October 12, 2007

10/12: The New Whips

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has taken a fair amount of netroots criticism for her 10/10 claim that it was "a waste of time" for activists to target Dems. We wouldn't appreciate a bunch of people hanging out in our garden either, but looking at what the netroots have helped accomplish on SCHIP we have to wonder what happens to Pelosi's policy goals if the activists stopped being active. Less than a week into their campaign to pressure five Dems into promising to vote to override Pres. Bush's veto of SCHIP expansion, the netroots have already won a convert in Rep. Baron Hill (D-IN). Keeping the progressive community satisfied may be taxing, but isn't there also a strong possibility that by making the party more responsive to the base, Dems are actually more competitive electorally?

IA CAUCUS: Obama Finally Takes Leadership On An Issue

IA Independent's Lynda Washington reports: "Five individuals connected to five different campaigns have confirmed -- but only under condition of anonymity -- that the situation that developed in connection with the Michigan ballot is not at all as it appears on the surface. The campaign for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, arguably fearing a poor showing in Michigan, reached out to the others with a desire of leaving New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as the only candidate on the ballot. The hope was that such a move would provide one more political obstacle for the Clinton campaign to overcome in Iowa."

CLINTON: Hillary Might Not Be Inevitable, But Her Message Repetition Is

Hillary Clinton campaign message discipline is beginning to wear thin on some bloggers. Open Left's Chris Bowers tracks Clinton flak use of the phrase "it's unfortunate" and comments: "It's unfortunate you keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. And if there is something that really is politics as usual, it is using the same line, again and again, no matter the context."

Talking Points Memo's David Kurtz picks up on a different Team Clinton memo: "It's unfortunate that Barack Obama is abandoning the politics of hope as his campaign stagnates and is launching false attacks on other Democrats instead." ... "It's unfortunate that Sen. Obama is abandoning the politics of hope and embracing the same old attack politics as his support stagnates." "It's unfortunate that Senator Obama is resorting to the same old attack politics as his poll numbers start falling. . . . A flagging campaign is not an excuse to distort anyone's record." "Increasingly negative attacks against other Democrats aren't going to end the war, deliver universal healthcare, or turn John Edwards' flagging campaign around."

Kurtz comments: "Working to cultivate the sense of Clinton's inevitability? Nah."

GORE: 54% of Kossacks Can't Be Wrong

Anticipating his Nobel Peace Prize award, a completely unscientific poll of Daily Kos readers shows 54% would support Al Gore if he decided to enter then WH '08 race, but Open Left's Chris Bowers explains why he is not one of them:

I like a lot of things about the Draft Gore effort, first and foremost their unwillingness to accept the political status quo. ... But there are also some things about the Draft Gore effort that feel very strange to me. In particular, I am bothered by the combination of what seems to be a creepy cult of personality around the man ... I like everything that Draft Gore is doing, but the complete lack of skepticism in their writing and words about their efforts and Gore's seemingly inevitable run just feel really, strange and almost cultish.

Gristmill's David Roberts does not see a Gore run either: "Does the American public care about the Nobel, a prize awarded by a bunch of ... foreigners? Wouldn't winning a "peace" prize brand Gore as weak on national security? Doesn't it show that he thinks he's better than us? Who would want to get a beer with a Nobel Peace Prize winner? ... If he entered the race, Gore would run headlong into the same dim-bulb, theatrics-obsessed political press that did him so much harm in the 2000 race."

OBAMA: Eighty Percent Of Credibility On Issue Is Showing Up To Vote

Some elements of the netroots are pushing back against 10/10 Barack Obama efforts to use Hillary Clinton's vote for the Lieberman-Kyl amendment on Iran's Revolutionary Guard against her. Obama penned a New Hampshire Union Leader op-ed claiming the amendment, "directly links the ongoing war in Iraq -- including our troop presence -- to checking the threat from Iran." Also in a new online ad campaign, Obama implies he is leading a movement to stop the Bush Administration from war with Iran.

Looking at the Union-Leader piece The Plank's Noam Scheiber argues Obama may have found an issue to take down HRC: "the Clinton vote on the Iran amendment may turn out to be a much bigger mistake than people have suggested. Here's why: The reason Obama's more explicit attempts to differentiate himself on the war have fallen flat so far isn't that they stepped on his hopeful message (see point one), but because they were too backward-looking. ... But the Iran vote allows Obama to cast Clinton's judgment as an ongoing problem, and to illustrate how his judgment continues to be sound."

Scheiber later updates: "A rival campaign points me to a speech Obama made in November 2006, where he used language that's substantively similar to the amendment he criticized in today's op-ed ... It seems pretty clear from the speech that Obama supports in principle the idea of using our presence in Iraq to keep the Iranians in check, which is not that different from what the legislation says and which therefore makes his op-ed a much less clean hit."

Others in the community questioned how Obama could claim to be a leader on the issue considering he failed to vote on the amendment. Taylor Marsh blogs: "You don't get to criticize a Senate vote when you couldn't be bothered to show up to vote yourself. It also doesn't help that you didn't mention the vote during the Dartmouth debate either, even after Edwards slammed her on it. ... I truly do want Obama to challenge Clinton and take it to her. I want to see him fight. But it seems a bit spineless to attack someone for a vote you skipped out on and didn't bother to comment on from New Hampshire, where you were campaigning for president."

Talk Left's Jeralyn Merritt writes: "If Obama so strongly opposed the Amendment, why didn't he show up, argue against it and cast a "no" vote, instead of staying on the campaign trail? ... Obama's beginning to use his "anti-war" stance much the same way Rudy is playing the 9/11 card. Enough already. If I were advising Obama, I'd tell him to focus on convincing the American people he's experienced enough for the job rather than going negative.

TAPPED's Garance Franke-Ruta takes the line of criticism even further, tying together Obama vote skips on MoveOn and his recent rhetoric on abortion before concluding: "All told, these episodes have started to make me wonder if maybe Obama would have somehow managed to be absent from the Senate the day of the 2002 vote on authorizing the use of force in Iraq, as well. ... If Obama really thinks Clinton said just yes to war with Iran, he needs to explain why he couldn't be bothered to say no."

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum links to Garance and comments: "Hoo boy. If this becomes a talking point in the campaign, it means that the gloves are finally off. Stay tuned to see if it gets picked up anywhere else. ... For the record, it seems completely baseless to me. Lots of politicians waffle on a few inconvenient votes here and there, but there's simply no reason to suspect Obama would have missed the most important floor vote of the entire year if he'd been a senator in 2002."

GIULIANI: Never Been Accused Of Being Shy

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff comments on the additions of Ruth Wedgwood, David Frum, and Tom Joscelyn to Rudy Giuliani's foreign policy team: "I'll repeat now what I noted when Giuliani selected his original group -- Rudy, to his credit, is not shying away from serious foreign policy hardliners (including neo-conservatives) despite the potential cost of this in a general election."

MCCAIN: At Least He's Talking

John McCain hosted a 10/11 blogger conference call to promote his health plan. Write ups include:

• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "On Mitt Romney's comment about consulting lawyers before going after Iran's nuclear facility, McCain said of Romney: 'That's just a product of inexperience ...'
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "McCain seemed in good spirits, displaying his familiar feisty good humor, as when he chided us for not being on the campaign bus with him."
• Outside the Beltway's James Joyner: "Mostly, we talked about other issues. ... As to the health plan, it strikes me as rather vague but the broad principles are reasonable enough. More importantly, he's at least talking about it."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "McCain said that when he said during the debate that 'this Iranian scenario is closer than some may think,' he said he was referring to the fact that, 'many experts on Iranian nuclear buildup believe the Iranians, within two years sufficient fissile material to develop a nuclear weapon... I have no reason to think it isn't true. During the Cold War, we consistently underestimated the advances in the Soviet Union's programs.'"
• AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin: "McCain is his feisty self today. ... I asked about Thompson proposal to index social security to prices instead of wages. He said that one thing he learned was that if you come up with specific proposals others will shoot it down and he favors the Reagan approach of a commission with everything on the table, although he "is opposed" to tax increases."
• Robert Bluey: "Reforming the tax code is the key ingredient of any reform, and it's encouraging to see McCain embrace that approach. During a conference call with bloggers this afternoon, he explained that the thrust of his proposal is to give individuals more responsibility over their health-care choices and reduce the role of employers."

PAUL: Inexperienced Or Crazy?

NRO's Jim Geraghty posts emailer views on who Ron Paul supporters really are. Take one:

I heard Ron Paul speak last night here at the University of Michigan, and I got a look at his supporters. Mostly, they seem to be pro-American college students who have fallen for the Left's propaganda but not for its anti-American rhetoric. They believe that we're losing in Iraq, that China should revalue its currency, that Bush is abusing the Constitution, etc. They're not frustrated Republicans. They're wildly idealistic, and they are too inexperienced to realize how crazy his ideas are. (Return to the gold standard? What the heck?)

Take two:

I think those who assume Paul has growing GOP support are wrong. Paul attracts that element of the right-wing that left the party with Paul Craig Roberts. They're a host of multi-paleo conservatives who want to impeach Bush, are cheering for us to lose in Iraq and growl at Israel. The other "right-wingers" for Paul are the wacky Truthers who spend hours listening to that Alex Jones nut. In my opinion, the "sanest" Paul base supporters are John Birchers and Constitution Party members.

THOMPSON: He's Now Officially The TNT Candidate

Right Wing News makes a conservative case for Fred Thompson: "In the movie Roadhouse, another Dalton, played by Patrick Swayze said, 'I want you to be nice until it's time to not be nice.' Fred has this down to an art form. ... If conservatives are looking for a candidate who isn't pugnacious to the point of being obnoxious, but is capable of fighting back against the Clinton campaign's sleazy politics of personal destruction, Fred Thompson has shown that he has what it takes."

BLOGGERS VS BELTWAY: One Down Four To Go

The netroots are already claiming at least one victory in their campaign to bring five wayward Dems into the fold on a veto override for SCHIP's expansion. Fire Dog Lake's Jane Hamsher reports: "On Monday Blue America and BlogPac dropped recorded calls into the districts of five Democrats who are voting with George Bush to sustain his veto over SCHIP and deny healthcare to kids: Jim Marshall (D-GA), Mike McIntyre (D-NC), Bob Etheridge (D-NC), Baron Hill (D-IN), Gene Taylor (D-MS). It looks like Baron Hill just switched his vote, and we are hearing from constituents that McIntyre is now 'undecided' after hearing from constituents.

Open Left's Matt Stoller links to Atlanta Journal Constitution reports that Macon Mayor Jack Ellis and schoolteacher Robert Nowack both are exploring primary challenges to Marshall and comments: "Read the comments after the article. Georgia Democrats are really mad at Marshall, as voting against children's health care really seems to be a deal-breaker. More primary opponents may jump in."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Are We The Only Ones Who Believe This Has Actually Become An Important Debate?

Commenting on L'Affaire Graeme Frost, Megan McArdle blogs:

The reason that Democrats put him up on the radio in the first place is that they thought Graeme Frost's need was a better argument for S-Chip than any boring old policy discussion. Well, if you make Graeme Frost's needs the measure of the program's success, then you can expect the program's opponents to question Graeme Frost's needs.

LEST WE FORGET: Stay In School

Inspired by Bungie.net claims that Washington Bullets star Gilbert Arenas is cheating at the online video game Halo 3, The Washington Post's Dan Steinberg tracked Arenas down for an explanation:

"Gilbert," I said, approximately, "people say you're cheating at Halo 3." ...

"Yeah," he said, laughing. "Yeah." ... "It's a glitch," he explained. "It's a glitch in the game. I seen some kids that were like 600s, they won 600 Halo games and we only had that game for two weeks. And all the kids go to school. So I'm like, 'What the hell you all doing?' And they said that's what they doing, two-on-two."

Posted by Conn Carroll at October 12, 2007 12:44 PM