... Carefully tackling trade, Clinton talks about legislation she has introduced in the Senate to review trade bills every five years to reassess their fairness."
• Goldstein on Obama: "Barack Obama is a natural in front of this crowd. He's shouting, they're standing, the room is roaring. ... In the ladies' room, a middle-aged white woman, hands clasped, exclaimed, 'He is just so inspiring! He's gonna bring a change!'"
• TAPPED's Kate Sheppard on Chris Dodd: "Senator Chris Dodd took the opportunity to highlight his labor-related achievements in his 26 years as an elected official and called for a renewed commitment to middle class America. ... Most of his proposals drew thunderous applause from Monday's crowd ... He managed to come off not as a career politician, despite more than a quarter century in office, but rather a populist who understands where SEIU's members are coming from."
• TPM's Eric Kleefeld on Bill Richardson: "It seems Bill Richardson has no shortage of gaffes. Addressing SEIU today, Richardson thanked them for their applause: 'Thank you, AFSCME!' That's right, Richardson named the wrong union. And it gets worse. SEIU, unfortunately, is an organizational rival to AFSCME in many states, and SEIU's audience responded to Richardson's opening line by shouting, 'S-E-I-U!'"

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas comments on Richardson: "These aren't Howard Dean-style "gaffes", in which the pundits pound someone for telling the truth (like "capturing Saddam won't make us safer"). These are the sorts of mistakes that are made from poor preparation and lack of concentration. Or something. All I know is that high-level politics requires a bit more care."

GOP FIELD: After Red Light, Green Light, The Candidates Played Duck, Duck, Goose

The Brody File reports from the 'Values Voters' debate in Ft. Lauderdale, FL: "The debate was noteworthy because of who was not there. Absent were Romney, Giuliani, Thompson and McCain. All of them had the dreaded 'scheduling conflict'. Let's be honest. They weren't there because they didn't want to be on the hot seat."

Brody then lists some questions featured in a "lightning speed round where candidates activated a green light for a yes answer and a red light for a no answer" including: "Will you consider impeachment in cases of judicial activism? ... Do you agree that multiculturalism is weakening American culture? ... Will you de-fund Planned Parenthood? ... Would you veto any legislation that re-institutes the fairness doctrine? ... Would you nominate strict constructionist judges?"

Brody concludes: "[S]kipping this event is a gamble to a certain extent, especially for Thompson and Romney. Both of them are competing hard for the 'social conservative" crowd. Some conservative pro-family voters very well may see this as a slap in the face."

GOP FIELD II: Other Than Bush And Iraq, Things Are Going Great

Right Wing News explains why he is one of the few conservative bloggers not pessimistic about '08: "Yes, the GOP is "in the dumpster," but not only are the Democrats heading towards the same place, they're falling much faster than the GOP. ... In 2006, being a Democrat was probably worth 5-8 points in most elections. Now, it's probably worth 3 or 4 points. By the time the election rolls around in 2008, the way things are going, it may not be worth anything or it could even cost Dem candidates points. ... Now, the war and President Bush are keeping the GOP from really taking advantage of the Dems' woes and rapidly turning things around, but that shouldn't be a problem for us in 2010. Hopefully, this will be the last down election that the GOP has for a while."

GIULIANI: Who Studied Iraq?

NRO's Jim Geraghty argues MoveOn's new ad attacking Rudy Giuliani for not joining the Iraq Study Group will carry little weight since only 46% Americans approve of the ISG and another 32% have no opinion. Geraghty also notes that the ISG supported the surge and concludes: "So MoveOn is criticizing Rudy for not joining a group that made a policy recommendation that they denounce. Brilliant."

MCCAIN: John The Maybe Baptist

The Brody File tracks AP and McClatchy reporting that John McCain may be a Baptist or an Episcopalian and comments: "Maybe this is a big deal to some people. That's fine. My take simply is, 'Do you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ?' Getting into what denomination you belong can be seen as divisive. But maybe McCain the Baptist will help him."

ROMNEY: Hillary Lite?

Some conservatives are blaming Mitt Romney's MA health care policy for making it easier for Hillary Clinton to sell her universal health care plans. Soren Dayton asks: "Especially if Mitt Romney is the nominee, how do conservatives argue against this? Now Matt Drudge, who seems to be a Romney fan, highlights a different issue, the $110b per year price tag. So, one strategy is going to be price tag. After all, that really is a lot of money. But once we have abandoned the principle of freedom that is inherent in the mandate issue, aren't we just, to quote Churchill, haggling over price?"

Similar thoughts at AmSpec Blog from Jennifer Rubin ("You can argue about the specific differences and point to some of the market innovations in Massachusetts but on the big issue-- government mandates-- press and public will have a hard time figuring out why Hillary's plan is so much "worse" than Romney's CommonWealth plan") and Philip Klein ("Again, by ceding so much ground to liberals, Romney's Massachusetts plan has made it much more likely that we'll see a Hillary-style healthcare plan at the national level").

ATTORNEY GENERAL: Is FISA Enough?

The Corner's Mark Levin and Kate O'Beirne appear to be the biggest name holdouts in supporting Mike Mukasey's nomination for AG. Levin cedes the Mukasey will probably be good on nat'l security but worries: "I wasn't going to post anything else on Mukasey, but come on guys and gals, there are gaping holes in what we know about him, and his supporters aren't helping matters. ... I don't minimize the importance of his other areas of responsibility, either. And I find no elucidation of his views or record on these matters that his supporters are willing to bring to us."

O'Beirne doesn't think Mukasey will be anymore effective on national security than Ted Olson would have been: "General Petraeus was confirmed unanimously by the Senate. Many of those Senators who voted "aye" just months ago now deny that the good General has any credibility at all. ... And, sometimes advocates of the cause of conservatism have broad-based support because there is broad-based agreement that said advocate can be counted on not to do much of anything to advance that cause. In Washington, there is no broad-based support for advancing the conservative cause and hard-fought confirmation battles reflect that reality."

The Corner's Peter Wehner responds: "But it strikes me the Petraeus example strengthens my point. Last week, in the debate between Petraeus and leading Democrats, it was a wipe-out: Petraeus won. And one of the reasons he won - apart from his compelling testimony - is that Republicans were able to point out that Petraeus was confirmed by a unanimous vote in the Senate earlier this year and he was widely praised by Democrats. We heard that point made repeatedly because it was effective."

RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh, AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin, and Hot Air's Alllahpundit are all onboard to support Mukasey.

On the left, Will Eaton identifies some promises he wants Dems to extract from Mukasey, including: "Appoint an independent counsel to investigate the US Attorneys scandal, Call for the closure of Guantanamo and the end of coercive interrogation techniques, Present a report to congress no later than March 1, 2008 on White House interference in Justice Department matters."

And at The Huffington Post Center for Constitutional Rights staff attorney Shayana Kadidal identifies three reasons Mukasey 'will suck': "First of all, this is a guy who despises the legal left. ... Point 2: He is a guy who is obsessed with national security and views it as being diametrically opposed to civil rights. ... Point 3: For someone who was a federal judge, he seems to have a very limited view of the role of the judiciary in enforcing the rule of law."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Don't Stay In School

Tyler Cowen plugs Peter Bernstein's and Annalyn Swan's All the Money in the World -- How the Forbes 400 Make -- And Spend -- Their Fortunes quoting:

In the first Forbes 400 [1982], oil was the source of 22.8 percent of the fortunes, manufacturing 15.3 percent, finance 9 percent, and technology 3 percent. By 2006 oil had fallen to 8.5 percent and manufacturing to 8.5 percent. Technology, however, had risen to 11.75 percent and finance to an extraordinary 24.5 percent.

The average net worth in 2006 of Forbes 400 members without a college degree was $5.96 billion; those with a degree averaged $3.14 billion. Four of the five richest Americans -- Bill Gates, casino owner Sheldon Adelson, Oracle's Larry Ellison, and Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen...-- are college dropouts.

LEST WE FORGET: Better Late Than Never

In honor of Tony Snow's last day, Extreme Mortman posted his top ten favorite Snow - Helen Thomas exchanges including:

• Q The United States is not that helpless. It could have stopped the bombardment of Lebanon. We have that much control with the Israelis.
• MR. SNOW: I don't think so, Helen. Helen Thomas from NPR
• Q We have gone for collective punishment against all of Lebanon and Palestine.
• MR. SNOW: What's interesting, Helen
• Q And this is what's happening, and that's the perception of the United States.
• MR. SNOW: Well, thank you for the Hezbollah view.

Posted by Conn Carroll at September 18, 2007 12:54 PM