September 21, 2007

9/21: Nobody's Moving On Past Anything

On 9/18 we tried to explain that while some in the netroots may not have been terribly pleased with MoveOn's word choice, they agreed with the sentiment behind their 'Gen. Betray Us' and that Dems should be ready to expect similar incidents in the future. Well Senate GOPers managed to keep the story alive for yet another day by forcing a vote on whether or not the Senate should condemn MoveOn's ad. Since we can guarantee that MoveOn will pull more stunts that Senate GOPers disapprove of in the future we offer this handy guide to Dems on how to handle such situations.

First, and this really is the most important rule, from Fire Dog Lake's Jane Hamsher: "You don't help the right wing out by repeating their talking points, ever. Why was this so hard to grasp?" And second, if you're going to try and duck the issue by claiming you don't have time for "stunt[s] designed only to score cheap political points" then don't vote for substitute cheap political stunts mere hours before.

BLOGGERS VS BELTWAY: They're Mad As Hell...

The netroots are hopping mad over the Senate's vote to condemn MoveOn's 'Gen. Betray Us' ad. However, even some Beltway types are weighing in for the netroots. Paul Begala blogs at The Huffington Post: "Too many Democrats still think Mr. Bush's presidency is on the level. Let's be clear. Mr. Bush is not leading a serious, sober discussion about public discourse during a war. He wants to divide progressives and score political points. We should not let him. Throughout his career he's been willing to tolerate and benefit from vicious lies about military men. We should not concede that he is legitimately angry now." Netroots reactions include:

• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "We already know that Republicans are a gang of psychotic criminals. The lesson I'm drawing from this episode is any non-progressive Democrat may and often will betray us at any time."
• Talking Points Memo's David Kurtz: "Correct me if I'm wrong here. But by my calculation, more U.S. senators (72) voted today to condemn a newspaper ad attacking Gen. Petraeus than voted yesterday (56) to lengthen the time off troops get from the frontlines in Iraq, thereby reducing individual soldiers exposure to actual attacks. Am I missing something, or is that about right?"
• Fire Dog Lake's Jane Hamsher: "It's not just MoveOn that is having their wrists slapped, it's all of us. All of us who stood together and had the temerity to fight their precious comrade in comity, Joe Lieberman."
• Open Left's Mike Lux: "I know that not everyone in the progressive movement was totally comfortable with the MoveOn ad about Gen. Petraeus, but whatever you thought, the right wing is now coming for them with all their hounds baying. This censure resolution in the Senate is a load of crap, designed to intimidate and silence strong dissent on the war."
• Reno and Its DiscontentsMyrna Minx: "Today, our dear senators easily managed to vote against an ad run in the NYTimes by MoveOn.org, but yesterday they couldn't muster enough votes to rescind habeas corpus or demonstrate their support and care for our troops by giving them more time between tour of duties, because the price the troops are paying is so small that they would be demeaned by such efforts to relieve them. How can you get more cowardly?"
• The Huffington Post's Ian Welsh: "The fact of the matter is that Petraeus's testimony to Congress was based on statistics that are, effectively, lies. ... By lying to Congress Petraeus effectively betrayed the US. He also betrayed his men on the ground. ... The honeymoon is over, and the Democrats who did this will reap what they sowed. Both they, and the netroots will be worse for it, but there is no way out - the real betrayal, in the end, was of the base, by these Democrats."
• Working Assests' Justin Krebs: "The Senate is filled with cowards, many of whom have just -- in the words of the controversial ad -- betrayed us. McCarthyism is back...who wants to be censured next?"
• The Huffington Post's Lane Hudson: "MoveOn has done more than anyone else in this country to bring an end to the war. Anyone. ... But, the Democrats in Congress didn't take the time to look past the baseless finger pointing and elementary name-calling. Instead, they gave in to cowardly instinct and said a big "F@*# YOU" to the millions of Americans who call themselves a part of the Netroots Movement and have worked side by side with MoveOn to end the War."

Daily Kos diarist Mike Stark blogged: "I've been waiting for this moment - it's been a long time coming. In preparation, I registered the domain names, WeAreYourBase.com, SpeakWithOneVoice.org [and] .net and I've researched the cost of purchasing NotOneRedCent.com." Stark goes on to explain his plan: "We are forming a donors' union and going on strike. ... each donor will promise to give NotOneRedCent to elected Democrats or organizations that give money to elected democrats. Instead, they will promise to use their money to contribute to progressive organizations and candidates that, as proved by their record, support the furtherance of progressive ideals.

Crooks and LiarsNicole Belle seconds Stark's idea: "In fact, I'm going to take the money I would have donated to Democratic campaigns and donating it to MoveOn so that they can redouble their efforts. Let those gutless Democrats in the Senate who once again caved to Republican framing know, 'I will fight back.'"

CLINTON: She's Got Their Back

Commenting on Gallup data showing GOPers give Congress a higher approval rating than Dems, Open Left's Chris Bowers blogs:

You know, I have to admit, that outside of the residual forces disaster, Hillary Clinton is rapidly moving up in my rankings of Democratic candidates for President. Say whatever else you want about the Clintons, but they don't take bulls**t Republican attacks lying down or cowering in a corner. And if there is one thing I can't stand right now it is Democrats who won't stand up for themselves, who stab their allies in the back in order to appeal to D.C. elites and Republicans, and then ask us to keep fighting for them. At least Clinton fights back, and hard, whenever attacks are directed her way. That is a big plus in my book.

OBAMA: Condemnation Condemnations

Barack Obama may have escaped netroots scorn for failing to vote against the Senate resolution condemning MoveOn, but by voting for Sen. Barbara Boxer's (D-CA) substitute resolution condemning political attacks on anybody who ever served in the military, Obama opened himself up to charges of rank opportunism. Open Left's Matt Stoller pulled no punches:

In Dante's Inferno, the Opportunists were 'the people who refused to take sides on the whole good vs. evil thing, but just looked after themselves. As a result, they're doomed to forever run after a banner while being stung by wasps and hornets... These people aren't technically in hell. They're not evil enough to be in hell, so they're in the vestibule of hell.' ... Obama didn't take a vote on the Moveon condemnation, but an hour earlier he voted for the Boxer amendment. What a sad spectacle of a politician.

The Huffington Post's Ian Welsh also swiped Obama: "Obama ducked the vote. He was there for the one before, then ran out. Frankly that's exactly what I expect from Obama. He doesn't like making hard choices or fighting."

OBAMA II: Too Cool For School

TAPPED's Garance Franke-Ruta had a series of posts 9/20 on Barack Obama's decision to skip 9/20's AARP forum in Davenport, IA. First Garance writes: "The AARP matters in Iowa this year more than it ever has, not just because so many older voters caucus, but because it is conducting a campaign along with the SEIU and the Business Roundtable ... My unscientific impression in Iowa was that the local AARP chapters functioned like social clubs for elderly women and were extremely vibrant, especially in the smaller towns. ... Obama's absence at the AARP forum is a real missed opportunity to reach that critical constituency, which will also be holding AARP-organized debate watch parties tonight."

Later Garance fits Obama's AARP snub into a larger critique: "Obama has made the attack on special interests a big part of his stump speech ... Obama has maintained a greater distance from traditional Democratic interest groups, as well, and his campaign seems less interested than either Clinton's or Edwards' in reaching out to people who are not part of its "transformational" strategy. He doesn't seem to mind dissing people who he doesn't think are useful or part of his master plan, and I have to wonder if, in Democratic primary politics, that's not partly responsible for his declining numbers, because it turns transformational politics into the worst form of transactional political organizing, where the campaign refuses to reach out to groups and people who they think won't matter on the ground."

However, Garance also notes Obama is not above pandering: "Also worth noting is that Barack Obama will be holding his own forum with seniors tomorrow in Ames, Iowa, and that this week he released a plan to eliminate income taxes for seniors who earn less than $50,000. That promise is likely to end taxes for the vast majority of seniors in Iowa, considering that if you make $60,000 a year out there you're pretty close to rich."

At The Plank, Noam Scheiber reads Marc Ambinder coverage of Obama's outreach to seniors and comments: "When you listen to Obama, watch his ads, talk to various campaign staffers, you get the sense that they're running a general election campaign, not a primary campaign where the idea is to appeal to partisans. ... Maybe the thinking is also that, by running a general election-style campaign, Obama persuades voters he's electable (that is, he would appeal to the independents who decide general elections), which then causes strategic-minded primary voters to embrace him. But this strikes me as a little too clever and convoluted."

WEBB: The Last Thing He Needs

Netroots fav Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) was among the 'cowards' who voted to condemn MoveOn's 'Gen. Betray Us' ad. TPM's Greg Sargentwrites, "Jim Webb, who just yesterday was a Netroots hero, voted for it, even though the last thing he needs as a military guy is cover on something like this."

GOP FIELD: Think Tank Tussle

First noting that The Heritage Foundation can not endorse a candidate, Townhall's Jonathan Garthwaite has begun keeping track of Heritage 'heavyweight' endorsements. Mitt Romney claims ex-Sen. Jim Talent (R-MO) and Matt Spaulding, while Rudy Giuliani has nabbed Steve Forbes, Nile Gardiner, Kim Holmes, and Bill Simon. Garthwaite concludes: "Perhaps there is more parity than many of us of were led to believe in the battle for the hearts and minds of conservatives. Landing two of the top dogs on foreign policy at Heritage is nothing to shrug off."

GIULIANI: We Can See Churchill As A Yankee Fan

NRO's Jim Geraghty notes that Rudy Giuliani's London trip has scored the campaign some good headlines including Geraghty's favorite from USA Today: "Churchill in a baseball cap?" Less impressed with some of the substance of the trip, The American Scene's James Poulos is no fan of Giuliani's suggestion that NATO open membership to countries regardless of their geographic location. From Poulos:

On what basis will American citizens accept going to war if India is bombed (by, uh, our non-NATO ally Pakistan)? How are we to respond according to the NATO charter every time Israel suffers an attack? ... Even a stalwart pro-Israeli strategist with an ounce of common sense can recognize the vast benefits to be derived from permitting broadly divergent foreign policies between very close allies.

Reading a 9/21 New York Timesarticle on Giuliani's post 9/11 image, AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin wonders if "many of us, me included, are over thinking the race." She explains: "He is doing well in part because people had an emotional, visceral reaction to what he did that day and the days following. ... Very few politicians get an opportunity to bond with voters like that and that goes a long way. Does it mean others can't win or that this event trumps all other issues? No, but it is an advantage and an explanation for the continuing affection he enjoys in unexpected places like South Carolina."

THOMPSON: Not Sweating Dobson Doubts

Fred Thompson is scoring mostly positive reaction from James Dobson's promise not to endorse him. Instapundit quips: "James Dobson doesn't like him. That's gotta be worth, what, five percent?" NRO's Jim Geraghty doesn't even think its news: "Shouldn't The Headline Be, 'Dobson Says He Still Won't Support Thompson'?" NY Sun's Ryan Sager explains: "Average voters seem to trust him as a social conservative. But the people who run the big social-conservative groups know that his agenda is less absolute than their own. I suspect the average voters are more important in this equation, as far as winning primaries, which would explain why the Thompson folks don't seem all that worried."

In other Thompson blogging, RedState's Erick Erickson looks at polling in FL and SC showing Thompson trailing only Rudy Giuliani and is ready to declare: "It really is Rudy v. Fred now." Race4'08s Tommy Oliver recommends conservatives check out Thompson's Senate report Government On the Brink: The Root Causes of Federal Waste and Mismanagement. And Right Wing News blogger and former Duncan Hunter advisor John Hawkins explains why Thompson is his second choice:

Fred's the most conservative of the top tier candidates and the only one of them I would trust to take a security-first approach to immigration. ... On the other hand, Fred has shown a LOT of "ring rust" since he got back in the political arena. By that, I mean he's out pacing the 2004 version of Howard Dean in the unforced errors department; but luckily, so far, he hasn't made any crippling mistakes. He also isn't doing much to dispel that whole "lazy" rap that was laid on him over the last few months. Still, he should be fully up to speed soon and if he can make it to that point without seriously hurting himself, he should be fine -- I think.

DEMS: GOPers Love Nancy The Most

TPM's Eric Kleefeld notes: "In the latest Gallup poll, more Republicans approve of the job Congress is doing than there are Democrats who approve. According to the poll, 37% of Republicans approve of Congress' performance, compared to 23% of Democrats and 14% of independents, with an overall rating of 24% approval and 71% disapproval."

Kleefeld then speculates: "This is odd, of course, considering that both houses have Democratic majorities. But on second thought, the current Congress has passed President Bush's funding requests for Iraq, passed his FISA bill, and has given the White House exactly what it wanted on a host of other issues. So what do Republicans really have to complain about?"

Open Left's Chris Bowers links and adds: "Really, it makes sense, since the conservative governing majority in Washington has not been stopped by Democratic control of Congress. FISA was passed into law. The Iraq war has escalated, without any conditions being attached to it. Liberal political speech is condemned on the floor of the Senate. Republican filibusters are at a record high blocking everything in sight, and when that fails there is still Bush's veto to whip Congress into line. Effectively, Washington is still governing to the benefit of Republicans, and to the disgust of Democrats and Independents."

Daily Kos' mcjoan blogs: "The Democrats in Congress read the same polls we do. They know that the majority of the people want them to take control in Iraq, want this war to end. Want Congress to fight Bush. They understand the obstacles, but they need to see the fight. ... But I guess old habits born of fear and too long in the electoral wasteland will take some time, effort, and a lot of primary challenges to change. ... If you don't want this war to last 10 more years, keep telling them what we want them to do. Fight back. No more funding for Iraq unless it's for withdrawal."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: It's Almost As If Some People Stoke Racial Issues For Their Own Profit

Freakonomics Blog's Steven Levitt previews his new paper:

It details the rise and fall of the Klan in the 1920s. Incredibly, the Klan had millions of members at that time, and most of them were reasonably well-educated. Based on a variety of data sources, we argue that, despite its size and education levels, the group nevertheless had little measurable impact on society or politics. It was, however, an incredible engine for generating profits for Klan leaders.

LEST WE FORGET: Governmental Incompetence - Our Only Hope

Cracked lists the '8 Most Common Sci-Fi Visions of the Future' and explains why they will never happen, including:

• #8 An Oppressive Totalitarian State - Why It Will Never Happen: Governments have been evolved and advanced to achieve stunning levels of incompetence that Orwell could hardly have imagined. Sure, we did wind up with wall monitors in our homes, but they display mostly porn and advertisements.
• #6 A Sprawling Urban Hell-Slum - Why it Will Never Happen: The Gillette Fusion, through its innovative five-blade technology and aloe strip, guarantees a close, smooth, sexy shave every time. Gillette: the best a man can get! (Gillette executives: Please make all checks payable to Michael "The Danger Zone" Swaim).
• #4 An Invasion by Friendly Aliens - Why it Will Never Happen: It's an irrefutable scientific fact that a species cannot evolve to dominate its planet unless it is made up of merciless killing machines. Any civilization with access to the resources necessary to reach us, has, by definition, gained that access by slaughtering its biological competitors. If they turn up here tomorrow, it's only because they've found out, say, that our ground-up spleens are an afrodisiac for their women.

Posted by Conn Carroll at September 21, 2007 12:42 PM