September 20, 2007

9/20: Time To Swing For The Fences

When Barack Obama was riding his initial post-announcement wave of popularity, his detractors pointed out that there was little that separated him substantively from his Dem rivals, and that Dems should really wait to see what his policies were like before jumping on board. Well, after hearing from Obama on foreign policy, health care, and now taxes the verdict is in: ho-hum. It's not that Obama's policies are wildly unpopular, it's just that, in the words of The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum they are too "cautious and mainstream." As exciting as Obama is in person, many on the left just don't believe Obama is offering "innovative approaches to challenge the status quo." If Obama is gonna turn his campaign around, his policies are going to have to start matching his rhetoric.

DEM FIELD: Troop Levels In Iraq Not A Factor

Returning to DC from Sen. Tom Harkin's (D-IA) steak fry, Open Left's Mike Lux reminds readers that issues rarely play a role in elections: "we forget that politics is at least as much about things like instinct and passion and charm and fun and eloquence and well, that indescribable gut feeling people get about candidates. ... Take the residual troops issue, a big issue for the OpenLeft.com community. Richardson and lately Edwards, have tried to emphasize their differences between their position and that of Obama and Clinton, but in spite of the overwhelming intensity of all the folks I talked to in terms of their opposition to the war, that issue hasn't gotten through at all."

Besides 'gut feeling' Lux also named identity politics as a key factor for many Dems: "Many of Hillary's supporters were thrilled at the idea of a woman being President, and a lot of Obama and Richardson supporters mentioned their candidate's background and race as really positive reasons to be for them."

CLINTON: The Last Day Of Health Care Plan Reax We Promise

Open Left contributor and ex-Clinton WH aide Mike Lux identifies the "three major political decisions" that distinguish Hillary Clinton's current health care proposal with her '93 effort:

• 1. Emphasize the "do no harm" element. The first thing in her proposal is to announce, emphasize, repeat and hammer home the idea that if you like your current health plan, you are free to stick with it.
• 2. Keep it simple. The "health alliances" we proposed in 1993-94 were hideously complicated contraptions. ... The new plan doesn't create new agencies or cooperatives, thusly, it is a whole lot easier to explain.
• 3. Buy off small business. One of the major reasons we lost the fight in 1993-94 was the white heat of opposition from the small business community that freaked out about an employer mandate.

Also looking at differences between this plan's approach and the last one, Joe Conason at Working Assets: "Rather than emphasize differences in detail that fascinate specialists but bore voters, both Mr. Edwards and Mr. Obama tried to claim that they are more likely to achieve success than Mrs. Clinton, who has admittedly failed once in this quest. She anticipated that rather obvious line of criticism by acknowledging how much she has learned in the past decade or so, displaying at least a bit of the suppleness that was always among Bill Clinton's greatest assets. ... This refreshing approach contrasted sharply with the old stereotypes of secrecy and arrogance that haunted her previous effort, and, perhaps more importantly, girded her against the inevitable assaults from the right."

CLINTON II: Why Must Everyone Always Blame The Lobbyists?

Responding to observations that "Clinton's stated position on Jerusalem is to the right of longstanding U.S. policy," TAPPED's Garance Franke-Ruta notes HRC "took the same position in her 2000 Senate contest" and adds: "I should also note that there is a uniform opinion among the people I know who follow ... Middle East policy making in Washington (both Arab and Jew) that Clinton does not really believe her stated position on Jerusalem, which would seem to preclude a peace process."

TAPPED's Ezra Klein then connects HRC's complexity on the issue to "a coalition of savvy activist groups and wealthy advocates who're singularly committed to guaranteeing continual American support for a Likudnik view of Israeli politics, and are particularly powerful in New York politics. I'd suggest, for linguistic convenience, that we call this "coalition of activist groups and advocates" a 'lobby,' and distinguish them from other lobbies by saying the name of their issue (Israel) before we say 'lobby,' but then I'd get called an anti-Semite."

DODD: Leader Of The Pack

A contributor to the group blog The Left Coaster explains why he is endorsing Chris Dodd: "Leadership. On every issue, from Iraq, to the growing climate crisis, to the rule of law, Chris Dodd has done more than talk the talk of a Presidential candidate - He has led."

EDWARDS: Just Win Baby

SEIU Local 790 organizer/Left in SF blogger Robert Haaland reports that John Edwards won a straw poll of SEIU members, but will have to wait for the Executive Board's decision for at least a week. TAPPED's Garance Franke-Ruta comments: "The SEIU leadership has refused to formally identify the straw poll's winner, but two less senior sources in positions to know confirmed the result Haaland reported."

More Franke-Ruta: "My sources tell me that there is and has long been great enthusiasm for Edwards at the level of the SEIU leadership, and, now, with the support of the membership running in his favor as well, the main concern some people have is that he may not be able to win the primary, let alone a general election contest. After the experience of endorsing Howard Dean last cycle, SEIU leaders want to back a winner as well as someone who supports their agenda."

OBAMA: Too Incremental

John Dickerson's "Time To Panic?" Slate article inspired a wave of Barack Obama speculation and Hillary Clinton inevitability talk at TAPPED 9/18. Dana Goldstein was the first to comment:

John Dickerson gets it right: As I reported, Obama rocked the house at the SEIU candidates' forum Monday, but that kind of soaring rhetoric and shouting, activist delivery isn't enough to get him elected. ... Dickerson suggests several tactics to help Obama overcome the growing feeling of inevitability around Hillary Clinton. First, he could attack Clinton more explicitly, or dig deep and publicize any dirt on her he can find. Alternatively, he could take the high road and let John Edwards roll in the mud with Hillary. Lastly, he could renew excitement by beating the rest of the field in fundraising again this quarter. The problem is that we've seen Obama try all of these strategies already, to no concrete jump in his poll numbers.

TAPPED's Ezra Klein responds: "what struck me about Dickerson's article suggesting the Obama campaign begin to panic about Clinton's apparent strength is how weak Dickerson's suggestions were. ... one thing the Obama campaign could do is start bringing out some bolder policy. Their health plan was less impressive than either Clinton or Edwards' offerings, their plan for withdrawal from Iraq was rather typical for the race, and their new tax plan is, well, incremental is almost too generous."

Scott Lemieux concludes it is unlikely Obama can turn things around in time: "What allowed Kerry to come out of nowhere was concerns about Dean compounded by the inept, undisciplined endgame to his Iowa campaign. Clinton, whatever else one can say about her, is a very disciplined campaigner; she'll be very, very difficult to haul down from behind. ... both Obama and Edwards will stay in long enough to prevent a single anti-Clinton candidate from emerging until it's too late. This is unfortunate, given that I think she's both the least progressive and the weakest presidential candidate of the three."

OBAMA II: Too Cautious

Blogging on Barack Obama's tax policy proposals continue to be light, and what is there is not positive. Matthew Yglesias thought the speech itself was good, but found "the policy follow through is a little lacking." Yglesias has some criticism for each plank of the plan, including: "The first plank, which would be a new kind of refundable tax credit, has a worthy impulse but seems poorly designed. The tax credit situation is already very complicated. The right thing to be doing is streamlining it."

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum also comments on each part of the plan and on Obama's promise to eliminate all income tax for seniors with income under $50k Drum responds: "[This] is just special interest group pandering. There's no reason a senior citizen making $45,000 should be exempt from paying income tax."

Drum then explains why the tax plan is just another reason Obama is "losing" him:

He's an inspiring speaker, and given the realities of how presidents exercise power that's no small thing. But he sure is cautious to a fault. His big foreign policy speech was fine, but cautious and mainstream. His big healthcare speech was fine, but cautious and mainstream. And now his big tax speech is....just cautious and mainstream. I really want to hear something big and controversial from Obama, something that demonstrates a desire to shake up the status quo. But he just doesn't seem to be willing to take any chances. That's a shame.

GOP FIELD: Rudy Skates On Immigration Criticism From Both Sides

Robert Bluey responds to Michael Gerson's latest column admonishing GOPers for not following Pres. Bush on immigration: "Gerson once again argues that politics (winning more Hispanic votes) is more important than principle (following the law). ... But what's perhaps most absurd is Gerson's comparison of the illegal-immigration debate to the civil-rights struggle of the 1960s. He notes that Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater's vote against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was so symbolic that blacks stopped supporting Republicans. Outlawing segregation in 1964 is far different from rewarding lawbreakers in 2007. But in Michael Gerson's mind, winning the Hispanic vote is much more important. He apparently sees no problem using bad public policy to advance the establishment GOP's political agenda."

Soren Dayton uses the article to bash Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson on immigration: "So why have McCain, Brownback, and, to a degree, Huckabee, maintained their positions? My gut is that it is because their positions are deeply grounded in their values and, in particular, their religious values. Some people, myself included, view immigration reform as a moral issue. And a simple one. And a deep one. ... However, the position of Thompson and Romney are different. They are weak. They are insincere for transactional reasons. They are simply acting out of politics."

GIULIANI: For Those Of You Wondering Who The Left Is Really Afraid Of

Open Left's Chris Bowers celebrates the progress of his Googlebomb campaign against Rudy Giuliani noting that two of their targeted stories have made it into the top ten results. At #8 - Rudy Giuliani is worse than Bush. At #9 - Fire fighters letter to Rudy Giuliani. Bowers adds: "Some may ask why I am not Googlebombing Mitt Romney or John McCain. The simple answer is that I don't find either of them threatening in a general elction, so I do not want to take action that would hurt their chances of winning the Republican nomination."

Also in Giuliani blogging: The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez reports that Pres. Bush may have taken a veiled swipe at Giuliani when Bush named "be comfortable with your family" as a trait people should look for in a president. The Corner's Jonah Goldberg responds: "In fact, the more I think about this, the more annoyed I'm getting. ... The real problem with statements like this - when released to the public - is they make conservatives sound otherworldly and almost bizarre in their priorities. Character matters, a lot. But come on."

Giuliani's trip to England is going over well. Townhall's Matt Lewis blogs: "Not only does this trip help portray him as as a statesman -- and remind folks he of his "Churchillian" 9-11 image -- it also allows him to dominate the headlines for yet another week. The message is clear: while his opponents are pandering to voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, Rudy is already acting as a diplomat."

HUCKABEE: The Next Chris Dodd

The Brody File comments on Mike Huckabee's 'Value Voters' straw poll win: "This is another notch in Huckabee's belt. He did very well in the Iowa straw poll, has done well in the debates and now this. If he could just write himself a cool $10 million dollar check, he'd be in business."

NY Sun's Ryan Sager adds: "For social conservatives, "values voters," "pro-family" voters, etc., is Mr. Huckabee becoming the safe, throwaway alternative? Much as the International Association of Fire Fighters gave its endorsement to no-shot candidate Chris Dodd, might social conservative groups unwilling to endorse Mitt Romney (because he's a flip-flopper) or Fred Thompson (because he opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment) go with Mr. Huckabee?"

ROMNEY: Turning Red States Purple?

Right Wing News looks at Mitt Romney's standing in national polls and worries about his general election electability: "Not only is Mitt hovering around 10% in general polling, his polling numbers in individual match-ups against the Democrats are horrible! ... One of Mitt's selling points is supposed to be that he can go into a handful of key blue states and put them in play. That may be true, but if he's putting states as red as Kentucky and Alabama into play for the Democrats, it's not worth it."

In more positive Romney blogging, NRO's Jim Geragthy likes Romney's new 'Change Begins With Us' which includes these lines: ""We can't be like Democrats - a party of big spending. We can't pretend our borders are secure from illegal immigration. We can't have ethical standards that are a punch line for Jay Leno."

Geraghty comments: "Kudos to Romney for taking on the GOP's image problems head on. ... The spending demands that led to the Bridge to Nowhere, Bush's in-your-face disregard for the base's opinion on amnesty and border security, and the ethics of the Larry Craigs, Mark Foleys, and other creeps have seriously tarnished the Republican brand. ... Romney's hitting his party's failures from the right."

THOMPSON: GI Vladimir

The Washington Post did Fred Thompson a huge favor 9/18 when they took issue with Thompson's assertion that the US had "shed more blood for other people's liberty than any other combination of nations in the history of the world" by claiming that that title belonged to the Soviet Union.

Captain's Quarters comments: "It's a ludicrous, almost ghoulish argument in the face of what followed World War II in Europe. ... Thompson knows of what he speaks. The Washington Post should be embarrassed by their historical and rhetorical illiteracy, and should offer an apology for calling Thompson a liar." NRO's Jim Geraghty adds: "The Thompson campaign is having a good laugh at the Washington Post."

Also at NRO, Thompson pollster John McLaughlin spins Geraghty on why Thompson will win: "To win the nomination, you have to say what Republican Party wants to stand for and represent and Fred's doing that the best. The other thing is, Fred's got a record as a senator, and everybody agrees it's conservative. He went to Washington as part of the Republican Revolution, the class of 1994. The interesting part about other candidates putting out position papers is that they're doing it because they have to undo their statements and votes of the past."

The Brody File looks at Thompson's video response to Hillary Clinton's health care plan and reviews: "Hey, let's face it. Don't expect a lot of detailed policy proposals from the guy. The reason people like him is because he comes across as guy who tells it like it is and is likeable in the process. ... Don't underestimate this emotional appeal Thompson has with people. He comes across as sincere. If they believe you, that's half the battle."

SENATE LANDSCAPE: What Do OJ, Monica, Bush, And The Politico All Have In Common?

The netroots are turning the the defeat of three "major measures via filibuster threats" 9/19 into a rallying cry for a push for a 60 vote Senate majority. Talking Points Memo's David Kurtz recaps: "habeas corpus for enemy combatants, a House member for DC, and the Webb Amendment on troop rotations. It is part of an unprecedented use of the filibuster by Senate Republicans in the 110th Congress."

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum links to a McClatchy chart showing "Republicans aren't just obstructing legislation at normal rates. They're obstructing legislation at three times the usual rate."

Looking ahead to '08, Open Left's Matt Stoller takes issue with Politico reporting that " For the past couple of decades, the most successful national Democrats have been practitioners of defensive politics." Stoller responds: "I have no problems if candidates want to inoculate themselves by carefully framing controversial issues, but it is a loser mentality to play defensive politics. Democrats, stop listening to the VandeHeises and the Harrises of the world, and get rid of the culture of caution."

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas also swipes the same Jim VandeHei and John Harris article including their claim that Maj. Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) "might pull back from fights over ... spending on social programs." Kos responds: "Yes, there's a desire to fund the programs Democrats care about as opposed to the programs Republicans care about. Don't forget that Bush presided over the largest expansion of our government since LBJ."

Atrios later names VandeHei and Harris his "Wankers of the Day" and adds: "One can draw a straight line from OJ to the Clinton impeachment to the war on Gore to President George Bush to the Politico. It's all the same."

BLOGGERS VS BELTWAY: A Profile In Courage

Kossacks are coming to Rep. Jim Moran's (D-VA) defense after Moran told a California-based Jewish magazine that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is "the most powerful lobby and has pushed [the Iraq] war from the beginning. I don't think they represent the mainstream of American Jewish thinking at all."

Daily Kos diarist Steven D tracks House Maj. Leader Steny Hoyer's (D-MD) denunciation of Moran's comments and responds: "Practically no one thinks it would be a smart idea (much less legally justified) for American forces to attack Iran outside of Joe Lieberman and Dick Cheney, and AIPAC obviously. ... But dare to speak the truth about AIPAC's influence on American foreign policy as it relates to Iraq, and they will quickly send in my opinion, the House Majority Leader will be "asked" to verbally attack you. I can only assume that Hoyer didn't act on this information on his own."

Rabbi Michael Lerner later implores in a separate dkos diary: "We ask you to contact Congressman Hoyer and Congressman Cantor to let them know your feelings about the issues below ... We have just learned that Congressman Waxman is circulating a petition demanding Congressman Moran apologize for his comments in Tikkun. Please call Waxman ... It took tremendous courage for Congressman Jim Moran to tell Tikkun magazine of the power and influence of AIPAC and other sections of the Israel Lobby."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Just Think Of Them As An Afternoon At The Theatre

Tyler Cowen shares a snippet from his latest Forbes article:

Frequent meetings help a business apply bonuses and yearly evaluations with greater precision. Evaluations are inherently problematic. The natural human tendency is to feel slighted or get upset at anything less than a perfect evaluation. By contrast, meetings reaffirm the value of the individual to the company. When the time comes for the boss to offer criticism or dock a bonus, a worker who has been to many meetings is more likely to take the feedback in a constructive spirit and respond with improvement rather than resentment.

Cowen comments: "In other words, meetings are fundamentally a form of "social theater" and should be analyzed as such."

LEST WE FORGET: Since God Knows All, Is Service Of Process Still Required?

At Dilbert Blog, Scott Adams flags news that a NE man is suing God to make a point about frivolous lawsuits and comments:

I sure hope it goes to trial. Imagine how interesting that would be. First, how do you select a jury of God's peers? Compared to the Almighty, even Buddha is just a guy who should use the stairs more often. The entire jury would end up being doctors who sometimes play God, and arborists, who can, sort of, make a tree, if they have acorns. That's the best you can do. ... God's public defender wouldn't be able to claim his client didn't perform the acts of God for which he is accused. I mean, they're acts of God, ferchrissake. And the defender can't prove his client wasn't there. He's everywhere. God has a well-documented history of smiting humans, the motive, and the opportunity. That's a strong case.

Posted by Conn Carroll at September 20, 2007 12:51 PM