September 26, 2007

9/26: Our Magic Eight Ball Says...

From what we hear in this town, David Brooks is correct when he reports that "many Democratic politicians privately detest the netroots' self-righteousness and bullying." Unfortunately, there is also much in his 9/25 column that does not ring true to this netroots observer. To support his argument "that if you want to understand the future of the Democratic Party you can learn almost nothing from the bloggers" Brooks marshalls three distinct arguments: 1) netroots-hated Hillary Clinton is beating 'the netroots candidates; 2) HRC has rejected the netroots 'slashing' style of politics for Mark Penn centrism; 3) and the netroots are losing policy battles.

While no one mistakes HRC for the netroots ideal candidate, the truth is no one in the Dem field does either. John Edwards may win Daily Kos straw polls but he's never come close to a majority. Barack Obama does out poll Clinton in the community, but Obama's commitment to avoid 'divisive ideological politics' is antithetical to netroots experience. If anything, Hillary best epitomizes netroots political instincts. She was the first candidate to dispatch a surrogate to defend Daily Kos from Bill O'Reilly attacks. She's earned endorsements from netroots heroes fmr. Amb. Joe Wilson and ret. Gen. Wesley Clark. They know HRC will never back down from a partisan fight.

As for Brooks' case that the netroots are losing policy battles, as Matthew Yglesias points out, on troop levels in Iraq, global warming, and universal health care, the party (and Hillary) are all further to the left than they were four years ago. Now we're not expecting Dems to start writing the party platform off of dKos comment boards, but we do know it will be much further to the left in '08 than it was in '04, and we're also willing to bet that trend will continue into '12 and beyond.

CLINTON: Her Royal Highness

Open Left's Matt Stoller posts the second half of his 9/20 interview with ret.-Gen. Wesley Clark, including this answer to the question, "How long do you think residual troops will remain in Iraq under a Clinton Presidency?"

There's no way of knowing because the problem in Iraq is Iran. And you can't deal with Iraq unless you're willing to deal with Iran and the Bush administration is not facing reality. ... So I don't think there's any way of knowing how long it's going to take to work against the strategic challenge of Iran. First we have to get someone in office who will face it.

Later Stoller slams HRC's "disgraceful statement on Iran" but also adds, "I'm picking on Clinton, but Edwards and Obama aren't significantly different."

Obama fan Andrew Sullivan, however, surveys Clinton's Sunday talkfest performance, and forecasts the end of democracy in America: "The conservative Washington Establishment is swooning for Hillary for a reason. ... Hillary is Bush's ticket to posterity. On Iraq, she will be his legacy. They are not that dissimilar after all: both come from royal families, who have divvied up the White House for the past couple of decades. They may oppose one another; but they respect each other as equals in the neo-monarchy that is the current presidency. And so elite conservatives are falling over themselves to embrace a new Queen Hillary, with an empire reaching across Mesopotamia, a recently deposed court just waiting to return to the salons of DC, a consort happy to be co-president for another four years, and a back-channel to the other royal family."

The Huffington Post's Martin Lewis takes a different tack, arguing against "self-righteous (self-lefteous?) diatribes against Hillary" and reminding readers "it shouldn't make a difference to any other voters who are Democrats, left-leaning, liberal, progressive or independent. For one overwhelming reason. ... it's the SCOTUS stupid!"

EDWARDS: Already Served His Purpose?

Matthew Yglesias looks at news the SEIU will withhold their endorsement for now and argues that they have "already found a way to be extremely influential in this race." From Yglesias: "Everyone's noted the similarity of the major candidates' health care plans and the fact that Edwards led the way in this regard. But it's worth saying that before there was Edwards, there was SEIU saying it would only consider endorsing candidates who devised a specific plan for universal health insurance. That's what created the conditions for Edwards' bold stroke and also what made it necessary for the other candidates to play catch-up once Edwards' plan was unveiled."

OBAMA: The Magic Is Gone

Picking up on Politico reporting that the unofficial Facebook group 'One Million Strong for Barack' has been surpassed in membership by 'Stop Hillary Clinton' Open Left's Matt Stoller proclaims, "Obama Movement, Chances in NH, Dead." Reminding readers how Obama forced control of a pro-Obama MySpace page out of the hands of an amateur supporter, Stoller continues: "Obama had a movement, and killed it. ... Were Obama or Edwards to lead on stopping the new FISA bill from passing, there might be some movement from them. Clinton's fear-based campaign is weak, and she's not creating a particularly strong coalition. The environment will probably swamp those dynamics, but she is vulnerable if Obama or Edwards were to bother taking advantage of it."

RICHARDSON: Anti-Kabuki

It is unclear how many people Bill Richardson is winning over with his new television ads featuring bloggers talking about the importance of the 'residual troops' issue, but many appreciate the effort. Matthew Yglesias blogs: "I'm not sure why Bill Richardson thinks putting netroots activists in his ad attempting to raise the issue will help him, but I'm glad he's raising the issue. ... One fears that Richardson may have committed too many gaffes at this point to gain traction, but I hope this ad helps him and forces the other candidates to start addressing this issue." The Left Coaster's Ken Camp writes: "Don't be fooled by the kabuki dance or rhetorical gymnastics of the other candidates. Residual troops equals stay the course, and that's simply unacceptable."

Open Left's Mike Lux, however, still has questions about the strategy, including: 1. What happens to the Kurds? 2. If the U.N. and other countries really get engaged in 2009, and a peace deal is forged, do we refuse to send troops in as peace keepers? 3. What about humanitarian workers? 4. What about reconstruction? 5. What conditions will be different in January 2009?

WEBB: Shutting The Back Door

Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) earned wide netroots acclaim 9/25 for his attack on the Lieberman-Kyl amendment to the DoD appropriation bill. TPM's Josh Marshall directs readers to Thinks Progress video of Webb's floor speech and describes: "As Webb notes, Kyl-Amendment is a cleverly worded back door use of force resolution against Iran."

Crooks and LiarsJohn Amato blogs: "Sen. Webb went on the offensive today and denounced the Lieberman/Kyl amendment as warmongering and a big fat, wet kiss to the 'William the Bloody' Kristol wing of the GOP - including the star of the Neocons: Dick Cheney. Lieberman is setting the stage with all his Iran amendments that have the sole purpose of bringing the US into war with Iran. This must be defeated and I implore the Democratic Party to vote this down. A big shout out to Jim Webb for standing up against this amendment."

GOP FIELD: The Chris Matthews Standard

Conservatives appear ambivalent about the decision of their WH '08 frontrunners to skip PBS' Morgan State debate. NRO's Jim Geraghty defends the decision citing four 'problems' the debate presented: Problem One: It's on PBS. As one Republican strategist told me earlier this year, 'our voters watch Fox News.' ... Problem two: It's at the end of the fundraising cycle. ... Problem three: There are too darn many of these debates, and with the exception of the YouTube debate, the debates have been getting really predictable. ... Problem four: Moderator Tavis Smiley. I like Tavis Smiley. But he's not shy about his views. He wrote a book entitled, 'Hard Left: Straight Talk About the Wrongs of the Right.'"

The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez later defends Smiley: "He's about as objectionable as a moderator as, say, Chris Matthews ... And honestly, though I will certainly never agree with Tavis on a whole host of issues, I always find him fair, likable, and able to be reasoned with when I go on his show."

Captain's Quarters comments: "I don't think that the refusal to attend the PBS debate has to do with inherent racism, but rather a sense that no short-term benefit will arise from engaging blacks during the Republican primaries. It's an unfortunate calculation. We have messages of empowerment through free enterprise and market-based solutions for education that could resonate, if only our leadership would engage African-American voters early and often."

Outside the Beltway's James Joyner adds: "Like President Bush routinely snubbing the NAACP convention, this action undoubtedly reinforces the preexisting stereotypes about the Republican Party. On the other hand, it's far from clear that showing up at these debates will do much to change those preconceptions. With the black leadership fully in the pocket of the Democratic Party and willing to run vicious smear attacks against Republican candidates, it's not hard to see why the GOP frontrunners made the cost-benefit calculation they did."

GIULIANI: Just Don't Be Hillary

NRO's Jim Geraghty comments on Rudy Giuliani's relationship with the NRA: "By the way, while I think Rudy Giuliani did himself some good in his appearance Friday, I don't want to oversell it; what he did was assure gun owners that if it comes down to him and Hillary Clinton, he's a much better alternative to her, who gun owners more or less view as the Antichrist. Giuliani will probably be the first choice of a quite limited number of gun owners; what his efforts to reach out to NRA members now assures is that they won't stay home or vote third party in 2008."

HUCKABEE: Compassionate Nannies Wanted

Mike Huckabee sat down with RCP Blog's Blake Dvorak who asked him to explain why he was trailing non-social conservative candidates Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson in SC. Huckabee replied: "Well, the numbers that you're talking about really are reflecting two things. One is the money being spent by the candidates on paid advertisements; two is the amount of exposure they're getting and free media because of their celebrity status. But when we go head-to-head, I end up winning. So for us it's always been about the trajectory of momentum which for us has been upward very consistently and if you look at some of the numbers of the so-called frontrunners, they're polling behind where they themselves were before. Ours have continued to go up, they can continue to level off or slip backwards."

Also reading the RCP interview, David Harsnyi comments on Huckabee's response to accusations he supports a nanny state: "If you wanna read unadulterated BS from a presidential candidate, take a look at this Mike Huckabee's interview ... There has never been a candidate calling himself a conservative who has so blatantly endorsed meddling policies on personal choice - though 'compassionate conservatism' came close."

MCCAIN: Wait, They're Willingly Comparing Themselves To Kerry?

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff comments on Des Moines Register suggestions that John McCain is attempting a John Kerry like comeback: "First, there was no real distance between Kerry and the Democratic base. ... McCain has distanced himself from the Republican base on a number of important issues, most notably immigration and campaign finance reform. And no one doubts his sincerity on these matters. ... Second, the Democratic base forgave Kerry's opportunistic vote on Iraq because it believed, foolishly, that he was electable. It's conceivable that most Republicans would overlook non-conservative positions McCain has taken for the same reason except for one thing -- there's an alternative to McCain who has at least as strong an electability claim, Rudy Giuliani."

ROMNEY: Did Anyone Like That ACLU Line?

AmSpec Blog's James Antle responds to Jonathan Martin thoughts on the challenge Mitt Romney faces in establishing himself as a conservative while running as a 'change' GOPer at the same time: "To my mind, Romney's biggest problem isn't that he's trying to sell himself as a conservative reformer. It is that he doesn't have the biography/record to back up his new conservative image, forcing him to lean more heavily on issue positions and rhetoric like ACLU vs. U.S.A. -- the kinds of things that detract from his image as a competent CEO type when it comes time to appeal to swing voters."

BLOGGERS VS MSM: Who Rejected What?

David Brooks' 9/25 column extolling the virtue of Hillary Clinton's rejection of "the bloggers, billionaires and activists on the left who make up the 'netroots'" was a huge hit among said bloggers. Reactions include:

• Glenn Greenwald: "No matter what polls or elections show, Brooks' overriding goal is to "prove" that "most Americans" favor a "hawkish" foreign policy whereby America will rule the world by military force, most importantly in the Middle East. ... The reality is that Brooks' claims in this regard are completely, demonstrably false: huge (and increasing) numbers of Americans believe we are far too militaristic and involved in trying to rule the world. But Brooks, like most Beltway pundits, cares only about enforcing Beltway orthodoxies, no matter how unpopular, not about the facts."
• Daily Kos' MissLaura: "Here he delimits what positions Clinton (or any other Democrat) can take and be seen by the Beltway crowd as legitimate, and points to the fact that she's saying what he wants to hear on the Sunday morning talk shows as evidence that that's what she really believes ... and anything else she says risks "drifting into cuckoo land." What she says to us when she comes to YearlyKos or sends her communications director to O'Reilly to defend the netroots is pandering; what she says when she's talking to Brooks and his ilk is what's truly in her heart. Or so the column goes."
• Fire Dog Lake's TRex: "Completely unencumbered by facts, research, poll numbers, and in fact, virtually free of the craft of writing altogether, Brooks projects his own feelings about the state of the American political mind on to a mythical construct he calls 'most Americans', conjecturing that since he is The Cosmos, all Americans must be as frightened and alarmed by the netroots as he is. Never mind that poll after poll demonstrates that the American people are disgusted with Congress's current "appease the Republicans at all costs" tack."
• Matthew Yglesias: "When the centrist strand in Democratic thinking came to represent school uniforms, promises to balance the budget each and every year of the Gore administration, and backing the invasion of Iraq that was one thing. If, instead, we're going to get universal health care, action to halt global warming, and diplomatic engagement with rival powers in the Middle East, that's a very different thing. If Brooks wants to call that latter thing a defeat for the netroots because dKos diarists sometimes find themselves disappointed, well, then I think that's a kind of defeat people can live with."
• Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat: "[I]t would be interesting to know which ones Brooks thinks Hillary is moving away from the Netroots on. Universal health insurance? Global warming? Brooks has let his hatred of bloggers cloud his judgment. What is the lesson for the Netroots here? I think it is plain. Do not get bogged down in judging success by personalities and candidates. Judge success by your influence on the policy positions that become the mainstream of the Democratic Party."

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum also takes Brooks to task, but also warns against netroots cherry picking of polling data as well: "Unfortunately, answers to poll questions come in a vacuum. They don't show what people think once the other side has a chance to get a few licks in. ... Here are two examples. First, withdrawal from Iraq. A recent New York Times poll showed that 65% of respondents want to withdraw either some or all of our troops from Iraq. Hooray! The country is with us! But then the Times asked a follow up question: "What if removing troops meant Iraq would become more of a base of operations for terrorists, then would you still favor removing U.S. troops from Iraq, or not?" ... Guess what? Of that 65%, only 30% still favored removal. That's a huge drop based on a single hypothetical, and in a real campaign that hypothetical would practically blanket the airwaves."

BLOGGERS VS BELTWAY: FISA Pre-Fallout

The netroots are gearing up a pressure campaign to stiffen Dem spines on FISA. The Huffington Post's Art Levine blogs: "[T]he template for any final legislation could be set as early next week when the Senate Intelligence Committee begins mark-up of a bill that seems likely to give the Bush administration -- and telecom companies -- much of what they want. That's why activists and citizens need to make their voices heard as soon as possible to derail a permanent FISA "fix" that could be worse than the six-month temporary legislation passed in August."

Open Left's Matt Stoller warns: "The DCCC and DSCC need to be aware of what's going to happen when this legislation passes, which is that online fundraising is going to drop as it did in July. Only this time we're going to organize around it and try and actively seize those revenue streams to pursue primary challenges, since it's obvious that Democratic leaders are simply out to lunch."

Not commenting on FISA specifically, Open Left's Chris Bowers picks up on Gallup polling showing more Americans trust Dems to protect the country and asks: "Now, I have a question for liberal hawks: during the time when Democrats gained on, and eventually overtook, Republicans on national security, did Democrats become more hawkish? As I remember it, during these five years Democrats have gradually and greatly increased their opposition to things like the Iraq war, FISA and the Patriot Act. Even though we are still losing votes on those issues, we are doing a lot better than we were a few years ago."

Poking his lefty colleagues in the eye, RedState's Erick Erickson blogs: "Just another example of Harry Reid being Mitchslapped around the Senate Floor, in a review of the more than 300 votes that have been cast in the Senate this year, Harry Reid voted with Mitch McConnell 60% of the time. So, who is the real Senate leader?"

BLOGGERS VS BELTWAY II: How To Sell Bush On SCHIP

Already opposed to Dem plans for extending SCHIP, conservatives are rallying support against the bill around a provision in the bill that would provide health care benefits to illegal aliens. Michelle Malkin warns: "Shamnesty Watch: SCHIP loophole - New health care benefits for illegal aliens? ... If it looks like shamnesty and quacks like shamnesty, it is shamnesty."

Robert Bluey outlines Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL) GOP alternative and Power Line's Paul Mirengoff comments: "The virtue of this plan is it covers the population targeted by the Democrats, but instead of forcing them to drop their current coverage and go on a government plan, it provides assistance to enable them to keep their current insurance plan."

Back on the Dem bill a Corner reader teases: "Perhaps NRO ought not be publicizing the fact that SCHIP as written would cover illegal aliens? I mean, if someone is reading at the White House and passes that info on to the President, I can easily imagine him changing his mind on a veto."

At Open Left, Chris Bowers looks at Democracy Corps showing independents support expanding SCHIP 62%-28% and blogs: "I am starting to think that Democrats are in a strong electoral position lately simply because they want to win the elections more than Republicans do. If you cared about winning elections, you probably wouldn't veto health care for poor American children and continue a wildly unpopular war that just cost you Congress."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Give Me Coffee Shops, Or Give Me Death!

Blogging on the coolness of Seattle and Portland, Ezra Klein writes: "Cities like Portland and Seattle are trying to create a livable city to retain and attract a certain type of resident. Namely, educated, young, white people. Portland's 78% white, Seattle's a bit under 70%. So you structure the city thus that there's lots of educated white people bait, including cafes, bookstores, wireless internet spots, bike trails, etc." Megan McArdle responds:

Here's the primary difference between liberals and libertarians in a nutshell: it would never have occurred to me to assign the city government a dominant role, except perhaps for Portland's greenbelt, which seems like the result of a pretty conventional coalition of environmentalists and property owners whose home values were driven up by the artificial supply restriction. ... Nor does the government in Seattle operate coffee shops, wireless hotspots, or bookstores that I am aware of. Those things are operated by private actors trying to make a profit - no government intervention required, or as far as I know, offered.

LEST WE FORGET: Maybe Working With Charlie Sheen Is Torture

The Huffington Post's Andy Borowitz reports on CBS' next reality project:

Fresh on the heels of their reality show "Kid Nation," in which children are sent to perform hard labor on a ranch with no adult supervision, CBS announced today that it was readying a new reality show in which children are sent to the federal detention camp at Guantanamo. ... The new program, called "Kid Detention" is expected to be ready for broadcast in time for November sweeps, with the following promotional slogan: "One detention camp. Forty kids. No lawyers." ... In an attempt to rebuff such criticism, CBS spokesperson Carol Foyler told reporters, "Nothing worse is going to happen to those kids than if they were on 'Two and a Half Men.'"

Posted by Conn Carroll at September 26, 2007 12:46 PM